Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Edit Request: Marmara boarding add link to video

{{editsemiprotected}} It would be appropriate to have section "4.2 Mavi Marmara boarding" link to the following link in External links section "Video: Close-Up Footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara (YouTube)". Any reader reading this section would like the opportunity to view any and all footage of the boarding as it becomes available.

For example, new text marked by ##### text #####:

According to Major Avital Leibovich of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the activists attacked the soldiers with pistols, knives, slingshots, spikes and clubs. #####See footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara.##### A spokesperson for ...

Ezra The Scribe (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed above. Please comment here -- [[1]] Zuchinni one (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Having links inline is not per Wikipedia policy WP:ELPOINTS #2. Edit request rejected. --Kslotte (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The WP:ELPOINTS page you reference says "External links should not normally [Ed: emphasis added] be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable [Ed: emphasis added]." You seem to be narrowly defining the Wikipedia policy and I would argue that this is an instance where it would be appropriate to at least mention the fact that the video exists if not link to it. I will submit a new request for this. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your request wasn't about an infobox either. There is also a natural point of view WP:NPOV issue with this. Concern discussed here earlier when the videos where added. --Kslotte (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

While I may not have been specific enough Zuchinni one understood the request. The formatting of the reference to external links section was not important so much as the rationale that it is only logical if the article mentions the boarding and the external links section has video of the boarding there should be a self reference within the article. Not sure what WP:NPOV issue you are referring to. Maybe you can be more specific. As I said above, "Any reader reading this section would like the opportunity to view any and all footage of the boarding as it becomes available" - this is certainly neutral. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:NPOV wasn't directly written, it was my assumption after reading #Video of soldiers landing on boat user TFOWR commented "one side's videos". The video are filmed and edited by IDF. They may leave out parts clip not in their interest for political gain. --Kslotte (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A more essential point is whether anything was added. As it does not appear so and clearly shows how aggressive the passengers were, the video serves an important document shedding a lot of light on what happened in the sea. (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

A link has been added to direct people to the videos in the External Links section. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is work around, that aren't either good. The change was therefire reverted (not by me). --Kslotte (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is video of passengers being shot who were not doing anything. You can't insinuate that the passengers of a sovereign ship were the violent party when they were the ones defending themselves from people with guns and helicopters in international waters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9JcZzmibaQ JackNapierX (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel has all the right to declare and maintain a blockade of an enemy entity in Gaza. It has all the right to board and inspect the ships that knowingly and intentionally planned to break the blocade. There would not be any reason for passengers to defend themselves unless several of them have not tried to lynch Israeli soldiers. (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Belligerents

The Free Gaza Movement were not belligerents. Yes, they obviously attacked Israeli soldiers as they boarded the ship, but the Israeli act of boarding the ship was itself the belligerence. Remember that the IDF had been firing upon the boats before commandos ever boarded. The FGM activists were defending their ship. The IDF illegally boarded the MV Mavi Marmara and other vessels, and were the clear belligerents. Asserting that the FGM were belligerents in this is a clear case of POV. LazySofa (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why do you claim that the boarding was illegal? Have you any reference? (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 05:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Do you have a source for "the IDF had been firing upon the boats before commandos ever boarded"? Didn't see that in CNN, Fox, O2, local radio... Tewner (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is currently no evidence of the exact timeframe of the attack. It is not clear that Israelis were shooting at the ship before boarding.Zuchinni one (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Belligerent means combatant: someone who fights (or is fighting). It is a neutral term. Marokwitz (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Its further definition (and connotation) is that of an eagerness for battle. The FGM flotilla was sailing west, away from Gaza. Hardly showing an eagerness for battle. The FGM activists were unable to attack IDF soldiers on boats and helicopters before they illegally boarded their ship. They were not belligerents. LazySofa (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive. --Nevit (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the FGM as "Defender(s)" using the Infobox civilian attack template. The reason I have added them as such and removed them from "Belligerent(s)" is because the IDF is being considered the belligerent by every source that isn't the IDF.

• Al Jazeera English
  • "Israeli commandos have attacked a flotilla of aid-carrying ships off the coast of the Gaza Strip..."

• CNN
  • "International leaders expressed shock and dismay Monday over the Israeli Navy's pre-dawn storming of a flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian aid for Gaza..."

• MSNBC
  • "Israeli commandos rappelled down to an aid flotilla sailing to thwart a Gaza blockade on Monday"

• Amnesty International
  • "Amnesty International has called for Israel to launch an immediate, credible and independent investigation into the killing by its armed forces of at least 10 activists on boats protesting the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip."

• New York Times
  • "The Israeli commando raid Monday on an aid flotilla, which left at least nine people dead, has dragged relations between Israel and Turkey to a new low"

• New York Times
  • "Israeli naval commandos conducted a deadly raid on a flotilla of aid ships bound for Gaza on Monday"

• Fox News
  • "Israel offered a vigorous defense Monday amidst a rapidly deepening international dispute over its deadly overnight raid on a flotilla of ships carrying aid bound for Gaza.

LazySofa (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It ia absolutely of no consequence how many sources agree on what. There are 57 Islamic states and only one Jewish state. Next you would equate Israel with aparteid just because at some point in time the General Assembly voted so. (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 05:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Almost everyone would agree that Germany attacked Poland in 1939 but a wiki summary box would still describe both as the belligerents.Bdell555 (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the conflict between Germany and Poland was a conflict between two military forces obviously engaged in battle. There is absolutely no comparison between a military attack upon another military and a military attack upon a civilian vessel. LazySofa (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A civilian vessel trying to breach a blockade. See San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea 67(a). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Both parties bore arms, they are both belligerents. Both parties were defending something, both parties are defenders. In order to ensure NPOV neither party should be labeled as belligerents or defenders - the template simply does not fit this incident. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The FGM should definitely not be labeled as Belligerents. But the use of both terms Belligerents and Defenders gives a non-neutral POV of what happened. I suggest that we use the terms "Blockade Force" and "Blockade Runners" Zuchinni one (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

US the only important country that has a neutral or 'standby' position still?

Can that be included as sourced? --Leladax (talk) 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I doubt you'll find a source that calls the US the "only important country" with a neutral position. Also, what about Canada? And Italy, who deplored the loss of life but called the flotilla a provocation? Breein1007 (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel's reckless actions would not be possible without protection from the states with nuclear power, you name it neutral. --Nevit (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevit, that s an outright accusation Where are your sources for that? Nuclear powers are Russia, PRC, USA, UK, France DPRK. Are you saying that there some kind of international cabal which enabled Israel to stop the convoy. What with France, Russia, the PRC all condemning it? And there is that part about Israel being a nuclear power. Do you honestly believe that Israel needs any tacit support to do what it wants to do?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable people onboard FGM flotilla

What's the criteria for adding people to this list? Some of them are at best local celebrities mentioned in one local source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEOPLE --Kslotte (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

After some thoughts I think the criteria here is a no that tight as following WP:PEOPLE strictly. Here it's about listing them, not about creating articles of them. --Kslotte (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to drop someone you feel doesn't meet the criteria. --Kslotte (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's for articles, no? If you use that half the list is gone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies

Is this really an appropriate category? Yes, it's obvious that Israel is a Jewish state but this was not an attack led by the International Jewish Hivemind. It is not at all pertinent to the religion of Judaism but rather relates to the conflict between the State of Israel and Palestine. There are Jews who do not support Israel and to accuse all Jews of having a part in this controversy is a rather harsh claim. LazySofa (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you reference for your statements? --Nevit (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Jews Against Israel, [2] [3] [4] [5] all orthodox or hasidim organisation?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AND [6]. need more? try here [7]--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What do I need to reference? It's obvious that this wasn't done in the name of Judaism. Zionism, sure, but there is no tenet of Judaism that calls upon Jews to stop humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza. LazySofa (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware that being Jew and being Israeli are not synonymous. I just asked reference for your last statement: "There are Jews who do not support Israel". Can you give some references to some major Jewish organisations in different countries cited in valid media? Reference it please. --Nevit (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just search for Neturei Karta (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC))

Being Jewish and being Israeli are not synonymous. Neither is being Jewish and being in the IDF. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize. Did I say something to the contrary? I was arguing for this category's removal, not inclusion. LazySofa (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I was supporting your position, not arguing against it. Sorry if I was unclear in my statment. Regards --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

i concur with its removalLihaas (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

While not branding a particular ideology as Jewish one way or the other, I'd say that any issue around Israel is, in some way, a Jewish issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.249.115 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That it is to say everything from Turkey or Kurdish is Islamic, and everything from Armenia or the usa is christian, or India = Hindu, etc. Its a ridiculous assertion because the Islamic Movement of Israel also has people on board. (amongst other examples)(Lihaas (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Then just add or create a "Israel-related controversies" category. This is an Israeli controversy, and they've had their fair share of controversies.--Anonymust (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is denying an account, an account of events?

The organizer's account section begins by saying this.

"Organizers of the convoy have strongly denied the account of Israeli military. "

That doesn't speak to their account at all; It is simply their very vague response to Israel's account.

Should this section only contain the sequence events which they claimed _did_ happen.

Bob drobbs (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bob, however we don't have another account of the events aside from the Israeli military right now. So I feel that in order to remain neutral we should include this denial. Once the other side is more clearly established this should change. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Minor error but editing is locked

First sentence read "The Gaza flotillawas a raid..." where it should read "The Gaza Flotilla Clash was a raid..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.46.227 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Weapons found on board

Video of weapons on board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM Faaaaaaamn (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Could someone edit the third paragraph of the introduction to correct the "firefight" phrase as well as any weapons found sections? There were no firearms found on board other than two weapons taken from the IDF soldiers. Quote: Mr. Sheizaf wrote that Channel 10, an Israeli television station, reported that the Israeli military had completed a search of the ship and “no weapons discovered except for the two pistols that were taken from the soldiers.” All they had were slingshots and pipes. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/echoes-of-raid-on-exodus-ship-in-1947/ JackNapierX (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV lead

A more neutral lead was restored by me saying "The Gaza flotilla clash was a raid by Israeli military forces against a groups of pro-Palestinian human-rights activists. It took place in international waters in the Mediterranean Sea on 31 May 2010. The activists, unofficially sponsored by ..." But User talk:Breein1007 (who is just recovering from a block) removed it saying "calling it a raid "against pro-palestinian activists" is not NPOV," which I admitted maybe fair, but then he continues to want to have it his way with insertion of "armed" in the lead when it is controversial and deceptive (as per the article). Another editor removed it and yet again he adds it. I asked for the caveat "alleged" and he seems to think this too is a weasel word. So let's discuss a lead for the first 1-2 sentences.Lihaas (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not 'deceptive' to call the Turkish TERRORISTS on the flotilla armed if they use their weapons like this --->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo 68.41.55.171 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an editing war going on right now between Breein1007 and Wolbo. Any way to stop this? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, i was in there too. I posted it on talk finally, it seems the former has a history of this, he was blocked just this week. Well, anyways im outta hereLihaas (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just tried asking them to consider taking a break. Maybe a more experienced editor could talk to them? They've both breached 3RR. shellac (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've advised Breein1007 to cease reverting. If he continues I suggest making a report at WP:AN3 where an admin can issue a 3RR block. If it comes to that, the following are the diffs of his 3RR violation, which you will need to make an AN3 report: [8], [9], [10], [11]. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisO. They seem to have found other things to do. shellac (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin lockdown

Think the article should be locked so only admins can edit, newinfo can be put here in a section. The article has still not calmed down.Lihaas (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of lockdowns....Someone above actually had the GALL to say the following: "Even if they are provoked, they should not have lost their cool and tried to seize the control of the events without killing this much people" Got it! This is the standard that supposedly objective people are judging Israel by. Take a look at this video and tell me whether Israeli soldiers acted imprudently! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded#at=18 Whoooooooo!!! 68.41.55.171 (talk)

I'm not an Admin, but I may agree with Lihass. The article is started to get overcrowded with replicated information. There are also edit wars going on in the intro section. If we can block the offending users that would be best, but if not then Admin lockdown might be the right choice. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

requested here [12](Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad decision. I've raised this at WP:AN/I#Gaza flotilla clash protected and removed from In The News. This is not the way we approach developing news stories. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is "subdued peacefully" correct?

The opening paragraph contains the phrase "Five of the six ships were subdued peacefully."

Does it count as being peaceful subdual when you are threatening with deadly force? I don't know about Turkish, international, or Israeli laws, but in my location menacing another with a deadly weapon and putting them in fear of bodily harm is considered assault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.196.37 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Change to "captured without injury after being boarded by armed commandoes" or "placed under arrest after being boarded by armed commandoes". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Piracy is the term used by Turkish M. of foreign affairs.

Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, rape, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state, in fact piracy has been the first example of universal jurisdiction.

--Nevit (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea 67(a), it is not a criminal act to attack a ship trying to breach a blockade.

Attacking foreign ships in international waters is an act of war. There is no possible justification for that action, and certainly not when there is no evidence that they carried anything in the way of weapons to arm Israel’s enemies. But I do not think that Turkish foreign ministry go further than diplomacy. --Nevit (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Attacking foreign ships is not an act of war under certain circumstances. See the above San Remo document. They don't have to be carrying weapons. That's covered by 67(f). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What would you do if you heared Iran had attacked a humanitarian ship in international waters and killed 15 or so civilians aboard and arrested more than 500. Israel is not immune from international law. --Nevit (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel is not immune from international law. Attacking a ship trying to breach a blockade is not against international law. What does Iran have to do with this? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, "peacefully subdued" doesn't preclude threatening with deadly force. It means someone was subdued without a fight. It is the correct terminology in this case. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to add fuel to the fire, International naval forces have been doing this same thing in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean area around Somalia for years. The list of naval forces includes the PRC, Russia, UK, USA, france, japan, India, etal. Naval forces can interrupt acts of piracy at sea and have been doing so for eons. The USN followed Confederate ships into European ports and interdicted them on the high seas. The USN countered the Barbary Pirates who operated throughout the med and in the Eastern Atlantic under Thomas Jefferson.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Err, thank you for the fuel. The people who participate in the flotilla are not pirates, and they do not present any danger to anyone traveling on the sea. The comparison is therefore, in my view, somewhat misplaced.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the original author of that line... if that means anything, and I agree that it's not the best choice of words. A similar thing is now said in the intro which claims there was "no actual use of force". By definition, I think boarding and seizing a ship is an act of "force". Can both of these be changed to a more suitable "seized without incidents of violence". Bob drobbs (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

About the UNCLOS argument in the article - Israel did not sign the UNCLOS, and neither did Turkey. They're handling these matters as a matter of customary international law.

BTW there are apparently no truly "international waters" anywhere in the Mediterranean - see the map in that Wikipedia article. Definitely needs clarification - is the area in question is within the EEZ of some country (presumably Israel)? Then it is not "international waters" in the strict sense (i.e. "high seas").

On the legality argument - as the flotilla "management" had clearly announced its intent to violate Israeli law - not by breaching the blockade itself ("not", because of the highly questionable legality of that blockade), but by not yielding to any Israeli orders to stop and be inspected as soon as they would have been in Israeli territorial waters, which would at some point have had to happen - would the Turkish government not have been responsible to prevent them from leaving port? I presume that Ankara's foot-dragging and the Cyprus detour was precisely for that reason - moreso because Turkey does recognize the territorial waters of N Cyprus (which limit the area of sea where Turkey may exercise its jurisdiction). Thus allowing the Turkish gov't an easy way out (provided this disaster would not have happened) by claiming they would have but could not have stopped the ships? But as things turned out, using that argument would make the flotilla legally maritime hijackers - flying a national flag but not yielding to the legal authority that this does bring with it - and thus hostis humani generis, which are fair game. (Cs32en - your definition of "pirate" is based on legitimacy, not legality. But this has of course little if any legal standing. Similar cases are actually not rare - take any recent war; you will see aid organizations often being powerless to stop atrocities or even get their goods delivered, or prevent troops of their host country from seizing them. Interfering would give the host country the cheapest of excuses to throw the aid organizations out entirely. The ultimate reason is that even as a notorious law-breaker, as long as you're a technically valid legal entity, you have the right to exercise whatever legal authority comes with that. An aid shipment entering the territorial waters of even the most "rogue" of states is legally responsible to submitting to that state's authority, or face dire consequences.)

Highly complex, but if the Israeli argument is (as it seems to be) "we wanted to stop these ships from committing an illegal act" [i.e. "entering the zone of our jurisdiction but not submitting to our jurisdiction"], then the argument as outlined by Degen Earthfast does indeed seem to hold true: any sovereign nation is entitled to intercept any vessel - even on the high seas - if it has reason to suspect that the vessel is in transit with the purpose to violate the laws of that country.

As far as I can see it, the "we will try and force the blockade" statement given in advance (rather than a statement like "we will try and get these humanitarian goods to these people") may have given Israel complete legal coverage to stop, search, and (at least temporarily, for inspection) seize the ships. Which is probably as unfortunate as it is stupidly unprofessional. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mmyymmyy, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

http://www.vilp.de/Enpdf/e025.pdf

Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality

5.1.2(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.

5.1.2(4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they (a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; (e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 Visit and search As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.

Mmyymmyy (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You did not use the template correctly. There needs to be consensus to add the info. Your edit needs to be trimmedCptnono (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we see the section that says this applies to international waters. Can we have a citation for where Israel has declared war on Gaza? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We've had this sort of thing before. It's original research by synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You need to have reliable sources which discuss this specific question in relation to the flotilla affair. You can't simply add your own analysis and interpretation, particularly not in such a technical area as international law. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The San Remo manual doesn't mention international waters as a condition that this applies to. I therefore assume that it doesn't? 04nunhucks (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to call attention to the first statement in the second paragraph: "The Free Gaza Movement's flotilla had planned to break through the Gaza blockade, despite Israeli declarations that they would turn the ships back and transfer the aid via land through Ashdod port."

I just read through the cited article (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-commandos-gaza-flotilla-activists-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089), and I couldn't find anything saying that Israel offered to transfer the aid. Maybe I missed it?

--Afbrino

Yeah you missed it. There are MANY reliable source news reports of Israel offering to transfer the aid. Here is one of them http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-aid-convoy-can-unload-cargo-in-ashdod-for-inspection-1.292560 Zuchinni one (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Footage of events leading up to boarding of the ship

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn-l_JltCB4

The above link is the full live stream that took place online, as it happened, which thousands of people witnessed.

Timeline -

0:00 - 0:04 - An injured man can be seen being helped on to the floor. The camera pans to view a trail of blood left by the injured man. 0:08 - 0:18 - Another man can be seen hiding in the doorway, crouched down as Israeli naval boats can be seen passing by and gunfire is heard. 0:23 - 0:30 - Further injured passengers can be seen, a single gunshot can be heard at 0:24 0:30 - 1:04 - More injuries including a person who has a serious head injury are viewed as the reporter describes the attacks going on. Several gunshots at 0:46, 0:52, 1:02. 1:05 - 2:00 - An arabic reporter describes the events, a rather large bang can be heard at 1:37. 2:00 - 2:14 - People can be seen being herded to lower decks, to avoid being injured by the gunfire and to treat the wounded. The body of a man who appears to be seriously injured or possibly dead is being carried. 2:14 - 2:19 - Another Israel naval patrol vessel can be spotted near the ship. 2:26 - 3:30 - First official confirmation of the IDF boarding the Mavi Marmara (This may be doubted though.) 1 CONFIRMED killed, several injured. 3:30 - 4:06 - White flag has been raised by the Captain, IDF continues to fire live munitions at boat (According to reporter only.) 4:06 - 4:37 - Ching chong wing wong. 4:47 - 5:36 - Further gunfire heard over the sound of a loud speaker. Passengers largely calm. (Possibly not actually boarded yet?) 5:36 - 5:40 - Large burst of gunfire heard over reporter. 5:40 - 5:52 - Uneventful 5:52 - 6:02 - The moment that has been broadcast on news stations and by the IDF, supposedly the INITIAL boarding (Earlier confirmation likely wrong) of IDF forces. 6:02 - 6:11 - Violence ensues with the activists attacking the IDF forces. Largely unprovoked. 6:11 - 6:42 - Uneventful 6:42 - 7:11 - Reporter confirms 2 dead, and Captain has raised the white flag. People being moved to lower decks to surrender. 7:11 - 7:39 - Faint gunshot heard at 7:13, reporter beings to head inside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.252.63 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a heavily edited video and it is unclear what the timeline is. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the full, live stream, and i put the timeline there with the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.252.63 (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly edited ... the video repeats itself multiple time and there are jumps between parts of the video. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The audio is live, accompanied by footage as it was broadcast on television. consider using some of the info from it, as the footage of civilians attacking troops as they board the civilian vessel is not the whole story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.252.63 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to put it in the External Links section but find a version of it that won't have copyright issues. I have a feeling that William Tong doesn't own this. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know anything about copyright and have no real interest pushing one side of the story or the other. I was mainly motivated by how little information was present in the relevant section of this article, i expected wikipedia to be quicker than this. ok i've presented what i wanted to show, ill stop bothering you guys now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.252.63 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Article intro needs to be re-neutralized and cleaned up

Prior to the admin lockdown (good idea by the way) there was some edit warring going on in the intro section.

This should be reformatted for a neutral tone by an admin, and the section probably needs to be cut down for repetitive information as well Zuchinni one (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is my recommendation:

The Gaza flotilla clash occurred in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea on 31 May 2010 when a flotilla of pro-Palestinian activists, unofficially sponsored by Turkey, attempted to breach the Gaza blockade and was intercepted by Israeli naval forces. Israeli forces boarded the flotilla after it refused the country's requests to change its route to Ashdod's port where the cargo could be inspected by Israel for contraband before delivery to Gaza. Five of the six ships were seized without the actual use of force. However, at least 9 passengers of the MV Mavi Marmara were reported to have been killed in violent clashes with Israeli soldiers who landed on the ship, with up to 60 passengers and as many as 10 Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers wounded.

The Free Gaza Movement's flotilla had planned to break through the Gaza blockade, despite Israels proposal for the activists to dock in Ashdod port and transfer the aid through there. After the flotilla activists ignored repeated calls to turn back, masked Israeli soldiers from the Shayetet 13 unit boarded the ships.

During the boarding of one of the ships, the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, a firefight ensued resulting in the deaths of at least 9 passengers.

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Zuch, loaded language. "a flotilla of pro-Palestinian activists"? They were humanitarian activists. "inspected by Israel for contraband" - implies the blockade is legal when, in fact, it is a breach of international law. Five of the six ships were seized without the actual use of force. - untrue. There was force, just no resistence. "Reported to have been killed"?! How about simply "killed". Of massacred or murdered if we want to be more informative. Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, we've been through at least one point you're ignoring here. A range of deaths has been given - 9 at the minimum up to 19 at the maximum. Estimates are all over the place currently. I've seen 9, 10, 14, 16 and 19 so far. There is no good reason to arbitrarily give the lowest estimate when the sources clearly indicate a range. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't really going for the lowest, but saying between 9 and 19 seemed weird ... what if there are more than 19? Perhaps we could say "deaths of at least 9 passengers, with some sources reporting a deathtoll as high as 19." Zuchinni one (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources reporting the higher figure say "up to 19". The sources reporting the lower one say "at least 9". So the true figure is probably somewhere in between. My point is that we can't specify any figure other than stating a range. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with that. I have zero problem with the range being used. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There hasn't been any valid reason given for deleting the sourced info about the Israeli soldiers being armed with paintball guns and handguns. It was repeatedly deleted with no proper explanation by a user who said it was "irrelevant". That's not a valid reason to delete sourced content, especially when it is as a matter of fact relevant. Breein1007 (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is that even questioned? It is very relevant. Them storming the ship with Uzis is much different then them actually attempting less than lethal force.Cptnono (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have a pretty good idea of why it is challenged, and why people go through the article deleting sourced facts that seem to suggest Israel acted responsibly while adding unsourced lies demonizing Israel... but I digress. Breein1007 (talk) 00:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In the Irish media it is being (accurately) described as a massacre, pure and simple. This name will stick and we'll get another example of pro-US/Israeli/UK political bias on Wiki throwing all the rules overboard when they don't suit the Angloshere pov. As we see from the notorious "List of events called massacres", the only thing that should determine the article title is what it is widely called. That does NOT mean, btw, what it is widely called in the US/UK media. Wiki-folk seem to consistantly mistake the US/UK/Israel and a few hangers-on for the "International Community". They ain't. Sarah777 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to sympathize with that opinion after watching videos of the "peace activists" beating Israeli soldiers with metal poles and chairs as they landed from the helicopter by rope and later even resorting to stabbing and throwing overboard. But I doubt the Irish media is broadcasting these videos, right? What about you - have you watched them? Or is it too difficult to give the truth a chance and realize that maybe you aren't forming an objective opinion but are instead a victim of anti-Israeli brainwashing. Breein1007 (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, watched them. And what should armed men expect when they attack a ship of unarmed civilians in International water? Of course I realise the IDF specialise in using live ammunition against folk (often kids) with sticks and stones - so nothing new here, eh? And I'd regard accusations that I'm "brainwashed" as a breach of WP:NPA. Desist. Sarah777 (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to maintain a neutral tone. Yes there were paintball guns used, but there have been unconfirmed reports that the ship was fired on prior to the boarding, and unconfirmed reports of soldiers immediately using live ammunition. The bottom line is that we don't yet know the exact level of force that was used, but we do know there was a fight. I think we need to make sure the intro is only clear facts. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A big part of the problem is knee-jerk reactions. Headlines are doing it and editors here are doing it. There is no reason for this to read like a Free Gaza press release or a rap sheet. The information out there doesn't make Israel sound as evil as some might initially believe. Hopefully more will come out while this is locked to clarify it. As members fly home there will be some good balancing to Israel's PR. As terrible as any of the belligerents being killed and hurt is, we should still say that they say that they tried to enforce the blockade without bloodshed. Free Gaza has disputed it but keep in mind that there is PR on both sides. Cptnono (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Cptnono. But I guess we just aren't seeing eye-to-eye on what is neutral. I like this statement because it simply states facts. Not who started shooting first, or what they were using.

"During the boarding of one of the ships, the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, a firefight ensued resulting in the deaths of at least 9 passengers."

There can be additional coverage in the main article that discusses details. But the intro should be as neutral as possible. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope. "Firefight" implies two sides were shooting. Defending yourself with sticks doesn't make you part of a "firefight". Sarah777 (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see balance being able to make it neutral. Unfortunately, it is easy to assume it was a massacre and only a massacre by Israeli forces without saying "Israel says x,y,z. Free Gaza says x,y,z". And the lead needs to be a good summary. Without acknowledging that there is a he said she said like dispute we are reducing what the lead is used for. Agreed that we need to watch its length overall though.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying makes sense. I'm just not sure how to keep it brief, factual, and neutral. Any suggestions? Zuchinni one (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How about something like "both sides claim the violence was a result of self-defense." Zuchinni one (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've got a much better idea. How about calling a massacre a massacre? Sarah777 (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The actual fighting on deck deserves some weight n the lead. We shouldn't reduce it to the point that the background and reaction receives prominence over it. So although it should be concise, there is nothing wrong with saying: "Navy vessels approached and units came in from helicopters.... Armed with whatever... Videos shows battling... Israel says struggle ensued after... Free Gaza says no... paragraph break" Realistically that can be done in one paragraph of a half a dozen lines. Might not be as concise as you are looking for but WP:LEAD calls for it to be a proper summary. The one thing I would watch out for is adding to much commentary on the videos. It also might be a little rough since Israel has had a longer explanation than Free Gaza. Most of the background, numbers, and reactions focus on the movement so it should be easy enough to not turn this into only what Israel says though.Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A few too many indents ... going back to the left :) Zuchinni one (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with including details about the fighting in the Lead, but there is so much he-said she-said still that I don't know how to do it without being biased. Lets try working out a change of wording here and see where that gets us. Want to take a crack CptNono? Zuchinni one (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I have been purposely not! A little worried about my own bias + a hang over = me slacking off. Let me see what I can come up with.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Commandos (unit type?) carrying paintball guns and sidearms repelled onto the deck from helicopters with the intent of seizing the vessel. Organizers of the flotilla say the troops opened fire as soon as they stormed the ship. The IDF says the soldiers were attacked with weapons as they boarded, and that at least one protester wrestled a firearm from one of the commandos." Maybe add in there "video from the BBC showed an ensuing battle while footage from Aljazeera showed the protesters going below deck"Cptnono (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds pretty good to me. Maybe instead of "attacked with weapons" "attacked with knives and clubs" because otherwise its not clear if they were attacking with firearms, and the current evidence for the passengers using firearms is very thin. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I was torn between listing sling shots, axes, clubs, metal, rods, knives, and so on mentioned in all of the sources. "including knives and clubs" should be sufficient and will hopefully be clear enough that it wasn't guns.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead section now says that "both sides claim violence was a result of self-defense". Are there any references for that? The last I heard, Free Gaza still denying that there was any violence on the part of the activists. It seems pretty logical that in the future they will claim the violence was self-defense. But we can't put words in their mouths, can we? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}Can someone please add this as a citation to support the claim in the lead section that 5 of 6 ships were boarded without violence. Also... "surrendered peacefully" might be a better choice of words than "seized without use of force". Here's the reference:

"While the activists in five of the ships peacefully surrendered, the Israel government said soldiers faced violent resistance as they boarded the largest ship, the Mavi Marmara."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid/

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That claim in the lead section was removed here although I can't find any references that mention injuries on board other vessels... haz (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

List of ships

I propose removing the list of ships that is in between the two background sections. Prose are preferred over lists and it is short enough to put into a paragraph in one of the background sections.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see it is essential under what flag the ships where. A proper situation to use flags. --Kslotte (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe expand the list instead with information about ship model and passengers on board. --Kslotte (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we need the icons and bullets or is a simple "country flagged vessel name, the country flagged vessel name..." The separate section causes what I see as an unnecessary break in the prose. Would it be appropriate to list the vessel details at the bottom as seen in sports related articles that rely heavily on lists and tables? We also have wikilinks so stuffing in additional info to justify inclusion in the middle of two potentially mergable sections seems to be counterproductive.Cptnono (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

OIC

Please may an admin change the following under content 7, "Legality of the raid", due to the official name spelling of the organisation per their website in accordance of WP:ENGVAR:
Please change from
"The Organization of the Islamic Conference, comprising of 57 countries, described the flotilla incident as"
and please change to
"The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, comprising of 57 countries, described the flotilla incident as"
Regards IJA (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Kslotte (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cheers IJA (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some Facts to be included for NPOV

Fact #1: The flotilla was in international waters, not violating Israel's territory.

Fact #2: Israel has no territorial waters, since it refuses to declare boundaries.

Fact #3: Israel had no right to give anyone early warnings, since the flotilla was heading for Gaza, and Israel does not own Gaza--how would you like it if they tried to stop you from going to Canada?

Fact #4: Gaza is blockaded--there are no other ways to dispense some kind of the aid (i.e. some kind of baby food & toys), which is what this whole thing was about.

Fact #5: Israeli commandos began firing from ships and helicopters before they boarded the flotilla, which means they were not under attack(see Israeli released military videos) Yakamoz51 (talk) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

These are rather important facts which should be included to help the reader understand the situation and to help maintain neutrality in this article. IJA (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources per each of these. Then it should be put onLihaas (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "if they tried to stop you from going to Canada"? Are you assuming everybody here is American? That's rather prejudiced. Lampman (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You might be interested in the article discussing the actual blockade. However, some of the things you said are debatable so don't expect immediate action.Cptnono (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed in the now archived Talk Page and it was roundly criticised for being: 1) non-factual 2) extremely biased. Please stop reposting things to the talk page. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuch - you seem to think that any suggestion that armed trained killers slaughtering unarmed civilians in International waters must be portrayed as a "firefight" between two similars! That isn't "balanced". That is propaganda, pure and simple. Sarah777 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There are reports that say they were armed with bats, guns, knives, iron bars. The IDF were armed with paintball guns and handguns as secondary weapons. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177059 Kinetochore (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you list the facts in order with each facts source.--yousaf465 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

'Sfendoni' Involvement

We seem to have conflicting information in the article. On the one hand, the article states:

"Five of the six ships were boarded peacefully and without any major incidents.[28]"

On the other hand, it also states:

"According to the Greek NGO Boat for Gaza, both the Sfendoni and the Mavi Marmara came under live fire.[39]"

Coming under live fire probably doesn't count as a "peaceful" boarding or one without incident. This [13] is source #28. I don't see anything there that confirms that five of the six ships were boarded peacefully. In fact, that source says nothing about even the 'Mavi Marmara'. The article is primarily about the Canadian reaction to the incident. --MidnightDesert (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But is does seem very important to give an accurate representation of events whereupon most of the boats were boarded and seized without incident, and the violence only happened on one (maybe two) of the ships. It ties back to claims of self-defense. e.g. If the passengers on the Mavi Marmara were forced to defend themselves, why didn't passengers on other ships feel a similar need to respond with violence?

How referenced is the information about live fire on the Sfendoni? Should "five" perhaps be changed to "four" or "most"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I already removed the "Five of the six ..." sentence a few hours ago; no one commented or objected here and the sourcing was clearly incorrect. If we have a reliable source that says that four (or once again, five) of the ships were boarded without incident then, yes, we should add a sentence stating that back into the article. If we don't have such a source then stating something like that would be supposition. Right now the article essentially states that there was definitely violence aboard the 'Mavi Marmara' and that 'Boat for Gaza' (the Greek NGO that apparently owns or chartered the 'Sfendoni') is claiming that live fire was directed at the 'Sfendoni' as well. --MidnightDesert (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

in the lede

We have this in the lede....According to the Israel Defence Forces, during the boarding of one of the ships, the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, a firefight ensued[12] and passengers fired on them... its a bit opinionated isn't it. Seems to be cited to this extreme right wing blog http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896588,00.html seems a bit rubbish to claim something like that in the lede cited to this opinionated location. There is no longer any claims at all in the mainstream press that the soldiers were fired on, this POV claim needs removing from the lede ASAP. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also per this edit [14], im not arguing with most of it, only that there is no mention of international reaction at all now.

Some NPOV "International reaction to the incident were swift [with condemnation of the IDF actions or regret at the loss of lives]." (the bracketed part is my optional reccomendation) Lihaas (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about the international reaction section getting out of hand in the intro. There is a separate page for it because it was getting so huge here. It's the kind of thing where if one bit is mentioned people want to add more and more. Also much of the international reaction came before the videos of the Israeli soldiers being attacked were released. I'm open to adding it back in though, but lets figure out the best way first. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lemme get this straight.....armed masked men drop onto a boat at night in International waters after firing shots - and you say they were attacked? Surreal. The boat was attacked, the folk on it were defending the boat. Against pirates per international law. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Im not advocating edit wars to see waht fits, well discuss it here and come some agreement of a brief summation. I tried my bit at something. How does that sound? One can always alter my suggestion with theirs and well go on from there.::Those new editors pushing POV should be blocked (by their IP)~

(i dont quite understand what's Sarah's post has to do with this conversation, but WP:NOTAFORUMLihaas (talk)

Picture caption

This has been added yet again here footage of the activists beating Israeli soldiers

I have removed it twice...tiresome....In the picture there is no people identifiable at all. I see no soldiers, I see no activists..I see unidentifiable shadows? Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious what it is. Prodego ^talk 02:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, welcome to the wikipedia policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Unfortunately this behavior is typical in I-P conflict articles. I blame the parents. Prodego, caption info needs to comply with WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The truth is whatever the Israelis say it is. Even if it's not true. Surely you know that? Sarah777 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well it comes from a video, and if you watch the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo it is pretty clear. Sean.hoyland, you've just violated the 1RR restriction on the article if its been reverted twice before. Prodego ^talk 02:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Its the person that re-added it without any discussion that you should be talking to. Off2riorob (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob. This picture is very unclear by itself. It could easily be captioned the other way and no-one would know the difference. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is why it needs context of a proper descriptive caption that explains what is going on. Bless sins, youtube may host the video, but it isn't the source. However, it the video isn't a secondary source, which is why it isn't used for citations. Prodego ^talk 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You are not making any sense at all..within policy or without policy. Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about policy, I'm just saying that it is pretty obvious what the picture shows. It doesn't mean the caption was the best, but it certainly wasn't factually incorrect. Prodego ^talk 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That picture is a meaningless shadow puppet show. People can say is it clear what it shows but the picture will always remain a shadow puppet show. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If we are to have this image, then we should have an image of a wounded or murdered peace-activist to balance out NPOV. Otherwise we should remove this image. IJA (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Well it comes from a video" and "it's pretty obvious" isn't the same as WP:V compliance which is what matters. Thanks for 1RR restriction reminder but a talk page header needs to be added to that effect. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

At Profego, it is all about which images we explicitly choose and which ones we explicitly don't. Showing one certain image without showing a related image can be be POV, as it is with this instance. IJA (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Close-Up Footage of Mavi Marmara Passengers Attacking IDF Soldier. look at frame 0:49. Does anyone still have any doubt about what the picture caption shows? Yuri Tsoglin (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland You can add one if you wish. Its mentioned 2 sections up as well. @IJA, yes but we don't have a perfect source of information. If there is an image you think would improve the article, we should certainly consider adding it. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Is there any pictures or videos of the civilians getting shot that died? Off2riorob (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well since we are showing an image of an activist hitting the IDF, then we should have a wounded activist to balance things out. There is video footage on the BBC website which could be used on this article. IJA (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the image should be removed or commented out until another can be added for balance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need this pic ? --yousaf465 02:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

<- talk page header updated to reflect 1RR status. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not exactly how NPOV works, it isn't about "balancing out" two views. But an image of like you are talking may very well increase understanding of the article, so what image in particular do you think is best? Prodego ^talk 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the image is low quality but it should be shown that the activists were fighting somehow. We have all sorts of prose (see international reaction) portraying Israel in a negative light so a single image should not be this big of a deal. In fact, I hope Free Gaza shifts their PR from being victims to going down fighting simply because it will make this article less contentious.Cptnono (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly how NPOV works, the conflicting narratives have to be given due weight and no more and attributed directly to the source of the narratives. It applies to everything, text, images, captions, external links etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

File:BBC NEWS Israeli navy storms Gaza Aid ship.png

@ Prodego, this image from the BBC News website. IJA (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead has an image of what many will be seen by many as an overly aggressive soldier in all of his gear so that should be balanced.Cptnono (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland & Cptnono No, NPOV doesn't mean we try to balance bias in one direction with other bias in another. NPOV is about having no bias at all. It wouldn't be appropriate to add something perceived as biasing to try to "balance" other bias. Take a read of WP:NPOV to make sure you understand the difference - it is important.

@IJA the problem with that image is that there is no context, we can't even tell where the person is. I believe that I saw an image of some of the activists being offloaded from a helicopter (presumably on their way to a hospital). I think that might be better. Prodego ^talk 02:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Prodego, OK fair enough comment, we can use that image then. I am not sure which image it is exactly and I struggle with the licensing when it comes to getting images from websites such as the BBC etc. Could you please upload the image? Cheers IJA (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to find it again, I saw it several hours ago. If I see it I'll upload it, but if you see anything similar, by all means use that. Prodego ^talk 02:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Prodego, please don't try to tell me how to edit in the I-P conflict area. In the I-P conflict area bias in sourcing is unavoidable and there are always conflicting narratives. The biased narratives have to be presented in a neutral way by assigning the appropriate weight to them and via attribution. They can't be neutralised. Editors can't dismiss sources on the basis that they are biased for example. Editors can't dismiss information on the basis that it advances the the agenda of the State of Israel or the blockade busters etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources may be biased, articles may not be. We don't take biased information from a biased source, and biased information from another source, and state both. You can use biased sources, explain what they both say, but what you don't do is pass of either or both for truth. Prodego ^talk 02:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we agree about that although in the I-P conflict area taking biased information from a biased source, and biased information from another source, and stating/incorporating/balancing both is inevitable and unavoidable because of the mixture of sourcing from different regions...that's another story. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to note that I removed this rubbish picture twice, it is awful and worthless to any independent reader. The picture was replaced by an editor and that editor has been blocked for forty eight hours. Off2riorob (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

in the lede

We have this in the lede....According to the Israel Defence Forces, during the boarding of one of the ships, the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, a firefight ensued[12] and passengers fired on them... its a bit opinionated isn't it. Seems to be cited to this extreme right wing blog http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896588,00.html seems a bit rubbish to claim something like that in the lede cited to this opinionated location. There is no longer any claims at all in the mainstream press that the soldiers were fired on, this POV claim needs removing from the lede ASAP. Off2riorob (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also per this edit [15], im not arguing with most of it, only that there is no mention of international reaction at all now.

Some NPOV "International reaction to the incident were swift [with condemnation of the IDF actions or regret at the loss of lives]." (the bracketed part is my optional reccomendation) Lihaas (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about the international reaction section getting out of hand in the intro. There is a separate page for it because it was getting so huge here. It's the kind of thing where if one bit is mentioned people want to add more and more. Also much of the international reaction came before the videos of the Israeli soldiers being attacked were released. I'm open to adding it back in though, but lets figure out the best way first. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lemme get this straight.....armed masked men drop onto a boat at night in International waters after firing shots - and you say they were attacked? Surreal. The boat was attacked, the folk on it were defending the boat. Against pirates per international law. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Im not advocating edit wars to see waht fits, well discuss it here and come some agreement of a brief summation. I tried my bit at something. How does that sound? One can always alter my suggestion with theirs and well go on from there.::Those new editors pushing POV should be blocked (by their IP)~

(i dont quite understand what's Sarah's post has to do with this conversation, but WP:NOTAFORUMLihaas (talk)

Why this focus on Turkey?

The article lead mentions Turkey twice - i.m.o. too early: "unofficially sponsored by Turkey","(we need more sources for this) and "the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara"

Not until in the forth paragraph, it is clarified that the flotilla is "composed of Turkish, Irish, American, Swedish and Greek flagged ships".

The article gives the impression that this was a bunch of Turkish activists, which is wrong. Not until the half of the article, a passenger list is provided, showing that the passengers were famous left-wing intellectuals and journalists from all over the world. Firstly from Sweden, but also from Germany, UK, etc. This should be sumarized in the lead or background section. Mange01 (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead section fixed by taking away Turkey and giving the reference for Internal reactions article to use. --Kslotte (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Islamist involvement section

This section seems quite biased. I'm not sure that it should be included in its current form and if it is included it should be lower in the article. We want to focus on the facts of what occurred first ... not politics. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it shouldn't have an entire section dedicated to it, if anything at all a small blurb somewhere. Prodego ^talk 03:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire section was added by a single user with no contributions to the discussion page. I am going to temporarily remove it until we can reach a consensus on inclusion. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the section but assume it was based on this. I could see a couple lines in the background section. Israel says the composition of the movement has changed and it could also be used to discuss Turkey (which was a bigger portion of this operation than previous ones). Israel says it has reason to be suspicious of the movement based on what it considers extreme elements so it deserves a mention wherever the the alleged reasoning behind the raid is being discussed.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This article makes no mention of the organization that arranged the flotilla. See Here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.68.247 (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone vet the webpage he's linking to here? I've never heard of it and I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source, but at first glance it seems very biased in favor of Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Washington Post piece is two pages by the way.Cptnono (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If the source on the Islamist ref is credible then it should certainly be put in an "allegations from..." context. (the 2nd source is certainly not credible on its own, but with the caveat of which perspective it comes from an "alleged" can include, i think.Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"popular demonstrations"

The intro says "International reactions have ranged from popular demonstrations to political condemnation." I can't find any "popular demonstrations", and it's widely citable that there has been strong political condemnation internationally. Would someone rewrite this? -M.Nelson (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The relevant definition of popular is "carried on by or for the people (or citizens) at large"[16]. So "popular" is probably correctly used there. Prodego ^talk 03:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, it isn't clear what "popular demostrations" means. If there is a "range" of reactions and political condemnation is on one end, then the other end is likely to be understood as being supportive. Could this be clarified, perhaps by adding the intentions of these demonstrations? -M.Nelson (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I simple dropped the word. It makes it more neutral also. --Kslotte (talk) 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

No change it the meaning either, if it makes it easier to understand, {{worksforme}}. Prodego ^talk 03:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrations across the world should do it. Good agreement for both sides. (Lihaas (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

International response in lead

regarding "Zuchinni one (talk | contribs) (40,678 bytes) (Intro - removed mention of international response. There has been a major discussion on this point in the talk page and no concensus has been reached).

The international response is probably the most notable aspect of this story. What is the problem with including a summarised statement from an RS ? I'm trying to compile them in a section above. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Typically subsections that have a primary article (the "International reaction" section) aren't linked in the lede (or anywhere else), but I'm uncertain if that is actually a guideline or just usual practice. Prodego ^talk 03:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that it deserves a spot in the lead. I disagree that it is the most notable or even most interesting part of the story but that might be personal taste.Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The weight in this article is off. The international reaction section has been split off without a lead being created in that article. The lead of that article should be what is in this article and the lead in this article should summarise the international reaction section. All of the weight of the response, probably the most notable aspect has been removed. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Previously there was an edit war going on in regards to the international reactions. I don't oppose putting something there, but lets reach a consensus on the best way to say it first. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention something in the lead; public reaction should obviously be a (though not "the") main focus of the article. How about simply quoting New York Times, saying that "Israel faced intense international condemnation"?^{http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html} If there is other notable international reaction then it should of course be mentionned, but this seems to sum it up cleanly. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that sums it up. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Israel faced intense international condemnation" sounds good. Maybe add that it included demonstrations in various cities throughout the world.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The NY Times "intense condemnation seems to primarily refer to Turkey's response." Zuchinni one (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As I noted in a section above, it's not up to us to decide what NYT means by "international condemnation", or how justified its analysis is (ie, its analysis is flawed because it considers only Turkey). Since a reliable source published the quote, we're certainly allowed to use it. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What about the countries that have called for investigations? Zuchinni one (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "There has been strong reaction from the international community regarding Israel's actions ranging from condemnation to calls for international investigations."Zuchinni one (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a paraphrase of "Israel faced intense international condemnation regarding the incidents, and there were many calls for international investigations." "Intense international condemnation" is a quote; any kind of "range" is not. If we are to include two points ("international condemnation" and "investigations") then they need to be both independently presented, not synthesised as a "range". -M.Nelson (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Part of my concern here comes from the fact that much of the condemnation came immediately after the news of civilian deaths and before the release of video showing what appears to be an attack on the soldiers boarding the ship. I feel we need to find a way to honestly describe the events and the complete international reaction. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that but we need to reflect what the sources are saying now. It's an important aspect. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "Israeli military action was widely condemned. Many countries also called for international investigations."Bless sins (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

After re-reading the international response page it seems that there is just as much "shock", "deep concern" and "calls for explanations" as there is condemnation. So this is what I propose:

"Some nations immediately condemned Israels actions while others expressed deep concern and called for inquiries into the events that led to the civilian deaths." Zuchinni one (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Kslotte (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording: Please express support or opposition

"Some nations immediately condemned Israels actions while others expressed deep concern and called for inquiries into the events that led to the civilian deaths." Zuchinni one (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Kslotte (talk) 04:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The support of Kslotte was reposted from above. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

oppose where are you getting this 'some' ? Sean.hoyland - talk 04:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Directly from the International reaction page Zuchinni one (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedxia isn't an RS. However, the approach is right. What should happen is that article needs to be rewritten (it's the master now) and this one kept sync'd with it. That will happen eventually but in the meantime this article just needs to say what the sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. What is your issue with "strong international condemnation"? This wording has been widely published. Regardless of additional response, I figure that this should be clearly stated. If there is additional response, then it should also be independently stated as a separate point. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nelson I would happily change it to "Some nations issued immediate strong condemnation of Israel's actions while others expressed deep concern and called for inquiries into the events that led to the civilian deaths." Does that alleviate your concerns?Zuchinni one (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The sources I've read state "There was strong international condemnation", not "Some nations issued strong condemnation". Additionally, you're creating a dichotomy by using "while", implying that the nations that condemned the actions did not express deep concern. The only way to present the "condemnation" and "inquiries" points, without adding any synthesis, is by using two separate sentences. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Support This wording is moderate and accurate. Webmap (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - As M.nelson has pointed out, "while others" implies a dichotomy. In fact, looking at the separate International Reactions page, it appears to me that most of the countries that condemned the incident also called for an investigation into what happened and expressed regret/concern/sadness over the deaths and injuries. "Some nations" seems imprecise. Furthermore, it doesn't seem in line with what the media is reporting. Here are two more stories from major newspapers: [17] (Financial Times) and [18] (CNN) that paint the international reaction as being mostly or overwhelmingly negative. --MidnightDesert (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

change then support there are some 2-3 discussion of this lead going on on this page. But anyways "Some countries and supranational organization/entities immediately condemned Israel's actions or expressed deep concern, while others expressed regret for the loss of life. Some countries (??) called for further inquiries into the events that led to the civilian deaths."Lihaas (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested way to do this

It isn't normal to link an article about the topic like this. The "right" way to go about this is to create a section about the international response, with some commentary about it, and then link to the main international response article with {{main}}. It isn't something that is linked in the lede - it is important enough that it should have its own section in the article, not just a link somewhere. So what I think should be done is that an International Response section should be (re)written, and then the article linked via the main template. Prodego ^talk 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol ... I was coming here to say the same thing. Also there is a complete international reaction page already. So here is what I am going to add for now so that there is link to the international reactions page:

'"International reaction has varied from strong criticism of Israel to deep regret for the loss of life and requests for inquiries."'

Zuchinni one (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

San Remo Manual 1994 Notable Clauses

I have combed through the San Remo Manual 1994 for clauses of notability to this article (I have tried to be neutral in so doing; forgive me if I have not, I am but a mere mortal).

Notable Clauses (Click show (right) to expand and view section)

• 10. Subject to other applicable rules of the law of armed conflict at sea contained in this document or elsewhere, hostile actions by naval forces may be conducted in, on or over: (b) the high seas [i.e. international waters] 13. For the purposes of this document: (a) international humanitarian law means international rules, established by treaties or custom, which limit the right of parties to a conflict to use the methods or means of warfare of their choice, or which protect States not party to the conflict or persons and objects that are, or may be, affected by the conflict; (b) attack means an act of violence, whether in offence or in defence; (d) neutral means any State not party to the conflict; (i) merchant vessel means a vessel, other than a warship, an auxiliary vessel, or a State vessel such as a customs or police vessel, that is engaged in commercial or private service; 38. In any armed conflict the right of the parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. 39. Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between civilians or other protected persons and combatants and between civilian or exempt objects and military objectives. 40. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. 41. Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Merchant vessels and civil aircraft are civilian objects unless they are military objectives in accordance with the principles and rules set forth in this document. 42. In addition to any specific prohibitions binding upon the parties to a conflict, it is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which: (a) are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; or (b) are indiscriminate, in that: (i) they are not, or cannot be, directed against a specific military objective; or (ii) their effects cannot be limited as required by international law as reflected in this document. 45. Surface ships, submarines and aircraft are bound by the same principles and rules. 46. With respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken: (a) those who plan, decide upon or execute an attack must take all feasible measures to gather information which will assist in determining whether or not objects which are not military objectives are present in an area of attack; 67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they: (a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture; (b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy; (f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions. 93. A blockade shall be declared and notified to all belligerents and neutral States. 94. The declaration shall specify the commencement, duration, location, and extent of the blockade and the period within which vessels of neutral States may leave the blockaded coastline. 95. A blockade must be effective. The question whether a blockade is effective is a question of fact. 96. The force maintaining the blockade may be stationed at a distance determined by military requirements. 97. A blockade may be enforced and maintained by a combination of legitimate methods and means of warfare provided this combination does not result in acts inconsistent with the rules set out in this document. 98. Merchant vessels believed on reasonable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be captured. Merchant vessels which, after prior warning, clearly resist capture may be attacked. 99. A blockade must not bar access to the ports and coasts of neutral States. 100. A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels of all States. 101. The cessation, temporary lifting, re-establishment, extension or other alteration of a blockade must be declared and notified as in paragraphs 93 and 94. 102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if: (a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or (b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. 103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to: (a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and (b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross. 104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted. 113. The fact that a merchant vessel is flying the flag of a neutral State or a civil aircraft bears the marks of a neutral State is prima facie evidence of its neutral character. 114. If the commander of a warship suspects that a merchant vessel flying a neutral flag in fact has enemy character, the commander is entitled to exercise the right of visit and search, including the right of diversion for search under paragraph 121. 116. If, after visit and search, there is reasonable ground for suspicion that the merchant vessel flying a neutral flag or a civil aircraft with neutral marks has enemy character, the vessel or aircraft may be captured as prize subject to adjudication. 117. Enemy character can be determined by registration, ownership, charter or other criteria. 118. In exercising their legal rights in an international armed conflict at sea, belligerent warships and military aircraft have a right to visit and search merchant vessels outside neutral waters where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they are subject to capture. 119. As an alternative to visit and search, a neutral merchant vessel may, with its consent, be diverted from its declared destination. 146. Neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture outside neutral waters if they are engaged in any of the activities referred to in paragraph 67 or if it is determined as a result of visit and search or by other means, that they: (a) are carrying contraband; (b) are on a voyage especially undertaken with a view to the transport of individual passengers who are embodied in the armed forces of the enemy; (c) are operating directly under enemy control, orders, charter, employment or direction; (d) present irregular or fraudulent documents, lack necessary documents, or destroy, deface or conceal documents; (e) are violating regulations established by a belligerent within the immediate area of naval operations; or (f) are breaching or attempting to breach a blockade. Capture of a neutral merchant vessel is exercised by taking such vessel as prize for adjudication. 147. Goods on board neutral merchant vessels are subject to capture only if they are contraband. 148. Contraband is defined as goods which are ultimately destined for territory under the control of the enemy and which may be susceptible for use in armed conflict. 149. In order to exercise the right of capture referred to in paragraphs 146(a) and 147, the belligerent must have published contraband lists. The precise nature of a belligerent's contraband list may vary according to the particular circumstances of the armed conflict. Contraband lists shall be reasonably specific.

930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 04:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Clauses that (I think) are for Israel/against the flotilla

• Clause 10b revokes any accusation against Israel on the basis of being in international waters. This is irelevent.
• Clause 67a, and I think the most damning, as quoted by Mark Regev clearly states that any merchant vessel may be attacked if they have been warned and are going to try to breach a blockade. This was a clealy stated by a captain in the floatilla, "Negative, negative. Our destination is Gaza." (Main article)
• I go further and bring in 67 b, c and f since they are bringing equipment and tools useful to that of Hamas.
• Clause 98 is also thoughrouly damning of the flotilla.
• Clause 103, which the flotilla assume is the case, means that Israel has the right to search, and to direct the aid through channels "under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality" (ibid.)
• Clause 114
• Does clause 116 suggest that Israel can lawfully keep the ships as prizes of war?
• Clause 118
• Clause 146 (f) states that capture in international waters is lawful.

Clauses that (I think) are for the flotilla/against Israel

• Clause 40 might suggest that the flotilla is not a millitary objective as it did not offer "a definite military advantage" (ibid.)
• Clause 42a may suggest that shooting at the feet and knees is unlawful; rather shoot to kill should be used (since it does not cause "unnecessary suffering" although I and am pretty sure everyone else would disagree.)
• Clause 102b

930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 04:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Clause 94 blockade must have a defined start, location and duration
• Clause 102a Blockade cannot be for the purpose of denying essential supplies
• Clause 103 blockade must allow free movement of food and essential supplies from impartial groups

A few more clauses that may be of interest (for completeness - I'm aware this would be OR) Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a forum to discuss for or against the Israeli attack/the Gaza Flotilla. Instead fix yourself some judicial sources claiming this or that. We don't do judicial evaluations on this article talk page. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 04:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I brought these forward so that people didn't have to read through the whole document themselves. These clauses will likely be of use as sources to people here. I would hope that Wikipedia can put two and two together, i.e. a boat charged a blockade and was captured + a boat that charges a blockade may be captured = legal. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

While interesting this would be original research which we can't use in the article. But in all seriousness I did find it interesting, and that's for taking the time to compile it. Prodego ^talk 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, if I get some journalist contacts to publish it to some extent somewhere, does that discredit it by POV or can it then be used here? Secondly, surely the clauses, not my commentary, can be used as a source? 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well i express support for some sort of legal language, i agree with the above that unless a reputable source refers to the action in this context it would be WP:OR

Maybe a "background" section to some sort can be agree upon?Lihaas (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

930913's material belongs in an article all by itself. After all, we are an encyclopedia. I will start it myself at San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea Hallucegenia (talk) 06:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sections nominated for Archival

This article needs to be cleaned up a lot so I'm putting forward articles for archival. Endorsing archival will mean the section will be archived sooner, objecting means archival will be delayed. Objection votes count double. Disregard all votes older than 3 (discuss?) hours. If you still oppose after three hours, please object again.

Kidnapping too, and unlawful detention

Endorse 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 12:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Endorse 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 12:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• Now you have created another section, ...I will archive some of the stale stuff now. Off2riorob (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, but at least this one will pay its space back and more. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 12:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
• Hats off to Off2riorob for archiving loads of stuff - I can see the scrollbar again :) 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What 930913 said ;-) Thanks Off2riorob! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ta this section is going now Off2riorob (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

POV section

I marked the section Legality of raid POV because it only mirrors the Israeli view, actually: according to the Israeli judicial system the attacks might be legal according to Israeli. In a word where Israel is one of 203 nations, among them some of them, f.ex. Palestine and Turkey, also affected by the attacks, a NPOV section also mentions the judicial statements from those sides.

F.ex.: Prof Ove Bring of Uppsala and Stockholms Universities, advisor to the Foreign Department of Sweden, claims that the Israeli attack is a clear violation of international Public International Law in peace time, and that the security zone of Israel is something that the Israel have set up by themselves. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3741823 Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 04:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

there were at least 2 other non-israeli opinions (I added one) but a user has removed them.Ccson (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I reinserted them. Let's hope they can stay in the article, and be "refactored" perusing talk consensus. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

With regards to the legality, see above to my section on the international law regarding the nature of the incident. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear User:930913! You're a wikipedia editor, not an external citable source. Therefore we cannot cite you, and you shouldn't waste your time with making judicial evaluations. This talk page for the article Gaza flotilla clash, this is not a discussion forum. If you wish to find an external source - not yourself since you're an editor - then go google or surf some Israeli sources. Again: this article talk page is not a forum. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This presumes that I am the secondary source. Am I mistaken and the San Remo Manual 1994 is a primary source hence I am the secondary source or is it that is it a secondary source and hence a credible source to stand on it's own? 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

It's all explained in WP:OR+WP:SYN and WP:V Sean.hoyland - talk 05:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correct! As a preparation for a later legal reference, I propose you save your list into f.ex. User:930913/San Remo Manual 1994 which might be usable for future correlation of judicial secondary source statements, since this talk page is going to be full and archieved fast. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we merge this with the above "Remo [something, something] the legal aspect is discussed thereLihaas (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be confusing, so please not. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 05:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Over-dramatized and POV edits

Here is one. Needs fixing. --Kslotte (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoa ... serious POV issues ... fixing it now Zuchinni one (talk) 05:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And maybe this from same user. --Kslotte (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest completely reverting those edits (particularly the first), but if you want to manually clean it up, Zuchinni, please do. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time finding a clean version of this section. Any thoughts or should we just do a re-write? Zuchinni one (talk) 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The user has been notified. Edits seems to have been done WP:AGF. --Kslotte (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

OK ... I couldn't find any good old edits so I reworded the entire section and removed the over-dramatized bits. Feel free suggest any further changes here but please don't revert that section to the previous version. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That section does need to include the fact that they used live ammunition, which I added back. Feel free to improve my changes. Prodego ^talk 05:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems good to me :) Zuchinni one (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Mavi Marmara boarding

in this section of article, it reads: According to the IDF (Israeli Defense Force), activists on the Mavi Marmara responded with violence and soldiers were forced to fire in self-defense.[23] The Israeli military released video footage to support this claim,[24] which they claim shows the first soldier being attacked while boarding and thrown to the lower deck; at least one incident in which a stun grenade and fire bomb was thrown at the soldiers; and activists beating one of the soldiers and trying to kidnap him while others are beating the soldiers with a metal pole and then it gives a reference: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896588,00.html

first off, i didnt understand that sentence "...support this claim, which they claim shows.." i think which they claim is unnessary. secondly, on the page of reference, there is a video indicating that some activists attacked on Israel comondos with sticks or whatever you call, but i didnt see any gun or grenade or fire gun in Video. but what I understand from the way the article reads, video shows people carrying these fire-guns. but no, it is just claim by Israel officers. should i be wrong, please correct me but i am of opinion that that must be changed.And i will add USS Liberty incident article on also see section. I think it is very "related"--Yetjanissary (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How is the USS Liberty related? Prodego ^talk 05:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also confused as to how it's related—though both involve Israel attacking a ship, Liberty appears to have been mistaken identity whereas the flotilla was certainly not. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there are major problems with this section ... trying to fix it now Zuchinni one (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, beat you to it. All I did was simplify the prose; go ahead and clean further if you can. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Done ... notes in the section above Zuchinni one (talk) 05:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to move rename and move discussions to a subpage (Support | Oppose)

This page is being taken up too much by all the proposals to move or rename this article. I suggest that it be moved to a subpage specifically for use of said proposals. This talk page is too long and needs some clearing up - doing this would reduce the page by at least a third.

Support 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to not do this again right now ... we've done this again and again already. No consensus was reached so lets just wait for a while. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that ... I just re-read what you proposed and realized it wasn't what I thought it was. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: one editor yesterday was doing sterling service manually-archiving this talk page, and others proposed and set up auto-archiving. Ideally these steps should be enough, though I'll concede they may not given the huge volume of comments coming in... We can help in the meantime by:

• Avoiding creating new sections, if similar sections already exist;
• Keeping our comments as brief as possible;
• Avoiding making off-topic comments about band names, as one editor was doing yesterday ;-) Sorry!

I quite like the idea of a sub-page for discussing moves/renames - provided that that sub-page is clearly linked to from this page (I'd suggest up near the top, right under the boxes, or even as a box, if someone knows how to do that...?)

Cheers, TFOWR^{is this too long?} 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I h ave posted (Section 45) a list of article names from interwikis, for reference (or help during any subsequent discussion on this issue). doktorb _words^deeds 11:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have moved it to Talk:Gaza_flotilla_clash/Rename_or_move but is the link at the top as visible as it should be? If not, how can it be made more visible? 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 12:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

Excellent, thanks! I don't know how it can be made more visible, I kind of feel it should be in a box, as editors tend to skip the first few threads and move straight to the bottom ("where the action is"). However, I've made it bigger and bolder, and increased the size of the link. All other suggestions gratefully received at the usual address... TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Independent Media Review and Analysis

This was already discussed yesterday, but I can't find the discussion. According to SourceWatch[19] this website[20] is merely a pro-Israeli propaganda site, and not a reliable source, therefore I am moving the material here:

Robbie Sabel of Hebrew University, an international law expert, has claimed that "a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in international waters. Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every right to act in self defense."

-- Kendrick7^talk 08:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

An interesting review, with usable references, detailing the events and possible legalities can be found here.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Arrests / Detained / Expelled

I've added the following to the 'Arrests' section:

"Israel is detaining 480 activists captured in the raid at a prison in Ashdod. 48 others will be expelled and sent back to their home countries via Ben Gurion International Airport."

based on this news report from AFP [21]. I left this older bit in:

"At least 32 activists who had been onboard the ships were arrested and incarcerated by the Israel Prisons Service after refusing to sign deportation orders, including two who were wounded but refused hospital treatment."

The two reports seem to be in conflict. I don't know whats going on: I'm not sure if the part about only 32 being arrested is now outdated or if there is a legal distinction between being "detained" in a prison and "arrested" so I decided to leave the older part in just to be safe. --MidnightDesert (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Page unprotected and One-Revert Restriction

I have downgraded the protection on this page to semi-protection. However, I have also placed the article under WP:1RR. Do not revert any content (obvious vandalism, copyright, and BLP violations excepted) more than once in 24 hour period. If you do, you may be blocked without warning. Instead of edit warring, consider discussing the issue further on this talk page, with the goal of attaining consensus. NW (Talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Aye, this seems like a fair rule on such a controversial and current article IJA (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)