Jump to content

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Kidnapping too, and unlawful detention

In addition to the point that this was (State) piracy - glad to see that some Israelis are taking their country to their own High Court on this matter, as referenced from the Jerusalem Post - but it also needs to be mentioned that Israel, with no justification, has kidnapped the 700~ people, and threatened that if they do not agree to be deported, it will (unlawfully) detain them. The country, and the article needs to capture this, seems to have thrown aside the rule of law entirely. 92.48.112.92 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kidnapped??? bwwaahhahahahahahahahah!!! 68.41.55.171 (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --candle•wicke 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You may be surprised and I am not a lawyer but it appears to be legal. Can you refute the legal arguments presented here? The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background. Also see San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea someone mentioned above. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
In cases of drug smuggling and pirates, countries _do_ have a right to board ships and make arrests in international waters.
So, Israel may very well have been within it's rights to arrest these people.
Bob drobbs (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
But food, toys, cement are not drugs, so this remains criminal action on the high seas - piracy, theft, etc. 194.237.142.17 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There are also notable sources which say exactly the opposite: eg [3]. Does a policeman (in any country) have the right to shoot someone dead in the street? sometimes, but it's very rare... Physchim62 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Regarding your logic: Israel recently is sending 3 Nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran. Iran says Israel don't do it! Israel does. Do Iran has a right to destroy them? --Nevit (talk) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Iran would be within it's right to take control of those submarines. Not destroy them. the IDF didn't destroy the boats. --Shawa666 (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Sending a militarized ship into sovereign waters is an act of war. That is why there are no weapons except hand guns on AWACs and other intelligence ships that may stray into enemy territory. If a nuclear-armed sub goes into Iranian waters than Iran would be within their rights to sink said ship and only offer help to the survivors once the capability for them to inflict damage on Iran was removed. Rarian rakista (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The Sam Remo manual however, says that they can only detain after a visit and search has identified contraband or other offensives. This is not the case. 146 (f) cannot occur. 04nunhucks (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Shooting, stubbing, throwing a soldier 30 feet is not a good reason for apprehension. Hmm. What is? (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC))
Self-defence against armoured landing parties in the night can take whatever form needed, surely. 194.237.142.17 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Not when: a) The landing party is an official security arm of a sovereign government. b) The state is within their legal right to stop and board the vessel. In any event, what was or was not self defense can only be decided by a court of law, which obviously requires detaining the accused party. 87.69.208.92 (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
But the flotilla was neither in Israeli territorial waters nor bound for Israel. Which country's court of law has jurisdiction to decide? Are not the accused parties in this case members of the Israeli military, not currently detained? Sterrettc (talk) 01:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The country which has jurisdiction is Turkey, the flag country of the ship where deaths, and most injuries, occurred - the Israeli commandos should be, under the Law of the Sea, and all custom, handed over for trial there. The other flag countries would have an equal right to bring charges for piracy / war crimes / theft, etc. 178.178.37.131 (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Gaza is, in fact, under Israeli military jurisdiction, and the operation is claimed to be legal under international law since the flotilla was attempting to break a naval blockade. Whether or not you dispute these legal claims or think they are unfair is a topic for discussion, but this is probably not the place for it. 212.179.152.69 (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit (please add image)

Countries which criticized the Israeli raid on the flotilla.

Can an admin user please kindly add the following image? It summarizes the countries which were critical of the raid.Bless sins (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you got citations to support this? Also do you intend to update it?
This would probably be better off in the International Reaction article. International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_clash Zuchinni one (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As time past almost all countries world wide expressed some type of reaction. I don't see map are in anyway logical in this situation. --Kslotte (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this map is a good idea. If red represents countries critical of the raid, what does the gray color mean? Does it mean they support Israel's actions? I doubt it. Also I'm pretty sure the map could be considered original research since we have to decide what constitutes a criticism and what doesn't, which can be quite subjective. Laurent (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Syria is not in the map, despite this: http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/05/31/290931.htm http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/05/31/290872.htm http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/05/31/290903.htm --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of a map to represent the worldwide reactions but for reasons of balance would advocate the use of three colors to represent respectively countries who are critical, neutral or supportive of the Israeli raid --Wolbo (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a great way to create a map of WP:OR. Breein1007 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sudan. --candle•wicke 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand the map can be incomplete and/or obsolete as the information evolves rapidly. Since when is that a reason to block information? If one wishes to add some information, feel free to. The map is absolutely free, with no rights reserved.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Support IJA (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This could be put on the reaction page, and the reaction section here. No harm in that, its a brief summation of everything. That said i think we should wait a day or 2 because it may (and probably will) rapidly change.
Furthermore, i agree with Wolbo to put balance on the map as per International recognition of KosovoLihaas (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas, any and all information about this event is going to change rapidly (and already is). The solution to rapidly changing information is to keep ourselves updated. Please note that images can very easily be updated. (Message me on my talk, if you want more technical details).Bless sins (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the inclusion of the map.

  1. It will need to be constantly updated
  2. How would you explain a reaction like "while we condemn the violence, we support Israel's continued blockade of Gaza" or "We condemn both the Israeli incursion and the violent response"?
  3. What does it add to the article?

Zuchinni one (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni:
1. Of course, even this article needs to be constantly updated, no? Does that mean we should delete this article? No, that means we should cosntantly update it.
2. Can you cite a specific country? Also, the map is clearly about the raid on the convoy, not about the blockade. The caption says so.
The UK-Given their response
"The United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary William Hague said he "deplored" the loss of life and called on Israel to open border crossings for aid access. Scotland's Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Israel's actions had been "rightly condemned around the world". She called on Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza, and expressed her "deep sadness" at the loss of life on the flotilla."
I don't understand why you label them as condemning Israel. This seems to be more of an editorial than a fact. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless I'm missing something, you just quoted the Deputy First Minister of Scotland as saying Israel was "rightly condemned around the world". Do you think that Scotland's reaction doesn't represent all of the UK? In that case, I'll remove the UK.Bless sins (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, the British PM called the attack "unacceptable", and called criticism of Israeli actions as "legitimate".[4] Do you think constitutes as Britain "criticized and/or condemned the Israeli raid"?Bless sins (talk) 04:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
3. What does a graph ever add to an article? It summarizes the information at hand (in this case reactions by country) and presents the information in a more accessible way.Bless sins (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to temporarily remove this map until it is clear that the map is accurate. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bless sins, could you put together a list of countries and accompanying quotes and sources used in the map (perhaps as a table on the talk)? This wouldn't settle whether the map is editorially useful to the article, but it would ensure the map's accuracy. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it does get updated, ive seen maps that take a request after a long break to get updated.Lihaas (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see my notes on the main international reaction discussion page. I think this map constitutes original research and should be removed. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither there, nor here, do I see rationale that this map is original research. You talked about UK, but I've already removed that. How do the other countries constitute OR?Bless sins (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded this map to Wikimedia Commons and added the proposed suggestions. You are free to edit it there. Mekĕti (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

International reaction

"There have been strong international reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash of 31 May 2010." is used in both this article and the main article. This is impressively inconsistent with the kind of descriptions used by reliable sources. NPOV doesn't equal dilute until meaningless. The event has resulted in "widespread international condemnation of Israel" as it says in the NYT. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

sources


discussion

The quotes you've pulled from the articles seem to focus primarily on Turkey's response. I see nothing about the countries that have called for investigations.Zuchinni one (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No, these are how the journalists in the reliable sources summed up the responses in the articles and they tend to do it in the first few sentences for very obvious reasons. I'm only listing summary statements by RS not responses by states etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If the source is reliable, then it doesn't really need to explain itself—regardless of the other content, a quote like "international outrage" can be taken as fact. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes but context is important ... for example "Israel faced international condemnation when Turkey called the raid the Marmara an unprovoked attack". Context matters. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Context from which source ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Response from Ireland (Min of Foreign Affairs), highlighting kidnapping aspect: "Mr Martin condemned Israel’s “unacceptable and disproportionate” use of force and he accused Israel of “essentially kidnapping” the Irish citizens aboard the ships. Mr Martin was speaking after he summoned Israeli ambassador Zion Evrony to a meeting at Iveagh House late yesterday afternoon. He called for the unconditional release of Irish citizens currently detained in Ashdod." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.142.20 (talk) 03:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Certainly per source it must be added, but to sum up we can come to a statement through consensus. I list one above that went something like this "The attack caused either widespread condemnation of X or regret for the loss of lives." (this for the lead) Then for the summation of reaction here before the link to the other page, the other outliers can be mentioned, Martin's kidnapping of the Irish for example.Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Outliers? How so? Twelve Irish citizens were kidnapped in International water and are currently held by a foreign state in breach of all International Law. That is a big deal in this part of the world I can assure US contributors. It will, as the US Government is prone to say, have consequences. If they are not realeased it will have pretty severe consequences for EU/Israel trade relations, for starters. These "outliers" will have a major impact of the international strategic situation vis a vis Israel. Important to give them prominence. Sarah777 (talk) 08:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

'Cargo could be inspected'

The final line in the first paragraph reads, "Israeli forces boarded the flotilla after it declined Israel's request to change its route to the port of Ashdod, so that the cargo could be inspected before delivery to Gaza," and the source beside this is Haaretz. As this seems to suggest pro-Israel bias, I'd suggest that it be changed to 'Israel claims,' as this is not yet definitive information. Do we truly know what their objective was? Was it to inspect the cargo, or to prevent the cargo from reaching their shores? Ambrosiaster (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you aren't familiar with Haaretz :) Sean.hoyland - talk 05:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
More to the point though, they're an RS in Wikipedia, plain and simple, but I agree that the narrative needs to be attributed to the source i.e. it's what the Israeli government said (not claimed) would happen to the cargo. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Sean.hoyland. Haaretz is a very reliable source and in any case there was plenty of media coverage of Israel's request inspect the aid in Ashdod before delivery to Gaza. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Haaretz are anti-Israeli? yes, i suppose its a homogenous country with only 1 kind of people with 1-set opinions that only jpost or ynet can represent, hence it must be so? ;)
At any rate, i do agree, the caveat "claims..." is more NPOV.Lihaas (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
'claims' is a WP:WTA. 'Said' is NPOV. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not agree here. There is a whole array of sources stating that Israel controls and restricts the goods entering in Gaza (Fees for each truck entering, halting of "luxuries" and agricultural materials) We do not have any proof that Israel would eventually let the cargo enter the strip, which quantity would be left out or the time it will take for them to let all the goods in. So stating that Israel was merely going to inspect the cargo is biased and not neutral. Leirus (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Leirus, even now Israel says it will transfer the aid seized from the ships. However you are correct that some things have been banned and I am pretty sure some that banned material was included in the aid package, such as cement. I will make some edits to show that non-banned materials would be transferred ... that was originally in place but seems to have been removed at some point. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just worried that every fuzzy point like that one may create an edit war when/if the article is released, as Israel/Palestine articles tend to do :C Leirus (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a video of the ships' cargo making its way into Gaza, and a paragraph in an article in HaAretz mentioning this[5]. Unfortunately, the article is in Hebrew and the paragraph seems to not have made it into the English version of the article, although the video did. Can we cite the article in Hebrew as a source for reports about the aid entering Gaza? 87.69.208.92 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Cement?

Our article says that Israel would not transfer banned items such as cement and the footnote links to a Haaretz article. However, this article does not mention cement specifically. I assume there is an there is an official list of banned items, available somewhere on the web.

Every now and then a new editor comes along and changes the wording from the general "banned items" to specific things. As mentioned above I think that we should stay general and if possible link to a complete list of banned items. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am also curious (although this probably does not fit here) why cement is banned. It is certainly not a weapon. --Austrian (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

[6] "cement -- a material Israel bans, citing fears Hamas could use it to construct bunkers". It's not completely banned [7] "cement would be allowed only if it is tied to a specific project." Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Just want to mention, I think the terrorists also use cement in the construction of smuggling tunnels used to bring illegal weapons into the Gaza strip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.31.18 (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


A full listing of what the "humanitarian aid" included would be useful. That way, Wikipedia is not taking sides on whether the aid should be banned. 70.1.135.78 (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I do agree. We need to get a.s.a.p. an (both) official(s) listing(s) of what the cargo consisted of, as it was a key point of contention in the incident. Aldo L (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Geography

The incident took place opposite the Israeli coast, around Haifa, not the Gaza coast, as stated in the box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.80.41 (talk) 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Source ? Sean.hoyland - talk 06:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
He's right about it not being off the coast of Gaza I corrected that earlier but didn't notice it in the box. The misconception originally came from the way two different sources got merged. I'm going to change it to Mediterranean Sea Zuchinni one (talk) 06:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-Israeli judicial sources

Repeating some info from above and from Talk:International reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash, in order to collect them for one or two future sentences in the Legality of raid section:

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!) 04:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Karsten Buhl et al from Center for Militære Studier (CMS) at Københavns Universitet agrees with the statements by Ove Bring above http://politiken.dk/udland/article984082.ece .. although it is not clear to me how this belongs in this very specialized sub-article MX44 (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

[insert new sources here]

When the sources are numerous enough, we may add such a sentence to that section. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

HERE a link to the last version of the article that contained criticism from the Organisation of the Islamic Conference unexplicably removed for "Remove irrelevant section - not related to legality". It is related, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference speaks about "law", and their statement is important in the international relations (which is about international law) of Israel and Turkey. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I added the following

Ove Bring, expert on public international law, said that Israel had no right to take military action.[1] That is also supported by Mark Klamberg at Stockholm University.[2]
Hugo Tiberg, professor in maritime law, states that Isreal had no right to attack the ships.[3]

but it was removed (why?). // Liftarn (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot see your edit in the history, maybe something went wrong when you tried to save. Maybe try again? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The edits were [8] and [9]. // Liftarn (talk) 08:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think one important point is the legality of the blockade itself. It has been severely questioned by the international community, and probably this should be addressed in the legal part of the article. Leirus (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe then as a part of the Events leading up to the clash. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Split suggestion for section Notable people onboard/planned to be aboard the flotilla

It has been suggested that the section "Notable people onboard/planned to be aboard the flotilla" be split into a new article titled "List of participants of the Gaza flotilla.". The section will be replaced by a short summary of the most notable participants. Your views will be appreciated. Marokwitz (talk) 07:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Its now been split but I'm not sure it's really necessary. Right now List of participants of the Gaza flotilla has a list of all the Malaysians (most of whom appear to be non-notable per Wikipedia guidelines) that were on-board the ships. I'm not sure if we can or should construct such a comprehensive list. I don't think the current list of notable people in this article is too long at the moment, myself. --MidnightDesert (talk) 07:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable people table

The hidden comments are:

... USE EN-RULES Wikilink added for all nationalities, since the list is sortable

I presume the idea is not to have an unlinked country above a linked one. There is another solution besides linking them all, though, i.e. link none of them. Is there much value in these links after all? JIMp talk·cont 07:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Article Names

This article is doubtlessly going to be the centre of naming issues as the story developments. Below are some from the current crop of non-English Wiki article names to provide, in my opinion, a useful guide to the sensitivies across other Wikis on this issue....

  • French - Abordage de la flottille de Gaza
  • Welsh - Ymateb rhyngwladol i ymosodiad Israel ar longau dyngarol Gaza 2010
  • Turkish - Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı
  • Polish - Incydent u wybrzeży Strefy Gazy (2010)
  • Russian - Флотилия свободы

Some more OR

Although coming from me it won't get into the article, I'd like to draw your attention to this: the person depicted in the picture [10] is also the the person at 5:15 in [11]. I have asked numerous neutral people who have all agreed, but I invite you to make your own decision. The person in the background of the picture also correlates with the person, twelfth from right on page 10 of todays The Daily Telegraph. This would suggest that the claim by Israel that the activists were armed and ready is true. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 08:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

MV Rachel Corrie

The 'MV Rachel Corrie' is listed under "Ships in the flotilla." This [12] is the source used to cite this statement. In actuality, this source states:

"The family have lost contact with Mairead, but believe her to be safe, as this boat (the MV Rachel Corrie) was delayed leaving Cyprus and is behind the boats which were intercepted," said Northern Ireland Amnesty spokesman, Patrick Corrigan.

This [13] Malaysian news source (six of the individuals aboard the 'MV Rachel Corrie' are Malaysian) claims that the ship is 300km or 48 hours away from the coastline, was not one of the ships captured and will still attempt to break the blockade in the coming days. This [14] source from New Zealand quotes Israeli Army Radio as stating that the 'Rachel Corrie' will reach "Gazan waters" by Wednesday and that it will be commandeered by the Israeli Navy should it try to break the blockade. In short, it appears the the 'MV Rachel Corrie' was not one of the ships captured in the flotilla. It is, however, one of the ships in the so-called "Freedom Flotilla." The article needs to be corrected immediately. At the moment it gives the impression that the 'MV Rachel Corrie' has already been captured and that the total number of ships captured is six - which is not the case. I'm removing it from the list for now - if someone decides to add it back in, please make note of the circumstances highlighted above. --MidnightDesert (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it. Thank you. --MidnightDesert (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I had brought this up on the discussion page yesterday but as it remained this morning I have removed the MV Rachel Corrie from the list. the total number of ship brought to port is 6, from uncitable sources they are Challenger 1, Boat 8000, Gazze, Sophia, Defne Y, Mavi Marmara - as these are the names pained on the sides of the ship rather than their official names, I'm unsure which needs to be added to the list Mike Aldrich (talk) 08:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Piracy

If anyone is tracking activity regarding this issue, I notice that a couple of recent edits have added this incident to Piracy. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny! Maybe because of the source
Izenberg, Dan (31 May 2010). "Israeli lawyers: Raid violates int'l law, Prosecution charges that Israel engaged in acts of piracy". Jerusalem Post.
so that Israeli lawyers accuse Israeli of piracy. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Criminal aspects

Perhaps as part of the "Legality" discussion, certainly important to list the crimes apparently committed by Israel:

  • Piracy, not just against one ship, but a whole convoy

(There is a hint from some in Israel that sabotage - against non-military vessels, note - may also have been committed prior to sailing from Cyprus)

  • Manslaughter to murder
  • Theft of mobile phones, journalistic equipment, etc.
  • Kidnap of hundreds of people in international waters
  • Unlawful detention

(In acts of legal nihilism more suited to North Korea, the above two, and the piracy, are compounded by bringing the ship into Israel, a place neither ships nor people wished to enter, putting them in jail, refusing consular access, and then asking them to sign declarations that they "entered Israel illegally") Most of the above is undisputed, from many accounts, and the kidnap and detention (and coercion) aspects were clearly outlined by the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs. 194.186.53.229 (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to Craig Murray (formerly a UK Foreign office expert on maritime law), in essence what Israel did is not merely piracy, but an act of war or war crime.[15]John Z (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no legal argument under that section in the article. The closest it comes to is a quote saying that Israel had violated some unspecified international law. Suggestions:

  • Delete the section
  • Include clauses from the San Remo Manual 1994 (above) that are critical of Israel (even though it is probably OR)
  • Resource some new information

My !vote is for Resource, failing aforementioned, include 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 08:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

Do the mainstream RS care about this ? If not neither should we. The section is a platform for advocacy. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
My initial thought is to agree with hoyland here Zuchinni one (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course RS's care about the hijacking of ships in international waters. Everything there now is reliably sourced, and I won't stand for the inclusion of Original Research by any legal eagles among us. -- Kendrick7talk 08:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly sources on it, however none of them state any laws, unlike the Israeli side above in the main article. In a section entitled Legal arguments, it it reasonable to see (a) specific law(s), rather than unbacked claims. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 08:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
To clarify, my experience with I-P conflict articles is that they get bogged down in legal arguments usually put forward by people keen to advocate on behalf of the state of israel or people who want to accuse it of breaking international law at every opportunity. What I mean by 'Do the mainstream RS care about this' is, do the likes of the NYT, BBC, China Daily etc care about this not do some partisans care about this..I'm thinking of someone called alan for example and the Israel MFA. We aren't a platform for propaganda. The weight given to the topic has to be reflected in the whole spectrum of RS. It isn't notable because the MFA thinks it's notable for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that statements from high jurists is interesting enough to be mentioned as is, but if you wish details about the alleged violations, then I can accept Resource. Details about what laws could not harm to improve the article. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How is some claim from an Al Jazeera political analyst a legal argument? At the very least, this section should only mention people with some qualifications to render opinions on such matters. Preferably, those opinions should cite specific laws or statues violated/justifying actions. Otherwise, when my neighbor Fred gives an interview to Daily News tomorrow, I will put his quote right in there and cite it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.100.159 (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe for the article International reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash, unless the political analyst is reasoning exclusively legal. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable People

Is there any justification for the few names included in the main article when all the participants are listed in the secondary article? Also the tone of the section seems quite biased, in particular "Hilarion Capucci, a retired archbishop previously convicted by an Israeli court of using smuggling arms and sentenced to 12 years in prison." Zuchinni one (talk) 09:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there is and I think that you should not remove information with getting consenus first. You have been reverted. Bjmullan (talk) 09:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Watch for WP:BLP violations by partisan editors. They have to be removed immediately. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It has to be an RS that says that there were a number of notable people not us. They decide who the notable people are not us. That section should match the lead in the list but there isn't one yet. I suggest finding an RS that precisely supports any general statement we put in there. No one should be cherry picking out names and I see no need for any names in there (or even necessarily a separate section, the statement can be put elsewhere and the list linked to the statement). Sean.hoyland - talk 10:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

external reference is not neutral

Reference 36: Spanish newspaper El pais belonging to media group PRISA, see Spanish language wikipedia, has a section named Ideology. The neutrality of this source will create a discoussion on is own, removing this citation will improve wiki standards off neutrality as aspected on this article; leaving it unchanged will help create the opinion that if sources are not neutral the article as a hole isn´t neutral. Thank you --Elloza (talk) 09:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it pro or con the Israeli? I read it using google-translation, but I couldn't find that it was much different from the Swedish media, who are somewhat sharper than El pais. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 09:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, El País is possibly the most prestigious newspaper in Spain. It's usually labelled as moderate center-left and, for instance, weekly publishes a Spanish language selection of articles from The New York Times. This source simply states that journalist from the newspaper (attributed) have contacted wounded passengers from other ships that the Marmara. --Ecemaml (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


And something worth nothing are the quotes from the Guardian: "..They came up and used plastic bullets.." was wrongly interpreted as rubber bullets and not paintballs due to formulation. also from that article: "The operation started immediately with firing. First it was warning shots, but when the Mavi Marmara wouldn't stop these warnings turned into an attack." once again wrongly interpreted as IDF firing at unarmed peace activists while warning shots are standart maritime procedure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.114.202 (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Ai 00 giving biased edits?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&diff=365400474&oldid=365400407

I am going to undo this edit. If this seems unreasonable I am open to reinstating it. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Armada of hate" is inexcusable as done. Cptnono (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought the MFA said something like that. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
yep it was Dep FM Ayalon Sean.hoyland - talk 11:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
and i removed it from the lead. presenting it as a proper name is dumb. an admin strike is probably necessary if there is anymore of this silliness. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of deaths

The article states that "Between 9 and 19 passengers" were killed, however most reports state "At least 9 dead" (on CNN it is stated: "The death toll of nine killed"). So, where did the "19" come from? If there is no reliable source, then the term "at least 9" should replcae "between 9 and 19" (or just write "9"). ShalomOlam (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This was covered at length in the now archived bits of this page. Original reports varied between 9 and 19 deaths. It was decided to include the range until a clear confirmation could be made. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Decided by who? why not write the FACTS we know now, and add more information, as it comes, and only after it is confirmed? ShalomOlam (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Because the facts were in dispute and multiple reliable sources were reporting different numbers. I have not seen consensus yet from the RS on the number dead, but it might be there. If so please add links and that will be good justification for changing the 9-19 currently listed. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
RS is already there - take a look at References #2. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor Faaaaaaamn has recently changed the number of deaths from 9-19 to simply 9 throughout the article. Have the number dead been confirmed and is it the same number from all RS? Zuchinni one (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like 9 is coming up more in a google news search of the last hour from a quick look. However, I have not seen anything "official" and even the Free Gaza movement is in the dark on it.Cptnono (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Israeli news reports the "beginning of identifying the nine dead". CNN and SKY also say there were 9 dead. BBC says "at least 10". ShalomOlam (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The range of casualties is still very uncertain - I've seen 9, 10, 14, 16 and 19 so far. All we can do is give the range, not a specific number, until there's an official casualty list. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Please provide links to RS that say there are 10-19 dead. CNN and SKY say there are 9 dead. Who says differently? ShalomOlam (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why don't you Google it? Israel's Channel 10 and Al Jazeera have both reported "up to 19". CNN and Sky say "at least 9". The true figure is probably somewhere in between. The point is that we just don't know yet because of the information blackout. If multiple figures have been given it's not up to us to choose an arbitrary figure that we prefer. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Israel's Channel 10 says there are 9 dead (http://news.nana10.co.il). ShalomOlam (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Al Jazeera writes: "The death toll has been revised down to 10". see at: blogs.aljazeera.net ShalomOlam (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of dead

The number of dead should be either "9" or "at least 9" (as most RS say), but not "between 9 and 19", since there is no RS to back this up. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the cites we're currently using (in the infobox and later in the article) all say either 9 or 10. I'd be inclined to agree with "at least 9" unless there's another cite that I've missed? TFOWRis this too long? 11:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
See References #2 in the article. It says "9". CNN and SKY also say nine. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The highest figures ("up to 19") I've seen come from Al Jazeera and Israel's Channel 10. The low figure ("at least 9" or 10) appears to come from the IDF. Since the actual figure is still up in the air - I've seen 9, 10, 14, 16 and 19 - we shouldn't arbitrarily endorse one particular figure. It's wrong to give the impression of certainty where there isn't any. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm (very) happy with Channel 10 as a reliable source. However, it's not currently cited in the article (as far as I can see).
I'm also happy with Al Jazeera, I just expect Channel 10 to be more resistant to claims of bias - in this one area.
TFOWRis this too long? 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't find Channel 10 in English online (maybe it only publishes in Hebrew?) but here's the Montreal Gazette's summary: "According to Israel's Channel 10 television, 19 passengers were killed when Israeli naval forces stormed the ships, although the army gave a toll of 10." [16] -- ChrisO (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Channel 10 on-line is: http://news.nana10.co.il and they are reporting nine dead. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Also: pet hate of mine: there's an identically (almost) named section about the number of dead not far above this - is there any reason we need two separate yet identical discussions? ;-) I'll merge them, but it won't be pretty, and it'll take a while - this talk page is edit-conflict central right now... TFOWRis this too long? 12:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Done. TFOWRis this too long? 12:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Jazeera writes: "The death toll has been revised down to 10". see at: blogs.aljazeera.net ShalomOlam (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I gather Channel 10 is saying "10", too? I can't see any concern right now; we say, and our sources say, either 9, 10, or some combination thereof ;-) TFOWRis this too long? 12:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Channel 10 are saying nine dead (same as CNN and SKY). But in any case, the statement "Between nine and nineteen passengers" should be rephrased. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The number should say at least ten until we know more, right now, POV editors are writing nine all over the article as if it was fact, even when the citations after the sentences say at least ten. FunkMonk (talk) 11:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

death toll 9 to 19? how about 9 to 400?

This is pure propaganda, people on boats are kind of easy to count. especially when dead. Even the source quoted for this only says 9, not 19. This is not just false and misleading but goes against the POV policy..--AshramHQ (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As far as the statements 4 of the 9-10 killed activists were citizens of Turkey according to the state responses. The number declared officially are 10 people, number declared by media including Israeli ones are 18-19. Noone is sure about the right number but Israel right now. Kasaalan (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the convoi

According to this article, the convoi started of the coast of Cyprus. The ships may have met up there, but they must have started from harbours. Did they start in the Turkish-occupied Cyprus? Libya? Is there something someone is not trying to tell us her? The article needs information about the exit-port for the ships. It belongs here. Greswik (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The movement was purposely vague I assume with Cyprus not being happy about it. You are probably right thinking it was multiple ports also.Cptnono (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but even if they have started from individual ports, the article needs information about the exit-ports for the ships. It belongs here.Greswik (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed but if they did not release the information then the sources had nothing to go off of unless a reporter somewhere is checking up on the recent history of the registries. If you find something then great but every single source I have seen as not detailed anymore than "off of Cyprus"Cptnono (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It appears the convoy assembled off the coast of Greek Cyprus, this being the first of 8 convoys that was not allowed to use Cypriot harbours under Israeli pressure, but docked at Famagusta in Turkish Cyprus to pick up the parliamentarians. "We made a deal with the Cypriot government that we would board our high-profile passengers and members of Parliament from Cyprus. We would board with no media coverage." http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/press-releases/1188-were-on-our-way http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3895287,00.html But that arrangement was broken and then the two US-registered passenger boats developed problems (possibly sabotage) and http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/gaza-flotilla-delayed-after-mystery-faults-hit-two-boats-1986879.html I've not touched the article. --93.96.136.249 (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The Turkish ships originated at Antalya. The Greek ships originated at Piraeus. I've not found where the other ships left from. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Six or seven ships?

Hey Chris. I don't think the Define Y set sail with the rest. Although I admit your second source implies that it did.... -- Kendrick7talk 11:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it did, and it was one of the ships seized. The score is that eight ships originally made up the flotilla, but two broke down. Six were seized. One of the laggards, the Rachel Corrie, is currently underway. The other, one of the two Challengers, is still stuck in repairs in Nicosia. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

UN Security Council condemnation

Isn't the condemnation of the UN Security Council significant enough to be in this story, even though there's a separate 'International reaction' story? The New York Times notes[17] that "While condemnation of Israel in the Security Council is not uncommon, the criticism at the emergency session called by Turkey and Lebanon was notable for both its vehemence and for the broad array of countries demanding an independent investigation into the decision to fire on civilians in what they described as a humanitarian mission." Cynwolfe (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Put it in the reaction section, a few lines of summation could sufficeLihaas (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The Security council specifically stopped short of condemning Israel but asked for a full inquiry.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/UN-Security-Council-Calls-for-Impartial-Investigation-of-Israeli-Raid-95296684.html

Zuchinni one (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A source here clearly says so UN Security Council condemns Israel11:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Reread the article carefully ... it says that it "condemns those acts which led to loss of life(sic)". This was a very carefully worded statement and direct condemnation of Israel was specifically removed. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Request ban for 'Ai 00'

This user has now twice used the term 'armada of hate' in the introduction and seems to be inserting very biased edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&diff=365409413&oldid=365409380

Also the comment when adding the 'armada of hate' term was "Added Hebrew Spelling". This is a blatant lie. Please immediately ban Ai 00. Thanks

Zuchinni one (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That won't work. You'll need to compile diffs and post at WP:ANI or go get an admin. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Re: go get an admin - I'd hope an admin would point to one of the dispute resolution venues, rather than take a position themselves. TFOWRis this too long? 11:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh User:Ai 00 didn't do anything exactly wrong, although the citation source was seemingly very unbalanced. I think we don't need to elaborate on who cited whom. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessary. He has now posted a comment on the talk page, and it's not entirely clear he is aware of the revert restrictions on the article. I will warn him about them though. -- tariqabjotu 11:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As the article now reads 'known as the "Gaza Freedom flotilla"', and this obviously is the name the pro-palestinian side has put on it, adding a name of what the Israeli spinners put on it - as "the armada of hate" - wouldn't necessarily be vandalism, but could be seen as an attempt of displaying the difference in opinion. Just my .2 cents. Greswik (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
My apologies. This is the first time I witnessed what appeared to be intentionally misleading comments. The only reason I used that term is that it did not seem that good faith was used. Especially since that edit had been explicitly pointed out in the discussion section previously. Zuchinni one (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries, and apologies for singling you out like that. I thought a visible reminder would be good for all of us, you simply made the post that reminded me ;-) TFOWRis this too long? 11:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No hard feelings :) Zuchinni one (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons ?

The caption describes them as weapons, except one all other either tools or regular Knifes, whose presence there is not a major issue.--yousaf465 09:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When a kitchen knife is used to stab someone it is a weapon. Trust me on that one. And what were the clubs before being to fend off the attackers? Looks like someone put some tape on one for a grip and any heads originally attached were removed. Good thing there is a source right?Cptnono (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
These tools were used as weaponss, and caused severe injuries to IDF soldiers. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The caption currently states "IDF photo showing alleged weapons recovered on the Mavi Marmaris." I think that is an acceptable caption. As long as it mentions that the source of the image is the IDF and these are the weapons they are alleging were used, there should be no NPOV violation. --MidnightDesert (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Clubs can very well be chair legs before they were "clubs", and that non-regular knife is likely a kirpan, which all Sikhs are required to carry along as a religious duty. Vidimian (talk) 11:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you please add to the article the number of Sikhs travelling with the flotilla? --Redaktor (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I happily would, but I couldn't find a reliable source to that effect so far; there are only a number of blog and forum entries (and Turkish Wikipedia) claiming it is a kirpan. Official register book of passengers (reproductions of which can be seen here) doesn't (normally) give a hint about religious beliefs of the passengers, however one thing is certain: there were no Indian citizens on board. However, I can see quite a few British citizens with South Asian-sounding names, so, if that's really a kirpan, it may belong to one of them. And after taking a second look at that knife, I believe it much more looks like a jambiya, the dagger traditionally worn by any Yemeni man from the age of 14, and several Yemeni passengers are registered in the book. I know these are all WP:SYNT, so will not add about this in the article until I come across a reliable source saying that's really a knife carried along for traditional purposes—kirpan, jambiya, or otherwise—not for combat. Vidimian (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion about the "metal clubs" someone postulated that they might be used for moving capstans on the ship. I don't know if wooden "clubs" could be used for the same purpose but it is one possibility. Regardless, this is all original research without reliable sources to back it up. --MidnightDesert (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The curved dagger looks to be a jambiyah a traditional arab curved double-edged dagger. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

When MidnightDesert commented it was "IDF photo showing alleged weapons recovered on the Mavi Marmaris.", but now it's IDF photo showing objects which IDF said were cold weapons recovered on the Mavi Marmara, is it OK or should "alleged" needs to be added ?

@Degen Earthfast To me it also seems to be jambiyah rather than Kirpan, but that is detail is not needed here I think--yousaf465 17:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Did anybody else notice the neatly laid out green "flag" with Arabic writing underneath the knives in the IDF sourced photograph of the weapons? Compare it to the relatively random placement of the blue and white cloth which is reminescent of the Israeli flag. -- 122.105.184.102 (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
It is the saudi Flag, I did saw it earlier also.--yousaf465 03:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

".. protestors were equiped with a full chef Ramsay knife kit" http://idfspokesperson.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/12.jp

Armada of Hate

This name were used by DF and Foreign ministry of Israel. Gugle count a milion. I added it to article here adding later references. I think it is important from NPOV to put both names the "Freedom" worldwide name and the "Hate" local Israeli name. Ai 00 (talk) 11:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, don't bother too much! The feelings might boil over in such a hot page, it wasn't your fault! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not a proper noun/name, it's a description used in a speech by the dep FM. Please don't add contentious things like that without discussion. You've seen what can happen. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Even if that term is worth mentioning, it does not belong in the lead since it is clearly not the Common_name. More worrying than the inclusion of the name is why you said that the comment for that inclusion was "added Hebrew spelling". This seems very dishonest. Zuchinni one (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think "Gaza Freedom flotilla"' not is a good Common name, unless you are biased. This is clearly a name the one side has put on it. To let this side decide, is not having a NPOV. The more I think about this, the more I think the lead should mention both sides names: both "Gaza Freedom flotilla", and "Armada of Hate". Greswik (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It might be true, but it is the proper name chosen by the organizers long before this was news, it is not an informal appelation, nor is it a media creation etc. We call institutions, even temporary ones, by their proper name. I do not oppose mentioning that the Israeli FM called it "armada of hate", however, as it is V, RS, and of course a notable, central figure used.--Cerejota (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that the name "Armada of hate" should not be included at all in this article. Even if it is a term used by some groups, that is not what the activists call themselves and it is not what the RS are calling them. Furthermore if we are going to legitimize the use of names that different groups give to each other then we will quickly be saying things like "African Americans, known as Niggers to the Ku Klux Klan ..." In my opinion this has NO place in wikipedia. Zuchinni one (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Agree that we should avoid terms like this in the WP:LEAD. I'd suggest that both sides' preferred terms can be used (if cited) in the article. I'd strongly recommend ensuring that both sides' terms are used, or neither. Something like The Israeli govt has called the convoy a... the convoy's organisers describe it as... TFOWRis this too long? 12:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree Zuchinni one (talk) 12:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If the convoy is called "fleet of hate" we should include it accordingly. Kasaalan (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Gaza Freedom Flotilla"

This, "Gaza Freedom Flotilla", is a POV name given by the Hamas. Israel called it an "armada of hate and violence in support of the Hamas terror organisation." I would say that using one over the other might prejudice how one views the article. Perhaps "self-named" or some other description could be added wherever this phrase is used. Stevenschulman (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So by your rationale we also should rename Green Peace to Green hate, for example?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. Stevenschulman (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Then you don't understand your own argument, I guess.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There seem to be two different issues here. "Names" and "descriptions". The name of the flotilla seems rather clear. But Israel (and others) negative descriptions of it seem very relevant and referenceable. If Israel saw this as a "flotilla of hate", then that's very relevant. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If there is no misunderstanding about the official name I don't see any problem to mention what some Israeli sources described them [with a qualifier of who said it] in the main body of the article. Once again, I don't see a real problem here.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
PS: One is the name given by the organization meanwhile the other is an opinion of some Israel sources.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza aid convoy killings: “Those responsible must be held criminally accountable” - UN expert

UN: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10080&LangID=E

--Nevit (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

POV LEAD REMOVALS

Noone can remove allegations of one side while keeping the other for conflicts:

According to Mavi Marmara activists and personnel, IDF commandos surrounded the ship with 40 zodiacs, raided illegally aboard from attack helicopters and from sea on international waters after stopping ships rotors, then started shooting with live ammunitions from all around including tear gas, smoke bombs even though they raised white flags on board and they defended themselves with sticks they could find on ship. Sources: troops storm Gaza flotilla by AlJazeeraEnglish and DHA Footage and Commentary by DHA (Doğan Haber Agency)

References

Note:

Do not attempt to remove allegations of both sides or it would result in POV lead. Kasaalan (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations from BOTH sides have been removed and put in the sections below detailing the perspective of each side. The Lead should remain short, factual, and unbiased. Zuchinni one (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Well at the time I created section only 1 side removed by some users. I try to represent both sides' account factually as you can tell from history. Unless copying to talk page for discussion, removing info 1 sidedly is not helpful at all. Kasaalan (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We don't need details in the lead section. --Kslotte (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

POV in International Institute of Humanitarian Law#San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994)

Hi, one of the arguments used to justify the boarding of boats is the so called San Remo Memorandum. However, when accessing the article (International Institute of Humanitarian Law#San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (1994)), it seems to suffer from an obvious case of WP:DUE, based on the use of primary sources (the memorandum itself). I guess that secondary sources are needed to describe the Memorandum. The explicit mention to the paragraphs quoted by Israeli spokepersons seems to me a clear case of POV. Is this the correct place to suggest an improvement of such an article? --Ecemaml (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably won't do any harm mentioning it here, in that I'd guess several editors here either know about or have recently studied the topic ;-) However, the best place to discuss it is Talk:International Institute of Humanitarian Law. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 12:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I added about the content of the San Remo declaration. It is a 3rd party, non-binding decleration, by an NGO, which is suspicious if it is applicable to the case. There is 1 section chapter they may defend IDF attack, though there is also another chapter which shows it may not be applicable. Kasaalan (talk) 13:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Your interpretation is incorrect, since the second chapter you are referring to is talking about aid operations based on agreement between the combatants, which obviously is not relevant to the current case. Better avoid original research and stick to secondary sources . Marokwitz (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Is it a 3rd party legally non-binding declaration by an NGO? Yes? And even in war situations is it applicable? Yes? How about civilian situations? It is applicable even for the enemy ships. There is no war, there is no internationally accepted blockade, even if there is you cannot pass 12-20 miles attack anyone on international waters, even the pirates if they did not attack you first. Kasaalan (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact that you are debating that here shows that it is WP:OR. Is it legally binding? Does it apply in this case? We WP editors are not qualified to say. If you can find a WP:RS (including an Israeli government spokesperson) who makes that claim, it belongs in Wikipedia. Otherwise, it doesn't. Right now you have Wikipedia interpreting the San Remo memorandum. Wikipedia doesn't do that. --Nbauman (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahem! Talk:International Institute of Humanitarian Law is the place for this discussion. Thankyewberrymutch! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 13:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you are literate you are qualified. It is not legally binding since it is a 1 sided declaration by an organisation. If you did not sign it as a party, it is not legally binding.

  • I am really tired of people who claims they know something but make comment without even reading the references:
    • "A non-binding code was drafted by the Institut de droit international and adopted in Oxford in 1913. Together, the 1909 London Declaration and the 1913 Oxford Manual give a good idea of pre-First World War customary law."
    • "The Manual is not a binding document. In view of the extent of uncertainty in the law, the experts decided that it was premature to embark on diplomatic negotiations to draft a treaty on the subject."

Who says the statement: Already provided source [18] Did you read it? Then why are you trying to blame me? Kasaalan (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahem! Talk:International Institute of Humanitarian Law is the place for this discussion. Thankyewberrymutch! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 14:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As I say. No need to discuss. It is not binding. Kasaalan (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue for this article is whether the Manual applies to the Gaza flotilla clash. Therefore this is the place for this discussion. The article should also mention the fact that it's non-binding. Good point. --Nbauman (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No. The only issue is what secondary, reliable sources have to say. Our analysis of International Law is absolutely not pertinent here. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No. Non-binding declerations' controversial applicability doesn't matter much. It is not international law since it is not a binding agreement, but a one way deceleration of an organization. Kasaalan (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Article name

the activists defended themselves after their ship, which was supposed to bring relief items to gaza (which became necessary because of the blockade by israel), was attacked (in international waters) by the "tsva hagana le israel" (which was entitled to do so by the israeli government). so we can't label the incident a "clash". probably there was also self defence (resistance) in lidice and still we call it a massacre! At the very least, the label "raid" seems appropriate.--Severino (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I second that "clash" is not the best word. Just from google news searches, it seems to be referred to as a "raid", "attack" , or even "seizure" more often. This was a pretty one sided affair , so I think one of those should be used instead. I'd lean towards "seizure" as the most NPOV. --Rajah (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Extended discussion on article name is here. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 13:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Erdogan calls it 'massacre', 'state terror', 'piracy'

This is important info that should be added into the article: [19] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be added to the main international responses page. International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_clash Zuchinni one (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Believe we can reconsider the title and start considering alternative names per Wikipedia:UCN#Neutrality_and_article_titles but maybe let's wait until the gag comes off the 650 witnesses to the event who are not IDF ;) RomaC (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Clash is neutral right now, or we may call it an operation. After international statements we may call it other way. Kasaalan (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, the Extended discussion on article name is here.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How many Challenger 1's are there?

The Ships in the flotilla section has the Challenger 1 listed twice, once with a note saying it was unable to join the flotilla and once without that distinction. Can someone fix?

The other one is challenger 2, i fixed it. --Rajah (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

see also

i would add this due to the parallels of teh case - i can't as article locked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Exodus#Operation_Oasis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 13:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's relevant to this article. can you elaborate? or post what text you would like added? --Rajah (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sfendoni

Greek ship the Sfendoni reportedly was also attacked with live rounds. RomaC (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First eyewitness: Israeli troops opened fire before boarding

First eyewitness: Israeli troops opened fire before boarding http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire

--Nevit (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been added to the passengers accounts Zuchinni one (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Describing the IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı) in NPOV terms

Because this is a political conflict, the political positions of the actors are relevant.

The only ship on which there was violence was the Mava Marmara. This particular ship was purchased by an organization widely described as being, like Hamas and Hezbollah, an Islamist organization with both charitable/social welfare activities and an organization that funds and sponsors violence to achieve its plitical ends.

This kind of information belongs in the article. It was removed, I have restored it. Removing information is a POV act no less than the insertion of unbalanced information.

According to the New York Times, "The fatalities all occurred aboard the Mavi Marmara, a Turkish passenger vessel that was carrying about 600 activists under the auspices of Insani Yardim Vakfi, an organization also known as I.H.H.[4]

The Daily Telegraph suggested that the IHH is "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency", however conceded that these "claims remain controversial"[5]

According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." [5]Broad Wall (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Kasaalan just reverted this material for the second time within a few minutes.Broad Wall (talk) 14:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What material. I did not edit IHH section. IHH is Islamic Organisation for sure. You may even tell fundementalist, but I dont have reference for that. Also there are other leftist groups on the boat internationally, even a Vatican official. Kasaalan (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A Greek ship was also boarded with violence, see above. Also, see this news report: (İnsani Yardım Vakfı), founded in 1992 to collect aid for the Bosnians, is active in 120 countries and has been present at recent disaster areas like Haiti and New Orleans.

RomaC (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
IHH is islamic organisation that helps islamic countries. Kasaalan (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Islamic in one thing. Islamist is another thing, which implies an opposition to democracy, and goals of replacing them with Islamic Shariah states? Is this IHH's ideology?
If it's "debateable" should it be included as an referenceable accusation?
And, at minimum, we do know that at least some of the activists were indeed pro-violence, anti-Israel Islamists, with a goal of destroying Israel and replacing it with a Shariah State. Raed Salah is a notable example. Since there is no dispute of that, should that be added to show the political agenda of _some_ of the activists? There is a huge disparity between the claims of "freedom flotilla" and the anti-freedom goals of some of the activists. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Chile an Islamic country? www.ihh.org.tr/depremin-yasandigi-sili-ye-yardim/Kavas (talk) 15:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

They mainly help Islamic countries, by help of politically Islamic supporters. They are an Islamic Organisation. List other countries/cases they supported alongside Chile. Kasaalan (talk) 16:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ SvD: "Israel har inte rätt ingripa militärt"
  2. ^ Dagens Juridik: Experter överens om Israel
  3. ^ GP: Professor i sjörätt: Israel gör fel
  4. ^ [1] Deadly Israeli Raid Draws Condemnation, Isabel Kershner, May 31, 2010, New York Times.
  5. ^ a b [2], Gaza flotilla: the Free Gaza Movement and the IHH , Telegraph, Richard Spencer, 31 May 2010.

how the clash was triggered

There should be a section on the alleged spark of the confrontation, since the other boats of the flottila were commandeered without incident.

According to the Jerusalem Post, the activists tied the helicopter rope ladder to the deck of the ship. This is relevant because anchoring a helicopter to the ground is could easily endanger the lives of those on board the helicopter. It is also clear that immediately upon descending to the deck, the Israeli soldiers were attacked by dozens of people wielding makeshift weapons.

[1]

That was long before 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC). Please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~). And there is a section Background treating just that topic. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture caption again

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)
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)

Dearchived this

I have dearchived this thread as it has been changed yet again. In this edit by User:Dunadan11 Off2riorob (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How about a caption stating what the IDF captioned it with. That seems to be what most of the news sources are doing. We should look at how they caption it for ideas. Prodego talk 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the time of the picture? The sky on snapshot is light while at the time commando attacked the ship sky was quite dark. Was the picture altered or was taken after the incident. Of course some directors used to do such pix; E.g may be kind of Anakin swording dark forces. Ai 00 (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It's night vision equipment. The implication that this is forged is quite amusing.
The source of this image is the IDF spokesperson. The image should be in the article since not only is the IDF spokesperson a reliable source for footage released by the IDF spokesperson, many RS have noted the existence of this footage. Attributing it to the IDF should solve any NPOV problems. It's obviously WP:V and WP:N. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a RS that shows the video and describes what's being shown both in print and in voiceover. Waiting to hear some policy based objections to including a picture from that video. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant what any source says, the picture portrays puppet people of no description and there is no identifiable soldier in the picture at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not irrelevant what any source says. This is wikipedia, not Off2riorobipedia. Reliable sources describe the video, and that complies with wikipedia policy. You don't get to censor stuff just because you don't like what it shows. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) So the IDF is a neutral source for material regarding a scandal surrounding the actions of the IDF? Isn't that like saying the LAPD is a RS for material surrounding the Rodney King beating or that Bill Clinton is a RS for material surrounding the

Lewinsky scnadal?

Personally, I dislike this picture simply because it doesn't convey anything. It is unclear and difficult to interpret. I can't see the commando who is getting beaten. I wonder whether the purpose of this photo is simply to show activists with mean looking sticks. NickCT (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Did I say "neutral source"? I don't think I did. Perhaps you should click on your own wikilink.
Still waiting for some policy based objections to including this picture. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You can not claim that there is something in this picture that you can not see. Someone please remove the claim. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I can report what reliable sources say this picture depicts. Again, any policy based objections? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You can watch the video yourself if you want, or look at what other secondary sources report. It is clear what the image is of. There may be better wording, but the image is of a few of the activists on the ship hitting boarding soldiers with some sort of poles or rods. The caption has to describe that if this image is used. Prodego talk 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You can add what reliable sources say to the body of the article but you can only add what is cleanly visible in the picture to the caption. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No, I can cut a picture out of a video and caption it with a description from reliable sources. That's done here all the time. For example is the Marmara "clearly visible" in picture at the top of the article? It isn't, but reliable sources say that where this picture was taken so we can describe it as such. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Nn you can't. You can not claim that a soldier is being beaten in this picture, look at the picture....do you see any soldier? no you don't , what do you see in that picture...answer... a shadow with a pole. No one can know if he is hitting a soldier or not and as NPOV goes we should not claim that it is. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Look at the picture at the top of the article. Do you see a ship? What do you see in the picture? Some guys wearing uniforms standing next to a flag. As NPOV goes we report what reliable sources say. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is obvious and uncontested what the image shows, then we can use that in the caption. The video and all the reliable sources say the same thing. We have to describe what the image is of in the caption, even (and especially) if it is not cleanly visible. See WP:CAPTION#Providing context for the picture. Prodego talk 19:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Next time we'll use more force

Israel: Next time we'll use more force http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177134

--Nevit (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Time to dig A shelter. Crazy can plant nuke when escalation of aggression is answer for they difficulties. Ai 00 (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said in response to Barak’s comments that the flotilla of ships “was an armada of hate and violence.” Speaking at a Jerusalem press conference on Monday morning. “It was a premeditated and outrageous provocation” .”Their intent was violent, their methods were violent and their results were unfortunately violent,” Ayalon said. [ttp://www.livestreetjournal.net/world/gaza-flotilla-deaths-aftermath-protests-erupt-all-over-in-israel.html ]

"International waters"

According to the image here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_waters there are no international waters in the Mediterranean sea. Can someone please clarify what the situation is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.16.20 (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The map is a bit misleading. It shows the 200-mile exclusive economic zone, not territorial waters (which usually have a 12-mile limit). The legal status of the two is different, and there are also special cases for international waters (some of which are described in the article). Physchim62 (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is 12 mile regular and 20 mile during war-blockade situations. Kasaalan (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Rubbish! 12 (nautical) miles is the norm for territorial waters (although there are many exceptions on the lower side of that distance), and some (but not all) sovereign activities can be exercised out to 24 miles. When it comes to things like fishing and mineral exploitation, the limit is up to 200 miles, but no one is claiming that that is the case for the Gaza flotilla. Even inside territorial waters (ie, the 12-mile limit), foreign boats have the right of "innocent passage"; in international waters, the right is "free passage". Physchim62 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
For further verification, some sources claiming the event took place in international waters:
--Nosfartu (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This exact issue was brought up in a now-archived portion of the talk section. It was never resolved because a knowledgeable source could not be found. Thus we went with the reports of the RS's. Zuchinni one (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bernard Macdougall, 1 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I suggest that one sentence under the headings "Boarding", "Mavi Marmara boarding" and "Flotilla organizers' and activists' accounts" be altered as shown below. Probably a few other slight alterations to the sentence would also be desirable, but it's not clear to me what is the best wording.

Original: Wife of the Mavi Marmara captain Nilüfer Ören stated that, IDF began tracking them after 90 miles, there were 40 ships surrounding the convoy and the announce is made during the commandos boarding from helicopters at 04:45 am.

Suggested new version: Wife of the Mavi Marmara captain Nilüfer Ören stated that, IDF began tracking them after 90 miles, there were 40 ships surrounding the convoy and the announcement was made while the commandos were boarding from helicopters at 04:45 am.

In other words: change "announce is" to "announcement was", and change "during the commandos boarding" to "during the boarding by commandos" or "while the commandos were boarding". [Bernard Macdougall]

Bernard Macdougall (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this change and have actually done something similar in the past. But for some reason the wording keeps getting reverted to poor grammar. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Without Major Incident"

Per , I'm bringing this to talk. I removed the following text: Five of the six ships were seized without major incidents. I marked the text with a "fact" tag yesterday and the cited reference added to it does not confirm it. Zuchinni one reverted this removal. My quick search of the talk archives doesn't reveal consensus on it.

Moreover, other material suggests some substantial incidents on other vessels, notably this Guardian article "Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists". To make things easier, we should get ourselves out of the business of deciding what is major or minor, and describe what we know about each vessel's boarding. This is especially true while deaths and injuries on either side have not been assigned to particular vessels.--Carwil (talk) 16:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the Marmara was the only major source of violence. And I haven't seen deaths reported from any of the other ships. I think unless there is a death the event should be considered a minor part of the whole incident. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Carwil, the discussion is in the archives by now. I'd suggest you look there for it. I'll look as well. However if you have good RS suggesting major incidents on the other vessels it might be worth rewording it.
At first thought I would suggest "Five of the six ships were seized without major violence."
Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a CNN article saying that "activists in 5 of the ships peacefully surrendered". http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/01/gaza.raid/index.html 

Zuchinni one (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Found the original discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_flotilla_clash/Archive_3#Is_.22subdued_peacefully.22_correct.3F Zuchinni one (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Still looking for a clear citation for the "without major violence" claim. What source affirms the negative? Meanwhile we have reports like this...
Dimitris Gielalis, who had been aboard the Sfendoni, told reporters: "Suddenly from everywhere we saw inflatables coming at us, and within seconds fully equipped commandos came up on the boat. They came up and used plastic bullets, we had beatings, we had electric shocks, any method we can think of, they used."
Michalis Grigoropoulos, who was at the wheel of the Free Mediterranean, said: "[...] They took us hostage, pointing guns at our heads; they descended from helicopters and fired tear gas and bullets. There was absolutely nothing we could do … Those who tried to resist forming a human ring on the bridge were given electric shocks."
Two other ships, two reports of violence. Its unclear if these sources distinguish what did not happen on these ships. We might phrase these descriptions as without live gunfire, or perhaps without lethal violence, although the second source just says "bullets," so even that is unclear. Given the cloud of uncertainty, and in the absence of even an IDF statement, we should probably say: There are no confirmed reports of lethal violence onboard the other five vessels.[no citation, remove when disproved, or make stronger when there is a RS] Activists on at least two ships, the Sfendoni and the Free Mediterranean, report being subdued with violence.[cite the above article and other evidence]--Carwil (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Good research, I know that at one point Israeli reports had said the other ships were taken without incident. We should try and find out what the current line is from the Israeli media regarding the other ships.
However I very much like your suggestion "without live gunfire" given what we know thus far it seems to strike the right balance. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I prefer the version in the CNN article. It speaks to the actions of the passengers rather than actions of the IDF, which are still less clear. Is there any dispute or controversy that the other boats "surrendered peacefully"? If not, can we use that? And we do have a CNN reference for it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "prefer" in this instance. The CNN phrase implies a turning over of the ship without violence from the activists, but I think it leaves out the witnessed material I'm trying to summarize in the second sentence. If we say the activists "peacefully surrendered" the boat and claim they were beaten and shocked by the IDF, it doesn't really capture their nonviolent, but active resistance described in the Guardian piece. In general, we shouldn't rely on blanket descriptions when we have more specific reliable sources about the individual events. I'll post the proposed material and try to be nuanced about it.--Carwil (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have to agree with Carwil here. Just because CNN says peacefully does not make it so. The reference was simply placed there to show that some RS are using that term. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Eyewitness accounts

Witnesses cast doubt on Israel's convoy raid account http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/10208027.stm There is going to be a lot of this as the people are released, some of the reports from notable people could be worth including. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Article move

Unfortunately, the full text of the move reason was cut off, so I'll have to repeat it here.

I moved the article from Gaza flotilla clash to Gaza flotilla raid based on the move request at Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Rename_or_move#Vote_here_on_article_renaming, which has a glaring consensus for this particular name over all other names as well as over the option to take a wait and see approach. The name has been chosen not merely on various editors' opinions, but also with the support of sources that have used the term. So, I am inclined to consider the comments of those who supported this name as valid (not to suggest other supports weren't valid; I'm merely saying that I don't believe the defining factor for people selecting this name was a partisan point-of-view).

While move requests generally last seven days, this move request has received a substantial amount of attention, more so than most move requests ever receive, and it has surely been noticed by all frequent contributors to this article who have cared much about the article name. And, as I stated above, the consensus is extremely clear, and so this does not appear to be a borderline case. Of course, move requests are not permanent, so if people change their mind later, perhaps because of new developments or a radical shift in the way this event is generally described (in the media, or elsewhere), it can be moved at that point. -- tariqabjotu 18:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks. I'll add that sources seem to support the new title, as well as consensus. Cheers, TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition of qualifying statements in the lead

I want to open up a question to the community about whether content like:

"Israel said its soldiers were ambushed with knives and metal bars as well as handguns wrested from the commandos."

should be included in the lead.

My only concern is that the lead should be short, factual, and free of unverifiable statements.

Given that mindset here is why I am opposed to statements like this in the lead:

  1. This seems to be more of a justification for actions than a fact about the event
  2. This information appears later in the article in a context where lengthy balance additions are OK.
  3. The statement is in dispute since the activists claim the Israelis fired on them prior to the boarding.
  4. When statements like that are added it inspires others to add more statements for balance ... which is correct for a neutral POV but which increases the length of the lead further.

As of the creation of this section I have temporarily removed the text. But I support whatever the consensus decides on the inclusion. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be included. WP:LEAD says that major controversies must be mentioned. Furthermore according to WP:LEAD "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. There should be 1 sentence stating Israel's version and 1 sentence about the activists version. This is much more important than other things in the lead. The dispute is about the actual facts of the event, not justification. Marokwitz (talk) 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to putting it in later, but currently the facts are in dispute. The most neutral blurb to add might refer to that, rather than justifications of either side Zuchinni one (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why was this even removed? I thought this was all cleared up yesterday. Per WP:WLEAD, we need a proper summary of the event. One of the biggest aspects is the physical raid. The fact that both sides were brawling and that both sides had weapons is necessary to understand what happened. I know condemnations and intl law are interesting to people but the physical boarding and fighting are just as important. And there is little dispute that there were weapons. And when has the gun being taken been disputed anyays? Berlin wasn't there. She doesn't know. She lost contact with them. As long as it is clear that it is only a claim there should be no problem. I am also disappointed that the less than lethal arms bit is out. I know it doesn't make Israel look evil but it is different than what most people would assume so it is good to clarify it.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Cptnono, I agree with you that if we discuss weapons etc, we should mention the less lethal arms. But your point illustrates my concern that the lead will degenerate into a lot of he-said she-said. Also there is a later section devoted to fleshing out the accounts of each side. We could be neutral and say "events of the boarding are in dispute with each side accusing the other of initiating violence" but I don't know what that would add ... unless there is content that's just a filler sentence. And once content is added it should be added for both sides equally ... and then we have to decide what is the most representative content. Can someone flesh out how they would propose to add this? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As I did yesterday, one line saying Free Gaza says. One line saying Israel says. Both are important enough for the lead and easy to attribute.Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
What about something like "Israeli accounts claim that soldiers were attacked when they tried to board the boat using non-lethal force, while passenger accounts claim that the boat was under attack prior to the boarding." I don't have refs for this offhand but I know they exist. This wording seems concise and neutral enough to go in the Lead. I'm not sure if I would support something longer as was included earlier, but I'm open to your thoughts. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as placement within the lead, I would suggest it go immediately before the "International reaction" bit ... and that the entire "international reaction" bit be turned into a new paragraph as shown below.
Between ten and sixteen activists aboard the Comoros-flagged MV Mavi Marmara were reportedly killed by Israeli soldiers when clashes broke out on the ship. Up to sixty activists and ten Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers were wounded in the clash. Israeli accounts claim that soldiers were attacked when they tried to board the boat using non-lethal force, while passenger accounts claim that the boat was under attack prior to the boarding.
International reaction has varied from strong criticism of Israel to deep regret for the loss of life and requests for inquiries, with the United Nations Security Council condemning "those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded" and calling for "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards". In response, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called the incident "a clear case of self-defense".
Zuchinni one (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"Israeli accounts claim that soldiers were attacked when they tried to board the boat using non-lethal force, while passenger accounts claim that the boat was under attack prior to the boarding." isn't bad. However, the weaponry used is already getting substantial coverage and being mentioned in the body. To not give it more weight in the lead (not an undue listing of everything of course) is becoming more and more appropriate. This also goes back to the lead discussing very little of the actual clash which deserves prominence since the melee/massacre/whatever is one of the biggest aspects of what went on.Cptnono (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
How about 'non-lethal paintball guns' instead of 'non-lethal force'? Zuchinni one (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no objections have been raised I will make the change. Feel free to continue to post here if you think the wording needs to be adjusted. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also since we added paintball guns to the Israeli side I've added live ammunition to the passenger side.

"Israeli accounts claim that soldiers were attacked when they tried to board the boat using non-lethal paintball guns, while passenger accounts claim that the boat was under attack with live ammunition prior to the boarding."

Zuchinni one (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I also added references from RS that directly support each statement. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like this, it sounds confusing, since it might be understood from your proposed text that the Israeli soldiers were attacked with non-lethal paintball guns. I suggest the following text: "Israel said that soldiers were attacked upon boarding, and returned fire after handguns were wrested from the commandos and used against them. Activists said that the boat was under attack with live ammunition prior to the boarding, and that there were no weapons onboard." Marokwitz (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
You make a good point. I'll make a slight adjustment immediately for clarity with the option to change it further if it is still not good enough.
Israeli accounts claim that soldiers, wielding non-lethal paintball guns, were attacked as they boarded the boat, while passenger accounts claim that the boat was under attack with live ammunition prior to the boarding
Zuchinni one (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is better. However it still fails to mention that the Israelis are claiming that there was live fire used against them from two handguns pried from the soldiers, and only then they returned fire. This is the crucial point. The fact they used paintball guns is less important. Also note that the source you cited says warning shots were fired , sound and smoke bombs and later they used gas bombs and plastic bullets, but no live fire was shot before the boarding. Marokwitz (talk) 06:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Since it didn't specify that the shots were from paintball guns I read it as live ammunition. That may not be correct. Also since this point seems to be unclear I will change it to while passenger accounts claim that the Israelis began attacking the boat passengers prior to the boarding. This fairly gives the passenger account of them not initiating the attack and removes the unclear bit from mixed RS about live fire prior to boarding. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni one, thanks for your message and revert. At the moment we have a statement in the lead "passenger accounts claim that the Israelis began attacking the boat passengers prior to the boarding" that is not supported by the reference. The reference actually says that passenger accounts claim that the Israelis fired warning shots and used sound, gas, and smoke bombs prior to the boarding, which isn't quite the same thing. While of course RS may require this comment to be updated very soon, I suggest that we should stick carefully to what the references say. I propose to re-do my edit soon, unless someone else chooses to do it or gives a good reason to avoid doing so. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Someone has appeared to change it in an improper way. Please take a look again. Also you did not address my concerns about omitting the Israeli claim that they were shot upon before they resorted to lethal force. The fact that soldiers were hospitalized with gun wounds per many of the cited news articles seems to be supportive of this claim, but regardless of whether we believe it or not, this is what Israel claims is what happened during the clash, and when describing each side's view of events we should stick as much as possible to what they said. Marokwitz (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

US condemning acts

White House Supports UN Stance on Gaza Flotilla Raid: Questioned Tuesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs referred to language in a U.N. Security Council statement condemning acts which resulted in the loss of life[20].

And UN condems the Acts and Israel

Yakamoz51 (talk) 00:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

From the opening sentence of your own article, it's 100% clear the US is taken a neutral stance:
"The Obama administration is refusing to condemn Israel or any other party"
-- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Reenem's edits

Most of of the edits of Reenem (talk · contribs) have been reverted, both by myself and others. This wording in particular I have a problem with, the wording I feel is not NPOV. One doesn't shoot people to 'disperse' them (and the source does not say that), nor does it say anything about "firing at attacking activists". I've reverted identical edits within the past 24 hours, so I bring it up here for the input of others. Prodego talk 00:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is going to be a tough section to keep neutral. I think that wording of what happened from the Israeli perspective needs to be a consensus of RS that give the Israeli POV. And wording for the Palestinian perspective needs to be a consensus of RS that give the Palestinian POV.
Since the actual events are in dispute the POV of each side seems to be reasonable, but we shouldn't be using pro-Israeli sources to give the Palestinian POV and vice-versa.
Given the thoughts above I am inclined to agree with Prodego that the edits made by Reenem seem to be less neutral. But I don't have enough information to form a strong opinion.
Zuchinni one (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Content based on a legal analysis by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung has been removed from the article. The editor has requested that the text should be attributed to the source. I will do so. However, I do not think this is necessary, as the journal qualifies as a reliable source, and the writer, an expert in international law working for the newspaper since 1998, has written the text as part of his work at the journal. It may be helpful if other editors would keep an eye on this issue.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, again just wanted to clarify that in general WP:NONENG places a light burden on demonstrating a novelty and making it easier to verify material for the reader. I again think the material would be much more suited for the article by just adding a machine translation, providing the author of the material in text, etc. I'd like to think it would work this way regardless of the language the article was in or the position it was advocating, and am not trying to be too painful. Thanks,--Nosfartu (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
A machine translation would not be necessary, but I'll add the relevant sentences in the original language, so that anyone interested in verification can more easily check it or ask others to check it. In my view, machine translations are notoriously unreliable.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a machine translation. I'm not arguing it is perfect, and I would prefer it if we could find something the author or agency published in English. One useful thing about the source is that it makes an attempt to define territorial versus international waters, something the current article lacks.
A reminder that WP:NONENG says "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians." Anyways I didn't want this to be this big of an issue, so unless another editor wants the machine translation, I am willing to let it go. I just thought it would be more helpful to the reader, we don't want to have all Hebrew and Arab legal analyses after all. Thanks, --Nosfartu (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The text is one of possibly a few texts on the legal issues that relies on legal research by a reliable source itself, and it can thus be used as a source for the relevant legal rights and obligations involved in the issue. Most other sources only report on the legal opinions of others. (As for the machine translation, the sentence "States under international law it is not allowed to bring the high seas of their sovereignty." does not appear to be particularly elucidating with regard to the actual meaning of the German original.)  Cs32en Talk to me  01:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed text:

In a legal analysis published by the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a staff expert on international law explained that countries are not allowed to extend their sovereignty on areas outside of their coastal waters. In a zone extending 24 nautical miles from the coast, countries have the right to inspect ships in order to enforce immigration and public health laws and regulations. In international waters, if there is reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking, a country has the right to access foreign ships. If the suspicion remains, it can search the ship. Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, the crew members had the right to defend themselves.[2]

  1. ^ http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=177040
  2. ^ Müller, Reinhard (June 2, 2010). "Auf Hoher See darf kein Zwang ausgeübt werden". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved June 2, 2010. Den Staaten ist es völkerrechtlich nicht erlaubt, die Hohe See ihrer Souveränität zu unterstellen. [...] In der sogenannten Anschlusszone, deren Grenze 24 Seemeilen von der eigenen Küste verläuft, haben die Staaten noch Kontrollrechte - vor allem, um ihren Einreise- und Gesundheitsvorschriften Geltung zu verschaffen. [...] Es gibt auch ein Recht, fremde Schiffe zu betreten. Das setzt aber etwa voraus, dass ein begründeter Verdacht der Seeräuberei oder des Sklavenhandels besteht - oder dass vermutet werden muss, dass das fremde Schiff keine Staatszugehörigkeit besitzt. [...] Nicht in Zweifel steht, dass sich israelische Soldaten gegen Angriffe zur Wehr setzen dürfen. Hat Israel allerdings ohne rechtlichen Grund Gewalt gegen die Schiffe eingesetzt, so durften sich deren Besatzungsmitglieder zur Wehr setzen. Translation: "Countries are not allowed by international laws to extend their sovereignty on international waters. [...] In an area that is being called the contiguous zone, which extends 24 nautical miles from the coast of the country, states have the right to inspection - especially to ensure the application of immigration and public health laws and regulations. [...] There also exists a right to access foreign ships. This, however, presupposes that there is a reasonable suspicion of piracy or human trafficking - or that it must be suspected that the foreign ship is not registered in any country. [...] There is no doubt that Israeli soldiers have the right to defend themselves against attacks. If Israel has used force against the ships without legal justification, however, the members of the crew had the right to defend themselves."

I'll add a translation of the original shortly.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Done.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks a lot better to me. Thanks for the contribution, --Nosfartu (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The translation looks good to me. Just a couple of suggestions: "in an area that is being called the" - "in the so-called", "access foreign ships" - "enter foreign ships". Lampman (talk) 01:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
"sogenannte" (literally: so-called) is dependent on "Anschlusszone" being a not widely used term that may invite other associations in the German languange. I therefore have chosen a more neutral description of what "sogenannte" means. "Access" is probably a term that is more commonly used in a legal context than "enter", but I assume both are possible.  Cs32en Talk to me  02:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The translation look good to me as well. Another note: the German uses the traditional term "high seas" (Hohe See), as do many other commentators, for what we describe as "international waters". Physchim62 (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see how "Anschluss" is a loaded word for Germans, I just found "in an area that is being called the" very stilted English. How about "in an area referred to as the"? Lampman (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Eyewitness Confirms Firing of Paintball Guns

"And they were shooting at us the bullets of the gaming machines, which is the paint balling. ... At the same time they started using bombs, sound bombs and tear gas."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/10210982.stm

This seems like an important testimony because it confirms Israel's story of using paintball guns, and it may call into question other testimony that says Israel was using "live fire". e.g. Did other passengers possibly mistake paintball fire for live ammo?

Can this be added to the passenger accounts section?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to wander too far into OR-land with you, but I doubt the paint ball fire killed a dozen or so of the people on the boat. The IDF did indeed fire paint ball guns, and later switched to live ammunition after the activists on the boat attacked them with sticks, pipes, and knives (according to the IDF). ← George talk 01:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
What makes you personally convinced that's the way things happened? Free Gaza has _claimed_ that the IDF was firing live ammo immediately upon boarding. The IDF has _claimed_ that they fired paint ball guns, and later switched to live ammo. This account, from an activist who certainly isn't biased towards the IDF, seems to give credence to the IDF's version of events. Thus it seems important to me. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

drobbs|talk]]) 05:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the important part of what Bob drobbs is saying is that it has been reported from both sides that there were paintball guns along with firearms. Key thing there is "along with" of course. We should have more accounts from activists as they get home so we hopefully will be able to get to the bottom of if live ammo was used first or not. Berlin's account (who wasn't there at all) is of course murkey at best but for now there is nothing wrong with having attributed quotes in on it. Cptnono (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation name

Dudes and dudettes. I am putting my milgeek hat on, and saying that this article is fail because it doesn't source and name the operation name the IDF gave to this operation. I have search and not found. The issues of "intro balance" can be easily resolved by inclusion of the operation name. I will not be able to sleep until this Great Injustice and Injury is resolved. So wikipedians, find me those RS, plox. Onwards!--Cerejota (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Operation Sky Winds[21]. I don't know whether or not this is considered a RS, but the name is correct as far as I'm aware also from internal discussion in Israel. 212.179.152.69 (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Huge table in the Background section

This is just structurally hard to look at. Can we either find a link with the details or put at the very end of the article. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've created a new section for the list and referred to it via a link in the background section. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Should the Sol Phryne and USS Liberty be in the See Also section

My initial feeling is that they seem tangentially related at best, and included to bias the article at worst. I'm not going to make any changes but this might be something that should be discussed. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

They're not really related. There have been other incidents of navies boarding ships in international waters, like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War. I think Australia has done it too in intercepting refugees, then bringing them to Christmas Island.

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 03:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wikipedia hold off for a while till the dust settles?

The problem with these types of breaking stories is the conflicting news coming from all different sources. Wouldn't it be better if Wikipedia held off for a while till the dust settles, and information becomes more reliable? Jack forbes (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Editing goes according to WP:POLICY. --Kslotte (talk) 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't for a moment say it doesn't follow policy. I do know that in breaking stories there tends to be a lot of initial misinformation bandied about, with sources or without. I'm just making a suggestion that a wait of a short period may benefit the article. Jack forbes (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
But! But! But, if we stop editing right now, the article will be at The Wrong Version! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Although Wikipedia shouldn't become a RECENTIST real time reporting (a newspaper?) of everything, in cases like these, the initial misinformation, news blackouts, rumors, etc. are part of the narrative and how the story unfolds. Wikipedia captures all of that edit by edit, revert by revert, etc. in all its glorious wonder. --Rajah (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree w/ Rajah. I understand Forbes' sentiments. Editting stuff like this when details aren't hammered down can feel a little unencyclopedic, but I think it's ultimately a good thing that WP tries to present accurate-as-possible information to the public. This article will certainly be a WP:BATTLEGROUND for people involved in I/P WP:POV wars. Unfortunate when people try to spin a tradegy of this nature for political gain. NickCT (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't editing the article initially away from main space be better for everyone, including ultimately the reader? I know it's too late for this one, but for any similar breaking stories in the future. Jack forbes (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think so, for the simple reason of Who decides When to move the "polished" article into the main space? When has "the dust settled"? For certain conflicts or ongoing events, wars, financial meltdowns, etc. pinpointing the end alone is problematic. Seems like arbitrarily deciding when events have settled down would introduce way more problems than it would solve. What objection do you have to the current method? That readers who don't know how to read critically will be deluged with misinformation? I feel for them, but that's how life is. Wikipedia is enormously influential now, but sketchy sources, misinformation, and incomplete narratives will always be around. --Rajah (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, editing it away from the main space would probably prevent novice editors from making a contribution to the article and oftentimes they are the ones to add the most interesting info/links/sources. Of course, the page is locked for new editors, but they are at least directed to the talk page to make their contribution, which many do. While not everyone is a Wikipedian, everyone is allowed to be (at least initially). --Rajah (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The community decides, same as always. I'd see it working one a section-by-section or paragraph-by-paragraph basis. We get consensus that a paragraph is good, and an admin (or "someone") pushes it out. No different, really, to how we edit fully protected articles - except with far more edit requests. IPs seem OK with edit requests, I've handled a lot over at the "List of YouTube Celebrities" article. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 17:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaction of Ireland (one ship), highlighting criminal aspects

Too much re. Turkey? Next country, then, neutral Ireland, from Minster of Foreign affairs:

  • condemned Israel’s “unacceptable and disproportionate” use of force
  • accused Israel of “essentially kidnapping” the Irish citizens aboard the ships.
  • summoned Israeli ambassador Zion Evrony to a meeting
  • called for the unconditional release of Irish citizens currently detained in Ashdod: "These people did not enter Israel illegally. They were essentially kidnapped from international waters, taken into Israel, and asked to sign documents confirming that they entered illegally. That is unacceptable,”
  • called for Israel to exercise “absolute restraint” in its dealings with the Irish-owned vessel MV Rachel Corrie , which is understood to be en route to Gaza.

Ref: Irish Times, 01 June 2010, Page 1 178.178.14.34 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Ireland's reaction can be called neutral. But in any case I don't understand what you're proposing. It seems that the Irish response here would be much better if placed in the International reactions article. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No one's response is going to be neutral. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
When your citizens have been kidnapped on the high seas, what do you reckon a "neutral" response would be Zuch? (Only last week Ireland voted to admit Israel to the OECD, btw). It has been called "terrorism" by Turkey and the Arab League. It has been called "kidnapping" and a "crime" by Ireland. And there is another Irish boat approaching Gaza. This one has five civilians on board. It won't turn back. If they are murdered should the Irish reaction be "neutral" as defined by you. (Us editors insist on calling 9/11 a "terrorist" act. Is that neutral? Or are consistent standards across articles outside the scope of WP:NPOV? Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We call 9/11 a "Terrorist" act? I thought that term was essentially banned on wiki. As for the specific article, it's not a neutral subject. When describing the reaction, it is disingenuous to make it sound more neutral than it was. Indeed, it is as great an intellectual dishonesty as to make the reaction seem harsher than it is. Israel has received widespread condemnation for this action, and it is not OR or synthesis to say so. That's what the sources say, so that's what we need to say. We can add what other sources say, but we can't editorialize. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

For any interested, some primary source IDF documents from before the incident occured:

And after:

Not sure if any or all of them would go in to the article, just wanted to provide them for completeness.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is why I placed them on talk rather than in the article, they are more interesting to someone wondering about the mindset of the participants in the conflict and were added for completeness.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Its just a whole load of links to the Israel defence force, very complete. Off2riorob (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess the idea is it shows the training they were going through and how they were being told to deal with the flotilla.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We may create a useful links section in talk page, where everyone shares and organize links. Kasaalan (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It occurs to me that having primary sources handy may help find secondary sources that quote them? So "+1, I agree" from me. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 17:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

NEWS: US blocks UN statement singling out Israel

US blocks UN statement singling out Israel http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/9668-news-us-blocks-un-statement-singling-out-israel.html --Nevit (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How many knots was the vessel moving at? Maritime law implications?

Leave maritime law to the lawyers, and then quote the reliable sources that quote them
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(All calcs from wiki sources). In statute miles my estimate is that they were going full speed, 11 mph, with 7 mph boost from tide.

What are the conventions concerning a ship told to not enter coastal waters that is so warned and approaching at full speed?

Also, supposing Israel or the ship owners are to be penalized what body would do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.20.32.93 (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this talk page is the appropriate forum for this kind of conversation. I suggest we collapse this thread. NickCT (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If it's a dead section, I suggest archival to deal with the ever expanding page. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 22:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

Rewording of the lead

So there has been a bit of an edit war going on in the lead. There are several aspects:

1) Israel's promise to inspect the seized aid and deliver non-banned items to Gaza. This has been regularly removed.

There is a huge amount of RS coverage of Israeli promises to deliver the aid ... This is a brief major fact and I believe it should be included. This seems completely neutral and well established.

2) The description of what the flotilla was trying to do, deliver aid, or break the blockade.

At first it seemed to me that break the blockade was the most neutral description of the intentions of the flotilla since that was openly part of their plan. However they also were planning to deliver aid. So I propose that rather than using one term or the other we use both.

"who were planning to break the Israeli blockade and deliver aid to Gaza."

3) the naming of the different groups

This has been covered at length earlier in the discussion and the consensus seemed to be that since they called themselves the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" that was the most appropriate name to use.

4) the use of Pro-Palestinian to describe the boat passengers.

It has been rightly claimed in one of the edits that some of the passengers may be neutral in regard to the I-P conflict and simply support an international aid effort. So it seems that Pro-Palestinian should be removed.

Sheesh ... that's a lot ... please comment and give your reasons for supporting or opposing any of the current choices in the edit war, or add your own :) Zuchinni one (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead is as accurate as it can be right now, which different information popping up and states and organizations still reacting. There is just one point unclear to me, and it is that it states that the arrested activist refused identifying themselves. I have read that they have refused to sign the deportation forms, but I do not know if that is exactly the same. I am nitpicker, I know. Leirus (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point Leirus, I have read both accounts as well and originally the refusal to sign deportation papers was in the lead but it was removed at some point. I have no strong feeling one way or the other about its inclusion. Can you suggest any arguments for or against? Zuchinni one (talk) 16:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably we can leave it at that until we have more information. From the news I have read, it seems that the activists do have the option of staying or leaving, so I guess it is a wait and see here. The german released parlamentarians are on their way to germany, to give their impressions. Later on I would like the right reference in the lead Leirus (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Israelis are celebrating in front of the Turkish embassy

There's a video of it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xqa7PkkPso&feature=player_embedded# Any sources mention this yet? FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the live blog from The Guardian (UK) embeds it. Physchim62 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Cannot we use youtube as a source? Kavas (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:YOUTUBE and WP:NOR.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Preferably not. In this case it's a non-issue, because we can simply cite The Guardian. This goes into more detail - basically there's no absolute ban on YouTube, but it tends to be unreliable for a variety of reasons. Fortunately, we can neatly side-step that problem simply by using The Guardian instead ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Depends. Israelis celebrated during international TV reporters comments too. Clearly verifiable. However as you can tell some Israelis celebrated, some protested. For NPOV you should mention both actions. Also I read there is some kind of news screening/filtering and ban for Israeli media about the issue for particular matters. However I do not know the details. Kasaalan (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Did you mean to post that here? It looks like it's not a YouTube answer, but an answer to something else. Apologies if I've missed your point... TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Heres the original http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a3_1275348204 you can't use any of it, there is nothing to say when it was filmed. Look for independent quality reports and simply add a report from there, basically if you have to ask if is reliable it likely is not. From the gardian .. 12.10pm:...David Gaughran has sent me a link to this video from the Live Leak website, which he says shows Israelis chanting outside the Turkish embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel. Off2riorob (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What they are chanting is: "Am Israel Chai", and policial support for Likud PM Benjamin Netanyahu ShalomOlam (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Spanish online press (Elpais.com) states that there is a multitude in front of the turkish embassy, throwing eggs and and calling Erdogan an Islamofascist. However, I think it would be better to wait until there is an english source. Anyway, this reactions surely would be a better fit in the international reaction article? I am sure we will see popular reaction all over the worls, and people shouting in front of more than one embassy... Leirus (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli sources verifying the protests. We can use footage along with RS. Free verifiable source. At least video is unedited and better than other edited footage. Kasaalan (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a celebration its a counter-protest in support of Israeli action. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not celebration? Looks and sounds as if they are at a soccer match. FunkMonk (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Come on ... a soccer match? When was the last time any protest got THAT violent ... although the ones in Thailand did come close ... Zuchinni one (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Clearly, you have never been to Glasgow ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also if you want to include it maybe the best place is the External Links section. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I'd be happy with a machine translation (e.g. babel.yahoo.com or Google translate) of El Pais, rather than waiting for an English-language source. Anyone agree/disagree? (My thinking is, and I could be way off here, is that we can all easily verify the translation). TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Er... Why a machine translation? I am right here, and I am a native spanish speaker. Or there is any rule regarding the translation of sources? (I am asking honestly, I do not know... I should probably know by now, but I do not usually edit in english, as I fear gramatical mistakes) Leirus (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A machine translation is verifiable by us idiot what can't speak Spanish ;-) I seem to recall in the dim and distant past that a translation by an editor may break WP:OR. But I'm unsure about this, hence me wanting other editors to agree or disagree with me...! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 17:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very notable reaction from Israelis and its important that it is added to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Use the spanish article then with a link through google translate. Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not needed anymore, this article states the same, and in english :) http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897091,00.html However, maybe this would be more in place in the "international reactions" article.

Youtube is not RS. The video show a demonstration, and not a celebrating. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Leirus (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Demonstration, not celebration

These people are demonstration, not celebrating. Read this for more information: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897091,00.html ShalomOlam (talk) 10:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:An activist saying 'eithe Martyrdom or reaching Gaza'.jpg

I believe this image, which is very clear and informative, is good for the article. It shows the Palestinian sideaccording to palwatch.org. Broccoli (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's sick Israeli propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.29.134 (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to open a request to help determine fair use applicability. See here.--Nosfartu (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no need for filling the article up with fair use images. Especially ones that are marginally related to the main subject, and affect the POV. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. This is a screenshot from a palestinian show. If this is how they choose to present their opinion, who are we to judge it? Broccoli (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Again, it is marginally related to the raid itself, the main subject here, and only acts as filler, so it does not come under fair use. And yes, it can be used to support pro-Israeli POV right. Should we have frames of the Israelis celebrating in front of the Turkish embassy in the article too? Is this not how "they present themselves"? FunkMonk (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not 'their' opinion, it is a statement of one person (with no context) out of several hundred. It is marginally related to this article, and so using it would also fail the NFCC. Prodego talk 20:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It was taken during the event, so it reflects what happened there. And yes, if you have an image of Israeli protesters by all means upload it. Broccoli (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We can (and I think should, if this single example of AFAIK a whole lot of similar "we'll get through or else" statements is generally deemed particularly relevant) add the quote, in verbatim Arabic, and link to the source. It does not provide more than one person's opinion, but legally the statement of intent is possibly relevant.
We should probably nitpick it here before we add it. It is not that the term translated as "martyrdom" is likely to coincide 100% with the Western (including Israeli) concept of the term. Just as you don't literally mean that someone was be burned to a crisp when you say "... s/he went down in flames". So we need to have a translation that is NPOV, not what some journalists (which are probably not native English speakers) make of it. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It should not be added. Source is "Palwatch"? Are you kidding me? FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
(Multiple EC) It would also almost definitely fail the replacable criterion since it's quite unclear to me why you need a photo of a video from Palwatch where the only thing you're even showing is their caption. If it was relevant and reliably sourced, there's no reason why you can just mention a participant said 'either matyrdom or reaching Gaza' which is more then sufficient to convey what's shown in the photo Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Broccoli is clearly offering images to push a particular POV here. I respectfully ask that he cease and desist. NickCT (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand how many images would be appropriate for the entire article, let alone one little subsection of it.--Nosfartu (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It is not me who offeres POV, but the woman on the picture. Broccoli (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that statements like this should be in the article but we don't need in at as image.Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not clear on how this image improves the article. The caption could be taken either to mean that the Palestinians expected to become martyrs once the Israelis boarded, or that from the beginning they wanted to make it to Gaza or go down fighting. I'm not reading this as a peaceful statement and its not at all clear that the view of this one person represents the views of the rest of the activists. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
My OR but I think that she probably represents one of the ships (the one that resisted). Five were subdued peacefully which does not correlate with what she said, but the sixth one was lynching the soldiers before they landed. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No image needed in the article, but the image is a source. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)
Now this is certainly absurd, it can be used on blogs etc but own on Wikipedia I can't think it. Broccoli this is Wikipedia not Uncyclopedia. I agree with NickCT --yousaf465 07:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey seeks strong condemnation from U.S.

Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, in Washington for talks with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said Ankara wanted a clear U.S. condemnation of Monday's raid after Israeli forces killed nine people, including four Turks, while trying to stop a convoy of vessels delivering aid to the Gaza Strip.

"Some of our allies are not ready to condemn the Israeli actions," Davutoglu said.

He said he was disappointed with Washington's cautious response to an incident he likened to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

"Psychologically this attack is like 9-11 for Turkey because Turkish citizens were attacked by a state, not by terrorists, with an intention, a clear decision of political leaders of that state," he said.

"We expect full solidarity with us. It should not be a choice between Turkey and Israel. It should be a choice between right and wrong."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N01115314.htm

--Nevit (talk) 20:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevit - Are you suggesting we put this material into the article, or are you just throwing this out there for our consideration? NickCT (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Turkey, being facetious, must be condemned for the massacre (=genocide) of over 1 million Armenians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs) 23:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject or Turkish history. Discuss improvements to the article. Kavas (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

2 days bickering about the article and you still haven't go the Nationalities of victims in.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/White-House-Supports-UN-Stance-on-Gaza-Convoy-Raid-95347184.html This source reports 4 Turkish. Find more and more reliable sources. --212.54.221.30 (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Blurring soldiers faces

It's very regular on Israeli TV when showing special unit soldiers. --Gilisa (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

@Gilisa - I'm having a tough time understanding this comment. Are you suggesting we make some change to the article? NickCT (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think he wants to blur the soldiers faces in pictures used in the article. It's a pretty common thing for countries to do, such as with the SAS in the UK. Since however they are all wearing masks, and are not of particularly high quality, I think in any case, no action needs to be taken. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

I think Gilisa was trying to request that a note explaining this be added to the section about Israeli casualties. As it is the sentence "Israel released video interviews with those soldiers, while blurring their faces" makes it sound like an attempt to conceal the identity of criminals for fear of personal repercussions. 87.69.208.92 (talk) 23:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa do you want us to blur the images or are you saying that they do it ? --yousaf465 07:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal arguments justifying the action are false arguments:

1) San Remo Memorandum can not be applied because the ship, Mavi Marmara, has turkish flag and was sailing into international waters so the ship is turkish territory. And there were no Armed Conflict between Israel and Turkey.

Even more, article 41 indicate: attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. Mavi Marmara is a civil objetive.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

2) Gaza Jericho Agreement can not be applied because the ship, Mavi Marmara, was sailing into international waters and that Agreement has only effect into national waters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alehopio (talk • contribs) 21:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM. If we stick to reliable sources which we can cite, we do not need to interpret primary sources. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 21:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

According to Craig Murray, a former British ambassador and Foreign Office specialist on maritime law:

"To attack a foreign flagged vessel in international waters is illegal. It is not piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission. It is rather an act of illegal warfare.

Because the incident took place on the high seas does not mean however that international law is the only applicable law. The Law of the Sea is quite plain that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas (outside anybody's territorial waters) the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred. In legal terms, the Turkish ship was Turkish territory.

There are therefore two clear legal possibilities.

Possibility one is that the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships. In that case Israel is in a position of war with Turkey, and the act falls under international jurisdiction as a war crime.

Possibility two is that, if the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction. If Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.

In brief, if Israel and Turkey are not at war, then it is Turkish law which is applicable to what happened on the ship. It is for Turkey, not Israel, to carry out any inquiry or investigation into events and to initiate any prosecutions. Israel is obliged to hand over indicted personnel for prosecution."

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/05/attack-is-in-turkish-jurisdiction.html

Shouldn't we include in the article Murray's authoritative opinion?Froy1100 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See archive 3 for the San Remo Manual 1994 discussion. (If you wish to reopen the discussion, please unarchive it first.
In reply to clause 41 invocation, clause 67a 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) 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 22:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)
Here's a secondary source discussing this [22] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As people pointed out in the archived discussion of the San Remo Manual, the discussion was all WP:OR and therefore it is irrelevant to WP:TALK.
To answer Froy1100's question: Yes. Craig Murray's comment is exactly the kind of WP:RS comment that does belong in the article. Go ahead and put it in. Try to summarize it.
No More Mr Nice Guy, that discussion is very interesting. However, it doesn't refer to this specific case, the Gaza flotilla. For a WP editor to read that, and decide that it applies to the Gaza flotilla, would be WP:SYNTHESIS, which you're not allowed to do in WP. --Nbauman (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Craig Murray's comment belongs in the article if you can find it on an RS, not a blog.
I agree with you about the source I posted. Just wanted people to be able to have an informed irrelevant discussion. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish navy 'to back next convoy' following Gaza flotilla raid

Turkish navy 'to back next convoy' following Gaza flotilla raid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1283268/Turkish-navy-convoy-following-Gaza-flotilla-raid.html

--Nevit (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

International Reaction

Why is it that the International reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash is becoming less and less prominent and harder to find - what is the rationale for this and this edit? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed apparently. Forget it! Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't. It needs to be prominent in the article reflecting it's prominence in the sources. It needs to go above the notable people section and incorporate all of the info from the lead of the main reactions article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Consider the weight given to the legality section. This is what happens in I-P conflict articles. Partisan advocacy drowns out compliance with policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an entire separate article devoted to this topic SPECIFICALLY because the section was getting too big. Check the archived discussion section of this page. We went through this once already. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will just go ahead and implement policy as there is a clear lack of understanding about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
We'll one link in See also cannot be considered too big, instead it should be considered embarrassingly small. Now, it's in the intro, and that should be satisfiable satisfying to everyone? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


With regards to including a separate international reactions section:

-If this section is to be included it must be done in a neutral way. The current edit is not neutral and simply states that there was criticism without stating the nature of the criticism. However getting into those details will make the section far too long. The section was getting too earlier and thus a new page was created specifically for international reactions. This page can cover the details and keep a neutral point of view because length is not an issue.
-Currently there is a major call for investigations. I think that can easily be put in an international reactions section. However the current version of the section takes some editorial license as to the definition of condemned. For example India condemned the "indiscriminate use of force" but is that equivalent to Turkey's claims of murder and piracy?
-The bottom line is that we cannot editorialize in this section and since it is difficult to have a neutral discussion in a short section it should be kept to concise facts and a link to the main article, nothing more.

Zuchinni one (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Following the logic above I made the following edit to the section:
"
Main article: International reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash
There have been strong international reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash of 31 May 2010. While official responses have varied from strong condemnation to deep concern over the killings, many countries called for an international investigation. Unofficial responses included civilian protests of the Israeli action followed reports of the deaths aboard the Marmara. [1] [2][3]"
Zuchinni one (talk) 08:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call. Link does not mean we still do not do summary here. I am getting a little turned around on the talk page right now but at least a line is needed in the lead and at least a paragraph is needed in a section with the link.Cptnono (talk) 10:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


In an effort to confront Israel on possible violations to international law of its blockade of Gaza, notably this latest enforcement, Turkey intends to protect turkisk ships within future flotillas bound to Gaza with elements of its Navy. http://ibnlive.in.com/news/turkey-threatens-action-israel-on-alert/116743-2.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarteen (talk • contribs) 23:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above statement. The finds were obviously staged and displayed in an inflammatory way. As stated above this should be noted. Or the picture be removed as it is overtly staged, it looks like something from a B-move film set, how they have arranged the weapons over green flags with Arabic script and traditional scarves dotted around. Again, as said, very against any principle or standard of presenting evidence, it cannot be taken seriously. ValenShephard 02:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I like the way they have included a kitchen knife sharpener as a weapon. 121.98.212.140 (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well my friends what would u say about new footage recovered from the ship? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.114.202 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Marmara

The ship is not Turkish but it is from Comore The Comoros Islands, I provide Hurriyet's news in Turkish as follows: " İstanbul Büyükşehir Belediyesi’nce 24 Mart 2010’da ihaleye çıkarılan ve İHH tarafından 1 milyon 800 bin TL’ye satın alınıp 589 yolcu ve personelle birlikte Gazze’ye yardım götüren Mavi Marmara Gemisi, Komor Adaları’nın bayrağını taşıyor. Denizcilik Müsteşarlığı İstanbul Bölge Başkanı Cemalettin Sevli, “Tamamen gemi sahiplerinin tercihi” dedi.

Komor’dan dünyaya kınama mesajı

GAZZE’ye insani yardım götürürken İsrail’in saldırısına uğrayan Komor bandıralı Mavi Marmara gemisi için İstanbul’daki Komor Fahri Konsolosluğu BM, AB ve NATO üyesi ülkelere kınama mektubu yolladı. Konsolosluk yetkilileri, Cumhurbaşkanı Abdullah Gül ve Başbakan Erdoğan’dan gelecek her türlü ricaya Komor’un açık olduğunu belirterek, “Yapılan saldırıyı şiddetle kınıyoruz” dediler. "Kavas (talk) 13:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is Comore. Kasaalan (talk) 13:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

French name is Union des Comores English name is Union of the Comoros I think I combined them to spell the islands incorrectly. Kavas (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

http://marinetraffic.com/ais/shipdetails.aspx?MMSI=616952000 supports the Comoros assertion. The English media is slow to pick up on this though. I'll add the Hurriyet link. --Rajah (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone know for sure? Sources differ. At first this article and all sources said Turkish-flagged, and most sources still do. The article now says Comoros. [23] and [24] say Turkey, while [25] and [26](used in article) say Comoros. digital-seas has different info on different pages; are there 2 different ships with the same or similar names? At this point I think we should say Turkey or Comoros, with cites for each.John Z (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Took a closer look at marinetraffic - seems like it was Turkish until May 22, then Comoran, and the call sign changed, so those other sites aren't up to date.John Z (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


That the ship is Comoran does not nescessarily mean that it was flagged Comoran at the time of the incident. Temporarily reflagging when chartered is not uncommon:
Concept and definitions: We could consider bareboat charter registration as a legal arrangement whereby the nationality of the bareboat charterer, as owner of the ship pro hac vice, ("acting owner"), is allocated to the ship and evidenced by flying the flag of that nation during the life of the charter party1 ...
Bareboat Charter Registration in the light of International Instruments.pdf
So wether Israel has gone to war with Comora or some other party is still up in the air untill we know the fine print of the economic arrangements surrounding .. or get hold of a recent close up of the stern,MX44 (talk)

Number of deaths.

The source being used is dated 31 May, I think we should revise those stats.--yousaf465 07:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Type of the commando helicopter used at the operation

Could anyone identify the helicopter type used at the operation. I may guess Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk or Bell 212 but not sure. Do anyone has any photograph of the helicopter. Kasaalan (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Sorry dont have images,I do have a link: but what saw on media are with out no doubt CH-53D "Yas'ur 2000", that had just landed, seems to me like actual images and not from archives. http://www.lavozdegalicia.es/fotos/2010/05/31/01101275300693836760181.htm (Its in spanish, Image 2 is your answer) Hope I was a help --Elloza (talk) 06:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Peace activists throwing an Israeli soldier over board.jpg

whats wrong with this image? It shows in important event and has a sufficient quality. Broccoli (talk) 19:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually accidentally removed this in deferrence to the discussion above.
Nonetheless, I think it would be best to just wait a short time and make sure there is a reasonable consensus here about copyright (seems like it could be FU to me) and about attribution for the caption.--Nosfartu (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Cutting something from the video will look much better than taking a picture of a TV showing it.
Also, I think the one showing them beating the soldier with clubs/bars is clearer. See above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The image you mentioned is good as well, but I think it is important to show how someone is being thrown from 10m. It is not something we see every day, and it helps to understand the beginning of the event. Broccoli (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not ideal, in that it's fair use, not free, but I think (and I am absolutely not a copyright wonk) fair use would apply for this article (and probably only for this article - it probably would not be OK elsewhere). TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 19:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is FU :). The image is dramatic than the other one, and is of good quality. Broccoli (talk) 19:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue of fair use does not prevent the photo from being in the article. WP is not censored, let us all remember. Since this article day one here there are repeated, frequent very large removales of well sourced information by users who many time didn't even bother to leave edit summeries. Also, see this link about the connection between those activists who were shot and world jihad organisations [27]. This new version of wikipedia just not let me to sign in the right place...--Gilisa (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • You can not add a caption claiming this is a soldier being thrown overboard by some activists, it is totally unrecognizable and could be absolutely anything at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Unrecognized by who? It's not a valid argument you made. --Gilisa (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes? What about this image? Who is holding the gun? Where and when was it taken?

Why nobody offers to discuss this one? Broccoli (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some IDF copyright policy, along with FU policy, is here:

According to the law of copyright in Israel and pursuant to international treaties, copyright in the office's publications, including those provided by the service, belong to the IDF and the Ministry of Defense. These rights apply, inter alia, to text. Pictures, drawings, maps, audio tracts, video tracts, graphics and program applications (hereinafter: the protected material), unless stated explicitly that the copyright in the protected material belongs to another party.

User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. Such fair use includes quoting from the protected material in a reasonable manner.

When quoting from the protected material, User must attribute the source of the quotation, whether it is the office or a third party. User may not alter, modify or in any other fashion change the protected material, and may not do any other act which might diminish the value of the protected material in a manner which would cast aspersion on the creator of the protected material.

--Nosfartu (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

You could add such a caption, and you could use it under fair use. But we aren't going to use this image, and the other one, that would be excessive. One image showing the resistance is enough, you don't need any more. And we certainly won't include claims about links to "world jihad organizations" (whatever that means). We need to write neutrally, and from reliable sources, and images must have an appreciable impact in increasing the understanding of the event to be included. The IDF videos are already linked. Prodego talk 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Take what I say with a pinch of salt, because I am not a Wikipedia copyright expert, but I believe that it's US fair use law that applies here. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think their stated copyright policy would be relevant, but I of course believe the U.S. copyright law is relevant as well.--Nosfartu (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think an image similar to this one could be used, with a few caveats. First, I believe fair use images must be lower resolution than this image is. Second, this looks like a photograph taken of a television or computer monitor - it would be more appropriate to take a screen shot of the video playing on a computer (so the text doesn't get skewed the way it is in this image). Lastly, and most importantly, it's not inherently clear what the image shows, so we have to to write what it is claimed to show and by whom. The caption would have to be something like "Frame from an IDF video which claims to show activists throwing an Israeli soldier overboard." ← George talk 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I could make the resolution lower if it helps. Broccoli (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW and at the risk of repeating myself, I like the other image with the clubs/rods better than this one. I think it's clearer. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we have two images? Broccoli (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The fair use case here is clear - we can use the image if we want. But we already have one image of the clash on the Mavi Marmara, a second one isn't going to increase the reader's understanding appreciably. We could use this one instead of the 'poles' one (although I prefer that one), but both would be excessive. Prodego talk 20:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
    • At least two potential fair use problems with the image are that it may be too close in resolution to the original image and that the IDF's FU policy requires an attribution, and I think the best place to resolve this and other FU issues is the Wikipedia forum for such issues. The issues of whether we can or should use the images are completely separate, I am merely commenting on can.--Nosfartu (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - Is it really neutral to use frames of a video released and edited by the IDF? Besides, there are already two IDF created frames in the article, that only show their POV, we certainly don't need more. FunkMonk (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's neutral, unless you can reasonably refute its readability. --Gilisa (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
No, only using material released by one of the involved parties is grave POV. FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Picture needs to be in the article. It shows what happened, and has been on the news innumerable times. I think if the event was purely peaceful and they were expecting Israeli violence in the face of their own peaceful protest, they should have smuggled out some pictures. Perhaps we will get some other photos in the coming days and weeks. If so, we should print them. Meantime, this picture needs to be in there, and if there is a clearer one available "showing them beating the soldier with clubs/bars," as No More Mr Nice Guy says, that should be in there too. WP doesn't censor material, right? 69.131.127.213 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's footage from the ship released by the Turkish TV station that shows them beating and stabbing the soldiers. This has been noted by several RS. I think the picture we have now is clearer though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
What have in this image is a personfalling over, whether he is an aggressor or an activist we can't say. There are enough pictures originating form this source, so I think instead of unbalancing the article's NPOV, we should avoid more photos from this source. Instead we should wait for photos from the media on-board the vessels.--yousaf465 05:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


This photo was published world wide, in all media sources(e.g., skynews) and accepted as a video of Israeli soldier being tossed by peaceful activists out of the boat top deck, without further commentary. So again, unless you can reasonably refute the offical Israeli argument that it's an Israeli soldier, this photo should go in. Maybe we should remind that WP is no a democracy and that your voice is heared only if it make valid argument. --Gilisa (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we have already posted many pics and videos originating from this particular source. After reading this Israelis shocked by raid 'fiasco', I think it will hurt the feeling from both sides. The journalist abroad the ship said they will publish the material after they are released. So I think we should wait for their side of story too. --yousaf465 07:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not an opinion forum

Please limit your discussion to ways to improve the article, not your personal opinion. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully support - Yes, please keep personal opinions about the real world off the page. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Already a post listed aboveLihaas (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/1060324/1/.html
  2. ^ http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=115439
  3. ^ http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90777/90854/7006399.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_4&oldid=1257798948"