Jump to content

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Image caption

I don't know why some editors keep reverting the caption of one of the images to "A photo by the IDF showing items recovered by the Israeli Defense Forces from the Mavi Marmara; these items, which include knives, cutlery, sticks, and other diverse tools, were used as weapons[144] against the IDF by activists on board."

According to wiki-rules, one should not state opinions as facts. All we know is that IDF has said it has found these, and has said they were used as weapons. That's an opinion. It should not be stated as a fact. Let people read and make up their minds as they wish. It is very disappointing to see opinions are repeatedly asserted as facts.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Much like above, how about "IDF(or Israeli sources) say footage shows..."Cptnono (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with that, since IDF has said it anyways. That's fine. To assert that "these items were used as weapons against the IDF by activists on board" is clearly wrong. But someone keeps adding this over and over again. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
We are running into lots of language that casts doubt on assertions like "claim" and "alleged". If we can wipe those out and keep it to "so and so says this footage shows" and "so and so said troops did x,y, and z" then we should be fine.Cptnono (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree --DoostdarWKP (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not really a difficult rule, if your goal is an unbiased article. Just say that Side X called Item Y a "Z". Like, Hamas (X) called the supplies (Y) "humanitarian" (Z). Or Israel (X) said the knives (Y) were "used as weapons" (Z).
We need not try to be "objective" - let alone "definitive". In fact, it takes less time to give the SOURCE for each assertion (this side said crackers, the other side said wafers) than to "get to the bottom of it". We'll be talking about this incident for months and years to come. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So are we in agreement here and in the section above on the image captions? I believe there are three total (beating, guy being tossed, weapons displayed) that need to be adjusted to "The IDF" or "Israeli sources". Groovy?Cptnono (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That's fine for me. I agree with User:Cptnono's last comment. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage for interested editors.--Nosfartu (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this disputed? Should it be in the lead?

"(some of whom had ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas [8])"

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366106430&oldid=366104829

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Video taken from the GFF has been edited and used by Israel. And apparently the 700 names on the GFF passenger lists are being microscoped in attempts to tar and blame the victims. Meanwhile, what do we know, for example, about "Sgt. S", who claims six kills ("These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes")? Israeli video, and the names, backgrounds and service records of the IDF personnel and those in the command chain are in the control of military censors. Sure this is common army policy, but how can we write in a neutral voice from qualitatively asymmetrical sources? I say under the circumstances we be careful we're not just presenting the Israeli narrative, i.e. avoid parroting any judgment/slander of GFF passengers. If we need a policy how about WP:BLP? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Move clause out of the introduction

Immediately after the intro says that nine pro palestinian activists died, it says "(some of whom had ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas)." I'm not disputing this fact, but it looks like it was just put there to demonize the protesters. Information like that belongs later in the article where they discuss the details of the passengers. The most important thing is that the protesters were killed, not that some of them had ties to Hamas. 174.18.21.75 (talk) 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's relevant to the entire event and so belongs in the header. Rklawton (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it is. They didn't die because they had ties with Hamas. ShalomOlam (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Does it belong in the article? If properly sourced, yes. Does it belong in the already over-bloated lead? No, unless the goal is to poison the well. ← George talk 01:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sofia and Eleftheri Mesogeios are the same ship.

The MS Sofia and the Eleftheri Mesogeios are the same ship: The photos at http://www.shiptogaza.se/sv/b%C3%A5ten-foton (the Swedish site) show the word Mesegeios (in Greek letters) in some pictures and Sofia in the others.

The photos at http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/showallphotos.aspx?mmsi=239219000#top_photo (of the Eleftheri Mesogeios) show the word Sofia (in Latin alphabet) on the older photos and Sofia and Eleftheri Mesogeios in Greek alphabet on others.

Moreover, the Free Gaza Movement's press release mentions only MS Sofia, and there are a total of six not seven vessels. --Fjmustak (talk) 00:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

video fraud

IDF recorded video AFTER IDF from helicopters killed 20 Sleeping Aid Workers & Injured 100, as people fought back to stay alive, IDF started shooting videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Any sources on that?--Cerian (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF SHOT SLEEPING PEOPLE ON THE AID FLOTILLA http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/31/israel-murders-at-least-16-human-rights-activists-on-route-to-gaza-on-the-open-sea/

elderly-activist-shot-and-let-bleed-to-death http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-activist-shot-and-let-bleed-to-death-2207343.html


“They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot.” “The Mavi Marmara was bombed right in front of our eyes. They threw the wounded into the water,” http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212103-israel-killed-more-than-9-threw-wounded-into-sea-witnesses-say.html

Why would they shoot sleeping people or would people still be sleeping unless they had the first-strike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not only are these sources not necessarily WP:RS but they don't address the video fraud claim in their content. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just another failed false-flag like USS Liberty

Just like they weren't able to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on the Egyptians before the world found out what happened. They were not able to kill all the passengers onboard and blame it on Iran. 67.169.146.118 (talk) 06:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


And your point? BTW, Liberty was espionage boat of the US navy. Eventhough Israel and USA are friends, it's very unfriendly act to send this kind of ship to Israel coasts, the same could be done had Israel send similar boat to Florida coasts. Eitherway, the results were unwelcome and it's not something Israel want to remember or proud of. --Gilisa (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
He's a Jew hating idiot, ignore and make sure to revert anything he adds.Faaaaaaamn (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Should this be included in the section on passengers? 50 mercenaries seemed to have been on board the ship

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452 The IDF identified a group of about 50 men – of the 700 on board – who were well-trained and were stationed throughout the ship, mostly on the upper deck, where they laid an ambush for the IDF soldiers who rappelled onto the deck from helicopters.

The members of this violent group were not carrying identity cards or passports. Instead, each of them had an envelope in his pocket with about $10,000 in cash. The defense establishment suspects the funding for the mercenaries may have come from elements within the Turkish government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.191.50 (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit suspect I think, especially coming from the IDF. Best to wait for other reputable sources. Mshahidil (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The IDF may be far from being a neutral source, but that doesn't mean it's not a reputable source. There are things from both "sides" in this article that could hardly be considered to be coming from neutral sources, but they're still there to show each side's version of what happened. The allegations presented in the Jerusalem Post article are significant and should therefore be presented in this article as such. 79.179.96.247 (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This was already discussed below, and the consensus seems to have been that we should include it in the "Israel's account" section at least. Sorry for posting twice, I only thought to search after replying 79.179.96.247 (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Map, take 2

Requesting comment on the inclusion of this map, which tries to create a visual representation of the international reaction to the Gaza flotilla raid. There has been a serious debate on the talk pages of two separate articles and we don't seem to be able to reach a consensus. We would appreciate the input of the community to help us resolve this issue. In addition the this section there are additional discussions here:

Zuchinni one (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


  States that have protested or condemned Israeli actions.
  States that only expressed regrets over the loss of life during the incident.

I think that a map in the reactions section would help summarize the international official reactions and present the information in an accessible manner.

I offered this map before, but there were some concerns with the map. This time I have changed it. All the sources can be found on the reactions article.Bless sins (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that a consensus on this map has been reached in the main reactions discussion page on it, although I see it was added again. Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Map
There has been strong opposition to this map and while it is good to see that Bless Sins is acting in good faith to improve it, there seem to be some fundamental flaws in including any kind of map like this, as can be seen if you look at the other discussion and the links in that discussion to a second controversial map here Talk:Gaza_War#The_Reactions_Map.
Even though the intentions are good I feel that this map constitutes OR and thus should not be included.
Zuchinni one (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I will, once again, ask you: why does this map constitute OR? Every single country shaded has a reliable source backing its position.
Also, with all due respect Zuchinni one, you have only opposed the map. How about being constructive and working actively to fix any problem that you see with it.Bless sins (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I have detailed my thoughts as to why this seems to be OR in the other talk section which I linked to above. Would you like me to repeat that information here or shall I leave it in the other section? Zuchinni one (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps this map would be better inserted here? Anti-Semitism is certainly not new and incidents like this are designed to fuel such sentiments. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the map, I don't think this is OR, most maps like this around WP are made from RS... by users. As far as I can see, you are missing Cuba on the map, however. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the comment by User:Thegoodlocust, I don't see any connection with antisemitism, unless you consider the State of Israel not a regular State whatsoever. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion regarding antisemitism is irrelevant to this topic.Bless sins (talk) 3:04 am, Today (UTC−3)
Yes, Thegoodlocust, all those countries have complained about the actions of the IDF because they hate the Jewish people and it's all part of a design to fuel antisemitism...? Seriously, please keep your world views off the talk page, it's not funny anymore. Can you read the discretionary sanctions linked at the top of the talk page,...seriously, you need to read them. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Cuba has been added. Also, please note anyone is free to edit the map and make changes and update it. I have released all rights on it, and you can modify it as you please within wiki rules (and common sense).Bless sins (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I see this as original synthesis. The viewpoints of companies cannot be objectively categorized as black and white (or blue and red), this is vastly oversimplified. Marokwitz (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No Synthesis. Just "States that condemned/protested the action, one way or another" vs. "States that didn't". No mistake. Salut,--IANVS (talk | cont) 06:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Marokqitz, can you explain yourself please? In particular, can you draw out statements from WP:SYNTH that would suggest this map is in violation of the policy? Can you give precise examples, with respect to certain countries? Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
My point is that none of the reliable sources includes a map similar to this, and no source divided the countries response in such a "black and white" way. You have synthesized many reliable sources and while doing so, categorized each to "black" or "white". The latter part is original research. In many cases this is a misrepresentation of what they actually say, which is more complex than simply "condemn" or "regret". Hope I'm clear now. 07:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the map should be added, as it offers some useful info at a glance. What is the relation between this and anti-semitism? I do not understand how anti-semitism is related to a map of condemning Israeli action at flotilla. Can someone elaborate please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.84.138 (talk) 06:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
No, please, no one elaborate here. Elaborate on 203.112.84.138's talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Bless sins, you are also missing Peru condemnation. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Let me illustrate one of the problems I see with this map and why it seems to be a combination of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

  • England is colored red
  • In the International reactions article it currently says "Prime Minister David Cameron has condemned the Israeli attack".
  • So that seems like a pretty clear cut case for England specifically condemning Israel.
  • However if you look at the actual BBC article linked as a source, you see "Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as completely unacceptable" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10218450.stm)
  • So at some point we went from a fairly neutral 'condemned it', to 'condemned the Israeli attack'.
  • So what color should England be?
  • People with the best of intentions can easily make mistakes here
  • There is often some kind of judgment made about whether the 'condemnation' was specific or general WP:OR
  • And when pulling quotes from multiple RS there can accidentally be synthesis WP:SYNTH

Because of this I am strongly opposed to the map in both this article and in the main International Reactions article.

At this point it might be worth asking for an independent WP:Third_opinion because this is getting to be a major topic with strong opinions on both sides.

Would anyone else support asking for WP:Third_opinion?

Zuchinni one (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment might be better than third opinion for this. I personally think the map should also be removed due to the worries of taking one leader's position as being the state position. The map needs work and some double checking so should sit in a subsection here while people work it out. Cptnono (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is about the event: "Gaza flotilla raid". The map contributes no information about this event. Vikipedy (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Zuchinni: You said:

However if you look at the actual BBC article linked as a source, you see "Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as completely unacceptable" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10218450.stm)

Actually, the article says this:

He said he was concerned at the raid taking place in international waters. Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as "completely unacceptable", saying he deplored the loss of life.

Clearly, from the context, "it" is the raid (Israeli, since the protesters didn't "raid" per se).
Hence UK would be red.Bless sins (talk) 01:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Bless, I think you just proved my point about OR. The only bit of the article referring to what Cameron said, that was actually in quotes(""), was "completely unacceptable". So you are making a judgment as to what was being condemned.
A good visual can undoubtedly improve a reader's understanding of an article. But in this case the map seems to add very little, and in fact much of what it does add seems to be confusion ... thus the incredibly long debate about it. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
England is colored red? ;-) These ... countries ... would ... like to remind you about where their foreign policy comes from ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 13:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The inherent problems are described in more detail here for a similar article. Think about it.

  • First a wiki editor creates sets, 'states that X', 'states that not X'.
  • They then have to create set inclusion decision procedures to identify whether a state belongs in the X or not X set. These first 2 steps are already highly problematic because it's an information classification system that doesn't come from a reliable source, it's opaque, non-deterministic and non-repeatable.
  • Once they have their opaque and personal decision procedures to decide whether something is in the X or not X set they have to find the input to that decision procedure, the RS. But which RS do you pick ? There will be many sources that make statements about what a country said about it. And which statement do you pick ? How do you know you haven't missed something ? How do you transform multiple fuzzy statements in a natural language into 'states that X' and 'states that not X' set memberships in a policy compliant way avoiding original research and synthesis ? It isn't possible. We're treating it like it's as easy as classifying integers into sets of odds and evens. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Creating sets can not a problem, nor a violation of WP:NOR. Populating these sets is where problems can potentially arise.
  • In almost all cases, either the official (the primary source), or a reliable news article (the secondary source), uses the word "condemn". I don't think its a stretch, when we clearly have a source saying "Y condemned Z", to classify Y as having condemned Z.
  • A couple other countries, don't use the word "condemn", but call Israeli actions "unacceptable". Do you think that constitutes as "protesting" Israeli actions?
  • You pick the RS and statement that's most relevant. If you have an RS that says "Y condemns Z", then you take it. If another RS doesn't say "Y condemns Z", then its likely incomplete for a number of potential reasons (brevity, date published, angle it covers etc.). "How do you transform multiple fuzzy statements." Because almost all of these statements contain, very explicitly, the term "condemn" (either in the original, or in the interpretation by a reliable source). If they do not, we can either take those countries off, or find other ways to include them.Bless sins (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


I've suggested that this map also be temporarily removed from the Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid page until a consensus is reached either via the talk pages, RFC, or Third Opinion. That suggestion can be found here in the talk page for the Reactions article. --- Zuchinni one (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I apologize Zuchini, I should have given you a heads up on the RfC process. Looks like this has the potential to bog down with so many involved editors chiming in. Just to do it myself, I would like to second "The viewpoints of companies cannot be objectively categorized as black and white (or blue and red), this is vastly oversimplified." and the idea of TEMPORARILY removing it until it is straightned out. It might be fixable but may not be. Best out of the main space for now at the very least.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
In full disclosure I took a look at this map to see how it compares to the one at Gaza War because Sean mentioned to me that there's a similar discussion going on here. I thought I'd share my thoughts. This one is actually a bit better than Gaza War. Although that is mostly because the information is rendered in a less useful way: the red category trumps the blue one. But ulitmately this map has the same failings as the one at Gaza War. We make statements that our knowledge is exhaustive when it is really very limited. I only bothered to write this at all because I happened to notice the odd case of Gabon. The little I know about the country along with my general knowledge about West African politics, Israeli foreign affairs, UN politics, etc. made me think the country was unlikely to be Blue. So I checked the source. It is a discussion of the UNSC meeting from a relatively small Oregon paper.[1] It would be fair to categorize the Gabonaise ambassador's printed statement as Blue. But since the minutes of UNSC meetings are so easily available, I actually looked at them.[2] They include this portion of the statment which was not included in the Salem paper: "This new violence is unacceptable under international law and has already revived tensions that put at risk the indirect talks between Palestinians and Israelis that had started three weeks ago. Along with the rest of the international community, my delegation firmly condemns these attacks, which are a hindrance to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process." In light of that, Gabon should be Red.

I think that illuminates the problem. We suggest that we have exhaustive knowledge of Gabon's diplomatic activites when we don't even have full knowledge of the one three-paragraph statement that we've relied upon. In order to colour any country Blue, we would need complete certainty that it never made a Red statement (absent an RS). If we can't even tell if Japan has said anything we shouldn't assume that we know everything that Poland has said. --JGGardiner (talk) 09:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think you have a very good point, and I acknowledge my mistake with respect to Gabon. By extension, you may ask, how do we know I haven't made a mistake on other blue countries as well?
Often, media (reliable sources) note not only reactions, but also lack thereof. For example, Canadian and American reactions' lack of "rush to judgement" (a condemnation is a judgment) is contrasted here with other countries' condemnation. So in this case, when a reliable source notes the absence of something, I think we can safely too.
What about Poland and the Vatican city? We would have to find similar sources, or remove them.Bless sins (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think enough discussion is done and map can be inserted in article. --Nevit (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think its been carefully discussed and can be added. --JoeJoe11 (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh ? Did someone respond to the very serious original research/synthesis problems that were raised above ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think there is a lot of support for the map, but I concede there is not yet consensus.
I am disappointed in the attitude of some users. Their attitude is that the map inherently has problems and therefore can't be included under any circumstances. Whereas a more productive attitude would be: the map currently has problems, but we can fix them through discussion.Bless sins (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to point out, while some blue nations maybe ought to be red, some red nations likely ought to be blue if more information was known. In regard to Gabon, they said "my delegation firmly condemns these attacks", yet it isn't clearly what is exactly meant - perhaps the attack against the blockade, i.e. condemning the flotilla, or condemning the media attacks, or condemning the attacks by other nations which condemned Israel without more information first. It isn't clear. I would refer to the source, but it doesn't contain the information it is attested to hold.
Bless sins, no, I don't believe such a map may be made. In similar matters where nations have condemned Israel they have often ended up embarrassed when startlingly obvious evidence to the contrary has arisen (i.e. the Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, and Muhammad al-Durrah incident). As such, many use specifically vague terminology, and allow the listeners to interpret it however they want to. So unless you know a manner to make a relevant politician from all of those nations make a frank statement on their position, it seems doomed to failure. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Come on, by condemns Gabon clearly meant aggression toward the people on-board the ships. That is something understood clearly.--yousaf465 04:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, without context I don't know what attacks are being condmned for sure, and despite your strong belief, you can't be sure either. Since the other 5 ships in the flotilla didn't attack the Israelis, nor have previous flotillas which were detained similarly, it could very easily refer to the attacks against the soldiers. I can't get context because that link it's supposed to be quoted from is not a good link. In reality, we currently have no source using that quote at all. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned somewhere else on this talk page, it looks like there are examples of taking quotes from sources that are not the official state position. Then others are just vague. So I doubt anyone disagrees that some work is needed. Is anyone working on verifying every source someone put in and updating it if needed?Cptnono (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think adding the map could be useful. If finding the position of a few countries are controversial, those specific instances can be discussed first here; no reason to throw the whole thing away because of a few instances. The map is as informative as a map can be. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Categorizing the responses to the raid is original research. The only way a map like this could be used is if a reliable source categorizes the responses or there is something more objective, like UN votes or signatories to a letter of condemnation--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to post this here, but it's related and more than the 3 editors discussing it on the other article are necessary in order to reach consensus. On the Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid article the lead uses the same types of OR/POV lists which are being protested here against the creation of a map. Additional experienced editors weighing in would be helpful and will likely expedite the process. The portion of the relevant discussion is Talk:Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid#Discussion of lead changes 24.46.71.166 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the map provides useful information, as long as the citations to back up the coloring are reliable. DaveApter (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with the map is not that it is really OR, but grouping country's responses into only two categories does not accurately describe them, to put China's reaction in the same category as Turkey's is misleading. Mek108

  • Comment - What is the source of this map? If it is from a WP:RS (reliable source), that should be noted and it would seem to be admissible, especially if they detail their rationale for decided which country is which. If a non-reliable source has created this map on their own, it would not be admissible. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Caption on IDF footage

The caption has seen some POV warring and it's about time to discuss it directly.

If you watch the video it is unquestionable that these are activists beating a soldier who is on the ground. The POV dispute is only whether this happened before or after the soldiers "attacked." The current caption does not explain this well. I therefore propose the following caption:

Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists beating a fallen soldier on the deck.

I think that should satisfy NPOV and adequately explain the image.  —Rafi  16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why can't we just say 'The IDF released this snapshot which it says "..."' or 'Source X reported ""'. This would make it much harder for there to be any dispute.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What Nosfartu said. Neatly sidesteps dispute. This solution works with WP:PRIMARY sources from the flotilla, too. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
How do reliable secondary sources not connected to the IDF, the MFA or to the Israel-Palestine conflict describe this image e.g. BBC, China Daily, whatever ? Sean.hoyland - talk 16:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What Sean.hoyland said. Even better suggestion. If WP:SECONDARY sources have published the image we should use them instead. TFOWRidle vapourings 16:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure, but I believe the BBC discusses the video the image is from here.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From what I have seen most news outlets have just linked to or embedded the Youtube video. That's part of why I want an explicit caption; what's happening is much more clear in the video than in the image. I think "published by the IDF" is adequate qualification for NPOV.  —Rafi  16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Besides the [BBC, the Christian Science Monitor embeds the video here.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
How about this: "Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists attacking a soldier who just landed on the deck." That's how the CSM you cited describes it.  —Rafi  17:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was reading this and wanted to point out WP:PRIMARY says to not make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source, because any interpretation of any primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. These are quotes from the article:
  • The Christian Science Monitor wrote "this grainy, black-and-white footage shows Israeli commandos getting attacked in what the Foreign Ministry calls "life-threatening and violent activity." "
  • The Christian Science Monitor reported "pro-Israel activists, meanwhile, say Israeli commandos were attacked by pro-Palestinian activists armed with slingshots, knives, and metal bars as the commandos rappelled from helicopters down onto the Mavi Marmara"
  • The Christian Science Monitor quoted Ms. Yedidia of the Israeli consulate as saying "they were there to provoke Israeli forces".
--70.236.71.25 (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to "shows Israeli commandos getting attacked." I don't think my caption proposal contains anything "interpretive" or "synthetic" regarding the image in question.  —Rafi  17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
What is wrong with quoting Ms. Yedida of the Israeli consulate, or the other proposals?--70.236.71.25 (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course it's interpretive. Someone could put 'people acting in self defense against an armed assault by soldiers on their boat' and it would be no better or worse a description if it were attributed to the people who think that is what it shows. We should keep these things simple, neutral, RS based and make absolutely sure we aren't promoting a specific interpretation/narrative and excluding others if there are conflicting views. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let's go back to "beating" rather than "attacking." That's the most objective description I can think of. I got "attacking" from CSM.
To 70.236.71.25: The image's caption should also be concise and describe the image precisely. Do you have a specific proposal that would accomplish this?  —Rafi  17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the image and caption here is better: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/middleeast/02media.html  —Rafi  17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The BBC caption on a similar image, in the set of images in the link above says "The Israelis say their soldiers were set upon and beaten with bats, chairs and metal poles as soon as they boarded the Mavi Marmara. Activists say the soldiers attacked them first." i.e. they present both narratives. The BBC also use a caption that says something as simple as 'showing the violence on board the flotilla' i.e. ignoring both narratives. The NYT example you posted seems to also take the second approach, no narratives. I don't know which is the best approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Either approach seems good to me, but ignoring both narratives may be easier in small spacial constraints.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep in mind this image is in the Israel's account section; NPOV still applies, of course, but the basis for having the image is the video's importance to the Israeli account. I still argue that "Snapshot of footage published by the IDF, showing activists hitting/beating/attacking a fallen soldier on the deck" is a fair description of what the image shows and where it came from.  —Rafi  18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This seems fair to me, also. And after looking at the video, it's hard to fault the term "attacking". Too much waffling in the description--as in "Israeli's say"--seems intended to undermine credibility and is not NPOV.Hickorybark (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

we have to take the idf footage with a pinch of salt i'd say as it's the army who has committed the massacre. overmore it's well possible the video was manipulated. the very least one can catch is that they didn't publish those passages which show the killings. also, they have confiscated cameras and mobile phones of the activists (and still not given back).--Severino (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"the army who has committed the massacre" is hardly neutral language, Severino.Hickorybark (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Proposal: "Snapshot of footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods hitting a fallen soldier."

  1. Keep IMFA as the source; possibly add Washington Post or Ynet as sources as well.
  2. Attribution given to IDF so that possible biases in the source are clear.
  3. "Hitting" is neutral language.
  4. "With rods" because multiple activists had rods, not readily apparent in this snapshot.
  5. "Fallen soldier" supplies information from the previous seconds of video not seen in this snapshot.
  6. No mention of narratives regarding who attacked first or was to blame.

 —Rafi  20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rafi, you keep promoting the IDF narrative. Why is that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 02:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sean, please assume good faith on the part of other editors and keep the focus on the subject matter. Thanks.Hickorybark (talk) 16:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If I'm promoting the IDF narrative, then I'm doing so in a section clearly labeled as the IDF narrative. But as per Luisdanielmesa below, I think my caption is pretty neutral and supported by RS.  —Rafi  16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- I see there is more edit warring over this caption despite there being a 1RR restriction, discretionary sanctions and a talk page section to discuss the caption... I think some users are kind of losing sight of what we are doing here. The images we use should illustrate the important aspects of this event. What were the important aspects of this event ? Nine people being killed, 60-ish people on the boats being injured, some seriously, and 10 soldiers being injured springs to mind given its prominence in RS. That's what we are supposed to be illustrating, all of those things, not just one of them. We aren't here to facilitate the transmission of specific narratives and focus only on imagery that has been specifically selected for exactly that purpose by an interested party. Can I appeal to editors to try to step out of their partisan camps and work towards a balanced illustration of what happened both in terms of imagery and the associated RS based captions ? These edit wars/NPOV non-compliance issues are kind of lame. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Any other images available? You gotta work with what you have Sean... Posting a neutral description of what you have is good enough for me, because it describes something without giving a POV. If you feel the caption has specifically been selected then just point out the images come from the IDF and let the readers know. Do the best with what you have. The best way to be balanced is to not think about the sides and just write the facts (i.e. this MEDIA provided by SOURCE shows X). I Approve what Rafi wrote. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Another way forward?

I added a tag to the material for until a consensus is reached. The discussion seems to be going in a somewhat circular fashion with some people saying 'I think X is POV' while others say 'I think X is not POV'. Since directly quoting someone doesn't seem to be resolving the dispute, it would seem there are a number of options:

  1. List a number of captions and find one we all find acceptable
  2. Find a new image
  3. Seek a third opinion
  4. Go to a relevant noticeboard and seek input

So maybe people could say what they aren't opposed to here, and then once we agree on how to resolve the problem we can start doing it.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a figure with a stick or similar object over his or her head. It could be an Israeli, or passenger or anyone. I don't see anyone being beaten. The passengers have disputed the IDF account. As we have two different accounts, the existing caption goes. First Verse (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Limited footage

Posting individual snapshots are misleading. As Cenk Uygur has noted, the whole engagement lasted over an hour but the IDF has only released about two minutes of footage, and NONE from when the soldiers started firing. They killed nine people with multiple gunshots, plus the 30 others wounded so all-in-all the commandos must have fired at least 50 shots, none of which they show on video. Did the IDF just stop filming once the commandos starting shooting? Of course not. The IDF is selectively releasing video to shape public debate, and Wikipedia should not go along with them by posting their few images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.241.63 (talk) 06:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

And they've also confiscated footage from neutral journalists on board and started selectively releasing it.
Why aren't there any photos of the Israelis with guns, of the international protests, or of the funeral of the victims?--99.50.129.231 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In favor of this image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Activistboatclash.jpg

I see that while I was signed out the caption was scaled back and then the image was removed entirely.

I argue that the image is critical to the IDF narrative, and after all it is in the section titled "Israel's account." The video clip was played widely in the American media and the two idfnadesk versions have over 2.6 million hits on Youtube [3][4]. It is the most provocative evidence in support of the IDF account, so it's no wonder some editors are opposed to it.

I agree with Nosfartu, the debate has been circular. I'll try to summarize and respond.

Arguments against the image/caption:

  1. All we can see is a man holding a stick; interpreting what's happening is POV.
  2. The footage is taken selectively from the broader context of the clash.
  3. The IDF is biased/corrupt so their footage is illegitimate.
  4. This is the IDF's version, so we should write "claimed," "allegedly," etc.
  5. There are too many images supporting Israel's side, creating unbalance. (There were two images in the section as of 4 June.)

Response:

  1. The events transpiring in the footage are undeniable if you watch the video. If your vision is too selective then there are numerous secondary sources that can explain it to you, for example [5][6][7]. Not even the activists involved dispute it; they only dispute the context.
  2. My caption makes no comment on who used violence first or was acting in self-defense. If you want broader context, read the accounts. The image of activists beating a collapsed soldier is definitely provocative, but that's exactly why the image is notable and belongs in the Israel account section.
  3. The extreme version of this argument is obviously POV. More legitimate criticism of how the IDF handled the footage belongs in other sections of the article.
  4. See WP:CLAIM.
  5. If one of the images has to go, it should be the one of the soldier being thrown. The activist with metal rod in hand is an icon of the IDF account. Alternatively, editors can add more images to the activists' account to achieve balance. Also notice that the article's lead image shows commandos with assault rifles.

This is now my preferred caption:

Snapshot of footage showing activists[1] with rods beating a fallen soldier[1]. Source: IDF.[2]
Refs: [1] WaPost or other secondary sources, [2] <ref name="IsraeliVideo" /> (Israel's Foreign Ministry)

I hope consensus isn't hopeless.  —Rafi  05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

pro-Palestinian(?) activists

The lead sentence says flotilla was carrying 663 pro-Palestinian activists. What does pro-Palestinian means?Baharyakin (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggested all attributions relating the group to a religion or race be removed. See discussions above. The group itself defines the motion as humanitarian. The term pro-Palestinian is deliberately introduce to discredit the group. --Nevit (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
If you see above, it was a provocative action against Israel, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians" (Greta Berlin, organiser) 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Reinstating comment, it seems to have been removed in an edit conflict earlier. TFOWRidle vapourings 18:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It means that they support Palestinian position over Israeli position in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Disagree w/ Nevit. Agree w/ Shalom. I think pro-Palestinian is 1) Clear to anyone who has even the slightlest understanding of I/P issues, 2) accurate, 3) Hard to contrue as an attempt to "discredit the group". NickCT (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a propaganda method. IDF earlier attributed the activists to Al-Qaeda etc. etc. But withdraw later. Humanitarian is what the group defines itself. If you do not agree on Humanitarian it is better to leave name without a attribution.
This is not a propaganda method. The flotilla may define themself as "Humanitarian" but that is not true. It's a sham. Pro-Palestinian is not accusatory. It declares their mentality, their actual purpose (ie. helping Palestinians) without judging them. 95.86.93.70 (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)The Real Deal

http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/

--Nevit (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I would agree with both "Humanitarian" and "ProPalestinian". Could I propose, "663 pro-Palestinian, humanitarian activists,[6] as well as journalists and dignitaries from 37 nations,[7] known collectively as the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla"? NickCT (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I would prefer it without any attribution and just making a link to their respective page. There are pro-Israeli views that believe they had missions other than Humanitarian aid. They will object to humanitarian. The topic can be elaborated there. --Nevit (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
They DID have other missions other than Humanitarian aid. They said so themselves: they wanted to break the blockade of Gaza. In many people's POV, breaking blockades is an act of war, not of a humanitarian. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Humanitarian is accurate. Some may (some or many of them) also have been pro-Palestinian. Remove pro-Palestinian please. Sarah777 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since Gaza refused to receive the flotilla's cargo from Israel, there is doubt that the cargo was in fact needed as humanitarian aid in Gaza. So maybe instead of writing that they were humanitarian, it's more neutral to write that THEY claim they are humanitarian. ShalomOlam (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Shall we go directly to the source? Here is how they describe themselves. And please go to the source to read the full page.
"...bringing in international witnesses to see first hand the devastating effects of Israeli violence against the Palestinian people ... We want to break the siege of Gaza. We want to raise international awareness about the prison-like closure of the Gaza Strip and pressure the international community to review its sanctions policy and end its support for continued Israeli occupation. We want to uphold Palestine's right to ..." http://www.freegaza.org/en/about-us/mission
Is there any real question that they are "pro-Palestinian activists? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There were also journalists and humanitarians on board where weren't necessarily pro-Palestinian. My thought is that when speaking specifically about the activists pro-Palestinian might be OK ... but in blanket statements about the passengers it implies a bias that might not be present with everyone. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead sentence is wrong. The cited source (the Associated Press) says: HAIFA, Israel — Hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists... There's no sign of "663" anywhere in the source. I think we need to be careful to make clear that not all the passengers were necessarily "pro-Palestinian". There were journalists and parliamentarians on board, too. Incidentally, I think in this context it's fine to say "activist" - it was the (pro-Palestinian) activists who intended to go through the blockade; the other passengers were aboard for their own reasons. Reinstating comment, it seems to have been removed in an edit conflict earlier. TFOWRidle vapourings 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with TFWOR. The problem here is that there were so many different people on the boat for different reasons that it does not make sense to lump them all into one group. There is an entire article devoted to the people on board the flotilla. The lead should remain as neutral as possible and not make any factual assumptions. This has been discussed repeatedly Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Activists_or_passengers.3F, here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Use_of_the_word_.22activist.28s.29.22, and elsewhere. The terminology of Pro-Palestinian and Activist may be OK, but the problem is lumping everybody into specific groups. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be fair to call them "humanitarian activists" as their mission was to bring humanitarian aid to a "ghetto".--Severino (talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As Shalom stated above, the term humanitarian is self claimed by the group. We can use it only if it is accepted by other sources. I prefer not to use anything if it can not be verified. --Nevit (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem here is that while some of them were undoubtedly Humanitarian there have been people claiming that others were intentionally trying to become martyrs, and others were journalists whose accounts have been quoted and assumed to be NPOV. So my problem is just trying to put all the different people together into a single group. Thus I support a neutral term like passengers or people. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Both are neutral terms. OK for me.

The martyr video published by Israel came to be a previous shot by Iranian state-run TV. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

--Nevit (talk) 00:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

According to this link, a Hamas leader is confirmed among the "activists". The article refers to him as "the leader of the Hamas terrorist network in the Netherlands". 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You're suggesting using an Arutz Sheva source for this kind of info ? I assume you're joking. If it's true it will be available in multiple high quality RS in the international media. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A good point, here's a google search turning up a few more though, not sure of the reliability for some of them though. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of context quote shows bias

The Norweign expert, Palle Ydstebø, views have been taken out of context in what seems to be a biased fashion.

In the "weapons section" the focus is on how this expert says there is no "military" equipment, and "normal items".

But if you actually read the article, you get a _very_ different impression. In the referenced article, he also says this:

"... the large number of ax and hammer handles. Such solid wooden handles is very good as a battlefield weapon… When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful pop-peas, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight. .. if several attacks a soldier with a knife and gun battles, they can both harm and ultimately kill him."

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Fmidtosten%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10008056&sl=no&tl=en

To keep any semblance of fairness and balance here, his expert opinion needs to be put in it's full context also giving his views on possible premeditation of violence, and the pictures showing "very good battlefield weapons".

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you will find axes on pretty much any decently sized boat – as safety equipment. Physchim62 (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I find these speculations about intent and possible usage of objects a bit silly personally. I'm expecting to see something about how a Palestinian keffiyeh (like the one in the IDF photo) could be used to muffle someone's cries for help and thus assist terrorism at some point. It seems to me that there is a inverse relationship between the amount of opinion in an article and it's quality. Britannica doesn't write articles this way. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but in this case it's an expert opinion which is being quoted. And half of his opinions (those making the passengers look harmless) have been included, and half of his opinions (speaking of passengers as possessing dangerous battlefield weapons, and possibly premeditating violence) have been left out. How is that not blatant bias? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There's discussion above about it at Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_6#Norwegian_military_expert, which pretty much came to agreement after some translation difficulties; I wanted to get what we said right first and was expecting ReneJohnsen to do the edit. I agree we should try to keep things concise and avoid excessive opinionation (outside of the legalities).John Z (talk) 09:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that does seem like blatant bias. Leaving things out selectively is tiresome behavior. The information that strikes me as important to include for balance is something about his comment "When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful pop-peas, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight". I still find it a bit hard to see why we should particularly care about senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø speculations about what it might suggest to have a set of people + a set of objects together in a space. Obviously people aren't harmless and will use whatever is available, not just 'military equipment', to defend themselves whether they're soldiers or people facing soldiers when they feel under attack. Still, if the consensus is to participate in this he said/she said narrative war then the least we can do is not introduce bias ourselves by misrepresenting sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
All the information in full is the best way to prevent bias, as Sean said. About what Sean wrote "Obviously people aren't harmless and will use whatever is available, not just 'military equipment', to defend themselves", i have an opinion: they don't need to defend themselves in the first place if they are not expecting to be attacked. What i understand is that it was made to call for attention and leave Israel in a bad standing point. I saw one of the "activists" state that this is his second time trying to become a martyr and that he hopes the third time he can become one, so i don't think his primary objective was to aid Gaza, but to die. I don't see how having marbles and slingshots is going to help the people in Gaza. As i just said, it's just my opinion based on what i've seen and read. Luisdanielmesa (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sean I agree with you on two things. "Leaving things out selectively is tiresome behavior." Happens here and there on Wikipedia but this source looked like it was introduced several hours ago to say "hey look I found this source that said they weren't weapons!" There was a whole discussion on how to fix it. And it got fixed kind of. The second (and more relevant) point I agree with is "I still find it a bit hard to see why we should particularly care about senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø speculations about what it might suggest to have a set of people + a set of objects together in a space." I say axe the whole paragraph. It isn't needed. No offense to the guy but his opinion means very little in the grand scheme of things. Cptnono (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
...well yes, also, getting onboard a ship that doesn't have respirators as part of it's fire safety equipment is dumb. speculation sucks. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So how do people feel about removing the whole paragraph? I know people worked on it and it is a shame to ditch RS but it has too much weight and just is not important enough of an observation to be included.Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm fine either way, lose it all, balance it or maybe cut it back to 'A senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø stated after watching the released pictures that "This is not military equipment"'. The whole narrative war strikes me as bordering on the ridiculous so I probably shouldn't comment... Sean.hoyland - talk 11:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
We have the IDF version of events, the activists version of events. So, it seems to me that _if_ this guy provides an _expert and non-biased analysis_ then his opinions are both relevant and important to the discussion of "weapons investigation".
Can I propose this:
"A senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø said that the pictures show no military weapons and many common items found on any boat, but that some of the items are effective battlefield weapons, including types of weapons used in the intifada, and indicate that some activists may have premeditated violence".
Does that accurately and fairly characterize his views? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It has both points, so it sounds fair. No military weapons but still battlefield weapons. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 02:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry why this photo and a random Norwegian? Is there a question that maybe it was the GFF who raided the Israeli military vessels and air support, that they were trying to climb up those ropes? Otherwise what's the point? Most people have got stuff in their sheds that would make this IDF alleged "weapons photo" look tame -- not even a flare gun! I'd venture that most, say, hotels in the USA or Turkey or Israel have better, for example firearms on premises. I smell a blame the victims tendency here. RomaC (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, if you take a shovel out of your shed and beat your neighbor to death with it, it is a "weapon." That's why the picture is relevant. As for the Norweign, he seems to provide a good NPOV expert analysis of what's shown in the picture. It would be better if we had someone equally unbiased in English, but we don't.
We had one vote that said my earlier text seemed balanced and fair. Anyone disagree? If not, I'll go and make the change. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Boarding

The facts are unnecessarily vague. I suggest including personal accounts of Al-Jazeera cameraman for example, 

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6521UG.htm

and account of Israeli soldier who claims to have killed six of the pro-Palestinian activists: 

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445

The independent accounts presumably from different political perspectives appear to corroborate each other. AFarber (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Support more detail on the violence while boarding per AFarber - the facts do seem to be becoming clearer. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I support adding details from these personal accounts, as long as it is not done by one of the editors with serious POV problems, selectively quoting to push their own viewpoint (as has been done dozens of times in this article). Marokwitz (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Check these please: [8] and [9] . --Lapost (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The Al-Jazeera interview with Jamal Elshayyal includes the statement that the Israelis were firing live ammunition down from the helicopter prior to the boarding and that he knew this because one person was shot through the top of the head. Seems like this would also have made it into the final edit of this paragraph. http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.217.86 (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing story

I've noticed that the story regarding Turkish fighting has been "evolving" over the past few days. Specifically, the Turkish role in the attack been clarified from "non-violent peace activists" to "planned resistance to an illegal boarding using non-lethal weapons". Given that non-IDF ammunition casings were found at the scene, the ship's captain claims his passengers threw their guns overboard, and several IDF soldiers have gunshot wounds, I suspect that the Turkish side of the story will continue to evolve. I completely support are prohibition against WP:SYNTH, but I suspect that a reliable source has (or will) notice this odd change in stories and report on it. I suggest we be on the lookout for this because I think it will speak volumes about the reliability of statements put out by the activists verses the reliability of statements put out by the IDF. and yes, if the IDF story has similarly "evolved", I think we should include that as well. Rklawton (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010

Perhaps I didn't make my recommendation clear. I'm proposing we add a section about how one (or both?) side has repeatedly changed their story. We've seen this even as this article has evolved. This isn't a "forum" or "soapbox" issue - this is an article improvement issue. Specifically, I'm suggesting one or more editors look for reliable sources that point out the obvious (rather than rely on our own syntheses) - as it relates directly to the aftermath and world reaction. Rklawton (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UT

I don't know if there are any sources actually saying that. It looks to me that people made assumptions and Free Gaza sent out info to the press without knowing the story. Now that more people are talking and there is more footage it has changed from a complete victimization to some self defense. Hopefully a source says that but I haven't seen one yet. Until then our hands are tied and we need to use some common sense to cut sources that are contradicted by numerous others.Cptnono (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Should journalist accounts be a separate subsection

Currently they are together with the flotilla participants and organizers. But that might suggest that the all the journalists support the viewpoints of one side.

If journalists are NPOV it seems they should be separated from BOTH the israeli and activist accounts. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the goal should be to merge it into one section. Not saying it is possible though.Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims of "Go back to Auschwitz" transmission by one of the ships

(Originally raised in this discussion: Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz")

This Walla News article[10] includes a recording of this dialogue. I've included a translation of the article (original in Hebrew) and a transcript of the conversation in the recording below:

The Marmara to the navy: "Go back to Auschwitz"
A recording of the radio network shows the dialogue between navy ships to the command bridge of the Marmara. The activists on-board the ship were called to stop and replied - "We're helping Arabs, don't forget 9/11"
The IDF Spokesperson released a tape tonight (Friday) that records parts of the dialogue between the command bridge of the ship Marmara when entering Israeli territorial waters, and the navy ships calling it to stop where it is. The tape has a man's and woman's voices as they converse with navy forces.
"This is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade," is heard on the radio in a call to the bridge of the Marmara. One of the activists responds to IDF forces - "Shut up - go back to Auschwitz," and immediately afterward a woman can be heard telling the navy: "We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter." Then the man's voice is heard again, saying "We're helping Arabs going against the US, don't forget 9/11."
Hundreds of the Gaza flotilla activists who were deported from Israel landed starting Wednesday in Istanbul and received a warm welcome by thousands of cheering supporters, carrying Turkish and Palestinian flags and shouting calls against Israel. Also on the planes were the 9 bodies of the activists killed during the commandos' takeover of the ships, four of them Turkish citizens.
The planes carried 466 of the deportees, mostly Turks but also British, Norwegian, Dutch and Spanish citizens. Some of the deportees claimed that the number of dead was greater than what was reported and that Israel had removed evidence from the scene. "We've been scared, frightened, kidnapped and attacked with battleships while we were taking aid to needy people in Gaza," said Mustafa Ahmet, a British citizen of Turkish origin.

A transcript of the recording:

- ???, this is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade.

- Shut up, go back to Auschwitz.

- We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter.

- We're helping Arabs going against the US, don't forget 9/11 guys.

82.102.159.23 (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  • i see lie or error in it: "The IDF Spokesperson released a tape tonight (Friday) that records parts of the dialogue between the command bridge of the ship Marmara when entering Israeli territorial waters, and the navy ships calling it to stop where it is"
OR IF IDF annexed somehow the Mediterranean Sea this may lead to war at lest with NATO. That should be more highlighted, otherwise the upcoming "Freedom Racing" Cyprus-Interception and around may fail into war zone. The planed cruising of thousand observers/tourist may be risky vacation plan to risky even for adrenaline tourists. Ai 00 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC
I'm giving Walla News the benefit of the doubt here and assuming this is just a stupid (albeit glaring) error. Here's a better source with the same recording[11]. It's also mentioned here[12]. 82.102.159.23 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

an account that should be taken "with a pinch of salt" as it comes from the army which is responsible for the killings (and needs relief now). also, we would need a reliable translation.--Severino (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a desperate attempt at vilifying the crew of the ship. I wouldn’t include it till it is verified by a reliable third party. Likeminas (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxY7Q7CvQPQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.132.173 (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The soldiers supposedly contacting the Marmara are clearly saying "Defne Y, this is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade." As for the second voice, according to her husband, it is the voice of Huwaida Arraf, who says she was on board the Challenger I. http://aliabunimah.posterous.com/proof-emerges-idf-audio-of-radio-communicatio --Fjmustak (talk) 23:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So epople stop reverting my edit claiming "opinion", this audio recording is NOT the original, but an audio reproduction by the IDF. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html RobMasterFunk (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The wording in the ynet article is misleading - that is an edited (condensed) version of the original recording, not a "reproduction"[13]. 82.102.159.23 (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It is also reported on Ynet: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html and HaAretz: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1172392.html ShalomOlam (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ynet is a website, we shouldn't say "Israeli media published". RomaC (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Ynet is an on-line version of an actuall newspaper, that is printed for years. The same goes for HaAretz. ShalomOlam (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral reporting

I can see at least two Israel dominated POVs just in the lead - numerous sources (including the live al-Jazeera reports) have claimed that Israel munitions had killed two activists before the assault started. Some poorly translated Turkish sources are claiming there are a number of people missing or alternatively that there were more deaths with the bodies thrown overboard. 86.181.224.19 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Another witness, Yücel Köse, who was on the ship Gazze repeated Yıldırım’s allegations of missing people. “The Mavi Marmara was bombed right in front of our eyes. They threw the wounded into the water,” he said. Köse said the soldiers were upset when some of their men were held by activists aboard the Mavi Marmara".
from: Todays Zaman, "Israel killed more than 9, threw wounded into sea, witnesses say" 04 June 2010, Friday
Yaron Hadany 08:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that RED FLAG applies here. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Historical Perspective?

I don't really see the point in having a "Historical Perspective" section on this current event article...perhaps it should be separated and/or removed.

Shortcut

Yarou (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this has been discussed before already and the problem is simply that the article is too long already. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree, putting the article's length forward as the reason to remove is a weak excuse. The Exodus part is only 1260 characters big. It is funny how you concern about the article's length while there are 2 images in the article (this and this) that shows the same thing: Israeli soldiers being attacked. So if the article's length is really bothering you, then you should remove one image.
The part about the Exodus is essential, because too many people make a reference about it. I will give you some examples:

I could continue giving examples of comparisons with the SS Exodus. Randam (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be added and the section is only 2 paragraphs and links to the main article SS Exodus. Perhpas the section name cna be "Gaza Flotilla and the Exodus", like the NY time heading. To not make a mention when there are so many international papers (Jewish included) making the comparison would be wrong of us as editors.Ccson (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'll change the section heading to "Mari Marmara and the Exodus". Please list what text you think is not supported by the current references. I'm sure I can a reliable and verifiable source in the SS Exodus article.Ccson (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed at length here: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_5#Claims_of_previous_boardings_in_international_waters Also keep in mind that A LOT of the more relevant background information Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_5#how_it_all_began... was removed due to length issues. At best this deserves a link, and not an entire section, but I'm not sure that this event is relevant at all. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How can you say its not relevant when so many natinal newspapers are reminding the world of the comparison? I think it needs a section so that we can point to the Main article.Ccson (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree that this does not merit an entire section for this article; said event may be referenced by notable sources but that does not mean it fits within the scope and relevance of the article. Yarou (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
What about putting it as a subsection of the Mavi Marmara sections? I'm still not sure why 1260 characters is considered huge when newspapers are making an entire article about the two incidents. The Exodus fits within the scope of this article because that's why the newspapers are discussing the Exodus now, 63 years later.Ccson (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Plus, the article will be "polished" by the History staff", let them decide on the proper length.Ccson (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The length is not really the issue here; there are many comparisons that can be made between this event and similar events that have occurred in history. However, these comparisons do not contribute to the article in any substantive way; in other words, it does not fit the scope of the article. Your justification for adding it is based on the fact that several newspapers are drawing this specific comparison between the Mavi Marmara and Exodus, but that does not prove that this comparison fits within the scope of this article. Yarou (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
In regards to your statement
"I'm still not sure why 1260 characters is considered huge when newspapers are making an entire article about the two incidents."
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. It is an encyclopedia. The events on the Exodus were not directly related to these events in any way. Their only connection are some superficial similarities. This article is about the Gaza flotilla raid, not historical maritime incidents. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As a compromise, I renamed the section to "See also" and removed all the cruft that was in place. I still do not see the relevance of it, nor does it fit the scope of the article, but hopefully this will resolve this situation. Yarou (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
No, your compromis is unacceptable and you should have gain consensus before reverting my work with a 24 hour period. I know that wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the majority of the references are from newspapers. The fact that a notable periodical with a respected editor makes the reference reliable and notable, and therefore our job is not wonder why a professional reporter or editor would make such a comparions, we should just be NEUTRAL and make the edit. Please replace my text?Ccson (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the removal of the historical section is unacceptable for it is very much related and in line with this event from multiple ways and perspectives. That's why it was widely included included in numerous media reports covering the event. It is not sensible to remove this section merely on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --386-DX (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Please look at Zuchinni one's links, consensus has already been reached that the article can do without irrelevant information. Yarou (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
@ Zuchinni. Yes, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, but the reason why we put this is something else. It's about the (historical) context. I can give you an example with a very different subject. It is like how the article Air Force One photo op incident talks about the September 11 attacks. Therefore, we should put these major comparisons/memories as context to the article. Randam (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's make a compromise. The entire section "Historical Perspective" goes away, in return there will be a short "See also" section + 1 image of the Exodus. Nothing more, nothing less. OK? Randam (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Randam, my opinions on what constitutes a compromise don't really matter. I'm only one person and wikipedia is a collaboration. But, while my personal opinion is that the Exodus is not relevant, I'm not seriously opposed to a See Also section with a link to the Exodus. However I'm not sure a picture is necessary. Simply a link and a brief description as already exists there.
But be aware that there had been a See Also section earlier that got WAY out of control. My main objection isn't to including the content you feel is important ... but the fact that once one thing appears, lots of other stuff tends to come along with it. Then we have huge discussions in the talk section and eventually the entire bit (including the items people initially fought for) get removed.
Then someone new comes along and says ... "hey, we really should include XXX" ... and the cycle of edits repeats.
Zuchinni one (talk) 03:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you make a good point, but we should not hide information because of a fear of a edit-war. Let's try this and see what happens. I will help you by preventing escalation of this issue. I think 1 picture doesn't hurt anyone. That's how a compromise works. Nobody gets 100% of what it wants. Randam (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The way the article is currently structured follows the consensus we have reached in this topic of discussion. I extend a warm thanks to all those involved. Yarou (talk) 06:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Zuchinni was right above, and he's right again here. This other historical event has no relation at all to this recent event, and thus is totally out of scope of the article. And by creating a "see also" section just to find a place to keep this picture and link, is not only wrong because it doesn't belong here, but is wrong because it's open ended and will surely lead to an edit war. What else is vaguely relevant and should be "seen"? Examples of Hamas violence along with photos? The section should just be deleted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If I have understood the comments correctly a compromise is too have a "See also" link. --Kslotte (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Deleted, I think it was a bad idea to have references. --Kslotte (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What's in sources and article text not matching up

I'm finding that some of th statements in the article aren't accurate representations of what's in the sources. I took out:

Free Mediterranean

Activists say that the Israeli commandos used electric shocks on those who tried to form a human ring on the bridge. ref name="Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists"/

Because the source doesn't seem to me to indicate that this took place on the Free Mediterranean but instead on the main ship where the conflict took place. I'm also not sure that something attributed to six greek participants should be changed to "activists" which implies to me at least that the accuasation was widespread. Bu tmaybe that point is too nitpicky. If the source does say that this took place on that ship then feel free to restore. Or restore it to a more general section rather than one about a ship not mentioned in that part of th article. Thanks. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Some times people change it to their interpretation, other times the source itself as edited dynamically. Anyways, we should just report what the source says.--Nosfartu (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to fix it and put it back in. One guy did make the accusation so I attributed it. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm also a little confused because Wikipedia's article says six ships participated and names them, and this isn't one of them. But then this other Free Mediterranean is mentioned further down in the article. I can't find anything about it online??? Anyone? Freakshownerd (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

EDIT-Misread

Here's the quote from the source:

Michalis Grigoropoulos, who was at the wheel of the Free Mediterranean, said: "We were in international waters. The Israelis acted like pirates, completely out of the normal way that they conduct nautical exercises, and seized our ship. 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."

And, it turns out you're correct about an extra ship: the Sofia and Free Mediterranean are the same boat. I'm restoring and merging the deleted section.--Carwil (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing 'off the coast'

As per Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Location and the following BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm

It might be a good idea to remove reference to "off the coast" as the location of the raid.

Why?

  1. Well first of all according to the map in the BBC article the convoy was more than 100km from both Israel and Gaza.
  2. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about this happening in International Waters. That seems to be in opposition to "off the coast"
  3. Lots of different RS seem to give lots of different descriptions, they all seem to say international waters but only a few say 'off the coast'. So far this BBC RS is the only that seems to have a map (someone want to try and find another map?)
  4. The location has been the subject of some edit wars. So it seems like we really should make a decision and stick to it.

The best thing that I can come up with is to say 'Northwest of Gaza, in international waters'

But I'm very open to suggestions.

Any major opposition to removing "off the coast"? Zuchinni one (talk) 03:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

in international waters of the Mediterranean sea? RomaC (talk) 04:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy with that. Anyone object? Zuchinni one (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I object. Based on the BBC map, it looks to be a least 140km north from the coast of Gaza , and only 28km west of Israel's tritorial waters (according to ynet.co.il reporter). ShalomOlam (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Rachel Corrie seized

A report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National news bulletin 2 PM (GMT+10)on Saturday, 05 June 2010 said the MV Rachel Corrie has been seized.Bernard Macdougall (talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is an RS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10244301.stm Zuchinni one (talk) 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"There had been earlier reports that soldiers from the Israeli navy had boarded the ship, named the Rachel Corrie. But according to the Twitter account of the Cyprus-based Free Gaza Movement, those reports were incorrect." CBC  Cs32en Talk to me  04:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"An international aid ship en route for the Gaza Strip was intercepted by Israeli troops early on Saturday, the Gaza-based committee awating the vessel told AFP." AFP  Cs32en Talk to me  05:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite a few reports that the Rachel Corrie had been boarded, the BBC Radio News cited a passenger on the vessel, about 3PM (GMT+10) Saturday as saying she has not yet been (despite the presence of zodiacs and other vessels nearby).Bernard Macdougall (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC Radio News has just quoted the IDF: "As of now we have not boarded the ship." Bernard Macdougall (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV news has just reported that Israeli forces have boarded the MV Rachel Corrie. Bernard Macdougall (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: IDF commando soldiers boarded the ship, and took control of it without violence. The ship is now taken to Ashdod port where the cargo will be unloaded, checked and then sent to the Gaza Strip through Israel's land crossing. [14] MathKnight 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Staff Sergeant S. - An Israeli commando who killed 6

St.-Sgt. S. - commando who killed 6. The Jerusalem Post, 6.4.2010 http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 IDF.is.Lying (talk) 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although for different reasons, I think this is a fantastic source. This si someone spelling out that tactics used. I really hope we find a source to verify this.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

photojournalist tried to hide flash disk under his tongue

"Bayhan said the journalists in the ship including him tried to protect the video footage and photos they took and he hided a small flash disk in which he saved the photos he took on the ship under his tongue but it was noticed by an Israeli doctor during a medical examination and was taken away from him".

Today’s Zaman photojournalist tried to hide flash disk under his tongue, 03 June 2010, Thursday

Yaron Hadany 09:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaron hadany (talk • contribs)

Photo

Why showing a photo of the IDF soldiers and not the terror activists on the boat attacking the soldiers? I think removing the photo will make this article more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talstol (talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is so biased in favour of the Israeli position it is beyond repair. Remove the photo and replace it with a Star of David. Add the final touch to a work of fiction! Sarah777 (talk) 09:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777 what do you want? Why showing Israeli soldiers only and not the actions of the people on the ship? If this article is not going to put two pictures of the two sides of this conflict, the best thing to do in order to keep on this article neutral is to remove the picture.

In addition, "This article is so biased in favour of the Israeli position" which is totally wrong, this time the attempt to make the IDF look like "terrorists" didn't work that well so you say it is Pro-Israeli. But what you do not understand is that the IDF used the most human actions this time and many times before, that's why you think it is "biased" - which is not that true actually due to the picture and some of the text in the article. Talstol (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

2nd paragraph of lead getting full of he-said / she-said & POV language

This should be trimmed down to verifiable facts. There is plenty of room for both sides' accusations against each other in the "accounts" sections. Two example concerns are:

1) To the average reader, anything put in the lead appears to be extremely relevant. Some of the bits are, but others, like the Turkish autopsy report, belong elsewhere in the article.

2) As the amount of he-said / she-said has grown, the language has become more POV. For example "angry" activists. Who knows they were angry, perhaps they were just defending themselves. Regardless, this is POV and does not belong in the lead.

These are not the only problems with that paragraph, just specific examples. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is one thing we have discussed already and I agree with reducing the use of quotes and the he said she said or the ongoing narrative war. But I also think that the lead has lacked IDF claims that are becoming more and more seconded from outside perspectives. The passengers are contradicting eachother and the video evidence is not as foggy as some would hope. As much as it might be unexpected, details on the boarders getting attacked and the activists going down swinging might have been what happened. Maybe some of the passengers are not the victims so many originally assumed. The fighting and transgressions from both sides on that deck need play in the lead. Not a novel or anything but more than the whitewashing we have given it. We will start to look more biased than some of the more frowned upon sources if we don't allow for more than just "people are mad at Israel" in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 10:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Zuchinni, do I understand that you regard the autopsy results as one side's accusations against the other? Do RS discount the medical examiner? This article exists in large part because people were killed, information on that is germane. Agree that "angry" may not be required, also why qualify as "Turkish autopsy" unless this is a type of autopsy that differs from others? RomaC (talk) 14:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, It's not that I view the autopsy results as biased in and of themselves. But the WAY they were inserted into the lead and the emphasis on "shot in the head" and "extremely close range" make implications that the soldiers were specifically trying to kill people ... without mention of the IDF's claim that the attackers were wearing bullet proof vests and that IDF soldiers were shot Before they returned live fire. The autopsy results might be relevant or they might be biased, just as the soldiers accounts might be relevant or biased. My point is that they should should not be in the lead in such a way as to make implications about the actions of the soldiers, just as Israeli accounts which make implications about the passengers should not be in the lead in a way that implies bias "murderous rage in their eyes" and what not. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Simply put, if the IDF and the Turkish authorities each did autopsies, they _might_ come to very different conclusions due to their respective bias. Thus it's important to keep the wording clearly showing who performed it, though it could be replaced with a much more wordy "Autopsies performed by Turkish authorities show..." -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
But even then, why does it belong in the lead unless there is something extremely important about the results. And if the results are so important then there would need be balance of the Israel accounts of bullet proof vests. That would just end up bloating the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This opposition has problems being policy-compliant. Continuing discussion here Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Name of article - "Gaza flotilla raid" - is wrong

The use of the word "raid" is wrong. According to some on-line dictionaries, a raid is: "a search without warning" or "a sudden surprise attack". But it is known that the attack was not sudden or surprise, and there were lots of warning before this took place. So, "raid" should be replaced with something else. Any suggestions? ShalomOlam (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There were very long and detaild discussins and a voting process regarding the name of the article. Please check the archives. --386-DX (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"Raid" was the word most often being used by reliable sources then, and possible remain the predominant term at present. I'd say that "Gaza aid convoy seizure" would be a good candidate for replacing the current title, but I suggest to wait for some time and then check again how reliable sources describe the event.  Cs32en Talk to me  10:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"Free Gaza convoy seizure" sounds better to me. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that this article should be changed into "Gaza flotilla" article and the new article should speak about the whole flotilla subject, and the results. It is not very neutral to make an article about the "RAID" itself, because the "raid" was only a part of the flotilla incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talstol (talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The title may change, this happens. What is there now is the name of the flotilla and a common action verb for what was done. If you have suggestions please make them. Note that there may be alternative names included. RomaC (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that "Take over" or "Seizure" is more appropriate. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
We would have to check whether using the term "seizure" would imply that the operation had been legal.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "seizure" implies that the operation had been legal. How about changing it to: "Free Gaza flotilla"? ShalomOlam (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure about the precise meaning of the word "seizure". While a number of newspapers use "seizure" in the sense of "takeover by force", the article Seizure puts a lot of emphasis on the legality. Similarly to WP:ONEEVENT, I'd assume that we would have to stick to a name that describes the event rather than the flotilla. However, "Free Gaza flotilla" may become a subarticle, or may become an additional article if notability beyond the incident is being established.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this article should be named "Free Gaza flotilla takeover"? ShalomOlam (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

number of passengers injured

Article says that the number of passengers injured is 60, but all RS attached to the article do not support this. One of the RS says "several were injured". Other say there were 28 injuries. So I don't know where the number "60" comes from, but it should be removed, if there are no RS. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

60 was from an early account. If there are multiple RS now with a different number we can use that, but it's probably still best to use "at least" until we know 100% for sure what the number is. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide even one RS from the last 24 hours, that still say there are at least 60 injured? ShalomOlam (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Journalist on board Corroborate IDF Testimony

Activists on a Gaza-bound Turkish ship seized four Israeli marines before other commandos stormed aboard using live ammunition, a Lebanese cameraman said in an account on Thursday that echoed elements of Israeli testimony. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6521UG Please add this to the article79.178.42.134 (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ref for see also section

editsemiprotected

I saw the [citation needed] sign, so here is a source one can add http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20100531_flotillas_and_wars_public_opinion However I can't edit it myself due to the article being semi locked Opelboat (talk) 10:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 Doing... --Kslotte (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please use "editsemiprotected for semi-protected pages. It just makes it easier for admins to find the fully protected requests. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry didn't know there were a different template Opelboat (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 Done --Kslotte (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Seizure by "naval forces"?

The first sentence of the article now calls the incident a "seizure of ships by Israeli naval forces." Where the commandos and their helicopters part of the Israeli Navy or a "naval force"? -- 62.78.143.66 (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The Israeli Sea Corps operates helicopters and a naval commando unit. MathKnight 11:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF confirm that they fired first

"T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck."

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 Saint91 (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to treat the above reference, it contains a number of claims that contradict earlier accounts from both sides (and what appears in released footage) and is written in a style to be very emotive. The new claims are being attributed to the IDF. Is it possible that claims are part of an information / misinformation campaign? Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This can also be said for quotes the article such as "These were without a doubt terrorists. I could see the murderous rage in their eyes and that they were coming to kill us.". Emotionally charged, not descriptive and based on material released by one party Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Warning shots could be made by paintball guns, in which the soldiers were armed as primary non-lethal weapon. MathKnight 12:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
the New York times is reporting this as well: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/world/europe/05reconstruct.html?pagewanted=1&ref=world . It confirms that Israel opened fire with rubber coated metal bullets. We now have two trustworthy sources, it should be included in the article. RobMasterFunk (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
it certainly should be put in. jpost certainly doesnt have any claim to an "anti-israel bias"Lihaas (talk) 13:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Rubber bullets are not live ammunition and considered as less-than-lethal weapon, so adding "IDF shot first" without clarifying this point would be missleading the reader. MathKnight 13:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Those shot at were supposed to know they were loaded with rubber bullets? Or that some of the guns were paintball guns? Masked, armed men rappel onto a shop at dawn with guns - what are you going to think?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Nobody is claiming that the IDF is using live ammunition, but sound grenades and rubber coated metal bullets.RobMasterFunk (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
To whoever is not familiar with military jargon, "Warning shots" are shot into the air as a warning; They are not aimed at the opponent. Marokwitz (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

how Israel treated the media

Should we take this source (IPSnews) as reliable source?

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51704

89.138.131.66 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IPS is not a western newsw source and cannot be completely trustworthy, however multiple sources allege that the IDF confiscated evidence/censored news sources so this article source is quite suitable for adding balance. If that's what editors are seeking to do, of course. 94.116.37.43 (talk) 14:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an extremely offensive stance on who can be "completely trustworthy," a standard that would be a guaranteed source of systemic bias if it were adopted. It also misrepresents the Inter Press Service, a global news agency founded by an Italian and an Argentine in 1964. Definitely ranking as a RS.--Carwil (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Censoring of killing and blockade protest images

Why aren't these displayed in the article when there are so many from the Israeli military?

Photo of the demonstration in Gothenburg, Sweden, against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza May 31st 2010
Photo of the demonstration in Stockholm 2010 against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza

--71.156.87.5 (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid is the place. --Kslotte (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
What I'm not understanding is all IDF images belong in the main article why none of the protest images belong in this article. Should there not be one or two images to sum up the reaction?--71.156.87.5 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Reactions has its own article because to main article is WP:TOOLONG. --Kslotte (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
And it has five images. So we can't include even one protest photo when we include three photos giving a strictly Israeli account? How is this balanced?--71.156.87.5 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, one (not two) photo that is characteristic of international public reaction is entirely reasonable, fitting perfectly alongside WP:SUMMARY. The IP-number user is reasonable with regard to balance and NPOV. Also, a well-constructed, NPOV map of state reactions could be appropriate as well.--Carwil (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There exist now one picture to get some balance. --Kslotte (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there was any censorship. But adding a protest photo is a good addition. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotillas and the Wars of Public Opinion - Stratfor

There was a very good analysis in Stratfor a few days ago[15] which discusses the raid and what it means for international opinion. Basically it makes the point that the flotilla provoked Israel into a very difficult situation, and discusses the fallout especially with Turkey. It also makes the analogy, which I haven't seen anywhere else, to a situation in 1947 between the Zionists and the British, which was depicted in the movie Exodus. As this is a fairly dense work and this article doesn't yet have an obvious section on "Strategy" or "Geopolitics", I'll defer to those with more experience in I-P editing, but this would make a fine addition to the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

War Crimes?

Can the killing be classified as a war crime? i know, the victimis were civilians but maybe exactly that is a pro argument.--Severino (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This is for legal people to decide, so it should not be stated so in the article. I think that the answer is no, and I can explain my POV, if you want. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's helpful to shout about "war crimes", and it's certainly not the role of Wikipedia to decide either way. There are several different points of international law that Israel has arguably breached, and the Israeli government argues that it hasn't breached any of them. Surely the role of an encylcopedic article is to explain what those points are and then to let the reader decide. Physchim62 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
If Israel action will be classified as a war with NATO signatories then perhaps possibly as per legal opinions (see the moved out/separated content). For now rather not a war crime rather a common like armed robbery (the stolen laptops) and copyright violation(broadcasting movies without author/producer license). Ai 00 (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The NATO policy only applies for attacks on sovereign soil. Conflicts with ships that happen to have citizens of a NATO state in international waters mean nothing. Also, this isn't in a time of war. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There is an on-going war between Israel and Hamas-controlled-Gaza. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

passangers admitting that the firing occurred after the start of the on-deck skirmish?

Someone has added this to the intro that some passengers have said that the firing occurred after the start of the on-deck skirmish. I have been following the news and have never seen anything like this. Our article doesn't support this either. Please provide a reference. It would be nice to see who has made the claim; and even if this is the case (it would be interesting to see) we should not mention it as "some have said this", "some have said that" since that is giving undue weight. But let's see the source first.--DoostdarWKP (talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I quickly browsed through the references at the end of the sentence and couldn't find anything supporting the claim. I will remove it for now, until someone shows the reference. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to split off "Mavi Marmara boarding" section (First discussion)

I suggest to split off the "Mavi Marmara boarding" section. The article is getting to long, and splitting will make editing the article easier.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

For information, the section is 24kB long. --Kslotte (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This might come as a surprise, because I've been in favor of splitting off pretty much everything else, but I think this section is very directly relevant to the events and should remain. However I agree with you that it has gotten WAAAYYY too long. This is probably because it is so full of he-said she-said since the facts were not so easy to determine. But it definitely needs to get shortened. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Since the size gain is quite minimal we need to split more. I'm suggesting that boarding related sections 6, 6.1 and 6.2 (32kB) will be split. The main things should still be in the main article, but the spitted article will have all the details. --Kslotte (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the section somehow is the core section of the entire article. However, as time passes, the political aspects become more notable than the details of the operation itself. I therefore think that it would be helpful to split off these details and to have a somewhat longer summary in the main article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Oppose. Subdivision as proposed below is a better alternative than splitting from the article its main topic. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Subdivisioning won't reduce the article size that is WP:TOOLONG. We need to do splitting per policy. --Kslotte (talk) 19:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Then I would reduce the sections 4. Events during the preliminary stages and 5. Initial contact as well, and probably include them into the split, as they are far less important as to the core issue of the present article. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The personal account of all three sections are too large. Many are also unverifiable as fact. Some relavant accounts might be worth keeping, but right now there is an overflow. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest Remove the journalist accounts and personal accounts of activists on board and replace with a single account with verifiable and complete facts and references. Statements such as "the first shots that were fired were either some sort of sound grenades" and " live ammunition was fired before any Israeli soldier was on deck"" is just vague testimony as to what was fired and who fired and when it was fired. STICK TO THE KNOWN FACTS. Also that section of the activists accounts is a jumble of personal testimonies which are not connected. Many of the accounts of the activists/journalist on board contradict each other. No attempt was made to make a consistent account. Also there are some very serious accusations, for instance about withholding medical assistance. How does she know, were they dead already? was there medical personnel around? so why didn't she provide assistance? What is policy regarding printing unverified accusations? Not professional in my opinion. 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
In other words, User:Alfarber is suggesting that we should left alone the IDF account until some 663 individuals agree on a joint statement, isn't it? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Perfect way to silence. If Israeli long before the killing agreed on version/facts of events. Waiting for testimony of death/'missing' eyewitness will lag till infinity. Ai 00 (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To SALUT: you can be cynical if you want, but I didn't write that. For instance, the mention of live ammunition is probably not true and the person heard stun grenades before landing on the boat which the Israelis and others mentioned in their account. I am suggesting removing the hearsay and reducing the text into a readable consistent account. AFarber (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

To avoid incurring into WP:Synthesis, we have to rely solely on the sources (which, so far, report fragmented info about the boarding). It is not our job to judge between "hearsay" and "proved facts", no more than what the sources state. So, given that we have official statements for just one actor of the drama, and given that we'd have to aspire to represent the opposing views in a balanced manner, it is impossible not to report the account of individual witnesses. At least, as long as more clear (or unified) versions of the events emerge. SALVE, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
You can still choose which accounts are self consistent and put them together and make the text readable. Also the account of Andre Abu Khalil Al-Jazeera cameraman was left out and it was clearly than the accounts selectedAFarber (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Then why you don't just insert the info you consider worth featuring the article? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
We need to start consolidating and not splitting. If anything, we should not have subsections but instaed paragraphs discussing information verified by both sides or third parties while fighting the urge to put in every interesting quote we see in a new source. Splitting off what is the meat of the article is a bad idea.(no boarding means no intl reaction or story). Cptnono (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that we would need to start consolidating at some point. However, we should not focus on consolidating now. Even with some consolidation, splitting would still improve readability.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe splitting would lead to this article misleading the reader by not telling enough while the other article could easily become a POV fork. I think it is a shame that we are considering splitting after sources started verifying some of the IDF claims.Cptnono (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any relationship between new information emerging and this debate about creating a spin-off. Also, the new information is actually confirming elements of the accounts of both sides. Take the info about the paintball shooting: IDF says it's not lethal. Activists say it caused serious injuries because it contained glass. Now if you see people screaming, possibly with red paint on their clothes, it's a reasonable assumption that you are being attacked violently. If soldiers have fired warning shots, that may lead activist to conclude that they have started shooting. You cannot easily distinguish a warning shot from live fire, especially in the dark. Now if the Israeli army acted in a way that led activists to conclude that they may have a chance to defend themselves by taking hostages, for example, some truth may emerge that partially confirms the accounts of both sides.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to split off "Mavi Marmara boarding" section

I suggest to split off the "Mavi Marmara boarding" section. The article is getting to long, and splitting will make editing the article easier. (This has already been discussed in the preceding section, but the discussion there digressed into loosely related questions concerning the content of the section.)  Cs32en Talk to me  03:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. This is critical to the article and given due weight.Marokwitz (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Random LOL break

Did anyone else notice that the 7th ship had the website for FreeGaza.org written in HUGE letters on its deck. They must have known they'd be filmed from above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba0iXUzxu0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrospectively, the letters appear to be TOO huge to fulfill their purpose in the best possible way.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

hm whats so funny about that?--Severino (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this edit add POV?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=366267348

The edit above seems to add POV, but I'd like other opinions. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We should just go with what the source says, and if it seems controversial then attribute and quote the source.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
And I was actually somewhat suprised that the source uses similar language, but I think the best thing to do would be to just quote it and let readers form their opinion.--Nosfartu (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the source is a Guardian article. The edit does correctly quote the article, however even though The Guardian is an RS, it does have a POV. How about we use "On June 1 Witnesses to the Israeli Raid". The term witness is justified via the fact that the article is about them reporting their 'eyewitness' accounts. The term raid is justified via the article title and all of the discussion that went into choosing it. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it seems very point of view to me. In my opinion, it should simply be reverted. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we could seek another source as well for the statement?--Nosfartu (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Good idea Nosfartu Zuchinni one (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I was unaware of this discussion when I've changed the wording in [this edit]. Looking again at the edit, it needs to be clarified that they have been participants of the flotilla, not necessarily in the assault (they may have just been affected by it). I'd suggest to use consistent language, so if a single reliable source describes the participants who did not die as "survivors", we do not need to use this verbatim. Also, readers of the article already know that the convoy was carrying humanitarian aid/reconstruction supplies, so we do not need to repeat this in that sentence. (The same reasoning would apply to source describing the participants as "pro-Palestinian" -- it's as obvious as "survivors", but tends to imply that the primary motivation of the participants would have been a somehow irrational attachment to the Palestinian cause.) WP:NPOV is something that does not always depend on just how we present a single bit of information, but how the article is being structured and worded generally.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So it sounds like everyone would be OK with "On June 1 Witnesses to the Israeli Raid". I'm going to change it, but if the change is controversial you have my permission to revert. Just say why in here :) Zuchinni one (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

OK.--Severino (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with ambiguous "passengers" in the lead

"Passengers admitted fighting with the Israeli commandos..."

"Passengers say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding..."

These statements are ambiguous as if they could equally easily imply more than one passenger, or all of the passengers.

And both of them are true of some (plural) passengers, but are wrong in the universal sense. So, is this good enough as it is? Or should it be clarified? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length and the consensus seemed to be that passengers was the best term because using activists, terrorists, peaceful protesters, etc ... might 1) inaccurately label the people involved in specific events 2) make an assumption that everyone involved in some event belonged to the same group ie: activists. What was generally agreed was that using specific terms like activist was OK in regards to specific situations, but for the broader sense a more general term was appropriate. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
You seemed to have missed my point. I'm not rehashing the debate of passengers/activists/etc., I was just asking about an ambiguity in English.
Does "passengers" mean:
a) All passengers
b) Some passengers
In English, it's impossible to tell.
So, I'm wondering if we should clarify the ambiguity, or if it's okay to leave it in there. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Several POV issues on most recent lead edition

How should we consider these edits? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 01:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

unacceptable..--Severino (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Folks, massive POV undiscussed changes to the intro can be reverted. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


I completely agree. I have contacted the user via his talk page and asked him not to make massive edits like this, but instead to use the discussion section to talk about what changes he feels should be made. Furthermore I don't believe the undo by DoostdarWKP should count towards his 1RR in this situation. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know about 1RR. :-) Thanks for letting me know. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers :) But like I said ... this one really shouldn't count. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, the editor seems to be back at the intro [16]. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice to editors of this article

Stop edit warring. Thank you, NW (Talk) 03:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No ... as discussed before, edit warring is OK ... as long as it's done here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hQC3nkftrk#t=1m29s Zuchinni one (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition proposed by now-blocked Ai 00

"

Route of the flotilla

The incoming fleet was known to Israel government, military and intelligence. Weeks before May 31 2001- the Israel Navy and General Staff held dozens of advance meetings over and the IDF led preparation for all aspects of the operation. The main military drafters were Israel Navy commander Admiral Eliezer Marom , Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and his deputy, Major General Benny Gantz. The Israel Navy provided solutions to expected and unexpected circumstances. Benjamin Netanyahu and Edmunt Barrak were complacent that the raid would not raise to big world reactionsCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Maariv an Israeli press reported before the raid on May 28 some general aims of operation.[1][2]"

  1. ^ Maariv, 5/28/10 P. 4 Title: Head to Head in the Heart of the Sea
  2. ^ Translation from Hebrew: The Flotilla Raid Was Not “Bungled.” The IDF Detailed Its Violent Strategy In Advance. On 06.03.10, maxblumenthal.com

Thoughts? NW (Talk) 03:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is he asking that this go? Also Ref #8 seems to be a blog. Is that an RS? Zuchinni one (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, please correct me if I am wrong, most of the argument being made in this segment seems to be coming from ref #8 I don't understand why the others are there. But I couldn't read #7, so maybe there is something else there. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Soldiers taken hostage, illegal under international law?

"Al Jazeera cameraman Andre Abu Khalil, also aboard the Mavi Marmara, concurs that the initial wave of Israeli soldiers were overpowered but that there were four captured rather than three, who were "brought to the lowest deck (with) fracture wounds".[148]"
The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages says this:

ARTICLE 1
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the "hostage") in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages ("hostage-taking") within the meaning of this Convention.

Any person who:
attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.
Has there been any mention of this?Faaaaaaamn (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not in reliable sources, as far as I know.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not wikipedia's place to determine if this is legal or not. If you have reliable sources, add it to the article. ShalomOlam (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can it be entered into the article

Helsinki principles [1]

5.1.1 Neutral ships in belligerent ports

A neutral ship in a belligerent port enjoys the same protection against attacks as civilian objects in land warfare… Neutral warships in belligerent ports retain their right of self-defense.

5.1.2 Protection against attacks

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

(4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they

(a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;

(b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces;

(c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system;

(d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or

(e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 Visit and search … [B]elligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

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

--Gilisa (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused as to what you want in the article. I do hope you aren't proposing we put the entire text in the article (it is likely already at wikisource, where it should be). Also it would seem whatever you are proposing, it should be put in Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid first before we can discuss summarising it here Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


I wasn't mean to enter all of it, only the essense. It must be noted that these principles apply and intent to international waters. --Gilisa (talk) 07:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
It would probably be helpful if you give an example of what precisely you wanted added. Yes we can collaborate to produce a good addition but in a hot button article like this, unless you come up with something substantiative yourself, it's not likely to be going anywhere, and I have to say I'm not seeing anything useful here so won't be proposing anything, particular as your source says absolutely nothing about the Gaza flotilla raid so this proposal appears to be a case of WP:OR specifically WP:Syn. Also as I said, I really think anything related to the legal aspects should go in the article for that first. Once it's been added to that, we can discuss whether there is an merit summarising it here. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew, Turkish translations on eyewitness, activist and IDF commando accounts

Please list article references that require translations, and translators who are willing to translate articles into English. Kasaalan (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hebrew

he:המשט לעזה (2010) Unorganised links, IDF commando testimonies and captions are required

Already translated
Hebrew-English Translators
Of course. Just post your translations here. Kasaalan (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish

tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı

Click for Turkish article Translations
===Israel did not allow healing the wounded!=== 
Israel did not allow healing the wounded!
Nilüfer Ören set a press briefing at IHH with her 13 months old son, Türker Kağan.
Nilüfer Ören who was one of the passengers of the Gaza Flotilla came this morning around 7:00 by THY airplane.
She and her little son Türker Kağan set apress briefing with IHH vice chairman Yavuz Dede at IHH headquarters.
Despite the attack she went through, her morale seemed to be very positive. She stated that 5 people lost ther lives.
Nilüfer Ören who is the wife of the chief engineer of the ship, said that the number of dead increased because Israel
did not allow healing the wounded.
Nilüfer Ören explained everything one by one told; "We departed from İstanbul in May 22nd. Before reaching 90 miles,
2 Israeli  fleet started disturbing tours around 23:00. They told us an attack won't happen if we turn back.
But no one accepted this. After a while the fleet pulled back and nearly 40 navy boats came. Around 04:45, soldiers
from  helicopters started to come down to the ship. At that time an announcement made to us. People in the cabin and
on the bridge stayed just where they were. Bullets came through the cellar of the cabin. Gas and sound bombs were thrown.
The place became just like judgement day. Besides after that we saw everywhere became like blood bath. Gas bombs.
I waited in the cabin with my little son who was afraid of the sounds. I looked at the window severally.
Then they announced us to put our gas masks and life jackets. From the screams coming above, it was understood that
a wild battle was taking place. I opened the door and told that I had a baby and I surrendered. They held me and others
as hostages on the bridge. The hostages were handcuffed and their face turned to wet ground except me, because I had a baby.
At that time I saw the personel were not hurt. They brought us to the deck. They did not allow to aid the wounded immediately.
But anyway they were providing the needs of some others. A medicine was needed at that time and I told that I want to get
it.  While I was getting the medicine, I saw my husband and Bülent Yıldırım. Bülent Yıldırım was not handcuffed.
Also 3 or 4 others were not handcuffed. At first Bülent Yıldırım was very upset but later he saw the need for him
and he calmed  down, started to support us.
Work in progress--Realmegrim (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The dialogue with captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raid

  The dialogue with the captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raid:
  Search & Rescue Center (SRC): Mavi Marmara, this is RSC. Mavi Marmara this is RSC.
  Mavi Marmara (MM) : They are jamming the signals. They are using real weapons.
  SRC : Mavi Marmara, this is RSC.
  MM : We have injured passengers on board. They are using real/actual weapons. (live ammunition not cold weapons or blank shots)
  SRC : When did the assault/raid start?
  MM : I can barely hear you.
  MM : I am sending our (ship's) coordinates. The assault/raid from the helicopter started as of 4.32.
  SRC : Have any soldiers arrived from boats? From the boats around/surrounding the ship?
  SRC : Mavi Marmara where did the soldiers arrive from? Did the soldiers come out from boats?
  MM : From boats and the helicopter. There is a raid from the helicopter.
  SRC : Mavi Marmara what is the situation in the other ships?
  MM : Gunfire started again now. Gunfire started again right now.
  SRC : Any attack on other ships?
  MM : Our ship is surrounded. All connection/communication with the other ships is cut/jammed.
  SRC : Mavi Marmara, do you know how many wounded are there in the ship?
  MM : We do not have any information for now.
  SRC : Any deaths?
MM : Negative. Negative. We have no information right now.
Turkish-English Translators

Greek

el:Επίθεση κατά νηοπομπής ανοικτά της Γάζας

Priority unique accounts that aren't available in English. Kasaalan (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The ship Challenger 1

From which country did the ship Challenger 1 left from? Is there information about this? Randam (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Other ships

"Other ships" section is not relevant to this article. Should be removed, or move to "See also" section. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sticks, butter knives and other utensils = weaponry?

The section about the "weapons" found by the IDF is a strech because basically anything could be used as a weapon. I think using the word "weapon" gives the article a bisased view of what the IDF considered to be weapons. Throwing a dish over somebody's head could definitely hurt somebody but (I assume that) in most people's minds a dish wouldn't be categorized as a weapon. Likeminas (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

A general observation, aside, re. usage, albeit from a distance since I work in Criminal Justice in Scotland and the accepted use in report writing is that anything used as a weapon is described thereafter described as "the weapon". That is not to say that /any/ butter knife or bottle, say, is "weaponry" but that it has the potential to /become/ a weapon and if it has been used as such, it does not "lose" that legal description at a later date even if shown out of context of actually being used. There are separate definitions for other terms such as "dangerous weapon" in various legislations (e.g. "knives having a blade three inches or more in length") but that is a separate term. Semantics, I know... :) Fwiw, anyhow! Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Anything with a blade, that you can stab someone with, can be reffered to as a 'cold weapon'. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
But that makes the mentioning of such weapons meaningless, because using that standard, that means that every ship that has a kitchen carry "weapons". I think it's best to be specific. If the fact is that kitchen knives and sticks were found, then write that knives and clubs were found. There are reports in Swedish media that the IDF held up a razor to a Swedish passenger and claimed it to be a weapon. AadaamS (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF soldier were sttabed by some of the activists. This make these "standard kitchen knives" into cold weapons. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

as the iDF has attacked the ship (in international waters), resistance occured which can be classified as self defence.--Severino (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As the IDF was merely enforcing a legal blockade, resistance can be classified as resisting arrest. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

they werent butter knives any way. even ignoring any pictures or anything, you cant stab and wound someone with a butter knife without super-human strenght. they have a round tip. unles what you consider to be a butter knife is what most people consider a steak knife. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly not considering the power of eating utensils ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSUGp9Yz1sk#t=0m29s Zuchinni one (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Caption on image of activists beating soldiers

No one disputes that this video depicts activists beating a soldier. No need for hedging in the caption; attributing the video to the IDF is enough for NPOV. If anyone has an RS that disputes the contents of the video, please provide.

I have changed the caption to Snapshot from footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods beating a fallen soldier. I argued for this above and several editors agreed.

Discuss here before making changes, please. Enough of the edit warring.

 —Rafi  23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no soldier (indeed, no person) shown in the caption. Nor we do know who is handling what. Your edit is definitely POV. Please discuss consensus above. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion was here: Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage. The video is abundantly clear regarding who is beating and who is being beaten; if you need RS's they are cited in the previous discussion.  &#151;Rafi  23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
All I know is "Snapshot of footage provided by the IDF" is not sufficient or acceptable. The person who made that edit needs to go read WP:POINT and consider not working on this article. People need to say right now if they disagree with no attribution based on thinking Israel fabricating it or trying to tone down the Palestinian side of things. If that is the case we need to know now. If it is becasue the image is not clear than I understand attribution.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't Wikipedia attribute everything to a source for neutrality? Like the article doesn't say "Israel stole thing from journalists" it says it quotes journalists or journalist associations. If we have to attribute journalists, why wouldn't we attribute one of the sides in the dispute that has a narrative to promote?--99.50.129.231 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Are you serious? We can see in the video that a soldier is being taken down and then the merceneries beating something on the ground where he fell. So, you say "maybe they were hitting the ground next to the soldier"?? יובל מדר (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC).
So maybe we can also add "After this, Israel massacred the peaceful activists and confiscated all other recordings."--71.156.87.5 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
peaceful activist dont stab soilders or throw them over board, or beat them with metal poles, or take there guns and try to shoot them. that would be considered violence by most any sane person. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Colonel admitted sabotage

Meanwhile, a senior Israel Defense Forces officer also spoke at the committee meeting on Tuesday, explaining the details of the IDF's operation on the Gaza flotilla on Monday.

He said that the army had decided against sabotaging a ship in the Gaza flotilla at the center of Monday's deadly clashes, out of fear that the vessel would be stranded in the middle of the ocean and at risk of a humanitarian crisis.

(...)

During his briefing on the operation to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Colonel Itzik Turgeman hinted that the IDF had sabotaged the engines of the other five ships, saying that "they took care of them."


http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/mossad-chief-israel-gradually-becoming-burden-on-u-s-1.293540

IDF.is.Lying (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's incorrect. In the original quote Turgeman said that "gray measures were taken to delay some of the ship." He never said anything about sabotage, and assuming he's specifically talking about sabotaging the engines is quite a stretch. 132.69.136.166 (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: If we attack you and you defend yourself, you attacked us and we defend ourselves

WP:NOTAFORUM. Leave arguments about the legality to the lawyers, then cite the reliable sources that quote them. TFOWRidle vapourings 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The article is not NPOV. It heavily supports the Israeli logic of "If we attack you and you defend yourself, then you attacked us and we defend ourselves" by including many photos and views from Israel Army. I suggest it be tagged for NPOV. It is presenting a very distorted image of the incident. --94.123.198.52 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is POV. Israel navy attacked the flotilla, since it was heading into the blockade erea, and refused to stop. Some legal experts say this is an act of war by the flotilla, making it legal for the navy to stop the flotilla and arrest its people. "If we attack you" is in fact arresting, and "you defend yourself" is in fact resisting arrest. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The blockade and occupation (that there are no Israeli troops within Gaza is irrelevant) of Gaza are illegal, so the Israelis have no case. All they have is American veto power. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The legality of all of it is in question. As per the Ginormous legal section that was turned into its own article. It is not accurate to state as fact that the blockade was illegal, but the legality of the blockade was certainly in dispute. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The blockade and occupation are two different things. The is NO occupation in Gaza: there are no Israeli soldiers or IDF camps in Gaza; there are no Israeli civillians or Israeli settlements in Gaza. So, the occupation of Gaza being legal or not is irrelevant here. About the blockade - since Gaza is Hamas-controlled, and Hamas refues to recognize the state of Israel, there is an on-going war between Israel and Hamas. And in the case of a war, it is not illegal to enforce a blockade on Hamas-controlled-Gaza. So, I beg to differ with you, when you write "Israelis have no case". ShalomOlam (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
War is defined as an armed conflict between two states. Do you accept Hamas as a state? --Nevit (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I do not accept your definition of War. ShalomOlam (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If you prefer not to accept then, acts of Hamas would be defined as acts of terror and not War. Then you can not use laws of war to legalize your action. In any case it would be benefit of Israel to accept international inquiry, so that if self claimed definitions of "blockade", "war", "legality of attack on civilians", etc. etc. are legitimate are not. --Nevit (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It must also be recognized that Egypt is a parter in the blockade, considering how the southern border of Gaza is with Egypt, not Israel. Also, as noted in the legal section (I think), during the US Civil War the Union placed a blockade around the Confederacy while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge them as a nation, the US Supreme Court made a ruling acknowledging the legality of such a blockade against a non-nation.
Either way, this isn't a forum, so further discussion here isn't really appropriate. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Collapsing discussion. Feel free to continue it your own talk pages. TFOWRidle vapourings 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sections and headers

# 6 Boarding
   * 6.1 Mavi Marmara boarding
         o 6.1.1 Activists and flotilla organizers' account
         o 6.1.2 Israel's account
         o 6.1.3 Journalists' accounts
   * 6.2 Other boardings
         o 6.2.1 Sfendoni
         o 6.2.2 MS Sofia
         o 6.2.3 Challenger One
   * 6.3 Investigation for on-board weapons
   * 6.4 Fate of participants
   * 6.5 Fate of aid cargo
   * 6.6 Fate of ships

We need a new main header for 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6. These are not about "boarding". Header suggestions? --Kslotte (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with subdivision. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like post-boarding would be good? Zbase4 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Named "Post-boarding", let's see how it goes. --Kslotte (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Helsinki principles for neutrality at sea

Helsinki 5.1.2(3)

State is allowed to attack trade vessels waving neutral country flag if there is reasonable infrastructure to believe they caryy summegled cargo or intend to break naval blockede and although early warnings were given they clearly and delibertly refuse to be stopped, searched, boarded or diverted from course. --Gilisa (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this your own interpretation? The blockade in the Helsinki document means a blockade during wartime with military objectives and one that doesn't disproportionally impact civilians. Further, even if the blockade was considered legal Israel would only be entitled to inspect the ships, not divert them, kidnap the crew and passengers and steal part of the cargo. If you argue the blockade is legit, then a similar blockade by Hamas against Israel would also be legit. --Dailycare (talk) 11:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Chronicle article - "Most, but not all" experts support legality

The SF Chronicle article ("Israel's Gaza blockade legal, many scholars say". Sfgate.com. Retrieved June 6, 2010.), prominently cited here and in the legal reactions subarticle, does a very poor job of explaining the methodology of its survey. How many "scholars" were surveyed by the Chronicle? What were their qualifications? How were they chosen? Does "most" mean 60% (3/5), 55% (5/9) or 90% (18/20)? The article answers none of these questions. Of the named sources in the article, you have:

  • Chimene Keitner, an associate professor at UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who specializes in international criminal law.--- blockade probably legal, maybe not
  • Allen Weiner, co-director of Stanford's International Law Program -- illegal
  • Michael Scharf, an international law professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio and a former State Department attorney under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. -- illegal
  • Vice President Joe Biden -- nonscholar, legal
  • Richard Falk, the United Nations' human rights investigator for the Palestinian territories -- probably nonscholar, illegal, "crime against humanity"
  • Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor -- nonscholar, no position on legality given, discredits flotilla
  • Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of international law at Johns Hopkins University -- legal

Thus, the scholars quoted are 1 "legal", 1 "probably legal", and 2 "illegal".

I believe that, given these issues with the article, the one "most but not all" sentence from this article is being given undue weight. If the article stated anything which could be evaluated for significance, such as a percentage, I would not be saying this. 187.143.10.134 (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IP in that someone has run away with this piece. It should be pointed out that according to the international community Gaza is still occupied by Israel, and thus cannot be blockaded by Israel, and the Geneva Conventions relating to occupied territory apply. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/06/03/EDGF1DPDK9.DTL#ixzz0puW6Bdk9 --Dailycare (talk) 11:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Governments knew what would happen

In my view both Israeli and Turkish governments knew what would going to happen yet did not back down and chose to use the case for domestic politics. Anyway my additions:

  • The images in the article isn't balanced. We use only IDF footage. Though there are some videos showing IDF commando shooting actvist close range. Also there are activists covered all in blood, like released US ex-troop.
  • Some 10-20 activists started to make preperations 20-30 minutes before raid. They were ready to use cold weapons/force against commandos. Isreal knew that since they were taping with night vision cameras before and during raid. They also used helicopter which can view whole board. IDF sent 20-30 [not sure about exact number] commandos with live ammunition against over 400 passenger ship anyway. Some IDF commandos beaten hard by the group. Whoever happened to shot first unknown. IDF killed those group members along with journalist etc.
  • Women claimed they stripped naked, and during their capture and afterwards they sexually harressed continually by touching.
  • Activists claimed mistreatment, and psychological torture/stress during and after capture.
Add it if there's anything substantial (e.g sexual abuse above)? Most of what I've seen appear to be "normal" for detainees (being tied up, noise of the helicopter, long waits), and I don't expect activists to say anything positive about the detension. kzm (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • We have an unnecessarily long ship section. Create a FORK and leave a summary in the article.
  • Expand and categorize passenger and commando testimonies and create subtitles.
  • One Arab religious leader claimed IDF troops shot a Turkish activist/passenger who resembles him, and commandos reported that to their superiors on radio talk.
  • There was a source claiming some of the shells found on ship by IDF is unknown type.
  • Type of cold weapons a group of activists used. IDF released pepper sprey etc. shots, though they were still unopened package.
This is almost impossible to determine. IDF's point is to show that the activists were prepared for confrontation, activists (may) claim these items are planted. Al Jazeera video shows people standing around with pipes and spanners, etc, but mostly improvised stuff as far as I can tell. kzm (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Most of the knives were clean and not used during fight. I noticed 1 small knife with blood though.
There's at least one video where and IDF is clearly stabbed. kzm (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Type of amnution and firearms. Paintball claims are not very realistic, no way IDF commondos would raid with only handguns.
This is discussed elsewhere. Also activist sources corroborate this. IDF had paintball guns for riot control, but also pistol side arms. Open questions are 1) did IDF use live ammo from helicopters prior to boarding? 2) Were any casualties shot with anything but IDF side arms? Either other handguns smuggled on board by activists, or assault rifles/machine guns by the IDF? kzm (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Type of helicopter I assume sikorsky. Does anyone confirm type of helicopter.
The only source I've seen claims "Apache helicopters with commandos", which is just silly. I think this was the Swedish guy who also claimed the IDF used Uzis, it's probably best to just ignore his military observations. kzm (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I support. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

While apparently well-intentioned, this section is overloaded, discuss points one-by-one as editors and edits advance them. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We need what to be discussed somewhere otherwise we missing lots of points. By the way these are activist, journalist claims. Kasaalan (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Kasaalan I made an analysis of options Israel had : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Options_for_Gaza_Flotilla_Operation.svg --Nevit (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased lead

"Aid convoy"? They were mainly pro Palestinian and actually all media sources refered to them as such, the lead is WP:SYN by ognoring that. They were aiming to break the blockade and to pay world attention to it, also, they were instructed to change their course to Ashdod port and to unload there cargo and send it to Gaza through the land crossing, both Israel and Egypt suggested them to do it but they ignored and refused, so calling it "aid convoy" is misleading at best. There is no real dispute any longer that soldiers were attacked while boarding and before even the chance to open fire. It's also supported by the testimony of one Journalist of Al Jazira, certainly not pro Israeli media source, that was on the boat. Changes must be made accordingly. This all flotilla were organised by the IHH, certainly not hnumanitarian organisation. The lead seem to cpoint to Israel's guilt --Gilisa (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "aid convoy" should be replaced with "convoy". ShalomOlam (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Definitely support. Over time it is clear the flotilla scuffle claimed to be on a mission of providing aid, but refused to cooperate with the red cross and allow Israel inspect the ship for weapons. An "aid convoy" would make sense if this were an official humanitarian ship, but with jihadist links I say it would be a stretch. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Would you prefer "flotilla of terror"? Seriously, the ships were laden with aid and RS back this up. Stop POV-pushing please. RomaC (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at this: http://www.nrg.co.il/images/news1/filo-bilgi-dosyasi_en.pdf According to this document, the goals of the fllotila were:
  • To support the Palestinian people
  • To show they do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege
  • To prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken
  • To deliver relief supplies to Gaza.

The aid was only one goal of the convoy. Other goals are political. So saying it is only a convoy of aid is simply not true. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post describes it as an "aid flotilla". As far as I can see, The Guardian quotes the organisers. "Aid convoy" isn't used by either cited source. "Aid convoy" only seems to be used once in the lead; I'd suggest that "convoy" (or better yet, "flotilla") would be the most appropriate term, but will concede that "aid flotilla" is sourced. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Israel news reffer to it simply as "The Flotilla". ShalomOlam (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. "Flotilla" is probably more accurate than "convoy", once we factor in the later ships. We need to describe it neutrally, and then let the organisers and IDF make their respective claims. I think there's a danger of rejecting sensible terms because Israeli news uses that term: we shouldn't reject sensible, sourced terms because "one side" uses them: Al Jazeera and Channel 10 have both surprised me during this episode by agreeing ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 12:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not rejecting "aid convoy" because only "one side" uses it. I'm rejecting it since it is POV. Is IHH a RS? Because they don't claim to be an "aid convoy" at all. Check out their web-site's FAQ yourself. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Understood, and agree completely. However, I'd prefer to see "flotilla" cited to an exceptional source (the current sources are both excellent, by the way). Is IHH is reliable for stating what IHH believe. I don't consider them reliable beyond that. Same applies to the IDF. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
My point was: nobody can accuse IHH that it expresses Israeli POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

IHH[17] web-site: F. A. Q. Could you define the Flotilla which is sailing to Gaza in April? It is a civilian initiative that includes various intellectuals, artists, politicians, representatives of nongovernmental organizations and similar figures representing Turkish and European people, that aims to break the embargo of Gaza by sailing to the territory on ships. Not a word about "humanitarian" or "aid". ShalomOlam (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RS say it was ships with "aid". Whether convoy or a flotilla or a fleet or whatever -- this second term should not be leveraged to remove "aid" as the principal descriptor, because "aid" is what non-partisan RS have said. We don't kowtow to IDF narratives. RomaC (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Calling it an "aid" convoy is taking the convoy's POV. Even IHH, on their web-site do not claim they main goal was aid. They claim that they aim "to break the embargo of Gaza by sailing to the territory on ships". Meaning: the route was much more important to them than to deliver the cargo to Gaza. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Shalom Shalom, please refer to WP:Primary for policy on the use of sources. RS are secondary sources, and they say "aid". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately it can be hard to determine intent, even if the IHH made claims about the "true nature" of the convoy, the fact remains that it was a whole lot of ships filled with aid. Shalom, you make a good point about what the IHH said, but perhaps the main article is a better place to discuss that. Also, while much of the flotilla may have been organized by the IHH, there were many passengers whose goal was to deliver aid, not to start a conflict with Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The most neutral thing to do is to write "convoy" (or "flotilla") and not "aid convoy". At least, in the lead. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

of course it is disputed that soldiers were attacked first! --Severino (talk) 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually most RS call it Aid convoy so we have to follow that, otherwise RomaC has already given a detailed reasoning. --yousaf465 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to follow that. We can choose to use the term "convoy" and not "aid convoy", if we want. Or maybe "flotilla", which I understand is a more accurate. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Eyewitness says IDF threw four injured activists overboard into sea

Activist Idris Simsek, who was on board one of the six ships of the Freedom Flotilla during the Israeli attack, claims that four wounded activists were thrown into the sea.[18] Can someone with an account add this important information to the article? 206.116.24.143 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Iran national TV! What an independent RS... --Gilisa (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Gilisa just above you are pushing IDF's YouTube channel as a RS, can you please participate with some neutrality? RomaC (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so I believe that these claims should not be added to the article, at this time. That is the most neutral thing to do. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Then this picture's status also comes into question.

If we can use national papers what is the issue with Iranian Tv ?I think we should remove the above mentioned photo. --yousaf465 04:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

The lead now includes an Israeli term, "Operation Sky Winds" -- which is innocuous and pretty, suggests a cool breeze rolling across the Mediterranean at dawn. But there are others who characterize the event differently, and that should be reflected as well, because we can't present just one side's narrative. RomaC (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

agree. we have to be cautious to adopt cynical terms which have the purpose to cloud the character of the operation.--Severino (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
disagree. This is the official IDF name for the operation. This is a fact, and there is no reason not to mention it. As a matter of fact, the real name is "Operation Sky Winds 7" - since there were other similar operations over the passing years, with the same objective, but with no fatal outcome. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The IDF codename for the operation was chosen few days before the raid occured. MathKnight 16:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
So, what you are saying is that the code name given to this operation by the Israeli military (which is an undisputed fact based on reliable sources) should be censored from the article, because to you "Sky Winds" suggests a cool breeze? Marokwitz (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone of you know Hebrew? I know it as native speaker, there is nothing in it that can be interpereted as cynical. The lit translation of Ruchot A'shamiem is "Operation Sky Winds" and it mean or imply nothing else. Infact, name choosing for IDF operations is being done through the computer choosing randomly from very large existing list since the early 70's. Your suggestion consist pure OR and very creative commentary about the name, and in an article with 1RR I would consider it as very very unhelpful. --Gilisa (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

your claims about the translation, the procedure how the names was chosen and so forth are OR.--Severino (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon? Are you serious? Leave the technique of name choosing in IDF (easy to source BTW), the name mean in Hebrew "Winds of the Sky", thats all, that's simple. That's how it is also cited invariably in seemingly all RS. So where exactly did you come with this counter accusation? If you imply that the name have cynical content then it would be violation of WP policy and considering the discussion here, wouldn't be too much to see it as more than just OR, but also as bias pushing and violation of WP:CON. --Gilisa (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Removing sourced content is not that great of an idea. Unless RomaC is proposing that we stop using the same boring and predictable phrases conjured by those state-controlled media like "holocaust" and "massacre." Although it appears they are working a bit slowly these days.[19]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the main reasons that "Gaza flotilla raid" was chosen as a name, is that most RS seemed to be using that terminology. That name should stay unless people on the talk pages can convince others it needs to change. However it seems perfectly reasonable to mention that the Israelis called the raid "Operation Sky Winds", in the same way that we mention the activists called themselves "The Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Zuchinni one (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

What Zuchinni one said. If the IDF called the raid "Operation Sky Winds", we can say the IDF called the raid "Operation Sky Winds". We should mention alternative names/phrases in the lead. TFOWRidle vapourings 17:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Times two. We should give equal weight to the names that each group chose for their mission. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I propose to include the operation name in section Gaza_flotilla_raid#Boarding and having it consistent with Shayetet_13#Gaza_Flotilla_Operation. And maybe add redirect to the boarding section from the operation name (whatever it is, Sky Winds or Sea Breeze). --Kslotte (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No censorship intended, on the contrary, as TFOWR notes, alternative names should be mentioned (see also Wikipedia:NAME#Treatment_of_alternative_names. Some, like the Israeli name, are emerging now. We can add others as they emerge. RomaC (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral addition of categories including "Piracy"?

Would have thought this was contentious enough to merit discussion in advance if adding belatedly and unclear. Edits added just now by a single user to include categories such as Piracy (who officially defines this?) and Political Repression (this was meant to be a non-political aid convoy, I thought?) at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=366392705&oldid=366388728 Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the editor was being WP:BOLD, which is fair enough. Continuing in that vein, it might be worth dropping a note on their talk page, inviting them to discuss the new categories here? For what it's worth, the new categories seem non-neutral, but I'm not a big category expert so I'm open to policy-based arguments. TFOWRidle vapourings 17:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I see categorizing it as "Piracy" is POV, even if some response has been expressed exactly as such. --Kslotte (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This was reverted by user Harami2000. For the reference the categories was Category:Political repression, Category:Israeli terrorism victims and Category:Piracy. --Kslotte (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

- I'd taken out three of the four pending discussion. (edit conflict three times whilst trying to reply here!) Thanks, TFOWR; I was wondering whether any of the regs on this article recalled previous discussion on such matters. 'Piracy' did indeed seem the most obviously contentious. Harami2000 (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Barring some compelling technology-based reason for the article to be in these, or equivalent, categories, I'd suggest we can simply revert (keeping the one revert rule in mind) similar or equivalent category additions. TFOWRidle vapourings 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Newly(?) released "IDF soldier vs. activist" photo from onboard the Mari Marmara

I just spotted this one from onboard the ship itself => see http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article490465.ece/Israel-says-activists-prepared-for-fight-on-ship . Is this "newly released" and/or worth pursuing further? Rather less ambiguous that the night vision shots from the Israeli ship, although I would be in favor of retaining that video clip frame regardless. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies - I should've clarified since this is ambiguous as to whether it was taken 'on deck' or later, 'below decks'... Harami2000 (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify further, the existing text has stated for some time that "According to a preliminary navy investigation, some passengers attempted to take hostage three unconscious commandos by dragging them into one of the passenger halls below . They were held in passenger halls for several minutes until they regained consciousness and managed to join the other soldiers [how?]". If the (stated-IHH??) photo in question is of a conscious and beaten/held-down Israel soldier, that is difficult to reconcile easily with the existing text, unless taken on deck(?). Definitely would need more RS for that, but given that it took long enough to find a relatively neutral RS to confirm that the soldiers were actually captured in the first place ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=366279451&oldid=366277070 ) that might prove difficult.
Regardless, the photo does however appear to confirm that the "activists" had the 'upper hand' far more clearly than a freeze frame from video from the Israel ship's night vision. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The photos are from a set released by Hürriyet here. Le Monde, commenting on the photos, quotes an American ex-serviceman who was on board the Mavi Marmara: "We overpowered three Israeli soldiers. They looked at us... they thought we were going to kill them, but we let them go." Physchim62 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It looks like that does at least partially contradict the "until they [i.e. all 3(?)] regained consciousness" account although I suspect further Israeli narrative might also debate why such a casual "we let them go" account after going to the hassle of beating up/overpowering, capturing and taking to the (stated elsewhere) lowest deck. More to follow and awaiting English text (citation) RSs, I guess? Harami2000 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This is Haaretz' take on it, which includes a response from the IDF... Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Officers' Letter

The article below, just published in Haaretz, seems highly significant. A group of senior Israeli Navy officers are calling into question the reaction of the Israeli government to the events. Any thoughts as to how (or whether) it should be used?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-reserves-officers-allow-external-gaza-flotilla-probe-1.294536

A few paragraphs from the article:

A group of top Israel Navy reserves officers on Sunday publicly called on Israel to allow an external probe into its commando raid of a Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla last week, which left nine people dead and several more wounded. In a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, the Navy officers denounced the commando raid as having "ended in tragedy both at the military and diplomatic levels…

"First and foremost, we protest the fact that responsibility for the tragic results was immediately thrust onto the organizers of the flotilla," wrote the officers. "This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the values of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.113.64 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I added this to the "investigations" section. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job

Pro-Israel folks, we've done a good job with this piece in getting our perspective across, so I suggest that we move on to other wiki articles of vital relevance to our interests, no? At any rate, it's good to see some of our hard work pay off.67.180.26.60 (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Getting the Israeli perspective across is essential for WP:NPOV compliance along with all other perspectives. All editors, not just pro-Israel ones, should be ensuring that the Israeli perspective is represented based on RS and with due weight. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


If I remember right, this IP have repeatedly commented here and left anti-israeli unreliable sources on this TP. His/her comments were always deleted from the TP by several editors and his/her editing is considered distrupting. The reeason I don't delete them now is because Sean.hoyland replied him/her and I don't want to delete his comment as well. Using the term Pro-Israel folks just meant to create the appearance of Pro Israeli bias, which is the farest thing this article can be described as. --Gilisa (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Faaaaaaamn, I think, was right in removing this section as vandalism hence no reason given. However, Sean.hoyland reverted challenging for a reason, which Faaaaaaamn did not give when deleting again. If Gilisa is right, and I have no reason to doubt, this was placed here for malicious reasons, to suggest that this article is biased and to try get "pro-Israel folks" away from the article so that they can then push their POV. I suggest that this section be speedily archived. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 07:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Or we can take this time to enjoy backwards land. I for one believe that "massacre" needs to be in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Widely used alternative terms should be in the lead. TFOWRidle vapourings 07:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There's no reason to delete it. The motivations of the IP don't matter. Just look at it as a nice opportunity to remind the IP and everyone else what editors are supposed to be doing here and enjoy the silliness. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There are allegations that Israel has created internet teams to back Israeli POV on internet. http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1-/10793-twitterers-paid-to-spread-israeli-propaganda-internet-warfare-team-unveiled.html We can not know for sure if any of the users or how many of them are paid by their respective states. But Wikipedia article qualities will surely suffer. --Nevit (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Wow because pro-Palestinian activists don't use the internet either. If there's bias in the Wikipedia article then it can be discussed and removed. Ridiculous.Faaaaaaamn (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
There were thousends of hacker attacks on more than 1000 most active Israeli web sites, mostly from Turish IPs. Well, that's a fact, so what does it mean? And the source you provided is not exactly, how to say it, reliable? Please read about the Electronic Intifada to get the right perspective. --Gilisa (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The right perspective is a neutral point of view... TFOWRidle vapourings 08:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Talking of neutral, people might want to put Shayetet 13 on their watchlist and keep and eye on it. The recent editing has been somewhat suboptimal. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla case source share

Click for Article and Video links
;Facts
  • Amount of supply 10.000 tonnes [20]
    • 7.500 dollars worth cement
    • 3.500 dollars worth cash
  • Number of passengers 466 [21]
  • Number of crew
  • Number of journalists

General

Case Against Activists

Anti-semitic talk arguments
Martyrdom

Case Against IDF

Legality of blockade
declerations
Weapons
  • Helicopter
  • Weapons
Activist and passenger testimonies
Kenneth Nichols O'Keefe
Gaza Flotilla Sexual harrassment
Non-Gaza flotilla abuse
Aftermath protests

Collection of articles against IHH activists and IDF commandos along with general and other related articles, eyewitness accounts. In progress. Please add links so that we have a better collection. Kasaalan (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a good idea to have an inventory of sources, reliable or not, on the TP. --Gilisa (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ [23]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_8&oldid=1257451137"