Talk:Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 1

Archive 1

Deletion of this page

I'm not entirely convinced this page should exist. As a significant contributor to the 2010 Thai military crackdown, I took note that there was no page for international reaction. The reasoning behind the decision was that it violated several Wikipedia standards, including the following:

* WP:MEMORIAL
* WP:RECENT

Even though the Israeli-Arab conflict often evokes powerful emotions from readers, using the precedent set in that article, it is my belief that this article should be considered for deletion.

See Talk:2010_Thai_military_crackdown#International_Reaction for the arguments used. And, if this article is let to stand, why it was not allowed to stand in the case of the 2010 Thai military crackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixer Fixer (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep this page. Two wrongs don't make a right. Let the truth speak. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote to scrap this page too. Publishing anti-Semitic comments about the raid from known terrorism-supporting Islamofascist dictatorships like Iran lends credence to those comments that they don't deserve. Plus, who's to say that Israel wasn't justified in acting to stop the attempted violation of the blockade? The ships in question that tried to run the blockade were attempting to aid and abet a group that supports terrorism and has repeatedly attacked Israel without provocation while using its own people as human shields against retaliatory action. 24.68.199.81 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this page, indeed the international reaction to Israeli action is very important, especially since close allies like Turkey, Britain and USA have all re-acted negatively. --Welshsocialist (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is, this page is solely an anti-Israel propaganda page trying to convince people of Israel's wrong doing. This page needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.162.116 (talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• All the positive reactions to the assault are there as well, there are just not so many of them MX44 (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEMORIAL certainly doesn't apply. WP covers recent and breaking events - and certainly ones major enough to feature on the main page. If this wasn't here, it would need to be incorporated back into the main article. But feel free to try for an WP:AFD. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I see, there are more international reactions to this incident than to the Thai crisis. Voicing demands, condemnations etc. are more forceful and relevant reactions than expressing the wish for non-violence, as was the general position of most international countries and organizations with regard to the Thai crisis. The incident is generally not being regarded as a (mostly) internal affair of one country.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This situations has "strong reactions" and that means also different countries responds differently. Reactions with "standard template" about condemnation and condolences should be avoided (I would prefer listed as other countries). The common issue with reaction list is that the reaction message have the same meaning. --Kslotte (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This page draws more parallels from Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake than the Thai Military Crackdown. I think it should remain. The article so far has remained matter-of-fact and has not breached NPOV (as far as I can tell). Should it do so, then it's certainly cause for considering deletion. --Topperfalkon (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This page should remain as it is of historical interest the largely negative reaction Israel received for this incident is something that has not been seen before. Rarian rakista (talk) 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sudan

Would it be possible to update the image to include Sudan? --candle•wicke 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not due to copyright: it's not in the public domain. Please [this article]. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey

Some Turkey-Isreal reactions: [1] (source from main article) --Kslotte (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

International Law

Prof Ove Bring of Uppsala and Stockholms Universities, advisor to the Foreign Department of Sweden, claims that the Israeli attack is a clear violation of international Public International Law in peace time, and that the security zone of Israel is something that the Israel have set up by themselves. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3741823 Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 04:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

After some development of Gaza flotilla clash#Legality of raid, I believe it instead belongs to that article. We might collect statements con and pro on the talk page there, to prepare one or a few sentences in that article. I'll copy your source to there. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 06:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I want to add material regarding the international law: LINK: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/57jmsu?opendocument QUOTE FROM LINK: " Neutral merchant vessels

67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:

(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;

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

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

(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system; " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomentality (talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That isn't applicable since it only applies during war. // Liftarn (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also

"In addition, the Manual lists vessels that are specifically exempt from capture, on the basis of either treaty law or customary law:

(ii) vessels engaged in humanitarian missions, including vessels carrying supplies indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and vessels engaged in relief actions and rescue operations;"

also in SECTION II : METHODS OF WARFARE

"102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:

(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or

(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade. "

but it's a moot point since it's WP:OR anyway unless you have a reliable source for it. // Liftarn (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary of Countries

As discusssed above regarding the map, combining criticism and condemnation together is inappropriate and gives the wrong impression. Additionally, many of those nations currently listed in that category don't actually fit. Such as France, the UK, and Portugal (to name 3 major European powers). How about revert it back to how it was rather than rewrite the same information from the map in a different format, information already being discussed here regarding its questionable clarity and accuracy? 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added a bit of info to Spain, but I am unable to add the source. I took it from europapress. If anyone could add it I would be grateful, if not, I will do it myself tonight. Leirus (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaction in Pakistan is missing

For updating this will be helpful. Google news.--yousaf465 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Details of protest are located here Journalists, civil society protest against Israel--yousaf465 05:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sudan, is this appropriate?

[2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all.Bless sins (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaction in Azerbaijan

Here's what's written in the article: "In Azerbaijan political scientist Fikret Sadikhov expressed concern: “The fact that Turkey is against Israel’s actions may worsen our ties with Israel since Turkey is our ally and our positions coincide in most issues. However, we understand that we have quite close partner relations with Israel which we would not like to worsen." Commenting on the event, he said, "if these are civil ships, the Israelis have gone beyond the frameworks of their military capacities which can certainly worsen the situation."[54]"

First of all, why is the personal opinion of this guy being presented here as the Azerbaijani reaction to this clash? He's just a political scientist - he can't speak on behalf of anything or anyone except himself. Second, if you want something really official, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement in which it voiced its concern, called for an investigation, expressed its wish that those responsible for the attack be punished, reiterated its readiness to provide humanitarian aid to Palestine, and once again stated its position concerning the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, i.e. that Azerbaijan, literally, 'supports the (co)-existence of two sovereign states with equal rights: Israel and Palestine'. Here's the link: http://day.az/news/politics/212019.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree this is the opinion of a political scientist not that of official Azerbaijan. Here is the official position of Azerbaijan, [3], [4]. I added this in the reaction of Azerbaijan. Neftchi (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposing opinions inside Israel

I believe it should be mentioned that even inside Israel there are a lot of voices opposing the raid, with labels raging from "fiasco" to "a sea of madness". See for example thefirst page of Haaretz newspaper, 31 May. Almost all of the articles are negative towards the raid operation. I'm not sure as to how to insert this in the article, I might give it a try later on, but those of you more knowledgeable of the whole thing maybe would do a better job. --Steloukos (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In Israel there were voices opposing the raid, even before the raid took place. Some politicians, who oppose current Likud government, and also journalists, said that Israel should let the flotilla reach Gaza, and not try to stop it. On the other hand, there are Israeli right-wing politicians who still justify the raid, even after the deadly outcome. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well include the internal controversy, perhaps under media reaction (Haaretz, et al.) or under a subsection for political comments.Lihaas (talk) 03:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

International Federation of Journalists reaction ?

According to their head they sent a letter to the belligerent party.--yousaf465 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source, and both were belligerent parties. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

He said this in a CNBC Pakistan's program.--yousaf465 03:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There are ways to cite TV info. (might want to confirm it at a cite document page either on wikipedia or MLA/AP, ETC.)Lihaas (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What about their official site ? Lihaas you may confirm wether they also contacted the CNBC india ? I think we have found one source IFJ calls for immediate release of Gaza-bound journalists.--yousaf465 05:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont watch CNBC anymore, its crap here ;)

But go ahead and add the link. To the "NGO's" section, there is a Reporters without Borders reaction already.Lihaas (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think these are separate organisation. Was channel switching. ;) --yousaf465 06:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

I would like to remind all users of WP:LEAD.

We should definitely summarize the reactions of countries. This is because the policy states:

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

Reactions of countries are important, because more than half the article is just about them.

Furthermore,

The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.

Hence, we need a way to summarize the countries' reactions such that the lead can be "a concise version" of the article on its own.

The size of the lead of this article should be "Three or four paragraphs" because this article is "More than 30,000 characters" (it is around 80,000 characters).

Also, the lead doesn't necessarily need sources, though I can copy and paste them if anyone wishes:

Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.

Hope this clears up things about the lead. I also, hope users will not remove relevant material from the lead after reading this.Bless sins (talk) 02:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also the UN and other bodies + protests + media reactions. 2-3 sentences should cover this.Lihaas (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can write a lead not based on equivocation and violating NPOV without being an only slightly shorter "summary" of the actual article then go ahead. Better to have an unusually small lead than one using equivocation in order to violate NPOV. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss option then do so. if you want merely criticize what is agreed and demand something else then refrain from edit-warring in the lead. If you have made no contribution to solving this problem except revert work agreed upon. (see above)Lihaas (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead is NPOV. Countries that didn't condemn Israel have been included (US, Canada, Australia etc.).Bless sins (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Discussion_of_lead_changes I see no point in carrying on two similar discussions mere lines apart. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

wikitionary link

Do we need this here? Maybe a wikilink to that page, but a "see also" doesnt warrant its space here as the section is not about "supranational" its only about the reaction/statement from them.Lihaas (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

not in the source

this cover up {not in soutce} finf. Why to do that? Ai 00 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

To quote the first 3 para's from the source:

"Poland’s foreign minister says that his government supports the EU’s call for an international investigation into the Israeli attack against a Turkish convoy bringing aid to Gaza Palestinians, killing at least ten.

""The whole world calls for a clarification,” said Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski after talks with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in Warsaw, Monday.

"“The next step will depend on how well, and convincingly, the Israeli authorities explain what happened,” he added. "Lihaas (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Article size

Almost near another split, article is 90k and in the next few days will more than likely see some more with more protests planned in europe (and elsewhere). Friday prayers in the islamic world this week should give some fodder for news.Lihaas (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably the split should go along the lines official statements/public reactions. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 09:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bot archived this. Anyhoo, in line with this i will split off the official reaction section as the page is now 150k+

Well this is not viable anymore as the national split is itself 100k (although the left over pages would then be 60k, the future growth reaction i'd expect would be more elsewhere so the potential for national growth is barely there). As per IANVS, i think the split should go along those lines, but perhaps the "other" reactions can be split off?

Lihaas (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Protests in Azerbaijan

I added the protests in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan under the reaction headline, inc source: [5]. Neftchi (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wrong section, but i moved it ;)Lihaas (talk) 03:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

the Holy See should be used instead of Vatican City

the WP article on Holy See makes it quite clear that, despite the ambiguous use of "Vatican", it is the Holy See which " maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations.[10] Foreign embassies are accredited to the Holy See, not to the Vatican City, and it is the Holy See that establishes treaties and concordats with other sovereign entities. When necessary, the Holy See will enter a treaty on behalf of the Vatican City."

even the article linked after it is listed under "V" for "Vatican" says "Santa Sede", which is Italian for Holy See:

" Medio Oriente: assalto israeliano a pacifisti, Vaticano "preoccupato"

31 Maggio 2010 12:36 ESTERI CITTA' DEL VATICANO - Grande preoccupazione e dolore sono stati espressi dalla Santa Sede per l'attacco di Israele alla flottiglia che stava portando aiuti umanitari a Gaza: sentimenti riferiti da padre Federico Lombardi, direttore della Sala Stampa vaticana. (RCD) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.238.137 (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

cant be bovvered to de-undo the action of the person who changed it back to Vatican though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.238.137 (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Update

Activists have been given a warm welcome in Turkey. BBC news--yousaf465 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Flags

Note WP:MOSFLAG: "Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance" and "Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations". The article need some clean-up. --Kslotte (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it does. It didn't exist yesterday after all. All articles are like that at the start, particularly with several contributors. :) --candle•wicke 04:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, an edit against policy. This needs to be reverted. Supranationals should not have flags. --Kslotte (talk) 11:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Temporary takedown of controversial map

The current map at the top of this article has been the subject of A LOT of debate. Most of that debate can be found here Discussion on Reactions Page and here Discussion on Flotilla Page, either directly on the Talk pages or in links presented on these talk pages.

At this point there seem to be strong opinions on both sides and it would probably be best to temporarily take down the map until a consensus is reached either through the talk sections or via an Request for Comment or Third Opinion.

Zuchinni one (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Baharyakin has added the map again. I removed it. Maybe we should vote on it? ShalomOlam (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Accurately dividing nations based on their response

Currently throughout the article nations are divided into two categories:

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

This division is misleading as it means nations such as Australia are put into the first category. In fact, statements by the Prime Minister of Australia are variants of:

"the Australian Government condemns any use of violence under the sorts of circumstances that we have seen." (7th last paragraph from the transcript here: )

This could be considered a condemnation of Israel, the activists, or both. At the moment, this page interprets it as a condemnation of Israel (see the red colouring for Australia on the map at the top of the page).

I propose a third category, "States that have condemned the use of violence by parties involved in the incident" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.102 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is correct and helps to illustrate that the map is based on original synthesis of reliable sources. Who are we to decide that all responses fall in 2 or three categories ? Where are the reliable sources who say that? Marokwitz (talk) 09:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

When states have expressed disapproval of the raid, and at the same time have made statements about violence in general, only using the latter for categorizing their position would be incorrect due to selective use of available information.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The same issues apply to the lead which was written without careful consideration for the nuanced statements by seasoned politicians. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture of protest in Turkey

Here are some pictures of a protest in Turkey. Mabe you want to choose one for this article.--Kimdime (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Satire

Music video satire of the event. I think it belongs on the page as part of the reaction. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broad Wall (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrations

As I mentioned in the talk page on the main article There has been a lot of demonstrations around the world. In Sweden more than 21 different demonstrations with the one in Gothenburg with more than 4000 people (reference: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.380323-protest-samlade-tusentals).

There is photos of that demonstration in the commons: File:Demonstration against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza May 31st 2010 (4).jpg to mention one.

Could someone with more wikipedia experience please add this or to the Swedish reactions or start a new category for demonstrations? Averater (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• OK, thanks! I've put it close to the Swedish reaction. There were some 7000 here in Stockholm as well ... MX44 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded some from the protest in Stockholm (we have a WP:RS for about 7000 persons[7]) to Commons:Category:Gaza flotilla clash. // Liftarn (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are there only photos from anti-Israeli demonstrations? There have been plenty of ones in support of Israel. Does this not violate NPOV? Examples: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 82.102.159.23 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Map

Why was the map removed? How it is WP:OR? All the sources are in the article. Such maps exist on International recognition of Kosovo, International reaction to the Gaza War etc.Bless sins (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

IMHO Collecting the countries into this article may be a small bit WP:OR, but putting them on the map is not. --Kslotte (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it. But I assume there is two issues; 1. keeping it up-to-date, 2. lack of additional value a map would give. --Kslotte (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Keeping things up to date is something that's inherent with all info in wikipedia. It's everyone's responsibility, but of course, I will take a special interest in keeping the map updated.

2. The map summarizes things. It also gives a graphical representation of reactions (just as graphs give a graphical representation of figures).Bless sins (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since it was suggested at Talk:Gaza_flotilla_clash#Requested_edit_.28please_add_image.29 to add the map, I'm restoring it.Bless sins (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Map should be removed on the basis of violating WP:NPOV. The map on International reaction to the Gaza War includes (1) States that endorsed the Israeli position/defined Israel's action as falling within its right to defense, (2) States that condemned Hamas action only, (3) States that endorsed the Hamas position/defined Hamas' actions as falling within its right of resistance, (4) States that condemned Israeli action only, (5) States that called for an end to hostilities and condemned neither/both belligerents, and (6) States that have made no official statement on the conflict. The current Map only includes "Countries which criticized the Israeli raid on the flotilla." This clearly prejudices the image, and the article as a whole (especially) due to the prominent place in which it is situated; visible the moment the page is loaded. This too contrasts with the map on International reaction to the Gaza War. Considering these facts, I'm removing the map. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading the WP:OR discussion about it, I must agree it is indeed also OR due to the nature of the terminology used, i.e. "Countries which criticized the Israeli raid on the flotilla." According to Criticism, “Criticism is the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another individual.” For example, Iran has never actually performed a criticism of Israel; they have merely denounced it continually without any analysis or evaluation. While that is a worthwhile reaction to note and record, it cannot be properly defined as criticism. There are certainly more subtle examples, but Iran is the archetypal example of a nation which will not recognize anything Israel does as meritorious and seeks a negative stance on all of its actions.

So either due to violation of NPOV, due to the violation of OR, due to the misleading terminology, or a combination of all of the above, the Map should be, and was, removed. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 03:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi anon. Most images are one sided. For example, consider this image produced by the IDF. Or the image of an anti-Israeli protest. You can balance the image with another image. Or, even better, you can neutralize the image instead of removing it.

"Criticism" was mildly putting the condemnation that came from the shaded countries. Since, you insist, I'll use the terms "denounced Israel" and "condemned Israel". That would satisfy you?Bless sins (talk) 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Should it? It sounds like that deletion discussion argument - WP:OTHERSTUFF. What does the content in the article on the Gaza War have to do with the content in this article? Shouldn't a consensus be reached to remove it first? It seems as though you have decided to remove it several times due to your own opinion alone. There is no consensus for removal on this talk page. There doesn't appear to be any for removal on the other page either. Perhaps it is not perfect but it won't be improved if it is constantly removed. --candle•wicke 03:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. This is not like the Gaza war, where Israeli civilians were victims of rocket attacks (and hence many countries came out to support Israel). There have been no reactions "supporting" Israel here. The most pro-Israeli reactions have said (US and Canada) "we need more information to make a comment".Bless sins (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A strong distinction may be made between nations condemning the actions immediately, those waiting to actually base their answers on real information (and may in the end condone Israel’s actions), those which condemned Israel yet called the flotilla a provocation, those which only referred to the flotilla as a provocation and deplored the loss of life, those which only called the flotilla a provocation, those which only deplored the loss of life, and those which have said nothing so far.

By listing only those that criticize or condemn Israel, without acknowledging these important subtle, yet distinct, variations violates NPOV.

I removed the Map for the simple reason that it is the only way to get attention to a blatant violation of NPOV. If I just argued it was NPOV in the Discussion it may well have been days (if ever) before any sort of agreement was reached, meanwhile another Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, or Muhammad al-Durrah incident will make a (further) mockery of Wikipedia.

To be blunt, it is far better for that map not to exist than to violate NPOV, especially when NPOV on an article like this may lead to actual deaths. I lack the know-how regarding altering the Map appropriately, if you know how then go ahead. Also, just because consensus wasn’t reached to remove doesn’t mean it was reached to keep, looks like someone just went ahead and put it up without getting agreement regarding exactly what it should look like or include, so I reverted it back to the status quo.

Furthermore, a criticizing nation may differ fantastically from a condemning nation. For example, imagine theoretical Nation X says, “Israel was completely justified in their actions, however, most people aren’t well versed in the details of international maritime laws which clearly stipulate Israel was permitted to intercept the flotilla in international waters when attempting to break its blockade. Therefore Israel should have waited until the flotilla was in its territorial waters before intercepting, in order to avoid a PR nightmare.” That it a criticism of Israel’s actions by Nation X, it’s hardly a condemnation though. Meanwhile anyone who looks at your map will believe that Nation X condemns Israel’s actions, which is almost the complete opposite of their actual perspective. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you specify which nation, "Nation X" is. You are imagining scenarios that may not exist.

Also, what other editors and I have to do with Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, or Muhammad al-Durrah incident beats me.

"I lack the know-how regarding altering the Map appropriately" That is no excuse to delete maps created by others. If you don't know, then learn, don't delete.

But perhaps most ridiculous is your threat that the alleged "NPOV on an article like this may lead to actual deaths." So are you accusing wikipedians (myself included) of being murderers?

I've been involved in a discussion about the map on the main page of the event. The more I look at it the bigger of a problem I have. For example, look at the UK response to currently in this article

"The United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary William Hague said he "deplored" the loss of life and called on Israel to open border crossings for aid access. Scotland's Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said Israel's actions had been "rightly condemned around the world". She called on Israel to lift its blockade of Gaza, and expressed her "deep sadness" at the loss of life on the flotilla. In Belfast, protests were held in front of the City Hall to condemn Israel's actions and to call for an end to the siege of Gaza."

I don't understand why you label the entire UK as condemning Israel when that has only come from Scotland and Ireland. This map seems to be more of an editorial than a fact.

If the map is to be included it should be clear, factual, and non-editorial. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Eh, "actual deaths"? Hasn't that already happened here? Not my map. At least three/four different have placed it in the article in the first place from what I can see. One of them was me when I thought you were "accidentally removing" it in that way in which content in general tends to disappear. Here are the diffs for the four times you removed it. (1) (2) (3) (4) --candle•wicke 04:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the map only one time ... just now, and from the main article not this one. Also the only reason for removal there is because its accuracy is highly dubious.Zuchinni one (talk) 04:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its appropriate for you to say "accuracy is highly dubious". UK was the only dubious country you brought up. I have provided evidences for the UK (here it is again). But, as good faith measure, I removed the UK from the map.Bless sins (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just went through several nations and compared it to the map, it’s accurate in very few cases. For example, France is on the map indicating they criticized/condemned the “Israeli raid”, when in reality Nicolas Sarkozy only condemned "the disproportionate use of force" against the flotilla, not the raid itself. The UK “‘deplored’ the loss of life”, which is neither a criticism nor condemnation. Portugal “condemned the ‘excessive use of force against civilian targets’", not the raid itself. Etc. There are others, but those three major European powers stand out a bit.

I’m not sure who wrote some of those comments, so I’ll answer at large. Nation X is a theoretical example demonstrating the distinction in terms. The Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, and Muhammad al-Durrah incident are all highly publicized incidents of claimed Israeli massacres which resulted in riots, property damage (and loss of life? Not sure.) – all of which were eventually proven beyond a doubt by the global community to have been either fabricated completely, blown incredibly out of proportion, or have had key facts left out intentionally. Let us not make this another such incident. Report on it, yes, but report on it with a conscience. I’m sorry, I’m not a wikiholic and know every function of this site. I yield to the greater editing knowledge of ye folk who have learnt how. Removing something clearly erroneous is better than waiting to try and get someone to fix it (if one cannot fix it themselves) and provide wrong information to the masses in the meantime

Candlewicke, by actual deaths I mean additional ones. Such as through riots occurring throughout the world, I did already refer you to the Jenin Massacre, Gaza Beach Blast, and Muhammad al-Durrah incident, right? It’s a volatile situation, and indicating mass agreement of the world fans the flames, if it were undeniably true that’d be one thing, but it’s not. Especially due to the lack of clarity in the Map. Ok, that’s a bit of a stretch regarding inciting deaths due to a wiki page. I got worked up and lashed out, my apologies, the rest of the reasoning is still cogent though. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Both France and Portugal condemned Israeli military's disproportionate use of force. That's pretty much the same as condemning the raid. Or, if you want to make it more literal, its the same as condemning "Israeli actions". That should satisfy the definition, right?Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Bless sins, there’s a big distinction there that you’re missing. Condemning the methodology is vastly different than condemning the act itself. It’s like condemning cheating to get an A on a test, and thereby condemning getting A’s at all. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree, or not, that Israel's supposed use of disproportionate force can be classified as an "action" by Israel? All the countries are condemning what Israel actually ended up doing.

Also, I request that you not bring far-fetched analogies into this discussion (it was only minutes ago you were accusing editors of inciting violence). Let's stick to what's relevant, shall we?Bless sins (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bless sins, while I do believe you are editing in good faith I think that this map is looking more and more like original research. It really should be removed. I'm sorry, I know that you have put a lot of work in it. But it just doesn't belong here right now. The condemnation is not necessarily equal in all cases and many nations have condemned the violence or the deaths, but not necessarily the action of Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was accusing editors of possibly inciting violence - because they were. Have you not seen large angry rallies resulting as a result of this event, some becoming violent? If there’s someone on the fence who reads a wiki page that incites them due to how it is framed, then yes, that editor has incited violence. Not intentionally, but yes. I did apologize for being sharp-tongued with that, the rest of my points are still valid though, including the analogies.

Yes, use of force can be classified as an “action by Israel”. However, saying a nation condemns Israeli action is all inclusive, it includes all of Israel’s actions in this matter, it indicates other aspects besides for the degree of force used. For example, Portugal seemingly (based on the body of the article) *only* “condemned the ‘excessive use of force against civilian targets’”. So what about everything else Israel did, perhaps Portugal agrees with it. As a whole that could indicate Portugal supported Israeli action, just not one particular *act* which was condemned. So no, using “condemned Israeli action” is not accurate and is misleading. Continuing with Portugal as an example, what if Israel had done everything else the same, except instead of boarding the ships, they simply clogged the propellers and tugged them to Ashdod. Portugal might have congratulated Israel on successfully defusing a tense issue with no bloodshed, as might many other nations have. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni one, can you give reason as to why this map is original research? "many nations have condemned the violence or the deaths, but not necessarily the action of Israel" Which nations have done that, that I indicated otherwise on the map? You mentioned UK, I removed it. You have yet to mention another country.Bless sins (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned *at least* Portugal and France earlier as well.24.46.71.166 (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

According to reliable sources both France and Portugal "condemned" Israeli actions. See also this as a source for French condemnation [15], and this source for Portuguese condemnation [16].Bless sins (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a bit of a discussion I was having with Bless Sins on his talk page. I hope this helps to clarify concerns over the map.

Hi Bless, I apologize for keeping this brief, but I took another look at the main page for Talk:International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_clash#Map and it appears that other people are also concerned about the the neutrality of using the blanket term 'condemnation' when there are often carefully written statements in the international arena. The concern is that someone needs to make a judgment as to what exactly is being condemned. I'm not familiar with all of the reactions, so I used the UN reaction as an example of the kind of problem we face. Since a judgment needs to be made, that seems to qualify as OR.

Also a map that shows condemnation specifically, will necessarily leave out a lot of other international reactions. To do this in an unbiased way you would need, at a minimum, separate categories for: 1) Direct criticism of Israel 2) Criticism of the events/acts 3) Expressions of sympathy 4) Calls for inquiry ... and combinations of each of these for countries that did more than one.

However I do think it would be possible to fairly create a map of all countries who have called for an unbiased inquiry of events. That is a neutral statement and yet still signals concern from the countries that something further might need to be done, depending on the results of the inquiry. Also calls for inquiry are not often carefully worded to avoid diplomatic rows in the same way that condemnation is.

I hope that this has helped. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This discussion at the Gaza War article contains an explanation by JGGardiner of why these kind of editor generated maps are doomed to be policy non-compliant. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A map like that of the reaction to the gaza war may be better(Lihaas (talk) 05:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Zucchini One - Ireland has not been part of the United Kingdom for 88 years now. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Those 4 categories are inadequate in light of current international reactions, at least 6 would be necessary, though arguably more: 1) Direct criticism of Israel 2) Criticism of the events/acts 3) Expressions of sympathy 4) Calls for inquiry 5) Direct criticism of the flotilla 6) No official statements - in totality that's 121 variations that can arise, though certain combinations may not exist. Still far more than can be done reasonably on a map for it to still be understandable. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Only in theory do all of these possibilities exist. Not in reality. Also, almost every country that has commented has called on an inquiry, so such a reaction is almost meaningless. Similarly almost every country that reacted has expressed condolences. What's significant are whether or not they protested the Israeli action, and the other significant thing that has been emerging is the difference in who will lead the investigation.

In any case, you are free to add to the map.Bless sins (talk) 06:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

And as Zucchini One pointed out, and as been repeated quite often, 1) "Direct criticism of Israe"l and 2) "Criticism of the events/acts" are two very different things, my additions to his list of 5) Direct criticism of the flotilla 6) No official statements are also certainly worth addition. #4 is perhaps uneccessary, though #5 is not (refer to many Arab countries which expressed no sympathy). 24.46.71.166 (talk) 06:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet, the map is not talking about direct criticism of Israel, it is only talking about criticism of Israeli actions. Many countries may offer direct criticism of Israel (say, regarding everything Israel does), but that is not relevant to this article. The only thing relevant to this article is some or all Israeli actions with regards to the flotilla. And the shaded countries protested (not criticized) protested at least some of the Israeli actions.

Countries that haven't commented are shaded gray. Bless sins (talk) 06:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not OR as most maps on WP are made by users from RS.

Regarding the three-colour division:

1) countries that condemned/protested the action

2) those that did not

3) No statements/No data

This should be quite unproblematic.

Since every country/organization demanded an inquiry and every one of them expressed sympathy for the losses, the only remaining distintion is between direct criticism of Israel vs. criticism of the actions by Israel. And the former is absolutely irrelevant as far as the actions carried on by Israel (the main topic of this article) is concerned.

No problem then. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a great of example of how it's being misread, i.e. look at Germany. "In an unusually strongly worded statement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's office said Israel's response to the ships was disproportionate and reaffirmed the German government's demand for lifting the blockade of the Gaza strip. German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle voiced "deep concern" at reports of deaths when Israeli commandos stormed a flotilla of six activist ships heading to Gaza." That is a protestation regarding the blockade, i.e. Israel itself, which Germany has been making for some time. It is independent of their current criticism of the degree of force used, while not necessarily being against the interception of the flotilla itself. Which, in any case, cannot properly be termed a condemnation or a protestation. The inherent vagueness that can be understood from terms like "protestation" and "criticism" make their usage in an NPOV manner difficult, if not impossible. Additionally, the difference between "protested or condemned" is a great chasm in political parlance, it's inappropriate to group them together. Furthermore, as mentioned before, certain nations only condemned the flotilla, that is a category which deserves its own color. Also, as I mentioned before as well, numerous Arab countries did not express sympathy - which is a worthwhile distinction to make.

Do you truly believe a nation like Yemen demanding for "an Islamic army to encounter the Israeli arrogance" ought to be grouped alongside a nation like Italy whose representatives said "The manner of the response is debatable, but to think that it would all pass without Israeli action is naiveté on the part of the organizers. I believe someone wanted to see how harsh Israel's response would be," and that they "deplore in the strongest terms the killing of civilians. This is certainly a grave act"? If you consider those two responses similar enough to justify grouping together then we simply may not be able to agree. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with you regarding the German example. What is important here is the protest of the action, and not for the blockade. Regarding the sympathy for the losses, maybe it is not a politically relevant issue after all, so we maybe should avoid that distinction as a whole.

Now about the gradation in diplomatic terminology: you are absolutely right about it beign a much more complicated subject than a simple yes/no. However, it should be possible to draw a significative line (or two, or maybe three), in the same way many editors have done over many WP geopolitical maps before.

New division proposal

1)Codemnation of Israeli actions

2)Protestation of one or more aspects of Israeli actions

3)Demand for an inquiry w/o further criticism

4)Support of Israeli Action

5)No data/No statements.

Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Better, but I have issues with #2. How can you distinguish a nation which disagrees with aspects of the event by Irael, yet agrees with them from one that disagrees with them? Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, etc. seem open to interpretation. It's like a cop who shoots a man that stabs him, many will protest the excessive use of force while simultaneously believing he was still in the right, while others consider it murder because he didn't use a taser. Also, what about all those nations that have the "condemned the incident" (or its equivalents) next to their flag in the article. It's not clear who or what they're condemning. Israel, the loss of life, the degree of force, the flotilla itself, the interception of the flotilla, all of the above?

Also, the lead itself suffers from the same issue of being a yes/no. Actually it's worse than that, it's a yes/ambivalent with no acknowledgement of a yes even existing. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 08:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the focus. The important question is about the legality of the Israeli action, and/or some of its aspects. If the Israeli action is protested for any reason or reasons, or entirely condemned, it is unimportant then if the same State do understand the Israeli motives to do it, or if it condemn the existence of the State of Israel, or if it regret the loss of life. On the contrary, it would be relevant if a State blame the flotilla for the incident, supporting Israeli justification for its action. But maybe we should state more clearly that this legality/legitimacy issue is the focus of this debate. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If done in that respect then a map will have a rather paltry display, few nations directly commented on the legality of it. Additionally, no, the assorted nations' positions on the legality/legitimacy isn't particularly important for this article, it's about their reactions - whatever they may be. The issue remains as it has been, there is too wide a range of reactions, making it so that grouping together is inappropriate and far too varied to form into a map. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 03:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just my POV taken from a comment in the forward section: In order to indicate how much world attention this event originated, it would be nice to have this map colored neutral and simply titled "Countries with official declarations regarding the event" or something similar to this. It is highly unusual to have so many countries opine officially regarding a world event. GaussianCopula (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That'd be reasonable, it is worthwhile to acknowledge such an unusually large number of nations have official responses despite almost none of them being directly involved, while in contrast there's an absence of similar responses to much more egregious events around the world. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish reaction

Turkish reactions need to go either to the Other countries or the Non-EU members sections. --87.202.65.120 (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

well i think it should be in the European/Non-EU members section, because, although Turkey isn't a EU country it's an European country which continues entry negotiations with the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.169.176.190 (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I moved Turkish reactions to Non-EU section, as it was there before recent edits. Kavas (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ankara is not un Europe, it is not in the EU, and it is officially seen as one of the few Bicontinental countries (with Kazakh and Russia) Lihaas (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Only a small part of the Turkey is part of Europe, the main part and the Turkish capital are not located in Europe. It is even part of the Near East. --Tim.vogt (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So 2-2 for Turkey in Europe/Asia. I guess the status-quo must stay till consensus.Lihaas (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it should be in Non-EU part as the country is in still negotiations with EU membership. --Cerian (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

After the Turkish reaction was melted into the "National Reactions" section it was a short amount of time part of the "Asian Reactions" section, but someone wrongly changed that. You said "So 2-2", that's like we would hold a vote on this topic. Then we also could hold a vote about the location of Mexico... maybe someone could find a majority for "Mexico is a part of Europe". The ancient Greek people gave the continents names (the continents which were known by then), and the (biggest part of the) Turkey was named "Asia Minor". As already stated by you, Lihaas, the Turkey is a bicontinental country. But neither the Turkish capital nor the larger part of the Turkey is located within Europe (97% are located within Asia). So, if Wikipedia wants to be/stay factual and impartial, someone have to put the Turkish reaction into the Asian section or put it together with other transcontinental states (like Russia) in a transcontinental section. --Tim.vogt (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is a member of Council of Europe and as I pointed out earlier, it's still in negotiations with European Union for membership. Europe's area in Asia usually described as an idea that came from 19th. century thinker. Nowadays though, Europe also defined by it's political structure. To say 97% of it's area located in Asia, as justification of excluding Turkey from Europe, is throwing away other accepted ideas about whether Turkey is a part of Europe or not. I still insist it should be under "Non-Eu" part as Russia and Azerbaijan.--Cerian (talk) 16:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe... as well as Armenia, Russia, French Guiana and Cyprus. If you define Europe by it's political structure, you will see, that the Tukrey is excluded from the EU. Most (/all?) European countries have diplomatic relations with the Turkey, but also with countries like Israel or China. Culturally and historically the Turkey is not included in Europe. The best solution would be to integrate a transcontinental Section. --Tim.vogt (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

French Guiana is an overseas territory of France, an EU member, which makes it a member of European Union in relations with international community. Cyprus is a member of European Union so don't understand your point . Armenia wants to join EU at some point in the future and Russia denies to join. On the latter part of your argument, I cannot disagree more; You should know that Eastern Europe was a territory of Ottoman Empire until early 20th century so your point on that is kinda irrelevant.--Cerian (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was another proposition to put the directly relevant countries (israel, turkey, and the arab world) into 1 section, this should solve that.Lihaas (talk) 08:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Czech reaction

President of the Czech Senate Přemysl Sobotka said: "The flotilla was a planned provocation designed to drag Israel into a trap. Many in the European community think like me, but are afraid to express their position publicly". http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/115/283.html ShalomOlam (talk) 11:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont know the rep. of that source, but if the president of the senate said ti you can check the webstie for the czech senate, it'll probably be in his info.Lihaas (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the main headline of the article cited as a source for the Czech reaction! It cites the president calling the flotilla a "provocation" and expressing support of Israel's right to blockade Gaza. Can someone please add this as soon as possible? 82.102.159.23 (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

translation request

[17] Lihaas (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you tried google chrome ? Although not reliable but may give a fair idea.--yousaf465 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Here it is, see it before the copyright guys knock at my door.--yousaf465 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Israel declared the Gaza Strip sulaikysiantis all ships to achieve mėginsiančius Published: 1 June 2010. 11:34 15min.lt

AFP / "Scanpix 'brief. / Israel opened fire on peaceful vessels.

Photo: Israel fired at the ship which carried the charity, killing dozens of people Photo: Around the world - the Israeli attack perturbations Israel will not allow any ships to reach the Gaza Strip on Tuesday warned one of the country's high military official. Increase text of the article Reduce the text of the article

Meanwhile, activists supporting the Palestinians promised to try to re-run enclave of the blockade, although their attempt was frustrated by a bloody Israeli Navy commando attack. "Will not allow any ships to reach the Gaza Strip and the supply of stocks terrorist base became the site that poses a risk to the heart of Israel" - Deputy Minister of Defense of the Jewish state guernsey Mattan told public radio. This statement comes from Vilnius, where the "freedom flotilla" organizers announced the way towards sending two more ships with humanitarian aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip. On Monday, the Israeli forces before the attack on one of the six ships were sent to kill nine activists. Greta Berlin from the movement of the "Free Gaza" news agency AFP said that the next attempt to break the blockade will be held no sooner than after a few days. "Rachel Corrie" is now the Italian coast, and another vessel tebetaisomas "- stated Mr Berlin.

So how would this gel in? A statement from Vilnuis by organizers said 2 more humanitarian ships would be on their way?Lihaas (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Media section is a mess

This section needs to be copyedited immediately. As it stands it is already skewed towards the reaction in the North American media; I fear this will only get worse as more people add to the article. I propose:

1. Change the title from "Media" to "Media coverage".
2. The first paragraph should summarise the reaction in the international press (the Guardian Weekly, the Wall Street Journal, The Economist newsmagazine, etc)
3. The second paragraph should summarise the reaction across the Israeli media (press, television and radio coverage)
4. The third paragraph should summarise press coverage across countries which condemned Israeli actions and across countries which "expressed regret over loss of life".
5. Add a subsection on how the rebuke Israel receives is being covered. For each country which condemned Israeli actions, we should indicate how many news outlets reported on "growing condemnation" and how many reported on "unanimous" or "global" condemnation.

Ottre 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Or: media section should be deleted all together. International reaction should be limited to public officials only (Countries' presidents, PM, Foreign Ministers). How the media covers this story has no value as an encyclopedia value. Wikipedia is not a communications research institute. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Media management is a fundamental part of modern warfare/defense operations and Wikipedia aims to cover every angle of every major topic. Ottre 23:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, nothing is stopping an editor from adding non N-American reactions. Again this is not "media coverage" because it is the reaction of the media, of the op-ed pages. just as the lay-demonstrators and countries have their reactions.

But sorting responses by the country/area of the outlet maybe a good idea. The idea of reporting the coverage is different from the intention of this section, but a subsection of media coverage can be worth something. Although one will collate and note the reactions of the outlets in the list of countries i dont know. Its quite an arduous task, but go ahead and be WP:Bold

At any rate, as per the second comment above it fails to note that this is NOT an "international reaction" page to discuss only states, it discusses all reaction, as mentioned it is the op-ed of media outlets.Lihaas (talk) 09:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

NATO

I notice that we have a couple of lines under NATO about the invocation of Article 5 of the treaty. But we don't have any RS that mention Turkey asked for, was considering asking for, might ask for or should ask for such a declaration. Or any other member for that matter. So I think it should be removed. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't also seen such thing. Only thing I read though were some speculations on what can Turkey do when she calls NATO members to discuss latest events.--Cerian (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it must go with sources saying so, maybe the media reaction can include something of this if a media outlet expressed in its op-ed thsi possibility.Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

List of European countries that condemned Israel's actions.

It's totally inadequate. Right now the article reads "Thirteen European countries condemned or protested Israeli actions: Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.". It's simply not true. Whoever added this list forgot: Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania and, of course, Turkey. In addition, Cyprus, Denmark and Switzerland summoned Israel's ambassadors.

The line below that reads "Israel was also condemned by Turkey (which recalled its envoy), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States." is inaccurate as well. The reaction of Turkey should be mentioned above, among those of European countries. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the United States did not condemn Israel. Aside from this, Turkey was not the only country to recall its envoy - so did South Africa.

Another thing: I think that the reaction of the Czech Republic should be carefully monitored. Something's fishy about this one. The only link that supports the statement that it 'expressed full support for Israel.' leads to the website of an Israeli news agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 (talk) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the US hasn't condemned Israel. At least no sources show it to have done that.Bless sins (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

US didn't condemned Israel, they just said they were sorry for the loss of life. On the Czech Republic, i couldn't find any other than suspicious biased Israel news site. Also I would like to remind you there were 4 Czech Republic citizen activists on board.--Cerian (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently US condemned Israel through UN Security Council. Source is given in article, it's from a press conference of Clinton and Davutoğlu.--Cerian (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The US condemned "the acts leading to this tragedy." It did not condemn Israel, and in fact the section on United States in the article supports this! Please remove it from the line "Israel was also condemned by Turkey (which recalled its envoy), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States." 82.102.159.23 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

U.S. condemned the attack?

As far as I am informed (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) the U.S. has not condemned the attack. It has joined other countries in urging a full investigation into the incident but no condemnation has been expressed. Is this correct? I ask because I see it on the lead of the article. Likeminas (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Clinton says "supports UN decision on condemnation of acts leading to this tragedy". As i can read it, its a condemnation of Israel in a political way. Dunno though. This is the source Cnn - Clinton press meeting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerian (talk • contribs) 16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton supported a Security Council statement that condemned the "acts" that cost the lives of the pro-Palestinian activists off the Gaza coast. But U.S. officials did not say whether they blamed Israel or the activists for the bloodshed." As most people read it, its NOT a condemnation of Israel in a political way. 209.5.171.10 (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be much confusion by those who believe the United States of America condemned Israel. Secretary Clinton condemned the "acts" leading to the tragedy. This is in no way a condemnation of Israel, it doesn't even specify who's acts are being condemned. Is it the violent activists? Is it the Jews? Does not say. Also, the U.S. has been criticized for NOT condemning Israel. 209.5.171.10 (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's a condemnation of Israel. That's just my interpration. Although I retreat my previous standing, and say that U.S doesnt condemn Israel directly for the sake of WP:NPOV--Cerian (talk) 17:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I see also see no condemnation coming from the U.S. but rather ambiguity and caution from the current administration.

On the other hand, congressmen from (surprise, surprise!) New York, vigorously defended the attack. Google Weiner or Ackerman and you'll see what I mean. Likeminas (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Interpreting Clinton's quote as condemnation of Israel is WP:OR and unacceptable. Breein1007 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

More on the official reaction of the Czech Republic

OK, here's what I found:

This link to a Czech newspaper: http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/tema/zpravy/predseda-ceskeho-senatu-konvoj-do-gazy-byl-planovanou-provokaci/485826&id_seznam=80

apparently confirms that the chairman of the Senate has indeed called the aid convoy a provocation. However, please pay attention to the following passage below in the article (Google Translator is your friend):

"Odlišný postoj od Sobotky mají zástupci české levice. "Reakce Izraele byla naprosto neadekvátní, incident se stal v mezinárodních vodách, jde o porušení mezinárodního práva," řekl ČTK poslanec a zahraniční expert ČSSD Jan Hamáček. Doufá, že i české ministerstvo zahraničí bude žádat důsledné vyšetření incidentu, zvlášť potom, co akci Izraele odsoudila Rada bezpečnosti Organizace spojených národů. Místopředsedkyně sněmovního zahraničního výboru Kateřina Konečná (KSČM) by chtěla, aby Česko ihned podniklo vůči Izraeli diplomatické kroky. "Pokud budeme před tímhle zavírat oči, tak nám hrozí takový průšvih, že se z toho tady všichni zblázníme," dodala. Za nebezpečné označila to, že by česká vláda neodsoudila tento, jak řekla, pirátský akt v mezinárodních vodách." and especially this: "České ministerstvo zahraničí si izraelského velvyslance ke konzultacím kvůli incidentu nepředvolalo. Černínský palác se také nechystá vydat samostatné prohlášení k události, protože souhlasí s vyjádřením ministryně zahraničí EU Catherine Ashtonové, sdělil dnes ČTK mluvčí ministerstva Filip Kanda."

Basically, it says that the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic does not plan to issue a separate statement because it concurs with the statement of the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. Now, the actual statement of the EU foreign policy chief was anything but full support for Israel. I therefore suggest that the words "Czech Republic ... expressed full support for Israel." be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be only reliable source. I suggest the removal of written part and add a source to Czech Republic section.--Cerian (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea it should be removed and re-written. Likeminas (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to re-write the article with the source given (corroborated thanks to Google Translate) where the foreign ministry whom legally speaks on behalf of the government agrees with the EU statement, but unfortunately some user deleted it without discussing or explaining why.

the visiting senator might very well have an opinion on this issue, but he doesn't get to override what the foreign ministry says.

So his opinion should not be included in the Czesc reaction to the incident. Likeminas (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see your rewriting so I tried to sum it up from the source as best I can. Included the guy who spoke in Israel. But i agree with you, he doesn't override foreign ministry.--Cerian (talk) 02:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading, NPOV, lede (lead section)

The lead section is a disgrace. It does not reflect the article content, or the reality, is written in obscure words, and could have been assembled by Israeli Government PR. The reaction is in fact, as seen below the lede, almost universally negative, and condemnatory of Israel's actions, with a few countries noting that the convoy might have been a bi provocative (but not denying that it was legal, or that Israel's actions, the Occupation, and the current blockade, are all illegal. 194.186.53.229 (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, it's "lead", not "lede".

Second, The words are basic English, hardly obscure in the least.

Third, The reaction is actually very politically written, with careful nuances by governments - all of which clearly was missed by you due to your in depth understanding of English. For example, a nation criticizing the degree of force Israel used is not condemning the act itself nor the use of force, only the degree of it. A nation regretting the loss of life isn't saying that perhaps the loss wasn't justified, just that it's regrettable regardless of why someone is killed. A nation summoning an Israeli ambassador for questioning isn't denouncing Israel, they're asking for an explanation, and then may agree with the explanation. Etc.

Forth, if you read the article there is a very strong argument that Israel's actions were in fact legal under international maritime laws, and that the flotilla was not.

Fifth, referring to it as "the Occupation" indicates you are highly POV, though you are seemingly too prejudiced to realize that.

Sixth, the blockade is legal.

Seventh, the Israeli blockade doesn't include Southern Gaza, i.e. the Gaza-Egypt border, which remains closed more often than the Israel-Gaza border, yet you blame Israel rather than Egypt.

Eighth, the flotilla was specifically violating a blockade area, whether you agree with the blockade being there or not, and was therefor illegal - not merely 'a bit provocative'.

Ninth, your alterations to the lead resulted in an automatic flag by Wikipedia that you were using "weasel words" WP:WEASEL. I'm atually not sure if it was an automatic flag, you might have flagged yourself, in which case thank you for saving me the effort. -Signature 08:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, be polite and do not present your opinions as facts. The legality of the blockade is in question and there are certainly issues with the lead. I myself am trying to figure how to make it look more coherent... Leirus (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I yield, viewing it as certainly illegal is similarly wrong though. The other eight objections are objectively valid though. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of lead changes

over the last few hours there has been an edit war on the lead. instead, lets keep the status quo and discuss any changes. In my opinion, this one before the frequet warring is most neutral as it expressly divides what each said in summation.Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• To keep things NPOV, listing what countries have said is most appropriate. Even if we list every country in the world, our lead likely wouldn't excessive.Bless sins (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

agreed.Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above regarding the terminology of the map, the term "condemnation" here is too variable to be fairly applied through a listing of all nations. Additionally, the status quo was merely the first line, the listing of nations came substantially afterward and has been debated ever since. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I edited to be similar to that of the main article subsection of the same name, seems reasonable for the Lead of a breakaway article to be similar to the summary written in the main article. Additionally, since edits are much more carefully written there and have undergone greater scrutiny, it ought to have already passed acceptability requirements and consensus. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Its sourced and specific information. All the countries have specifically used the word "condemn" or otherwise criticzed the actions.Bless sins (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Except, as already explained earlier, condemnations and criticisms are not equal, nor are all condemnations equal to each other. A condemnation of the degree of force is not a condemnation of the act itself. Condemning the loss of life is not to say the acts which lead to the loss of life were wrong. Etc... 24.46.71.166 (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hence the usage of "and/or".Bless sins (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I will support Bless sins, the caveats are there with the list of each country. (maybe if there is an entire region that says the same then one can say that (Latam?)Lihaas (talk) 03:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The use of "and/or" is misleading, especially when certain reactions do neither yet are grouped in that same category, and don't fall neatly into any others. Nor the term "Israeli action" as explained, at length, above is highly misleading. For example, Portugual only criticized the degree of force used, that's hardly a criticism of the event as a whole. France only condemned "the disproportionate use of force", not the use of force itself. All we have from Sweden is a summoning of the Israeli ambassador for questioning and calling the incident "unacceptable" - which part was unacceptable; trying to break the blockade, the deaths, the incident as a whole by both sides? These terms used in the lead do not provide the clarity required when citing minute differences in official international reactions phrased with a great degree of care by experienced politicians. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So what do you reccomend and why?Lihaas (talk) 05:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No one ever said that European countries have criticized the event as a whole. I merely said that they criticized "Israeli actions". And yes, "disproportionate use of force" is an "action".

Sweden: the government of Sweden called the "Israeli raid" as "completely unacceptable,"according to this reliable source. Is that clear?

In any case, there is not a shadow of doubt that Israel was very clearly condemned by Arab countries, Asian countries (China, India, Pakistan etc.), South American countries (Brazil, Venezuela etc.), South Africa and Turkey.

So why do you remove that info from the lead?Bless sins (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Still we can have a compromise. What if we changed the wording to "protested Israeli action"? This would only be in the case of European countries, as, like I said before, there is no doubt that other countries condemned Israel in the strongest terms.Bless sins (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is again with the grouping nature of it which weakens NPOV considerably. Grouping "condemnation" with "protestation" is inappropriate and misleading. Considering all "condemnations" to be equal is simply incorrect, besides for misleading. Condemening Israeli action can refer to Israel's "action" of continuing to exist (see some of the Arab countries) and is independent of this event, others are of the blockade as a whole and (for some) this event in particular, some are just about the Israli actions undertaken for this event in particular - and not even all of their actions about this event, some nations supported stopping the flotilla but condemned the methodology which lead to a loss of life.

You refer to Sweden above, first of all using quotation marks for "Israeli raid" is simply incorrect, that is not a quote from Sweden. Second, it doesn't specify what was unacceptable. Maybe it was just the deaths of civilians, maybe it was that Israelis were hurt in the process and should have been kept safer, you're reading what you want out of that quote - in good faith I believe, but still POV. So is calling something nonspecified about the entire event "unacceptable" the equivalent of condemning the nation as a whole or condemning all of the nation's actions in this particular event? If you can't prove beyond a doubt then it should not be there. Many other nations fit into similar categories. Others such as the Netherlands and Italy (at a quick glance, I'm sure there are more) condemned the flotilla for trying to break the bloackade, which is not included in the lead, the Netherlands in particular haven't seemed to even qualify that with condemning the loss of life.

To be blunt, I don't have the time to drastically rewrite the entire lead. I would advise just grabbing the summary from the section about the international reactions in the main article and using that as a lead. Meanwhile, I am going to once again remove those aspects in the lead which, despite Lihaas claiming otherwise, has not been agreed upon. If someone has the time to rewrite the lead in a way which properly differentiates the political nuances of specific, yet similar, phrases - and can do so in a way which does not make an absurdly long lead - I would support that. I do not believe it can be properly done in a hasty timeframe, nor that anyone will be willing to do so. Furthermore, people will be even less likely to do so if I merely comment here and don't edit the lead. As such, I'm going to edit it. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 05:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear sir/madam, it is hard to take you seriously. You just removed, twice, the undisputable fact that Arab countries have condemned Israel from the lead.[18]

Can you explain that edit? If not, why do you keep doing it?

I pointed this out before, but you seemingly ignored me. Once you respond to this obvious concern, I'll be more than happy to address your other concerns.Bless sins (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Simple, think of a lead with the introductory pragraph and "Israel was widely condemned in the Arab world," that's completely a violation of NPOV. I don't disagree with it on a factual level in the least, though I admit not to have examined their responses in great detail. So including that line is fine, as long as other nations are given equal emphasis.

Oh, and Consensus is not 2 people arguing against one - A) Consensus is not in numbers, especially not a 2 to 1 vote and B) The arguments against the map, for which consensus was reached against it, is roughly the same. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 06:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the IP, you say you dont have the time to rewrite the lead yet want to revert until your addition is on the lead. That is just as unacceptable. The intention is to come to an agreement, but if you dont want to discuss it then you can't revert till your view stands.

And furthermore, what is consensus then? Consensus can't wait forever, if no one wants to put their 2p in then one cant wait forever to move on andimprove the page.

At any rate, the new change seems to incorporate even more details. Although i would suggest merging the 1-line para's together (perhaps into positive/negative vis-a-vis israel's actions (the details would be in the para itself of course, just organized that way)) Ie instead of "Eleven non-Arab Asian countries condemned Israeli actions" one might try "X,Y,Z condemned..."Lihaas (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I was reverting it to how it had been: I was removing the addition, not making one. If someone can make an appropriate one then I'm in favor of it, if they can't then I'm in favor of having a small lead. It's unacceptable to call something an improvement when there's a strong aspect of POV to it, which is why I removed it. I do feel like that information should be included, but in a more appropriate and accurate manner so that it isn't POV, tacitly or otherwise. See the discussion on the map, both here and on the main article, the reasoning exists for why those lists are either OR or POV, and shouldn't be there. So yes, if no one wants ot put in their two cents then let it remain in the most universally accepted manner - without the lists. I argue they violate OR and NPOV, the counterargument is that they don't and they make the lead better. The objections regarding possible violations are more important to be dealt with first than having a less than perfect lead. So no, unless consensus can be reached on whether the additions are NPOV and not OR then nothing should be added. If only three authors are discussing it then consensus will not likely be reached, and it should not be added, that is why consensus on an issue like this requires more editors - otherwise it will wait forever.

By the way, an example of how it is POV is that in an earlier version of those lists there was a list of nations which supported Israeli action, I see that list doesn't exist in the current version.... 24.46.71.166 (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

list of good/donors

should we have a list for this?there may be monetary or physical donations. already AP reprots donations by Russian and Oman

Maybe under "Results" a subsection of "humanitarian aid/donations" [19](Lihaas (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think yes, we may mentions some major items/donations. --yousaf465 06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 DoneLihaas (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please change entry on Germanys reaction

{{editsemiprotected}} Please replace the entry on Germanys reaction with the following (between the dashes):

---

In an unusually strongly worded statement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's office said Israel's response to the ships seemed disproportionate at a first glance. Merkel also said she had urged Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu to lift the Gaza blockade during a phone call both of them had. The German government did not change its point of view that Hamas is the sole cause of renewed violence in the Middle East German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle voiced "deep concern" at reports of deaths when Israeli commandos stormed a flotilla of six activist ships heading to Gaza.

---

Reasons: 1. It is of great importance that Merkel only made a preliminary assessment of the situation, so the "at first glance" must be reproduced. The Deutsche Welle article is a reference for her statement. 2. Merkel did not "reaffirm" a demand to lift the blockade to my knowledge. If she had ever called for lifting the blockade, a citation for that must be included. 3. That Merkel now has called for lifting the blockade needs to be cited, which I have with the link to the Monsters and Critics article which contains text of German press agency DPA. 4. It is quite important in this context that the blame for violence still lies solely with Hamas according to the German government. A reference for this position is the Spiegel Online article I have cited. 79.221.243.122 (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree on the fourth point. For your claim to be relevant, any such link must pertain specifically to the attack on the flotilla or at least refer to a statement made after the incident. Yours is old (12/29/2008), so it's simply irrelevant to this event - therefore, it would be a highly subjective comment (original research?).

As for the first point, the words 'at first glance' are indeed in the DW article; however, their inclusion in the form you suggested could be misleading and taken to mean there was also 'second glance' that perhaps contradicted the first. To eliminate this, it would be best to quote Merkel directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I agree this could be misleading. But the incomplete citation of what Merkel has said is simply wrong. It reads as if she had made a definitive statement, which she did not. She was cautios and left the door open for a reassessment of the situation when more information comes in.

I still urge someone to clarify the article regarding the word "reaffirm": Did Merkel ever call for the end of the blockade before the current incident? I can not remember such a statement. *Of course I could be wrong* Someone please either produce a citation, or strike "reaffirm".

"In an unusually strongly worded statement" sounds like WP:OR to me. I'd like to her a few more opinions anyway. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

Technically, "unusually strong" is correct, though it could be read in a wrong way. To clarify: Merkel has always been a staunch supporter of Israel, so her preliminary assessment that the raid used disproportionate force really is a deviation from her previous mode of speech.

Those words are in the DW article referenced here. 85.132.94.230 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gaandolf, 5 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change "Isreal" to "Israel" in the section "Results of International Actions", last sentence, because it is misspelled.

Gaandolf (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

 Already done Someone must have changed it already, I see no misspellings. CTJF83 pride 17:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey suspends all infrastructure projects with Israel

Shouldn't this be added into the article? [20] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it should. Be WP:Bold and add it there, under Turkey's response i guess. Or a section under "results"Lihaas (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There're are no references to the Torpedoed ship by North Korea killing 46 people

how about including the information to contradict the reactions toward Israel and the lack of any reaction/protests/condemnations against N. Korea?

from LA Times's report to TV media (e.g: Foxnews), none are mentioned here or in the [Gaza flotilla raid] article, clearly the clash has antisemitic responses from the world and the edits in these articles on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.126.233 (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you are asking us to violate WP:OR. Also see WP:youtube. Please create a account too.--yousaf465 05:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Update UK and French reaction

UK and France call for a International probe [Kouchner and Hague pressure Israel over Gaza].--yousaf465 05:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Be WP:Bold add it.Lihaas (talk) 05:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

lets try. --yousaf465 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

national reactions organization

The Arab league is listed as if it is a continent, but its not. Most countries are in Asia so it could go there. OR alternatively, how about a lead section of "parties directly involved" or something of that sort and israel, turkey and the Arabs can go in there. (this was done in ither kosovo or s. ossetia/Abkhazia's int'l reactions, if memory serves)Lihaas (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the second option seems the best. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 09:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done and alphabetical.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about this edit [21] because Ianvs gave his acceptance to this suggestion of reordering them, i put the rest into alphabetical order. It's disputable if Americans or Europe is more important, and whether Asia should following the Arab world or something.

Anyways, i tried a new subheading to clarify the "involved" part. See if this is good.Lihaas (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Artistic response

I don't know if it needs a section of its own. --Cerian (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

a subsection of the media reactions or something like the gaza war reaction (which include the songs made), and the above section here mention something about a satire song.Lihaas (talk) 09:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I've added a link to External links of a collection of editorial cartoons representing a variety of views. Rklawton (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rasmussen Report

I'm not sure if Rasmussen Reports are considered a RS, they seem like they are, but this is actually the first I've heard of them. They recently published the results of a US survey regarding the incident, which if it is a RS, seems like it ought to be included in the article. Here's the link to the page on the results. IMHO it contains many relevant quotes, such as "Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters believe pro-Palestinian activists on the Gaza-bound aid ships raided by Israeli forces are to blame for the deaths that resulted in the high-profile incident." and "51% say Israel should allow an international investigation of the incident." 24.46.71.166 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

what is the Rasmussen Reports? ie- where is it from, agendas, etc, etc. There is an RS noticeboard to question its validity.Lihaas (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Demonstrations" section titling

Per this edit [22], I have temporarily re-added it because it make redundant "demonstrations" as a subject for section + sub-section. Any other ideas for this? Original there was another title which was changed to criticial, we could revert to that or come out with another here.Lihaas (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

States that have protested or condemned Israel Map

  States that have protested or condemned Israeli actions.

  States that only expressed regrets over the loss of life during the incident.

I think "States that have protested or condemned Israel" Map should be included for a brief understanding. Baharyakin (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a discution above, and it was agreed to remove it. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In order to indicate how much world attention this event originated, it would be nice to have this map colored neutral and simply titled "Countries with official declarations regarding the event" or something similar to this. It is highly unusual to have so many countries opine officially regarding a world event. GaussianCopula (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

<- Can you discuss it in the existing sections one of which is in the main article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The map needs to be updated. Azerbaijan has condemned the attack, see here. Neftchi (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

External link - political cartoons

Here's a link to a collection of political cartoons that express a variety of points of view. They're copyrighted, so the best we can do is put them in external links. I thought I'd put them here for discussion first. I think they're appropriate because the collection comes from a variety of sources and represent a variety of points of view [23] Rklawton (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good you came to talk, and you were WP:Bold so if it is to be challenged the onus is on the challenger.

That said i think you did the job right in external links (for reasons mentioned, if it wasn't copyrighted we could have a gallery of media reaction like this). the cartoons are also reflective of two sides, which is good.Lihaas (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

International Media

International media section is dominated by American news. If we start to fill other countries media reactions, it may need to have it's own page. Here is my proposal;

1.Create a new page and contain only small part of it in the current article.
2.Reduce the length of American media covarage and add more different nation's media news.--Cerian (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just copy-editing to shorten it and merge the 2 repeated outlets before the lock. I was also going to alphabeticize (??) it. I agree on reducing the length as proposed which would happen with the merger and a copy edit. Don't think a new article on media is needed, its too small. Only 3-4 countries represented yet.Lihaas (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Addition after page lock

Netanyahu's probe + Iran's Red Crescent Society said it would send 2 aid ships possibly backed by the IRGC Lihaas (talk) 05:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey hails Azerbaijan's reaction

It would be relevant and informative to add how Turkish PM Erdogan hails the Azerbaijani reaction, see source at [24]. Neftchi (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Be WP:Bold add it. Probably below the Asia section with bi/tri-lateral announcements.Lihaas (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

NYC mayor reaction

here: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/118/514.html

He says: "It should be remembered that the prime minister and defense minister (of Israel) suggested all along to allow the entry of humanitarian equipment into Gaza. They have a right to protect Israeli citizens and soldiers. They wanted to make sure no weapons were smuggled on these ships. The soldiers were attacked on the boat. When you have a country that always fighting for excitance and survival - incidents happen and sometimes, unfortunately, even death". ShalomOlam (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Be WP:Bold. Add it under the reaction for the usa. (as per a reputable source, like the mayor's website) Knew he would react, just couldnt find the source.Lihaas (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A work by a Brasilian Cartoonist

This file shows a strong reaction and might be considered to include. 76.112.225.183 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A work by a Brasilian Cartoonist, Carlos Latuff

Baharyakin (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This file is offensive and antisemic, since it contains the Natzi symbol. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about that this cartoon contains anti-semitic symbols.Howevere it is a reaction by a cartoonist. Baharyakin (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree to add Israeli cartoons as well? ShalomOlam (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

[[:File:OctopusNAS1.jpg|right|thumb|A similar Nazi anti-Semitic cartoon, circa 1938--An octopus with a Star of David over its head has its tentacles encompassing a globe.]]

This caricature is non-notable with respect to other anti-Semitic caricatures posted on Arabic newspapers following the incident. If we choose to publish it here, we should provide the readers with proper context regarding the motifs reused in this cartoon: "An anti-Semitic caricature by Carlos Latuff, incorporating antisemitic zoomorphic motifs common in Nazi and Hamas propaganda.. ליאור (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the use of cartoons in this article is not a good idea. The cartoons is obviously not antisemitic since it's only a (well founded) critique of the actions of Israel. Equating Israel with Jews may be antisemitism. // Liftarn (talk)

Actually I think this is kind of a neglected aspect of the Israel-Palestine conflict, the non-stop visual arts propaganda war. Someone should write a wiki article about it. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This cartoon worths to mention especially because done by an 3rd party person. However, I still would agree to add Israeli cartoons as well. Baharyakin (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't support having any cartoons in this article unless there is a specific policy based reason e.g. an abundance of RS that talk about the cartoons. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Other cartoons by Latuff portray Jews as zombies and demons and glorify the bombing of civilian buses, so third party he is not. Zoomorphic demonization is considered taboo in Israeli media and leads to legal persecution when it amounts to racism, or hurts the religious feelings of another. Russian immigrant Tatiana Suskin served two years in Israeli jail for hanging this awful cartoon (warning: offensive to Muslims). Even literal sub-huminizing comments are inacceptable: Rafael Eitan once commented that Palestinians who endanger cars on the road should be treated aggressively and their freedom of movement should be narrowed until they will be like "drugged cockroaches in a bottle". The heavy criticism over this remark kept echoing decades afterwards. So don't expect to find comparable Israeli cartoons of this incident, or of the conflict it's situated at.

Having said that, I think it's a wonderful idea to compose a Wikipedia article covering the cartoonish aspect of the conflict. I've quickly Googled a few possible sources: [25][26][27][28]. Good luck, ליאור (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

For some perspective on the image language of the cartoon, see illustrations of Kraken. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• If we can have cartoons of the prophet Muhammad then we can have allegedly antisemitic cartoons as well, as long as we don't endorse them in any way.Bless sins (talk) 01:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, your comment is not helpful to the discussion. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion. And I find no reason as to why one would post such a comment with regards to the discussion of the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid. With regards to the cartoon, there are cartoons which are criticizing this current event and could be used, but I do understand the reluctance to use this particular cartoon based on the use of the swastika in the forehead of the octopus. And to address the issue of "If we can have cartoons of the prophet Muhammad then we can have allegedly antisemitic cartoons"; all I can say is that this should not be a contest or challenge in regards to what they did or what has been done so that we should do as well. Regardless of what one can find in other articles, it should not be some sort of parameter with regards to this particular article. GaussianCopula (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

To clarify my position, I don't have any problem with the swastika in the forehead of the octopus and I would note that in the old days the octopus attacked the whole world and now it's just a boat, perhaps a small victory for the eradication of nonsense. However the octopus' eyes are now red when they used to be a neutral color, oh well. The cartoons can be as offensive as it gets, anti-Muslim, anti-anything, wikipedia isn't censored, but unless a bunch of reliable secondary sources care about a cartoon and talk about it being a notable reaction to the event there's no policy based reason for us to care about it and include it. And thanks for those excellent links ליאור but we don't even have a decent article about Viktor Deni yet (..partly my fault), one of the giants of visual propaganda, sigh.. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost just because it "is offensive and antisemic, since it contains the Natzi symbol" is NOT ground for removal for wikipedia si not WP:CENSORED. The arguement that "Zoomorphic demonization is considered taboo in Israeli media and leads to legal persecution when it amounts to racism" is the most grossly inept reason for removal. wikipedia is not a response to the israeli media (or any other country), the only ground for "legal" removal is if iit is illegal where wikipedia's servers are (Florida). And as per the image at Virgin Killer even controversial images are no grounds for removal.

The picture can be moved from the section by Brazil to the media section (which is more suitable), as long as it is a legal (fair-use) picture there is no basis for its removal. if one is to compare, then there are many articles that are supplemented by such images (some with far less relevance).

That said an article on such stuff is a good idea too, and likewise the reaction of israeli media is certainly fair game here.(Lihaas (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about censorship. The image may be unencyclopedic and unnotable. How is it relevant? Has it been portrayed in any reliable sources? In what context are they discussing it? Wikipedia isn't meant for trolling in either direction, and hopefully none of us take the bait.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The only secondary source I could find indirectly discussing this was here. I'd agree with some of the sentiment above that maybe the best thing to do would be to start another article, or place it off in to another article.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it relevant to an article entitled "Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid "? Because the cartoon is a reaction to the raid, hence the vessel and the flag. If this is trolling and bait, then what are the Muhammed cartoons? (although that is not relevant to this article)

Certainly no grounds for removal, maybe under media is a good compromise instead of by Brazil? (let's get consensus before removing it)(Lihaas (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I also think the picture should be removed. It's not notable and gives undue weight to the antisemitic POV of *one* artist. It also misrepresents the reaction of Brazil which was simply to condemn the action without making any antisemitic comments. Laurent (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to give non-notable cartoons the publicity they couldn't get in the real world. Unless one could provide a notable media outlet that has actually published this particular anti-Semitic cartoon by Carlos Latuff, its appearance in this article seems misguided. Cartoons featuring demonic Jewish octopi have been published in several Arab newspapers, whereas Latuff's reproduction of the same motifs was only published in Wikimedia Commons, and some online blogs. That Wikimedia Commons is being abused by Latuff's fans as an exhibition hall for his works is a problem in itself, but this article should not fall victim to similarly inconstructive fan activity. ליאור (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

well the user with the hebrew name (and others) doesn' t seem to have a problem with the "parody" of the israeli group which is mentioned and linked in the article (and also not the israeli state, who he claims persecutes racism and stuff but in fact has distributed the video).--Severino (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess you refer to this video, which has been watched more than 2.5 million times as of today, and is the most popular video in YouTube this week. Latuff's cartoon never reached such an audience, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree that the Israeli press office made a silly mistake sending journalists a link to this video, as they have admitted twenty minutes later in a letter of apology [29]. If you wish to sue them or LatmaTV for spreading racism, go ahead. Either way, there are no dehumanizing motifs in this video, and it does seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia. My name is Lior btw. ליאור (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

it does seem that it's disputed what is dehumanizing and what is not. see for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eileen-read/the-jerusalem-post-should_b_601857.html --Severino (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus is not gained, the onus on getting consensus is the one challenging the edit. So until consensus is gained cease and desist from censoring the article

To the arguement, the arguement used by the editor to remove is censorship when it states (to the effect) that "this anti-semitic cartoon has no room in wikipedia" as per "incorporating antisemitic zoomorphic motifs common in Nazi and Hamas propaganda" that is the opinion of a certain amount of editors. As per the above mentioned Virgin killer wikipedia does NOT partake in censorship on the grounds that a certain amount of people disapprove of the picture.

What is your criteria for notability? When you see it hits X numbers on youtube or when you decree its not published by what you see as a reliable source.

At any rate, you cant have your cake and eat it too. This image is not illegal in the state of Florida, and wikipedia doesn't censor. Therefore, the next time the image is removed with any express consensus it is censhorship! So the image will stay until others are convinced of the validity of removal based NOTon being offensive but on the image concerns itself

"Israeli press office made a silly mistake sending journalists a link to this video, as they have admitted twenty minutes later in a letter of apology " this has nothing to do with the picture, removal, or to keep it. WP:NOTAFORUM Lihaas (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability requires verifiable evidence, and we have not come up with any reliable source confirming that the cartoon at hand is notable. Thus, according to existing Wikipedia policy, this cartoon should be removed until its notability is verified. This has nothing to do with censorship - If someone proves that this particular cartoon was published any notable place else than Wikimedia Commons, I would certainly support keeping it in this particular article. Otherwise, kindly be civil enough to avoid personal attacks, here and elsewhere, and undo your reinsertion of this cartoon. We are all trying to improve this article, nothing else. Thanks, ליאור (talk) 19:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey folks, illustrations don't have to be "notable" to be included in an article, and we have no policy that says they do. Illustrations need only be illustrative and the best available (i.e., uploaded with a free license). Since the image in question illustrates a significant point in the article (i.e., its inclusion isn't gratuitous) , the only grounds for removing it would be to replace it with a more suitable image. Rklawton (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to "ליאור" the first argument you cite it that the picture is "anti-semitic and offensive" that is censorship, your new arguement that it is not notable is a seperate issue altogether. At any rate, as Rklawton said images are to illustrate (As per maps and cartoons across wikipedia). As asserted above anyone is perfectly within their rights to add an israeli cartoon.

Maybe you want to move it out of the national reactions. that's fine, as already stated, maybe artistic response is a better move. After all, some "silly" video that was refuted is already listed AND has its own page on here. Should we take that out too? Its already been refuted.Lihaas (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Visual and literal Demonization of Israel using zoomorphic motifs is common in Palestinian media. Following the raid, several Arab newspapers pictured Israel as a demonic octopus, similar to this cartoon.

My arguments haven't changed since I first contributed to this discussion, neither has Wikipedia policy changed. You might be mistaking me with another user, probably ShalomOlam. There is no verifiable evidence for the notability of Latuff's cartoon, so its only possible relevance to this article is as an illustration for notable phenomena. As such, it should neutrally reflect what it comes to illustrate, e.g. the zoomorphic motifs used in some cartoons following the event. Since dehuminizing cartoons are not always anti-Semitic, I suggest we stick to the bare facts, as the corrected caption I suggest does.

BTW, as Pieter suggested, the octopus motif might be borrowed from the Nordic Kraken myth, possibly through Nazi cartoons. However, Hamas uses the term "Zionist octopus", and the closest spotting of a giant squid near Gaza was somewhere in the Atlantic Ocean. So I suggest we spare the Krakenish details from our readers and stick to octopus. ליאור • Lior (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Zoomorphic allegory is common in cartoons and in itself not something to get excited about. This octopus is not the one having its tentacles all over the world, the Nazi conspiracy theory of world Jewry steering governments in Washington, London, Paris, and Moscow alike. It is not the land-grabbing octopus of maps. This is just Kraken as the attacker of ships, as for example in this toy.

It is not a requirement here that illustrations need to be notable works of art. More notable cartoons in mainstream publications are copyrighted, and this indymedia drawing is free. That origin may give a bit of bias (and it explains the swastika as a general symbol for what the radical left calls "fascist pigs"), but this cartoon is not unsuitable as an illustration of general reaction all over the world. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

the quote above is unrelated to this, that said if you can find a cite labeling it as such then it is fair game. As an aside, you're welcome to find a published and free-license cartoon reflecting the other side.Lihaas (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a requirement on Wikipedia that pictures, especially offensive ones, need to be informative. There's no censorship but we don't include pictures either just to shock the viewer. So what's the informative value of this picture, what do readers learn? Do they have a better insight into the Brazilian people POV? or the Brazilian government's POV? or the world at large? No, none of these. The only POV readers learn about is that of some random non-notable Brazilian cartoonist who is thus being given undue weight. This picture has simply nothing to do in this article - it doesn't help understand the event nor the international reaction to it and should be removed. Laurent (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not a particularly offensive cartoon. The offense is in the piracy. See also Pat Oliphant's drawing, Stuart Carlson, Jeff Danziger. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

i would say that latuff is pretty notable. also, there seems to be the need to balance out the artistic responses due to the linked and mentioned video which is even close to the israeli gvt.--Severino (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The cartoon is extremely offensive, and I strongly oppose it's inclusion. There is no evidence from an independent reliable source that this represents a notable reaction. The Israeli video in comparison was discussed by many reliable sources, there are reliable citations used in it's coverage (including criticism of the video), and is only discussed and not shown in the article . Marokwitz (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is nor the gallery of Latuf, neither a collection of cartoons about the Gaza flotilla raid. It is very easy to pick some drawing work from a kindergarten, ask for CC-BY-3.0 license from the owner and publish them here, also it's easy to make derivative work from Latuf cartoon and upload it to commons, but it is useless to put them in article, the same for Latuf cartoon. It is very nice from Latuf that he publishes his works in copyleft license, but it's not enough reason for putting it in the article, Latuf is a very minor cartoonist. The cartoon should be removed from the article. Netanel h (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

latuff is the object of hostility but thats not the reason that makes him and his cartoons notable. also, if this cartoon is offensive also the racist video is, which is linked in the article.--Severino (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

After all the debate and reiterations we're back to Marokwitz saying "extremely offensive, and I strongly oppose it's inclusion." Offense is not a criteria for exclusion, if that was the case the hordes of pictures on the Mohammed, Virgin killer, and Vagina, etc pages would not be on wikipedia.

I added a fact to the caption. At any rate, there was no discussion for the caption other than 1 editor's suggestion and another refuting it. The sources on the quote come from the "institute for global jewish affairs" and the "coordination forum for countering antisemitism" both of which are not WP:RS unless you want to start citing Al Aqsa (the Hamas media) and al-manar as neutral sources here or on the antisemitism pages. As for littlegreenballs, well the name should say how credible it is while the link doesnt mention anything as asserted.

Now that 1RR restrictions (good thing) we're not edit warring, but the caption has to go back to the "status quo" unless approved.Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This postcard was once legitimate. Fortunately things have changed, in the West at least.

Pieter has not refuted the caption I suggested, but shed light on the important fact that 60 years ago and earlier it was acceptable to depict a nation as an ocotopus, even in Western media [30]. Scientific racism and blackface were was also acceptable at that time, but now they are considered offensive. Pieter also suggested alternative cartoons that strongly criticize Israel, while still being satirical and creative rather than distasteful and vulgar. These cartoons may present Israeli actions as brutal and dumb, but they don't turn humans into demonic beasts, and don't plagiarize the protected racist works of current Arab cartoonists.

Latuff's non-notable cartoon could stay in this article only as an illustration for motifs used in notable non-free cartoons. That was clear from the caption I drafted, which was presented here before being inserted to the article body. By sterilizing the caption like you did, you simply make it more unclear why this cartoon is relevant to this article.

Little Green Footballs was credited for its scoops by the New York Times and others. Please, if you can contest the reliability of a source, do so regardless of its nationality. That will allow us to stay on-topic and improve the article rather than fight over it. ליאור • Lior (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

in israel, which considers itself always a part of the west, a racist video like the mentioned is not only possible but has even the consent and support of the government..--Severino (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This thread is focused on the relevance of Latuff's cartoon, so your comment seems to belong elsewhere. Latma is a small private group, their questionable level of humor doesn't reach the mainstream media, and the flotilla raid was their first chance to catch some national attention. As I personally detest racism, I'll be happy to take actions against any Israeli cartoon as awful as these as soon as you let me know of it. But that should be done at my talk page. Best, ליאור • Lior (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

it's correct that this thread is about the inclusion of latuffs cartoon. but as you have raised this issue, to dismiss racism as "questionable level of humor" is telling, also there are many cartoons (and portrayals of arabs/orientals in movies!)...--Severino (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Caption

i'm not agreed with the text under the cartoon. it's drawn by an brazilian cartoonist. the text makes claims about palestinian/arab medias. in which palestinian/arab newspapers has it been published? it seems inappropriate to lay this text under the cartoon.--Severino (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The text under the cartoon does not describe the cartoon, but makes statements about Palestinian and Arab media that should be removed per WP:COATRACK.  Cs32en Talk to me  12:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

also, the sources are not reliable.--Severino (talk) 15:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already shown that the sources are reliable and you have failed to prove otherwise. The only excuse for the inclusion of this offensive, non-notable cartoon was its possible illustrative value to notable cartoons published in Arab media [31]. Without this linkage, the cartoon illustrates nothing but its own offensive nature, which has no encyclopedic significance. If you wish to include this cartoon in this article, you have to provide one of the two:

• Inline links for notable visual content that this cartoon supposedly illustrates [32][33].
• Reliable sources proving that this cartoon is notable.

Until one of this conditions is satisfied, the cartoon has to be removed per Wikipedia:Images#Offensive_images and WP:NRVE. ליאור • Lior (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The offensive thing is the piracy by the Israeli navy. The cartoon was used in Arab News. Simalar cartoons have been published all over the world. I am putting it back. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Work by an Israeli Cartoonist

There are other cartoonists in the world... If you support adding the Brasilian cartoon into this article, why not Israeli as well? For example:

• http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/111/384.html
• http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/113/735.html
• http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/115/762.html
• http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/117/585.html

ShalomOlam (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

is this cartoonist notable outside IL? does he have an article on wikipedia, like latuff?--Severino (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters because he probably doesn't provide his cartoons under a free license. Laurent (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As stated above if the cartoons are under free license then i think it is credible as a reaction. Although, some editors have the other caveat that it known anywhere outside the state itself, i am ambigous in this regard.(Lihaas (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Czech reaction

It is stated in the article that the czech republic condemmed the Israeli action. As an israeli, i'm very aware of the fact that the Czech republic was one of the few countries that didn't condem us- nevertheless, the chairman of the czech parliament declared he supports the israeli action. I would like to know on what source did you base this information. Itay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.117.10 (talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction

As of the timestamp of this post, I am placing editors of this article under a restriction of one revert per 24 hours in an attempt to facilitate talk page discussion. Blatant vandalism may be reverted without regard for this restriction. Anyone who violates this restriction or who "games" the system will be blocked. Vioaltion may be reported directly to an uninvolved administrator or to WP:AE. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

By what authority? Rklawton (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions though I would hope editors who edit without reading the talk page will be warned rather than blocked immediately. --B (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Costello

Elvis Costello was added here [34], but this is incorrect, he canceled his performance in Israel before the raid as can bee seen reported here on May 18th: [35] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

yup you're right. changing it now --Cerian (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Some links to consider

Reactions/probe info:

a lot of links

[36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] + Helen Thomas reacti OECD Urged to Boycott al-Quds Summit on (quite notable) [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] barak asaks to defer Flotilla probe --> UN probe reaction Lebanon Gives Flotilla Ships Green Light to Set Sail; Organizers to Sail Soon --> ;ebanon's own flotilla Erdogan: We Will Not Remain Silent after Flotilla Raid Turkey Sets Up Committee to Look into Israeli Raid Israel to block Iran aid ships to Gaza Swedish dockworkers boycott Israel Israel Preparing for Flotillas Like on Eve of War (media reaction) + Ashkenazi: We Can’t Let Gaza Become an Iranian Port Livni: Blockade Lifted Out of Weakness + Netanyahu Claims Israeli Legitimacy Being Attacked(domestic politics) Iran urges Islamic states' aid to Gaza Israel cannot evade Gaza charges: Cairo Malaysia Seeks Emergency UN Session on Gaza Flotilla Deaths Austria urges Israel to end Gaza siege UN General Assembly to discuss Gaza flotilla raid IDF strikes Gaza for first time since flotilla raid (parallels made by israeli source itself) >> Gaza Flotilla Organizer: We'll Sue Israel at ICJ World leaders unite in slamming North Korea, Iran >> Israel's Gaza Blockade 'Not Sustainable': G8 >> Iran MPs to Join Lebanon Aid Ship Bound for Gaza >> Erdogan: Israel Must Apologize for Gaza Blockade + >> No envoy before Israel apology: Turkey >> Berri Calls for 'Human Naval Tsunami' to Break Gaza Siege >> Turkish Aid From Flotilla Begins Arriving in Gaza >> Israel and Turkey in 'secret' talks >> "Turkey Threatens to Ban Israeli Commercial Flights over Gaza Flotilla Row" []>> Blair: Raid put pressure on Israel Turkey FM: We'll Cut Israel Ties unless It Apologizes for Gaza Flotilla Raid Fadlallah raps 'tepid' Arab response to flotilla raid >> Testing the international community >> Turkey slams Israeli FM >> Turkey's President Says Israel Acting 'Irrationally' >> UNHRC appoints Flotilla commitee head >> Turkey in Fresh Warning to Israel over Flotilla Attacks >> Libyan aid convoy to break Gaza siege + >> 27 People onboard Libyan Aid Ship to Gaza >> Libyan aid ship sails for Gaza >> Israel: Libyan ship will not reach Gaza >> Israel Warns UN: Libyan Aid Ship Won’t Leave for Gaza >> Gaza aid ship 'diverts' to Egypt + >> Israel Preparing for “Forceful” Interception of Libyan Aid Ship Turkey reiterates expectations from Israel over Gaza flotilla raid >> Confusion over Gaza aid ship route >> 'Israel's Flotilla probe not enough' >> Israel's Gaza raid probe dismissed >> Flotilla journalists to sue Israel >> Gaza aid ship docks in Egypt + >> Gaza aid ship in Israeli stand-off >> Libyan aid mission heading for Gaza >> Gaza Blockade Protests Delay El Al Flight in Athens Airport >> Libyan aid mission heading for Gaza + >> Libya-Sponsored Gaza Aid Ship Heads to Egypt Port >> Hamas PM Urges Libya-Sponsored Aid Ship to Sail to Gaza >> Lieberman Thanks Suleiman over Libya-chartered Gaza Aid Ship + >> Israel Struck Deal with Egypt to Let Libya Aid Reach Gaza + >> Israel stops 'Hope' from reaching Gaza >> Sponsor of Flotilla Tied to Elite of Turkey Aid ship unloaded at Egypt port >> Turkish Aid Group Blasts Israel's Gaza Raid Probe >> Gaza Flotilla Organizer: We'll Send Convoys to Gaza on Land >> World champions could join Flotilla II Irked by Flotilla Raid, Turkish Hackers Launch Cyberwar >> UN names flotilla inquiry panel >> Spanish activists sue Israel over Gaza flotilla raid Turkey Expects Israel to Return Boats in Days: Report >> Israeli team faces protests in Ankara >> US vessel to break Gaza siege Palestinians Offer Gaza Flotilla Participants Honorary Citizenship http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/main/showNews/id/9482 Spanish flotilla activists sue Israeli government] >> UN renews call for intl. flotilla probe >> Inquiry into Gaza flotilla raid to include two foreign observers >> Turkey summons US diplomat >> Flotilla row hits Turkish tourism* >> Israel Releases 3 Turkish Ships Seized in Freedom Flotilla Raid Activists raise money for US flotillaSurvey: Arabs lose faith in Obama>> Gaza flotilla returns to Turkey hThe Arab Media Reaction to the Raid on the Gaza Flotilla >> Turkey Sets up Its Own Inquiry into Israeli RaidA shift in Arab views of Iran >> Goldstone Follow-up Panel Visits Gaza>> Turkey excludes Israeli Ambassador from iftar feastViva Palestina' Gaza flotilla to sail'>> US threat on Turkey arms sales>> Mariam Ship Delayed after Cyprus Refuses to Give It Permission to Use Its WaterFlotilla UN probe starts in Turkey>> Interview with Jamal Elshayyal>> Israel to collapse in 15 years: Iran Cmdr.Turkey: U.N. Panel Gets Report on Flotilla Raid>> Israel reminded it may lose Turkey>> HOKOK Sues Zionist Criminals in Federal Constitutional Court in Berlin>> 1st Initial Report on Gaza Flotilla Massacre Submitted to UN Chief >> Aid Convoys Prepare to Head to Gaza>> Largest Land Flotilla Convoy En-Route to Gaza/>> "Viva Palestina sails for Gaza again">> Syrian Aid Ship Sailed to Gaza>> UN Flotilla Probe: Israel 'Violated Law', Gaza Blockade 'Unlawful'>> Turkey welcomes UN Flotilla report/'Israel flotilla raid was unlawful'UNGA 2010- TurkeyUNGA 2010-QatarUNGA 2010- IranUNGA 2010- KuwaitUNGA 2010- Iceland>> Jewish aid ship nears GazaUNGA 2010- Nicaragua UNGA 2010- SyriaUNGA 2010- UAE]>> UN body backs flotilla report>> Hundreds of Activists Planning New Gaza-Bound Flotilla>> Turkel Summons Arabs who Took Part in Gaza Flotilla>> Egypt sets conditions for Viva Palestina>> 'ICC must prosecute Flotilla attackers'>> Activists to dispatch 2nd Flotilla>> Flotilla Activist Repeats Gaza Trip>> Viva Palestina aid convoy reaches Syria>> Turkish PM: Israel must apologize>> Turkey boycotts Israeli conference>> Erdogan: Netanyahu Boasts about Flotilla Attack >> New Gaza Peace Flotilla to Have Up to 20 Boats>> British Passengers of Gaza Flotilla Seek to Testify in Israeli ProbeRabbis of Neturei Karta International met Turkish President, in front of the Turkish embassy in New York City, presented him with an engraved plaque, expressing appreciation and showing sympathy to the victims of the Flotilla>> Gaza aid ship returns to Turkey Gaza aid convoy heads for final stop>> US: Turkel report fine, but UN flotilla panel better israeli: Resolution On Israel By European Parliamentary Group 'Inexplicable' The Tragic Fraying of the Turkey-Israel Relationship ADL NYT response >> US Says Gaza Flotillas 'Irresponsible' >> Israel may expand flotilla inquiry + mention of the sole cabinet member to support an international inquiry as demanded by Turkey. (forget his name) >> Netanyahu: No apology, no compensation to Turkey over Gaza flotilla --> ">> Israeli minister denies promising Turkey compensation for Gaza flotilla victims >> Israel expands flotilla inquiry >> Netanyahu: No Apology, No Compensation to Turkey over Gaza Flotilla >> “Obama Warned Erdogan of Flotilla Probe” Lieberman dismisses apology to Turkey [73] [74] >> Lieberman: Turkey Chose Wrong Diplomacy Questions for Israeli Opposition Leader Tzipi Livni >> Israeli Report on Flotilla Raid: "Senior Level" Mistakes, Live Fire "Justified" >> Israel 'takes revenge' on own politician >> Israel Launches Campaign to Halt Lebanon Flotilla Bound for Gaza >> Israel deploys navy to stop aid ships Israel Warns It Will Not Let Ships from Lebanon Reach Gaza >> Israel: We won't assist 'obsessive' UN Gaza flotilla probe >> Ashkenazi Will Know How to Stop Lebanese Aid Ships! >> Israel 'to assist' flotilla inquiry >> “Israel Won't Allow UN to Question Israelis on Flotilla Raid” >> Flotilla ship Mavi Marmara towed from Israel port >> Netanyahu defends flotilla raid >> Flotilla violence was 'expected'* >> Israel: UN Won't Question Israeli Soldiers in Flotilla ProbeFlotilla raid: Lethal fire defended Ban: UN Flotilla Probe Won't Assign Individual ResponsibilityIsrael's Netanyahu Visits Greece as Ties With Turkey Founder>> Israel warns Gaza aid boat>> Barak: Lebanese Ship Has Nothing to Do with Humanitarianism>> UN: Israel uncooperative in Gaza flotilla probe>> General defends Israel flotilla attack>> Flotilla UN Questioning Begins in Turkey(>> Turkey Seeks Israeli Radars for Kurdistan Border)>> Arab MK: Israel Boarded Gaza Flotilla Ships with Intent to Kill>> Israel Says Preparing for “Mother of All Flotillas”Israel’s Gaza Flotilla Probe Panel Summons Turkish Captain>> Israel seizes Gaza aid boatIsraeli Soldier Jailed for Stealing from Gaza Flotilla ShipIsraeli army chief back at inquiry>> Israeli raid on flotilla defended >> Ashkenazi to Gaza Flotilla Investigators: Commandos Had No Choice but to Shoot >> Israel hails commandoes killing activists(>> Netanyahu Salutes Commandos who Raided Gaza Flotilla )>> Israel rules out apology to Turkey >> Israeli panel: Flotilla raid legal|}Lihaas (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC) maybe it would be more helpful if you indicate for which section exactly respectively which changes these links are usable. regards,--Severino (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC) UN report, September 22nd. Sol (talk) 01:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC) "International media" a bit odd I just skimmed over the section on the international media's reaction to this and all but one paragraph starts with the name of a US media organisation. That is hardly an international media reaction especially when it comes to Israel, especially since the USA is pretty much the only country supporting Israel through this.--Senor Freebie (talk) 02:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Keep in mind that unlike a lot of other countries, most of the U.S. media isn't state controlled (major networks valuing access to the White House notwithstanding). That is, America has press ranging from Communist to Nazi and everything between. As a result, it would be absurd to paint all American media with the same pro-Israel brush. Rklawton (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC) While US media are diverse, they are overall more friendly towards Israel than media in most other countries, including most countries with a press that is at least as independent from the respective governments as the US media. More importantly, the media commentaries should be mentioned by at least one independent secondary source, if not, they should be treated as primary sources.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC) Comedic response ? it doesn't seem appropriate to me to categorize the "we con the world video" as "comedic" or "artistic" response. it commemorates the Minstrel shows where whites portrayed blacks in a derogative manner. the wording in the section clouds the character and the intention of the video, calling it "satirical". also, the fact that it was circulated by the israeli gvt and created by a person who held and holds positions in the israeli miliary, israeli gvt and zionist think tanks (not simply "a columnist for the Jerusalem Post") makes it rather a kind of political "response". it could be categorized under Directly involved parties#Israel or Public opinion and political activism#Support (with information about the video's background and criticism included).--Severino (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I think its fair mention (it even has its own wikipage). As per the cartoon above, mayvbe it can be altered (the subsection for example)Lihaas (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Nominated for Featured article! CoercorashTalkContr. 05:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I dont see the nomination mentioned in the link above. but at any rate i would oppose this. If it would be an FA then the main page should be. But a Features List maybe?Lihaas (talk) 09:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC) National Reactions In the national reactions part, do you think it is reasonable to add this view of Cüneyt Ülsever (http://hurarsiv.hurriyet.com.tr/goster/haber.aspx?id=14944397&yazarid=3&tarih=2010-06-06), a commentator in the Hürriyet newspaper. Does he represent the view of Turkish nation or any political party, or any significant religious group in Turkey? His view is personal. See, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_Gaza_War#Countries and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lankan_Civil_War#Reaction. Only national views are added in these pages. Therefore, Cüneyt Ülsever's comment should be removed.Kavas (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC) We had this version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365332660. The following comment was removed since Fikret Sadikhov is not affiliated with the Azerbaijani government. The removed part was this paragraph: Azerbaijan In Azerbaijan political scientist Fikret Sadikhov expressed concern: “The fact that Turkey is against Israel’s actions may worsen our ties with Israel since Turkey is our ally and our positions coincide in most issues. However, we understand that we have quite close partner relations with Israel which we would not like to worsen." Commenting on the event, he said, "if these are civil ships, the Israelis have gone beyond the frameworks of their military capacities which can certainly worsen the situation."[45] This argument also applies to Cüneyt Ülsever's comment, and his comments should be removed. Kavas (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Finally, for your attention, the title of this section is "National" Reactions.Kavas (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Moved to the media section. Marokwitz (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Kurdish Freedom Flotilla The content of Kurdish Freedom Flotilla should be included in this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I posted something on there a while back, if that doesn't expand then i suggest a merger here too.Lihaas (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I do support a merger as this intended (is it really intended ?) flotilla is irrelevant and doesn't deserve an article. I#m not sure if it's worth mentioning here at all--Severino (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC) I merged the content in accordance with the ruling in the deletion discussion. --386-DX (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)