Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Background ( revert by IANVS)

IANVS reverted my edit to the background section leaving a summary "All of this is explained at lenght in the respective articles. Going this way we wouldn't stop detailing related events". What does this mean? Does it mean that since all this is explained in other articles, we don't need to repeat it here? Then why a background section? Then why he did not remove all that is explained in respective articles and chose to retain the text before my edit? I have not made any significant addition to this section except providing some more references and presenting the facts chronologically rather than in the present misleading manner. It seems he wants to retain this and has no excuse to offer and so left this funny edit summary. There are only six sentences in that section and there is nothing wrong in summarising the background (discussed in other articles) in six sentences. I am reverting his edit. Please explain here what is wrong with my edits, if anyone wishes to revert mine. Walky-talky (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The background is about the rationale for the actions of both the flotilla and the IDF. Not about the whole israeli-palestinian conflict. We should only mention the minimum relevant information for context, and the Wikilinks do the rest. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. So did I talk about the whole israeli-palestinian conflict there? There was a discussion of the blockade which is relevant to this ( which you also retained); I just introduced some references and clarified what this blockade is, because there is a confusion about Land / Air/ Naval/Egypt / Israel blockades. I just described them, chronologically, in 3-4 sentences. Does it harm? Walky-talky (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is relevant Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#how_it_all_began... Zuchinni one (talk) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's the comparison:

  • before: 110 words, contained "considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization",
  • after: 165 words. (not counting one word "in", which is erroneously duplicated) contains e.g. "The aim of Israel was to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop the rocket attacks on Israel."

Personally, I would prefer the "after" version, because I feel that the blockade is the most salient backgrond issue here, and the description of Israel's aim seems pretty neutral. What do others think? — Sebastian 06:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

55 words is a lot. I'm not saying the current text is not improvable, but User:Walky-talky addenda is too wordy, repetitive and going into an unnecessary level of detail. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
IANVS, you have violated the one-revert rule.Walky-talky (talk) 06:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Same as you did before me, boy. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I dont think I violated the 1:RR. Anyway, it is clear that you did it on purpose. There are other editors who prefer my version, you are the only one coming up with a new excuse every time. I have removed the sentence "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza" which is clearly a Synthesis. Instead I stated the facts and provided references. You are just citing some lame excuse to retain that sentence; clearly ignoring the discussion here and knowingly violating the 1RR. I request a neutral editor to go through this and revert IANVS ( unless he can produce multiple reliable source to support the "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza" claim and establish its relevance here. Walky-talky (talk) 07:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Some other editor already improved the paragraph incluiding some of your edit proposals. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia should report what mainstream reliable sources say. But in this article there is a deliberate attempt to shield Israel from the blockade. All the references here point to the blockade by Israel, you have in the legal opinion section, Israel's justification for its blockade, Flotilla was attempting to break the naval blockade declared by Israel, Israel warned against any attempt to break its blockade but when it come to naming Israel, there are hundreds of excuses. One important reference I introduced, which actually deal with the declaration of the blockade has been removed. There is a new statement (and reference )"Arab foreign ministers have also presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas". Is it any relevant here? More relevant than "Later in January 2009, after its invasion of Gaza, Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza[1]. " which has been removed? Where are the sources which says that "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza."? And later when quoting the United Nations and human rights groups criticism, it just says blockade while what is being criticiced is the blockade by Israel; not blockade, not Egyptian blockade and not the recently invented Egyptian- Israel blockade. Walky-talky (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

From the BACKGROUND. Israel, which considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization,[THE USA AND THE European union, Egypt and probably most of the world and maybe even most Palestinians consider HAmas a terrorist organization. ] and accuses Hamas of launching thousands of rockets at Israel [Accuses??? aren't rockets a fact -they may not all be credited to Hamas , there are other terrorist organizations given free hand in Gaza who would like to take credit but-- just add them up, the exact number of rockets changes all the time, 3 rockets were fired into Israel today so the word "thousands" should be crossed out. There were thousands during the war but the number is misleading. declared itself to be in a state of war ["state of war" is a legal term and should not be used] Israel is in on-going conflict with the Hamas regime is more accurate. with Hamas-run [English? Gsza run under Hamas regime] AFarber (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Free Gaza Movement: merge subsection into "Ships in flotilla" section?

Currently, both texts describe the flotilla, and they even contradict each other, with one counting 6, and the other 8. Should these be merged? (BTW, sorry for my earlier error when I deleted that section. I overlooked that that subsection wasn't actually about the Free Gaza Movement, and Prodego was right to revert me.) — Sebastian 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Relevant as background information, as long as it refers to the intentions and rationale. The build-up can be detailed at flotilla section. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 06:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead x???

The lead again gives plenty of space to intl reactions and hardly any to the actual battle onboard. Why does this keep on happening? Am I missing a subsection on this talk page discussing it again? The really needs to be more mention of the actual event. It has been confirmed by both sides that they came in before dawn on helicopters. It has been confirmed by both sides that there was a battle between the commandos and some of the activists/passengers/whatever while others moved below deck. The IDF claims of weapons or tools (even if they were not intended to be weapons originally) are pretty well verified. Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Last two paragraphs of lead should be remoced (redundant). Vikipedy (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That would help the weight issue but he battle still needs a few lines even if that happens.Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Last two paragraphs should be merged and reduced, but the widespread int'l reactions, incluiding UN and links to respective article, are important enough so as to be mentioned in the lead. --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with merging it into one paragraph. What about the actual fighting though?Cptnono (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Actual fighting should be explained at the respective section. Not further details are needed in the lead, at least until some further news modify the over all perspective. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Cptnono here. The Lead has slowing been growing too long ... and primarily with information that is not directly related to the raid. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that some reactions should be removed and replaced with more information on what each side claims has happened. Currently the factual details about the event are not given due weight. Marokwitz (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
PBS NewsHour summed it up well "Armed Israeli commandos repelled down from helicopters, but were confronted by pro-Palestinian activists wielding sticks, metal bars and knives. Then, in circumstances that are not yet clear, the Israeli troops opened fire."[1] Recent sources are onboard with this.[2] I would also keep "activists say the Israelis opened fire before boarding." Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That seems pretty good Zuchinni one (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed the lead to sharpen the language on the international reaction a bit, since the outrage triggered by the attack appears may be the most important point relating to this attack. (WSJ: "one of Israel's worst international relations disasters in years" http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51698). It doesn't make much difference whether the commandoes or the activists started the violence, so that is something that might be removed from the lead. --Dailycare (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You might think that the international reaction is the most interesting aspect. That is pretty common in the I-P area. Forget the event, Israel being bad is that is most notable! The mothers of the dead passengers and the soldier who got stabbed might disagree. Some activists who truly wanted to deliver some cement might think that the international reaction is good for their cause but that doesn't mean their cause, voyage, or actual fight is less important. And I completely disagree. Cause and effect. The intl reaction is nothing without the facts of what happened.Cptnono (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The opinion that the outrage resulting from Israel's pirate attack may be the most important aspect of this isn't only mine, it's evident in e.g. what the WSJ says in the source I provided. But we don't need to argue this point, there's space in the article to present all relevant facts. --Dailycare (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The international reactions section of the lead grew to a ridiculous point. Cptnono is correct in his statements. There is an entire article devoted to international reactions. That is where most of it belongs ... not in the lead of this one. Zuchinni one (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Flotilla proponents and Turkish charity group leaders said that since the ships were on international waters, "even if we had used guns", abandoning the non-violence principle would still be legal as self-defense from Israeli "kidnapping" and "piracy".[21][22] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing other Israeli accounts, said that the events represent a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[23][24][25]" This is the he said she said bloat that I think some editors were worried about. This rads like editors trying to point the other side regardless of the intent. It is overly emotive and introduces more "nu uh... the other guys were bad" silliness. I recommend removing those lines and substituting with a line simply stating that both sides said they acted in self defense.Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cptnono here. The he-said she-said quotes from both sides have been moved into the section of the article that specifically exists to all each side to tell their perspective. We have a lot more information now than we originally did and the lead should be factual as per the WP:LEAD. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is going to be some back and forth though. These two lines are just a little much. Speaking of back and forth, we currently say that "Activists said that the Israelis opened fire before boarding.[20]". Now I do not think that should be removed. I think that is an important enough of a claim from one of the belligerents that it needs to be in. There currently is no "balance" to it but worse is there is not mention of the potential spark. Israel claim that they fired in response to the fighting and maybe even after one of their soldiers was disarmed. I still think that line is needed. It could be something along the lines of "At some point, the Israeli soldiers opened fire, but the sequence of events is not yet clear. Activists said that the Israelis opened fire before boarding while Israel has said that the firing occurred after the start of the on-deck skirmish" And I think if any investigation shows that the first shot was from an activist taking a weapon and discharging it that it deserves to be prominent in the lead. I seriously doubt I could obtain consensus for that before then but wanted to mention it. Cptnono (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The IDF claims it fired warning shots across the bow before boarding the ships - as an international signal to stop and be boarded (used when all other means of communications fail). The witnesses on the ship claim the IDF fired before boarding but they have not disputed that these shots were warning shots across the bow. I think it would be fair to say that the claims of both sides do not necessarily contradict each other on these points. Rklawton (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Totally agree that they may not contradict eachother but they could easily be read that way. This is especially true without your explanation being in the lead. I think there is now not too much service given either way with the recent edit.Cptnono (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

lead of article

{{editsemiprotected}}{{editsemiprotected}} Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.--Cerejota (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Article says in the lead: The Gaza flotilla raid occurred in the international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Should be added: Raid occurred in international waters, off the coast of Israel . Vikipedy (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In another location in the article it says: Location: "The Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel and Gaza in international waters". This is not correct. The location was not off the coast of Gaza. This should be removed. Vikipedy (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

lead

{{editsemiprotected}} Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.--Cerejota (talk) 07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

lead is too long. last two paragraphs - about UN and international reaction - should not be in the lead. Vikipedy (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The inclusion of those two paragraphs has been hotly debated, although you may need to look through the archived talk section to find it. I suggest that if you feel these need be removed that you elaborate on your reasoning and build a strong case for it using both the previous discussion in the talk section and the Wikipedia Lead section MoS. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On sources being reliable or not

Ok, I read a bunch of discussions and it seems to me some of you childrens need daddy to break this shit down fer yer edifications:

1) A source being reliable is not the sole criteria for including its information - a source must also be presented in an NPOV fashion. This includes due weight, systemic bias, and balance considerations, not just neutral wording.

2) In addition, single reliable sources are not to be used when there is controversy, but verifiability by multiple reliable sources is needed. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE BECAUSE IT COULD RESOLVE 95% OF THE BULLSHIT HERE.: if something comes up in a reliable source, but is not verified by other reliable sources, then this should be considered for exclusion. An example is the San Jose Mercury News reporting of an American bean beaten - since there is no verifiability, this is clear WP:REDFLAG

3) There seems to be confusion as to what makes a source reliable. Please read WP:RS carefully. Primary sources, such as the IDF are never reliable when the information is about anything other than specific information about itself. Nor are partisan publications or organizations.

4) That said, one can include sources that are not reliable if this advances the encyclopedic mission, and they are used to supplement or illustrate information verifiably presented by reliable sources. They should NEVER be used to introduce new information or to make points on their own, including images. So for example, it is ok to include the IDF image of the murderous weapons of hate/peace utencils/whatever you want to call them because this is super verifable and and is referenced in numerous reliable sources.

5) I suggest a thorough study of WP:SYNTH. This article is full of synthy crap. Just because it makes sense in your view it doesn't mean it belongs here.

CHANT TAIM CHILDRENS, REPEAT AFTER ME:


VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!

VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!

VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!

VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!

VERIFIABILITY, NOT TRUTH!

DON'T GIVE A FUCK!


Understand this, and coast...

Behave. You don't want me unleashing the Armada of Hate on yer whinny asses. Happy edditing!--Cerejota (talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's been rebranded as 'not the love boat'. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Events leading up to raid section needs help

The Events leading up to the raid section seems to be out of control with WAY too much commentary and there is a lot that doesn't seem to directly relate. Perhaps this should be cut down and the extraneous information moved to other sections. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be summarized as followed:

  • Election of Hamas in Gaza
  • Conflicts between Hamas and Israel
  • Political decision of blockade by Israel and Egypt
  • Resulting Humanitarian condition in Gaza
  • Previous attempts to solve the problem by several groups (all failed)
  • Decision of Humanitarian groups to confront Israel by breaking the blockage
  • Political decision by Israel to intervene and use force to stop the ship
  • Current conditions

--Nevit (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


A lot of that seems to be exactly what was removed from background section because it was getting too long. The article needs to focus on THIS event. There are other articles where people can learn more about the I-P conflict as a whole. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect history statement

The following unsourced statement appears in the article: "Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip since the Fatah–Hamas conflict that followed the outcome of the Palestinian elections of 2006. ". This is not true, yet my attempts at clarifying this and adding sources were consistently reverted. In 2006-2007 Gaza was governed by the Palestinian authority unity government of which both Hamas and Fatah were members. In the 2007 coup, the Hamas took control of the Gaza strip from the Palestinian authority. Marokwitz (talk) 08:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

In free world such coup is called election. Was it? I see persistence to avoid like holy water words: elected, election majority votes. Democracy do not fight so don't cray. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Does it even need to be in this article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should give at least minimal background information, for people not familiar with the subject. However placing incorrect and over-simplified information is not the way to help the reader. The correct sentence is "Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip since it took control of it in 2007 from the Palestinian Authority in the Battle of Gaza." Agreed? Marokwitz (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why?--86.25.48.172 (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not? We should help the reader get the basic information that they need to understand the historic event, without reading 100 articles, and without providing false and unsourced information. Marokwitz (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll support that sentence or a simple copy/paste of the sentence with any refs from the main blockade article. Whatever is simple and consistent. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
OK. Marokwitz (talk) 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Gilad Shalit

It should be added to the background section that one of the justifications Israel uses for upholding the blockade of Gaza is the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas into Gaza. The blockade is uphold, among other reasons, to prevent Hamas from taking Shalit out of the Gaza strip. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

While completely true, I'm not sure it is strictly relevant to the issue of this blocked attempt to force banned goods INTO Gaza, and therefore it's place is probably in the article about the blockade. Marokwitz (talk)
It's not relevant. This article isn't about that. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Gilad Shalit supporters in Israel have contacted the flotilla officials, before the flotilla took place, and asked them to deliver from them humanitarian aid to Gilad Shalit, since he is held captive, with no visits from his family or the Red Cross. The flotilla officials refused. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That fact may be relevant, if you can find reliable sources . Marokwitz (talk) 10:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is about the events revolving around the seizure of the flotilla and the resulting skirmish. Shalit is very tangentially related at best and I don't think he should be mentioned. Zuchinni one (talk) 10:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Israelis asked them to break the blockade ? Shocking behavior. :) That might be a notable thing for the Shalit article if it's been in published in some RS. It's not pertinent to this event in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This was added before the raid at Free Gaza. I think it is PR from both sides (very little to no secondary overage on the rebuttal though)Cptnono (talk) 10:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel Minister says that Israel would allow the fltilla to Gaza to go on, if Gilad Shalit will be returning with them when they leave. Published on 23/05/10 on HaAretz. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1170063.html ShalomOlam (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Regarding Gilad Shalit, I refer you to the following article: http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1174-israels-disinformation-campaign-against-the-gaza-freedom-flotilla
The relevant part reads: "Israel claims that we refused to deliver a letter and package from POW Gilad Shalit's father. This is a blatant lie. We were first contacted by lawyers representing Shalit's family Wednesday evening, just hours before we were set to depart from Greece. Irish Senator Mark Daly (Kerry), one of 35 parliamentarians joining our flotilla, agreed to carry any letter and deliver it to UN officials inside Gaza. As of this writing, the lawyers have not responded to Sen. Daly, electing instead to attempt to smear us in the Israeli press.[5] We have always called for the release of all political prisoners in this conflict, including the 11,000 Palestinian political prisoners languishing in Israeli jails, among them hundreds of child prisoners." 82.12.113.64 (talk) 12:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal observations and opinions

There is no plcae for observations and opinions in an encyclopedia. This section should be removed. There are other sites for expressing personal opinions. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "activist(s)"

Not all people on the flotilla were activists. Not all people on the flotilla and were injured were activists. Not all people on the flotilla and were killed were activists.

In most places in the article, when reffering to a group of people, the use of the word "activist(s)" is wrong, and should be replaced with "people" or "persons" or "flotilla participants". ShalomOlam (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you. --Nevit (talk) 11:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This has been discussed at length here Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Activists_or_passengers.3F and the consensus seemed to agree with both of you that activists is not the right word. It seems to keep getting changed by people who are not reading the discussion. I have no objection to it being reverted to either 'passengers' or 'people' Zuchinni one (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I will appreciate it if you change the word "activist(s)" to ""flotilla participant(s)", where appropriate. Thanks. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
How tempting is this difference between peoples and attaching forces we should still remember that they should be people to. As any peoples to be prosecuted for crimes especially war crimes. However where there is no contest of those two groups, it they are at once, of course language should use common words for human, not stick to 'activist' since some were more, some less active and possibly some not at all; not to mention agents which IDF stuffed to the boats too (yes they in Israeli press openly talked about it).Ai 00 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898109,00.html

The source numbered 138 gives incorrect information. Please find another source. One of 4 people, Ali Akhbar Iritilmis (Ali Ekber Yaratılmış) is not dead. See www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14918897.asp, "Ölmedi yaşıyor", translated to English for who do not know Turkish as follows: öl-me-di yaşa(ı)-yor öl:die, me:not di:past tense, yaşa: live (a turns to ı) yor: present tense Kavas (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Confirm your translation. The article says he had a tel conversation with his relatives. Btw by comparing the lists it seems that there are some who are missing, but it is early to conclude.

--Nevit (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Piracy

WP:NOTAFORUM. Wait until reliable sources comment, then cite them.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In history piracy has often blended in with actions by nation states or quasi-national entities. English action against Spanish ships in the Caribbean during the 18th and 19th centuries was state-actuated piracy. To rob,intimidate and yes damage the economic structures of the enemy. Buccaneers become pirates and vice-versa. FOR EXAMPLE > The actions of Somali pirates are defended as being tax collection: Peter Lehr, a Somalia piracy expert at the University of St. Andrews says "It's almost like a resource swap, Somalis collect up to $100 million a year from pirate ransoms off their coasts and the Europeans and Asians poach around $300 million a year in fish from Somali waters." ~ The Independent ~ Chicago Tribune http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100103084431AAidrXO

--maxrspct ping me 12:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

==IDF stole journalists footage

Heard Danny Schecter saying this is discussed in Israeli media and found this WP:RS. Israel using 'pirated' footage to defend raid: media body, AFP. Further searches of terms from that article will add more WP:RS. Somebody should add it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yahoo also Questions Israeli sources. But there are a lot in the article. Who is going to solve the issue?

Israel's military is using video confiscated : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

--Nevit (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue Journalist's account

Journalist's account section has NPOV issues.

There are 3 paragraphs by Israel army's journalist

  • No mention by witness journalists on board.
  • No mention of denial of service to journalists by Israel
  • No mention of Israels withholding of independent journalists tapes and records.
  • 240 words Israel point of view by Israeli Journalist on-board of military ships
  • 110 words BBC By Paul Reynolds (not a journalist on board) & Guardian reporter in Tel Aviv (not a journalist on board)
  • 0 words by Journalists on board of flotilla
  • No pointing to jamming the on-line communication and live broadcasting when the attack was done.
  • No pointing to withholding film photos and cameras by Israel
  • No pointing to arrest of journalists

The section can not be considered neutral by current status.

--Nevit (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Fix it on your own. This wiki is overwhelmed by I.I activists. Here was discussion about it dig in archive fore more info. Now I see some progress towards NPOV but it may be related to they relative overworking on multitude of websites and fronts. Another reason is that those in they government headquarters do not scratch they heads enought perhaps individually working how to get each own ass'ets out of it. (se n'yahoo bbgun outcry on hypocritical attack against him) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 (talk • contribs)

What is II? --Nevit (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, WP is overwhelmed by I.I activists.. Ok, the whole article was biased in its fisrst version against Israel. Including blatant reapeted removals of notable very well sourced info without even leaving edit summaries. Any version that will not find Israel guilty is biased according to you. And who is the "independent" journalist? Where are your sources? what exactly they say? I oppose entering what you just suggested from obvious reasons. --Gilisa (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF still didn't released the raw video for parts they killed activists. Kasaalan (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I decided to be bold and delete the whole sub-section "journalist's account". It just gave ONE journalist's opinion on the subject. I think it had nothing to warrant the same weight as the official accounts by the two sides of the conflict. Seemed to me that somebody was just trying to add more credibility to his favorite side of the argument... Steloukos (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not necessary to delete the whole section. A more balanced structure, including the Israeli point of view is needed. It is not easy to find what they witnessed or captured even if there was 20-60 journalists on-board. One of the reasons is information is withheld. I found some information below. It should be a discussion what to include and what to not. So I put the links as sources, and some abstract info. I do not know how to deal with copyright when adding from sources to article so leave the job to more experienced users. Non of the journalists were on Israels lands when arrested. They were doing a legitimate job.
Paul McGeough and Kate Geraghty were on-board. They are accredited journalists. They give details about weapons Israel used and the operation.

http://m.smh.com.au/world/i-was-tasered-by-israelis-says-herald-photographer-20100602-wzv3.html http://firedoglake.com/2010/06/01/israel-blocks-access-to-flotilla-press-and-participants/

South African journalist, Gadija Davids was on board the ship was detained by (IDF).

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-06-02-sa-demands-that-israel-release-journo

CPJ Committee to protect Journalists, independently confirms names of 20 Journalists detained. Says journalists harassed and their equipment was confiscated. Condemns. Request release of journalists.

http://cpj.org/2010/06/israeli-forces-detain-journalists-aboard-humanitar.php

Reporters without borders condemns the censorship attempts related to assault on humanitarian flotilla. Claims the number of Journalists to be 60.

http://en.rsf.org/israel-israeli-military-prevents-media-31-05-2010,37630.html http://en.rsf.org/israel-at-least-60-journalists-were-02-06-2010,37646.html

--Nevit (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
the reason I deleted was that the paragraph only dealt with the account of one Israeli journalist that accompanied the IDF raiding party. As it was, it made no attempt to make a neutral presentation of worldwide journalist coverage. The links you provided seem very interesting, now if anyone decided to make a little summary of them and create the section again? :) Steloukos (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Characterizing the international reaction as "outrage" in the lead

My edit was reverted with a comment that "outrage" would be POV. Here are ten sources that use the term outrage in connection with the international reaction. I know that there is a separate article about the reaction, but the lead should characterize the main points, which the reaction surely is. Also, the lead does currently mention the reaction, what I'm suggesting is to just replace "widespread international reactions" with "widespread international outrage", which is more accurate (one country even severed diplomatic contacts with Israel) and sourced at least in these ten WP:RS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ("Colère") 8 9 10 Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The separate article is named "Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid". I think it will be better if the word "reaction" is used in both places. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The ractions is the main part of article. Outrage as a word summarizes the international reaction. And it is well documented. The rest and details can be put in a separate article. --Nevit (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Can't you just quote and attribute 'outrage' to a source? It's prett hard to claim the Der Spiegel or CNN didn't report it..--149.166.34.237 (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Characterizing the international reaction as "outrage" is POV, not neutral. This is also not true, since it is a generalization of some reactions. Not all international reactions were outrageous. ShalomOlam (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The reaction of the international community is misrepresented in this article. There is a striking mismatch between the sources and us both in terms of language and weight. That's a mandatory policy non-compliance issue that has to be addressed. It's not going to fix itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
That the international reaction was outrage is well sourced and it's either the majority view or at least one of the most significant views. The proposed wording doesn't claim that every reaction would have been outrage, just that the attack provoked widespread international outrage, which according to the sources listed e.g. above is certainly true. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare is right about the overall characterization, while others are correct that its POV to characterize all of the international reactions. Why not rephrase as International reaction to the raid (wikilink ends here) included widespread outrage as well as other responses.--Carwil (talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

American activist among those killed by armed Israeli soldiers

The New York Times is reporting a U.S. citizen among the dead.--149.166.34.237 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

More information:

  • Furkan Dogan, 19, was a Turkish-American traveling with a US passport, Anatolian said. A forensic report said he was shot at close range, with four bullets in his head and one in his chest, the agency said.[3]
  • "The dead include a 19-year-old Turkish citizen with an American passport - who was hit by four bullets in the head and one in the chest"[4]
  • "NBC News reported that among the nine slain was Furkan Dogan, 19, who was born in New York, returning to his family's homeland, Turkey, at the age of two."[5]

--149.166.34.237 (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Request addition of material to protected article.--149.166.34.237 (talk) 13:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Done: another editor appears to have already added this to the article. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Casualties" section

I'm not a native speaker of English, so I might be wrong, but I thought the word casualties refers to deaths. If that's true, how come there is a paragraph on IDF casualties? Is there any death among the IDF soldiers? If however the word casualties can also refer to wounded, why there is no mention of the wounded on the paragraph about the activists?

I'm sorry but in my eyes this seems like covert POV-pushing, in the sense that there are two paragraphs of equal size and similar wording about two distinctly unequal events. the death of some people on one side, and the injuries of some on the other (who just happened to be the attackers by the way).Steloukos (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the word casualties can also refer to wounded. The infobox says 60 injured so maybe the sections/infobox need to be aligned + updated with newer sources. I'm not sure that the paragraph sizes is a big deal in this case. Maybe you can find details about the injured, the nature of their injuries and add it. I guess those details will be coming out soon if not already. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at casualty.  —Rafi  15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Delete/Remove Gaza_flotilla_raid#Legal_observations_and_opinions

I think the undue wieght tag on this section is accurate. Per WP:NOTOPINION, I think this section really ought to be deleted or least turned into a stub and majority of the content be moved to a seperate article. Anyone want to second my motion? NickCT (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • You probably misread the part about sourced opinion vs. WP editors voicing opinion. Clearly, when established experts (biology, medicine, history, law, et cetera) opine on their field of expertise, and WP:RS report it, it is silly to disallow that. It is equivalent to refusing any articles by journalists on the ground they are WP:OR: it pertains to WP not outside sources!--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I sorta interpret WP:NOTOPINION to mean that WP shouldn't be a platform for opinions regarding current events. Offering quasi-notable opinoins in this manner seems equivelent to soapboxing. A section which simply offers opinions rather than facts about a current event is a defacto opinion piece. It's poor practice and unencyclopedic. NickCT (talk) 15:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why delete. Just create a WP:FORK then WP:SUMMARY. 85.101.137.178 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey 85.101.137.178 - I did propose that possibility when I said "turned into a stub .... moved to a seperate article" NickCT (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Given that there may be an investigation and that the Israeli courts are hearing cases it seems there is some notability here, but the section should probably be summarized off.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no plcae for observations and opinions in an encyclopedia. Legal or not. I think that this section should be deleted. There are other sites for expressing personal opinions. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

@Nomen Nescio - I think you are missing the crux of my argument. I fully acknowledge the difference between opinions of editors and those of notable individuals. I'm not saying it's always wrong to insert notable opinion about an event into that event's article. What I am saying is that having a large section dedicated to relaying opinions from semi-notable individiuals feels like it might contradict the spirit of WP:NOTOPINION, WP:SOAPBOX, & WP:NOTABILITY.
I put it to you that if the opinions of law proffessor from Harvard are notable in the context of this article, then there are potentially thousands of opinions of various individuals that ought to be included here.
Anyway, I think the consensus here is for the material to be summarized. I may give this a go when I get some time, but I'd invite other editors to have a go at it if they're free. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The "pro-raid" opinion section appears to be dregged quite thin with even a long quotation from some "commander's handbook" in order to give the reader the (false) impression that neutral legal observers wouldn't have a clear opinion on this. WashPost writes quite cogently that "Anthony D'Amato, a professor of international law at Northwestern University School of Law is among those who believes the raid was illegal. "That's what freedom of the seas are all about. This is very clear, for a change. I know a lot of prominent Israeli attorneys and I'd be flabbergasted if any of them disagreed with me on this," he said.". That looks like good material for the summary. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

An Image from Turkish WP clearly shows IDF shooting activists

File:Mavi Marmara Opeasyon.jpg
While IDF Soldiers attacking on activists. Source Cihan

I think whoever created this section meant this picture Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is acreenshot from TV and does not show much. --Nevit (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A work by a Brasilian Cartoonist

WP:NOTAFORUM. The Brazilian government's reaction may be notable. A Brazilian cartoonist's reaction is not.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This file should be included into the International reactions section 76.112.225.183 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That image seems a little imflammatory. NickCT (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
And not particularly notable to the event.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
To say the least. The purpose of Wikipedia is to convey knowledge, not to promote certain points of view. Marokwitz (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
As this is not a forum, I am going to assume discussion of the image is over.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Over. NickCT (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

nonviolent resistance

The article states the activist were trained in nonviolent resistance. There is no RS to support this, so it was removed in the past, but someone has now returned it. It should be removed again (since there is no RS). ShalomOlam (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've tagged. NickCT (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Change to make

It says that in parenthesis that Israel would have allowed the group to deliver the supplies after inspection but I haven't seen anything cited for that, in fact what I seen was the will to stop the boats at any cost:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFki4MerB8GrGJS2hOVmY5UOJm4wD9G000780

can someone provide the reference to that or have that portion in parenthesis deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver163 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There were many good RS that covered what Israel said, the ref probably just got lost in some editing. Check later in the where this is presented: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4
I'll add it as a ref to the lead, but you are welcome to suggest a text article as well Zuchinni one (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Translators Required

We need translators as Hebrew-English, Turkish-English, Greek-English etc.

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


Hebrew

he:המשט לעזה (2010)

Article lengths Seems Equal for Ynet, however you may also check translations' accuracy. Kasaalan (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I can try to translate some of these tomorrow. Do you want me to post the text here? RolandR (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Me as well. However, I am not a registered Wikipedia user. Is this ok? 87.69.208.92 (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course. Just post your translations here. Kasaalan (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Since we appear to have opposing points of view, this could be very useful; if you accept my translations, or I yours, then this could remove any suggestion of partial or biased translation. RolandR (talk) 23:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You know, I don't care noone's views anyway. Opposing or not, in my approach we should clearly represent both sides views for NPOV. You may translate fully or partially where you feel important. As long as the translations are intact, they are helpful. I just listed some links, Ynet is not the greatest source, but if you find better info not available in English feel free to add more sources. After you translate, post here, so other Hebrew speaking users may control the accuracy of translations or use in article. Thanks for the efforts. Kasaalan (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The priority is the newspapers who doesn't have English versions. If you came up with anything useful just post here. Kasaalan (talk)

Turkish

Israel did not allow healing the wounded!

tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı 

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


Davutoğlu - Clinton talks: http://www.haberciniz.biz/haber/israili-iste-bu-sozler-dize-getirdi--839108.html

--Nevit (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes! Do you have a suggestion on adding it or improving the actual article?Cptnono (talk) 22:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The dialogue with captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raid

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

Thanks for whoever translated. I tried to correct the grammar and sea jargon a bit. However someone may help better on jargon. Kasaalan (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Greek

el:Επίθεση κατά νηοπομπής ανοικτά της Γάζας

List articles needed to be translated into English. Translators you may list your names under sections. We need all parties news for NPOV article. Kasaalan (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a global perspective is wonderful, but please also keep in mind the policy on non-English sources. We should go to every length to find a translation which has been already done for us (i.e. by the author or agency), and we should only use the source if it is providing original information which isn't found in other sources. And then, we also have to be wary of copyright issues.--Nosfartu (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hebrew newspapers useful since they provide English translations. However, as far as our editors and sources I read claim, the English versions of local newspapers do not contain all info, sometimes because of translation processes, sometimes because of self/state imposed bans on critical political matters. It is same for other country newspapers too. Turkish and Hebrew sources are critical for both sides of the clash. If we have some willing translators it would be great. English news sources are 2nd degree sources in this case and mainly uses original sources anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Death(s)

Any direct participation in this "event", designed to arouse "passions", obviously makes all involved "activists" ( or mercenaries, in the case of the ship's crew if acting solely for money). No one in their right mind can argue or believe this "break the blockade" event would NOT bring at least some notoriety to such an event, and that de facto alone makes all involved "activists".

Once again, someone has reverted the article, to state that there were "Nine activists" dead. When there is no RS that says that all nine dead were in fact activists. This should be replaced to "people" or "civilians". ShalomOlam (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

...or "passengers"? Agree that "activists" is not good - there were parliamentarians and journalists among the passengers, we do not yet know for sure that all the dead were "activists". TFOWRidle vapourings 16:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There was objection for "passengers". I also suggested in the past the possible use of the term "flotilla participants". ShalomOlam (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Kind of off-topic, but who did this? It's awesome! We should make it a sticky or something.
Back on topic, I was fairly certain there was consensus for not using "activist", but it's possible there's also no consensus for an alternative. I'm happy with "flotilla participant", I'm happy with "passenger" (subject to discovering what the problem with it was). I'm happy with anything neutral.
TFOWRidle vapourings 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Civilians would be a more appropriate term. Since there were no soldiers on the fleet. --Nevit (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that either "people" or "flotilla participants" should be used, since this is the most neutral. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"People" is ambiguous: soldiers are people, too. "Flotilla participants" is a bit unwieldy, but is unambiguous. I suppose the real issue is: how do sources describe these non-military people on the boat or boats heading towards Gaza? TFOWRidle vapourings 17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Many RS's use "activists."  —Rafi  17:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not all. But that was not the point: It is okay to use "activists" when you are reffering to a group of people that are ALL activists. But in the article, in some cases, it is not so. Only in those places the word "activists" should be replaced. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
AP, Rueters, etc., take your pick: http://news.google.com/news/search?&q=nine+activists+died  —Rafi  17:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
May I pick the one about Congo? ShalomOlam (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
LOL, I immediately regretted the link to Google News. But you get my point.  —Rafi  17:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

we'll all soon find out that the killed were in their 60's

...and when we do, we can cite reliable sources. Until then, this page is WP:NOTAFORUM.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

we'll all soon find out that the killed were in their 60's (67.169.146.118 (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)).

Nicosia not costal town, can't repair ships - please change

The US-flagged Challenger II, a Free Gaza Movement ship, was also unable to join the rest of the flotilla due to mechanical problems.[48] It is currently undergoing repairs in Nicosia, Cyprus.[64] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.113.178 (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sloppy journalism, and we copied them ;-) I've fixed the text and added a cite for "northern Cyprus". TFOWRidle vapourings 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Famagusta[6][7] --JGGardiner (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
They're both for Challenger I, not II (though I believe both I and II went to the same place). Incidentally, I left the old ("Nicosia") source in place, as it was named and I didn't want to break any other uses of it... if any kind editor could see their way to rectifying that, I'd be ever so obliged ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings 19:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I definitely went looking for Challenger I. I'm not sure why I made that mistake. Perhaps because the businessday article just says "Challenger". As for C2, according to this they went to Limassol.[8] --JGGardiner (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Falk

I removed the Falk quote because it wasn't sourced and I couldn't find it on the internet - even when searching for words used directly within quotes. Other than lack of sourcing, I have no objection. Rklawton (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Nosfartu (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix. What search engine did you use? Google appears to have failed me. Rklawton (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Google never fails. I searched for part of the quote, someone had changed the other part of it apparently.--Nosfartu (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Mavi Marmara

Has a reliable source come forward to explain why the MV Mavi Marmara (the ship with all the fatalities) was reflagged (changed its registry) from Turkey to Comoros immediately prior to embarking from Turkey? I just read about it and would like to know more - but even the reflagging isn't mentioned in the article at present. Rklawton (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See relevant discussion at Talk:MV Mavi Marmara. It isn't entirely clear that it is not Turkish flagged still.John Z (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this belong in the Israel Military Accounts section?

The Foreign Press Association, which represents hundreds of journalists in Israel and the Palestinian territories, has complained the Israeli military seized video and equipment from dozens of reporters on board the main ship. The FPA says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked. FPA also criticized Israel's use of captured material without permission.[2]

This seems to be in the wrong place. I will move it would be best to put it in the Media responses section of the International reactions article.

I have archived it here if it is decided to move it back to the Israel Military Accounts section. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather it placed in Journalist's account section. The Journalists account section may include
  • IDF photo and videos.
  • Israeli Journalist's
  • Independent journalist's
  • Press organisations.

I already posted some links above #NPOV issue Journalist's account. There is rapidly growing amount of data of eye-witness journalists around the web. They should be collected, drafted and discussed.

--Nevit (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a journalist account though. But rather a complaint from an international body of journalists. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the FPA text should be in the Israel Military Accounts section since it is directly connected to it and explains the situation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There are separate places for the accounts of flotilla passengers and the Israeli military precisely because both sides disagree on the events. At best a shortened version of this might be OK for the flotilla passengers section. But it is a reaction from an international body, not a direct account. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The part in the flotilla passengers section is not enough, it doesn't explain that Israel is cherry picking the videos. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a source that says Israel is cherry picking the videos? Or is that your own bias? If you've got a source, then we should mention it along with the videos so readers know the videos are one-sided. Without a reliable source, it's also reasonable some may believe that Israel has hours worth of video from multiple angles that show very little of interest and that they've simply edited it down to more succinctly tell the story. Picking one side or the other without a reliable source would be just unbearable POV. Rklawton (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Supreme, I think you make a good point about the accusation of cherry picking videos. I'm not suggesting that you remove the accusation, just that it be placed in a more appropriate section. Here is the wording I would suggest:
The Foreign Press Association says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked. [3]
That could go into the flotilla accounts section. Sound good?
I still think it should be right after the: "The Israeli military released 20 videos of the incident" in the Israeli section ,its better that way for people reading the article instead of spreading it over several sections. He who reads the Israeli section might not read the other section, so he wont get the full picture. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, in response to Rklawton, the reference that Supreme provided does is from the AP, a very RS and it suggests that Israel is cherry picking. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I just read the source above. It's the AP (reliable) citing FPA claims. But it's really important to note the FPA isn't neutral in this matter. So it's important to differentiate between claims made by a neutral press and a neutral press quoting a non-neutral organization's claims. Rklawton (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You are correct about quoting the FPA, Rklawton. I don't know much about them as a group though. Are they not considered an RS? Zuchinni one (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
As it is presented as from the "FPA" there is no problem, reliable or not. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FPA - anyone want to start an article on this organization? A brief look at their board of directors indicates they're sufficiently notable. We can sort out issues neutrality there, too. My opinion is that they aren't neutral. However, my opinion amounts to zero :-) here (as it should be). Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

To any interested, the group puts some information about itself here and here.--99.50.129.231 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The AFP also wrote an article about FPA saying "Israel using 'pirated' footage to defend raid".--99.50.129.231 (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:V Checks

I know these articles can expand quickly and WP:V issues will get overlooked. So I thought I'd start checking some sources for WP:V problems. So I'm starting from the bottom with the "Aftermath" section.

"They are also organizing a new flotilla to try to breach the blockade in early Fall." Source doesn't mention this at all.

In the "Legal Analysis" section:

We have Diana Buttu saying that "a call to the applicability of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement is not plausible". But in the source she says only that Israel's actions diminish the plausability of the argument, not that it is not plausible at all.

"Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime." Doesn't have a source at all. I thought perhaps it was just to introduce several of those opinions but we actually only have one.

"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law Craig Murray..." The note is after the word "law". The source says Murray was the head of the maritime section for Whitehall, not that he was a maritime law specialist, maritime lawyer or a lawyer at all. Our article on the man suggests he is not.

Actually that was better than I was expecting. Though the legal section is mostly just full of quotes. I'll check some more later --JGGardiner (talk) 21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! And we may want to ditch the Murray paragraph. If he isn't a lawyer, then his opinion on law isn't relevant - and a lot of his quote revolves around Turkey, though the main part of this incident didn't happen on a Turkish ship. At the time he wrote his opinion, this fact wasn't available. Rklawton (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph should is "cargo" not "aid" . You can say that the cargo is intended or purported to be humanitarian aid but you cannot inspect aid. AFarber (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


Ali Akhbar Iritilmis (with that ugly spelling)

He (Ali Ekber Yaratılmış) is alive, see above discussion. Please stop adding that he died. Kavas (talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Activists wielding weapons

"According to Israeli sources they were confronted by a number of activists supposedly wielding sticks, metal bars and knives."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it is proven they were wielding sticks and metal bars, and acknowledged by both sides.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybuKkXV-xUI (2:35, 3:14, 6:22~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diecinque (talk • contribs) 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


You are correct and I have previously asked the user who made this edit to remove it as per the reasons below:
in regards to your addition of "According to Israeli sources" If you look at the activists accounts and the references further down in the article you will see that both sides confirm that there was resistance. Also RS all over the world are reporting that the Israeli soldiers were met with resistance when boarding the boat AND video both from the IDF and the journalists on the boat confirm this. The only point in question is the timing of events.
Please remove this edit as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=365944602&oldid=365944468
Zuchinni one (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I just removed "supposedly" without reading this since it also had "according to" which made it redundant. There is no question that they were confronted. Sources from outside of israel are showing the footage. So I would agree with removing "according to"Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There is not really any question that this occured Zuchinni one (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Please can we allow the bot to decide when to archive sections ? The decision to manually archive particular sections by editors is non-transparent and open to abuse via selective removal of sections. The bot is neutral and automatic. Let it make the decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaving the bot to archive left us with well over 100 sections, manual archiving can remove closed threads. If I ever do archive a warm thread, feel free to revert me. Please remove the content from the archive though. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

We can have a go a changing the archiving settings. I'll have a look. Alternatively we could all try to not write so much nonsense. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 04:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Israelis always first?

Why are the Israeli actions/reactions always listed first? In the interest of neutrality, I suggest that one of the sections, like the legal section, have the non-Israeli section first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.141.189 (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order? "I" comes before "P" so Israel comes before Palestinians. Are you against alphabeticalorderism? :P 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Despite the joke answer this is a good question. It does seem like the argument for the Gaza flotilla raid viewpoint is mentioned first most of the time followed by the opposing view giving the impression that the first view point is the correct one so I have two questions.

1. Is there a wiki policy regarding opposing views and which order they come in? 2. If this article is NPOV then why does the pro raid view point come first? ( I realize that if there is a wiki policy regarding this then it negates my second question) Tcla75 (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, both opinions should be listed first :). In any case, one side is given the "last word" while the other side is always "listed first", what's better? I'm not so sure... Marokwitz (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If one or the other is always shown first or second it shows uniformity within the article and gives it a standard structure to follow. Whether Israeli or Palestinian, one should always go before the other for the sake of order and articular cleanliness. Sixer Fixer (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Separating 'Legal' section

Relevant section moved to Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As per the opinions in the Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Undue_weight section. I would like to propose we give the legal portion of this article its own page and leave simply a brief synopsis (maybe a single paragraph) and a link to the main legal page.

Besides the fact that this section is quite lengthy, it is also full of legal opinion. This is might not be a bad thing, but the quotes from RS for each side will necessarily be using a POV to support their own legal arguments. The strong POV here has also means it is difficult to know what is factual.

Do others also think it would be reasonable to separate out this section?

Zuchinni one (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  • support - but people need to be aware of WP:GEVAL when it comes to anything including legal opinions and abide by it. It's a mandatory part of NPOV compliance that seems to get forgotten about in I-P conflict related articles. We don't give equal validity to minority and majority views i.e. editors shouldn't create a false balance of opinions. The relative weight should reflect the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • support Although references should reflect sources, I believe the future article (if it is made) would be better off by breaking down the main arguments (since there are many views) and then citing sources who support it.
  • Oppose I think it requires more than a single paragraph on the main page. There have been a few good articles recently on the legal issues in WP:RS, including the Christian Science Monitor and Slate. They identify the 2 critical issues as (1) Was the Gaza embargo legal in the first place and (2) Was it legal to stop the ships. We would be better off to summarize those articles, in a few paragraphs. The current section in "Legal opinions opposing the action" lists a long miscellany of names of scholars who are opposed without explaining why they're opposed. Many of the citations aren't in English, so most of us can't verify them. Moving that whole confused "Legal observations and opinions" to a separate article will just result in a confused article. --Nbauman (talk) 06:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Nbauman. Furthermore I think there is no need to mention legal "opinions" as "Professor A thinks it was legal, Professor B thinks it was illegal", since that is of no encyclopedic interest, rather focus on well argumented pro- and con- legal arguments based on specific treaties and international laws. Marokwitz (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support There is such a large amount of material out there, that can't be summarised in a small section. A separate article will do.--yousaf465 06:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is already fragmented in multiple pieces and hard to follow and understand. --Nevit (talk) 08:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not good to left over framed skeleton. Some stuffing is ok. Do not cut it of since this is informative. Unless the goal is disinformation (is it?) if is it then anyway oppose at lest for now. After investigation, judgment and prosecution it may be however separated since it will grow. What should left is the size of now. Ai 00 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support A split is needed because the article is getting WP:TOOLONG. A clear case according to policy. --Kslotte (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Kslotte is right, the page is getting too long. I also agree with Nbauman though, we need a better synthesis, not just a shorter one. Lampman (talk) 16:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I could see spinning it in working. One thing I noticed is that a good portion of the legal opinions say the same thing. It looks like editors are finding sources and just slapping them in. I would recommend consolidating anything to do with the Law of the Sea and intl waters into a single paragraph and simply using "some experts/scolars/whatever" instead of individual paragraphs for each headline found when a local paper sought comment from whatever professor they could get a hold of on the phone.Cptnono (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - If we go with the "some experts" approach, then I think it's important to provide reference links to each of the most notable experts' views, if not list the experts outright. Given the politically charged atmosphere, precisely "who" these experts are becomes highly relevant. For example, one expert cited in the article has also suggested that Hammas should increase their rocket attacks on Israel, assuming they are indeed in a state of armed conflict. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment Since suggesting the split because the section was too long it has at least doubled in size. It either needs to be drastically cut down or moved. WP:TOOLONG Zuchinni one (talk) 01:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose As stated above, the article is already chopped all over the place. I think it belongs on this page and only on this page. We don't need a massive tree out of one article. The few branches we have are just fine. Teafico (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Maily because I think that the facts (in this article) should be separate from the opinions (in ths legal section). ShalomOlam (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Discussion Organized

Sources Against IHH/Organisators

Activist or passenger

Weapons

Casualties

Passenger Accounts

Activists
Crew
Journalists
Politicians
Religious people

Israel Accounts

IDF

Israel views

Goverment
IDF
Media
People

Turkish views

Government
Media
People
Religious

International views

Maritime and International Law

Terms

See also

Video Footage

Israel Defence Force video footage on Youtube
Mavi Marmara live footage
Eyewitness on Mavi Marmara
Israel officials
Israel demonstrators
Turkish demonstrators
International demonstrators/views

List is in progress. I will check links further for original sources. Kasaalan (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Does Anyone support organisation of discussion titles under categories. Kasaalan (talk) 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is good work. I appreciate your efforts. If rules permit I suggest it moved directly below Table of Contents. It would be even more useful there. --Nevit (talk) 17:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
So are the Al Jazeerah and other WP:RS footage of civilian footage from the ship going to be listed explicity under External Links? Listing only IDF footage is very problematic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whose blockade is this anyway? Requesting third opinion

I was recently reverted when I changed the Background section to this:

In June 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip after winning local elections, Israel and Egypt sealed their borders with Gaza. The aim of Israel was to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop the rocket attacks on Israel. Egypt closed its borders saying it did not recognise the authority of Hamas in Gaza.[4] In September 2007, following rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli settlements, Israel declared Gaza strip a "hostile territory" and tightened its blockade [5]. Later in January 2009, after its invasion of Gaza, Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza[6]. These, along with the control of Gaza's airspace by Israel, resulted in a complete blockade of Gaza. The United Nations and human rights groups have repeatedly criticized the blockade by Israel, calling it collective punishment of the Palestinian people, as it restricts the flow of materials for basic needs and for reconstruction of infrastructure and homes that were either destroyed, or severely damaged by Israel, in the Gaza War.[7][8]

The passage I quoted above illustrates what the significant events in the blockade of Gaza. Almost all reliable sources report the events as:

  1. Israel and Egypt both closed their borders when Hamas took over Gaza.
  2. Israel later declared a naval blockade of Gaza.
  3. The UN and various international agencies criticized the Israeli blockade and called for its withdrawal.
  4. Free Gaza movement announced their mission against the Israeli blockade / siege.
  5. Israel says its blockade is legal, justified; any attempt to break it is a violation of international law and warns against any attempt to do so.
  6. Free Gaza movement goes ahead and attempts to break the Israeli naval blockade.
  7. Israel intercepts the ships, leading to this event, says as per laws governing maritime blockade, it is authorized to do so; to enforce its blockade.

But we are not supposed to use the term Israeli blockade in this context. The situation is turning even more hilarious now. The initial reason for reverting my above quoted edit was that it was covered elsewhere. Now after removing the term Israeli blockade, and putting a synthesized statement “Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza” someone has inserted material regarding "Arab ministers …united front against control of the border by Hamas” and about an incident where a Palestinian fisherman died off Rafah in a clash with an Egyptian navy. Closing one’s borders, preventing smuggling across one’s border ,etc. is not blockade. In many parts of the world there are incidents involving fishermen straying into neighboring country’s border/ clashes. Even this insignificant incident (look at its coverage) is deliberately introduced here just to construct a narrative that can be seen only in Wikipedia ( or in some Israeli propaganda). There is no need to do OR here but it is obviously UNDUE. Even in the next sentence, whose references are talking about the UN criticism of the Israeli blockade, the term Israel is omitted. Similar is the status of the compromise reached about the first paragraph. The strategy followed is clear; whenever the Israel action regarding blockade is mentioned, mention some incident involving Egypt as well (Undue or not). If there aren’t any, and if it is clearly about Israeli blockade (like its criticism), remove Israel and just mention blockade.

I suggest that, wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context.

In short, call a spade a spade.

I request all editors to express their opinion on this topic which is central to this article ( not just to any section) to build a consensus.Walky-talky (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Walky-talky you have done a good and objective work. Some users may criticize specific points according to their affiliations that is not my point. It seems to be too long for me. But how can one balance such a complicated matter without omittance of major issues? Perhaps a short list without going into details will suffice. The rest can be read from main article. --Nevit (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that the most NPOV way to do this would be to "Gaza Blockade" without any country names and have it link to the article on the Blockade so that people can get all the information there. This article should not be the place where we discuss questions about the nature of the blockade. That should be done in the blockade article. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
My proposal is simple and short. Wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context. We are here to report what the main stream reliable sources say. Calling a a spade a spade is not POV. Some editors seem to have some objection to this usage; but that's how the media report; the UN says; the FGM says; Isreal says. We just need to follow it. I am not saying we should give all the details of the blockade. But it can be summarised ( even mentioning the role of Egypt) in 3-4 sentences to make it absolutely NPOV. Look at the Background section now; it gives as much details as possible ( even the rocket attacks) except mentioning the blockade declared by Israel and avoiding the term Israel while mentioning the UN criticism ( though it is unambiguously a criticism of Israeli blockade). Please compare it with my reverted version.Walky-talky (talk) 03:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No one has produced multiple reliable sources to say that "Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza.", referring to Egypt and Israel. The reference given there talks about the military and naval blockade imposed by Israel. Hence I am modifying the sentence accordingly. Also there is no relevance for "Arab foreign ministers have also presented a united front against control of the border by Hamas" in this section. It has nothing to do with Flotilla raid or the blockade they were trying to break.Walky-talky (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Soldiers Made Sure None Survived

Bodies arrived in Turkey all show at least on shot in close range.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0603/report-aid-flotilla-victims-shot-dead/

I believe this should be included in article.

--Nevit (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Stating "Soldiers Made Sure None Survived" is POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Shot at close range would back up the IDF side, that they only fired in self defence - only those that approached with a knife or a club enough to be threatening to the IDF life would be shot.
I have noticed that Nevit is quite a POV pusher. I request that you try to be more neutral when approaching this article. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Some had multiple shots and one with close shot. This is new evidence. Most of them where shot lethally not in foot or other place but directly. I agree that "Soldiers Made Sure None Survived" is POV. But it is not more a POV than they had sticks. I did not add the evidence to article directly instead added here to be discussed. My POV is what Israel did is wrong. But I believe that the article should remain neutral. --Nevit (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with Nevit because stating "soldiers had non-lethal and lethal firearms" is a fact, and "activists had clubs (sticks) and knives" is a fact. A fact cannot be POV, you might like the facts or not. "Soldiers Made Sure None Survived" is POV as is "Terrorists acted as aid activists and attacked the Israeli army". In my opinion, close or far is of no real importance. I say this because some guns seem to have been taken from the soldiers, so you actually can't be sure (or accurate) when you explain who fired. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Luis on what is and isn't POV. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

From the article you referenced:

"Forensic experts in Istanbul found bullet marks on the bodies of all the victims and determined that one was shot at close range. The experts said the exact circumstances of the activists’ deaths would become clear in a balistics examination that would take about a month to complete.""

Even if the source is NPOV it seems that there is no conclusive evidence of anything yet. This should not go into the article yet. Zuchinni one (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture is getting more complete more details of killings are revealed. According to eye-witness photographer Cevdet Kılıçlar was shot in head when he was taking photos.

http://www.medya365.com/haber-101998-fotograf-cekerken-israil-askerlerince-olduruldu.html

I agree with you that we have to wait about one month to see whether Israeli army fired a final shot to injured or not. But we can quote the source to say some had near and far shots, and all had near shots. The source is AA a major news agency. --Nevit (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused about one thing though. What exactly is far and what is near? Unless we can get some real metric I think this should not be included. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Answered on your talk page. Those interested can look there. --Nevit (talk) 21:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Massacre refs

See this. The Scotsman newspaper describes the victims as "murdered" in the headline and as "massacred" in the text. The Irish Evening Herald (Part of the Independent Group) called it a "massacre" and used the word in a page-wide headline the day afters the murders. Sarah777 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"massacre" is a word which is loaded with political overtones. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Massacre is over-toned. Killings is enough for describing, considering the number of casualties. --Nevit (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, "massacre" is too heavy of a word here. Killings works just fine. Maybe if most people on a ship were killed, massacre would work, but that's not the case here. It wasn't a massacre, they were killings. Teafico (talk) 00:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the word "massacre". Soldiers killed civilians deliberately, outside "their" territory. Is there a number (of victims) from which on a killing is a massacre?--Severino (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority of RS are not using the word massacre. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There were not civilians are they have taken war action by trying to break military blockade also they were armed so they couldn't be considered civilians.Shrike (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
They were civilians (i.e. not soldiers) and they were nowhere near the blockade (which in itself is illegal) and they weren't armed. If there was any actual weapons (other than ordinary cutlery and common tools) I'm quite sure the IDF would have shown them by now. // Liftarn (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
This is going back to the old argument of what do you call a group of armed people going into battle who don't have a uniform or represent an actual nation? Civilians, maybe technically, soldiers, also technically, they really fall somewhere in between - English likely lacks a word to properly describe such people. Also, going toward a blockade with the stated intention of breaking it (whether you a gree with the blockade or not) is generally considered illegal under international maritime law, read the section in the article about it. Also, read in the article about the soliders with bullet holes in their bodies...
Either way, this isn't a forum for discussion about the issue, it's about writing an article about it in as NPOV a manner as possible, please keep comments to that effect. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Exactly. Anyone interested in how the Supreme Count of Israel classifies people, including terrorists, as civilians and distinguishs between different sets->legal obligations on the basis of whether they are or are not engaged in hostilities can go look at the many rulings on their site that deal with this issue in detail. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality plea

I'm only going to make a few edits - maybe even only one - because I hate getting involved in edit wars. I do hope, that WP:NPOV will prevail, and that no one will insist on presenting the POV of the flotilla organizers (and their legions of international supporters) as the only "true" one.

Rather, we should duck any conclusions and simply report what pro-flotilla and anti-flotilla sources have said:

  1. that the flotilla's primary purpose was to bring in humanitarian aid
  2. that its primary purpose was to break Israel's naval blockade against terrorists
  3. that unarmed, peaceful aid workers were attacked for no good reason, in violation of international law
  4. that the flotilla contained armed personnel who launched a violent surprise attack on troops enforcing a perfectly legal naval blockade

Rather than relying purely or mainly on journalistic sources sympathetic to Hamas (or hostile to Israel, which amounts to the same thing), can we try to find a balance between both viewpoints and simply describe every assertion in terms of A said B about C? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

we also don't need to rely on sources sympathetic to IDF and their international supporters (or hostile to palestinians and humanitarian activists).--Severino (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
On point number 3 above, a news report stated that international law stipulates that a party can take action even before a vessel enters a blockaded area if the vessel is unwilling to change to a suggested course and the intention to enter the blockaded area is unquestioned. Therefore you can take action even miles before they enter, even if they're in international waters. The previous comment was taken from a news report condemning the raid, so i don't think is biased. I found this too... it might be biased or done with legalese in mind, but it might be useful. --Luisdanielmesa (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Some neutral conclusions:
  1. It is not certain if the blockade is legal or not (if it was - this means the flotilla was not legal).
  2. It is not certain if the raid was legal or not, since it was done in international waters.
  3. It is not certain if the flotilla's humanitarian aid was in fact needed in Gaza (since humanitarian aid are shipped regularly to Gaza by land).
  4. It is not certain if some of the flotilla participants attacked Israeli soldiers before any firearm was used.

ShalomOlam (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All the above comments sound useful. Thank you, Severino, Luis, and ShalomOlam. I guess I will make another couple of edits after all. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hostile to Israel DOES NOT MEAN SYMPATHETIC TO HAMAS - that's a flagrantly non-neutral attribution, coming directly from Hasbara sources (and probably from nobody else). 86.181.224.19 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and I hope ShalomOlam was not trying to be deliberately deceptive. Also, conclusion 3 is ridiculous and one wonders how the author can claim that it is a neutral conclusion. Mshahidil (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

gaza flotilla takeover

would be a better name.

they used raid 'cause that's what the american media used. --212.54.207.223 (talk) 23:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There were very detailed discussions and a vote regarding the name to be used for the article. Please check the previous archives. --386-DX (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Even experts are wrong sometimes

The ship was not sailing under a Turkish flag so the following paragraph is irrelevant. It is uninformed speculation in a section that is already bloated. Easy enough mistake to make with the reporting not being completely clear but it looks like there was some misunderstanding:

"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law [182] Craig Murray explained that the raid was not an act of piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission, but said that it would be "an act of illegal warfare". According to Murray, the Law of the Sea rules that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred, so the Turkish ship was Turkish territory. If the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships, Israel would be in a position of war with Turkey, and the act would fall under international jurisdiction as a war crime. If, on the other hand, the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction and if Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.[183]"

Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, correct. The ship WASN'T Turkish-flagged, it was Comoros-flagged. Wouldn't this mean Comoros itself could be at war with Israel? Of course, the whole statement is wrong because the MV Mari Marmara wasn't Turkish-flagged, so shouldn't we get rid of it? Being irrelevant thanks to misinformation. Teafico (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. I was thinking about trying to modify it based on the flagging but that ran int OR problems. When it comes down to it the section is bloated and it really is a legal opinion that doesn't improve the article.Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A quick trip over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MV_Rachel_Corrie told me that the people working on her article aren't even sure who's flag she's actually flying, as it appears to have been a quick change with little note. Funny how it can change the entire course of this event. I guess it's best if we let it sit for now. Teafico (talk) 03:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Different vessel and that was simply an editor who assumed and did not read the sources.Cptnono (talk) 03:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
My bad, the MV Rachel Corrie just happened to be open in my browser and I copied over the wrong link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MV_Mavi_Marmara It still appears they don't know. Comoros or Turkey. Teafico (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh easy mistake. They are having another discussion over there. Funny enough, they are relying on Free Gaza who I tend to not trust as RS. Also, the guy who had the legal opinion later made another one discussing the reflagging when he realized. He did say: "None of this masks the illegality of Israel attacking a ship under any foregin flag in international waters. But bluntly, it was a stupid decision in practice by the protestors to set sail in a Comoros flagged ship." That doesn't invalidate his previous opinion but it simply is more space to an opinion that is questionable at best. Maybe if tons of RS pick up on his opinion it will be important enough to include.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I suppose we just sit and wait for new info to appear. It looks Comoros flagged, and I figure it is. Teafico (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
But I don't get it: regardless of being Turkish-flagged or Comoros-flagged, the contribution of Murray is still useful, right? I mean, I don't see any other paragraph in the legal section addressing the same issue. It could be summarised and paraphrased in order to be included. --Samer.hc (talk) 07:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it carries more wait with Turkey being the flagged nation. I'm not sure Comoros would take any action. Hell, I hadn't even heard of Comoros until I learned this ship was flying her flag. Regardless, it can still be regarded as an "act of war" no matter the nation attacked, so I think we could summarize it. It's good info, the expert was just wrong because he was given misinformation. Granted, we still need the info. Teafico (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Many sources say the ship was Turkish-flagged. In any case I don't see how the flag is relevant to Murray's view that the attack was illegal. We can add a sentence after Murray's opinion to the effect that some reports have said the vessel was flying a Comoros flag. Turkey summoned Nato after the attack, so Turkey appears to be under the impression it was Turkish-flagged. --Dailycare (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Murray wrote a follow-up piece in which he addresses the problem of the flag. I recommend the previous passage to be reinstated with a note regarding the flag issue, as it's one of the most informative quotes about the legal implications of the attack. As Samer.hc notes, Murray's point is interesting not because of the nationality of the ship, but because of the two alternative legal options that he presents, which remain valid regardless of the flag of the ship. This is an issue that other commentators didn't bring up and that needs IMO to be reinstated. DarTar (talk) 10:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus

I find the characterization "de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)" quite awkward. Can we not keep references to this territory NPOV? I think just "Northern Cyprus" should suffice. The reader can then follow the link to the article on Northern Cyprus and read more about it. There is no need for politically motivated name-dropping here. Letus (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure a NPOV is appropriate for Cyprus as it relates to the Gaza flotilla raid. The only thing that makes sense to is have separate section within this article to cover, in extreme detail, the entire history of the Turkey/Greece Cyprus dispute going back to the time when the continents were joined and Cyprus was part of a larger landmass. We will also need all relevant opinions of the Cypriot dispute as voiced by the passengers of the flotilla and the people who read about the incident in their local newspapers. Additionally will probably need thousands of good RS as well as links to all relevant Onion articles that covered this topic. It will be a lot of work ... but absolutely worth the effort. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, it is quite cumbersome. One valid reason to have a more detailed reference here would be that "Northern Cyprus" is placed in direct contrast with "the government of Cyprus" in the sentence. A reader unaware of the situation, but puzzled why the ships could not sail from "Cyprus" but were able to leave from "Northern Cyprus" can follow the link as you say, but we can also save him some time reading the lead of that article with a small explanatory addition like "Turkish-controlled" (or something similar) in front of Northern Cyprus. Or maybe a rephrasal like "embarked instead from Famagusta, in the Turkish-Cypriot[s'] part of the island". In any case, simplicity prevails over detailed formalisms.--GroGaBa (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"Northern Cyprus" with a link should suffice + definitely support campaign for The Onion to become an RS in Wikipedia. It's overdue and about as reliable as most op-eds by notable experts that are used in Wiki. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that simplicity should prevail over detailed formalisms. Anyway, "Turkish-controlled Northern Cyprus" sounds like a good alternative to my ears. Letus (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Too Long Rule of Thumb - What should we split?

According to the Wikipedia Too Long (Rule of Thumb) this article needs to be split up.

"A rule of thumb

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size What to do
> 100 KB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 KB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time)
≥ 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 KB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 KB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub.

The article is currently (110,761 bytes) so it seems the main question now is not whether to split it up, but rather what sections should be split off.

Zuchinni one (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that it is readable prose which is much less than what the history page counts up. I agree that some things need to be trimmed but it is not yet technically a problem under the length standards but weight.Cptnono (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The legal speculation sections should be per vote above. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)
ARGH. Damn sinebot. That section can be halved easily.Cptnono (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Just so this does not get archived: The article is a little long and has a weight tag. Any thoughts on how to fix it anyone?Cptnono (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Planning of Raid

I think The Flotilla Raid Was Not “Bungled.” The IDF Detailed Its Violent Strategy In Advance by Max Blumenthal, based on and translating parts of a pre-raid Ma'ariv article should be used in "Events leading up to the raid". Finding, using and translating the original Ma'ariv article should also help.John Z (talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is there in the image. There is just one paragraph discussing the possibility of use of force, the one in the bottom-right corner headed "שלב 2: ההשתלטות" in red and black, based on a brief quote from an unnamed officer. Most of the article discusses the logistics of what Israel would do with the ships and passengers once they fell under Israeli control. The paragraph heads translate as follows: "Stage 1: warning," "Stage 2: takeover," "Stage 3: deportation," "Stage 4: custody," and "Stage 5: security check." If anything this article substantiates that the Israeli authorities expected the initial confrontation to go smoothly and to have mostly red tape to worry about after the ships were apprehended.  &#151;Rafi  04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems to me like a bit might have been cut off. Blumenthal translates the title and caption as:
Title: Head to Head in the Heart of the Sea
Caption: On the way to violence; one of the boats is on its way.
"On the way to violence" does not sound like they were sure things would go smoothly. While Blumenthal may overemphasize some things, the Ma'ariv article does seem to indicate planning for violence: "If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation will transfer to the stage of force." His question, asked by many others, and which should be explored in the article: why were previously used more peaceful tactics - not boarding - not used this time, underlines this. His opinion is that the plan chosen "made the killing of activists likely, if not inevitable."John Z (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
You're exactly right; that title and caption are cut off. Ma'ariv is a yellow tabloid, so I'd bet money there is a splashy photograph of a flotilla ship on the facing page (notice the article is inset on a photograph of water) with a dramatic title and caption. "On the way to violence" is a possible translation of "בדרך לעימות", which connotes confrontation in general and not necessarily violence. It's pretty clear that Blumenthal cherry-picked what he wanted to fit his conclusion. I'd criticize in more detail but the bottom line is that Blumenthal's opinion doesn't meet the standard of WP:WEIGHT.
The reason the Marmara was the only ship boarded is that it was the only ship that refused to change course.  &#151;Rafi  16:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Change in the lead: Supplies withheld by Israel

On the article's lead it reads:

"The vast majority of the cargo (8000 of the 10,000 tons) is thought to have been withheld by Israeli authorities and not offered Gaza."

This is technically not true as most (all?) of the withehld items were building materials like cement which are far heavier than other items like food or medicine. In truth, the flottila could be filled with medicine and rubber toys, while having a few cement parcels lying around, and the weight would still mark cement as "the majority". Thus the withheld items could actually be a small minority of the full cargo - a very heavy minority - while this line can be interpreted as if israeli authorities withheld most of the cargo, which may very well be false, unless some source states that building materials did in fact make up for the majority of the parcels. As such, I suggest a re-phrase to keep un-aware readers from getting wrong information.


I have previously requested that the user who made this edit remove it and given my reasoning as follows:
Your recent edits to the lead are a good example of WP:Synth Check this link you provided in regards to 4/5 of the aid not being delivered. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/03/hamas-flotilla-aid-israel
The article only says "The flotilla was thought to be carrying about 8,000 tons of cement and other materials which have been barred by Israel since it tightened its blockade on the Gaza Strip three years ago."
Your edit asserting that the vast majority of cargo will not be delivered is clearly WP:Synth.
Please reverse this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=365944150&oldid=365943554
Zuchinni one (talk) 03:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
SHip cargo is measured by its weight. So its still a fair assessment. You could say something like 'the majority of the gross weight of the cargo' but I still think its acceptable how it is. ValenShephard 03:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
It is obvious that "vast majority" means "by weight" if 8,000 out of 10,000 tons is said next. Any other interpretation is absurd.John Z (talk) 03:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
While that is true, considering how diverse the cargo transported by the flotilla is, I believe the wording should be changed so that the distinction between the withheld weight and the withheld parcels can be easily made by the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.134.239 (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, getting in building materials (and other banned materials) was the point of the flotilla, because they were aware most of the other items could come in legally, they wouldnt have bothered otherwise (not taking into account the publicity question). From their own view, the cement and building materals are the most important cargo, even if they werent the largest weight or some such. So if you are talking about the relatice importance of each cargo, this needs to be taken into account. ValenShephard 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Valen, I think you're missing the point. Currently there is no information about how much of what existed in the cargo except for conjecture. So whose conjecture was it? What was their reasoning for it? Are they are reliable source? Unless we have facts, not guesses, this should be removed. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thats why it says thought to and another similar term which someone added. Its not conjecture, it is what a major newspaper has unearthed, their evidence and the facts they have available point to it being cement and building materials. Thats why they said thought to and we said thought to. Why dont you suggest other wording? If its acceptable to both, i'll happily change it. Also note the support I got a few comments above. ValenShephard 03:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, even if this is confirmed ... which is certainly possible, it would be more appropriate to leave it in the "Fate of Cargo" section Zuchinni one (talk) 03:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. This is critical information to get a better view of the incident. I dont think its an issue, its not controversial at all. ValenShephard 03:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I think it should be in the heading, as a purpose of the flotilla (one way or another) was to deliver cargo, yeah? Teafico (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Valen ... please see this ref in the "fate of cargo" section where Israel claims that NONE of the cargo was banned and has allowed all of it in. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177165 The bottom line is that this is unclear. I am going to remove it from the lead. However I think it is reasonable for you to give both perspectives on the fate of the cargo in the "Fate of the Cargo" section. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On that Jpost article, near the bottom, reads: "The illegal construction materials were removed from the ships and will be held by us awaiting further instructions.”". The cargo is being held, then, isn't it? Teafico (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the Guardian source, while the origina anon verbal objection is based on an absurd reading of the text, the Guardian does not seem to support the text sufficiently. I believe most of the cement is on the freighter Rachel Corrie, still under way.John Z (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest the following, if I may:

"A total of 8.000 tons of supplies (out of the 10,000 total) are thought to have been witheld by Israeli authorities and not offered to Gaza, the majority of those being cement and other building materials."

I believe that this makes it clearer for the reader, but that's obviously my opinion. Please excuse any grammar errors, typos.--85.139.134.239 (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Please limit changes in the article regarding this topic to the "Fate of the Cargo" section until there is clear evidence of exactly what is going on. The Lead is not a good place to put disputed facts. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I like the new lead, it's open to interpretation. We'll find out the facts later and maybe re-add them to the lead. Teafico (talk) 04:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Or not, someone reverted it back. I'll have to look at the history and see, but I liked the statement that included "not delivering all aid and freeing the activists/passengers." Teafico (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I am the editor that added that statement about the cargo and its tonnage. Can we please defend it against being deleted, because its been compromised heavily since I originally put it there, and its properly sources.--ValenShephard 04:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
I was probably one of the people that edited it, I know I added something about WHY the cargo was being held, "8/10 tons presumably being construction materials" or something. But that was before I even found this debate going on in the talk page. Teafico (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If and when the facts of the aid delivery cease to be in dispute this MIGHT be OK to put in the Lead. Currently there are at least 2 RS that offer completely different stories.
Zuchinni one (talk) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
It still reads, uhm:
"“We are currently liaising with the Palestinian Authority so that they will receive the approved equipment according to the agreed upon procedures,” said Gofer. “The illegal construction materials were removed from the ships and will be held by us awaiting further instructions.”
It states they are holding items, BUT, I see your point. They are not saying how much of that cargo is illegal construction. Noted. Teafico (talk) 04:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Two errors. The first source doesnt say anything about all the aid being delivered, it talks about truckloads of aid and soon after claims that around 8000 tons has been withheld. The second source says 'the majority of aid was loaded onto trucks' this means that trucks were mostly used, not that most of the aid physically was put on trucks. And what is classed as 'aid' in this source is what has been checked and approved by Israel, which is not all the aid, much of it as stated in the other source has not been allowed by authorities--ValenShephard 04:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Originally the Jpost article said "The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the strip over the past year,” said Levi."
But now there has been more information added to the article "According to Levi, the soldiers also found construction equipment, including sacks of concrete and metal rods. He said that Israel did not allow those products to enter into the Gaza strip for fear that they would be used to construct fortifications for terrorists and for weapons manufacture."
So there is now agreement that SOME aid will not be delivered. However the amounts are still in question. The 8,000 Tons is an guess by The Guardian with no reasoning behind it. That does not mean it is wrong, but does mean it is not WP:V.
There is a good chance that things will become clear in the future. Until then all of this should stay in the "Fate of the Cargo" section.
The concern here is keeping the lead factual and concise as per WP:Lead. Bottom line.
Zuchinni one (talk) 04:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should just remove the 8,000. We know they're holding construction materials, but we don't know the amount. Stating the construction hold would be good enough, I'd say. Teafico (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In replay to that article which says "The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the strip over the past year,” said Levi.". This person is talking about equipment, not building materials or cement which do not fit under that catagory. He is talking about the medical equipment, wheelchairs etc. Not construction material.ValenShephard 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Vast majority"

A statement to the effect that the "vast majority" of the material were construction materials. This is presumably based on the information that 8,000 tons were construction materials. This is synthesis, however, as it is based on the assumption that weight would be the relevant unit of measurement. Counting by value, however, the results would very likely be different. The information therefore needs to be removed from the text.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Like previously stated, ship cargo (or any cargo) is measured by weight. Simple as that, that is not disputed.ValenShephard 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Uhm... Yes, it is[9]. While measuring the cargo of a ship carrying only one type of goods makes sense ("3 tonnes of apples and oranges" is fairly unambiguous), the same measurement for a ship carrying a mix of goods as in this case is quite useless ("10 tonnes of apples and lead weights" doesn't tell us how much of the cargo is actually edible). 82.102.159.23 (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Issues with edit-warring (user: ValenShephard)

Per the recent edit history and above, User ValenShephard has made multiple efforts to add in the same non-lead material (also failing to understand the concept of summaries, that "solid sources" are not gospel, and on multiple occasions failing to read the text before editing, plus making snarky edit history comments), deliberately removing important article context, failed to understand NPOV does not mean removing anything that they think is POV when those are actually sourced accounts from various bodies/individuals within clearly delineated sections of the article, etc. Any input appreciated, please. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of those issues have been resolved. Misunderstanding the text, missing something, or making an admitted mistake, is not a crime and is not enough to single me out.--ValenShephard 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually those issues have NOT been resolved as per this: User_talk:ValenShephard, and this: User_talk:Zuchinni_one#Flotilla, and this: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Change_in_the_lead:_Supplies_withheld_by_Israel
Zuchinni one (talk) 04:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
No, not a "crime", ValenShephard, but you are continuing to make these mistakes, failing to address issues raised and continuing to edit-war.
Other behaviors such as "sneak edits" to the article lead (e.g. adding the word "possibly" in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=365959705&oldid=365959476 when that is not in the main body text) as part of a larger edit with long narrative that says nothing about that "addition" are very definitely /not/ appreciated by this editor or WP as a whole, I suspect. Cheers, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we need to ask for clarification on what the 1rr entails? Also, comments are signed by typing 4 tildes (~~~~).Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I dont think my personal mistakes, mostly caused by inexperience, should be used against me here. What does it accomplish, except an attempt to discredit my current (not the ones we disputed and largely removed) edits? What is sneaky about it? I wrote exactly what word I had added, where and why. Is that a wikipedia policy or you just made it up?--ValenShephard 04:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
This is probably not the best article on WP to be editing in a somewhat aggressive manner if you feel yourself to be "inexperienced". Please could you take the time to read up on WP policies and best practice. I do not believe I for one am trying to "discredit you" by stating facts and failure to try to adhere to WP standards since "good faith" must be assumed. Best wishes, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The "possibly" (edit of ValenShephard's) is a big concern. It is verified. There is footage of it. The "according to" + "supposedly" edit also was a little off. You need to stop adding inappropriate modifiers. Make sure to double check the sources and not assume or let to much personal feelings come into it. And sign your comments. Again. Cptnono (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately for me, your suggestions are only that.--ValenShephard 04:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you please clarify to whom this is directed and what "suggestions" you are meaning. Thanks, David. Harami2000 (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- How about you both sort it out on the talk page before someone posts an edit warring request against you both or an admin spots the warring in an article covered by 1RR and the discretionary sanctions and carries out an air strike ? It takes 2 to edit war. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Or for one user to make changes three times to single edits from three other users, which would be closer to the case overall, here. At present, we cannot edit further at least one area of contention as the user in question has reverted that text in at least three times, IIRC, even /after/ they realised their misinterpretation. Harami2000 (talk) 05:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that one user is right and the other 3 are wrong. It doesn't matter. People shouldn't edit war. It isn't allowed. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
@Sean: Which is why I raised this on talk rather than seeing that continue... The matter has not been resolved despite ValenShephard's statement "seeing as I have accepted my errors and not argued over the reverts and changes to my edits which the editors" below as that does not reflect either the reality or an understanding/willingness to read up on WP. Harami2000 (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know you have. Well done. :) So, either editors stop edit warring, engage in discussion here and resolve the content issues or they get reported at WP:ANEW. There's no justification for edit warring about content. It will just get the article locked. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I was just coming to say that its not appropriate to go over my behaviour here, especially seeing as I have accepted my errors and not argued over the reverts and changes to my edits which the editors are talking aboutValenShephard 05:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)
The sign button must not be working. Please type in the tildes.Cptnono (talk) 05:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- Having said all that I would quite like to see automatic reverting of edits like this by sock-like accounts with almost no edits that do things like pick lower values in a range. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that edit was actually picking a lower value ... it looked like it was simply saying 8000 instead of "8000 out of 10,000". Having said that ... there is still no way to confirm the 8000 since it is merely what the article writer "thought" and it should be kept out of the lead until verified. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we should just remove the 8,000. We know they're holding construction materials, but we don't know the amount. Stating the construction-materials hold would be good enough, I'd think. Teafico (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true, I didn't notice that, oops. Still, the shoot first, ask questions later, assume bad faith approach works well for me.. :) But yes, I don't think we need details in the lead. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Supreme Court Decision

The article currently reads:

The court also ruled that the blockade on the Gaza Strip and the raid over the flotilla were legal: "In light of Hamas' control of the Gaza Strip, Israel has take various steps meant to prevent direct access to the Gaza Strip, including the imposition of a naval blockade on the Strip, which, according to the State's declaration, is meant to block the infiltration of weapons and ammunition into Hamas ranks which have carried out shooting and terrorist attacks in Israeli territory for years with the goal of harming civilians."

I believe this is incorrect. I have just read the Court's full judgment in Hebrew, available here[10]. The numerous petitioners (Al-Jazeera, Adallah, and others) sought a writ of Habeus Corpus. This was the issue which the court primarily dealt with, and the petitions were rejected. However, on page 5, at Paragraph 6, the court writes:

יצוין כי בשל אופיו של ההליך שקיימנו, ביקשנו שלא לעסוק כלל בטענות

הנוגעות לחוקיות הסגר הימי ואף לא בהתרחשות העובדתית באותו אירוע קשה, אשר

מלוא פרטיו לא נפרשו בפנינו.

Translation: "It should be stated that due to the nature of the proceeding we have conducted [pertaining to Habeus Corpus], we have not dealt at all with arguments pertaining to the legality of the naval blockade or the factual occurrences [which took place] at that difficult event [the boarding], and the full details [of the event] were not set out before us."

I would like some other Hebrew speakers to confirm my understanding of the judgment, and then, if you agree, to remove the incorrect information from the article. --Sstr (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


The judgment has nothing to do with the question if the blockade was legal or not, if the flotilla was legal or not, or if the raid was legal or not. The rulling was about Israel's Aattorney General's decision to release some of the detainees and deport them, rather than press charges. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That is exactly the point I am making. The Wikipedia page says: "The court also ruled that the blockade on the Gaza Strip and the raid over the flotilla were legal." This is false. The court did not rule on the legality of the blockade or the raid, and said so explicitly. Consequently, I suggest we remove the incorrect information from the article. --Sstr (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed that and replaced it with what the source actually said. Is it back ? Sean.hoyland - talk 12:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah my per source edit survived for once. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

missing per.

I cant find the section (about planing) what was here just a little time ago. Posted by John at 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC) 

Ai 00 (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Check the archives, I might have archived it too early. If that is the case, feel free to unarchive it, but remember to delete it from the archive. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)

"get past" vs. "break"

The lead section has been changed to say that the flotilla was trying to "get past" the blockade, when it previously said "break".

And the description from Free Gaza themselves very clearly say that that their intent is to "... break the siege of Gaza"

Was there any good reason for this change? Or was it just changed to make the flotilla sound more innocuous

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

At one point it said "go through". I changed it to "get past" with the thinking that you "go through a door" and "get past a bouncer". But I think break would be OK as well and that is often the terminology used when people try to bypass a blockade. I'll leave it up to you and the other editors though to make a decision :) Zuchinni one (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the terminology, to charge a blockade? I note that the San Remo Manual 1994, as quoted by Mark Regev, uses "breaching a blockade" 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs)
The terminology to use is the one that is in the majority/plurality of RS I guess...don't know what that is but 'break' seems likely from what I've read. Or we could just go by whatever the press office of Israel's PM says about everything and save having to search for RS. :) Not sure the word matters much. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Official publications of flotilla says that their goal was: "To support the Palestinian people, to show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege, to prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken and to deliver relief supplies to Gaza". Since they used the term "break" - I think it's okay to use it here as well. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed Peck article link

{{editsemiprotected}}

Minor edit request. But since there is an article, there should be a link to him, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Peck

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! SpigotMap 12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Rachel Corrie updates

Seem like the boat will not make its way to Gaza soon because of the lack of accompanying reporters [11]. --Gilisa (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I read earlier today that it was confirmed that the ship was waiting for additional video equipment to stream it all live. Cptnono (talk) 05:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
According to El País this morning, the base in Cyprus has lost radio contact with the Rachel Corrie. [12] Physchim62 (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Politics of the aid, youtube link in the lead

I wish to change the sentence "The flotilla had refused Israeli requests to change course to the port of Ashdod, where the Israeli government had said it would inspect the aid and deliver (or let humanitarian organizations deliver) Israeli-approved items to Gaza" in the first paragraph to "According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after the flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast. [9] ". The reasons are

  • One of the two references given for the above statement is a youtube link; this is a primary source, an IDF video, certainly not suited here. The second source talks just about the Israeli offer to unload cargo in Ashdod, not Flotilla's rejection or why it was rejected.
  • The Israeli offer and flotilla's rejection is given elsewhere in the article; here we are describing what happened on 31 May 2010 and not its history.
  • There is no need to go through the cycle of bringing in Israeli offer, its rejection, then why it was rejected, etc which will stretch things to mentioning even cement ( banned material) in the lead.
  • There is no multiple mainstream, neutral media coverage to an Israeli offer in the seas and flotilla's rejection there which lead to the raid. This is part of the background. If there is only this single sentence "The flotilla had refused Israeli requests to change course to the port of Ashdod, where the Israeli government had said it would inspect the aid and deliver (or let humanitarian organizations deliver) Israeli-approved items to Gaza", then it is not a neutral statement as it does not mention why it was rejected. This can be mentioned, with all details, in the back ground section. The sentence I propose is factual, referenced and neutral. Walky-talky (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Support this. Israeli commandos raided the ships and that's the event that we are dealing with in this article. The current wording advances one narrative by suggesting the reason for the raid was the GFF's refusal to do something. If we include a reason/excuse for every action we risk creating a textual infinity mirror. RomaC (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about your proposal.
  1. The youtube link in this case is actual footage of the event so it may be valid. I tried to find out what the Wikipedia standards were for youtube videos, but I was unsuccessful ... anyone knowledgeable want to comment?
  2. There was definitely an offer made to deliver the aid and a refusal shortly before the clash
  3. I agree that this lead is a bit full of issues like cement, which though it may be relevant in the larger context ... seems like overkill for the lead.
  4. There are many mainstream sources about the multiple offers. In fact most of the early articles about the clash mentioned them. Perhaps they have been lost in the numerous edit-wars, but they do exist.
All that being said I fully support keeping the lead as concise as possible. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The article includes the full transcript of the radio transmissions, you can read for yourself. Israel Navy: "Mavi Marmara, you are approaching an area of hostilities which is under a naval blockade. The Gaza area coastal region and Gaza harbor are closed to all maritime traffic. The Israeli government supports delivery of humanitarian supplies to the civilian population in the Gaza Strip, and invites you to enter the Ashdod port. Delivery of the supplies in accordance with the authorities' regulations will be through the formal land crossings and under your observation, after which you can return to your home ports aboard the vessels on which you arrived." Marokwitz (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The youtube link ( even the radio transmissions) are primary sources. Our guideline is that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. ". Not only is it primary, it is not a neutral source and no one has verified its authenticity. It is not our job to verify its authenticity; if it is a significant event, it will be covered in reliable secondary sources and then we can mention it with due weight. Added to this are the problems that will arise out of giving only the offer of Israel and not what its response was (on the seas) or why.Walky-talky (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
WW is right. Wiki policies are clear on this, Zuchinni and Marokwitz, please read WP:PRIMARY regarding why IDF YouTube videos are not valid sources. RomaC (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that the youtube link should be used as a source. There is a wide variety of secondary sources for this, for example (there are hundreds others): [13] 13:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

So I read through Wikipedia:PRIMARY and my impression is that a primary source is not allowed if it is not verified by others secondary RS. In this case, the youtube video HAS been verified and reported in many RS. So it would be OK to include it, but we should also include refs to good RS secondary sources that verify it. Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand. The primary source issue can be fixed as reliable secondary sources have reported on the Israeli offer. But again, I say we are following the Israeli narrative by including this in the lead. GFF said they would try to break the blockade and deliver aid, then Israel enforced the blockade with commandos boarding. That's the facts. The addition of Israeli saying "don't try to break the Gaza blockade, come to Israel instead" serves only to advance an Israeli narrative on the event and does not belong in the lead. If it does, then the Israeli offer to distrubute the aid should also be qualified with the fact that they didn't. Why? Hamas refused. Why? Israel offered a tiny fraction, including electric wheelchairs with batteries removed. Why? Hamas might use the batteries to play music all night keeping Sderot awake... etc. Lead has to be concise no reasons/excuses just what happened. 01:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkish involvement, mercenaries, bin laden connection

1, 2, and 3. I'm not sure how this could be included in the article. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

By finding coverage of these stories in multiple international RS first ? Sean.hoyland - talk 09:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Jpost is a reliable source. I don't know what an "international R.S" is. Those links provide explicit and important data that could improve the article on a factual-level. Turkish jihadist charity hosted flotilla "aid" ship. We have lots and lots and lots of evidence showing this ship was far from a humanitarian vessel, based on its crew, its cargo, and testimony from the Turkish commander and audio-video footage. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is but including material like this simply on the basis that it appears in an Israeli or a Palestinian RS is not a smart way to proceed. If it is notable, verifiable and worth our attention it will appear in a whole spectrum of RS outside of the area of conflict. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
What Palestinian RS are there? Israeli media is perfectly reliable and not someway different from non-Israeli media. We aren't discriminating against Al Jazeera even though its journalists already had a biased presence from the very start of raid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ma'an is a Palestinian RS in my view but I guess you would dispute that and it's not pertinent in this case. 'discriminating against'...drama. Israeli media are not perfectly reliable and they are different from non-Israeli media. You can replace the word 'Israeli' in that sentence with any other nationality you like and it will still be true. My simple point, which I think you already understand perfectly well and are just being difficult, is that if something is notable, verifiable and worth our attention it will appear in a whole spectrum of RS not just the Israeli press. Overreliance on Israeli media (and I'm a fan of some of it) or including something contentious that only appears in the Israeli media and isn't picked up internationally is a bad idea for this article. We should be using a spectrum of RS available out there to avoid introducing systemic bias and due weight/NPOV compliance issues. It shouldn't be a problem to find all sorts of sources if something is notable and merits inclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And since the subject has come up, I'll say something else. What I strongly object to and regard as willful non-compliance with NPOV obligations by partisan editors is when editors make edits like this introducing contentious material cited to a single partisan source without any attempt whatsoever to look for a response for balance or other sources. This is not helpful. It's like expecting someone to wash up your dirty plates for you. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it is a dubious comparison. Jpost has relationships with WSJ and cooperates with AP. Media rights in Palestinian-controlled areas are extremely limited and journalist freelancers are routinely intimidated. There is no difference between Israeli media and non-Israeli media. Jpost is just as reliable as BBC, if not more - as BBC is woefully dependent on anonymous freelancers, whereas Jpost provides far more in-depth and up to date stories. BBC has yet to break the news about the jihadist link and turkish government involvement. There is no systematic bias here, just an individual editor saying certain information should be excluded because it comes from an Israeli paper...but news coming from Europe, a continent with an historical bias against Jews..is honky dory. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's probably a conflict of interest what with me being a nazi or something and hating people like Bar Refaeli. :) "There is no difference between Israeli media and non-Israeli media."..."a continent with an historical bias against Jews", sigh, I'm not having this conversation, although I'll try to dig out a very nice Israeli study I remember that used deterministic methods to generate metrics for linguistic bias in the Israeli media for you when I get a chance sometime. I'm not saying that it should be excluded. I'm saying that it shouldn't be a problem to find all sorts of sources if it's notable and merits inclusion and it would be better to take that approach. If you add the material I won't be the one that reverts you. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sean, this isn't about you. Jpost, Haaretz, etc...are all reliable sources and are frequently cited in israel-related articles. They are not somehow inferior to larger and more mainstream presses like BBC or the NYT. I said nothing about Nazis or Bar Refaeli. If BBC refuses to report this it doesn't somehow negate what jpost links say. We all know how politicized the media is when it comes to the A/I conflict. Like I said before, I don't know how this information would be placed into the article. I rather we achieve some sort of agreement and consensus. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452

  • Jpost is an RS but clearly the contents of the article are in dispute. I would suggest that for now it go into the Israel Accounts section. If more information comes out later and it is confirmed by many more RS then perhaps it might be OK to put it elsewhere Zuchinni one (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize legality section

I believe the legality section should not be in pro/contra sections, but in sections by legal issue. As I see it, there are three issues, the second one in two parts: the legality of the blockade; the legality of boarding ships in international waters presuming the blockade itself is legal or presuming it is illegal; and the proportionality of the force used. Each of these 2 large sections and 2 subsections would have pro and contra arguments. This would lead to less repetition than the current structure, which is organized by source, and thus states many arguments redundantly. Homunq (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

How about:
  • Innocent passage and international waters
  • Naval blockades
  • Proportionality
It is not for Wikipedia to "decide" either way if the attack was legal, but to give readers information about the three legal concepts, and how they have been "applied" (by commentators) to this situation. Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess that mixing the arguments is a good idea in principle, but would likely result in a difficult editing process. I'd suggest to tackle this at some point in the future. The section could be converted into a sub-article.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good in general. I believe you'd need a separate subsection of "blockades" for "blockades and humanitarian aid". Homunq (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Info about the legality of the blockade belongs in Gaza_blockade#Legal_arguments. This article isn't about that or at least it shouldn't be. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the legal status of the blockade is relevant here. For instance, some experts could express the view that the blockade is legal in itself, but not enforceable in international waters. That opinion would be relevant to this article, more than to the Gaza blockade article. Moreover, the proposed change is not to include this information, since it's already on the page; it's just to reorganize it in a more coherent and less repetitive fashion. Homunq (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would say to write something in WP:SUMMARY-style, because everyone is talking at cross purposes for the moment. All three points are relevant, even if any given editor or commentator wishes to find one more important than the others. Physchim62 (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Needs to be updated or removed

A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [193]

see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898429,00.html The petition is not particularly relevant, without a disclosed legal basis accepted by the high court. I suggest removing this mention or update with the high courts decision. AFarber (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In Gaza_flotilla_raid#Israeli_judicial_decisions I believe it notes their petition was denied, but I am not particularly familiar with the case or the source cited. If you could provide a specific quote that would help. Thanks,--Nosfartu (talk) 12:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A quote from the link above as follows should suffice: The petition was formally revoked by the petitioners after the initial response of the court.

Justice Beinish responded to the petition: "It is clear that the suit was filed in haste. Even though the petitioners knew nothing of what had occurred, they did not hesitate to hurriedly place the gravest possible stain on the IDF forces' actions while using sharp and abrasive language that was out of place..." I strongly suggest removing the passage since there was no petition in the end and the passage does not contribute factually and is not NPOV. At least Justice Beinish didn't think so AFarber (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

video material during the raid to greek Sefdoni ship

Today a video from the raid in the Greek ship Sfndoni has been published by http://tvxs.gr/node/59618 (tvxs.gr). In the video you can hear the first minutes of the raid and the discussions between the activists and the Israeli soldiers. You can hear gunshots etc, some part of the video conversation is in English language. This is a rare documentary because all the recorded material, photos, videos has been stolen by the Israeli army during the raid. Ggia (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

cover up, fake idf video

israel's footage of soldiers being attacked takes place during the day though it was widely accepted to happen at night time. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Israel_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate3 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

What footage are you talking about? All of the footage on that page takes place in the dark, with the exception of the post-action footage that is taken in daylight. Since the raid happened in the early hours of the morning (this is not "widely accepted" but an undisputed fact) this makes perfect sense. 82.102.159.23 (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF footage was taken with a night-vision camera. gee, you remind me of the folks claiming the moon landing was fake because the flag was waving in the "wind"

thats not night vision its basically the same footage of the US soldiers shooting Iraqi journalists from helicopter incident. And its obviously fake, just look at how everyones goofball fighting like they were in the 3 stooges —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate3 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

??? Are we really discussing this  ??? Is anybody here an expert in determining the authenticity of these videos by watching a few seconds of them on youtube? WP:OR is not going to be included in the article anyway. How about getting some RS that support your claim. Until then this is just a waste of time. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Restart activist etc terminology discussion

I noticed that an IDF primary source here says "attacked by Mavi Marmara passengers" and "9 flotilla participants were killed" (my bolding). When an IDF article uses more neutral/generic terminology than a Wikipedia article it might suggest that we have a slight problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It's about time someone else notices that this article is not neutral... ShalomOlam (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
What? Are you saying that some people might *GASP* putting bias into the article .... NOOOO!!! The only thing that I can think of to resolve this situation is to get the biased editors to resolve their dispute here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hQC3nkftrk#t=1m29s Zuchinni one (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Numerous reliable sources have used the word activists for those involved in fighting, including AP, Reuters, BBC, NYT, and so on. You can Google it, but I won't embarrass myself again by providing a link. :) Send me to the Thunderdome! :)  &#151;Rafi  20:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And including Aljazeera and JPost.  &#151;Rafi  20:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF name for the operation for the lead

Could someone please confirm whether the IDF name for the operation was מבצע רוחות שמיים and provide a sensible translation, sky spirits, sky ghosts, sky something or even better has anyone found an English RS with the IDF's name for the operation in it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it means Operation Sea Breeze - I'll check the archives. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Rename_or_move#Rename_to_Operation_Sea_Breeze & Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_2#A_brutal_ambush_at_sea suggest this. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 18:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Correct translation is: Sky winds. ShalomOlam (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
מבצע רוחות שמיים was the popular name on the Hebrew wikipedia. The IDF calls it Operation Sea Breeze here while the New York Daily News also did so.
Disclosure:No Hebrew experience--Nosfartu (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Once again, the correct translation is: Sky winds. There is no hebrew word for "Breeze". And obviously, "sea" and "sky" are two different things. ShalomOlam (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Except בריזה, you mean? But yes, the correct translation is in fact Sky Winds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.102.159.23 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, בריזה is not a hebrew word. It is true that people may use it in a hebrew conversation, like they use other non-hebrew words such as "telephone", but that does not make it a hebrew word. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

<- That's great, thanks, lots of links to sources too via the google link in the discussion. Someone should add it. I have to sign out. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the IDF name for the operation was "מבצע רוחות שמיים 7". So the most sensible translation is "Operation Sky winds 7". ShalomOlam (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

flotilla convoy

Stating that the convoy was a "humanitarian aid flotilla" is POV and flotilla's side propaganda, mainly for the following reasons:

  • Official publications of flotilla says that their goal was: "To support the Palestinian people, to show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege, to prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken and to deliver relief supplies to Gaza".
  • There are no RS who claim that the flotilla's humanitarian aid was in fact needed in Gaza - since humanitarian aid are shipped regularly to Gaza by land.
  • There are RS that says Gaza refused to receive the cargo, after Israel released it.

ShalomOlam (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry ShalomOlam, you are quite misinformed about your second point. There are a very large number of RS that say far more (~4x) humanitarian aid is needed than is being allowed through by Israel and have done for years. It's not regular and it never has been. There's something like 60-70% food insecurity, an important metric e.g. ICRC [14], [15]. UN [16], all sorts of sources. Anyway, signing out... Sean.hoyland - talk 18:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Israel has contact flotilla officials, and other diplomats across the world, saying that it will allow the convoy's cargo to be delivered to Gaza via land, after they will download it in Port of Ashdod and examine it. This means that there was no humanitarian need for the cargo to reach Gaza by sea, since this could have been done by land. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Or it means that the activists felt that Israel wouldn't have allowed some of the aid into Gaza (such as cement, which the activists cited as a need of the people of Gaza, but which Israel does not allow to cross the borders). It's all a matter of perspective. ← George talk 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Your personal views and original research about why the convoy was not an aid convoy aren't helpful. Hundreds of reliable sources referred to it as an aid convoy, and, therefore, so should we. We could cite a dozen references after the term "aid convoy" in the article, but that would be little more than trying to prove a point. ← George talk 20:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not express personal views. Please read what I wrote more carfully. Thanks. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is nothing in the three points you listed that would make a convoy that reliable sources describe as an "aid convoy" not be an aid convoy. Let's review. Your first point is that the flotilla claimed to be an aid convoy opposed to the blockade. Your second point is that you don't think the aid was needed, or you just failed to do any research on the issue, as many reliable sources - i.e., the United Nations - have claimed that aid is needed. Your third point is purely original research. If a starving man refuses to eat pork for religious reasons, then he's not starving? Hardly. ← George talk 22:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have read accounts on both sides of the "aid convoy" issue and would like to suggest the following analysis:
  1. Humanitarian supplies are desperately needed in Gaza, and there is no other way to get in such large amounts of aid other than boat.
  2. Humanitarian supplies are desperately needed in Gaza, and nearly a quarter million tons has come in by land.
So the dispute would seem to be over the decision to bypass land routing: is it because that's the only way "aid" can get in (as land routes are also being blocked), or is it something else?
If Israeli sources like CAMERA are correct, then land routes aren't being blocked - a further conclusion would be WP:OR on my part, so I'll refrain.
If Israeli sources are wrong, and land routes are part of the Gaza blockade, then ships are the only way left to get in the supplies.
Has anybody tried to write about this aspect of the dispute? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
FYI, Egypt also offered to have the aid delivered through the Rafah crossing. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Land routes aren't completely blocked. However, the activists position is that the aid that is allowed in isn't sufficient for the needs of the people, and other critical materials are being completely blocked (such as cement). Both positions are understandable. Palestinians don't have cement so they can't repair schools bombed by Israel. Israelis fear that the Palestinians will use the cement to build smuggling tunnels. And both Israel and Egypt are trying to overthrow the Hamas government by putting pressure on the Palestinian people to turn against them. ← George talk 00:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I find your analysis to be wrong. The Israeli blockade of Gaza is not limited to land, it is also by sea and by air (and underground). There are ways for supplies to get in, other than by boat. Israel has offered to deliver the flotilla's cargo by land, by their refused. ShalomOlam (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was a land/air/sea blockade. There are no ways for certain supplies to get in, other than running the blockade. Which is what the activists were trying. ← George talk 00:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

flotilla's goals

I would like to get you attention about the following definitions of the flotilla's goals, as published in official documents by the flotilla's administration:

  • To support the Palestinian people
  • To show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege
  • To prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken
  • To deliver relief supplies to Gaza

Only 1 out of 4 of the goals is related to a humanitarian cause. The rest - 3 out of 4 goals - are not humanitarian causes. This should be noted in the article. (I'm not sure how) ShalomOlam (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Adding the list of their goals somewhere in the body of the article would make sense, properly sourced of course. ← George talk 00:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Killed" or "Shot and killed"

In the lead there was a recent change from "killed" to "shot and killed". However there doesn't seem to be any RS that all the people who died were shot. So what is the correct wording here?

Zuchinni one (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

"Shot and killed" sounds bias to me. These people died in a battle while fighting. This was not a shooting range, sniper fire, a manhunt or an execution. "Killed" is sufficient (and neutral). ShalomOlam (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The change was mine, and was supported by a RS, perhaps since removed citing forensics reports on all nine. ShalomOlam, would you prefer "killed by gunshots" or "shot and killed"; no other implication was intended, such as a shooting range. "While fighting" is now in dispute for at least two, the photographer and the American.--Carwil (talk) 19:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that "killed" is sufficient, and that the term you chose is too ambiguous and may be misleading. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Killed also sounds more NPOV to me Zuchinni one (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would lean towards "shot and killed", just b/c killed alone makes how they died unclear. I haven't actually read the language though. If the surrounding sentences make it clear that they were all shot, then it might not be necessary to say "shot and killed".
I appreciate the NPOV argument, but I think clarity trumps NPOV. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree that you have to use to word "shot" to make it clear. It's sufficient to write that they were killed during the raid of Israeli Comandos. If the word "died" was used, and not "killed", I would agree that it's not clear, but this is not the case. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Location

This BBC article gives a good idea of where this all went down. Anyone want to suggest how to refer to the location in the article? It seems to have been a bit confusing because of different RS giving slightly different wordings ... but no maps other than this one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute that the event took place in the Mediterranean Sea, in international waters. Previously the article also stated that this was off the coast of Israel and Gaza. I removed 'Gaza' from this description, since it is not correct, as the map in the BBC link above shows. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I was originally thinking of using the BBC map and google earth to get a location ... but that would be WP:Synth, so I'm not sure what to do. Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is an "official" location at the moment, as in exact coordinates. The most exact version I've seen are 125 km west of Israel (2nd-hand Israeli source) and 108 km outside of Israeli territorial waters (2nd-hand source from the Mava Marmara): those calculate to about the same distance, but don't give a position. Physchim62 (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
To say the event simply took place "in the Mediterranean Sea" is to speak only half the truth. Geographic relativity is crucial to where, why and how the event took place. "The Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Israel and Gaza in international waters." as I originally posted the location the other day accomplishes the tasks it needs to: It provides a relative (although not exact) location for the event, and also gives the immediately relevant parties involved, Israel and the Gaza (redirected to the Gaza Strip), and as well makes the reader aware that the event took place outside the territorial waters of any one nation or entity. The location in the info box should remain as it appears now. Sixer Fixer (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on the BBC map it looks to be over 100km from the coast of Gaza and Israel. So I'm not sure that "off the coast" is correct. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Based on the BBC map it looks to be over 100km from the coast of Gaza, but it was 28km away from Israel's tritorial waters (according to ynet.co.il reporter). So "off the coast of Israel" is more correct then "off the coast Israel and Gaza". ShalomOlam (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content

Can someone have a look at the content that was added here?  Cs32en Talk to me  21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic analysis of the article

I have made a brief linguistic analysis concerning the reporting verbs from the section of the article which details the description of events from both sides: the Israeli account, and the account of the journalists/flotilla organizers/activists.


Broadly speaking, reporting verbs/language psychologically prepare the reader to comprehend what they are about to read in a particular way. They can put the reader into a pre-perception frame of mind coloured by neutrality, e.g. somebody ‘says’ something, they can put the reader on the alert, e.g. ‘according to’, or they can encourage an attitude of scepticism, e.g. sb. ‘alleges/claims’ sth.


What I discovered in this portion of the article is a distinct anti-Israeli bias.


Below is an indicated version of my findings:


italic – indicates neutral language

bold – indicates alerting language

BOLD CAPS – indicates sceptical language


The most commonly used reporting verb, ‘say’, is neutral and so has not been highlighted.


Israel's account

According to the Israeli military, Israeli commandos prepared to encounter political activists seeking to hold a protest, were armed with paintball guns and handguns as sidearms.[86][87] The soldiers had orders to peacefully convince the activists to give up, and if not successful, use non-lethal force to commandeer the ship. The commandos were instructed to use the sidearms in an emergency, when their lives were at risk.[88] The Israeli military reported that the commandos were immediately attacked after descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship. Soldiers were beaten badly, including stabbings, and one was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet (9.1 m) below.[89] Two Israeli commandos had their guns wrested away. An Israeli commando said that there was live fire at some point against them from below deck.[90] Some of the commandos suffered gunshot wounds.[90][91] According to Major Avital Leibovich of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the activists attacked the soldiers with knives, slingshots, spikes, and clubs, and with pistols that were seized from Israeli commandos.[92][93][94] One soldier reported that the attack "looked like the Ramallah lynching."[95] Stun grenades and tear gas were used in an attempt to disperse activists. After this proved ineffective, the commandos requested and received permission to use live ammunition. The commandos then shot activists in the legs, which forced them to disperse. The commandos reached the bridge and took over the ship after 30 minutes.[96][97][98] The Israeli military released 20 videos of the incident.[99] One video ALLEGEDLY SHOWS how the first commandos to rappel down to the deck were attacked by a mob, and includes a soldier being thrown to the lower deck. Other videos CLAIM TO SHOW at least one incident in which a stun grenade and fire bomb was thrown at the soldiers, as well activists beating one of the soldiers and trying to kidnap him.[84] Another video, edited from the ship's surveillance footage, IS DESCRIBED BY THE IDF AS SHOWING activists preparing for a clash hours before the Israeli Navy made contact with the ship.[84] Another video shows the first four commandos to rappel onto the deck were attacked by activists with bars, axes and knives. The fourth commando saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. He jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the gun wielding activist, 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck.[100] According to a preliminary navy investigation, some passengers attempted to take hostage three unconscious commandos by dragging them into one of the passenger halls below . They were held in passenger halls for several minutes until they regained consciousness and managed to join the other soldiers.[100] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing other Israeli accounts, said that the events represent a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[101][46][88]


Journalist's, flotilla organizers' and activists' accounts

Organizers of the convoy have denied the account of Israeli military. Arafat Shoukri, of the Free Gaza Movement (FGM), one the co-organizers of the flotilla convoy, said those on board one ship had called them by telephone to say that Israeli helicopters had arrived.[102] He said that from that moment on, he had witnessed shootings, and afterwards people on board shouted 'We are raising the white flag, stop shooting at us'.[102] He dismissed Israel's claims of activists having pistols and other weapons as "cheap propaganda".[102] According to Mavi Marmara activists and personnel, Israel initially opened fire with warning shots but when the ship didn't stop the attack began. Activists said that sound and smoke bombs were used and then IDF commandos surrounded the ship and boarded from helicopters and from the sea. In contrast with the Israeli account, activists say that Israelis did fire on the boat before boarding, though they said that the use of force was non-lethal at that point. Activists on board agree that there was resistance but say it was not organized; rather the Israeli helicopters, ships and gunfire "created the atmosphere that people wanted to defend themselves."[103] Activists say that the Israeli commandos used electric shocks on those who tried to form a human ring on the bridge.[104] The wife of the Mavi Marmara captain, Nilüfer Ören, stated that IDF began tracking them after 90 miles (140 km), there were 40 ships surrounding the convoy and the announcement was made while the commandos were boarding from helicopters at 04:45 am. She also said that sound bomb and smoke bombs were used. Therefore activists and crewmembers used gasmasks.[105] Norman Paech, a former member of the German parliament Left Party who was aboard the Marmara said he only saw three activists resisting. "They had no knives, no axes, only sticks that they used to defend themselves," he told reporters. But he said he could "not rule out" that others used weapons somewhere else on the boat.[106] Another eyewitness Huwaida Arraf says that the Israelis smashed her face against the ground and stepped on it; later they cuffed her and put a bag over her head.[107] Writer Edda Manga said five of the activists died directly while the rest died because they were denied medical treatment.[108] Kutlu Tiryaki, a captain of another vessel in the flotilla, said that the passengers did not have weapons at all, but only came to bring humanitarian help in a peaceful manner. [109] According to Al Jazeera journalist Jamal Elshayyal, at this point soldiers already shot "almost indiscriminately" with live ammunition from the helicopter.[110] According to Elshayyal three persons died while passengers including a Knesset member tried in vain to make the soldiers help the wounded.[110] Flotilla proponents and Turkish charity group leaders said that since the ships were on international waters, "even if we had used guns", abandoning the non-violence principle would still be legal as self-defense from Israeli "kidnapping" and "piracy".[111][112] Prof. Mattias Gardell who was on-board stated that the soldiers came on-board with sharp loaded weapons with laser sights and at least four persons were killed execution style.[113] Due to a communications blackout after the attack, it was originally difficult to get accounts from activists on board. Newly released activists are beginning to make statements to the press.[102][104][114] Activist Huwaida Arraf reported that once onboard the Challenger One, Israeli troops seized all communication equipment, cameras and memory cards from activists.[115] IHH president Bulent Yildrim stated that "passengers on the ship showed civil resistance, the press was there, and that the İHH (had) called on the passengers not to allow Israeli soldiers in".[116]


Summary of findings:

Israeli perspective:

neutral - 2

alerting - 3

sceptical - 3

journalists'/flotilla organisers'/activists' perspective:

neutral - 3

alerting - 3

sceptical - 0


I draw this to your attention and hope that in the interest of fairness your editors will put it right, as I do believe that Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.3 (talk) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


Good work trying to keep this section neutral. Unfortunately because the sections are devoted to accounts of what each side said they will almost be guaranteed to be POV. It might be best to try and keep this section as clean as possible for now and then go in later for a thorough NPOV workover. At the moment any improvements are getting wiped out by the numerous edits. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure that the information in this particular portion of the article will be POV - bias is inevitable as each side presents their particular perspective. What is of concern is the way in which this information is presented to the reader with the use of particular linguistic reporting structures - bias in this area is not inevitable and Wikipedia may control its use to ensure balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.3 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

This all falls to pieces if you take into account the history of Israeli sources sugar coating themselves. The sources of the 'other side' is not Palestine; it's a whole array of countries that don't give a damn and may as well be more neutral. --Leladax (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I know there are several new editors so please read and start following WP:CLAIM and WP:ALLEGED. Examples: Israel claimed = don't do that. Israel said = good. The video doe snot alleged anything. It shows something. It can show something that Israel says if you need it to be clarified.Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If you are referring to my recent edits, take into account that "IDF says" was removed from the captions immediatly before. Photos and footages that quality doesn't "show" anything but what we are told to see. So, if the interpretation of the footages, the recovered "weaponry", and the use of the "weaponry" against the IDF is not an allegation from the IDF, nor did the IDF told what the footage "showed" and what was recovered and the use given to that... well NPOV would require that captions to be deleted for good. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't take offense and don't deflect it onto other editors. Just don't do it again. One thing that might work: "The IDF says footage shows activists beating an Israeli soldier with an iron pipe on the MV Mavi Marmar" Cptnono (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Cptnono: As my edits were ironically reverted per NPOV (being the current text undoubtely POV), I'll follow your suggestion, after waiting for some comments from other editors. . Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
And I didn't realize it was a hotspot. My edit was a ctr+f on all "claim"s and it was caught up in it. Sorry about that.Cptnono (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If it is impossible to get a consensus I would go by: 1)delete them; 2)WP:BURO and use allegedly as it is the most pertinent terminology in this particular case. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 22:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
George's edit is fine. I think it could be trimmed (I removed "snapshot" and moved things around a bit up above) but that isn't a neutrality concern.Cptnono (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The fact is that we don't know who is in the video frame, and if not for the IDF's statement I doubt we could ever claim to know. The IDF has said it was an activist, and we don't have significant reasons to doubt the claim (if we did, words like alleged or claimed might make sense), so we should just blandly state that the IDF said that the video shows an activist hitting a soldier with a pipe. Also, the term "footage" sounds very odd the way it was being used. ← George talk 22:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Per Leladax. If we've got references to one side "sugar coating" their stories, then we should include them as it will help give readers perspective. Rklawton (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Marian Houk (January 04, 2009). ["Israel announces formal naval blockade of Gaza, surrounds Gaza City". American Chronicle. Retrieved June 3, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Associated Press: Israel's use of captured video draws criticism
  3. ^ Associated Press: Israel's use of captured video draws criticism
  4. ^ Carlill, Bren (2 June 2010). "Flotilla sailed for confrontation, not for aid". Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  5. ^ Conal Urquhart (20 September, 2007). ["Israel declares Gaza Strip hostile territory". Guardian. Retrieved June 3, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ Marian Houk (January 04, 2009). ["Israel announces formal naval blockade of Gaza, surrounds Gaza City". American Chronicle. Retrieved June 3, 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference CNNWorld was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ UN says Gaza blockade hinders reconstruction aid, AFP
  9. ^ "More Than 10 Dead After Israel Intercepts Gaza Aid Convoy". Wall Street Journal. 31 May 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_7&oldid=1137179257"