Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Recurring topics

yellow

Some topics have already been discussed, but keep reappearing. I would like to remind my fellow editors to read the following topics before making pertinent changes:

• /Archive_2#Activists or passengers? - decision was to keep "passengers" for now.

Please add to the list as you see fit. — Sebastian 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ANOTHER RECURRING TOPIC: The wording of the accounts in the Lead. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Addition_of_qualifying_statements_in_the_lead

There was a recent change here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365708414

Perhaps the wording should be discussed again.

Zuchinni one (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to move that section down here? — Sebastian 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you like, I don't know exactly what the standards are for reformatting the Talk page and I don't want to confuse people by accidentally handling it wrong. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sticks, butter knives and other utensils = weaponry?

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

A general observation, aside, re. usage, albeit from a distance since I work in Criminal Justice in Scotland and the accepted use in report writing is that anything used as a weapon is described thereafter described as "the weapon". That is not to say that /any/ butter knife or bottle, say, is "weaponry" but that it has the potential to /become/ a weapon and if it has been used as such, it does not "lose" that legal description at a later date even if shown out of context of actually being used. There are separate definitions for other terms such as "dangerous weapon" in various legislations (e.g. "knives having a blade three inches or more in length") but that is a separate term. Semantics, I know... :) Fwiw, anyhow! Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Anything with a blade, that you can stab someone with, can be reffered to as a 'cold weapon'. ShalomOlam (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But that makes the mentioning of such weapons meaningless, because using that standard, that means that every ship that has a kitchen carry "weapons". I think it's best to be specific. If the fact is that kitchen knives and sticks were found, then write that knives and clubs were found. There are reports in Swedish media that the IDF held up a razor to a Swedish passenger and claimed it to be a weapon. AadaamS (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF soldier were sttabed by some of the activists. This make these "standard kitchen knives" into cold weapons. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Caption on image of activists beating soldiers

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

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

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

 —Rafi  23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no soldier (indeed, no person) shown in the caption. Nor we do know who is handling what. Your edit is definitely POV. Please discuss consensus above. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion was here: Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage. The video is abundantly clear regarding who is beating and who is being beaten; if you need RS's they are cited in the previous discussion.  —Rafi  23:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All I know is "Snapshot of footage provided by the IDF" is not sufficient or acceptable. The person who made that edit needs to go read WP:POINT and consider not working on this article. People need to say right now if they disagree with no attribution based on thinking Israel fabricating it or trying to tone down the Palestinian side of things. If that is the case we need to know now. If it is becasue the image is not clear than I understand attribution.Cptnono (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Wikipedia attribute everything to a source for neutrality? Like the article doesn't say "Israel stole thing from journalists" it says it quotes journalists or journalist associations. If we have to attribute journalists, why wouldn't we attribute one of the sides in the dispute that has a narrative to promote?--99.50.129.231 (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? We can see in the video that a soldier is being taken down and then the merceneries beating something on the ground where he fell. So, you say "maybe they were hitting the ground next to the soldier"?? יובל מדר (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

So maybe we can also add "After this, Israel massacred the peaceful activists and confiscated all other recordings."--71.156.87.5 (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

peaceful activist dont stab soilders or throw them over board, or beat them with metal poles, or take there guns and try to shoot them. that would be considered violence by most any sane person. 69.115.204.217 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Colonel admitted sabotage

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

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

(...)

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

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

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

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

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

WP:NOTAFORUM. Leave arguments about the legality to the lawyers, then cite the reliable sources that quote them. TFOWRidle vapourings 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article is not NPOV. It heavily supports the Israeli logic of "If we attack you and you defend yourself, then you attacked us and we defend ourselves" by including many photos and views from Israel Army. I suggest it be tagged for NPOV. It is presenting a very distorted image of the incident. --94.123.198.52 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Your logic is POV. Israel navy attacked the flotilla, since it was heading into the blockade erea, and refused to stop. Some legal experts say this is an act of war by the flotilla, making it legal for the navy to stop the flotilla and arrest its people. "If we attack you" is in fact arresting, and "you defend yourself" is in fact resisting arrest. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The blockade and occupation (that there are no Israeli troops within Gaza is irrelevant) of Gaza are illegal, so the Israelis have no case. All they have is American veto power. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The legality of all of it is in question. As per the Ginormous legal section that was turned into its own article. It is not accurate to state as fact that the blockade was illegal, but the legality of the blockade was certainly in dispute. Zuchinni one (talk) 18:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC) The blockade and occupation are two different things. The is NO occupation in Gaza: there are no Israeli soldiers or IDF camps in Gaza; there are no Israeli civillians or Israeli settlements in Gaza. So, the occupation of Gaza being legal or not is irrelevant here. About the blockade - since Gaza is Hamas-controlled, and Hamas refues to recognize the state of Israel, there is an on-going war between Israel and Hamas. And in the case of a war, it is not illegal to enforce a blockade on Hamas-controlled-Gaza. So, I beg to differ with you, when you write "Israelis have no case". ShalomOlam (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC) War is defined as an armed conflict between two states. Do you accept Hamas as a state? --Nevit (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC) I do not accept your definition of War. ShalomOlam (talk) 07:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC) If you prefer not to accept then, acts of Hamas would be defined as acts of terror and not War. Then you can not use laws of war to legalize your action. In any case it would be benefit of Israel to accept international inquiry, so that if self claimed definitions of "blockade", "war", "legality of attack on civilians", etc. etc. are legitimate are not. --Nevit (talk) 09:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC) It must also be recognized that Egypt is a parter in the blockade, considering how the southern border of Gaza is with Egypt, not Israel. Also, as noted in the legal section (I think), during the US Civil War the Union placed a blockade around the Confederacy while simultaneously refusing to acknowledge them as a nation, the US Supreme Court made a ruling acknowledging the legality of such a blockade against a non-nation. Either way, this isn't a forum, so further discussion here isn't really appropriate. 24.46.71.166 (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC) Agreed. Collapsing discussion. Feel free to continue it your own talk pages. TFOWRidle vapourings 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Death

An editor has removed the cause of death information from the lead diff, with the edit summary "If this info remains in the lead, then, for balance, I will add in the details of all the injuries of Israeli soldiers (where/how they were stabbed, what injuries they suffered". RS seem to focus on the deaths of the ships' passengers over injuries to the commandos, so I don't know what "balance" would be served by including that information in the lead. But if someone wants to make a case they could do so here rather than removing germane and well-sourced content regarding a central aspect of the event. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ths is not a IDF outfit so there is no need to balance body count like 1 isold to 1000 other . Article had to be NPOV not a "balanced". What if something like this was not balenced. Anyway how you can balance a death to scratches ? Ai 00 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, is it the custom of WP to include specific details of how people are killed in such a confrontation (e.g. shot from behind, shot multiple times) in the lead? Is it not sufficient to say that the Israeli raid/actions resulted in the death of 9 activists? If you feel these details are necessary specifically in the lead, than it would also be necessary to say in the lead that one soldier was stabbed in the abdomen, another fractured his skull, etc, [1] rather than just saying that X soldiers were injured (and the same can be said regarding details of the activist injuries as well). Regards, Kinetochore (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You could propose your idea, Kine, and if there are sources other than the sensationalistic Israeli Ynet website then it should be considered. But try to be neutral here: Are you really proposing that a principal quality of this event is injuries suffered by commandos? Is that what made this noteworthy? The RS I see all point to the deaths of the passengers over injuries to commandos. Of course cause of death is notable, RS make it so eg. "The revelation that many of those killed – eight Turks and a US-Turkish citizen – were shot in the head at close range by members of Israel's Shayetet 13 naval special forces team only exacerbated the sense of anger in many quarters, above all in Turkey." [2] Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to this topic, but Ynet news much less sensationalist than Al Jazeera, and its certainly an RS.Kinetochore (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See HERE for a previous discussion that directly related to this topic. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. Believe the coroner's info should make its way back into the lead, because a principal element of this event, if not the principal element, is the killing of the passengers. What you believe that info on the cause of death might imply is OR, and removal is unwarranted. Also do you really see a qualitative equivalence between an anonymous IDF soldier's saying he saw "murderous rage in their eyes" and a medical examiner's report on wounds and cause of death? RomaC (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, principle element is indeed killing of the passengers, but the ways in which they were killed (i.e. from behind) is irrelevant to an overall summary of the conflict, unless you have some other reason for wanting inclusion in the lead. Kinetochore (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I have is encyclopedic accuracy. They died: How did they die? Do you see a problem with including this information, or do you think it is not reliably sourced? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be included, but is it central enough to be placed in the lead? Seems to me to be a one-sided attempt to imply activists were "executed." Is there enough of a consensus on this point among RS to place it in the lead? 132.69.136.166 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello IP, I agree, would this event even have a Wiki article if nine passengers had not died? I'm not sure, but do any other attempts to deliver aid to Gaza have their own articles? The deaths do seem very "central" according to RS, and Wiki editors' personal opinions on what reliably sourced and verifiable information on the deaths might imply should not really matter here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the deaths are central, but I still disagree that the details of their deaths are important enough belong in the lead (instead of somewhere else in the article). The proximity from which the activists were shot does not belong in a summary of the raid.Kinetochore (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sections and headers

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

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

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

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

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

Route of the flotilla image

The current image showing the route of the flotilla is not accurate. The larger part of the map is missing, and the routes of the ships from Greece, Ireland and the US are not displayed on the image. Mavi Marmara also called at Antalya before rendezvousing with the rest of the flotilla near Cyprus, which is not displayed on the map. I couldn't find any information on where the American ships originally sailed from, but still, I think it would be good if someone can replace this map with a more accurate one. --386-DX (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Blocked area to Map

In addition it would be useful to shade area claimed as blocked by Israel, Gaza strip water territory and Israel water territory. --Nevit (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "Gaza strip water territory", Gaza is an area on a map comparable to referring to the Appalachians, similarly there is no Appalachian water territory, only US water territory. IMHO, the blockade is preventing a landing/supplying in the strip, so I believe it would essentially be the coast. A peaceful vessel simply sailing through Israeli territorial waters, with no intentions to land or interact with Gaza, would not likely be considered as violating the blockade, even if it was only miles offshore. A map showing a generalized depiction of territorial waters is on the Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid article, is there really a need to show Israel-specific ones? 24.46.71.166 (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Videos released by the Turkish?

Somebody had added to the intro that the videos were released by IDF and by the Turkish(!). All the videos are released by IDF. They have seized those of people onboard. No one else can possibly release a video. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They were able to transmit live during the raid.--Cerian (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not during the raid. Based on what I have read in multiple sources, the communications were disconnected at that point. Note also were are talking about videos which require a reasonable amount of bandwidth. You can of course change my mind if you provide me with a reliable source. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Jazeera was still broadcasting live through at least the initial part of the raid.

See the video here which I remember seeing before Israel had release anything at all. Jamal Elshayyal was giving a live report claiming that two people have been killed, and the organizers asked everyone to go inside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFEBbDkyrqQ

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, their signal was jammed during the raid. // Liftarn (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Al Jazeera is not Turkish. --Nevit (talk) 08:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Undoing changes in the lead unless discussed first

Hi all, would anyone support unlimited undos for any content changes to the lead that are not first discussed on the talk pages? Grammar, punctuation, and other minor changes would be OK, but it's getting kind of annoying reverting the massive changes of POV editors on both sides.

Right now the lead seems pretty reasonable to me. And clearly it needs to change over time, but this might help to prevent massive changes from users who aren't even trying to be a part of the discussion.

Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead needs to be constantly updated to reflect new information, which is coming out fast and furious. For example, statements by Israeli soldiers that their comrades were captured and their guns taken from them is now corroborated by statements from activists and journalists. It also needs to be guarded to retain old information. For example, that the initial attack on the Israeli landing party is shown on videos released both by the IDF and by Turkish TV was known from day one. However, this keeps getting deleted completely or presented as being shown only on IDF-released videos. This is presumably for POV reasons, but whatever the reason, the info is important. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, your last massive edit did not include every new source needed to back up the new info. Please, be gentle and share it with the rest of the editors. Thanks, --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My edit wasn't "massive", but more to the point: what wasn't sourced? Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You did not provide a single new source. Where was that new info that we did not see before? --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• About undoing unsourced or undiscussed pov-pushing edits by default, I absolutely agree. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalepenos, the problem is NOT that you want to add new info to the lead, but the fact that you made HUGE changes to a section that has been massively discussed and tweaked to avoid POV. If you think those changes need to be made then please explain why in the Talk section and let the rest of the community contribute as well. Until then I will ask you to revert the re-insertion of your changes. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, I've just reverted your unsourced & undiscussed pov-pushing re-revert, after you were warned not to do that. Please, discuss your changes to the lead on talkpage. --IANVS (talk | cont) 02:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, please discuss your changes one by one here. Intro is only meant to be a short summary of the article. It need not go through the details of how one side views the story. Sure, such details can, and are, included in the article and people will read them. People will learn this even if we don't put it up here because of the significant media coverage of this topic. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 02:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Zucchini. Yes, sounds good. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with Jalapenos revision. The flotilla did have affiliations with the turkish islamic extremists - source 1, and a son of osama bin laden might have been involved as well. The current edit assumes the ships were carrying humanitarian aid, but from what we know now most of the cargo was largely worthless. The only thing of merit were the bullet-proof vests, night-vision goggles, gas masks, and ammunition. I'm not sure if that has been mentioned in the article yet, but Hamas doesn't want the aid anymore and it has prevented international aid organizations from delivering it through the border. The intro needs to reflect the reality, there is nothing wrong with massive edits if the edits are predicated on facts. An article like this needs to be updated fast as the information keeps coming. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've included the characterization of the international reaction as "outrage" in the lead a few times, along the lines of a previous discussion (now archived) but someone keeps removing this. The reaction is characterized as "outrage" in at least these sources, can we agree on including the term? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ("Colère") 8 9 10--Dailycare (talk) 10:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me why Jallepenos edit is POV? I've provided sources supporting his edits above. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan12345, allright. There are two points: By POV, we mean Point of View, i.e. something that either activists or Israelis would not consider theirs. The other thing is that the intro should faithfully summarize the article. Some of the details provided can be added with attribution to IDF for instance, but that then requires mentioning the details provided by the other side. That is, how they see the story. This would make the intro blow up. But the intro should not give undue weight to one section of the article. Now, you believe that the ships "were not carrying humanitarian aid", that is, you consider the ship mainly having construction material, and those you consider as worthless stuff. Please provide a reliable sources that says that the latter is the official Israeli position. You think it carried instead weapons. That's really a point of view of the Israeli government. It should be added together with a counter-statement by the activists. But that makes the intro blow up. Would that help? Maybe, maybe not. --11:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoostdarWKP (talk • contribs)

If the POV of the israeli government is supported by facts (audio-video, named testimony, including confessions from activists) then it would be silly to simply say, "Israel says..." Just because there are two sides does not mean we should remove information that might somehow make one look more credible than the other. I've provided sources above supporting Jal's edits when most of you said it was "unacceptable" so what is the problem here? It's been 6 days and the article still does not reflect what the most recent mainstream sources say.

Helsinki principles for neutrality at sea

Helsinki 5.1.2(3)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

new pictures and news report of beaten israeli commandos from raid

[3]. these pictures seems to support the israeli claims. In one of them you can even see two activists waiting behind a door with metal rods in their hands. Eldudarino (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We should include the pictures if they are actual ones. Also we may check if the killed activists/passengers match any of those in the pictures. On the other hand even journalists were shot on the ship.

Certainly there were some 10-20 activists who are ready to attack commandos if they board. IDF already released those videos. On the other hand IDF knew they were planning for a clash and their cold weapons since they have night vision cameras. Both Turkish and Israel governments knew what would exactly going to happen on the ship. And according to international and Turkish passengers IDF mistreated the captured passengers, beat them and sexually harrassed women, stripping them naked etc. Kasaalan (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source[4]. This is a significant development and should be included in the article. Since the photos obviously come from a reliable source (nobody can claim the Turkish are pro-Israeli in this), I think some of them should also be included. 132.69.136.166 (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

One more source [5], these are higher res and better quality than the others I've seen. The article claim they were recovered from erased (by the IDF) memory cards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(The following text is combined from a section below for ease of discussion) Zuchinni one (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Pics of beaten commandos published. This is brand new information. Here are the pictures: 1, 2, 3, 4. These pictures were taken by journalists/activists on-board prior to the shootings. Ynet has an article claiming the IDF soldiers tried to censor the pictures and that was what the whole stolen-memory stick dispute issue came from. Not sure how this could be merged into the article but I think it is very relevant. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(The following text is combined from a section below for ease of discussion) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=1&rid=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirov Airship (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with the very large Mavi Marmara boarding section

Currently the section is split up into the accounts of different groups. But this is an encyclopedia and eventually we need to have this section stop being personal accounts and start being verified facts.

Now that more information has come out many of the accounts are backing each other up. For example this interview with an Al-Jazeera reporter confirmed some of the IDF video footage & stories:

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html

This is not a complete list ... just a sample.

Confirmed:

• Time of the raid
• Israeli soldiers attempting to board by both helicopter & boat (it seems they tried by boat first)
  • Some videos showed some activists tried to use high pressure water against boats. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Initial use of non-lethal force by Israelis: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/04/gaza.raid.autopsies/ Zuchinni one (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Israelis started using live fire within 90 seconds of boarding (from the helicopters)
  • Not confirmed at all. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The wording I used was unclear. The confirmed fire was not from the HELICOPTERS, but from the soldiers who boarded the boats via abseil from the choppers. Confirmed here: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Passengers seized weapons from Israeli soldiers: Confirmed by flotilla organizers: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-organizer-admits-activists-seized-weapons-from-israeli-soldiers-1.293929 Zuchinni one (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• soldiers being attacked with iron bars (apparently railings from the ship). http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html Zuchinni one (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• soldiers being held captive (and apparently having their weapons removed, although it is unclear if these weapons were later used in the fighting)
  • Some were beaten badly by a group. Don't know exact number. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It is reported that two soldiers were thrown from an upper deck to a lower deck. No one is sure yet if they were held captive there or not. They escaped from lower deck by jumping into sea, and soon after retrieved by other Israeli naval forces. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Confirmed they were held captive by al-jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html Zuchinni one (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Journalist causalties. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the reports that remain unconfirmed:

• Use of bullet proof vests by passengers
• The passengers trying to take down the helicopter by tying the abseil rope to the ship
• That passengers had firearms prior to the Israeli boarding (they claim to have found shell casings and sights that don't fit Israeli weapons)
• Use of stun grenades by passengers (although the video seems pretty clear I have not seen any non-Israeli RS that mentions this)
• "Go back to Auschwitz" claims
• Israel denying medical aid to wounded (although considering this request seems to have occurred during the fighting, it would not surprise me if it was true)
  • Some reports say that wounded refusde to receive medical aid on board from Israeli medics. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Can you provide a reference Zuchinni one (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
      • As far as I know some heavy wounded did not treated immediately. They said they waited hours to get medical treatment. On the other hand after capture some wounded activists declined medical treatement in Israel territory. TV reports are nice but hard to reference. Kasaalan (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Israeli soldiers firing from the helicopter down at the passengers
• Paintball guns used a "glass type" ammunition
• Use of live fire by passengers [recently moved from confirmed as per discussion below] Zuchinni one (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you share source for that. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10203333.stm Zuchinni one (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any solid proof on the article. One soldier claimed 1 activist was holding rifle. No rifle found. did any commando has any wound by rifle bullet. Kasaalan (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the ref there is a statement from a journalist who witnessed the events, which directly supports this. There is also now confirmation from the flotilla organizers that passengers seized weapons from the soldiers. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-organizer-admits-activists-seized-weapons-from-israeli-soldiers-1.293929::::

Perhaps the seizure should be confirmed and the use of the weapons by passengers reverted to unconfirmed. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Another related ref: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/137780 Zuchinni one (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Israel is covering up casualties? At some point, a reporter or activist claimed that "more were missing". Any names?
• Casualties were caused in close quarter combat. This is the IDF viewpoint, but articles about the autopsy results seem to vaguely imply this was not the case. Were any casualties caused by a firearm different from IDF service pistols? E.g. casualties caused by live fire from helicopters (claimed by the Al Jazeera on-board reporter) should be easy given autopsies, or by inspection of the ship deck. kzm (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with figuring out what has happened is that the IDF confiscated all the video they could find of the event. While it seems fairly undisputed that the footage is legitimate, the timing of when the events occurred is in question, and footage that might support passenger POV has not been released. This means that it can be difficult to confirm passenger claims, since the IDF seems to have all the hard evidence.

It seems to me that the individual accounts are important, especially because that is the majority of evidence that the passengers have. But if we leave this section grouped as different accounts it will just remain impossible to manage from an editor's point of view, and impossible to read easily from a visitor's point of view.

I suggest that we do the following:

1. Change the format of this section into Confirmed Facts and Unconfirmed Reports (or different wording if you prefer). Each of these can have all the associated references attached to it. (It might be best to use a list format for the time being and change it to prose later). The list format will also make it easy for people to know what needs confirmation and prevent duplication.
2. Create a new article devoted to the personal accounts of the passengers, journalists, and soldiers involved and provide a link.
3. The link to the personal accounts article should explain that for the time being the IDF has most of the 'hard evidence' that shows what has happened and they have not released it all. Thus it has been easier to confirm IDF reports than passenger reports.

Please share your thoughts :)

Zuchinni one (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall it sounds like a very good and solid idea to me. I'm just not sure about the word "confirmed". If it's "confirmed", confirmed by whom? I think "Known Facts" might be better. Or perhaps "Undisputed Facts", but that's not perfect either. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I like your suggestion for 'undisputed facts' I think its more NPOV :) Zuchinni one (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

General questions then. If we don't answer these now, it'll come up very soon after adding the section. How would you propose determining what is "undisputed"?

• The same article which mentions "90 seconds after boarding" also says that soldiers were shot and beaten unconscious _before_ S. pulled out his weapons. Is that also "undisputed"?
• The article says "contrary to earlier reports", is that a strong suggestion that there is/was some dispute. How solid does the new info have to be to become "undisputed"?
• Is one reference enough to determine something is "undisputed"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Both Governments knew what would happen

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

• The images in the article isn't balanced. We use only IDF footage. Though there are some videos showing IDF commando shooting actvist close range. Also there are activists covered all in blood, like released US ex-troop.
• Some 10-20 activists started to make preperations 20-30 minutes before raid. They were ready to use cold weapons/force against commandos. Isreal knew that since they were taping with night vision cameras before and during raid. They also used helicopter which can view whole board. IDF sent 20-30 [not sure about exact number] commandos with live ammunition against over 400 passenger ship anyway. Some IDF commandos beaten hard by the group. Whoever happened to shot first unknown. IDF killed those group members along with journalist etc.
• Women claimed they stripped naked, and during their capture and afterwards they sexually harressed continually by touching.
  • Any RS to back this up? ShalomOlam (talk) 09:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It was a journalists account during TV commentary. I will try to find RS but not so easy. We need some more help from Turkish and Hebrew wikipedia editors. Kasaalan (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
      • http://www.sabah.com.tr/Gundem/2010/06/03/cirilciplak_soyup_tum_esyamizi_aldilar needs an English Translation
      • http://www.sabahenglish.com/general/10126.html English article of same journalist
      • Found links for strip search. I will check for sexual harrasment claims. Kasaalan (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Activists claimed mistreatment, and psychological torture/stress during and after capture.

Add it if there's anything substantial (e.g sexual abuse above)? Most of what I've seen appear to be "normal" for detainees (being tied up, noise of the helicopter, long waits), and I don't expect activists to say anything positive about the detension. kzm (talk) 07:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• We have an unnecessarily long ship section. Create a FORK and leave a summary in the article.
• Expand and categorize passenger and commando testimonies and create subtitles.
• One Arab religious leader claimed IDF troops shot a Turkish activist/passenger who resembles him, and commandos reported that to their superiors on radio talk.
• There was a source claiming some of the shells found on ship by IDF is unknown type.
• Type of cold weapons a group of activists used. IDF released pepper sprey etc. shots, though they were still unopened package.

This is almost impossible to determine. IDF's point is to show that the activists were prepared for confrontation, activists (may) claim these items are planted. Al Jazeera video shows people standing around with pipes and spanners, etc, but mostly improvised stuff as far as I can tell. kzm (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Most of the knives were clean and not used during fight. I noticed 1 small knife with blood though.

There's at least one video where and IDF is clearly stabbed. kzm (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Type of amnution and firearms. Paintball claims are not very realistic, no way IDF commondos would raid with only handguns.

This is discussed elsewhere. Also activist sources corroborate this. IDF had paintball guns for riot control, but also pistol side arms. Open questions are 1) did IDF use live ammo from helicopters prior to boarding? 2) Were any casualties shot with anything but IDF side arms? Either other handguns smuggled on board by activists, or assault rifles/machine guns by the IDF? kzm (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Type of helicopter I assume sikorsky. Does anyone confirm type of helicopter.

The only source I've seen claims "Apache helicopters with commandos", which is just silly. I think this was the Swedish guy who also claimed the IDF used Uzis, it's probably best to just ignore his military observations. kzm (talk) 07:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

We need what to be discussed somewhere otherwise we missing lots of points. By the way these are activist, journalist claims. Kasaalan (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Kasaalan I made an analysis of options Israel had : http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Israel_Options_for_Gaza_Flotilla_Operation.svg --Nevit (talk) 08:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Go back to Auschwitz

I know that now the RS blander will start all over again, but here is my harvest from today:

"Go back to Auschwitz" "Don't forget 9/11 guys"

[6]

And the full correspondence from IDF as source on YouTube:

[7]

Foltila 13 soldiers humiliated and attacked, espcially photo 7, the source is not else then one of the biggest news paper in Turkey (photos available in Turkish version only)

[8]

Fox news on IHH as terror linked organisation:

[9]

Something of all of this must find its way to the article. This whole foltila incident seem to be a provocative act of Turkey under Arduan's regime. It can be understood from some of the board articles from the latest days on the Washington Post, New York Times and others.

--Gilisa (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel has admitted that it doctored the audiotape. [10] 206.116.24.143 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't drop crap here please. Israel "admited" no such thing, I can only guess who is the one behind the source you provided here. --Gilisa (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

the audio has been doctored, as analysed by Max Blumenthal. Indeed the language used could only have come from a zionist...the Go Back to Aushwitz' is classic hasbara. Mossad motto: By Way of Deception , you shall do war!' We can only guess who did the doctoring...but it confirms that this attack was not just any ordinary interception: it was designed to minimise Israel culpability while demonising the activists.Jalusbrian (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF says that the audio was edited down to cut out periods of silence over the radio so as to make it easier for people to listen to the exchange. The entire segment (almost 6 minutes long) is also available on-line. ShalomOlam (talk)

Yes. They released a 30 second clip which was obviously edited but then made a clarification and released a 5-min clip. Source here: http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/05/clarificationcorrection-regarding-audio-transmission-between-israeli-navy-and-flotilla-on-31-may-2010-posted-on-5-june-2010/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Did you harvest any other sources that might add improve the article, or are you cherry-picking those that will support the sensationalistic Ynet website angle? Seriously Gilisa, are alleged derogatory remarks where you see the story? Are there any non-Partisan sources that focus on inflammatory language? I wonder if IDF commando "Sgt. S" muttered anything rude while he was pumping rounds into the napes of people's necks... Can editors please leave their agendas at the door? RomaC (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, I can't understand your complaint. What exactly you want me to do? Any of these sources add notable issue in case you skip it unnoticed. The transmission from the peace activists foltila, the photos of soldiers after being bitten from a Turkish newspaper itself and etc. These are all relevant for the main issues here. --Gilisa (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gilisa. I think reliable sources in non-partisan media are focusing on bullets in the dead passengers, not bites on the commandos -- would you not agree? You seem to be harvesting sources which support a certain set of data, which is sometimes called cherry picking. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not cherry picking and thanks for explaining but I know what the term mean. Anyway, although the bulk, maybe, of media sources were focus on those who been killed in the commando raid, they still mentioned many many times Israeli arguments and the volume of these is changed both in content and in quality, as well as in the way different media sources treat them, during these days. In any case, this analysis is not for us to make and there is no violation of WP:UNDUE in the sources I mentioned, on the opposite. This is the side of the story I'm focusing on, it's my right, right!? --Gilisa (talk) 16:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

youre on the wrong side of history. An anaylysis is done when you cherry pick. Pity your postings do not reflect what really happened. The fact the israelis have had to use dodgy tactics like faking audios(the faux racist: Go back to Aushwitz), the denial of live ammunition, and the paintball bananas, the use of doctored videos to portay the attack as if Israel was a victim of violent jihadis in a routine inspection of a boat; the theft of videos and photos(were they ever returned?)...These blatant tactics should tell anyone who is the guilty party. SO try not to make Wikipedia or Israel look any more corrupt than they already are by your spin.Jalusbrian (talk) 09:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Biased lead

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

I agree that "aid convoy" should be replaced with "convoy". ShalomOlam (talk) 10:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitely support. Over time it is clear the flotilla scuffle claimed to be on a mission of providing aid, but refused to cooperate with the red cross and allow Israel inspect the ship for weapons. An "aid convoy" would make sense if this were an official humanitarian ship, but with jihadist links I say it would be a stretch. Wikifan12345 (talk) 11:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you prefer "flotilla of terror"? Seriously, the ships were laden with aid and RS back this up. Stop POV-pushing please. RomaC (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this: http://www.nrg.co.il/images/news1/filo-bilgi-dosyasi_en.pdf According to this document, the goals of the fllotila were:

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

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

The Washington Post describes it as an "aid flotilla". As far as I can see, The Guardian quotes the organisers. "Aid convoy" isn't used by either cited source. "Aid convoy" only seems to be used once in the lead; I'd suggest that "convoy" (or better yet, "flotilla") would be the most appropriate term, but will concede that "aid flotilla" is sourced. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel news reffer to it simply as "The Flotilla". ShalomOlam (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. "Flotilla" is probably more accurate than "convoy", once we factor in the later ships. We need to describe it neutrally, and then let the organisers and IDF make their respective claims. I think there's a danger of rejecting sensible terms because Israeli news uses that term: we shouldn't reject sensible, sourced terms because "one side" uses them: Al Jazeera and Channel 10 have both surprised me during this episode by agreeing ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not rejecting "aid convoy" because only "one side" uses it. I'm rejecting it since it is POV. Is IHH a RS? Because they don't claim to be an "aid convoy" at all. Check out their web-site's FAQ yourself. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and agree completely. However, I'd prefer to see "flotilla" cited to an exceptional source (the current sources are both excellent, by the way). Is IHH is reliable for stating what IHH believe. I don't consider them reliable beyond that. Same applies to the IDF. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was: nobody can accuse IHH that it expresses Israeli POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

IHH[11] web-site: F. A. Q. Could you define the Flotilla which is sailing to Gaza in April? It is a civilian initiative that includes various intellectuals, artists, politicians, representatives of nongovernmental organizations and similar figures representing Turkish and European people, that aims to break the embargo of Gaza by sailing to the territory on ships. Not a word about "humanitarian" or "aid". ShalomOlam (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RS say it was ships with "aid". Whether convoy or a flotilla or a fleet or whatever -- this second term should not be leveraged to remove "aid" as the principal descriptor, because "aid" is what non-partisan RS have said. We don't kowtow to IDF narratives. RomaC (talk) 14:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Calling it an "aid" convoy is taking the convoy's POV. Even IHH, on their web-site do not claim they main goal was aid. They claim that they aim "to break the embargo of Gaza by sailing to the territory on ships". Meaning: the route was much more important to them than to deliver the cargo to Gaza. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Shalom Shalom, please refer to WP:Primary for policy on the use of sources. RS are secondary sources, and they say "aid". Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately it can be hard to determine intent, even if the IHH made claims about the "true nature" of the convoy, the fact remains that it was a whole lot of ships filled with aid. Shalom, you make a good point about what the IHH said, but perhaps the main article is a better place to discuss that. Also, while much of the flotilla may have been organized by the IHH, there were many passengers whose goal was to deliver aid, not to start a conflict with Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The most neutral thing to do is to write "convoy" (or "flotilla") and not "aid convoy". At least, in the lead. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Eyewitness says IDF threw four injured activists overboard into sea

Activist Idris Simsek, who was on board one of the six ships of the Freedom Flotilla during the Israeli attack, claims that four wounded activists were thrown into the sea.[12] Can someone with an account add this important information to the article? 206.116.24.143 (talk) 10:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Iran national TV! What an independent RS... --Gilisa (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa just above you are pushing IDF's YouTube channel as a RS, can you please participate with some neutrality? RomaC (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, so I believe that these claims should not be added to the article, at this time. That is the most neutral thing to do. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Then this picture's status also comes into question.

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

Israel's POWs in the ship showed by turkish newspaper

I've found these pictures that show soldiers captured in the assault

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14944432.asp?gid=373 http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=1&rid=2

I don't understand turkish but according to a friend these are pictures taken by the activists and saved by this turk newspaper.

--Bentaguayre (talk) 12:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

They sure do look like non violent peace activists, don't they? ShalomOlam (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

as israel has confiscated all video and photo material of the journalists and still not given back we don't have more material unfortunately.--Severino (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

--

These sections about the Turkish photos are growing like crazy. There have been 5 of them so far.

Could Zucchini or another long time wiki editor give some guidance here, and clarify the policy of using photos from a news source? Can we use these images that Hurriyet published? Is it fair use? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs)

Hurriyet and other major Turkish news sources copyright their contents. --Nevit (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

POWs? Oh dear, more drama. These photo's can be used on the same basis as the IDF sourced photo's. The limitations are the same in both cases, either we can use them both under fair use or neither. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF soldier vs. activist

Because the caption of the image showing am IDF soldier being attacked keeps getting edited, I propose that I make a template for it to transclude onto the page. The template can be protected if needs be then. The caption I have seen to date that I think would be the best caption is "Snapshot of footage taken by the IDF from the MV Mavi Marmara; Both IDF and activists on board have acklowdeged that this shows an Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe. Source: IDF"

File:Activistboatclash.jpg‎: Snapshot of footage taken by the IDF from the MV Mavi Marmara; Both IDF and activists on board have acklowdeged that this shows an Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe. Source: IDF

and I suggest a source from the IDF saying they were attacked, and a source saying the activists saying they used pipes etc. (for self defence). Also to be included could be "The IDF suggest that they were paid mercenaries" with a source.
Once we have decided this, I will make the template to stop it from being changed. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 12:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'd suggest that we request semi-protection for the template, to match the protection here. I'd be happy including the wording you suggest, appropriately cited to unimpeachable sources, where both "sides" are in agreement. I wouldn't be happy with the "paid mercenary" part. Unless the "paid mercenaries" were to confirm that. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The template's talk page would also make an excellent venue for discussing this recurring issue ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:36, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If both sides agree on what this shows, why not just shorten it to shows an Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe, with references to both sides of the story? Or we can use 'shows an Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe - according to the activists in self defense. 132.69.136.166 (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is more with what happens over there, rather than what we decide on this side of the talk page/article divide. Editors are going to continue to change the text; this way we can isolate that part and handle it in isolation.

Incidentally, repeatedly changing this text is covered by the 1RR sanctions, just the same as everything else here. I'd suggest advising editors who change the text away from the consensus version; they may not be aware that there's (a) a talk page, and (b) restrictions on how many times we can revert.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli soldier being beaten with an iron pipe sounds okay to me. However, I object to "activists used pipes in self defence", since self defence is a disputed claim. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"Fighting between activists and an IDF soldier" Physchim62 (talk) 13:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That implies that both sides were on equal standing, however in this picture, the activist is standing over the fallen IDF soldier wielding a pipe upon high. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest [13] for the IDF side; can someone find one from the activists side saying they fought in self defence. I'm sure I've seen them, but I can't find them atm. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the template so far: {{Gfr_soldier-activist_pic}}

Hi, this is not a good wording . The picture definitely DOESN'T SHOW the SOLDIER. It shows the ACTIVIST, beating a soldier which can't be seen in the picture. I suggest changing to : "Snapshot of footage taken by the IDF from the MV Mavi Marmara; both IDF[1] and activists on board have acklowdeged that this shows an activist beating an Israeli soldier with an iron pipe." --79.177.16.140 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

so, according to the *IDF* also the activist(s) have acknowledged the soldier was beaten? then we also have to mention the self defence according to the activist.--Severino (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

another point is that in many respects its dubious for this online encyclopedia to use material which could also origin from the confiscated one of the journalists, which the israel military uses without permission to proove their POV...--Severino (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The video in question was taken with night vision from an IDF naval boat. Regardless, see point #3 in my summary below.  —Rafi  18:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Summary of the debate

The debate here has been going in circles for days now. Here's a summary I posted above at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage (revised here).

Some recurring arguments:

1. All we can see is a man holding a stick; interpreting what's happening is POV.
2. Broader context is needed regarding who attacked first, was acting in self-defense, etc.
3. The IDF is biased/corrupt so their footage is illegitimate.
4. This is the IDF's version, so we should write "claimed," "allegedly," etc.
5. There are too many images supporting Israel's side, creating unbalance. (There are currently two images in the section "Israel's account.")

Responses:

1. The events transpiring in the footage are undeniable if you watch the video. If your vision is too selective then there are numerous secondary sources that explain it, for example [14][15][16]. Not even the activists involved dispute it; they only dispute the context.
2. My caption (proposed below) makes no comment on who used violence first or was acting in self-defense. The broader context, which is disputed, is available to readers in the text. Also keep in mind that the image is in the "Israel account" section, so the activists' version shouldn't get undue attention here.
3. The extreme version of this argument is obviously POV. More legitimate criticism of how the IDF handled the footage belongs in other sections of the article.
4. See WP:CLAIM.
5. If one of the images has to go, it should be the one of the soldier being thrown. The activist with metal rod in hand is an icon of the IDF account. Alternatively, editors can add more images to the activists' account to achieve balance, instead of watering down the Israel account. Also notice that the article's lead image shows commandos with assault rifles.

This is my preferred caption:

Snapshot of footage showing activists[1] with rods beating a fallen soldier[1]. Source: IDF.[2]

Refs: [1] WaPost or other secondary sources from above, [2] <ref name="IsraeliVideo" /> (Israel's Foreign Ministry)

I prefer external secondary sources to "both the IDF and activists acknowledge" because the former is more concise. The secondary references weaved into the caption should hopefully deter drive-by edit-warring. Making a template was also a good idea.

 &#151;Rafi  18:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of that! TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many examples of IDF being an unreliable source. One of the latest I saw is here. Unfortunately previous discussions ended in favor of including IDF sources. http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0606/idf-admits-doctoring-audio-gaza-flotilla/

Are there any sources that support that the audio is "doctored"? The site you mention doesn't seem to offer anything substantial, nor contradict the IDF position on the issue.kzm (talk) 11:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

--Nevit (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevit, the image is in a section titled Israel's account. The caption plainly says Source: IDF. If you have RS's that meet the standard of WP:WEIGHT that criticize the IDF's handling of footage, that could be incorporated somewhere in the article, but it doesn't belong here. We can also criticize the credibility of the activists; but they are entitled to a section on their narrative as well.  &#151;Rafi  20:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

We should use IDF footages. On the other hand we should stress they are edited footage. And they cut off parts IDF commandos attack etc. Or later treatment to the activists. IDF also erased all data from all journalists. So there is a direct censorship. Kasaalan (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See my response to Nevit and points 2, 3 in my summary.  &#151;Rafi  14:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

A Consensus Please

Rafi suggested a caption that some people agreed with, I suggest changing the second use of the first source to

Snapshot of footage showing activists with rods beating a fallen soldier. Source: IDF.

Can you either agree or disagree so that a consensus can be achieved, and this issue determined once and for all.

I agree 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Just curious why you want to use the WaPost ref then switch to the Ynet ref. If you're trying to make it look strong, maybe use both twice, like "... activists[1][2] ... soldier[1][2] ... IDF[3]." I'd prefer a consistent look because both parts have solid credibility. Anyway, I agree with any combination of sources.

Nice job with the template.  &#151;Rafi  04:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

because of the israeli confiscation of journalists and activists video and photo material with selective usage of this material by israel to push its narrative, this narrative is predominant now. we have to be careful not to support this bias here.--Severino (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to this argument three times in the last subsection.  &#151;Rafi  14:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

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

agree. we have to be cautious to adopt cynical terms which have the purpose to cloud the character of the operation.--Severino (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

disagree. This is the official IDF name for the operation. This is a fact, and there is no reason not to mention it. As a matter of fact, the real name is "Operation Sky Winds 7" - since there were other similar operations over the passing years, with the same objective, but with no fatal outcome. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The IDF codename for the operation was chosen few days before the raid occured. MathKnight 16:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that the code name given to this operation by the Israeli military (which is an undisputed fact based on reliable sources) should be censored from the article, because to you "Sky Winds" suggests a cool breeze? Marokwitz (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone of you know Hebrew? I know it as native speaker, there is nothing in it that can be interpereted as cynical. The lit translation of Ruchot A'shamiem is "Operation Sky Winds" and it mean or imply nothing else. Infact, name choosing for IDF operations is being done through the computer choosing randomly from very large existing list since the early 70's. Your suggestion consist pure OR and very creative commentary about the name, and in an article with 1RR I would consider it as very very unhelpful. --Gilisa (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Pardon? Are you serious? Leave the technique of name choosing in IDF (easy to source BTW), the name mean in Hebrew "Winds of the Sky", thats all, that's simple. That's how it is also cited invariably in seemingly all RS. So where exactly did you come with this counter accusation? If you imply that the name have cynical content then it would be violation of WP policy and considering the discussion here, wouldn't be too much to see it as more than just OR, but also as bias pushing and violation of WP:CON. --Gilisa (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing sourced content is not that great of an idea. Unless RomaC is proposing that we stop using the same boring and predictable phrases conjured by those state-controlled media like "holocaust" and "massacre." Although it appears they are working a bit slowly these days.[17]--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

What Zuchinni one said. If the IDF called the raid "Operation Sky Winds", we can say the IDF called the raid "Operation Sky Winds". We should mention alternative names/phrases in the lead. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Times two. We should give equal weight to the names that each group chose for their mission. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Condensing section "Legal assessments"

We have three section in Legal assesments. Since we have issues that the article is WP:TOOLONG, I propose that this section should be condensed shorter (about half the size) into sub-article Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid should contain. The question is what is essential and what should go? --Kslotte (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Some condensing done. A few sentence shorter. --Kslotte (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral addition of categories including "Piracy"?

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

I'm assuming that the editor was being WP:BOLD, which is fair enough. Continuing in that vein, it might be worth dropping a note on their talk page, inviting them to discuss the new categories here? For what it's worth, the new categories seem non-neutral, but I'm not a big category expert so I'm open to policy-based arguments. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I see categorizing it as "Piracy" is POV, even if some response has been expressed exactly as such. --Kslotte (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This was reverted by user Harami2000. For the reference the categories was Category:Political repression, Category:Israeli terrorism victims and Category:Piracy. --Kslotte (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

To clarify further, the existing text has stated for some time that "According to a preliminary navy investigation, some passengers attempted to take hostage three unconscious commandos by dragging them into one of the passenger halls below . They were held in passenger halls for several minutes until they regained consciousness and managed to join the other soldiers [how?]". If the (stated-IHH??) photo in question is of a conscious and beaten/held-down Israel soldier, that is difficult to reconcile easily with the existing text, unless taken on deck(?). Definitely would need more RS for that, but given that it took long enough to find a relatively neutral RS to confirm that the soldiers were actually captured in the first place ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=366279451&oldid=366277070 ) that might prove difficult.

Regardless, the photo does however appear to confirm that the "activists" had the 'upper hand' far more clearly than a freeze frame from video from the Israel ship's night vision. Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The photos are from a set released by Hürriyet here. Le Monde, commenting on the photos, quotes an American ex-serviceman who was on board the Mavi Marmara: "We overpowered three Israeli soldiers. They looked at us... they thought we were going to kill them, but we let them go." Physchim62 (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks like that does at least partially contradict the "until they [i.e. all 3(?)] regained consciousness" account although I suspect further Israeli narrative might also debate why such a casual "we let them go" account after going to the hassle of beating up/overpowering, capturing and taking to the (stated elsewhere) lowest deck. More to follow and awaiting English text (citation) RSs, I guess? Harami2000 (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is Haaretz' take on it, which includes a response from the IDF... Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Paintball

The use of paintball guns is sourced, but it looks very strange. Why bring paintball guns? Is it some translation error and they are refering to Flexible baton round (beanbag)? Gardell identified the weapons as Uzis (but he's not a military expert) and Edward Peck says they were attached to automatic weapons.[18] // Liftarn (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Paintball guns are commonly used for non-lethal deterrence. Usually the paintballs are filled with a type of irritant similar to pepper spray, but I haven't seen mention of this. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF has night vision, so they were aware the preperations made on ship. So either they sent their commandos to be attacked by a several people with paintball rifles. Or they are simply lying about rifles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

aside: I'm not convinced about that logic, sorry. If the IDF were fully aware of such preparations they would surely either have released the video they have of that (rather than the ship's security camera video) and/or not had their commandos descend in such a 'casual' manner to be attacked and captured? (The IDF were the ones with the paintball weapons, btw). Harami2000 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF had night vision, they released IR thermal footage themselves. There is no way IDF didn't check the ship board with cameras prior to raid. The security cameras clearly show a group making preperations over board outside ship 20-30 minutes before raid. There is no way IDF raid with paintball guns unless they are lethal. Kasaalan (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen sources saying the guns fired some kind of glass marbles. It is also possible that it refers to a type of grenade that contains rubber coated metal balls. // Liftarn (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Getting hit by regular paintballs, from guns that are not pressure-limited (like recreational paintball), could easily be confused for something harder, like glass. The preceding statement is pure WP:OR and comes directly from an extremely painful personal experience :P Zuchinni one (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen several sources alledging (or maybe just speculating) the use of rubber bullets at first. That would seem logical, if the IDF were expecting to have to do some crowd control. Physchim62 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In this video you can see Israel's soldiers handling paintball weapons (0:25) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24&feature=player_embedded

And some stun grenades falling in the boat, althought the origin of this grenade i think can't be known. --Bentaguayre (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here speculating on whether or not they were really paintball guns and whether or not it makes sense that the IDF decided to send in commandos with paintball guns is violating WP:OR, WP:TALK, and WP:SOAP. I suggest you stop immediately and start discussing things that are actually relevant and sourced that can be improved in the article. The use of paintball guns is widely reported in WP:RS and therefore there is nothing dubious about it. Nobody has any valid reason to suspect any mistaken translations, either. I am removing the inappropriate dubious tag. Breein1007 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The source for the paintball claim is IDF and that is a single, partisan source. As we have conflicting statements about the weapons used it is relevant to the article. // Liftarn (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not true. The fact that the soldiers were equipped with paintball guns is widely reported and not solely attributed to IDF claims. Here is one example that I just quickly found [19]. There are many more. Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Those news sources just repeat the IDF claims. We also have at least two RS quoting witnesses who say they carrid automatic weapons. // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see the first IDF soldiers boarding in this IHH video (from 8:49). Those weapons there are definitely not assault rifles, but rather some kind of riot gun. Physchim62 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

noone will claim that the israel military used solely paintball guns...--Severino (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not even the IDF! But the IHH video was live-streamed off the ship, so the IDF who appear at the end (boarding from the sea) must have been among the first on board. That backs up the IDF claim that they started with non-lethal weapons. Physchim62 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Officers' Letter

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

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

A few paragraphs from the article:

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

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

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

MV Rachel Corrie

The section Gaza_flotilla_raid#Boarding_of_MV_Rachel_Corrie needs some work and especially correlation with MV Rachel Corrie. Also the info at Gaza_flotilla_raid#Other_ships needs to be correlated. --Kslotte (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been split into a new article Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie. A lot of text chunks that needs much clean-up at this point. Help is appreciated. --Kslotte (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For the reference, arguments for splitting is WP:SIZE and there is enough text to have an article on its own. --Kslotte (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The section should be removed, since MV Rachel Corrie did not take part in this flotilla. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mv Rachel Corrie was part of the flotilla from the very beginning. It was delayed due to the mechanical problems. Even the IDF Video refers to Rachel Corrie as the "7th ship in the flotilla". --386-DX (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a separate sub-article Ships of Gaza flotilla raid, where we can fill in the two ships that where meant for the flotilla, but couldn't make it for some reasons. The content can be found in the history of the main article. --Kslotte (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they were delayed doesn't matter, Challenger 2 and Rachel Corrie were part of the flotilla. If we'll include the names of the ships, we must include those as well. They are a very significant part of the event. --386-DX (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They where part of the flotilla, but not part of the raid. That should be made clear when adding the ships. The raid of Rachel Corrie has its own article Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie. --Kslotte (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename to Gaza flotilla raids (plural)

They've raided more than one now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrill Stubing (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The word "raid" should be removed all together. Wikipedia says that Raid (military) is an operational executed with surprise. And since IDF clearly warned the flotilla that it is going to try and stop them, than the term "raid" is misused. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite warnings, it can still be describe as a raid, as it was sudden. Also a synonym for raid would be "seizure" Raid. Using Wikipedia's definition is using Wikipedia as a dictionary, and WP:DICTIONARY. --Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a very long and extensive debate about the naming of the article, and the current name was accepted with a very wide consensus. Please check the archives. --386-DX (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You probably mean the seizure of MV Rachel Corrie as a second raid. That raid has its own article Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie. So, no plural is needed. --Kslotte (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reuters doctored/cropped a photo

A while ago Reuters doctored some photos of the Lebanon war and it was uncovered by a blogger at the website Little Green Footballs. Article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adnan_Hajj_photographs_controversy

Well it looks like they have done it again. Here is an uncropped photo of an injured soldier posted on a Turkish news website: http://fotogaleri.hurriyet.com.tr/GaleriDetay.aspx?cid=36575&p=1&rid=2 The knife is clearly seen in the bottom right corner.

Here's that same photo, posted on the Day Life website by Reuters Pictures, but doctored so the knife is taken out: http://www.daylife.com/photo/0gQV54U1jr7pL

I'm not sure what articles of theirs this photo has been used in.
Here is the blog where this was found: http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-crops-out-knife-in-picture-of.html Faaaaaaamn (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, had spotted that on the http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article490465.ece/Israel-says-activists-prepared-for-fight-on-ship version ex. Reuters as linked above (although at that stage it was not yet clear - to me, anyhow - that all those pics had a common Turkish source). The edit also makes it less clear that that particular image was (presumably?) taken prior to removing that particular Israeli soldier (further?) below deck given the stairs are more obvious in the uncropped version. Harami2000 (talk) 01:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You need an RS that talks about this. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would hardly say it's "doctored": it has been cropped to center on the Israeli solider. You can still see the handle of the knife (although the original caption of "knife-wielding" is hardly neutral either). Physchim62 (talk) 01:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Any objection to 'knife-carrying' since that simply notes what is not perhaps immediately clear in the thumb?

Not sure why the photo has been moved into the 'Israeli account' section, too, since that could be read as further supporting /their/ account/POV given the other images already in that section. It seemed like more neutral in the previous context, pre-move, anyhow, and was (allegedly) an image the IDF attempted to 'suppress'... Harami2000 (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why include this? There is nothing wrong with cropping a picture. --Kslotte (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if that potentially distorts the story that is published alongside in the media for general public consumption?

Yes, admittedly it's more of a "issue" for Reuters than for Wikipedia article content... I don't think it's easy to state at what point "alternative versions" are worthwhile noting in the main article, save that using the "best available" is probably a sensible approach?

aside: Reuters other cropped image was even more obvious as it removed not only the knife but also the prone/injured Israeli soldier on that ground; http://www.ihh.org.tr/uploads/10/06/06/20/e87/yarali-asker-kaynak-ihh-5.jpg vs. http://www.daylife.com/photo/04GyfwE9WH76j?q=gaza (as linked on the http://littlegreenfootballs.com blog). Harami2000 (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

<- Perhaps I wasn't clear. An RS is required in cases like this and editors need to stop repeating claims here on this talk page about Reuters that don't come from reliable sources. Unsourced or poorly sourced material can't be in an article if it might damage the reputation of an organization and it can't be on the talk page either per WP:PROVEIT. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Discussing this matter in talk, however, seems fair enough as it is not "unsourced/poorly sourced" but a statement of fact that these photographs exist in cropped and uncropped versions. It would appear to be common sense to ensure that editors are at the very least aware of this (and to seek RSs specifically on the matter to bring to the discussion, should they wish) and to take this matter into account for any resultant contextual /content/ in RSs where cropped vs. uncropped pictures are used when considering how to include any associated text in WP. Harami2000 (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't Little Green Footballs a reliable source? http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36488_Did_Reuters_Crop_a_Photo_to_Remove_a_Peace_Activists_Weapon and http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/36489_Another_Cropped_Reuters_Photo_Deletes_Another_Knife_-_And_a_Pool_of_Blood Faaaaaaamn (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As already noted on my 03:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC) edit, above, thank you. Harami2000 (talk) 05:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

[edit]] Apologies, I missed that the first line of your message had run into my previous indent. Little Green Footballs is listed on WP, but it's still a blog which would generally but not always be a negative (someone should be able to quote the precise section, since I need to get some shut-eye, sorry). Harami2000 (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't an RS and neither is elderofziyon for these kind of accusations (see WP:SOURCES) that relate to matters of fact. I think discussing this matter on talk is fine too if it helps direct people to search for reliable sources but simply repeating accusations and making section headings/statements that are based on an assumption of wrongdoing on the part of Reuters (or anyone else) is not okay. Things don't become relevant to article content decisions until they're covered by RS and a statements of fact can only come from RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok well it looks like they've now released the original uncropped first photo after bloggers complained but not the second. http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/06/reuters-tries-to-minimize-photo.html Faaaaaaamn (talk) 10:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The second picture released by Reuters is not the one they cropped, although it comes from the same set published by Hürriyet. It seems that elderofziyon.blogspot is more interested in being outraged than actually doing their homework. Still this is a complete non-issue: let the bloggers let off steam, while we try to write something more encyclopedic. Physchim62 (talk) 10:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Good job

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

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

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

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

Or we can take this time to enjoy backwards land. I for one believe that "massacre" needs to be in the lead.Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Widely used alternative terms should be in the lead. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 07:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason to delete it. The motivations of the IP don't matter. Just look at it as a nice opportunity to remind the IP and everyone else what editors are supposed to be doing here and enjoy the silliness. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There are allegations that Israel has created internet teams to back Israeli POV on internet. http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1-/10793-twitterers-paid-to-spread-israeli-propaganda-internet-warfare-team-unveiled.html We can not know for sure if any of the users or how many of them are paid by their respective states. But Wikipedia article qualities will surely suffer. --Nevit (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow because pro-Palestinian activists don't use the internet either. If there's bias in the Wikipedia article then it can be discussed and removed. Ridiculous.Faaaaaaamn (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There were thousends of hacker attacks on more than 1000 most active Israeli web sites, mostly from Turish IPs. Well, that's a fact, so what does it mean? And the source you provided is not exactly, how to say it, reliable? Please read about the Electronic Intifada to get the right perspective. --Gilisa (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The right perspective is a neutral point of view... TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 08:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Talking of neutral, people might want to put Shayetet 13 on their watchlist and keep and eye on it. The recent editing has been somewhat suboptimal. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

SF Chronicle source

I've removed the statement "Israel's Gaza blockade legal, many scholars say" based on this source in the lede to the legal section and the lede of the legal page. The reasons for this are the article makes no reference at all to the scope of their survey (numbers of people, countries, survey form, response proportion, level of expertise) and without this is not necessarily reliable. As it is an academic topic; per [[20]] For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources and also under academic consensus Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources regards, Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You had no reason to remove it. The countries from which they came are not relevant per se and had we knew them it would change nothing. We don't have to get the survey details and we are not allowed to analys these ourselves. We regard the SF chronicle as RS and trust it for making the work properly. Above all, you made this revert without achiving consensus here first. Hence, you left me no other choice but to revert your revert. BTW, you could add short reservation that the SF didn't make public details about the survey method-but not to remove sourced content, espcially not when you didn't try to achive consensus first...Regards --Gilisa (talk) 07:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That looked like a good reason to me.

I also question this: you left me no other choice but to revert your revert - were you unable to discuss Clovis Sangrail's removal on their talk page? Here? There's almost always a better alternative to reverting a revert.

We are encouraged to be WP:BOLD. We are encouraged to WP:REVERT. I'd also like to encourage WP:DISCUSSION (and maybe, just maybe, WP:BRD). Acknowledging the good faith of an editor who posts here their reasons for an edit is also to be encourgaed. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 08:44, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli blockade is not supported by UN and international view. "Emphasizing the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings," UN Resolution 1860 (2009) U.N. Human Rights Chief: Israel's Blockade of Gaza Strip Is Illegal Many academics might claim it is legal, tough much more academician claims it is illegal. UN declared Israel should stop blockade immediately anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 09:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Then quote reliable secondary sources that say that. Clovis Sangrail's point (that academic topics should be not supported - directly or indirectly - by cites from academic studies) stands. We're not in the business of interpreting academic reports, and the "many scholars say" is not good. We should present the arguments and the counter-arguments, and leave the "many scholars say" nonsense to the tabloid press. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 10:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, there is no reason in what all of you three wrote here, to remove the source and what it says. Reservation is enough, more than that is POV pushing and censorship. As for the UN, it have nothing to do with the SF chronicle review of specialist opinion. And also, the UN called to lift the blockade following a vote, it have nothing with the international dry law. Therefore, it's different issue. --Gilisa (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ: As this is an encyclopedia we need verifiable facts. Sourced statements like "most scholars say" are weasel words need to be bounded to be verifiable, and the SF provides no bounds whatsovever (not even a date of survey). General unbounded weasel statements cannot be proven or disproven, so do not belong in an Encyclopedia. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words#Unsupported_attributions

Flotilla case source share

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

It doesn't seem like a good idea to have an inventory of sources, reliable or not, on the TP. --Gilisa (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ships

I replaced long section with a sortable table Gaza flotilla raid#Ships in flotilla. It needs improvement. Kasaalan (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. --Nevit (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The table could be moved to Ships of Gaza flotilla raid and the section could be left with bullet list of the ships. --Kslotte (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Section: Free Gaza Movement

The section Free Gaza Movement reflects Israeli point of view that materials with dual function are blocked into Gaza.

Israel prevents cement and other building materials from reaching Gaza, saying that although they have legitimate uses, it might be used to make smuggling tunnels for explosives and arms.

Indeed the motivation for Free Gaza Movement was to dispute Israels right to decide what is allowed and what is not. The ships was loaded with stuff banned by Israel such as Toys, A4 paper, Chocolate, etc. etc. which would not be permitted to enter if they were to be inspected by Israel .

Extended content

List of non-permissible items to Gaza Biscuits And Sweets Buoys Cardamom Cattle Cement Chicks Chocolate Coriander Cumin Dairies For Cowsheds Donkeys Dried Fruit Fabric (For Clothing) Flavor And Smell Enhancers Fishing Rods Fresh Meat Fruit Preserves Gas For Soft Drinks Ginger Glucose Goats Halva Hatcheries And Spare Parts For Hatcheries Heaters For Chicken Farms Heaters Horses Industrial Margarine Industrial Salt Iron Irrigation Pipe Systems Jam Musical Instruments Newspapers Notebooks Nutmeg Nylon Nets For Greenhouses Planters For Saplings Plaster Plastic/Glass/Metal Containers Potato Chips Razors Ropes For Fishing Ropes To Tie Greenhouses Sage Seeds And Nuts Sewing Machines And Spare Parts Size A4 Paper Spare Parts For Tractors Tar Tarpaulin Sheets For Huts Toys Various Fishing Nets Vinegar Wood For Construction Writing Implements Source for list: http://www.gisha.org/

--Nevit (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In your view The section Free Gaza Movement reflects Israeli point of view that materials with dual function are blocked into Gaza. I'm not seeing it - which part in particular concerns you? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 10:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I can not see the dual function of Pikachu's, drugs, A4 paper, chocolate, dried fruits, potato chips and hundreds of other materials on ships.

The section also heavily includes Israel's accusation of IHH to terror. Even IDF has retracted the claims but Wikipedia still insists. http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/

--Nevit (talk) 11:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to see or even agree with Israel's view on the dual use of toys etc. All we need to do - and have done, as far as I can see - is provide both sides' view:

The ships were to carry what the organizers identified as 10,000 tons of humanitarian aid, with a value of $20 million, including food and medicine, and building materials such as cement which make up 4/5 of the cargo's gross weight and are banned by the blockade, to the Gaza Strip.

Israel prevents cement and other building materials from reaching Gaza, saying that although they have legitimate uses, it might be used to make smuggling tunnels for explosives and arms.

Organizers say that building materials are necessary to rebuild the infrastructure of Gaza that was seriously damaged in the 2008–2009 war.

It's very difficult to discuss what Israel believes without saying what Israel says it believes. Saying that Israel prevents cement because Israel says... is fine. It would only be a problem if the article was to say cement is... rather than Israel says "cement is...".

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Israel claims" would be equally accurate. Physchim62 (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As would "Israel states". However, we should avoid any implication that what Israel says is true ("states") or false ("claims") and simply report it neutrally. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of IHH connection to terror

The section also includes Israel's accusation of IHH connection to terror. Even IDF has already retracted the claims but Wikipedia still includes them. http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/ --Nevit (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it says Israel has accused IHH of having close ties to Hamas, and being "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." I'd have thought that Israel's previous accusations about the IHH are relevant, though I'd recommend it should be made clear that Israel no longer believes their earlier claim about the IHH to be true. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Before I put anything in, is there any reason not to regard the Danish Institute of International Studies as a reliable source? On their page http://www.diis.dk/graphics/Publications/WP2006/DIIS%20WP%202006-7.web.pdf I find:

"the phenomenon of charitable front groups that provide support to Al-Qaida is by no means exclusively limited to the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, elsewhere in the Muslim world, other such entities have been established with near equal success – as in Turkey, with the socalled Foundation for Human Rights, Liberties, and Humanitarian Relief (IHH). Turkish authorities began their own domestic criminal investigation of IHH as early as December 1997, when sources revealed that leaders of IHH were purchasing automatic weapons from other regional Islamic militant groups. IHH’s bureau in Istanbul was thoroughly searched, and its local officers were arrested. Security forces uncovered an array of disturbing items, including firearms, explosives, bomb-making instructions, and a “jihad flag.” After analyzing seized IHH documents, Turkish authorities concluded that “detained members of IHH were going to fight in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Chechnya.” According to a French intelligence report, the terrorist infiltration of IHH extended to its most senior ranks. The report, written by famed counterterrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguiere..." Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that IDF had could withdrawn allegations if they where reliable provable info. The ships where explored and some Pikachu's was found. --Nevit (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo bias

There were nine aid workers murdered and 30 injured yet we have five pictures of Israeli armed men injured or being beaten and NONE of the 40 humanitarian workers killed or injured. This is WP:NPOV and balance, Wiki style? Given the casualties balance might be four pictures of the victims of the massacre and one of the killers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any pictures available to us of the casualties? If so, we should definitely start adding them (and removing some of the current images). Note, though, that some of the wounded soldier images come from the IHH and other non-Israel sources. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that the "aid workers" were attacked. The most controversial and disagreed about issue is whether the soldiers were attacked - so the images cover this aspect. Even the veracity of the images have become an issue, hence the variety. So no, that's not bias. I agree though, if we could find an image of a dead "aid worker" - I think we should include it. Rklawton (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody was murdered. If you think otherwise, than you don't know the meaning of the word "murder". Same goes to "massacre". ShalomOlam (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were murdered. Forensic reports, as well as multiple eyewitness accounts reveal that some people were shot execution style, from very close range and multiple times. --386-DX (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you have one

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/oic-condemns-freedom-flotilla-attacks-1.634966

--Bentaguayre (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is too much undue wight on the IDF pov through the images, either many of the images are removed, or we add some non-IDF created images too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree the pictures give the impression of bias. --John (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User Maashatra11 has removed two photos released by IHH claiming that they are "nonreliable, unverifiable" whereas these photos have been published by numerous international newspapers and media organisations around the world. Please report them for violating the policy of "1 revert per 24 hours". I don't know how. --386-DX (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Four paragraphs on the "Auschwitz" back and forth accusations/denials?

Four entire paragraphs seems like an awful lot info on this one topic which really amounts to Israel produced an audio tape, and the activists call it a fraud.

I think the first paragraph is good. But I think most of the next three paragraphs could removed, and replaced with just one paragraph which covers these things:

• Isareli journalist confirmation of radio transmission.
• Huwaida Arraf's voice is on the recording, which she says indicates it's a fake.
• Captain Denis Healey's rejection of it.

Thoughts?

Are there any objection to cutting it down quite a bit?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 11:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It seems WP:UNDUE. It's a section on "initial contact", not "post-contact allegations of anti-Semitism and counter allegations of fraud". This should be summarised, and I've agree with your "just one paragraph" suggestion. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an example of having something sourced but editors disputing it so exceptional detail is provided to get it in then even more is given in an attempt to tone it down which actually gives it more weight. Give it a line and let it stay at that.Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree most of it can go as irrelevant. Propose reducing to "Israel broadcast a tape of a radio exchange with an activist purportedly telling navy personnel to "Go back to Auschwitz". Huwaida Arraf and Captain Denis Healey have denied the taunting occured." with appropriate sources and, perhaps, more elegantly phrased? Misarxist (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben-Yishai's account of boarding

On a related note, there's a paragraph and a half – unreferenced – concerning Ron Ben-Yishai's account of the boarding, which is surely excessive as he was never on the Mavi Marmara but instead on an IDF ship. Personally, I find it speaks volumes that the IDF should invite a "veteran war correspondant" to watch the action from their ship... Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest (and this is only opinion) that we try and avoid "embedded journalists" for this section. It does look, though, that whoever worked on this section was striving for balance between the two viewpoints (the journalists on board the Mavi Marmara, and the journalists accompanying the IDF). Are there other journalists' accounts we could use, beside Ben-Yishai (IDF-embedded) and Elshayyal (Al Jazeera)? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There's not much in English that I've seen. I dispute the idea that Al-Jazeera should be ruled out for bias: that would be tantamount to ruling out Ben-Yishai just because he's Jewish, ie, obviously inacceptable. There is this report from the Turkish state news agency, who had a reporter and a cameraman aboard. Physchim62 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference - people aboard the flotilla were arrested, and there are a side in this event, even if they are reporters. Ben-Yishai is not a part in this conflict - he was not a part of any of the fighting sides. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not unusual for the IDF to do so. What's your point? ShalomOlam (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the practice is common outside the IDF, too. I don't know what the "speaks volumes" comment refers to; there is, however, an issue around sourcing and too much data. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, "speaks volumes" refers to notion that the Israeli's had benevolent intentions when commandeering the boats since they were willing to have their actions scrutinized up close by a reporter free to report whatever they wanted. Someone with malevolent intentions obviously wouldn't want their activity closely watched. As far as including this reporters accounts, I think its particularly important. A reporter on one of the Israeli ships would provide a different perspective and could describe what was occurring on the Israeli ships. Any other such reporter could not. I also think there is a serious plausibility problem with many of the reporters on the flotilla boats. Many of the stories being reported are conflicting and there seems to be in many cases a desire to outright lie. Its going to be difficult to differentiate the unbiased reporting from the reporters who are on-board because they agree with the flotilla's cause.Chhe (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Lol! Absolutely R-O-F-L! If the IDF took embedded reporters on their ships, it's because they expected there to be something to report. A simple coastguard action is hardly frontpage news. The reporters would see what they were allowed to see and hear what they were allowed to hear. After all, the IDF has not hesitated to kill inconvenient reporters in the past, and did so again (by several accounts) on the Mavi Marmara. Physchim62 (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So the IDF 'expected' a good report for the journalists before the ships set out from Haifa; that's probably why they chose to attack at night and at the level of Haifa, rather than waiting for the ships to move nearer to Ashdod an perform a more normal coastguard action in daylight. This was meant from the start to be a big media event, otherwise the IDF would have waited, just as the had done with every other humanitarian convoy and as they did with the Rachel Corrie. Physchim62 (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Reagrding "a reporter free to report whatever they wanted. Someone with malevolent intentions obviously wouldn't want their activity closely watched." Somehow the part where the IDF confiscated all audio-visual material, then editied the material themselves prior to releassing it, coupled with the placing journalists incommunicado -effectively preventing them from offering dissenting views- negates that statement for me.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ken O'Keefe

I've noticed some articles circulating about a video of an "ex-marine" who disarmed 3(?) Israeli commandos during the raid. Link I was wondering if there is any legitimacy to this? --Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Legitimacy to do what? ShalomOlam (talk) 12:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Did it happen? --Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned exactly the same quote last night (eurotime): Le Monde picked up on it yesterday. The original source is the Anatolia news agency. Physchim62 (talk) 12:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What you just said has me thoroughly confused. --Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just saying that the quote has been cited by a respectable secondary source, as I mentioned above: two respectable secondary sources, in fact, since it already passed Anatolia's vetting before appearing in Le Monde. Physchim62 (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, so it is confirmed that it happened?--Halofanatic333 (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

POV Tag

Hoped this wouldn't be required but it is. There are many ways of looking at this event, increasingly the article is reflecting primarily the Israeli narrative. This does not serve readers, tagging so at least they know there are issues. Details in most of the above sections, or editors can add them here. RomaC (talk) 13:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What, in your mind, reflects the Israeli narrative? And how whould you suggest to re-write it? ShalomOlam (talk) 13:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli narrative is the version/interpretation/descriptors/causality/relative weight/images/data put forth by the IDF/Israel. Some examples of recent edits: the word "aid" removed from first-reference to the GFF; "pro-Palestinian activists" replacing the wider description of those on board; an "activists physically clashed...were killed" causality inference; removal of cause of death (multiple gunshots at close range); "according to...a journalist...activists attacked troops with live rounds" which is not supported by the source. That's the first graph alone. How to re-write? What would you suggest? RomaC (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support As many comments above and on archived talk pages. This would also benefit pro-Israeli views, which may believe the article do not blame the Fleet enough. --Nevit (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• One example that comes to mind from this is that I've several times inserted in the lead a description that the international reaction to the attack included widespread outrage (for which there are ten WP:RS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ("Colère") 8 9 10), but the text has been removed by various editors within minutes, as if people would find it difficult to accept that the reaction is that of outrage. --Dailycare (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Daily, I concur. The perspective/reaction inside Israel is qualitatively very different from the perspective/reaction in the rest of the world. An interesting question is: should article content be determined by a dispassionate survey of all available RS, or must the perspective/reaction inside Israel be given the same/equal weight as the perspective/reaction in the rest of the world? At present, it is neither of these -- the perspective/reaction inside Israel dominates the article. RomaC (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

article name

I think "Gaza flotilla raid" should be renamed to "Free Gaza flotilla". Since "raid" is not the accurate word to use. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What would you suggest then? There was no consensus for "attack" last time I proposed it, and "massacre" would obviously not gain support. Physchim62 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Free Gaza flotilla ;-)

There's a subtle difference for the article, depending on the name: ShalomOlam's suggestion - "Free Gaza flotilla" - implies it's everything about the flotilla, including the ships not in the raided convoy. "Gaza flotilla raid" implies we should focus on those ships in the raided convoy.

Personally, I think it's too soon for yet another name change debate, but I tend to always say that ;-)

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about "Gaza Flotilla incident"? --Bentaguayre (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It was pointed out that the mechanical failures on some boats before hand, were also "incidents". 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 13:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's perfectly normal in English to talk about a "police raid", so I do see what the problem is. I would prefer "attack", but I seem to be in a minority among Bibipologists. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Raid definition to help decision:

Look up raid in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

1. A hostile or predatory incursion; an inroad or incursion of mounted men; a sudden and rapid invasion by a cavalry force; a foray.
2. An attack or invasion for the purpose of making arrests, seizing property, or plundering; as, a raid of the police upon a gambling house; a raid of contractors on the public treasury.

Attack, Raid, Incident all OK for me. Although incident has a more neutral tone. It does not blame either side. It does not time frame the article with the hours of attack.

--Nevit (talk) 14:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Article names are just based on WP:NAME. Accuracy, dictionaries, arguments from first principals etc don't come into it. Can't we wait a few weeks ? Sean.hoyland - talk 14:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The focus here is on the clash and loss of life, so I oppose "Free Gaza flotilla" as per TFOWR. I think "Gaza Flotilla incident" is too vague. Gaza flotilla clash is the most neutral and accurate description in my opinion, as raid implies an element of surprise and one-sided attack. But the media have favored the word "raid," Israeli media included: http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/SearchResults.aspx?q=Raid.

So for now, as per Sean, I begrudgingly support the current title, Gaza flotilla raid.  &#151;Rafi  15:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm open to "Free Gaza flotilla" - I just think it's too soon, and "Free Gaza flotilla" would potentially mean expanding the scope of this article (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but we've already split off several new articles from this one). TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I meant to refer to one of your specific points and not your general position. Should have been more specific.  &#151;Rafi  15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"Raid" is not the correct term. The most accurate and specific term is "interdiction": To damage, interrupt or destroy enemy lines of communication. - To invoke a prohibition against contact with another. This is exactly what happened. These ships were interdicted at sea. By contrast, when Hamas crosses the Israeli boarder and captures an Israeli soldier *that* is a "raid". To that end, we might consider Free Gaza interdiction Rklawton (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is not the correct comment. It doesn't refer to the WP:NAME policy, the only thing that matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

..and just to clarify my position on the article name, I don't care as long as it complies with the NAME policy. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone is interseted in the past naming discussion arguements / vote, see here: Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Rename or move. Apologies if someone's already added this Clovis Sangrail (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

People, there were very extensive discussions and a voting procedure regarding the name of the article, and there was very wide consensus on this one. Please check the archives. --386-DX (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about foreign-language sources

We are discussing the foreign-language sources and sourcing in general on Pages in need of translation into English. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey and Iran consider Naval escorts

Information on Erdoğan's plan visit to Gaza is false as Foreign Minister Davutoğlu stated. This is the Turkish source Source.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerian (talk • contribs) 15:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Boarding section

Boarding section:

The boarding section goes in too much detail, without answering some fundamental ones.

• Who authorized boarding : Gov. vs. mil.
• Who authorized the use of force: Gov. vs. mil
• Why the intervention was done in international waters?
• Did Israel considered the option to Stop vessels and not board?
• Did Israel requested permission to board from Captains?
• Did Israel requested permission to board from States who owned the ships?
• Did the boarding occurred against the consent or did it occurred consent status indetermined?
• Why side boarding failed? (It is known that side boarding requires larger or at least equal size vessel. )
• Did Israel considered boarding on captain deck instead of crowded areas?

--Nevit (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WIKI Article should contain what is known to be true, not what is unknown or unanswered. There are other web-sites on-line, for posting these kind of questions. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All of these have known answers. They are not unknown. They are excluded from article, while many details are gone in detailed. --Nevit (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons???? funny???

What weapons are these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Weapons_on_Marmaris.jpg Kitchen weapons and plumber weapons???? This whole operation take several hours.Israeli commandos take everyone as hostage for more than 5 hours and sit every hostage from his legs.No one go to drink water or go to wash room for more than 5 hours.During this 5 hours they collect all these types of weapons from the ship and set them on one place and take a picture. Totally unacceptable weapons. Modern weapons are not small Kitchen knife and plumber tools.Modern weapons are assault guns like Ak or M16, etc. This ship contains several VIP, Parlimentarians of Germany, Swizerland,etc, etc, NGOs and several other big persons.Not only Muslims are on that ship but also hundreds of Christians, Buddhas, Hindus and Jews are also on that ship.And they to to Gaza to give them Aid.because IDF stop everyway of Gaza.Gaza is now a Gail.So international countries supply food to Gaza. And one important resistance is not terrorism.Resistance is right to every of that nation which is occupied by a powerful nation.eg. Afghanistan in 1980 when Russia attack, India after British conquer, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.94.245 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cold weapons are weapons. There was already a discution about this above. You are welcome to read it. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla Organisation

The article is being vandalised again: "Unlike previous attempts, this flotilla, the largest sent by far, was dominated not by the Free Gaza Movement, which sent only one small passenger boat, but by three ships sent by an Islamic aid group from Turkey, the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedom and Humanitarian Relief (IHH).[21] Israel has accused IHH of having close ties to Hamas, and being "sympathetic to al-Qaeda."[47][48] Further, the IHH is a member of the Union of Good[49], listed by the U.S. Treasury Department as a terror-supporting entity[50]."

This is not true. The five other ships in the flotilla, including MV Rachel Corrie were sent by the Free Gaza Movement. IHH is also a part of the Free Gaza Movement, as reconfirmed in the movement's most recent press release[24]. Furthermore, US State Department spokesman has confirmed that they do not see IHH as a terrorist organisation. Could somebody please revert these accusations? --386-DX (talk) 16:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

close range shootings

Here is an exchange that I had with Zuchinni one on topic. It belongs here more than anywhere else. ManasShaikh (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Manas! I would like to ask you to revert your recent addition to the Gaza flotilla raid lead. This information is included elsewhere in the article and if we include it in the lead we will also need to include, for balance, the IDF statements about the passengers wearing bullet proof vests (thus accounting for the shots). There are also POV issues with this information as per the Talk section.

Please see the following discussions Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Cause_of_Death AND Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#2nd_paragraph_of_lead_getting_full_of_he-said_.2F_she-said_.26_POV_language and consider contributing your thoughts before making changes to the lead.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zuchinni one, thanks for the feedback. What's there is news report from Third party. I am not quoting the activists. So the need to quote "both sides" does not appear. However, if you think that the IDF's claims are important, please go ahead and add the information with references. We can discuss from there and improve the article. Thanks. ManasShaikh (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize that you are quoting a 3rd source. It is based off the Turkish autopsy and was discussed in depth earlier on the talk page. The problem is not the fact that it is a 3rd source, but rather that it is POV and makes implications about the Israeli soldiers being especially violent. This is the same kind of implication made by Israeli news reports of the attackers wearing bullet proof vests and autopsy results from Israel that suggest the troops were fired upon by weapons not used by Israel, and thus on board prior to their arrival. The lead has been very contentious and as a result the length was getting out of control.

I agree with you that the Turkish autopsy results are relevant and should be included in the article. But by including them in the lead you introduce the kind of well-intentioned POV that has resulted in MANY edit wars. If we include all the POV info in the lead it will be out of control and full of innuendo rather than facts. This is in opposition to WP:Lead.

I hope that makes sense and you understand why I'm asking you to remove it from the lead.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zuchinni one Thank you for your feedback. As you have implied, it is clearly an important piece of information. Now facts are not considered POV. The auspsy reports are beyond dispute. On the other hand, the newspapers report Israeli claims. No proof has been provided- nor did the newspapers were able to verify the claims.

In fact, I'd argue that the fact is so important and relevant, that the exclusion of it may be considered POV. The WP:NPOV article puts it wonderfully- "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral, point of view."

Please also have a look at WP:NOTABILITYManasShaikh (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)