This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Freedom Flotilla II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Have started this by adding /Ships/ section. The story is still very fluid, and is maintaining a certain level of secrecy. There is a press conference planned for 27 June 2011. Suspect to get a lot more info at that time. Everett ( talk) 02:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
OK yet another associated aspect: ==tourist sailing== Several yacht owners or cruise operators respond to popular demands sailing along flotilla on open sea. Just examples from quick search: "The yacht will be available for charters", "This vessel and the Seabourn Odyssey will sail the Eastern Mediterranean" "Mediterranean Cruises - Book Cheap, Discount", "12 June 2011. The ship will sail a seven-day Western Mediterranean", "Mediterranean Cruises In June 2011, Prices From $399pp", "Cruises is offering a 12-night Eastern Mediterranean", "Equinox 11 Night Eastern Mediterranean Cruise departing June 27","Norwegian Cruises 2011 ...Gaza". "another flotilla is set to arrive in the eastern Mediterranean, deliberately timed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the violent events" and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I've had to remove the word "illegal" from the lead, together with its associated refs ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]), on account of it being an abuse of Wikipedia's neutral voice. The sources cited do not establish a consensus that Israel's Gaza blockade is illegal; indeed, this is very much a disputed position. If someone wants to restore "illegal" to the lead, it needs to be done with in-text attribution.
References
— Biosketch ( talk) 11:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous claims that the IDF interview with the Red Cross is a hoax. see http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/mathilde-redmatn-and-the-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza.html , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/CigarGod/flotilla-gaza-palestine_n_853745_85826227.html , http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/mr-myers-cites-fiction-but-gaza-crisis-is-fact-2806442.html . Here: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm is an article at ICRC website, in which a far less rosy picture of the blockade is painted. In any case, the JPost article isn't a commentary on Freedom Flotilla II, and cannot be counted as "reaction". Removing that section. -- Soman ( talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what I said... although my sentences saying there is a possible speculation on the authenticity was censored because it wasn't a reliable source...I never even said it is an outright fake!... now waiting for the e-mail from Red Cross Stationed there to confirm or debunk the myth... I will post the answer here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 ( talk) 04:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Got the E-mail reply....its...erm...strangely answered?...you decide...
"Dear XXXXX,
Thanks for your message and for your interest to get clarification on the current situation in Gaza. We agree with you that there are many media debates around this subject. Regarding the official position of the ICRC on the current humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, please kindly read the enclosed link with all the information you need: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm
With best regards,
Cecilia " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 ( talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Freedom_Flotilla_II&oldid=436653813#Ireland was text on prompt response of Israel diplomacy. Now is missing. Such responses are quite rare in diplomacy. Also truncator cut off the f.name of Israel ambassador to Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 08:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, there was error in date so perhaps above may be irrelevant.
Should this info be included under Israeli response ?! Official accounts tweeted this video then later deleted the tweets. Several major news articles have stories on it. Unflavoured ( talk) 05:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:
- Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
- Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
- The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.
This discussion went way off-track. Instead of sarcasm and bickering, we could have just checked out the earlier article on the first Gaza flotilla to compare. Israeli officials had circulated a link to a video and then changed their mind and apologized, and that was included in a small line in that article. So if the issue does not progress further, a couple of lines is all that we need to this article. Unflavoured ( talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
hoax was planed to derail this and other discussion. as proved above. patients mill for .il — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
( Background: At 23:16 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Jalapenos do exist added text to the lead based on a seven-sentence
30 June 2011 Jerusalem Post blurb that said it was echoing an as-yet-unidentified 28 June 2011
De Telegraaf ( Dutch ) article that itself apparently echoed allegations made by some unnamed intelligence source of unnamed nationality that claimed Amin Abu Rashid is a senior Hamas member. Jalapenos
wrote
that the efforts of the 22 NGOs backing the flotilla are "coordinated by senior Hamas member operative Amin Abu Rashid." The Jerusalem Post article also quoted an Israeli public information official "in response" as supporting the accusation, saying "this is not a humanitarian flotilla, but a provocation and a terror operation in disguise of a flotilla." A different user
added a cite subsequently to
a previous-year 2010 Telegraaf article that likewise echoed accusations made by an unnamed intelligence source. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 02:06, 2 July 2011 UTC )
This material seems a little outlandish. There are two references for this tidbit, the "Jerusalem Post" source and the "telegraaf". Problem is, the JP source points to the "telegraaf" as the source of its information, and the "telegraaf" points to a quote given by "an intelligence source" as its basis for the material. That seems pretty darned weak if you ask me. I'm removing the material. If someone wants it back it will have to be heavily qualified. NickCT ( talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
( At 18:43, 1 July 2011 user NickCT deleted the allegation about Rashid. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 07:44, 2 July 2011 UTC )
Is anyone other than the organizers and participants supporting this flotilla? It's only a semi-serious question, but the way the article (particularly the reactions section) reads now the entire world is against the flotilla except for Hamas and Mairead Maguire.
Is that pretty much the truth of things?
Or is there somehow that we can get better, the appropriate amount, of balance in that section?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 12:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The article seem to state that various governments and politician do not believe the sea travel will help [people in Gaza. Perhaps Israel grip is so overwhelming that those quite rationally thinking people honestly disbelieve flotilla may help cut that deadlock. The disbelieve may be based on the amount of people Israel may like to kill. The killing ratio is 10 times higher as applied by Nazi in WW2. Reaching 100 Palestinians killed for one from Israel (including guest workers who are killed by alleged shells or rockets). But what dose unbelievers has to do when article is about those who have the hope and believe that there are humans who "Stay Human" in Israel and they action may influence they opinion and this "only democracy " will see how is they blockade. If they change mind they can vote for other Israeli Gov or perhaps protest like in in other dictatures if they need to express they anger. So far the blockade is held by collective citizenship by people of Israel and in democracy all voting Jews and other(do other vote there?) are responsible. Other reason for disbelieve of those politicians and heads of governments portray in this article; other reason are perhaps money; when Israel getting huge sum, wash it (money laundry), and bribe back politicians. Finally quite recently appearing cause of crazinesses in Israel and around is Bromine. Sodium Bromide is in salt from Dead Sea where is in enormous highest in world concentration. If one start eating bromine on beginning will be calm but later it turn into aggression. The reach in bromine salt from the Dead Sea is frequently label kosher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
100:11300:13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Question: What is "100:1" & "1300:13"? 18:48 27UTC June 2011 Everett ( talk) |
I realise that there is a separate page for prospective participants in the flotilla, but surly Alice walker is such a significant figure that she warrants a mention in this article as well?
The sentence related to the statements of Turkish authorities about an Irish ship docked in Turkey (not Greece!) should read:
Turkish authorities said that they have determined there was no act of sabotage on an Irish ship which had been docked in the Turkish port of Gocek. [1]
- ^ Greece arrests captain of flotilla that tried to sail for Gaza, Associated Press 02-07-2011
I have already taken out the misleading information from the lead, but I can't deal with that piece of wrong information right now, due to general 1RR restriction on the article. Thank you for your help! Cs32en Talk to me 12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
[9]. Perhaps worth adding under either "Greek travel ban" or "Preparations." Unflavoured ( talk) 13:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Under the section "Name" we have "The flotilla is named in memory of Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian reporter and activist whose killing by suspected members of a Palestinian Salafist group…" In fact, the citation provided, dose not attribute blame for Vittorio Arrigoni's killing. It makes no mention of any "Salafist group" (or any other in this regard) it merely refers to " His recent violent death, under circumstances still in question". Somebody needs to either provide reliable citations to back up the "killing by suspected members of a Palestinian Salafist group" or remove that part of the statement. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please remove the incorrectly added space in the name "Jody Williams" (Paragraph 3 in the "Non-governmental organizations" section). Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting to note that Alice Walker's involvement in the flotilla currently gets less than one quarter of the article space that Howard Jacobson's criticism of her proposed actions gets. Surly Walker has a much greater international standing and notability than Jacobson. This state of affairs seems perverse to me. Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:MV Saoirse#Proposed merge regarding the propose merger of the article MV Saoirse (which appears to be the only separate article on a ship that is taking part or was to have taken part in the Flotilla), into the main article Freedom Flotilla II. Thank you Davshul ( talk) 12:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Bob drobbs - I think my wording gave a more thorough background. Additionally, as it currently reads it sounds like Hamas forcibly seized control in the strip unprompted, which is both wrong and not supported by the reference. The current wording has issues that my proposed wording does not. I don't think an extra line of text goes to far into the debate. NickCT ( talk) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any good, public domain photos (possibly of one of the ships) which can be added to the top of this article?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me at this point if one or two boats continue toward Gaza. But at minimum the Dignity is still trying to reach Gaza.
So, was it wrong to change the tense of the article to past tense, as been happening recently?
And what about using the term "Flotilla"? Does one boat qualify as a flotilla?
Any suggestions?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 17:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a new four-sentence article about the Dignité Al Karama. I think it should be merged into this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the intro for the article has become much too large. Wikipedia's style guide recommends 1-3 paragraphs. Are there any objections to shortening it?
As for what can go, I think the entire 3rd paragraph really isn't necessary. It belongs in "background". And I think the 4th and 5th paragraphs can be shortened and combined. From a historical perspective all that people really need to know (in the summary) is that several boats were sabotaged, Greece imposed a blockade, several boats tried to violate that blockade but were turned back, almost everyone went home, except one boat that actually left on it's way to Gaza.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 01:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Reenem's edits were largely copied and pasted from the sources, and the subsequent edits didn't make substantive changes in "his" contribution. I reverted the addition per WP:COPYVIO. Restoring the material may lead to a block. Also note that removing copyright violations is not considered a reversion for 1RR purposes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 22:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's do it step by step. You honestly want to tell me that this (the information i added) is a Copyvio?
The Paris-based organisers described the boarding of the Yacht as "an act of violence and an illegal act," and as "a new act of piracy against harmless people".
How?? I am quoting the organizers. IQinn ( talk) 23:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Iqinn, that one sentence isn't COPYVVIO. Do you want to restore it? Go ahead. I already told you that Reenem's edits were massive copyright violations. I'm truly sorry that your sentence got caught in the net. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 23:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but their seems to be more content that you have reverted that may not have been copy right violations. My question: You want to identify the parts you claim are violations? Or shall i post part after of the removed text that i do not think are copyright violations here onto the talk page for discussion? IQinn ( talk) 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Reenem changed the title of the section and he edited the first paragraph. [12]
Title: Journey of the Dignité-Al Karama
First paragraph:
On 16 July, the smallest boat of the flotilla, the French yacht Dignité-Al Karama, left the Greek island of Kastellorizo after telling Greek authorities that its destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria. [1] However, the boat changed course towards Gaza in an attempt to breach the blockade following a debate among the passengers. The boat had 16 people on board, including three crew members and journalists from Al Jazeera and Haaretz.
Any copyvios in this part? I think it might be acceptable and i think there are some improvements Reenem added that we should keep. If nobody can point out copy right problems in this parts and nobody object than we should restore this part and the title as it was before the large revert. IQinn ( talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Source 1: "The Dignité-Al Karama, the smallest ship of the Freedom Flotilla II, left Kastellorizo Island on Saturday night. ... The crew, which had told the Greek authorities their destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria, decided however to sail towards Gaza after a long debate."
Reenem: "the smallest boat of the flotilla, ... Dignité-Al Karama, left the Greek island of Kastellorizo after telling Greek authorities that its destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria. However, the boat changed course towards Gaza in an attempt to breach the blockade following a debate among the passengers."
Source 2: "Around 10:30 am, Israel Navy ships intercepted the French vessel, hailed it and informed it that is was nearing the Gaza blockade lines and must head to Ashdod Port or Egypt. ... The ship refused to divert its course ... When the Dignite al Karama was about 12 nautical miles from Gaza, ... the passengers were transferred to one of the naval ships participating in the mission, where a physician made sure they were in good health and they were provided with food and water."
Reenem: "Around 10:30 am, Israeli warships confronted and hailed the boat, informing it that it was approaching the blockade line, and must turn to either Ashdod or Egypt. The boat refused to divert its course. When it was about 12 nautical miles off Gaza, ... The passengers were transferred to a warship, where a physician made sure they were in good health, and they were provided with food and water."
Not every word is copied from the source, but entire phrases and sentences are, and the rest is a close paraphrase, which is also considered a copyright violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
One source is a dead link. The second source does not mention sabotage. The third source says the exact opposite of the sentence: That the boat was in fact sabotaged. Unflavoured ( talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
Reflist-talk}}
and the citation added for tidiness. --
Mirokado (
talk)
21:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
References
On revert: The ship was taken over with weaponry force what is referenced. To call this "peacefully" is clear POV and based on the Israeli military accounts of the events. The passenger do not call it peacefully having mask man pointing their weapons at them. "without violence" Seems to be a NPOV of the accounts of both sides that i tried to implement. WP:NPOV is one of our core principals. Please discuss. IQinn ( talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This change which was reverted due to collateral damage attempted to remove the tweeting intern's name from the article. Is that a good thing? It seems he's not notable, except for this one embarrassment, and WP:BLPNAME may apply. I think the article would be just as good without his name in it. However, I think "Prime Minister's office" is ambiguous. I guess it refers to Netanyahu, the current Israeli Prime Minister. Thundermaker ( talk) 14:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
From what I read, Israel took several steps to put impediments in the way of the enterprise. One f these was contacting the ships' insurers, and alerting them to the planned use of the ships, which caused the insurers to explicitly specify to the ship owners that any damage, injury or deaths caused by confrontations with the Israeli military would not be covered by insurance. This caused many ship owners to back out. (Civilian ship insurance explicitly excludes coverage for "military type" uses. Cargo ships carrying weaponry from Russia to the Syrian regime also had their insurance revoked, as soon as the insurer was alerted). The Shurat HaDin warning of "prosecution for aiding a terrorist organization" was not the issue for the insurers, as I understand it - just the use for what was deemed "quasi-military" purposes, i.e. blockade-running, and the inevitable risk of armed confrontation. This is, to my understanding, a standard clause in civilian ship insurance contracts. Can anyone verify this, find a source, and if it is correct, add it to the article? Eliyohub ( talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Freedom Flotilla II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Have started this by adding /Ships/ section. The story is still very fluid, and is maintaining a certain level of secrecy. There is a press conference planned for 27 June 2011. Suspect to get a lot more info at that time. Everett ( talk) 02:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
OK yet another associated aspect: ==tourist sailing== Several yacht owners or cruise operators respond to popular demands sailing along flotilla on open sea. Just examples from quick search: "The yacht will be available for charters", "This vessel and the Seabourn Odyssey will sail the Eastern Mediterranean" "Mediterranean Cruises - Book Cheap, Discount", "12 June 2011. The ship will sail a seven-day Western Mediterranean", "Mediterranean Cruises In June 2011, Prices From $399pp", "Cruises is offering a 12-night Eastern Mediterranean", "Equinox 11 Night Eastern Mediterranean Cruise departing June 27","Norwegian Cruises 2011 ...Gaza". "another flotilla is set to arrive in the eastern Mediterranean, deliberately timed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the violent events" and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I've had to remove the word "illegal" from the lead, together with its associated refs ( [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]), on account of it being an abuse of Wikipedia's neutral voice. The sources cited do not establish a consensus that Israel's Gaza blockade is illegal; indeed, this is very much a disputed position. If someone wants to restore "illegal" to the lead, it needs to be done with in-text attribution.
References
— Biosketch ( talk) 11:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
There are numerous claims that the IDF interview with the Red Cross is a hoax. see http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/mathilde-redmatn-and-the-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza.html , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/CigarGod/flotilla-gaza-palestine_n_853745_85826227.html , http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/mr-myers-cites-fiction-but-gaza-crisis-is-fact-2806442.html . Here: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm is an article at ICRC website, in which a far less rosy picture of the blockade is painted. In any case, the JPost article isn't a commentary on Freedom Flotilla II, and cannot be counted as "reaction". Removing that section. -- Soman ( talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what I said... although my sentences saying there is a possible speculation on the authenticity was censored because it wasn't a reliable source...I never even said it is an outright fake!... now waiting for the e-mail from Red Cross Stationed there to confirm or debunk the myth... I will post the answer here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 ( talk) 04:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Got the E-mail reply....its...erm...strangely answered?...you decide...
"Dear XXXXX,
Thanks for your message and for your interest to get clarification on the current situation in Gaza. We agree with you that there are many media debates around this subject. Regarding the official position of the ICRC on the current humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, please kindly read the enclosed link with all the information you need: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm
With best regards,
Cecilia " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 ( talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Freedom_Flotilla_II&oldid=436653813#Ireland was text on prompt response of Israel diplomacy. Now is missing. Such responses are quite rare in diplomacy. Also truncator cut off the f.name of Israel ambassador to Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 08:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, there was error in date so perhaps above may be irrelevant.
Should this info be included under Israeli response ?! Official accounts tweeted this video then later deleted the tweets. Several major news articles have stories on it. Unflavoured ( talk) 05:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:
- Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
- Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
- The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.
This discussion went way off-track. Instead of sarcasm and bickering, we could have just checked out the earlier article on the first Gaza flotilla to compare. Israeli officials had circulated a link to a video and then changed their mind and apologized, and that was included in a small line in that article. So if the issue does not progress further, a couple of lines is all that we need to this article. Unflavoured ( talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
hoax was planed to derail this and other discussion. as proved above. patients mill for .il — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
( Background: At 23:16 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Jalapenos do exist added text to the lead based on a seven-sentence
30 June 2011 Jerusalem Post blurb that said it was echoing an as-yet-unidentified 28 June 2011
De Telegraaf ( Dutch ) article that itself apparently echoed allegations made by some unnamed intelligence source of unnamed nationality that claimed Amin Abu Rashid is a senior Hamas member. Jalapenos
wrote
that the efforts of the 22 NGOs backing the flotilla are "coordinated by senior Hamas member operative Amin Abu Rashid." The Jerusalem Post article also quoted an Israeli public information official "in response" as supporting the accusation, saying "this is not a humanitarian flotilla, but a provocation and a terror operation in disguise of a flotilla." A different user
added a cite subsequently to
a previous-year 2010 Telegraaf article that likewise echoed accusations made by an unnamed intelligence source. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 02:06, 2 July 2011 UTC )
This material seems a little outlandish. There are two references for this tidbit, the "Jerusalem Post" source and the "telegraaf". Problem is, the JP source points to the "telegraaf" as the source of its information, and the "telegraaf" points to a quote given by "an intelligence source" as its basis for the material. That seems pretty darned weak if you ask me. I'm removing the material. If someone wants it back it will have to be heavily qualified. NickCT ( talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
( At 18:43, 1 July 2011 user NickCT deleted the allegation about Rashid. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 07:44, 2 July 2011 UTC )
Is anyone other than the organizers and participants supporting this flotilla? It's only a semi-serious question, but the way the article (particularly the reactions section) reads now the entire world is against the flotilla except for Hamas and Mairead Maguire.
Is that pretty much the truth of things?
Or is there somehow that we can get better, the appropriate amount, of balance in that section?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 12:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The article seem to state that various governments and politician do not believe the sea travel will help [people in Gaza. Perhaps Israel grip is so overwhelming that those quite rationally thinking people honestly disbelieve flotilla may help cut that deadlock. The disbelieve may be based on the amount of people Israel may like to kill. The killing ratio is 10 times higher as applied by Nazi in WW2. Reaching 100 Palestinians killed for one from Israel (including guest workers who are killed by alleged shells or rockets). But what dose unbelievers has to do when article is about those who have the hope and believe that there are humans who "Stay Human" in Israel and they action may influence they opinion and this "only democracy " will see how is they blockade. If they change mind they can vote for other Israeli Gov or perhaps protest like in in other dictatures if they need to express they anger. So far the blockade is held by collective citizenship by people of Israel and in democracy all voting Jews and other(do other vote there?) are responsible. Other reason for disbelieve of those politicians and heads of governments portray in this article; other reason are perhaps money; when Israel getting huge sum, wash it (money laundry), and bribe back politicians. Finally quite recently appearing cause of crazinesses in Israel and around is Bromine. Sodium Bromide is in salt from Dead Sea where is in enormous highest in world concentration. If one start eating bromine on beginning will be calm but later it turn into aggression. The reach in bromine salt from the Dead Sea is frequently label kosher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
100:11300:13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 ( talk) 12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Question: What is "100:1" & "1300:13"? 18:48 27UTC June 2011 Everett ( talk) |
I realise that there is a separate page for prospective participants in the flotilla, but surly Alice walker is such a significant figure that she warrants a mention in this article as well?
The sentence related to the statements of Turkish authorities about an Irish ship docked in Turkey (not Greece!) should read:
Turkish authorities said that they have determined there was no act of sabotage on an Irish ship which had been docked in the Turkish port of Gocek. [1]
- ^ Greece arrests captain of flotilla that tried to sail for Gaza, Associated Press 02-07-2011
I have already taken out the misleading information from the lead, but I can't deal with that piece of wrong information right now, due to general 1RR restriction on the article. Thank you for your help! Cs32en Talk to me 12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
[9]. Perhaps worth adding under either "Greek travel ban" or "Preparations." Unflavoured ( talk) 13:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Under the section "Name" we have "The flotilla is named in memory of Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian reporter and activist whose killing by suspected members of a Palestinian Salafist group…" In fact, the citation provided, dose not attribute blame for Vittorio Arrigoni's killing. It makes no mention of any "Salafist group" (or any other in this regard) it merely refers to " His recent violent death, under circumstances still in question". Somebody needs to either provide reliable citations to back up the "killing by suspected members of a Palestinian Salafist group" or remove that part of the statement. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Could someone please remove the incorrectly added space in the name "Jody Williams" (Paragraph 3 in the "Non-governmental organizations" section). Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting to note that Alice Walker's involvement in the flotilla currently gets less than one quarter of the article space that Howard Jacobson's criticism of her proposed actions gets. Surly Walker has a much greater international standing and notability than Jacobson. This state of affairs seems perverse to me. Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:MV Saoirse#Proposed merge regarding the propose merger of the article MV Saoirse (which appears to be the only separate article on a ship that is taking part or was to have taken part in the Flotilla), into the main article Freedom Flotilla II. Thank you Davshul ( talk) 12:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
User:Bob drobbs - I think my wording gave a more thorough background. Additionally, as it currently reads it sounds like Hamas forcibly seized control in the strip unprompted, which is both wrong and not supported by the reference. The current wording has issues that my proposed wording does not. I don't think an extra line of text goes to far into the debate. NickCT ( talk) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any good, public domain photos (possibly of one of the ships) which can be added to the top of this article?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not clear to me at this point if one or two boats continue toward Gaza. But at minimum the Dignity is still trying to reach Gaza.
So, was it wrong to change the tense of the article to past tense, as been happening recently?
And what about using the term "Flotilla"? Does one boat qualify as a flotilla?
Any suggestions?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 17:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a new four-sentence article about the Dignité Al Karama. I think it should be merged into this article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the intro for the article has become much too large. Wikipedia's style guide recommends 1-3 paragraphs. Are there any objections to shortening it?
As for what can go, I think the entire 3rd paragraph really isn't necessary. It belongs in "background". And I think the 4th and 5th paragraphs can be shortened and combined. From a historical perspective all that people really need to know (in the summary) is that several boats were sabotaged, Greece imposed a blockade, several boats tried to violate that blockade but were turned back, almost everyone went home, except one boat that actually left on it's way to Gaza.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 01:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Reenem's edits were largely copied and pasted from the sources, and the subsequent edits didn't make substantive changes in "his" contribution. I reverted the addition per WP:COPYVIO. Restoring the material may lead to a block. Also note that removing copyright violations is not considered a reversion for 1RR purposes. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 22:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Let's do it step by step. You honestly want to tell me that this (the information i added) is a Copyvio?
The Paris-based organisers described the boarding of the Yacht as "an act of violence and an illegal act," and as "a new act of piracy against harmless people".
How?? I am quoting the organizers. IQinn ( talk) 23:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Iqinn, that one sentence isn't COPYVVIO. Do you want to restore it? Go ahead. I already told you that Reenem's edits were massive copyright violations. I'm truly sorry that your sentence got caught in the net. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 23:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but their seems to be more content that you have reverted that may not have been copy right violations. My question: You want to identify the parts you claim are violations? Or shall i post part after of the removed text that i do not think are copyright violations here onto the talk page for discussion? IQinn ( talk) 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Reenem changed the title of the section and he edited the first paragraph. [12]
Title: Journey of the Dignité-Al Karama
First paragraph:
On 16 July, the smallest boat of the flotilla, the French yacht Dignité-Al Karama, left the Greek island of Kastellorizo after telling Greek authorities that its destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria. [1] However, the boat changed course towards Gaza in an attempt to breach the blockade following a debate among the passengers. The boat had 16 people on board, including three crew members and journalists from Al Jazeera and Haaretz.
Any copyvios in this part? I think it might be acceptable and i think there are some improvements Reenem added that we should keep. If nobody can point out copy right problems in this parts and nobody object than we should restore this part and the title as it was before the large revert. IQinn ( talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Source 1: "The Dignité-Al Karama, the smallest ship of the Freedom Flotilla II, left Kastellorizo Island on Saturday night. ... The crew, which had told the Greek authorities their destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria, decided however to sail towards Gaza after a long debate."
Reenem: "the smallest boat of the flotilla, ... Dignité-Al Karama, left the Greek island of Kastellorizo after telling Greek authorities that its destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria. However, the boat changed course towards Gaza in an attempt to breach the blockade following a debate among the passengers."
Source 2: "Around 10:30 am, Israel Navy ships intercepted the French vessel, hailed it and informed it that is was nearing the Gaza blockade lines and must head to Ashdod Port or Egypt. ... The ship refused to divert its course ... When the Dignite al Karama was about 12 nautical miles from Gaza, ... the passengers were transferred to one of the naval ships participating in the mission, where a physician made sure they were in good health and they were provided with food and water."
Reenem: "Around 10:30 am, Israeli warships confronted and hailed the boat, informing it that it was approaching the blockade line, and must turn to either Ashdod or Egypt. The boat refused to divert its course. When it was about 12 nautical miles off Gaza, ... The passengers were transferred to a warship, where a physician made sure they were in good health, and they were provided with food and water."
Not every word is copied from the source, but entire phrases and sentences are, and the rest is a close paraphrase, which is also considered a copyright violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 02:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
One source is a dead link. The second source does not mention sabotage. The third source says the exact opposite of the sentence: That the boat was in fact sabotaged. Unflavoured ( talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
{{
Reflist-talk}}
and the citation added for tidiness. --
Mirokado (
talk)
21:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
References
On revert: The ship was taken over with weaponry force what is referenced. To call this "peacefully" is clear POV and based on the Israeli military accounts of the events. The passenger do not call it peacefully having mask man pointing their weapons at them. "without violence" Seems to be a NPOV of the accounts of both sides that i tried to implement. WP:NPOV is one of our core principals. Please discuss. IQinn ( talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This change which was reverted due to collateral damage attempted to remove the tweeting intern's name from the article. Is that a good thing? It seems he's not notable, except for this one embarrassment, and WP:BLPNAME may apply. I think the article would be just as good without his name in it. However, I think "Prime Minister's office" is ambiguous. I guess it refers to Netanyahu, the current Israeli Prime Minister. Thundermaker ( talk) 14:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
From what I read, Israel took several steps to put impediments in the way of the enterprise. One f these was contacting the ships' insurers, and alerting them to the planned use of the ships, which caused the insurers to explicitly specify to the ship owners that any damage, injury or deaths caused by confrontations with the Israeli military would not be covered by insurance. This caused many ship owners to back out. (Civilian ship insurance explicitly excludes coverage for "military type" uses. Cargo ships carrying weaponry from Russia to the Syrian regime also had their insurance revoked, as soon as the insurer was alerted). The Shurat HaDin warning of "prosecution for aiding a terrorist organization" was not the issue for the insurers, as I understand it - just the use for what was deemed "quasi-military" purposes, i.e. blockade-running, and the inevitable risk of armed confrontation. This is, to my understanding, a standard clause in civilian ship insurance contracts. Can anyone verify this, find a source, and if it is correct, add it to the article? Eliyohub ( talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)