![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
I'm a little surprised (well, not really) that the people adding information from the UNHRC report [2] neglected to mention that the fact finding mission said that the flotilla's primary objective was political rather than humanitarian (paragraph 80) and that the mission also said that where video evidence released by Israel conflicted with eyewitness accounts, they preferred the eyewitness accounts (paragraph 20), which is not exactly how jurists usually treat evidence. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Good day, This occupied part of Cyprus is considered illegaly annexed by Turkey by the international community, i.e. UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974), you disagree? Hope&Act3! ( talk) 02:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the authoritive source and the heavy weight of the statement, the UN-based statement about the illegality of the raid should be acknowledged in the opening paragraphs (e.g., "in Sept. 2010, an Independent United Commission has concluded that the Israeli raid has been executed in violation of applicable Internatational Law", after the raid description.
The illegality determined nder the UN investigation also outweighs any generic or partisan legal opinion. It should be the first opening statement of the "Legal Assessment". Burying it among opinion of random observers taken here and there months ago is absolutely inappropriate.
Sources (dozens) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/world/middleeast/23briefs-Flotilla.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.82 ( talk) 12:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no valid reason whatsoever to not include the Information on the report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in the lead, thus it has just been added with copious amounts of credible sources and thus this article is improved. Mmcitizen101 ( talk) 22:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that there have since early october there have been some substantial changes to this article which haven't been discussed on this talk page. These include removal of a description of the IHH, as well as changes to wording and descriptions which may not be considered balanced. I think it may be valuable for editors to undertake a POV check of the recent changes. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The webcitation.org does not match the quote nor the original source. I dont know how to fix this.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Did the Activist think they would sail to Gaza? Did the Israelis expect armed passengers ? Why did the passengers attack or resist ? Is the fact it was in international waters a Red Herring neither side disagrees about the ultimate destination ? What does it mean that there had been prior raid with out much struggle? I think that answers to these questions are lacking and need to be answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.1.115 ( talk) 22:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of the activists on the Mavi Marmara have had larger sums of money in their possession at the time of the raid. However, there appears to be no reliable source that has provided information on whether these people "carried" the money in the sense of "transporting" it. Also, saying that "the flotilla" carried large sums of money is not the same as saying that some individuals carried large sums of money. 10.000 US dollars is a large sum for an individual to carry, but it is not a large sum if carried as part of the organization of the flotilla. "Large sums" of money, in the context of the current wording used in the lead section, rather sounds like several hundreds of thousands of US dollars, rather than a few people carrying a few thousand US dollars each. Cs32en Talk to me 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Furkan Dogan is cited as having been murdered at age 19, however his birthday is October 21st, 1991, making him 18 in may of 2010. pretty straight forward correction (compared to all the other subjective sparring above me!)- can someone authorized to edit this page apply the proper age?
thanks wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.46 ( talk) 01:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Tools and materials have been used as improvised weapons. The lead section, however, states that the flotilla carried improvised weapons, thus implying that the weapons would have been improvised and then brought onto the ship(s). Furthermore, "carried" is being used in the sense of "being transported to the destination", while the varios materials that are being mentioned in the lead were simply present on the ships. For the lead, the enumeration of the various items seems to be overly detailed. Cs32en Talk to me 01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm eating supper with a fork and a knife right now at my laptop. Am I engaging in carrying 'improvised weapons'? This is a despicably non-neutral article. Its straight up smear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.119.175 ( talk) 03:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This knife and fork you speak of, how many Jews are you stabbing with them? If it's more than zero, you're using improvised weapons. Use non-violent means to protest their stealing your dinner next time. CoombaDelray ( talk) 04:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems pretty neutral to me all things considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.45.100 ( talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/turkey-denies-offering-assistance-to-gaza-flotilla-organizers-1.320328 This should be added to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.134.102.15 ( talk) 10:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The government initially did what it can do so stop the flotilla ( http://www.kanaldhaber.com.tr/Haber/Yasam-34/Mavi-Marmaradaki-buyuk-sir-10168.aspx). However, after the flotilla Erdoğan became a hero in Arabic world and the goverment started supporting the flotilla. Kavas ( talk) 22:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we merge the "IDF accounts", "journalists' accounts", and "passengers' accounts", as they largely correspond with each other. The understood sense is that an initial Israeli boat assault was repulsed, a second attack by helicopter and speedboat succeeded, the troops were attacked and responded with paintballs and live fire, and three were taken hostage. Its better than a bunch of contradictionary accounts to confuse the reader.-- RM ( Be my friend) 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Support:
Oppose:
Why is this called a raid if the captains of the vessels had prior warning? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 01:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried to ignore your reference, but if you must bring it up....the Boston Tea Party was an allegoric metaphor, and a simultaneous satire on the relationship between the Crown and the colonies. It is further communicated in the Revolutionary Tea
The issue here is that there was a correct term to use for describing the incident, and in any case, the use here is of an analogy (a logical method) and not subtle literary figure of speech. However, the analogy fails on even the most basic level of analysis. Wikipedia is after all supposed to be prose which is not derived from a 21st century version of Yellow journalism Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
>as well as ballistic vests, gas masks, night-vision goggles, and large sums of money,[6] according to the reference http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897667,00.html , there were no night vision goggles possessed by any of the suspects. 67.170.106.201 ( talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"on May 31, 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea.." should have one period only, and not two. (sorry if this is not the correct way of introducing a suggestion, is my first contributionn). Jorgecarleitao ( talk) 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This link was recently added to the See Also section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain_Aid_Flotilla
This seems to have been added as a way to promote the Bahrain flotilla, rather than because there is any connection.
I'm removing the link for the time being. If you feel this was in error feel free to re-add it, but please put your reasoning in the discussion section. Zuchinni one ( talk) 22:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I find it surprising that this article was modeled in such a pro-israeli manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.228.78 ( talk) 21:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is extremely pro-Israel. -- J4\/4 < talk> 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY They are getting courses about how to fight their 'zionist war' on wikipedia, what the rules are and how to find the loopgholes. There is no solution to this until their force is neutralized by people in Gaza doing the same thing. But of course those people have nothing, let alone a computer. -- 95.96.30.170 ( talk) 20:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is utterly on the side of Israel. Especially about the flotilla participants' use of weapons, there are many -actually unconfirmed and proven to be wrong by the recent UN Report on the flotilla- information. And the article is written in a way to make us believe some weapons were exactly leakt in the ship by the participants. The resources given to confirm these are generally also coming from the biased or anti Islamic (which is another problematic issue put forward in the article as if all these actions against the blockade in Gaza were organized by radical Islamic groups ) broadcast. Another idea put forward in this article is that Israel offered the flotilla to hand the humanitarian aid to themselves so that they can transmit them to Gaza. However it is obviously known that Israel forces do not allow all the aid coming from the world into Gaza. Beatrice.rfb ( talk) 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
He added that all but one of the bullets retrieved from the bodies came from 9mm rounds. Of the other round, he said: "It was the first time we have seen this kind of material used in firearms. It was just a container including many types of pellets usually used in shotguns. It penetrated the head region in the temple and we found it intact in the brain."Also from the Turkish report into the incident..Turkey's report said two of the activists killed on the vessel, the Mavi Marmara, were shot from a military helicopter.
"The Israeli soldiers shot from the helicopter onto the Mavi Marmara using live ammunition and killing two passengers before any Israeli soldier descended on the deck," said the report, published by state-run news agency Anatolian. Owain the 1st ( talk) 19:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the issue with the whole article is that it was written up as the events evolved using the press. Most of the references are to mainstream press sources, but some aren't, and should be replaced. I wonder if it is possible now to find some better sources, with more analysis than was possible at the time. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
deck prior to the descent of the soldiers".The line you have posted is about the unsuccessful boarding from the boats. As this is the case it backs up the report from the Al Jazeera reporter that the Israelis were firing live rounds from the helicopter before they descended.Therefore his report that he saw a person get shot in the head from an helicopter should be put back in.Page 26 UN report. Owain the 1st ( talk) 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Bob drobbs, in 101. paragraph it is obviously seen that passengers did not use that tools as weapons although there were some, and when they were found they were confiscated not to be used by anyone. It is true that they reacted with some sticks, but this was a reaction to plastic and real bullets. And it is again fixed by this Report that no weapons were allowed into the ship before sailing. My gramatically wrong sentence "some weapons were exactly leakt in the ship by the participants" actually means this.
In Cargo section of the article it says "In addition, the flotilla was found to be carrying ballistic vests, gas masks, night-vision goggles, clubs, and slingshots.[52] " However, the reference for this and many other contributions comes from [The Jerusalem Post] known for its radical defence on Israeli side about this and other issues related to blockade of Gaza. Beatrice.rfb ( talk) 10:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is Wikipedia hosting pure propaganda? I mean this isn't a slightly "biased" article, its straight props. Why is this article trying to paint a picture of bloodthirsty arab suicide bombers ambushing the gentle loving peace spreading commandos who came to bring them sugar canes and rainbows. I'd like to be constructive and help rewrite portions of this, but you might as well delete this page and start over at this point, its FUBAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.118.241 ( talk) 08:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I put a link in this article as evidence that the Israelis retracted their claims that there were mercenaries with Al Qaeda links aboard the Gaza flotilla and User:Plot Spoiler has deleted that claiming it is not a reputable source.My link was to [3]Max Blumenthal's website where he has screen shots of the actual Israeli army press office site showing how they changed their story when challenged by reporters.I see nothing wrong with this source as Max Blumenthal is an award winning journalist and best selling author who articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, The Nation, The Guardian, The Independent Film Channel, The Huffington Post, Salon.com, Al Jazeera English and many other publications.I see no good reason to delete this.Thoughts Owain the 1st ( talk) 02:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
There is this one-line paragraph:
I've looked through the sources, and it's not clear to me what this refers to, most accounts seem to be about people being hindered in the midst of battle. The way it is now, it reads as if IDF was actively letting people die of the wounds in the aftermath, which again seems NPOV. The references point to various eye-witness accounts that are rather chaotic. I'd like this to be more explicit in what it describes, or removed. Ketil ( talk) 12:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Or detailed, precise. I understand that some would prefer blanket statements that confer one side as evil and the other as good, but I'd like to have a more specific information, each fact appropriately sourced. Ketil ( talk) 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
130. The flotilla organisers and other passengers engaged in efforts to request the Israeli forces to provide the necessary treatment to the wounded persons. One organiser used the ship’s intercom to request assistance in Hebrew and persons also communicated directly through the cabin windows or by placing signs, written in English and Hebrew, in the ship’s windows. These attempts proved unsuccessful and it was up to two hours before the Israeli forces took out the wounded persons. However, the wounded were required to leave the cabins themselves, or taken outside in a rough manner, without apparent concern for the nature of their injuries and the discomfort that this would cause. 131. The wounded passengers were taken to the front of the top deck where they joined other passengers injured during the operation on the top deck and where the bodies of persons killed during the operation had been left. Wounded passengers, including persons seriously injured with live fire wounds, were handcuffed with plastic cord handcuffs, which were often tied very tightly causing some of the injured to lose sensitivity in their hands. These plastic handcuffs cannot be loosened without being cut off, but can be tightened. Many were also stripped naked and then had to wait some time, possibly as long as twothree hours, before receiving medical treatment. Medical treatment was given to a number of wounded persons on the top deck by the Israeli forces. Owain the 1st ( talk) 13:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Zuabi said that naval boats surrounded the Mavi Marmara and fired on it before soldiers abseiled aboard from a helicopter. She went below to the ship's hold and said that, within minutes, two dead passengers were brought inside, followed by two more who had been seriously wounded.
soldiers refused her requests for medical assistance for the injured passengers, who died shortly after. Owain the 1st ( talk) 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"Numerous testimonies also indicate that at least three of the deaths occurred because Israeli soldiers denied timely medical attention to the wounded. Sümeyye Ertekin and Halis Akıncı testified that the Israeli soldiers hit those doctors trying to help the wounded with the butts of their rifles. Edda Manga says 'They did not allow the medics to treat the people; the doctors and nurses were forced at gunpoint to leave the wounded.' Ali Buhamd‘s testimony contains a grim mixture of some of the points made above: 'I saw a soldier shooting a wounded Turk in the head. There was another Turk asking for help, but he bled to death.'"
Article claims IDF has pictures proving there were guns on board. And here they are. One oven shows Haneen Zoabi to be a liar. Again and again, Israel is vindicated. I leave it up to the prevailing editors to decide how to incorporate this development, unless my help is wanted. -- Metallurgist ( talk) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Both the captions of the killed passenger and the Israeli soldiers have no links to the videos in question, which seems weird in the age of Youtube. Is there something I'm missing, or should they be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.159.25 ( talk) 01:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, all. In this series of edits, Reenem just performed what effectively amounts to a rewrite of much of the article, moving it substantially in a more pro-IDF direction. It's my opinion that making such sweeping changes to a highly-contested but relatively mature article is just unproductive, in that it presents a fait accompli of too much change to reasonably discuss. I could revert that, and then just as easily go through and make sweeping changes to move the article in a pro-Flotilla direction, which wouldn't stick, either. So I'm just going to revert his changes, and suggest that he either make them in much smaller increments over a much longer period, or that he try to gain consensus for all of them in a body, here, on talk. – OhioStandard ( talk) 06:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraphs were removed, and re-inserted, and removed and reinserted.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Al menos una parte de la versión del Ministerio de Defensa israelí resulta poco creíble: en las otras naves, donde supuestamente nadie opuso resistencia, también hubo heridos, como pudo comprobar este periódico hablando brevemente con algunos de ellos mientras eran ingresados en camilla en un hospital de Ashkelon.(At least one piece of the account from the Israeli Ministry of Defence is scarcely believable: in the other ships, where nobody apparently offered any physical resistance, there were also some wounded people, as this newspaper was able to verify by briefly talking to some of the passengers when they were being admitted on stretchers to a hospital in Ashkelon.)
I removed them again for the following reason. There are separate sections for raid of each ship. If these deleted paragraphs contain info missing from these sections, then it must be merged into the corresponding sections. Otherwise the article turns into a repetitive mess, if every editor will insert some text wherever he/she likes. Yceren Loq ( talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment to Yceren Loq: Your second removal of this content violated the 1RR (only one reversion per 24 hours) rule in force for this article. Please be careful to obey this in future, as other editors are doing. To passing admins: I suggest no block in this case as YL has clearly tried to initiate a dialogue... -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is the second recent failure to respect WP:BRD while editing this article (not a policy or guideline, but widely followed). The cycle is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, ..., revert and start a discussion". -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment This discussion is about a disputed change to the current consensus, which has been determined by the established status quo which included the content. Thus a result of "no consensus" will mean that the content will be restored. Let's try to sort out acceptable changes... -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose removal I will oppose wholesale removal of this content which has several references (including CNN and the Guardian with which I am familiar) and clearly acts as part of the summary for the individual boarding subsections. There are two Citation needed tags dated June 2011 which should be addressed (a month is normally allowed for provision of a reliable reference or other suitable response). I would be quite happy with a shorter, still balanced, summary with some content and references moved to specific subsections. Yceren Loq, since you wish to change the current text, perhaps you can suggest a suitable rearrangement? I will try to look in more detail myself this weekend... -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment. A few points to make. (1) I'm too bleary-eyed to verify it right now, but the one ref out of the preceding five that I'm sure is still in the article is the "CNN Autopsies" ref of June 4, 2010. I know that because I had to make this edit to copy the URL from the article to the talk page. (2) As I write this, the above two paragraphs aren't in the article. I didn't restore them because I knew they were under discussion here. (3) If they do go back in, probably the best way to restore them would be to copy-paste from the above, the article has seen many changes have been made in the meantime, since these paragraphs were moved here. Also, I'll try to review this content issue soon, myself, and give my two cents. – OhioStandard ( talk) 09:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
In the hope of averting a huge edit war over an article that's likely to see a lot more page views in the very near future, I'd like to point out these facts:
Since doing so will necessarily be a much more complicated process than if the bold-revert-discuss norm had been followed, I'd appreciate it if everyone would look at the edit history and verify that nothing else has been changed. But once that process is complete, can we all please try the "discuss" part, i.e. can we discuss changes made or proposed in a genuinely incremental way rather than by a massive rewrite? – OhioStandard ( talk) 02:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of one edit in this sequence should not commence until the previous one reaches consensus. – OhioStandard ( talk) 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
Following sections will each need to be populated with diffs and timestamps. First one done by Ohiostandard at 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
Reenem's 1st edit in series
Edit made by Reenem at 4:19, 9 June 18:57, 2011 UTC
Suggestion, comments I propose the following for this paragraph:
The operation began with an attempt to board the ship from speedboats. As the boats approached, activists fired water hoses at them, and hurled numerous objects including iron pipes, stones and chairs. When the commandos tried boarding the ship, activists cut their ladder with a chainsaw. The boats then turned slightly away from the ship, but remained close. [1] [2] The IDF later found weapons including slingshots and marbles. [3]
I cannot find "pelted" in the refs. I seems unnecessary to provide a complete list of the "junk" which was being thrown and I could not find all the previously mentioned items. Some events seem to have happened later, thus I have removed "The Israelis replied with paintballs and stun grenades. One stun grenade was picked up and thrown back into a boat." (The stun grenades seem to have been associated with the subsequent helicopter deployment.) If anything else needs to be added, please provide precise references, particularly start time or range for a video. I will start updating the video references in the article to make this easier. Obviously, just because I could not find a mention of something does not mean it is not there, but that illustrates the need for precise references for anything that an author regards as particularly significant. -- Mirokado ( talk) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There seems little point in continuing the analysis of these edits, particularly since the original editor has changed the above quoted paragraph again without commenting here. If the original editor wished to discuss any of these changes, that would be fine. Otherwise let us forget them and move on. -- Mirokado ( talk) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
subsequent edits through 18:57, 9 June 2011 UTC, and two more beginning 21:09, 10 June 2011 UTC
|
---|
Reenem's 2nd edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 3rd edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 4th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 5th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 6th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 7th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 8th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 9th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 10th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 11th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 12th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 13th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 14th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 15th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 16th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 17th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Two more edits by Reenem Comment. Edits beginning 21:09, 10 June 2011 UTC through 2:12, 11 June 2011, inclusive, are fully comprised in these two edits. (A)
Edit made by Reenem at 21:09, 10 June 2011
(B)
Edit made by Reenem at 21:36, 10 June 2011
|
References
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |postscript=
(
help)CS1 maint: postscript (
link)
{{
cite AV media}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (
link){{
cite AV media}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (
link)The date formats in this article were a complete mess, with all three MOS-supported styles having been used haphazardly in the body of the article and several other unsupported styles also appearing. Apart from looking horrible, this would have caused problems for anyone using a screen reader where such inconsistencies can be very distracting and it was difficult to edit the article since not even subsections used a consistent format.
I have now standardised the article on the "international" format dd Mmmm yyyy for the following reasons:
{{
Start date|df=yes|2010|05|31}}
Apart from those more technical reasons, I think that using the international format for this article is in some senses the more neutral choice and will provide the best overall reader experience.
Please keep the article consistent in this respect now it is tidied up. -- Mirokado ( talk) 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed two unsourced sentences, tagged since June 2010. No objection to their being restored with a reliable reference.
{{
Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
-- Mirokado ( talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Also removed the CNN Türkiye ref, which appears to add nothing to the information of the previous Keinon ref which is in English. Please provide a translation if necessary, automatic translators are still hopeless for Turkish.
-- Mirokado ( talk) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed Shoval (2010) because it provides the same information as the other two refs (although with what looks like a direct quote from the interview). I'm placing it here with a translation of the corresponding quotation. This reference may be useful for supporting other content.
הקצין הבכיר חשף חלק מהממצאים שנתגלו בחקירת האירוע: 'בין ציוד הלחימה הרב שמצאנו היתה גם כוונת של רובה. לא מצאנו את הרובה אבל יש לנו עדויות שהם זרקו כלי נשק למים. הזיהוי הפלילי מצא על האונייה גם תרמילי כדורים שאינם מתאימים לנשקים שלנו. אנחנו בודקים לאילו כלי נשק הם מתאימים'. [The senior officer revealed some of the findings discovered in the investigation of the incident: 'the extensive fighting equipment found included indications of a gun. We did not find the gun but we have evidence that they threw a weapon into the water. Forensics traces on the shells do not fit our weapons. We're looking into which weapons match.']
-- Mirokado ( talk) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have changed this reference since the title and url were revised later on the publication day. Article text updated accordingly and one phrase removed which does not appear in the revised article.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)-- Mirokado ( talk) 22:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed a dead link, two other refs already support the same content:
{{
dead link|date=June 2011}}
-- Mirokado ( talk) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There is over 250 odd sources for this article with some of them repeating info that where later clarified or corrected in later articles written by the source. This would be fine and dandy if this was a data dump for anything that matched "Gaza flotilla raid" on Google search, but I feel that it does a disservice to people seeking the actual happenings of the event.
The easiest part of editing this article would be to get rid of sources (as well as information obtained from such sources) that have "spokesperson" in it. The job of a spokesperson is to spin events (propaganda) and is hardly NPOV in any sense. The only place such sources belong to is in spinoff articles detailing the reaction that governments or institutions have towards the event in question. -- General Choomin ( talk) 11:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
In an effort to both shorten the article and break it into more logical chunks, I propose splitting it -- "Gaza Flotilla" and "Gaza Flotilla Raid". These are individually notable enough to merit their own pages. And, this is consistent with Freedom Flotilla II which has it's own page.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
|
|
It so happens that I have time this weekend to prepare the split contents. I will follow the outline in the previous section. I have no objection whatsoever if somebody else would prefer to do this... -- Mirokado ( talk) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Henning Mankell, an eyewitness, says "Israeli commandos fired at will from helicopters" at passengers of MV Mavi Marmara - see http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israelis-cannot-make-the-gaza-reality-disappear-1.373632. What is the status of this factoid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.192.162 ( talk) 02:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Should that be moved into the article?
I haven't read this article in quite some time, but I do not remembering seeing the "blockade of the gaza strip" template.
I don't understand why the second intifada is part of the infobox. That is independent of the blockade and flotilla raid right? Wikifan Be nice 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Having read the article, this is something that appears somewhat flawed to me: That in particularily the part concerning the independent UNHRC report, nothing is mentioned of the rather heavy critisism for laying undue weight on critisising Israel above more urgent matters that the council has received from high UN officials, UN members and at least one NGO. Seeing as how it's written in the Wikipedia article on the UNHRC, and more importantly puts the results of the fact-finding mission, the very serious allegations made against Israel in the report, the concerns about the report from the United States and the European Union's wish that it be transefered from the council in a new perspective, I think it should be briefly mentioned in the beginning of the "The UNHRC fact-finding mission" part.
Also, in the part of the article mentioned, it is written that "the fact-finding mission [was] headed by three prominent international jurists". Whom are these, and should it be included in the same part of the article?
Feedback? 82.182.76.119 ( talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Looked it up, the jurists are Karl Hudson-Phillips, Desmond Lorenz de Silva and Mary Shanthi Dairiam. Can't say I found much about them that concerns the subject of the article other than their involvment in the writing of the report. Personally I still think that their names should be included, to make the article more complete. ElCommandanteChe, yes, it was mostly that I refered to, but also to the other article which I've linked to above. Does anyone think more research, sources, etc. should be included to back changes? 82.182.76.119 ( talk) 00:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The report itself can't be used as a source to say the three are "prominent." I got rid of it, POV. I also filled out Israel's response about why they won't support the UNHRC's mission. It is in the same source used to say Israel won't let the group interview its people. Modinyr ( talk) 10:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
So? Wikifan Be nice 06:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the phrase using the word "fizzled" in the lead. This is a clearly pejorative, unencyclopedic word which should only appear in a directly attributed, qualified, quotation and is thus unsuitable for the lead of a Wikipedia article. The reference used to support it has a grammatical error in its title: I'm sure we can find a competently written piece to confirm the current (final?) status of the flotilla as necessary. If somebody wishes to restore "fizzled" somewhere else in the article, by all means do so in a suitable context. Please take the trouble to provide a fully complete citation if you do, there are plenty of examples of what is needed. -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Man.. what's with all the passive voice? Who's writing this article? Whoever you are, would you please write it better with a more encyclopedic tone and style? - M0rphzone ( talk) 05:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, an editor has presented the opinion of Joseph Ciechanover, the Israeli member of the UN commission, as a fact. However, as Ynet news, the source, only refers to the opinion of Ciechanover, and Ciechanover is not an independent expert with regard to the report, the assessment must be presented as Ciechanover's opinion. Furthermore, neither Ynet news nor Ciechanover uses the term "flotilla problem", and the specific wording of the edit thus either mixes Ciechanover's views and the editor's views, or an original interpretation of Ciechanover's views.
As I have already reverted some other content during the last 24 hours, I am asking other editors to address this issue. Cs32en Talk to me 00:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The only major area of disagreement between the Israeli government and the Palmer report's findings is that the Israeli government rejected the claim that Israel used "excessive and unreasonable" force in dealing with the flotilla problem.
I removed the balance tag a second time after no reasoning was provided here. Article has improved substantially since July, and any neutrality issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Wikifan Be nice 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's break it down:
Copy of lead for reference |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Gaza flotilla raid was a military operation by Israel against six ships of the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" on 31 May 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH), was carrying humanitarian aid and construction materials, with the intention of breaking the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip. The government of Israel and others[who?] have alleged that the flotilla was organized as a provocation or media stunt.[text 1] On 31 May 2010, Israeli Shayetet 13 naval commandos boarded the ships from speedboats and helicopters in order to force the ships to the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection. On the Turkish passenger ship MV Mavi Marmara, teams of prepared, trained and uniformed[not in citation given] IHH activists armed with metal rods cut from the ship fences and dressed in protected clothing from the construction materials[1] prevented Israeli boats from advancing by throwing broken plates and metal chains.[2][non-primary source needed] Commandos attempting to land on the top deck were attacked with knives and steel bars by IHH activists. Two commandos were thrown to the lower deck, one of them head down, and abducted along with a third commando. One of the commandos had his gun taken from him and used by the activists.[citation needed] Nine Turkish activists were killed and dozens were wounded.[3] Seven Israeli commandos were wounded, one of them seriously. [4] The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident. The ships were towed to Israel, where all people aboard were detained and deported. |
First paragraph
Second paragraph
The Gaza flotilla raid was a military operation by Israel against six ships of the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" on 31 May 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH), was carrying humanitarian aid and construction materials, with the intention of breaking the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip.
On 31 May 2010, Israeli Shayetet 13 naval commandos boarded the ships from helicopters in order to force the ships to the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection. On the Turkish ship MV Mavi Marmara, boarding has faced resistance of about 40 of "hardcore" IHH activists, armed with iron bars and knives. During the struggle, 9 activists were killed, and many were wounded. Ten of commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously. The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident.
? Ipsign ( talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Issues with the lead resolved, mostly, although there is still gives an assertion by the Israeli government about what the event was, but omits a counter-claim from the other party involved. The attribution of material to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, presented herein as fact, will also need to be addressed. As Wikifan notes, this can probably just be fixed by adding "according to..." Nightw 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In the introduction to the "raid" section, it says that "two missile boats and the Sa'ar 5-class corvette INS Lahav left Haifa naval base..." However, there were actually two Sa'ar 5-class corvettes: the INS Lahav ( Israel Defense Forces) and INS Hanit ( Ynetnews, Belfast Telegraph). When the section Mavi Marmara boarding was divided into sub-sections for accounts by activists, journalists, and the IDF, the journalists accounts contained part of a piece by veteran Israeli correspondent Ron Ben-Yishai, mentioning that he was on "the Israeli missile ship INS Victory. After researching, I have discovered that the ship is the Sa'ar 4-class missile boat INS Nitzachon (meaning "Victory" in Hebrew). Could someone please change the intro to the raid section to mention all three ships? I can't from being temporarily topic-banned from the A-I conflict following a little dispute. Thanks!-- RM ( Be my friend) 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the ref entitled "Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis" from the history section. It was a dead link but the corresponding AP content seems to be still available from multiple sources and does not support the sentence after which it appeared. I have also removed the Katz 2010 ref from the same sentence, it was also irrelevant there. That ref is still used elsewhere in the article. We still have the press release ref which was also a dead link but it had already been archived. -- Mirokado ( talk) 11:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I found a sentence it's source doesn't back up.
"However, a BBC documentary concluded that Israeli forces had acted in self-defense against a premeditated attack by a group of hardcore IHH activists.[17]"
The source is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html
Does anyone ever read the word BBC in here? This is the first source I've checked so far, so this article might as well be as spotless as an overripe banana... I can't remove it as this page is 'protected'. Who can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenDelhaize ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, my bad. Must've been extremely tired to make a mistake like that... Sorry. DenDelhaize ( talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not the place for racism Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
a zillion photos showing activists preparing to fight soldiers (with broom sticks etc), yet the peaceful soldiers offering detainees "fruit"...you must be fucking kidding us. HAVE SHAME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.191.176 ( talk • contribs) 19:16 2 October 2011 (UTC) There are many Jewish editors on Wikipedia, so it can't be helped. Jews gonna Jew. Check out other articles on the Israeli-Arab conflict or Jewish related topics for more blatant bias. -- DarklyCute 07:59, 15 february 2012 (UTC) |
This article looks like a joke. If you want to document this conflict with pictures, there should be at least pictures of injured activists. Wait, Israeli stole all video material from activists and journalists and never gave it back. I wonder why. The IDF has "nothing to hide" about this raid I thought? Either way, showing pictures on this page of only injured Israeli soldiers and activists "attacking" potrays this raid wrong. As for the activists "attacking" (according to the dictionary: "to begin hostilities against") the smuggled video of Lara Lee clearly shows the IDF sniping from helicopters before they entered.Also, mentioning this video in the article seems necessary because it's a good source that shows what happened. Waiting for feedback and other Wiki-users to get a consensus, and edit this page. Because now it looks pretty much like it's written by a spokesman of the IDF. Tijs schelstraete ( talk) 18:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
And, dear MathKnight, is NPOV your intention? Who do you really expect to believe that after reading your user page, especially the part praising Israeli bulldozers that "have saved many lives". ( Rachel Corrie anyone?) Apologies, but you really fit the description of "very zealous pro-Israeli sympathiser". But you won't admit it here even if a bulldozer runs you over.-- Noblivion ( talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sources disagree about whether the boarding was legal or not - as is stated in the article, so no, the defense claim does not drop. See, for example, the UNHRC report, compared to the UN Palmer Report. Even the Palmer report, which agrees that the raid was legal, says excessive force was used. Regarding the picture - are we looking at the same one?
As per the Foreign Press Association quoted in the article, "Israel is validating its own account by selectively using the seized video and equipment from reporters on board". The photo shows nothing more than 5 people on the deck of a ship and nothing more can be read into it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the statement [6] with the edit summary "someone must cite a source to support the statement then restore it. WP:V compliance is mandatory. it shouldn't be difficult to source if it is true". People, please, this article is covered by sanctions. Statements must have sources. The statement has been challenged so someone needs to provide a source. Surely the IDF said something along these lines about this footage which could be used and attributed to them. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This is more silly than I thought. The photo is from the official IDF flickr site. The caption says "Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers" so that is a suitable source right there that can support the statement as long as the statement is attributed to the IDF. I shall add the citation. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The article on the Gaza Flotilla raid contains lengthy in depth analysis of the raid of the Mavi Marmara and its aftermath. By contrast, the MV Mavi Marmara article itself, surprisingly has almost no content on these events. I suggest a more general paragraph in this article and the current content to be transferred to the MV Mavi Marmara. AnkhMorpork ( talk) 20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Turkey giving Israel a deadline to apologize and lift the Gaza blockade after the Palmer report? Turkey actually recalled its ambassador and threatened to send Turkish warships on escort missions for future flotillas. I would think that this diplomatic crisis is a noteworthy topic to put in the article.-- RM ( Be my friend) 04:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to add the additional ongoing consequences of this raid, including the exclusion of Israel in NATO Summits (blocked by Turkey until an apology agreement has been met) [2] [3], but haven't been able to edit. Fancynancywhy ( talk) 22:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest the addition of another source under "Further Reading":
"Drawing a Line in the Sea: The 2010 Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", edited by Thomas Copeland, Alethia Cook, and Lisa McCartan. Published by Lexington Books, 2011.
PoliProf ( talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC) PoliProf
The picture of the "Expired Medicine" in the cargo is misleading. Medicines are effective as long as 15 years after the expiration dates printed on the packages, and the earliest expiration dates I've found for any of the medicines in february 2009. Take the image off as it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan2718281828 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
As it is written now, allegations that there was a "hardcore" group of IHH Islamists who were preparing to engage in active resistance to Israeli commandos is quoted as being from the Palmer Report, yet the source itself only logs that as an accusation by the Israeli government; it does not agree or endorse this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APairOfDocks ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
"Gaza flotilla massacre" would seem to me to be a more appropriate title for this article. "Raid" does not convey the brutality or utter lack of regard for human life displayed by the Israelis during this "incident". It was a massacre. Let's call it what it was instead of trying to be politically correct in order not to hurt people's feelings. AnAimlessRoad ( talk) 13:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Darkness Shines, I'm sure in your mind those goyim "idiots" deserved to be murdered for being "stupid" enough to resist a violent attack, but that is not the general international consensus in regards to the Gaza flotilla massacre. Perhaps it is the consensus in zionist circles, but not elsewhere. In any case, such sentiments as yours have clearly crept into this article, and it is quite inappropriate. AnAimlessRoad ( talk) 16:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
What's the issue here? It was indeed a raid, but it was also a massacre. The media are bound by political correctness when it comes to reporting Israel-related issues, but wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should not be. I think it's about time people start calling the "Gaza flotilla raid" what it was rather than whitewashing the massacre in order to avoid damaging fragile zionist egos.
I don't know what your individual definition of "civilised society" constitutes, but, as far as I'm concerned, in a civilised society all unlawful killings should be condemned equally... regardless of the ethnicity or religious affiliation of the killers. Judging from your comments, I'd assume that you do not agree. AnAimlessRoad ( talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the current title is the most NPOV one we'll probably find, though a redirect from "... massacre" is also probably in order. However, I find Darkness Shines's form of argumentation utterly clownish. "nine idiots"? "no place in a civilized society"? Laughably biased, not to be taken seriously. Homunq ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Who will take the time to fix the error in: 'The members well-trained and equipped with gas masks and bulletproof vests.'
There's a verb missing and I can't seem to find the edit button... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.35.112.206 (
talk)
01:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
@AnAimlessRoad - This is what I understand from both the long video put out by the flotilla people with reports from the Turkish media and the videos from the Israeli army along with reports from Israeli newspapers (sometimes giving out a bit more than was intended by the military): Both sides edited and pulled out some parts, but it seems most parts are there and it is not hard to reconstruct a valid image by connecting both sides of the story into one coherent image. My conclusion is that it was NOT a massacre. Please bear with me, even if at first you do not agree.
First a "timeline" of what happened. Then a short summary:
Although the "activists" (who called themselves "soldiers" in the movie made during the flotilla and aired by their organization) attacked the Israelis with crowbars and knives, and although they abducted 3 Israeli soldiers and held them in custody, thinking they had one killed, and another deadly wounded (it turned out that the killed one was unconscious, and the other only badly, but not deadly, wounded), still, the Israelis were not aware of the abductions, and continued the "paintball" attack using plastic bullets (for crowd dispersion), so that live fire was only authorized when one of the Israeli's abducted handguns was used by the "activists" with live fire against the Israelis, 2 minutes after the beginning of the action.
The last landing Israeli "seal" who's commander was the first to land and was thrown overboard now unconscious and in custody, and two others badly wounded from stabbings, and stripped from their uniform, weapons and personal communication system, was able to call the Israeli command and he is heard in the Israeli movies yelling: YES YES! I'M SURE. THEY ARE FIRING LIVE! At 2 and half minutes from the landing, (on the flotilla movie you clearly hear the helicopters and even see them once, after the paintball liquid hits the walls), two wounded activist soldiers (clearly seen beforehand preparing with the soldiers) are carried to a "doctor". They are seen "treated" (or more correctly mistreated) by American activists who obviously have no medical training, causing their death, as real doctor, who treats them later in movie points out. They have been hit with "plastic bullets" and could have been saved. The real activist doctor, for the first time stripping the wounded of their clothes as medical practice calls for, shows and even taps the bullet wound and says: "Plastic". This means that there is no "bullet" entrance or exit just a very bad tearing wound where it hit.
The situation about 3 minutes after the initial deck landing: 2 badly wounded activist soldiers in ship internal, being treated by non-medical staff. 3 badly wounded Israelis in "activist" custody (one thought to be dead), two "seal" teams on deck under knife and life threatening attack, while themselves in non-lethal "crowd dispersion" mode.
Live ammunition is authorized, "Were finished with the paintball, no more games" (heard in the Israeli movies), and the last seal from the first team shoots and kills one of the four attackers who has been trying to stab him. (the others were with crowbars, they worked in teams of 8 to 10, four or five throwing the landing "seals" off balance and the rest dealing with toppled seals). He then returns fire towards the shooter, wounding him. The three attackers begin fleeing as this seal shoots at another nine attackers engaged with two of his team, killing one and wounding two (according to Israeli news leaks) The rest of the seal teams whip out there guns at this point wounding another two, and the attackers flee, going down into the ship taking their wounded and leaving the dead.
By now there are 7 wounded activist soldiers (all with reason, none in a "massacre"): two from plastic, one after shooting from a handgun and still holding it, four while beating or stabbing - as can be proven from the other cases at this stage, in an attempt to kill. (The wounded are seen in the "Dont photo this!" section of the flotilla movie, where they are getting close to the room with the Israeli soldiers by mistake)
There are also 2 dead activist soldiers (the attacker with the knife, and one of the other attacker teams), and 7 badly wounded Israeli soldiers - 3 in custody of the activists.
Around 7 minutes after the landing the newly arrived Israeli teams are ready to raid the internals of the boat. They have taken the bridge and the boat is now heading towards Ashdod. Now aware of the abducted soldiers they call for the activists to open the doors but are answered with defiance. The locks are shot after warnings to move away (as seen on the flotilla movie).
This part is missing from both sides filmed accounts - purposefully (because the rest continues). According to Israeli newsmen (actually newswomen) during the raid the activist soldiers realized that this was a raid with live ammunition. They abandoned the Israeli soldiers thinking they were mortally wounded. Two of the Israeli soldiers fled and jumped deck into the water. The third was recovered by the team that stormed the ship internals.
The activists where now closed in a barricaded section of the ship (including the newsroom). The Israelis stop the raid, and call in medical teams. They call the activists to open for the medical teams. They know that there are wounded activists and wish to treat them. The medics plea with the activists but are refused.
Summary:
Massacre? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
3rd paragraph, first sentence: "The raid drew widespread condemnation internationally and resulted in a deterioration of Israel-Turkey relations." should be modified to: "The raid drew widespread condemnation internationally and escalated the deterioration of Israel-Turkey relations." as the the relations were well deteriorating prior to the incident. can't find the edit button. What happened to wikipedia? 84.111.204.51 ( talk) 12:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The opening summary paragraphs mentions the death and injury of passengers. Wouldn't evenhanded treatment of this issue require the same opening summary to mention of the serious injury of the Israelis caused by passengers? 70.89.4.9 ( talk) 15:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
These pictures for the article are extremely biased. They imposes only one-sided idea which is totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia. There are four pictures about the event:
1. Mavi Marmara passengers attack IDF soldiers with metal rods
2. An injured Israeli commando captured by activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, and a knife-wielding activist
3. Activists throw a stun grenade into an IDF speedboat
4. Slingshots found Aboard the Mavi Marmara
As summary, I'm not good at editing Wikipedia articles, but this is so wrong. I'm not saying put the dead bodies of the people who was murdered, I'm just saying make it more balanced, more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.150.217 ( talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
A (now blocked) AHJ sock puppet added [7] his own personal interpretation of a you tube video ( Gaza Flotilla Activist stabs soldier in the back UNBELIEVEABLE!) to the article, using the you tube video as the cited source.
The material is totally inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia article on the topic, the addition is not consistent with Wikipedia policy (see WP:NOR) and the user who originally added the material is blocked from editing. Dlv999 ( talk) 15:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The uploader is not RS and it is contributory copyright infringement with the video's use of copyrighted material. The content could be added but it needs a different source. (Really? This was an easy one without even arguing over it.) Cptnono ( talk) 03:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Search for the words attack or defense/defend in the article. Most of them suggest that Israeli soldiers were defending themselves against Turkish activists attacking them, which sounds hilarious in the general context. Generally the article focuses more on how the poor IDF had to defend themselves (again!) and less on the fact that their attack was illegal and involved excess violence. We have to work on that.-- Emesik ( talk) 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted here as I am quite sure .intifada-palestine.com does not meet RS. Darkness Shines ( talk) 09:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Some 629 activists were detained by the Israel Prison Service, after they refused to sign deportation orders. A Turkish mother who had brought her one-year-old child with her agreed to extradition after she was advised that prison conditions were "too harsh" for her baby.
jail, not prison. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.250.90.77 (
talk)
12:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is incorrect under the 'reactions - turkey' section.
It incorrectly states that Turkey is a member of the Court. It states that the vessel was registered as being from Comoros, and that Tukish citizens were onboard, and goes on to mention that both Turkey and Comoros are members of the Court. Comoros is, Turkey is not. The article also neglects to mention that Comoros referred the situation to the ICC very recently.
This should be fixed asap. All the information can be found on the ICC website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.67.184.106 ( talk) 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if any Wikipedia staff is aware, but this article is specifically mentioned in a video that reports on organized Zionist POV editing of Wikipedia articles. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t52LB2fYhoY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.151.197.231 ( talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I too came here after seeing
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wikipedia-editing-for-zionists/ an article outlining 'Zionist editing of Wikipedia' classes being held by a religious group to help agenda push so that if someone searches for ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.”
[9]
I need not stress the implications of this, and ask that due diligence be afforded to watch out for this new religious agenda pushing type of astroturfer. This isn't the first religious group to band together to teach their constituents how to agenda push on Wiki and sadly I'm sure it won't be the last. However this seems to have flown under the radar since the opening comment was made. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Michael Zeev removed a link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp5rtfPWtqA - saying it was "Not RS; copyright". I restored it. Mr Zeev removed it again saying "An unclear video uploaded by anonymous Youtube user "Sadigov" is not a reliable source to include in the "Activist response" section. See WP:RS)" Granted, the link could be better placed. However, what is the relevance of WP:RS here? We are allowed to include unclear still photos uploaded to Flickr showing alleged violence and attacks by flotilla participants against the IDF; but we are not permitted to link to unclear videos uploaded to YouTube showing alleged violence and attacks by the IDF against flotilla participants. Include all, or neither, in the interests of WP:NPOV. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
So the consensus would seem to be for the inclusion of the link - though admittedly with better context than it had been included with? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The Mavi Marmara boarding section has a very one-sided collection of images. For example the section mentions that IDF soldiers threw stun grenades at the ship and a few where picked up and thrown back at the soldiers. Yet an image sums the whole incident up as "Activists throw a stun grenade into an IDF speedboat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.116.54.63 ( talk) 05:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
I'm a little surprised (well, not really) that the people adding information from the UNHRC report [2] neglected to mention that the fact finding mission said that the flotilla's primary objective was political rather than humanitarian (paragraph 80) and that the mission also said that where video evidence released by Israel conflicted with eyewitness accounts, they preferred the eyewitness accounts (paragraph 20), which is not exactly how jurists usually treat evidence. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Good day, This occupied part of Cyprus is considered illegaly annexed by Turkey by the international community, i.e. UN Security Council resolutions 353(1974), 357(1974), 358(1974), 359(1974), 360(1974), 365(1974), you disagree? Hope&Act3! ( talk) 02:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the authoritive source and the heavy weight of the statement, the UN-based statement about the illegality of the raid should be acknowledged in the opening paragraphs (e.g., "in Sept. 2010, an Independent United Commission has concluded that the Israeli raid has been executed in violation of applicable Internatational Law", after the raid description.
The illegality determined nder the UN investigation also outweighs any generic or partisan legal opinion. It should be the first opening statement of the "Legal Assessment". Burying it among opinion of random observers taken here and there months ago is absolutely inappropriate.
Sources (dozens) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/world/middleeast/23briefs-Flotilla.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.82 ( talk) 12:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no valid reason whatsoever to not include the Information on the report of the fact-finding mission of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in the lead, thus it has just been added with copious amounts of credible sources and thus this article is improved. Mmcitizen101 ( talk) 22:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that there have since early october there have been some substantial changes to this article which haven't been discussed on this talk page. These include removal of a description of the IHH, as well as changes to wording and descriptions which may not be considered balanced. I think it may be valuable for editors to undertake a POV check of the recent changes. Clovis Sangrail ( talk) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The webcitation.org does not match the quote nor the original source. I dont know how to fix this.-- Metallurgist ( talk) 01:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Did the Activist think they would sail to Gaza? Did the Israelis expect armed passengers ? Why did the passengers attack or resist ? Is the fact it was in international waters a Red Herring neither side disagrees about the ultimate destination ? What does it mean that there had been prior raid with out much struggle? I think that answers to these questions are lacking and need to be answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.1.115 ( talk) 22:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Some of the activists on the Mavi Marmara have had larger sums of money in their possession at the time of the raid. However, there appears to be no reliable source that has provided information on whether these people "carried" the money in the sense of "transporting" it. Also, saying that "the flotilla" carried large sums of money is not the same as saying that some individuals carried large sums of money. 10.000 US dollars is a large sum for an individual to carry, but it is not a large sum if carried as part of the organization of the flotilla. "Large sums" of money, in the context of the current wording used in the lead section, rather sounds like several hundreds of thousands of US dollars, rather than a few people carrying a few thousand US dollars each. Cs32en Talk to me 01:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Furkan Dogan is cited as having been murdered at age 19, however his birthday is October 21st, 1991, making him 18 in may of 2010. pretty straight forward correction (compared to all the other subjective sparring above me!)- can someone authorized to edit this page apply the proper age?
thanks wikipedia :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.46 ( talk) 01:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Tools and materials have been used as improvised weapons. The lead section, however, states that the flotilla carried improvised weapons, thus implying that the weapons would have been improvised and then brought onto the ship(s). Furthermore, "carried" is being used in the sense of "being transported to the destination", while the varios materials that are being mentioned in the lead were simply present on the ships. For the lead, the enumeration of the various items seems to be overly detailed. Cs32en Talk to me 01:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm eating supper with a fork and a knife right now at my laptop. Am I engaging in carrying 'improvised weapons'? This is a despicably non-neutral article. Its straight up smear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.119.175 ( talk) 03:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
This knife and fork you speak of, how many Jews are you stabbing with them? If it's more than zero, you're using improvised weapons. Use non-violent means to protest their stealing your dinner next time. CoombaDelray ( talk) 04:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems pretty neutral to me all things considered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.134.45.100 ( talk) 16:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/turkey-denies-offering-assistance-to-gaza-flotilla-organizers-1.320328 This should be added to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.134.102.15 ( talk) 10:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The government initially did what it can do so stop the flotilla ( http://www.kanaldhaber.com.tr/Haber/Yasam-34/Mavi-Marmaradaki-buyuk-sir-10168.aspx). However, after the flotilla Erdoğan became a hero in Arabic world and the goverment started supporting the flotilla. Kavas ( talk) 22:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we merge the "IDF accounts", "journalists' accounts", and "passengers' accounts", as they largely correspond with each other. The understood sense is that an initial Israeli boat assault was repulsed, a second attack by helicopter and speedboat succeeded, the troops were attacked and responded with paintballs and live fire, and three were taken hostage. Its better than a bunch of contradictionary accounts to confuse the reader.-- RM ( Be my friend) 23:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Support:
Oppose:
Why is this called a raid if the captains of the vessels had prior warning? Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 01:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I tried to ignore your reference, but if you must bring it up....the Boston Tea Party was an allegoric metaphor, and a simultaneous satire on the relationship between the Crown and the colonies. It is further communicated in the Revolutionary Tea
The issue here is that there was a correct term to use for describing the incident, and in any case, the use here is of an analogy (a logical method) and not subtle literary figure of speech. However, the analogy fails on even the most basic level of analysis. Wikipedia is after all supposed to be prose which is not derived from a 21st century version of Yellow journalism Koakhtzvigad ( talk) 23:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
>as well as ballistic vests, gas masks, night-vision goggles, and large sums of money,[6] according to the reference http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897667,00.html , there were no night vision goggles possessed by any of the suspects. 67.170.106.201 ( talk) 21:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"on May 31, 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea.." should have one period only, and not two. (sorry if this is not the correct way of introducing a suggestion, is my first contributionn). Jorgecarleitao ( talk) 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
This link was recently added to the See Also section.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain_Aid_Flotilla
This seems to have been added as a way to promote the Bahrain flotilla, rather than because there is any connection.
I'm removing the link for the time being. If you feel this was in error feel free to re-add it, but please put your reasoning in the discussion section. Zuchinni one ( talk) 22:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I find it surprising that this article was modeled in such a pro-israeli manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.228.78 ( talk) 21:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This article is extremely pro-Israel. -- J4\/4 < talk> 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY They are getting courses about how to fight their 'zionist war' on wikipedia, what the rules are and how to find the loopgholes. There is no solution to this until their force is neutralized by people in Gaza doing the same thing. But of course those people have nothing, let alone a computer. -- 95.96.30.170 ( talk) 20:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
This article is utterly on the side of Israel. Especially about the flotilla participants' use of weapons, there are many -actually unconfirmed and proven to be wrong by the recent UN Report on the flotilla- information. And the article is written in a way to make us believe some weapons were exactly leakt in the ship by the participants. The resources given to confirm these are generally also coming from the biased or anti Islamic (which is another problematic issue put forward in the article as if all these actions against the blockade in Gaza were organized by radical Islamic groups ) broadcast. Another idea put forward in this article is that Israel offered the flotilla to hand the humanitarian aid to themselves so that they can transmit them to Gaza. However it is obviously known that Israel forces do not allow all the aid coming from the world into Gaza. Beatrice.rfb ( talk) 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
He added that all but one of the bullets retrieved from the bodies came from 9mm rounds. Of the other round, he said: "It was the first time we have seen this kind of material used in firearms. It was just a container including many types of pellets usually used in shotguns. It penetrated the head region in the temple and we found it intact in the brain."Also from the Turkish report into the incident..Turkey's report said two of the activists killed on the vessel, the Mavi Marmara, were shot from a military helicopter.
"The Israeli soldiers shot from the helicopter onto the Mavi Marmara using live ammunition and killing two passengers before any Israeli soldier descended on the deck," said the report, published by state-run news agency Anatolian. Owain the 1st ( talk) 19:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, the issue with the whole article is that it was written up as the events evolved using the press. Most of the references are to mainstream press sources, but some aren't, and should be replaced. I wonder if it is possible now to find some better sources, with more analysis than was possible at the time. Itsmejudith ( talk) 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
deck prior to the descent of the soldiers".The line you have posted is about the unsuccessful boarding from the boats. As this is the case it backs up the report from the Al Jazeera reporter that the Israelis were firing live rounds from the helicopter before they descended.Therefore his report that he saw a person get shot in the head from an helicopter should be put back in.Page 26 UN report. Owain the 1st ( talk) 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Bob drobbs, in 101. paragraph it is obviously seen that passengers did not use that tools as weapons although there were some, and when they were found they were confiscated not to be used by anyone. It is true that they reacted with some sticks, but this was a reaction to plastic and real bullets. And it is again fixed by this Report that no weapons were allowed into the ship before sailing. My gramatically wrong sentence "some weapons were exactly leakt in the ship by the participants" actually means this.
In Cargo section of the article it says "In addition, the flotilla was found to be carrying ballistic vests, gas masks, night-vision goggles, clubs, and slingshots.[52] " However, the reference for this and many other contributions comes from [The Jerusalem Post] known for its radical defence on Israeli side about this and other issues related to blockade of Gaza. Beatrice.rfb ( talk) 10:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Why is Wikipedia hosting pure propaganda? I mean this isn't a slightly "biased" article, its straight props. Why is this article trying to paint a picture of bloodthirsty arab suicide bombers ambushing the gentle loving peace spreading commandos who came to bring them sugar canes and rainbows. I'd like to be constructive and help rewrite portions of this, but you might as well delete this page and start over at this point, its FUBAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.118.241 ( talk) 08:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I put a link in this article as evidence that the Israelis retracted their claims that there were mercenaries with Al Qaeda links aboard the Gaza flotilla and User:Plot Spoiler has deleted that claiming it is not a reputable source.My link was to [3]Max Blumenthal's website where he has screen shots of the actual Israeli army press office site showing how they changed their story when challenged by reporters.I see nothing wrong with this source as Max Blumenthal is an award winning journalist and best selling author who articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, The Nation, The Guardian, The Independent Film Channel, The Huffington Post, Salon.com, Al Jazeera English and many other publications.I see no good reason to delete this.Thoughts Owain the 1st ( talk) 02:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
There is this one-line paragraph:
I've looked through the sources, and it's not clear to me what this refers to, most accounts seem to be about people being hindered in the midst of battle. The way it is now, it reads as if IDF was actively letting people die of the wounds in the aftermath, which again seems NPOV. The references point to various eye-witness accounts that are rather chaotic. I'd like this to be more explicit in what it describes, or removed. Ketil ( talk) 12:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Or detailed, precise. I understand that some would prefer blanket statements that confer one side as evil and the other as good, but I'd like to have a more specific information, each fact appropriately sourced. Ketil ( talk) 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
130. The flotilla organisers and other passengers engaged in efforts to request the Israeli forces to provide the necessary treatment to the wounded persons. One organiser used the ship’s intercom to request assistance in Hebrew and persons also communicated directly through the cabin windows or by placing signs, written in English and Hebrew, in the ship’s windows. These attempts proved unsuccessful and it was up to two hours before the Israeli forces took out the wounded persons. However, the wounded were required to leave the cabins themselves, or taken outside in a rough manner, without apparent concern for the nature of their injuries and the discomfort that this would cause. 131. The wounded passengers were taken to the front of the top deck where they joined other passengers injured during the operation on the top deck and where the bodies of persons killed during the operation had been left. Wounded passengers, including persons seriously injured with live fire wounds, were handcuffed with plastic cord handcuffs, which were often tied very tightly causing some of the injured to lose sensitivity in their hands. These plastic handcuffs cannot be loosened without being cut off, but can be tightened. Many were also stripped naked and then had to wait some time, possibly as long as twothree hours, before receiving medical treatment. Medical treatment was given to a number of wounded persons on the top deck by the Israeli forces. Owain the 1st ( talk) 13:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Zuabi said that naval boats surrounded the Mavi Marmara and fired on it before soldiers abseiled aboard from a helicopter. She went below to the ship's hold and said that, within minutes, two dead passengers were brought inside, followed by two more who had been seriously wounded.
soldiers refused her requests for medical assistance for the injured passengers, who died shortly after. Owain the 1st ( talk) 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
"Numerous testimonies also indicate that at least three of the deaths occurred because Israeli soldiers denied timely medical attention to the wounded. Sümeyye Ertekin and Halis Akıncı testified that the Israeli soldiers hit those doctors trying to help the wounded with the butts of their rifles. Edda Manga says 'They did not allow the medics to treat the people; the doctors and nurses were forced at gunpoint to leave the wounded.' Ali Buhamd‘s testimony contains a grim mixture of some of the points made above: 'I saw a soldier shooting a wounded Turk in the head. There was another Turk asking for help, but he bled to death.'"
Article claims IDF has pictures proving there were guns on board. And here they are. One oven shows Haneen Zoabi to be a liar. Again and again, Israel is vindicated. I leave it up to the prevailing editors to decide how to incorporate this development, unless my help is wanted. -- Metallurgist ( talk) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Both the captions of the killed passenger and the Israeli soldiers have no links to the videos in question, which seems weird in the age of Youtube. Is there something I'm missing, or should they be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.159.25 ( talk) 01:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, all. In this series of edits, Reenem just performed what effectively amounts to a rewrite of much of the article, moving it substantially in a more pro-IDF direction. It's my opinion that making such sweeping changes to a highly-contested but relatively mature article is just unproductive, in that it presents a fait accompli of too much change to reasonably discuss. I could revert that, and then just as easily go through and make sweeping changes to move the article in a pro-Flotilla direction, which wouldn't stick, either. So I'm just going to revert his changes, and suggest that he either make them in much smaller increments over a much longer period, or that he try to gain consensus for all of them in a body, here, on talk. – OhioStandard ( talk) 06:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The following paragraphs were removed, and re-inserted, and removed and reinserted.
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Al menos una parte de la versión del Ministerio de Defensa israelí resulta poco creíble: en las otras naves, donde supuestamente nadie opuso resistencia, también hubo heridos, como pudo comprobar este periódico hablando brevemente con algunos de ellos mientras eran ingresados en camilla en un hospital de Ashkelon.(At least one piece of the account from the Israeli Ministry of Defence is scarcely believable: in the other ships, where nobody apparently offered any physical resistance, there were also some wounded people, as this newspaper was able to verify by briefly talking to some of the passengers when they were being admitted on stretchers to a hospital in Ashkelon.)
I removed them again for the following reason. There are separate sections for raid of each ship. If these deleted paragraphs contain info missing from these sections, then it must be merged into the corresponding sections. Otherwise the article turns into a repetitive mess, if every editor will insert some text wherever he/she likes. Yceren Loq ( talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment to Yceren Loq: Your second removal of this content violated the 1RR (only one reversion per 24 hours) rule in force for this article. Please be careful to obey this in future, as other editors are doing. To passing admins: I suggest no block in this case as YL has clearly tried to initiate a dialogue... -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment This is the second recent failure to respect WP:BRD while editing this article (not a policy or guideline, but widely followed). The cycle is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, ..., revert and start a discussion". -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment This discussion is about a disputed change to the current consensus, which has been determined by the established status quo which included the content. Thus a result of "no consensus" will mean that the content will be restored. Let's try to sort out acceptable changes... -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose removal I will oppose wholesale removal of this content which has several references (including CNN and the Guardian with which I am familiar) and clearly acts as part of the summary for the individual boarding subsections. There are two Citation needed tags dated June 2011 which should be addressed (a month is normally allowed for provision of a reliable reference or other suitable response). I would be quite happy with a shorter, still balanced, summary with some content and references moved to specific subsections. Yceren Loq, since you wish to change the current text, perhaps you can suggest a suitable rearrangement? I will try to look in more detail myself this weekend... -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment. A few points to make. (1) I'm too bleary-eyed to verify it right now, but the one ref out of the preceding five that I'm sure is still in the article is the "CNN Autopsies" ref of June 4, 2010. I know that because I had to make this edit to copy the URL from the article to the talk page. (2) As I write this, the above two paragraphs aren't in the article. I didn't restore them because I knew they were under discussion here. (3) If they do go back in, probably the best way to restore them would be to copy-paste from the above, the article has seen many changes have been made in the meantime, since these paragraphs were moved here. Also, I'll try to review this content issue soon, myself, and give my two cents. – OhioStandard ( talk) 09:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
In the hope of averting a huge edit war over an article that's likely to see a lot more page views in the very near future, I'd like to point out these facts:
Since doing so will necessarily be a much more complicated process than if the bold-revert-discuss norm had been followed, I'd appreciate it if everyone would look at the edit history and verify that nothing else has been changed. But once that process is complete, can we all please try the "discuss" part, i.e. can we discuss changes made or proposed in a genuinely incremental way rather than by a massive rewrite? – OhioStandard ( talk) 02:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Discussion of one edit in this sequence should not commence until the previous one reaches consensus. – OhioStandard ( talk) 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
Following sections will each need to be populated with diffs and timestamps. First one done by Ohiostandard at 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
Reenem's 1st edit in series
Edit made by Reenem at 4:19, 9 June 18:57, 2011 UTC
Suggestion, comments I propose the following for this paragraph:
The operation began with an attempt to board the ship from speedboats. As the boats approached, activists fired water hoses at them, and hurled numerous objects including iron pipes, stones and chairs. When the commandos tried boarding the ship, activists cut their ladder with a chainsaw. The boats then turned slightly away from the ship, but remained close. [1] [2] The IDF later found weapons including slingshots and marbles. [3]
I cannot find "pelted" in the refs. I seems unnecessary to provide a complete list of the "junk" which was being thrown and I could not find all the previously mentioned items. Some events seem to have happened later, thus I have removed "The Israelis replied with paintballs and stun grenades. One stun grenade was picked up and thrown back into a boat." (The stun grenades seem to have been associated with the subsequent helicopter deployment.) If anything else needs to be added, please provide precise references, particularly start time or range for a video. I will start updating the video references in the article to make this easier. Obviously, just because I could not find a mention of something does not mean it is not there, but that illustrates the need for precise references for anything that an author regards as particularly significant. -- Mirokado ( talk) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
There seems little point in continuing the analysis of these edits, particularly since the original editor has changed the above quoted paragraph again without commenting here. If the original editor wished to discuss any of these changes, that would be fine. Otherwise let us forget them and move on. -- Mirokado ( talk) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
subsequent edits through 18:57, 9 June 2011 UTC, and two more beginning 21:09, 10 June 2011 UTC
|
---|
Reenem's 2nd edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 3rd edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 4th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 5th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 6th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 7th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 8th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 9th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 10th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 11th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 12th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 13th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 14th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 15th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 16th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Reenem's 17th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ]
Two more edits by Reenem Comment. Edits beginning 21:09, 10 June 2011 UTC through 2:12, 11 June 2011, inclusive, are fully comprised in these two edits. (A)
Edit made by Reenem at 21:09, 10 June 2011
(B)
Edit made by Reenem at 21:36, 10 June 2011
|
References
{{
cite news}}
: External link in |postscript=
(
help)CS1 maint: postscript (
link)
{{
cite AV media}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (
link){{
cite AV media}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (
link)The date formats in this article were a complete mess, with all three MOS-supported styles having been used haphazardly in the body of the article and several other unsupported styles also appearing. Apart from looking horrible, this would have caused problems for anyone using a screen reader where such inconsistencies can be very distracting and it was difficult to edit the article since not even subsections used a consistent format.
I have now standardised the article on the "international" format dd Mmmm yyyy for the following reasons:
{{
Start date|df=yes|2010|05|31}}
Apart from those more technical reasons, I think that using the international format for this article is in some senses the more neutral choice and will provide the best overall reader experience.
Please keep the article consistent in this respect now it is tidied up. -- Mirokado ( talk) 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
I have removed two unsourced sentences, tagged since June 2010. No objection to their being restored with a reliable reference.
{{
Citation needed|date=June 2010}}
-- Mirokado ( talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Also removed the CNN Türkiye ref, which appears to add nothing to the information of the previous Keinon ref which is in English. Please provide a translation if necessary, automatic translators are still hopeless for Turkish.
-- Mirokado ( talk) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I've removed Shoval (2010) because it provides the same information as the other two refs (although with what looks like a direct quote from the interview). I'm placing it here with a translation of the corresponding quotation. This reference may be useful for supporting other content.
הקצין הבכיר חשף חלק מהממצאים שנתגלו בחקירת האירוע: 'בין ציוד הלחימה הרב שמצאנו היתה גם כוונת של רובה. לא מצאנו את הרובה אבל יש לנו עדויות שהם זרקו כלי נשק למים. הזיהוי הפלילי מצא על האונייה גם תרמילי כדורים שאינם מתאימים לנשקים שלנו. אנחנו בודקים לאילו כלי נשק הם מתאימים'. [The senior officer revealed some of the findings discovered in the investigation of the incident: 'the extensive fighting equipment found included indications of a gun. We did not find the gun but we have evidence that they threw a weapon into the water. Forensics traces on the shells do not fit our weapons. We're looking into which weapons match.']
-- Mirokado ( talk) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have changed this reference since the title and url were revised later on the publication day. Article text updated accordingly and one phrase removed which does not appear in the revised article.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)-- Mirokado ( talk) 22:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed a dead link, two other refs already support the same content:
{{
dead link|date=June 2011}}
-- Mirokado ( talk) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
There is over 250 odd sources for this article with some of them repeating info that where later clarified or corrected in later articles written by the source. This would be fine and dandy if this was a data dump for anything that matched "Gaza flotilla raid" on Google search, but I feel that it does a disservice to people seeking the actual happenings of the event.
The easiest part of editing this article would be to get rid of sources (as well as information obtained from such sources) that have "spokesperson" in it. The job of a spokesperson is to spin events (propaganda) and is hardly NPOV in any sense. The only place such sources belong to is in spinoff articles detailing the reaction that governments or institutions have towards the event in question. -- General Choomin ( talk) 11:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
In an effort to both shorten the article and break it into more logical chunks, I propose splitting it -- "Gaza Flotilla" and "Gaza Flotilla Raid". These are individually notable enough to merit their own pages. And, this is consistent with Freedom Flotilla II which has it's own page.
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
|
|
It so happens that I have time this weekend to prepare the split contents. I will follow the outline in the previous section. I have no objection whatsoever if somebody else would prefer to do this... -- Mirokado ( talk) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Henning Mankell, an eyewitness, says "Israeli commandos fired at will from helicopters" at passengers of MV Mavi Marmara - see http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israelis-cannot-make-the-gaza-reality-disappear-1.373632. What is the status of this factoid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.192.162 ( talk) 02:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Should that be moved into the article?
I haven't read this article in quite some time, but I do not remembering seeing the "blockade of the gaza strip" template.
I don't understand why the second intifada is part of the infobox. That is independent of the blockade and flotilla raid right? Wikifan Be nice 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Having read the article, this is something that appears somewhat flawed to me: That in particularily the part concerning the independent UNHRC report, nothing is mentioned of the rather heavy critisism for laying undue weight on critisising Israel above more urgent matters that the council has received from high UN officials, UN members and at least one NGO. Seeing as how it's written in the Wikipedia article on the UNHRC, and more importantly puts the results of the fact-finding mission, the very serious allegations made against Israel in the report, the concerns about the report from the United States and the European Union's wish that it be transefered from the council in a new perspective, I think it should be briefly mentioned in the beginning of the "The UNHRC fact-finding mission" part.
Also, in the part of the article mentioned, it is written that "the fact-finding mission [was] headed by three prominent international jurists". Whom are these, and should it be included in the same part of the article?
Feedback? 82.182.76.119 ( talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Looked it up, the jurists are Karl Hudson-Phillips, Desmond Lorenz de Silva and Mary Shanthi Dairiam. Can't say I found much about them that concerns the subject of the article other than their involvment in the writing of the report. Personally I still think that their names should be included, to make the article more complete. ElCommandanteChe, yes, it was mostly that I refered to, but also to the other article which I've linked to above. Does anyone think more research, sources, etc. should be included to back changes? 82.182.76.119 ( talk) 00:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The report itself can't be used as a source to say the three are "prominent." I got rid of it, POV. I also filled out Israel's response about why they won't support the UNHRC's mission. It is in the same source used to say Israel won't let the group interview its people. Modinyr ( talk) 10:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
So? Wikifan Be nice 06:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the phrase using the word "fizzled" in the lead. This is a clearly pejorative, unencyclopedic word which should only appear in a directly attributed, qualified, quotation and is thus unsuitable for the lead of a Wikipedia article. The reference used to support it has a grammatical error in its title: I'm sure we can find a competently written piece to confirm the current (final?) status of the flotilla as necessary. If somebody wishes to restore "fizzled" somewhere else in the article, by all means do so in a suitable context. Please take the trouble to provide a fully complete citation if you do, there are plenty of examples of what is needed. -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Man.. what's with all the passive voice? Who's writing this article? Whoever you are, would you please write it better with a more encyclopedic tone and style? - M0rphzone ( talk) 05:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, an editor has presented the opinion of Joseph Ciechanover, the Israeli member of the UN commission, as a fact. However, as Ynet news, the source, only refers to the opinion of Ciechanover, and Ciechanover is not an independent expert with regard to the report, the assessment must be presented as Ciechanover's opinion. Furthermore, neither Ynet news nor Ciechanover uses the term "flotilla problem", and the specific wording of the edit thus either mixes Ciechanover's views and the editor's views, or an original interpretation of Ciechanover's views.
As I have already reverted some other content during the last 24 hours, I am asking other editors to address this issue. Cs32en Talk to me 00:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
The only major area of disagreement between the Israeli government and the Palmer report's findings is that the Israeli government rejected the claim that Israel used "excessive and unreasonable" force in dealing with the flotilla problem.
I removed the balance tag a second time after no reasoning was provided here. Article has improved substantially since July, and any neutrality issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. Wikifan Be nice 03:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's break it down:
Copy of lead for reference |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The Gaza flotilla raid was a military operation by Israel against six ships of the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" on 31 May 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH), was carrying humanitarian aid and construction materials, with the intention of breaking the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip. The government of Israel and others[who?] have alleged that the flotilla was organized as a provocation or media stunt.[text 1] On 31 May 2010, Israeli Shayetet 13 naval commandos boarded the ships from speedboats and helicopters in order to force the ships to the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection. On the Turkish passenger ship MV Mavi Marmara, teams of prepared, trained and uniformed[not in citation given] IHH activists armed with metal rods cut from the ship fences and dressed in protected clothing from the construction materials[1] prevented Israeli boats from advancing by throwing broken plates and metal chains.[2][non-primary source needed] Commandos attempting to land on the top deck were attacked with knives and steel bars by IHH activists. Two commandos were thrown to the lower deck, one of them head down, and abducted along with a third commando. One of the commandos had his gun taken from him and used by the activists.[citation needed] Nine Turkish activists were killed and dozens were wounded.[3] Seven Israeli commandos were wounded, one of them seriously. [4] The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident. The ships were towed to Israel, where all people aboard were detained and deported. |
First paragraph
Second paragraph
The Gaza flotilla raid was a military operation by Israel against six ships of the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" on 31 May 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH), was carrying humanitarian aid and construction materials, with the intention of breaking the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip.
On 31 May 2010, Israeli Shayetet 13 naval commandos boarded the ships from helicopters in order to force the ships to the Israeli port of Ashdod for inspection. On the Turkish ship MV Mavi Marmara, boarding has faced resistance of about 40 of "hardcore" IHH activists, armed with iron bars and knives. During the struggle, 9 activists were killed, and many were wounded. Ten of commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously. The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident.
? Ipsign ( talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Issues with the lead resolved, mostly, although there is still gives an assertion by the Israeli government about what the event was, but omits a counter-claim from the other party involved. The attribution of material to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, presented herein as fact, will also need to be addressed. As Wikifan notes, this can probably just be fixed by adding "according to..." Nightw 15:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
In the introduction to the "raid" section, it says that "two missile boats and the Sa'ar 5-class corvette INS Lahav left Haifa naval base..." However, there were actually two Sa'ar 5-class corvettes: the INS Lahav ( Israel Defense Forces) and INS Hanit ( Ynetnews, Belfast Telegraph). When the section Mavi Marmara boarding was divided into sub-sections for accounts by activists, journalists, and the IDF, the journalists accounts contained part of a piece by veteran Israeli correspondent Ron Ben-Yishai, mentioning that he was on "the Israeli missile ship INS Victory. After researching, I have discovered that the ship is the Sa'ar 4-class missile boat INS Nitzachon (meaning "Victory" in Hebrew). Could someone please change the intro to the raid section to mention all three ships? I can't from being temporarily topic-banned from the A-I conflict following a little dispute. Thanks!-- RM ( Be my friend) 20:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the ref entitled "Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis" from the history section. It was a dead link but the corresponding AP content seems to be still available from multiple sources and does not support the sentence after which it appeared. I have also removed the Katz 2010 ref from the same sentence, it was also irrelevant there. That ref is still used elsewhere in the article. We still have the press release ref which was also a dead link but it had already been archived. -- Mirokado ( talk) 11:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I found a sentence it's source doesn't back up.
"However, a BBC documentary concluded that Israeli forces had acted in self-defense against a premeditated attack by a group of hardcore IHH activists.[17]"
The source is here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html
Does anyone ever read the word BBC in here? This is the first source I've checked so far, so this article might as well be as spotless as an overripe banana... I can't remove it as this page is 'protected'. Who can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DenDelhaize ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, my bad. Must've been extremely tired to make a mistake like that... Sorry. DenDelhaize ( talk) 15:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
This is not the place for racism Darkness Shines ( talk) 14:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
a zillion photos showing activists preparing to fight soldiers (with broom sticks etc), yet the peaceful soldiers offering detainees "fruit"...you must be fucking kidding us. HAVE SHAME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.191.176 ( talk • contribs) 19:16 2 October 2011 (UTC) There are many Jewish editors on Wikipedia, so it can't be helped. Jews gonna Jew. Check out other articles on the Israeli-Arab conflict or Jewish related topics for more blatant bias. -- DarklyCute 07:59, 15 february 2012 (UTC) |
This article looks like a joke. If you want to document this conflict with pictures, there should be at least pictures of injured activists. Wait, Israeli stole all video material from activists and journalists and never gave it back. I wonder why. The IDF has "nothing to hide" about this raid I thought? Either way, showing pictures on this page of only injured Israeli soldiers and activists "attacking" potrays this raid wrong. As for the activists "attacking" (according to the dictionary: "to begin hostilities against") the smuggled video of Lara Lee clearly shows the IDF sniping from helicopters before they entered.Also, mentioning this video in the article seems necessary because it's a good source that shows what happened. Waiting for feedback and other Wiki-users to get a consensus, and edit this page. Because now it looks pretty much like it's written by a spokesman of the IDF. Tijs schelstraete ( talk) 18:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
And, dear MathKnight, is NPOV your intention? Who do you really expect to believe that after reading your user page, especially the part praising Israeli bulldozers that "have saved many lives". ( Rachel Corrie anyone?) Apologies, but you really fit the description of "very zealous pro-Israeli sympathiser". But you won't admit it here even if a bulldozer runs you over.-- Noblivion ( talk) 20:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sources disagree about whether the boarding was legal or not - as is stated in the article, so no, the defense claim does not drop. See, for example, the UNHRC report, compared to the UN Palmer Report. Even the Palmer report, which agrees that the raid was legal, says excessive force was used. Regarding the picture - are we looking at the same one?
As per the Foreign Press Association quoted in the article, "Israel is validating its own account by selectively using the seized video and equipment from reporters on board". The photo shows nothing more than 5 people on the deck of a ship and nothing more can be read into it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the statement [6] with the edit summary "someone must cite a source to support the statement then restore it. WP:V compliance is mandatory. it shouldn't be difficult to source if it is true". People, please, this article is covered by sanctions. Statements must have sources. The statement has been challenged so someone needs to provide a source. Surely the IDF said something along these lines about this footage which could be used and attributed to them. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This is more silly than I thought. The photo is from the official IDF flickr site. The caption says "Mavi Marmara Activists Prepare to Attack IDF Soldiers" so that is a suitable source right there that can support the statement as long as the statement is attributed to the IDF. I shall add the citation. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
The article on the Gaza Flotilla raid contains lengthy in depth analysis of the raid of the Mavi Marmara and its aftermath. By contrast, the MV Mavi Marmara article itself, surprisingly has almost no content on these events. I suggest a more general paragraph in this article and the current content to be transferred to the MV Mavi Marmara. AnkhMorpork ( talk) 20:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of Turkey giving Israel a deadline to apologize and lift the Gaza blockade after the Palmer report? Turkey actually recalled its ambassador and threatened to send Turkish warships on escort missions for future flotillas. I would think that this diplomatic crisis is a noteworthy topic to put in the article.-- RM ( Be my friend) 04:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I wanted to add the additional ongoing consequences of this raid, including the exclusion of Israel in NATO Summits (blocked by Turkey until an apology agreement has been met) [2] [3], but haven't been able to edit. Fancynancywhy ( talk) 22:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest the addition of another source under "Further Reading":
"Drawing a Line in the Sea: The 2010 Gaza Flotilla Incident and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict", edited by Thomas Copeland, Alethia Cook, and Lisa McCartan. Published by Lexington Books, 2011.
PoliProf ( talk) 15:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC) PoliProf
The picture of the "Expired Medicine" in the cargo is misleading. Medicines are effective as long as 15 years after the expiration dates printed on the packages, and the earliest expiration dates I've found for any of the medicines in february 2009. Take the image off as it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evan2718281828 ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
As it is written now, allegations that there was a "hardcore" group of IHH Islamists who were preparing to engage in active resistance to Israeli commandos is quoted as being from the Palmer Report, yet the source itself only logs that as an accusation by the Israeli government; it does not agree or endorse this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by APairOfDocks ( talk • contribs) 09:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
"Gaza flotilla massacre" would seem to me to be a more appropriate title for this article. "Raid" does not convey the brutality or utter lack of regard for human life displayed by the Israelis during this "incident". It was a massacre. Let's call it what it was instead of trying to be politically correct in order not to hurt people's feelings. AnAimlessRoad ( talk) 13:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Darkness Shines, I'm sure in your mind those goyim "idiots" deserved to be murdered for being "stupid" enough to resist a violent attack, but that is not the general international consensus in regards to the Gaza flotilla massacre. Perhaps it is the consensus in zionist circles, but not elsewhere. In any case, such sentiments as yours have clearly crept into this article, and it is quite inappropriate. AnAimlessRoad ( talk) 16:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
What's the issue here? It was indeed a raid, but it was also a massacre. The media are bound by political correctness when it comes to reporting Israel-related issues, but wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should not be. I think it's about time people start calling the "Gaza flotilla raid" what it was rather than whitewashing the massacre in order to avoid damaging fragile zionist egos.
I don't know what your individual definition of "civilised society" constitutes, but, as far as I'm concerned, in a civilised society all unlawful killings should be condemned equally... regardless of the ethnicity or religious affiliation of the killers. Judging from your comments, I'd assume that you do not agree. AnAimlessRoad ( talk) 18:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the current title is the most NPOV one we'll probably find, though a redirect from "... massacre" is also probably in order. However, I find Darkness Shines's form of argumentation utterly clownish. "nine idiots"? "no place in a civilized society"? Laughably biased, not to be taken seriously. Homunq ( talk) 23:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Who will take the time to fix the error in: 'The members well-trained and equipped with gas masks and bulletproof vests.'
There's a verb missing and I can't seem to find the edit button... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
84.35.112.206 (
talk)
01:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
@AnAimlessRoad - This is what I understand from both the long video put out by the flotilla people with reports from the Turkish media and the videos from the Israeli army along with reports from Israeli newspapers (sometimes giving out a bit more than was intended by the military): Both sides edited and pulled out some parts, but it seems most parts are there and it is not hard to reconstruct a valid image by connecting both sides of the story into one coherent image. My conclusion is that it was NOT a massacre. Please bear with me, even if at first you do not agree.
First a "timeline" of what happened. Then a short summary:
Although the "activists" (who called themselves "soldiers" in the movie made during the flotilla and aired by their organization) attacked the Israelis with crowbars and knives, and although they abducted 3 Israeli soldiers and held them in custody, thinking they had one killed, and another deadly wounded (it turned out that the killed one was unconscious, and the other only badly, but not deadly, wounded), still, the Israelis were not aware of the abductions, and continued the "paintball" attack using plastic bullets (for crowd dispersion), so that live fire was only authorized when one of the Israeli's abducted handguns was used by the "activists" with live fire against the Israelis, 2 minutes after the beginning of the action.
The last landing Israeli "seal" who's commander was the first to land and was thrown overboard now unconscious and in custody, and two others badly wounded from stabbings, and stripped from their uniform, weapons and personal communication system, was able to call the Israeli command and he is heard in the Israeli movies yelling: YES YES! I'M SURE. THEY ARE FIRING LIVE! At 2 and half minutes from the landing, (on the flotilla movie you clearly hear the helicopters and even see them once, after the paintball liquid hits the walls), two wounded activist soldiers (clearly seen beforehand preparing with the soldiers) are carried to a "doctor". They are seen "treated" (or more correctly mistreated) by American activists who obviously have no medical training, causing their death, as real doctor, who treats them later in movie points out. They have been hit with "plastic bullets" and could have been saved. The real activist doctor, for the first time stripping the wounded of their clothes as medical practice calls for, shows and even taps the bullet wound and says: "Plastic". This means that there is no "bullet" entrance or exit just a very bad tearing wound where it hit.
The situation about 3 minutes after the initial deck landing: 2 badly wounded activist soldiers in ship internal, being treated by non-medical staff. 3 badly wounded Israelis in "activist" custody (one thought to be dead), two "seal" teams on deck under knife and life threatening attack, while themselves in non-lethal "crowd dispersion" mode.
Live ammunition is authorized, "Were finished with the paintball, no more games" (heard in the Israeli movies), and the last seal from the first team shoots and kills one of the four attackers who has been trying to stab him. (the others were with crowbars, they worked in teams of 8 to 10, four or five throwing the landing "seals" off balance and the rest dealing with toppled seals). He then returns fire towards the shooter, wounding him. The three attackers begin fleeing as this seal shoots at another nine attackers engaged with two of his team, killing one and wounding two (according to Israeli news leaks) The rest of the seal teams whip out there guns at this point wounding another two, and the attackers flee, going down into the ship taking their wounded and leaving the dead.
By now there are 7 wounded activist soldiers (all with reason, none in a "massacre"): two from plastic, one after shooting from a handgun and still holding it, four while beating or stabbing - as can be proven from the other cases at this stage, in an attempt to kill. (The wounded are seen in the "Dont photo this!" section of the flotilla movie, where they are getting close to the room with the Israeli soldiers by mistake)
There are also 2 dead activist soldiers (the attacker with the knife, and one of the other attacker teams), and 7 badly wounded Israeli soldiers - 3 in custody of the activists.
Around 7 minutes after the landing the newly arrived Israeli teams are ready to raid the internals of the boat. They have taken the bridge and the boat is now heading towards Ashdod. Now aware of the abducted soldiers they call for the activists to open the doors but are answered with defiance. The locks are shot after warnings to move away (as seen on the flotilla movie).
This part is missing from both sides filmed accounts - purposefully (because the rest continues). According to Israeli newsmen (actually newswomen) during the raid the activist soldiers realized that this was a raid with live ammunition. They abandoned the Israeli soldiers thinking they were mortally wounded. Two of the Israeli soldiers fled and jumped deck into the water. The third was recovered by the team that stormed the ship internals.
The activists where now closed in a barricaded section of the ship (including the newsroom). The Israelis stop the raid, and call in medical teams. They call the activists to open for the medical teams. They know that there are wounded activists and wish to treat them. The medics plea with the activists but are refused.
Summary:
Massacre? פשוט pashute ♫ ( talk) 10:03, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
3rd paragraph, first sentence: "The raid drew widespread condemnation internationally and resulted in a deterioration of Israel-Turkey relations." should be modified to: "The raid drew widespread condemnation internationally and escalated the deterioration of Israel-Turkey relations." as the the relations were well deteriorating prior to the incident. can't find the edit button. What happened to wikipedia? 84.111.204.51 ( talk) 12:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
The opening summary paragraphs mentions the death and injury of passengers. Wouldn't evenhanded treatment of this issue require the same opening summary to mention of the serious injury of the Israelis caused by passengers? 70.89.4.9 ( talk) 15:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
These pictures for the article are extremely biased. They imposes only one-sided idea which is totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia. There are four pictures about the event:
1. Mavi Marmara passengers attack IDF soldiers with metal rods
2. An injured Israeli commando captured by activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, and a knife-wielding activist
3. Activists throw a stun grenade into an IDF speedboat
4. Slingshots found Aboard the Mavi Marmara
As summary, I'm not good at editing Wikipedia articles, but this is so wrong. I'm not saying put the dead bodies of the people who was murdered, I'm just saying make it more balanced, more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.120.150.217 ( talk) 12:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
A (now blocked) AHJ sock puppet added [7] his own personal interpretation of a you tube video ( Gaza Flotilla Activist stabs soldier in the back UNBELIEVEABLE!) to the article, using the you tube video as the cited source.
The material is totally inappropriate for a serious encyclopedia article on the topic, the addition is not consistent with Wikipedia policy (see WP:NOR) and the user who originally added the material is blocked from editing. Dlv999 ( talk) 15:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The uploader is not RS and it is contributory copyright infringement with the video's use of copyrighted material. The content could be added but it needs a different source. (Really? This was an easy one without even arguing over it.) Cptnono ( talk) 03:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Search for the words attack or defense/defend in the article. Most of them suggest that Israeli soldiers were defending themselves against Turkish activists attacking them, which sounds hilarious in the general context. Generally the article focuses more on how the poor IDF had to defend themselves (again!) and less on the fact that their attack was illegal and involved excess violence. We have to work on that.-- Emesik ( talk) 01:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted here as I am quite sure .intifada-palestine.com does not meet RS. Darkness Shines ( talk) 09:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Some 629 activists were detained by the Israel Prison Service, after they refused to sign deportation orders. A Turkish mother who had brought her one-year-old child with her agreed to extradition after she was advised that prison conditions were "too harsh" for her baby.
jail, not prison. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.250.90.77 (
talk)
12:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The article is incorrect under the 'reactions - turkey' section.
It incorrectly states that Turkey is a member of the Court. It states that the vessel was registered as being from Comoros, and that Tukish citizens were onboard, and goes on to mention that both Turkey and Comoros are members of the Court. Comoros is, Turkey is not. The article also neglects to mention that Comoros referred the situation to the ICC very recently.
This should be fixed asap. All the information can be found on the ICC website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.67.184.106 ( talk) 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if any Wikipedia staff is aware, but this article is specifically mentioned in a video that reports on organized Zionist POV editing of Wikipedia articles. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t52LB2fYhoY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.151.197.231 ( talk) 15:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I too came here after seeing
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wikipedia-editing-for-zionists/ an article outlining 'Zionist editing of Wikipedia' classes being held by a religious group to help agenda push so that if someone searches for ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.”
[9]
I need not stress the implications of this, and ask that due diligence be afforded to watch out for this new religious agenda pushing type of astroturfer. This isn't the first religious group to band together to teach their constituents how to agenda push on Wiki and sadly I'm sure it won't be the last. However this seems to have flown under the radar since the opening comment was made. BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 15:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Michael Zeev removed a link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hp5rtfPWtqA - saying it was "Not RS; copyright". I restored it. Mr Zeev removed it again saying "An unclear video uploaded by anonymous Youtube user "Sadigov" is not a reliable source to include in the "Activist response" section. See WP:RS)" Granted, the link could be better placed. However, what is the relevance of WP:RS here? We are allowed to include unclear still photos uploaded to Flickr showing alleged violence and attacks by flotilla participants against the IDF; but we are not permitted to link to unclear videos uploaded to YouTube showing alleged violence and attacks by the IDF against flotilla participants. Include all, or neither, in the interests of WP:NPOV. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
So the consensus would seem to be for the inclusion of the link - though admittedly with better context than it had been included with? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
The Mavi Marmara boarding section has a very one-sided collection of images. For example the section mentions that IDF soldiers threw stun grenades at the ship and a few where picked up and thrown back at the soldiers. Yet an image sums the whole incident up as "Activists throw a stun grenade into an IDF speedboat". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.116.54.63 ( talk) 05:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)