![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
IANVS reverted my edit to the background section leaving a summary "All of this is explained at lenght in the respective articles. Going this way we wouldn't stop detailing related events". What does this mean? Does it mean that since all this is explained in other articles, we don't need to repeat it here? Then why a background section? Then why he did not remove all that is explained in respective articles and chose to retain the text before my edit? I have not made any significant addition to this section except providing some more references and presenting the facts chronologically rather than in the present misleading manner. It seems he wants to retain this and has no excuse to offer and so left this funny edit summary. There are only six sentences in that section and there is nothing wrong in summarising the background (discussed in other articles) in six sentences. I am reverting his edit. Please explain here what is wrong with my edits, if anyone wishes to revert mine. Walky-talky ( talk) 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this is relevant Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#how_it_all_began... Zuchinni one ( talk) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Here's the comparison:
Personally, I would prefer the "after" version, because I feel that the blockade is the most salient backgrond issue here, and the description of Israel's aim seems pretty neutral. What do others think? — Sebastian 06:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From the BACKGROUND. Israel, which considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization,[THE USA AND THE European union, Egypt and probably most of the world and maybe even most Palestinians consider HAmas a terrorist organization. ] and accuses Hamas of launching thousands of rockets at Israel [Accuses??? aren't rockets a fact -they may not all be credited to Hamas , there are other terrorist organizations given free hand in Gaza who would like to take credit but-- just add them up, the exact number of rockets changes all the time, 3 rockets were fired into Israel today so the word "thousands" should be crossed out. There were thousands during the war but the number is misleading. declared itself to be in a state of war ["state of war" is a legal term and should not be used] Israel is in on-going conflict with the Hamas regime is more accurate. with Hamas-run [English? Gsza run under Hamas regime] AFarber ( talk) 22:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently, both texts describe the flotilla, and they even contradict each other, with one counting 6, and the other 8. Should these be merged? (BTW, sorry for my earlier error when I deleted that section. I overlooked that that subsection wasn't actually about the Free Gaza Movement, and Prodego was right to revert me.) — Sebastian 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead again gives plenty of space to intl reactions and hardly any to the actual battle onboard. Why does this keep on happening? Am I missing a subsection on this talk page discussing it again? The really needs to be more mention of the actual event. It has been confirmed by both sides that they came in before dawn on helicopters. It has been confirmed by both sides that there was a battle between the commandos and some of the activists/passengers/whatever while others moved below deck. The IDF claims of weapons or tools (even if they were not intended to be weapons originally) are pretty well verified. Cptnono ( talk) 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Flotilla proponents and Turkish charity group leaders said that since the ships were on international waters, "even if we had used guns", abandoning the non-violence principle would still be legal as self-defense from Israeli "kidnapping" and "piracy".[21][22] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing other Israeli accounts, said that the events represent a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[23][24][25]" This is the he said she said bloat that I think some editors were worried about. This rads like editors trying to point the other side regardless of the intent. It is overly emotive and introduces more "nu uh... the other guys were bad" silliness. I recommend removing those lines and substituting with a line simply stating that both sides said they acted in self defense. Cptnono ( talk) 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
{{editsemiprotected}}
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.--
Cerejota (
talk)
07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Article says in the lead: The Gaza flotilla raid occurred in the international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Should be added: Raid occurred in international waters, off the coast of Israel . Vikipedy ( talk) 07:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.--
Cerejota (
talk)
07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
lead is too long. last two paragraphs - about UN and international reaction - should not be in the lead. Vikipedy ( talk) 07:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I read a bunch of discussions and it seems to me some of you childrens need daddy to break this shit down fer yer edifications:
1) A source being reliable is not the sole criteria for including its information - a source must also be presented in an NPOV fashion. This includes due weight, systemic bias, and balance considerations, not just neutral wording.
2) In addition, single reliable sources are not to be used when there is controversy, but verifiability by multiple reliable sources is needed. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE BECAUSE IT COULD RESOLVE 95% OF THE BULLSHIT HERE.: if something comes up in a reliable source, but is not verified by other reliable sources, then this should be considered for exclusion. An example is the San Jose Mercury News reporting of an American bean beaten - since there is no verifiability, this is clear WP:REDFLAG
3) There seems to be confusion as to what makes a source reliable. Please read WP:RS carefully. Primary sources, such as the IDF are never reliable when the information is about anything other than specific information about itself. Nor are partisan publications or organizations.
4) That said, one can include sources that are not reliable if this advances the encyclopedic mission, and they are used to supplement or illustrate information verifiably presented by reliable sources. They should NEVER be used to introduce new information or to make points on their own, including images. So for example, it is ok to include the IDF image of the murderous weapons of hate/peace utencils/whatever you want to call them because this is super verifable and and is referenced in numerous reliable sources.
5) I suggest a thorough study of WP:SYNTH. This article is full of synthy crap. Just because it makes sense in your view it doesn't mean it belongs here.
CHANT TAIM CHILDRENS, REPEAT AFTER ME:
Understand this, and coast...
Behave. You don't want me unleashing the Armada of Hate on yer whinny asses. Happy edditing!-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Events leading up to the raid section seems to be out of control with WAY too much commentary and there is a lot that doesn't seem to directly relate. Perhaps this should be cut down and the extraneous information moved to other sections. Zuchinni one ( talk) 08:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It can be summarized as followed:
-- Nevit ( talk) 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The following unsourced statement appears in the article: "Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip since the Fatah–Hamas conflict that followed the outcome of the Palestinian elections of 2006. ". This is not true, yet my attempts at clarifying this and adding sources were consistently reverted. In 2006-2007 Gaza was governed by the Palestinian authority unity government of which both Hamas and Fatah were members. In the 2007 coup, the Hamas took control of the Gaza strip from the Palestinian authority. Marokwitz ( talk) 08:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why?-- 86.25.48.172 ( talk) 09:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be added to the background section that one of the justifications Israel uses for upholding the blockade of Gaza is the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas into Gaza. The blockade is uphold, among other reasons, to prevent Hamas from taking Shalit out of the Gaza strip. ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Israel Minister says that Israel would allow the fltilla to Gaza to go on, if Gilad Shalit will be returning with them when they leave. Published on 23/05/10 on HaAretz. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1170063.html ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no plcae for observations and opinions in an encyclopedia. This section should be removed. There are other sites for expressing personal opinions. ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not all people on the flotilla were activists. Not all people on the flotilla and were injured were activists. Not all people on the flotilla and were killed were activists.
In most places in the article, when reffering to a group of people, the use of the word "activist(s)" is wrong, and should be replaced with "people" or "persons" or "flotilla participants". ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The source numbered 138 gives incorrect information. Please find another source. One of 4 people, Ali Akhbar Iritilmis (Ali Ekber Yaratılmış) is not dead. See www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14918897.asp, "Ölmedi yaşıyor", translated to English for who do not know Turkish as follows: öl-me-di yaşa(ı)-yor öl:die, me:not di:past tense, yaşa: live (a turns to ı) yor: present tense Kavas ( talk) 11:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirm your translation. The article says he had a tel conversation with his relatives. Btw by comparing the lists it seems that there are some who are missing, but it is early to conclude.
-- Nevit ( talk) 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Wait until reliable sources comment, then cite them. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In history piracy has often blended in with actions by nation states or quasi-national entities. English action against Spanish ships in the Caribbean during the 18th and 19th centuries was state-actuated piracy. To rob,intimidate and yes damage the economic structures of the enemy. Buccaneers become pirates and vice-versa. FOR EXAMPLE > The actions of Somali pirates are defended as being tax collection: Peter Lehr, a Somalia piracy expert at the University of St. Andrews says "It's almost like a resource swap, Somalis collect up to $100 million a year from pirate ransoms off their coasts and the Europeans and Asians poach around $300 million a year in fish from Somali waters." ~ The Independent ~ Chicago Tribune http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100103084431AAidrXO -- maxrspct ping me 12:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Heard Danny Schecter saying this is discussed in Israeli media and found this WP:RS. Israel using 'pirated' footage to defend raid: media body, AFP. Further searches of terms from that article will add more WP:RS. Somebody should add it. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yahoo also Questions Israeli sources. But there are a lot in the article. Who is going to solve the issue?
Israel's military is using video confiscated : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
-- Nevit ( talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Journalist's account section has NPOV issues.
There are 3 paragraphs by Israel army's journalist
The section can not be considered neutral by current status.
-- Nevit ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Fix it on your own. This wiki is overwhelmed by I.I activists. Here was discussion about it dig in archive fore more info. Now I see some progress towards NPOV but it may be related to they relative overworking on multitude of websites and fronts. Another reason is that those in they government headquarters do not scratch they heads enought perhaps individually working how to get each own ass'ets out of it. (se n'yahoo bbgun outcry on hypocritical attack against him) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 ( talk • contribs)
I decided to be bold and delete the whole sub-section "journalist's account". It just gave ONE journalist's opinion on the subject. I think it had nothing to warrant the same weight as the official accounts by the two sides of the conflict. Seemed to me that somebody was just trying to add more credibility to his favorite side of the argument... Steloukos ( talk) 13:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
http://m.smh.com.au/world/i-was-tasered-by-israelis-says-herald-photographer-20100602-wzv3.html http://firedoglake.com/2010/06/01/israel-blocks-access-to-flotilla-press-and-participants/
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-06-02-sa-demands-that-israel-release-journo
http://cpj.org/2010/06/israeli-forces-detain-journalists-aboard-humanitar.php
http://en.rsf.org/israel-israeli-military-prevents-media-31-05-2010,37630.html http://en.rsf.org/israel-at-least-60-journalists-were-02-06-2010,37646.html
My edit was reverted with a comment that "outrage" would be POV. Here are ten sources that use the term outrage in connection with the international reaction. I know that there is a separate article about the reaction, but the lead should characterize the main points, which the reaction surely is. Also, the lead does currently mention the reaction, what I'm suggesting is to just replace "widespread international reactions" with "widespread international outrage", which is more accurate (one country even severed diplomatic contacts with Israel) and sourced at least in these ten WP:RS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ("Colère") 8 9 10 Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Characterizing the international reaction as "outrage" is POV, not neutral. This is also not true, since it is a generalization of some reactions. Not all international reactions were outrageous. ShalomOlam ( talk) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare is right about the overall characterization, while others are correct that its POV to characterize all of the international reactions. Why not rephrase as International reaction to the raid (wikilink ends here) included widespread outrage as well as other responses.-- Carwil ( talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The New York Times is reporting a U.S. citizen among the dead.-- 149.166.34.237 ( talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
More information:
-- 149.166.34.237 ( talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Request addition of material to protected article.--
149.166.34.237 (
talk)
13:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I might be wrong, but I thought the word casualties refers to deaths. If that's true, how come there is a paragraph on IDF casualties? Is there any death among the IDF soldiers? If however the word casualties can also refer to wounded, why there is no mention of the wounded on the paragraph about the activists?
I'm sorry but in my eyes this seems like covert POV-pushing, in the sense that there are two paragraphs of equal size and similar wording about two distinctly unequal events. the death of some people on one side, and the injuries of some on the other (who just happened to be the attackers by the way). Steloukos ( talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the undue wieght tag on this section is accurate. Per WP:NOTOPINION, I think this section really ought to be deleted or least turned into a stub and majority of the content be moved to a seperate article. Anyone want to second my motion? NickCT ( talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no plcae for observations and opinions in an encyclopedia. Legal or not. I think that this section should be deleted. There are other sites for expressing personal opinions. ShalomOlam ( talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think whoever created this section meant this picture Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. The Brazilian government's reaction may be notable. A Brazilian cartoonist's reaction is not. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article states the activist were trained in nonviolent resistance. There is no RS to support this, so it was removed in the past, but someone has now returned it. It should be removed again (since there is no RS). ShalomOlam ( talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It says that in parenthesis that Israel would have allowed the group to deliver the supplies after inspection but I haven't seen anything cited for that, in fact what I seen was the will to stop the boats at any cost:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFki4MerB8GrGJS2hOVmY5UOJm4wD9G000780
can someone provide the reference to that or have that portion in parenthesis deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver163 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
We need translators as Hebrew-English, Turkish-English, Greek-English etc.
Please list article references that require translations, and translators who are willing to translate articles into English. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Article lengths Seems Equal for Ynet, however you may also check translations' accuracy. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The priority is the newspapers who doesn't have English versions. If you came up with anything useful just post here. Kasaalan ( talk)
tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı
Israel did not allow healing the wounded! Nilüfer Ören set a press briefing at IHH with her 13 months old son, Türker Kağan. Nilüfer Ören who was one of the passengers of the Gaza Flotilla came this morning around 7:00 by THY airplane. She and her little son Türker Kağan set apress briefing with IHH vice chairman Yavuz Dede at IHH headquarters. Despite the attack she went through, her morale seemed to be very positive. She stated that 5 people lost ther lives. Nilüfer Ören who is the wife of the chief engineer of the ship, said that the number of dead increased because Israel did not allow healing the wounded. Nilüfer Ören explained everything one by one told; "We departed from İstanbul in May 22nd. Before reaching 90 miles, 2 Israeli fleet started disturbing tours around 23:00. They told us an attack won't happen if we turn back. But no one accepted this. After a while the fleet pulled back and nearly 40 navy boats came. Around 04:45, soldiers from helicopters started to come down to the ship. At that time an announcement made to us. People in the cabin and on the bridge stayed just where they were. Bullets came through the cellar of the cabin. Gas and sound bombs were thrown. The place became just like judgement day. Besides after that we saw everywhere became like blood bath. Gas bombs. I waited in the cabin with my little son who was afraid of the sounds. I looked at the window severally. Then they announced us to put our gas masks and life jackets. From the screams coming above, it was understood that a wild battle was taking place. I opened the door and told that I had a baby and I surrendered. They held me and others as hostages on the bridge. The hostages were handcuffed and their face turned to wet ground except me, because I had a baby. At that time I saw the personel were not hurt. They brought us to the deck. They did not allow to aid the wounded immediately. But anyway they were providing the needs of some others. A medicine was needed at that time and I told that I want to get it. While I was getting the medicine, I saw my husband and Bülent Yıldırım. Bülent Yıldırım was not handcuffed. Also 3 or 4 others were not handcuffed. At first Bülent Yıldırım was very upset but later he saw the need for him and he calmed down, started to support us. Work in progress-- Realmegrim ( talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Davutoğlu - Clinton talks:
http://www.haberciniz.biz/haber/israili-iste-bu-sozler-dize-getirdi--839108.html
-- Nevit ( talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The dialogue with the captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raid: Search & Rescue Center (SRC): Mavi Marmara, this is RSC. Mavi Marmara this is RSC. Mavi Marmara (MM) : They are jamming the signals. They are using real weapons. SRC : Mavi Marmara, this is RSC. MM : We have injured passengers on board. They are using real/actual weapons. ( live ammunition not cold weapons or blank shots) SRC : When did the assault/raid start? MM : I can barely hear you. MM : I am sending our (ship's) coordinates. The assault/raid from the helicopter started as of 4.32. SRC : Have any soldiers arrived from boats? From the boats around/surrounding the ship? SRC : Mavi Marmara where did the soldiers arrive from? Did the soldiers come out from boats? MM : From boats and the helicopter. There is a raid from the helicopter. SRC : Mavi Marmara what is the situation in the other ships? MM : Gunfire started again now. Gunfire started again right now. SRC : Any attack on other ships? MM : Our ship is surrounded. All connection/communication with the other ships is cut/jammed. SRC : Mavi Marmara, do you know how many wounded are there in the ship? MM : We do not have any information for now. SRC : Any deaths? MM : Negative. Negative. We have no information right now.
Thanks for whoever translated. I tried to correct the grammar and sea jargon a bit. However someone may help better on jargon. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
el:Επίθεση κατά νηοπομπής ανοικτά της Γάζας
List articles needed to be translated into English. Translators you may list your names under sections. We need all parties news for NPOV article. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Any direct participation in this "event", designed to arouse "passions", obviously makes all involved "activists" ( or mercenaries, in the case of the ship's crew if acting solely for money). No one in their right mind can argue or believe this "break the blockade" event would NOT bring at least some notoriety to such an event, and that de facto alone makes all involved "activists".
Once again, someone has reverted the article, to state that there were "Nine activists" dead. When there is no RS that says that all nine dead were in fact activists. This should be replaced to "people" or "civilians". ShalomOlam ( talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
...and when we do, we can cite reliable sources. Until then, this page is WP:NOTAFORUM. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
we'll all soon find out that the killed were in their 60's ( 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)). |
The US-flagged Challenger II, a Free Gaza Movement ship, was also unable to join the rest of the flotilla due to mechanical problems.[48] It is currently undergoing repairs in Nicosia, Cyprus.[64] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.113.178 ( talk) 17:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Falk quote because it wasn't sourced and I couldn't find it on the internet - even when searching for words used directly within quotes. Other than lack of sourcing, I have no objection. Rklawton ( talk) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Has a reliable source come forward to explain why the MV Mavi Marmara (the ship with all the fatalities) was reflagged (changed its registry) from Turkey to Comoros immediately prior to embarking from Turkey? I just read about it and would like to know more - but even the reflagging isn't mentioned in the article at present. Rklawton ( talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Foreign Press Association, which represents hundreds of journalists in Israel and the Palestinian territories, has complained the Israeli military seized video and equipment from dozens of reporters on board the main ship. The FPA says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked. FPA also criticized Israel's use of captured material without permission. [2]
This seems to be in the wrong place. I will move it would be best to put it in the Media responses section of the International reactions article.
I have archived it here if it is decided to move it back to the Israel Military Accounts section. Zuchinni one ( talk) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I already posted some links above #NPOV issue Journalist's account. There is rapidly growing amount of data of eye-witness journalists around the web. They should be collected, drafted and discussed.
-- Nevit ( talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the FPA text should be in the Israel Military Accounts section since it is directly connected to it and explains the situation. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
FPA - anyone want to start an article on this organization? A brief look at their board of directors indicates they're sufficiently notable. We can sort out issues neutrality there, too. My opinion is that they aren't neutral. However, my opinion amounts to zero :-) here (as it should be). Rklawton ( talk) 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The AFP also wrote an article about FPA saying " Israel using 'pirated' footage to defend raid".-- 99.50.129.231 ( talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I know these articles can expand quickly and WP:V issues will get overlooked. So I thought I'd start checking some sources for WP:V problems. So I'm starting from the bottom with the "Aftermath" section.
"They are also organizing a new flotilla to try to breach the blockade in early Fall." Source doesn't mention this at all.
In the "Legal Analysis" section:
We have Diana Buttu saying that "a call to the applicability of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement is not plausible". But in the source she says only that Israel's actions diminish the plausability of the argument, not that it is not plausible at all.
"Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime." Doesn't have a source at all. I thought perhaps it was just to introduce several of those opinions but we actually only have one.
"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law Craig Murray..." The note is after the word "law". The source says Murray was the head of the maritime section for Whitehall, not that he was a maritime law specialist, maritime lawyer or a lawyer at all.
Our article on the man suggests he is not.
Actually that was better than I was expecting. Though the legal section is mostly just full of quotes. I'll check some more later --
JGGardiner (
talk)
21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph should is "cargo" not "aid" . You can say that the cargo is intended or purported to be humanitarian aid but you cannot inspect aid. AFarber ( talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
He (Ali Ekber Yaratılmış) is alive, see above discussion. Please stop adding that he died. Kavas ( talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"According to Israeli sources they were confronted by a number of activists supposedly wielding sticks, metal bars and knives."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it is proven they were wielding sticks and metal bars, and acknowledged by both sides.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybuKkXV-xUI (2:35, 3:14, 6:22~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diecinque ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Please can we allow the bot to decide when to archive sections ? The decision to manually archive particular sections by editors is non-transparent and open to abuse via selective removal of sections. The bot is neutral and automatic. Let it make the decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Leaving the bot to archive left us with well over 100 sections, manual archiving can remove closed threads. If I ever do archive a warm thread, feel free to revert me. Please remove the content from the archive though. 930913( Congratulate/ Complaints) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 ( talk • contribs)
Why are the Israeli actions/reactions always listed first? In the interest of neutrality, I suggest that one of the sections, like the legal section, have the non-Israeli section first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.141.189 ( talk) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite the joke answer this is a good question. It does seem like the argument for the Gaza flotilla raid viewpoint is mentioned first most of the time followed by the opposing view giving the impression that the first view point is the correct one so I have two questions.
1. Is there a wiki policy regarding opposing views and which order they come in? 2. If this article is NPOV then why does the pro raid view point come first? ( I realize that if there is a wiki policy regarding this then it negates my second question) Tcla75 ( talk) 11:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If one or the other is always shown first or second it shows uniformity within the article and gives it a standard structure to follow. Whether Israeli or Palestinian, one should always go before the other for the sake of order and articular cleanliness. Sixer Fixer ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As per the opinions in the Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Undue_weight section. I would like to propose we give the legal portion of this article its own page and leave simply a brief synopsis (maybe a single paragraph) and a link to the main legal page.
Besides the fact that this section is quite lengthy, it is also full of legal opinion. This is might not be a bad thing, but the quotes from RS for each side will necessarily be using a POV to support their own legal arguments. The strong POV here has also means it is difficult to know what is factual.
Do others also think it would be reasonable to separate out this section?
Zuchinni one ( talk) 05:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sources Against IHH/Organisators
- #IHH
- #"Activists" sung Muslim songs glorifying the slaughter of Jews
- #Activist Bios and Goals
- #Remove all IDF photo unless it is approved by a independent source
- #About using IDF as source
- #İbrahim Bilgen
- #Intentions of activists
- #Flotilla "activists" told to write their wills before coming
Activist or passenger
Weapons
- #New video released showing the activists waiting with cold weapons
- #new video shows prepartion of the terrorists arming themselves with weapons before the clash
- #Norwegian military expert
- #Czech Journalist
- #Current Weapons Picture is not NPOV
- Except for sidearms, Israeli weapons were loaded with paint balls for non-lethal crowd control Hickorybark ( talk) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Casualties
Passenger Accounts
- Activists
- #Some of them shot in the passengers' heads
- #Report of American beaten and jailed by Israelis
- #Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Turkish
- Crew
- Journalists
- Politicians
- Religious people
Israel Accounts
- IDF
- #interview with the captain thrown from the ship's deck
- #Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz"
Israel views
- Goverment
- IDF
- Media
- People
Turkish views
- Government
- Media
- People
- Religious
International views
- #The United Nations Human Rights Council Approves International Probe
- #Most of International reactions section should be move to that page.
- #Map, take 2
Maritime and International Law
- #Is Israel's naval blockade of International waters legal?
- #IDF claims its action were according to internatinal law
- #Legal Opinions
- #Does this edit belong in International Reactions?
- #Some more legal opinions, on Reuters
- #Separating 'Legal' section
Terms
See also
Video Footage
- Israel Defence Force video footage on Youtube
- Close-Up Footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara
- Helicopter Footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara
- Weapons Found on the Flotilla Ship Mavi Marmara Used by Activists Against IDF Soldiers
- Footage of Navy Warns Flotilla
- Footage of Soldier tossed off board
- Mavi Marmara live footage
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5vUmBK1dMM
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoF438DXYY
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slME4AluQys
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oF8omtebCg
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr9bUPjCfB4
- Eyewitness on Mavi Marmara
- Gaza aid activist aboard Flotilla Israeli ships fired before boarding Haneen Zuabi, who's a member of the Israeli parliament spoken to RT channel
- Eyewitness and victim recounts Israeli flotilla attack on an American boat and crew Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement organizers, spoke to CNN
- Transcript of Israeli Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi
- NTV Interview in Turkish [A transcript/translation might be useful] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.137.178 ( talk) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Israel officials
- Israel demonstrators
- Turkish demonstrators
- International demonstrators/views
List is in progress. I will check links further for original sources. Kasaalan ( talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Does Anyone support organisation of discussion titles under categories. Kasaalan ( talk) 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was recently reverted when I changed the Background section to this:
In June 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip after winning local elections, Israel and Egypt sealed their borders with Gaza. The aim of Israel was to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop the rocket attacks on Israel. Egypt closed its borders saying it did not recognise the authority of Hamas in Gaza. [4] In September 2007, following rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli settlements, Israel declared Gaza strip a "hostile territory" and tightened its blockade [5]. Later in January 2009, after its invasion of Gaza, Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza [6]. These, along with the control of Gaza's airspace by Israel, resulted in a complete blockade of Gaza. The United Nations and human rights groups have repeatedly criticized the blockade by Israel, calling it collective punishment of the Palestinian people, as it restricts the flow of materials for basic needs and for reconstruction of infrastructure and homes that were either destroyed, or severely damaged by Israel, in the Gaza War. [7] [8]
The passage I quoted above illustrates what the significant events in the blockade of Gaza. Almost all reliable sources report the events as:
But we are not supposed to use the term Israeli blockade in this context. The situation is turning even more hilarious now. The initial reason for reverting my above quoted edit was that it was covered elsewhere. Now after removing the term Israeli blockade, and putting a
synthesized statement “Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza” someone has inserted material regarding "Arab ministers …united front against control of the border by Hamas” and about an incident where a Palestinian fisherman died off Rafah in a clash with an Egyptian navy. Closing one’s borders, preventing smuggling across one’s border ,etc. is not blockade. In many parts of the world there are incidents involving fishermen straying into neighboring country’s border/ clashes. Even this insignificant incident (look at its coverage) is deliberately introduced here just to construct a narrative that can be seen only in Wikipedia ( or in some Israeli propaganda). There is no need to do OR here but it is obviously UNDUE. Even in the next sentence, whose references are talking about the UN criticism of the Israeli blockade, the term Israel is omitted. Similar is the status of the compromise reached about the first paragraph. The strategy followed is clear; whenever the Israel action regarding blockade is mentioned, mention some incident involving Egypt as well (Undue or not). If there aren’t any, and if it is clearly about Israeli blockade (like its criticism), remove Israel and just mention blockade.
I suggest that, wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context.
In short,
call a spade a spade.
I request all editors to express their opinion on this topic which is central to this article ( not just to any section) to build a consensus. Walky-talky ( talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Bodies arrived in Turkey all show at least on shot in close range.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0603/report-aid-flotilla-victims-shot-dead/
I believe this should be included in article.
-- Nevit ( talk) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From the article you referenced:
Even if the source is NPOV it seems that there is no conclusive evidence of anything yet. This should not go into the article yet. Zuchinni one ( talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.medya365.com/haber-101998-fotograf-cekerken-israil-askerlerince-olduruldu.html
See this. The Scotsman newspaper describes the victims as "murdered" in the headline and as "massacred" in the text. The Irish Evening Herald (Part of the Independent Group) called it a "massacre" and used the word in a page-wide headline the day afters the murders. Sarah777 ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the word "massacre". Soldiers killed civilians deliberately, outside "their" territory. Is there a number (of victims) from which on a killing is a massacre?--
Severino (
talk)
19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The majority of RS are not using the word massacre. Zuchinni one ( talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm only going to make a few edits - maybe even only one - because I hate getting involved in edit wars. I do hope, that WP:NPOV will prevail, and that no one will insist on presenting the POV of the flotilla organizers (and their legions of international supporters) as the only "true" one.
Rather, we should duck any conclusions and simply report what pro-flotilla and anti-flotilla sources have said:
Rather than relying purely or mainly on journalistic sources sympathetic to Hamas (or hostile to Israel, which amounts to the same thing), can we try to find a balance between both viewpoints and simply describe every assertion in terms of A said B about C? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
ShalomOlam ( talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
All the above comments sound useful. Thank you, Severino, Luis, and ShalomOlam. I guess I will make another couple of edits after all. :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
would be a better name.
The ship was not sailing under a Turkish flag so the following paragraph is irrelevant. It is uninformed speculation in a section that is already bloated. Easy enough mistake to make with the reporting not being completely clear but it looks like there was some misunderstanding:
"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law [182] Craig Murray explained that the raid was not an act of piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission, but said that it would be "an act of illegal warfare". According to Murray, the Law of the Sea rules that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred, so the Turkish ship was Turkish territory. If the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships, Israel would be in a position of war with Turkey, and the act would fall under international jurisdiction as a war crime. If, on the other hand, the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction and if Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.[183]"
Cptnono ( talk) 00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Many sources say the ship was Turkish-flagged. In any case I don't see how the flag is relevant to Murray's view that the attack was illegal. We can add a sentence after Murray's opinion to the effect that some reports have said the vessel was flying a Comoros flag. Turkey summoned Nato after the attack, so Turkey appears to be under the impression it was Turkish-flagged. -- Dailycare ( talk) 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I find the characterization "de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)" quite awkward. Can we not keep references to this territory NPOV? I think just "Northern Cyprus" should suffice. The reader can then follow the link to the article on Northern Cyprus and read more about it. There is no need for politically motivated name-dropping here. Letus ( talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia Too Long (Rule of Thumb) this article needs to be split up.
"A rule of thumb
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100 KB | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60 KB | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) |
≥ 40 KB | May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 40 KB | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1 KB | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. |
The article is currently (110,761 bytes) so it seems the main question now is not whether to split it up, but rather what sections should be split off.
Zuchinni one ( talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think The Flotilla Raid Was Not “Bungled.” The IDF Detailed Its Violent Strategy In Advance by Max Blumenthal, based on and translating parts of a pre-raid Ma'ariv article should be used in "Events leading up to the raid". Finding, using and translating the original Ma'ariv article should also help. John Z ( talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
On the article's lead it reads:
"The vast majority of the cargo (8000 of the 10,000 tons) is thought to have been withheld by Israeli authorities and not offered Gaza."
This is technically not true as most (all?) of the withehld items were building materials like cement which are far heavier than other items like food or medicine. In truth, the flottila could be filled with medicine and rubber toys, while having a few cement parcels lying around, and the weight would still mark cement as "the majority". Thus the withheld items could actually be a small minority of the full cargo - a very heavy minority - while this line can be interpreted as if israeli authorities withheld most of the cargo, which may very well be false, unless some source states that building materials did in fact make up for the majority of the parcels. As such, I suggest a re-phrase to keep un-aware readers from getting wrong information.
Valen ... please see this ref in the "fate of cargo" section where Israel claims that NONE of the cargo was banned and has allowed all of it in. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177165 The bottom line is that this is unclear. I am going to remove it from the lead. However I think it is reasonable for you to give both perspectives on the fate of the cargo in the "Fate of the Cargo" section. Zuchinni one ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest the following, if I may:
"A total of 8.000 tons of supplies (out of the 10,000 total) are thought to have been witheld by Israeli authorities and not offered to Gaza, the majority of those being cement and other building materials."
I believe that this makes it clearer for the reader, but that's obviously my opinion. Please excuse any grammar errors, typos.-- 85.139.134.239 ( talk) 03:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Please limit changes in the article regarding this topic to the "Fate of the Cargo" section until there is clear evidence of exactly what is going on. The Lead is not a good place to put disputed facts.
Zuchinni one (
talk)
03:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
In replay to that article which says "The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the strip over the past year,” said Levi.". This person is talking about equipment, not building materials or cement which do not fit under that catagory. He is talking about the medical equipment, wheelchairs etc. Not construction material.ValenShephard 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A statement to the effect that the "vast majority" of the material were construction materials. This is presumably based on the information that 8,000 tons were construction materials. This is synthesis, however, as it is based on the assumption that weight would be the relevant unit of measurement. Counting by value, however, the results would very likely be different. The information therefore needs to be removed from the text. Cs32en Talk to me 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Per the recent edit history and above, User ValenShephard has made multiple efforts to add in the same non-lead material (also failing to understand the concept of summaries, that "solid sources" are not gospel, and on multiple occasions failing to read the text before editing, plus making snarky edit history comments), deliberately removing important article context, failed to understand NPOV does not mean removing anything that they think is POV when those are actually sourced accounts from various bodies/individuals within clearly delineated sections of the article, etc. Any input appreciated, please. Regards, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of those issues have been resolved. Misunderstanding the text, missing something, or making an admitted mistake, is not a crime and is not enough to single me out.--ValenShephard 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
<- How about you both sort it out on the talk page before someone posts an edit warring request against you both or an admin spots the warring in an article covered by 1RR and the discretionary sanctions and carries out an air strike ? It takes 2 to edit war. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
<- Having said all that I would quite like to see automatic reverting of edits like this by sock-like accounts with almost no edits that do things like pick lower values in a range. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The article currently reads:
The court also ruled that the blockade on the Gaza Strip and the raid over the flotilla were legal: "In light of Hamas' control of the Gaza Strip, Israel has take various steps meant to prevent direct access to the Gaza Strip, including the imposition of a naval blockade on the Strip, which, according to the State's declaration, is meant to block the infiltration of weapons and ammunition into Hamas ranks which have carried out shooting and terrorist attacks in Israeli territory for years with the goal of harming civilians."
I believe this is incorrect. I have just read the Court's full judgment in Hebrew, available here [10]. The numerous petitioners (Al-Jazeera, Adallah, and others) sought a writ of Habeus Corpus. This was the issue which the court primarily dealt with, and the petitions were rejected. However, on page 5, at Paragraph 6, the court writes:
יצוין כי בשל אופיו של ההליך שקיימנו, ביקשנו שלא לעסוק כלל בטענות
הנוגעות לחוקיות הסגר הימי ואף לא בהתרחשות העובדתית באותו אירוע קשה, אשר
מלוא פרטיו לא נפרשו בפנינו.
Translation: "It should be stated that due to the nature of the proceeding we have conducted [pertaining to Habeus Corpus], we have not dealt at all with arguments pertaining to the legality of the naval blockade or the factual occurrences [which took place] at that difficult event [the boarding], and the full details [of the event] were not set out before us."
I would like some other Hebrew speakers to confirm my understanding of the judgment, and then, if you agree, to remove the incorrect information from the article. -- Sstr ( talk) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I cant find the section (about planing) what was here just a little time ago. Posted by John at 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ai 00 ( talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead section has been changed to say that the flotilla was trying to "get past" the blockade, when it previously said "break".
And the description from Free Gaza themselves very clearly say that that their intent is to "... break the siege of Gaza"
Was there any good reason for this change? Or was it just changed to make the flotilla sound more innocuous
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
At one point it said "go through". I changed it to "get past" with the thinking that you "go through a door" and "get past a bouncer". But I think break would be OK as well and that is often the terminology used when people try to bypass a blockade. I'll leave it up to you and the other editors though to make a decision :) Zuchinni one ( talk) 05:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Official publications of flotilla says that their goal was: "To support the Palestinian people, to show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege, to prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken and to deliver relief supplies to Gaza". Since they used the term "break" - I think it's okay to use it here as well. ShalomOlam ( talk) 11:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Minor edit request. But since there is an article, there should be a link to him, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Peck
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks!
Spigot
Map
12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Seem like the boat will not make its way to Gaza soon because of the lack of accompanying reporters [11]. -- Gilisa ( talk) 05:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish to change the sentence "The flotilla had refused Israeli requests to change course to the port of Ashdod, where the Israeli government had said it would inspect the aid and deliver (or let humanitarian organizations deliver) Israeli-approved items to Gaza" in the first paragraph to "According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after the flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast. [9] ". The reasons are
So I read through Wikipedia:PRIMARY and my impression is that a primary source is not allowed if it is not verified by others secondary RS. In this case, the youtube video HAS been verified and reported in many RS. So it would be OK to include it, but we should also include refs to good RS secondary sources that verify it. Thoughts? Zuchinni one ( talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1, 2, and 3. I'm not sure how this could be included in the article. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452
I believe the legality section should not be in pro/contra sections, but in sections by legal issue. As I see it, there are three issues, the second one in two parts: the legality of the blockade; the legality of boarding ships in international waters presuming the blockade itself is legal or presuming it is illegal; and the proportionality of the force used. Each of these 2 large sections and 2 subsections would have pro and contra arguments. This would lead to less repetition than the current structure, which is organized by source, and thus states many arguments redundantly. Homunq ( talk) 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [193]
see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898429,00.html The petition is not particularly relevant, without a disclosed legal basis accepted by the high court. I suggest removing this mention or update with the high courts decision. AFarber ( talk) 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Justice Beinish responded to the petition: "It is clear that the suit was filed in haste. Even though the petitioners knew nothing of what had occurred, they did not hesitate to hurriedly place the gravest possible stain on the IDF forces' actions while using sharp and abrasive language that was out of place..." I strongly suggest removing the passage since there was no petition in the end and the passage does not contribute factually and is not NPOV. At least Justice Beinish didn't think so AFarber ( talk) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Today a video from the raid in the Greek ship Sfndoni has been published by http://tvxs.gr/node/59618 (tvxs.gr). In the video you can hear the first minutes of the raid and the discussions between the activists and the Israeli soldiers. You can hear gunshots etc, some part of the video conversation is in English language. This is a rare documentary because all the recorded material, photos, videos has been stolen by the Israeli army during the raid. Ggia ( talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
israel's footage of soldiers being attacked takes place during the day though it was widely accepted to happen at night time. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Israel_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate3 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thats not night vision its basically the same footage of the US soldiers shooting Iraqi journalists from helicopter incident. And its obviously fake, just look at how everyones goofball fighting like they were in the 3 stooges —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate3 ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
??? Are we really discussing this ??? Is anybody here an expert in determining the authenticity of these videos by watching a few seconds of them on youtube? WP:OR is not going to be included in the article anyway. How about getting some RS that support your claim. Until then this is just a waste of time. Zuchinni one ( talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that an IDF primary source here says "attacked by Mavi Marmara passengers" and "9 flotilla participants were killed" (my bolding). When an IDF article uses more neutral/generic terminology than a Wikipedia article it might suggest that we have a slight problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please confirm whether the IDF name for the operation was מבצע רוחות שמיים and provide a sensible translation, sky spirits, sky ghosts, sky something or even better has anyone found an English RS with the IDF's name for the operation in it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
<- That's great, thanks, lots of links to sources too via the google link in the discussion. Someone should add it. I have to sign out. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the IDF name for the operation was "מבצע רוחות שמיים 7". So the most sensible translation is "Operation Sky winds 7". ShalomOlam ( talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Stating that the convoy was a "humanitarian aid flotilla" is POV and flotilla's side propaganda, mainly for the following reasons:
ShalomOlam ( talk) 18:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to get you attention about the following definitions of the flotilla's goals, as published in official documents by the flotilla's administration:
Only 1 out of 4 of the goals is related to a humanitarian cause. The rest - 3 out of 4 goals - are not humanitarian causes. This should be noted in the article. (I'm not sure how) ShalomOlam ( talk) 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
In the lead there was a recent change from "killed" to "shot and killed". However there doesn't seem to be any RS that all the people who died were shot. So what is the correct wording here?
Zuchinni one ( talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This BBC article gives a good idea of where this all went down. Anyone want to suggest how to refer to the location in the article? It seems to have been a bit confusing because of different RS giving slightly different wordings ... but no maps other than this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm
Zuchinni one ( talk) 20:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at the content that was added here? Cs32en Talk to me 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have made a brief linguistic analysis concerning the reporting verbs from the section of the article which details the description of events from both sides: the Israeli account, and the account of the journalists/flotilla organizers/activists.
Broadly speaking, reporting verbs/language psychologically prepare the reader to comprehend what they are about to read in a particular way. They can put the reader into a pre-perception frame of mind coloured by neutrality, e.g. somebody ‘says’ something, they can put the reader on the alert, e.g. ‘according to’, or they can encourage an attitude of scepticism, e.g. sb. ‘alleges/claims’ sth.
What I discovered in this portion of the article is a distinct anti-Israeli bias.
Below is an indicated version of my findings:
italic – indicates neutral language
bold – indicates alerting language
BOLD CAPS – indicates sceptical language
The most commonly used reporting verb, ‘say’, is neutral and so has not been highlighted.
Israel's account
According to the Israeli military, Israeli commandos prepared to encounter political activists seeking to hold a protest, were armed with paintball guns and handguns as sidearms.[86][87] The soldiers had orders to peacefully convince the activists to give up, and if not successful, use non-lethal force to commandeer the ship. The commandos were instructed to use the sidearms in an emergency, when their lives were at risk.[88] The Israeli military reported that the commandos were immediately attacked after descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship. Soldiers were beaten badly, including stabbings, and one was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet (9.1 m) below.[89] Two Israeli commandos had their guns wrested away. An Israeli commando said that there was live fire at some point against them from below deck.[90] Some of the commandos suffered gunshot wounds.[90][91] According to Major Avital Leibovich of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the activists attacked the soldiers with knives, slingshots, spikes, and clubs, and with pistols that were seized from Israeli commandos.[92][93][94] One soldier reported that the attack "looked like the Ramallah lynching."[95] Stun grenades and tear gas were used in an attempt to disperse activists. After this proved ineffective, the commandos requested and received permission to use live ammunition. The commandos then shot activists in the legs, which forced them to disperse. The commandos reached the bridge and took over the ship after 30 minutes.[96][97][98] The Israeli military released 20 videos of the incident.[99] One video ALLEGEDLY SHOWS how the first commandos to rappel down to the deck were attacked by a mob, and includes a soldier being thrown to the lower deck. Other videos CLAIM TO SHOW at least one incident in which a stun grenade and fire bomb was thrown at the soldiers, as well activists beating one of the soldiers and trying to kidnap him.[84] Another video, edited from the ship's surveillance footage, IS DESCRIBED BY THE IDF AS SHOWING activists preparing for a clash hours before the Israeli Navy made contact with the ship.[84] Another video shows the first four commandos to rappel onto the deck were attacked by activists with bars, axes and knives. The fourth commando saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. He jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the gun wielding activist, 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck.[100] According to a preliminary navy investigation, some passengers attempted to take hostage three unconscious commandos by dragging them into one of the passenger halls below . They were held in passenger halls for several minutes until they regained consciousness and managed to join the other soldiers.[100] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing other Israeli accounts, said that the events represent a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[101][46][88]
Journalist's, flotilla organizers' and activists' accounts
Organizers of the convoy have denied the account of Israeli military. Arafat Shoukri, of the Free Gaza Movement (FGM), one the co-organizers of the flotilla convoy, said those on board one ship had called them by telephone to say that Israeli helicopters had arrived.[102] He said that from that moment on, he had witnessed shootings, and afterwards people on board shouted 'We are raising the white flag, stop shooting at us'.[102] He dismissed Israel's claims of activists having pistols and other weapons as "cheap propaganda".[102] According to Mavi Marmara activists and personnel, Israel initially opened fire with warning shots but when the ship didn't stop the attack began. Activists said that sound and smoke bombs were used and then IDF commandos surrounded the ship and boarded from helicopters and from the sea. In contrast with the Israeli account, activists say that Israelis did fire on the boat before boarding, though they said that the use of force was non-lethal at that point. Activists on board agree that there was resistance but say it was not organized; rather the Israeli helicopters, ships and gunfire "created the atmosphere that people wanted to defend themselves."[103] Activists say that the Israeli commandos used electric shocks on those who tried to form a human ring on the bridge.[104] The wife of the Mavi Marmara captain, Nilüfer Ören, stated that IDF began tracking them after 90 miles (140 km), there were 40 ships surrounding the convoy and the announcement was made while the commandos were boarding from helicopters at 04:45 am. She also said that sound bomb and smoke bombs were used. Therefore activists and crewmembers used gasmasks.[105] Norman Paech, a former member of the German parliament Left Party who was aboard the Marmara said he only saw three activists resisting. "They had no knives, no axes, only sticks that they used to defend themselves," he told reporters. But he said he could "not rule out" that others used weapons somewhere else on the boat.[106] Another eyewitness Huwaida Arraf says that the Israelis smashed her face against the ground and stepped on it; later they cuffed her and put a bag over her head.[107] Writer Edda Manga said five of the activists died directly while the rest died because they were denied medical treatment.[108] Kutlu Tiryaki, a captain of another vessel in the flotilla, said that the passengers did not have weapons at all, but only came to bring humanitarian help in a peaceful manner. [109] According to Al Jazeera journalist Jamal Elshayyal, at this point soldiers already shot "almost indiscriminately" with live ammunition from the helicopter.[110] According to Elshayyal three persons died while passengers including a Knesset member tried in vain to make the soldiers help the wounded.[110] Flotilla proponents and Turkish charity group leaders said that since the ships were on international waters, "even if we had used guns", abandoning the non-violence principle would still be legal as self-defense from Israeli "kidnapping" and "piracy".[111][112] Prof. Mattias Gardell who was on-board stated that the soldiers came on-board with sharp loaded weapons with laser sights and at least four persons were killed execution style.[113] Due to a communications blackout after the attack, it was originally difficult to get accounts from activists on board. Newly released activists are beginning to make statements to the press.[102][104][114] Activist Huwaida Arraf reported that once onboard the Challenger One, Israeli troops seized all communication equipment, cameras and memory cards from activists.[115] IHH president Bulent Yildrim stated that "passengers on the ship showed civil resistance, the press was there, and that the İHH (had) called on the passengers not to allow Israeli soldiers in".[116]
Summary of findings:
Israeli perspective:
neutral - 2
alerting - 3
sceptical - 3
journalists'/flotilla organisers'/activists' perspective:
neutral - 3
alerting - 3
sceptical - 0
I draw this to your attention and hope that in the interest of fairness your editors will put it right, as I do believe that Wikipedia has a
NPOV policy. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.213.255.3 (
talk)
21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure that the information in this particular portion of the article will be POV - bias is inevitable as each side presents their particular perspective. What is of concern is the way in which this information is presented to the reader with the use of particular linguistic reporting structures - bias in this area is not inevitable and Wikipedia may control its use to ensure balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.3 ( talk) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This all falls to pieces if you take into account the history of Israeli sources sugar coating themselves. The sources of the 'other side' is not Palestine; it's a whole array of countries that don't give a damn and may as well be more neutral. -- Leladax ( talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Per Leladax. If we've got references to one side "sugar coating" their stories, then we should include them as it will help give readers perspective. Rklawton ( talk) 00:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
CNNWorld
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
IANVS reverted my edit to the background section leaving a summary "All of this is explained at lenght in the respective articles. Going this way we wouldn't stop detailing related events". What does this mean? Does it mean that since all this is explained in other articles, we don't need to repeat it here? Then why a background section? Then why he did not remove all that is explained in respective articles and chose to retain the text before my edit? I have not made any significant addition to this section except providing some more references and presenting the facts chronologically rather than in the present misleading manner. It seems he wants to retain this and has no excuse to offer and so left this funny edit summary. There are only six sentences in that section and there is nothing wrong in summarising the background (discussed in other articles) in six sentences. I am reverting his edit. Please explain here what is wrong with my edits, if anyone wishes to revert mine. Walky-talky ( talk) 06:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this is relevant Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#how_it_all_began... Zuchinni one ( talk) 06:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Here's the comparison:
Personally, I would prefer the "after" version, because I feel that the blockade is the most salient backgrond issue here, and the description of Israel's aim seems pretty neutral. What do others think? — Sebastian 06:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From the BACKGROUND. Israel, which considers Hamas to be a terrorist organization,[THE USA AND THE European union, Egypt and probably most of the world and maybe even most Palestinians consider HAmas a terrorist organization. ] and accuses Hamas of launching thousands of rockets at Israel [Accuses??? aren't rockets a fact -they may not all be credited to Hamas , there are other terrorist organizations given free hand in Gaza who would like to take credit but-- just add them up, the exact number of rockets changes all the time, 3 rockets were fired into Israel today so the word "thousands" should be crossed out. There were thousands during the war but the number is misleading. declared itself to be in a state of war ["state of war" is a legal term and should not be used] Israel is in on-going conflict with the Hamas regime is more accurate. with Hamas-run [English? Gsza run under Hamas regime] AFarber ( talk) 22:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently, both texts describe the flotilla, and they even contradict each other, with one counting 6, and the other 8. Should these be merged? (BTW, sorry for my earlier error when I deleted that section. I overlooked that that subsection wasn't actually about the Free Gaza Movement, and Prodego was right to revert me.) — Sebastian 06:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead again gives plenty of space to intl reactions and hardly any to the actual battle onboard. Why does this keep on happening? Am I missing a subsection on this talk page discussing it again? The really needs to be more mention of the actual event. It has been confirmed by both sides that they came in before dawn on helicopters. It has been confirmed by both sides that there was a battle between the commandos and some of the activists/passengers/whatever while others moved below deck. The IDF claims of weapons or tools (even if they were not intended to be weapons originally) are pretty well verified. Cptnono ( talk) 07:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
"Flotilla proponents and Turkish charity group leaders said that since the ships were on international waters, "even if we had used guns", abandoning the non-violence principle would still be legal as self-defense from Israeli "kidnapping" and "piracy".[21][22] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing other Israeli accounts, said that the events represent a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[23][24][25]" This is the he said she said bloat that I think some editors were worried about. This rads like editors trying to point the other side regardless of the intent. It is overly emotive and introduces more "nu uh... the other guys were bad" silliness. I recommend removing those lines and substituting with a line simply stating that both sides said they acted in self defense. Cptnono ( talk) 21:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
{{editsemiprotected}}
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.--
Cerejota (
talk)
07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Article says in the lead: The Gaza flotilla raid occurred in the international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Should be added: Raid occurred in international waters, off the coast of Israel . Vikipedy ( talk) 07:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.--
Cerejota (
talk)
07:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
lead is too long. last two paragraphs - about UN and international reaction - should not be in the lead. Vikipedy ( talk) 07:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I read a bunch of discussions and it seems to me some of you childrens need daddy to break this shit down fer yer edifications:
1) A source being reliable is not the sole criteria for including its information - a source must also be presented in an NPOV fashion. This includes due weight, systemic bias, and balance considerations, not just neutral wording.
2) In addition, single reliable sources are not to be used when there is controversy, but verifiability by multiple reliable sources is needed. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT PEOPLE BECAUSE IT COULD RESOLVE 95% OF THE BULLSHIT HERE.: if something comes up in a reliable source, but is not verified by other reliable sources, then this should be considered for exclusion. An example is the San Jose Mercury News reporting of an American bean beaten - since there is no verifiability, this is clear WP:REDFLAG
3) There seems to be confusion as to what makes a source reliable. Please read WP:RS carefully. Primary sources, such as the IDF are never reliable when the information is about anything other than specific information about itself. Nor are partisan publications or organizations.
4) That said, one can include sources that are not reliable if this advances the encyclopedic mission, and they are used to supplement or illustrate information verifiably presented by reliable sources. They should NEVER be used to introduce new information or to make points on their own, including images. So for example, it is ok to include the IDF image of the murderous weapons of hate/peace utencils/whatever you want to call them because this is super verifable and and is referenced in numerous reliable sources.
5) I suggest a thorough study of WP:SYNTH. This article is full of synthy crap. Just because it makes sense in your view it doesn't mean it belongs here.
CHANT TAIM CHILDRENS, REPEAT AFTER ME:
Understand this, and coast...
Behave. You don't want me unleashing the Armada of Hate on yer whinny asses. Happy edditing!-- Cerejota ( talk) 07:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Events leading up to the raid section seems to be out of control with WAY too much commentary and there is a lot that doesn't seem to directly relate. Perhaps this should be cut down and the extraneous information moved to other sections. Zuchinni one ( talk) 08:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It can be summarized as followed:
-- Nevit ( talk) 11:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The following unsourced statement appears in the article: "Hamas has governed the Gaza Strip since the Fatah–Hamas conflict that followed the outcome of the Palestinian elections of 2006. ". This is not true, yet my attempts at clarifying this and adding sources were consistently reverted. In 2006-2007 Gaza was governed by the Palestinian authority unity government of which both Hamas and Fatah were members. In the 2007 coup, the Hamas took control of the Gaza strip from the Palestinian authority. Marokwitz ( talk) 08:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Why?-- 86.25.48.172 ( talk) 09:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It should be added to the background section that one of the justifications Israel uses for upholding the blockade of Gaza is the kidnapping of IDF soldier Gilad Shalit by Hamas into Gaza. The blockade is uphold, among other reasons, to prevent Hamas from taking Shalit out of the Gaza strip. ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Israel Minister says that Israel would allow the fltilla to Gaza to go on, if Gilad Shalit will be returning with them when they leave. Published on 23/05/10 on HaAretz. http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1170063.html ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no plcae for observations and opinions in an encyclopedia. This section should be removed. There are other sites for expressing personal opinions. ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Not all people on the flotilla were activists. Not all people on the flotilla and were injured were activists. Not all people on the flotilla and were killed were activists.
In most places in the article, when reffering to a group of people, the use of the word "activist(s)" is wrong, and should be replaced with "people" or "persons" or "flotilla participants". ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The source numbered 138 gives incorrect information. Please find another source. One of 4 people, Ali Akhbar Iritilmis (Ali Ekber Yaratılmış) is not dead. See www.hurriyet.com.tr/gundem/14918897.asp, "Ölmedi yaşıyor", translated to English for who do not know Turkish as follows: öl-me-di yaşa(ı)-yor öl:die, me:not di:past tense, yaşa: live (a turns to ı) yor: present tense Kavas ( talk) 11:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Confirm your translation. The article says he had a tel conversation with his relatives. Btw by comparing the lists it seems that there are some who are missing, but it is early to conclude.
-- Nevit ( talk) 12:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Wait until reliable sources comment, then cite them. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In history piracy has often blended in with actions by nation states or quasi-national entities. English action against Spanish ships in the Caribbean during the 18th and 19th centuries was state-actuated piracy. To rob,intimidate and yes damage the economic structures of the enemy. Buccaneers become pirates and vice-versa. FOR EXAMPLE > The actions of Somali pirates are defended as being tax collection: Peter Lehr, a Somalia piracy expert at the University of St. Andrews says "It's almost like a resource swap, Somalis collect up to $100 million a year from pirate ransoms off their coasts and the Europeans and Asians poach around $300 million a year in fish from Somali waters." ~ The Independent ~ Chicago Tribune http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100103084431AAidrXO -- maxrspct ping me 12:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
|
Heard Danny Schecter saying this is discussed in Israeli media and found this WP:RS. Israel using 'pirated' footage to defend raid: media body, AFP. Further searches of terms from that article will add more WP:RS. Somebody should add it. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Yahoo also Questions Israeli sources. But there are a lot in the article. Who is going to solve the issue?
Israel's military is using video confiscated : http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
-- Nevit ( talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Journalist's account section has NPOV issues.
There are 3 paragraphs by Israel army's journalist
The section can not be considered neutral by current status.
-- Nevit ( talk) 12:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Fix it on your own. This wiki is overwhelmed by I.I activists. Here was discussion about it dig in archive fore more info. Now I see some progress towards NPOV but it may be related to they relative overworking on multitude of websites and fronts. Another reason is that those in they government headquarters do not scratch they heads enought perhaps individually working how to get each own ass'ets out of it. (se n'yahoo bbgun outcry on hypocritical attack against him) 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ai 00 ( talk • contribs)
I decided to be bold and delete the whole sub-section "journalist's account". It just gave ONE journalist's opinion on the subject. I think it had nothing to warrant the same weight as the official accounts by the two sides of the conflict. Seemed to me that somebody was just trying to add more credibility to his favorite side of the argument... Steloukos ( talk) 13:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
http://m.smh.com.au/world/i-was-tasered-by-israelis-says-herald-photographer-20100602-wzv3.html http://firedoglake.com/2010/06/01/israel-blocks-access-to-flotilla-press-and-participants/
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-06-02-sa-demands-that-israel-release-journo
http://cpj.org/2010/06/israeli-forces-detain-journalists-aboard-humanitar.php
http://en.rsf.org/israel-israeli-military-prevents-media-31-05-2010,37630.html http://en.rsf.org/israel-at-least-60-journalists-were-02-06-2010,37646.html
My edit was reverted with a comment that "outrage" would be POV. Here are ten sources that use the term outrage in connection with the international reaction. I know that there is a separate article about the reaction, but the lead should characterize the main points, which the reaction surely is. Also, the lead does currently mention the reaction, what I'm suggesting is to just replace "widespread international reactions" with "widespread international outrage", which is more accurate (one country even severed diplomatic contacts with Israel) and sourced at least in these ten WP:RS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ("Colère") 8 9 10 Cheers, -- Dailycare ( talk) 12:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Characterizing the international reaction as "outrage" is POV, not neutral. This is also not true, since it is a generalization of some reactions. Not all international reactions were outrageous. ShalomOlam ( talk) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Dailycare is right about the overall characterization, while others are correct that its POV to characterize all of the international reactions. Why not rephrase as International reaction to the raid (wikilink ends here) included widespread outrage as well as other responses.-- Carwil ( talk) 20:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The New York Times is reporting a U.S. citizen among the dead.-- 149.166.34.237 ( talk) 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
More information:
-- 149.166.34.237 ( talk) 13:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Request addition of material to protected article.--
149.166.34.237 (
talk)
13:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not a native speaker of English, so I might be wrong, but I thought the word casualties refers to deaths. If that's true, how come there is a paragraph on IDF casualties? Is there any death among the IDF soldiers? If however the word casualties can also refer to wounded, why there is no mention of the wounded on the paragraph about the activists?
I'm sorry but in my eyes this seems like covert POV-pushing, in the sense that there are two paragraphs of equal size and similar wording about two distinctly unequal events. the death of some people on one side, and the injuries of some on the other (who just happened to be the attackers by the way). Steloukos ( talk) 13:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the undue wieght tag on this section is accurate. Per WP:NOTOPINION, I think this section really ought to be deleted or least turned into a stub and majority of the content be moved to a seperate article. Anyone want to second my motion? NickCT ( talk) 15:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no plcae for observations and opinions in an encyclopedia. Legal or not. I think that this section should be deleted. There are other sites for expressing personal opinions. ShalomOlam ( talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think whoever created this section meant this picture Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. The Brazilian government's reaction may be notable. A Brazilian cartoonist's reaction is not. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The article states the activist were trained in nonviolent resistance. There is no RS to support this, so it was removed in the past, but someone has now returned it. It should be removed again (since there is no RS). ShalomOlam ( talk) 15:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It says that in parenthesis that Israel would have allowed the group to deliver the supplies after inspection but I haven't seen anything cited for that, in fact what I seen was the will to stop the boats at any cost:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFki4MerB8GrGJS2hOVmY5UOJm4wD9G000780
can someone provide the reference to that or have that portion in parenthesis deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silver163 ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
We need translators as Hebrew-English, Turkish-English, Greek-English etc.
Please list article references that require translations, and translators who are willing to translate articles into English. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Article lengths Seems Equal for Ynet, however you may also check translations' accuracy. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The priority is the newspapers who doesn't have English versions. If you came up with anything useful just post here. Kasaalan ( talk)
tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı
Israel did not allow healing the wounded! Nilüfer Ören set a press briefing at IHH with her 13 months old son, Türker Kağan. Nilüfer Ören who was one of the passengers of the Gaza Flotilla came this morning around 7:00 by THY airplane. She and her little son Türker Kağan set apress briefing with IHH vice chairman Yavuz Dede at IHH headquarters. Despite the attack she went through, her morale seemed to be very positive. She stated that 5 people lost ther lives. Nilüfer Ören who is the wife of the chief engineer of the ship, said that the number of dead increased because Israel did not allow healing the wounded. Nilüfer Ören explained everything one by one told; "We departed from İstanbul in May 22nd. Before reaching 90 miles, 2 Israeli fleet started disturbing tours around 23:00. They told us an attack won't happen if we turn back. But no one accepted this. After a while the fleet pulled back and nearly 40 navy boats came. Around 04:45, soldiers from helicopters started to come down to the ship. At that time an announcement made to us. People in the cabin and on the bridge stayed just where they were. Bullets came through the cellar of the cabin. Gas and sound bombs were thrown. The place became just like judgement day. Besides after that we saw everywhere became like blood bath. Gas bombs. I waited in the cabin with my little son who was afraid of the sounds. I looked at the window severally. Then they announced us to put our gas masks and life jackets. From the screams coming above, it was understood that a wild battle was taking place. I opened the door and told that I had a baby and I surrendered. They held me and others as hostages on the bridge. The hostages were handcuffed and their face turned to wet ground except me, because I had a baby. At that time I saw the personel were not hurt. They brought us to the deck. They did not allow to aid the wounded immediately. But anyway they were providing the needs of some others. A medicine was needed at that time and I told that I want to get it. While I was getting the medicine, I saw my husband and Bülent Yıldırım. Bülent Yıldırım was not handcuffed. Also 3 or 4 others were not handcuffed. At first Bülent Yıldırım was very upset but later he saw the need for him and he calmed down, started to support us. Work in progress-- Realmegrim ( talk) 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Davutoğlu - Clinton talks:
http://www.haberciniz.biz/haber/israili-iste-bu-sozler-dize-getirdi--839108.html
-- Nevit ( talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The dialogue with the captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raid: Search & Rescue Center (SRC): Mavi Marmara, this is RSC. Mavi Marmara this is RSC. Mavi Marmara (MM) : They are jamming the signals. They are using real weapons. SRC : Mavi Marmara, this is RSC. MM : We have injured passengers on board. They are using real/actual weapons. ( live ammunition not cold weapons or blank shots) SRC : When did the assault/raid start? MM : I can barely hear you. MM : I am sending our (ship's) coordinates. The assault/raid from the helicopter started as of 4.32. SRC : Have any soldiers arrived from boats? From the boats around/surrounding the ship? SRC : Mavi Marmara where did the soldiers arrive from? Did the soldiers come out from boats? MM : From boats and the helicopter. There is a raid from the helicopter. SRC : Mavi Marmara what is the situation in the other ships? MM : Gunfire started again now. Gunfire started again right now. SRC : Any attack on other ships? MM : Our ship is surrounded. All connection/communication with the other ships is cut/jammed. SRC : Mavi Marmara, do you know how many wounded are there in the ship? MM : We do not have any information for now. SRC : Any deaths? MM : Negative. Negative. We have no information right now.
Thanks for whoever translated. I tried to correct the grammar and sea jargon a bit. However someone may help better on jargon. Kasaalan ( talk) 11:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
el:Επίθεση κατά νηοπομπής ανοικτά της Γάζας
List articles needed to be translated into English. Translators you may list your names under sections. We need all parties news for NPOV article. Kasaalan ( talk) 14:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Any direct participation in this "event", designed to arouse "passions", obviously makes all involved "activists" ( or mercenaries, in the case of the ship's crew if acting solely for money). No one in their right mind can argue or believe this "break the blockade" event would NOT bring at least some notoriety to such an event, and that de facto alone makes all involved "activists".
Once again, someone has reverted the article, to state that there were "Nine activists" dead. When there is no RS that says that all nine dead were in fact activists. This should be replaced to "people" or "civilians". ShalomOlam ( talk) 16:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
...and when we do, we can cite reliable sources. Until then, this page is WP:NOTAFORUM. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
we'll all soon find out that the killed were in their 60's ( 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 16:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)). |
The US-flagged Challenger II, a Free Gaza Movement ship, was also unable to join the rest of the flotilla due to mechanical problems.[48] It is currently undergoing repairs in Nicosia, Cyprus.[64] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.113.178 ( talk) 17:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed the Falk quote because it wasn't sourced and I couldn't find it on the internet - even when searching for words used directly within quotes. Other than lack of sourcing, I have no objection. Rklawton ( talk) 18:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Has a reliable source come forward to explain why the MV Mavi Marmara (the ship with all the fatalities) was reflagged (changed its registry) from Turkey to Comoros immediately prior to embarking from Turkey? I just read about it and would like to know more - but even the reflagging isn't mentioned in the article at present. Rklawton ( talk) 18:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The Foreign Press Association, which represents hundreds of journalists in Israel and the Palestinian territories, has complained the Israeli military seized video and equipment from dozens of reporters on board the main ship. The FPA says the military is now selectively using footage to bolster its claims that commandos opened fire only after being attacked. FPA also criticized Israel's use of captured material without permission. [2]
This seems to be in the wrong place. I will move it would be best to put it in the Media responses section of the International reactions article.
I have archived it here if it is decided to move it back to the Israel Military Accounts section. Zuchinni one ( talk) 18:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I already posted some links above #NPOV issue Journalist's account. There is rapidly growing amount of data of eye-witness journalists around the web. They should be collected, drafted and discussed.
-- Nevit ( talk) 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the FPA text should be in the Israel Military Accounts section since it is directly connected to it and explains the situation. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
FPA - anyone want to start an article on this organization? A brief look at their board of directors indicates they're sufficiently notable. We can sort out issues neutrality there, too. My opinion is that they aren't neutral. However, my opinion amounts to zero :-) here (as it should be). Rklawton ( talk) 21:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The AFP also wrote an article about FPA saying " Israel using 'pirated' footage to defend raid".-- 99.50.129.231 ( talk) 22:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I know these articles can expand quickly and WP:V issues will get overlooked. So I thought I'd start checking some sources for WP:V problems. So I'm starting from the bottom with the "Aftermath" section.
"They are also organizing a new flotilla to try to breach the blockade in early Fall." Source doesn't mention this at all.
In the "Legal Analysis" section:
We have Diana Buttu saying that "a call to the applicability of the Gaza-Jericho Agreement is not plausible". But in the source she says only that Israel's actions diminish the plausability of the argument, not that it is not plausible at all.
"Prominent Turkish jurists have characterized Israel's actions as a violation of international law and a "war crime." Doesn't have a source at all. I thought perhaps it was just to introduce several of those opinions but we actually only have one.
"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law Craig Murray..." The note is after the word "law". The source says Murray was the head of the maritime section for Whitehall, not that he was a maritime law specialist, maritime lawyer or a lawyer at all.
Our article on the man suggests he is not.
Actually that was better than I was expecting. Though the legal section is mostly just full of quotes. I'll check some more later --
JGGardiner (
talk)
21:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The first paragraph should is "cargo" not "aid" . You can say that the cargo is intended or purported to be humanitarian aid but you cannot inspect aid. AFarber ( talk) 22:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
He (Ali Ekber Yaratılmış) is alive, see above discussion. Please stop adding that he died. Kavas ( talk) 00:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
"According to Israeli sources they were confronted by a number of activists supposedly wielding sticks, metal bars and knives."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it is proven they were wielding sticks and metal bars, and acknowledged by both sides.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybuKkXV-xUI (2:35, 3:14, 6:22~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diecinque ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Please can we allow the bot to decide when to archive sections ? The decision to manually archive particular sections by editors is non-transparent and open to abuse via selective removal of sections. The bot is neutral and automatic. Let it make the decisions. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Leaving the bot to archive left us with well over 100 sections, manual archiving can remove closed threads. If I ever do archive a warm thread, feel free to revert me. Please remove the content from the archive though. 930913( Congratulate/ Complaints) 04:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 ( talk • contribs)
Why are the Israeli actions/reactions always listed first? In the interest of neutrality, I suggest that one of the sections, like the legal section, have the non-Israeli section first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.141.189 ( talk) 02:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite the joke answer this is a good question. It does seem like the argument for the Gaza flotilla raid viewpoint is mentioned first most of the time followed by the opposing view giving the impression that the first view point is the correct one so I have two questions.
1. Is there a wiki policy regarding opposing views and which order they come in? 2. If this article is NPOV then why does the pro raid view point come first? ( I realize that if there is a wiki policy regarding this then it negates my second question) Tcla75 ( talk) 11:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
If one or the other is always shown first or second it shows uniformity within the article and gives it a standard structure to follow. Whether Israeli or Palestinian, one should always go before the other for the sake of order and articular cleanliness. Sixer Fixer ( talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
As per the opinions in the Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Undue_weight section. I would like to propose we give the legal portion of this article its own page and leave simply a brief synopsis (maybe a single paragraph) and a link to the main legal page.
Besides the fact that this section is quite lengthy, it is also full of legal opinion. This is might not be a bad thing, but the quotes from RS for each side will necessarily be using a POV to support their own legal arguments. The strong POV here has also means it is difficult to know what is factual.
Do others also think it would be reasonable to separate out this section?
Zuchinni one ( talk) 05:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Sources Against IHH/Organisators
- #IHH
- #"Activists" sung Muslim songs glorifying the slaughter of Jews
- #Activist Bios and Goals
- #Remove all IDF photo unless it is approved by a independent source
- #About using IDF as source
- #İbrahim Bilgen
- #Intentions of activists
- #Flotilla "activists" told to write their wills before coming
Activist or passenger
Weapons
- #New video released showing the activists waiting with cold weapons
- #new video shows prepartion of the terrorists arming themselves with weapons before the clash
- #Norwegian military expert
- #Czech Journalist
- #Current Weapons Picture is not NPOV
- Except for sidearms, Israeli weapons were loaded with paint balls for non-lethal crowd control Hickorybark ( talk) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Casualties
Passenger Accounts
- Activists
- #Some of them shot in the passengers' heads
- #Report of American beaten and jailed by Israelis
- #Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Turkish
- Crew
- Journalists
- Politicians
- Religious people
Israel Accounts
- IDF
- #interview with the captain thrown from the ship's deck
- #Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz"
Israel views
- Goverment
- IDF
- Media
- People
Turkish views
- Government
- Media
- People
- Religious
International views
- #The United Nations Human Rights Council Approves International Probe
- #Most of International reactions section should be move to that page.
- #Map, take 2
Maritime and International Law
- #Is Israel's naval blockade of International waters legal?
- #IDF claims its action were according to internatinal law
- #Legal Opinions
- #Does this edit belong in International Reactions?
- #Some more legal opinions, on Reuters
- #Separating 'Legal' section
Terms
See also
Video Footage
- Israel Defence Force video footage on Youtube
- Close-Up Footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara
- Helicopter Footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara
- Weapons Found on the Flotilla Ship Mavi Marmara Used by Activists Against IDF Soldiers
- Footage of Navy Warns Flotilla
- Footage of Soldier tossed off board
- Mavi Marmara live footage
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5vUmBK1dMM
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkoF438DXYY
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slME4AluQys
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oF8omtebCg
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr9bUPjCfB4
- Eyewitness on Mavi Marmara
- Gaza aid activist aboard Flotilla Israeli ships fired before boarding Haneen Zuabi, who's a member of the Israeli parliament spoken to RT channel
- Eyewitness and victim recounts Israeli flotilla attack on an American boat and crew Huwaida Arraf, one of the Free Gaza Movement organizers, spoke to CNN
- Transcript of Israeli Knesset Member Hanin Zoabi
- NTV Interview in Turkish [A transcript/translation might be useful] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.101.137.178 ( talk) 15:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
- Israel officials
- Israel demonstrators
- Turkish demonstrators
- International demonstrators/views
List is in progress. I will check links further for original sources. Kasaalan ( talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Does Anyone support organisation of discussion titles under categories. Kasaalan ( talk) 12:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I was recently reverted when I changed the Background section to this:
In June 2007, when Hamas took control of the Gaza Strip after winning local elections, Israel and Egypt sealed their borders with Gaza. The aim of Israel was to isolate Hamas and to pressure it to stop the rocket attacks on Israel. Egypt closed its borders saying it did not recognise the authority of Hamas in Gaza. [4] In September 2007, following rocket attacks from Gaza on Israeli settlements, Israel declared Gaza strip a "hostile territory" and tightened its blockade [5]. Later in January 2009, after its invasion of Gaza, Israel declared a formal naval blockade of Gaza [6]. These, along with the control of Gaza's airspace by Israel, resulted in a complete blockade of Gaza. The United Nations and human rights groups have repeatedly criticized the blockade by Israel, calling it collective punishment of the Palestinian people, as it restricts the flow of materials for basic needs and for reconstruction of infrastructure and homes that were either destroyed, or severely damaged by Israel, in the Gaza War. [7] [8]
The passage I quoted above illustrates what the significant events in the blockade of Gaza. Almost all reliable sources report the events as:
But we are not supposed to use the term Israeli blockade in this context. The situation is turning even more hilarious now. The initial reason for reverting my above quoted edit was that it was covered elsewhere. Now after removing the term Israeli blockade, and putting a
synthesized statement “Together, the two countries set up a military and naval blockade of Gaza” someone has inserted material regarding "Arab ministers …united front against control of the border by Hamas” and about an incident where a Palestinian fisherman died off Rafah in a clash with an Egyptian navy. Closing one’s borders, preventing smuggling across one’s border ,etc. is not blockade. In many parts of the world there are incidents involving fishermen straying into neighboring country’s border/ clashes. Even this insignificant incident (look at its coverage) is deliberately introduced here just to construct a narrative that can be seen only in Wikipedia ( or in some Israeli propaganda). There is no need to do OR here but it is obviously UNDUE. Even in the next sentence, whose references are talking about the UN criticism of the Israeli blockade, the term Israel is omitted. Similar is the status of the compromise reached about the first paragraph. The strategy followed is clear; whenever the Israel action regarding blockade is mentioned, mention some incident involving Egypt as well (Undue or not). If there aren’t any, and if it is clearly about Israeli blockade (like its criticism), remove Israel and just mention blockade.
I suggest that, wherever there is a mention of the blockade that the Free Gaza movement was trying to break or the blockade the UN and international agencies have criticized or the blockade which clearly refers to the blockade enforced by Israel, it should be mentioned as Israeli blockade or blockade by Israel or Israeli naval blockade depending on the context.
In short,
call a spade a spade.
I request all editors to express their opinion on this topic which is central to this article ( not just to any section) to build a consensus. Walky-talky ( talk) 13:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Bodies arrived in Turkey all show at least on shot in close range.
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0603/report-aid-flotilla-victims-shot-dead/
I believe this should be included in article.
-- Nevit ( talk) 17:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
From the article you referenced:
Even if the source is NPOV it seems that there is no conclusive evidence of anything yet. This should not go into the article yet. Zuchinni one ( talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.medya365.com/haber-101998-fotograf-cekerken-israil-askerlerince-olduruldu.html
See this. The Scotsman newspaper describes the victims as "murdered" in the headline and as "massacred" in the text. The Irish Evening Herald (Part of the Independent Group) called it a "massacre" and used the word in a page-wide headline the day afters the murders. Sarah777 ( talk) 17:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the word "massacre". Soldiers killed civilians deliberately, outside "their" territory. Is there a number (of victims) from which on a killing is a massacre?--
Severino (
talk)
19:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The majority of RS are not using the word massacre. Zuchinni one ( talk) 20:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm only going to make a few edits - maybe even only one - because I hate getting involved in edit wars. I do hope, that WP:NPOV will prevail, and that no one will insist on presenting the POV of the flotilla organizers (and their legions of international supporters) as the only "true" one.
Rather, we should duck any conclusions and simply report what pro-flotilla and anti-flotilla sources have said:
Rather than relying purely or mainly on journalistic sources sympathetic to Hamas (or hostile to Israel, which amounts to the same thing), can we try to find a balance between both viewpoints and simply describe every assertion in terms of A said B about C? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 22:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
ShalomOlam ( talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
All the above comments sound useful. Thank you, Severino, Luis, and ShalomOlam. I guess I will make another couple of edits after all. :-) -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 16:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
would be a better name.
The ship was not sailing under a Turkish flag so the following paragraph is irrelevant. It is uninformed speculation in a section that is already bloated. Easy enough mistake to make with the reporting not being completely clear but it looks like there was some misunderstanding:
"Former British Ambassador and one time Foreign Office specialist on maritime law [182] Craig Murray explained that the raid was not an act of piracy, as the Israeli vessels carried a military commission, but said that it would be "an act of illegal warfare". According to Murray, the Law of the Sea rules that, when an incident takes place on a ship on the high seas the applicable law is that of the flag state of the ship on which the incident occurred, so the Turkish ship was Turkish territory. If the Israeli commandos were acting on behalf of the government of Israel in killing the activists on the ships, Israel would be in a position of war with Turkey, and the act would fall under international jurisdiction as a war crime. If, on the other hand, the killings were not authorised Israeli military action, they were acts of murder under Turkish jurisdiction and if Israel does not consider itself in a position of war with Turkey, then it must hand over the commandos involved for trial in Turkey under Turkish law.[183]"
Cptnono ( talk) 00:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) Many sources say the ship was Turkish-flagged. In any case I don't see how the flag is relevant to Murray's view that the attack was illegal. We can add a sentence after Murray's opinion to the effect that some reports have said the vessel was flying a Comoros flag. Turkey summoned Nato after the attack, so Turkey appears to be under the impression it was Turkish-flagged. -- Dailycare ( talk) 08:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I find the characterization "de facto Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognised only by Turkey)" quite awkward. Can we not keep references to this territory NPOV? I think just "Northern Cyprus" should suffice. The reader can then follow the link to the article on Northern Cyprus and read more about it. There is no need for politically motivated name-dropping here. Letus ( talk) 01:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia Too Long (Rule of Thumb) this article needs to be split up.
"A rule of thumb
Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:
Readable prose size | What to do |
> 100 KB | Almost certainly should be divided |
> 60 KB | Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time) |
≥ 40 KB | May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) |
< 40 KB | Length alone does not justify division |
< 1 KB | If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. |
The article is currently (110,761 bytes) so it seems the main question now is not whether to split it up, but rather what sections should be split off.
Zuchinni one ( talk) 01:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think The Flotilla Raid Was Not “Bungled.” The IDF Detailed Its Violent Strategy In Advance by Max Blumenthal, based on and translating parts of a pre-raid Ma'ariv article should be used in "Events leading up to the raid". Finding, using and translating the original Ma'ariv article should also help. John Z ( talk) 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
On the article's lead it reads:
"The vast majority of the cargo (8000 of the 10,000 tons) is thought to have been withheld by Israeli authorities and not offered Gaza."
This is technically not true as most (all?) of the withehld items were building materials like cement which are far heavier than other items like food or medicine. In truth, the flottila could be filled with medicine and rubber toys, while having a few cement parcels lying around, and the weight would still mark cement as "the majority". Thus the withheld items could actually be a small minority of the full cargo - a very heavy minority - while this line can be interpreted as if israeli authorities withheld most of the cargo, which may very well be false, unless some source states that building materials did in fact make up for the majority of the parcels. As such, I suggest a re-phrase to keep un-aware readers from getting wrong information.
Valen ... please see this ref in the "fate of cargo" section where Israel claims that NONE of the cargo was banned and has allowed all of it in. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177165 The bottom line is that this is unclear. I am going to remove it from the lead. However I think it is reasonable for you to give both perspectives on the fate of the cargo in the "Fate of the Cargo" section. Zuchinni one ( talk) 03:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest the following, if I may:
"A total of 8.000 tons of supplies (out of the 10,000 total) are thought to have been witheld by Israeli authorities and not offered to Gaza, the majority of those being cement and other building materials."
I believe that this makes it clearer for the reader, but that's obviously my opinion. Please excuse any grammar errors, typos.-- 85.139.134.239 ( talk) 03:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Please limit changes in the article regarding this topic to the "Fate of the Cargo" section until there is clear evidence of exactly what is going on. The Lead is not a good place to put disputed facts.
Zuchinni one (
talk)
03:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
In replay to that article which says "The equipment that we found is all equipment that we have regularly allowed into the strip over the past year,” said Levi.". This person is talking about equipment, not building materials or cement which do not fit under that catagory. He is talking about the medical equipment, wheelchairs etc. Not construction material.ValenShephard 21:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A statement to the effect that the "vast majority" of the material were construction materials. This is presumably based on the information that 8,000 tons were construction materials. This is synthesis, however, as it is based on the assumption that weight would be the relevant unit of measurement. Counting by value, however, the results would very likely be different. The information therefore needs to be removed from the text. Cs32en Talk to me 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Per the recent edit history and above, User ValenShephard has made multiple efforts to add in the same non-lead material (also failing to understand the concept of summaries, that "solid sources" are not gospel, and on multiple occasions failing to read the text before editing, plus making snarky edit history comments), deliberately removing important article context, failed to understand NPOV does not mean removing anything that they think is POV when those are actually sourced accounts from various bodies/individuals within clearly delineated sections of the article, etc. Any input appreciated, please. Regards, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 04:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of those issues have been resolved. Misunderstanding the text, missing something, or making an admitted mistake, is not a crime and is not enough to single me out.--ValenShephard 04:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
<- How about you both sort it out on the talk page before someone posts an edit warring request against you both or an admin spots the warring in an article covered by 1RR and the discretionary sanctions and carries out an air strike ? It takes 2 to edit war. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
<- Having said all that I would quite like to see automatic reverting of edits like this by sock-like accounts with almost no edits that do things like pick lower values in a range. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The article currently reads:
The court also ruled that the blockade on the Gaza Strip and the raid over the flotilla were legal: "In light of Hamas' control of the Gaza Strip, Israel has take various steps meant to prevent direct access to the Gaza Strip, including the imposition of a naval blockade on the Strip, which, according to the State's declaration, is meant to block the infiltration of weapons and ammunition into Hamas ranks which have carried out shooting and terrorist attacks in Israeli territory for years with the goal of harming civilians."
I believe this is incorrect. I have just read the Court's full judgment in Hebrew, available here [10]. The numerous petitioners (Al-Jazeera, Adallah, and others) sought a writ of Habeus Corpus. This was the issue which the court primarily dealt with, and the petitions were rejected. However, on page 5, at Paragraph 6, the court writes:
יצוין כי בשל אופיו של ההליך שקיימנו, ביקשנו שלא לעסוק כלל בטענות
הנוגעות לחוקיות הסגר הימי ואף לא בהתרחשות העובדתית באותו אירוע קשה, אשר
מלוא פרטיו לא נפרשו בפנינו.
Translation: "It should be stated that due to the nature of the proceeding we have conducted [pertaining to Habeus Corpus], we have not dealt at all with arguments pertaining to the legality of the naval blockade or the factual occurrences [which took place] at that difficult event [the boarding], and the full details [of the event] were not set out before us."
I would like some other Hebrew speakers to confirm my understanding of the judgment, and then, if you agree, to remove the incorrect information from the article. -- Sstr ( talk) 04:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I cant find the section (about planing) what was here just a little time ago. Posted by John at 01:54, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Ai 00 ( talk) 05:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead section has been changed to say that the flotilla was trying to "get past" the blockade, when it previously said "break".
And the description from Free Gaza themselves very clearly say that that their intent is to "... break the siege of Gaza"
Was there any good reason for this change? Or was it just changed to make the flotilla sound more innocuous
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
At one point it said "go through". I changed it to "get past" with the thinking that you "go through a door" and "get past a bouncer". But I think break would be OK as well and that is often the terminology used when people try to bypass a blockade. I'll leave it up to you and the other editors though to make a decision :) Zuchinni one ( talk) 05:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Official publications of flotilla says that their goal was: "To support the Palestinian people, to show we do not recognize the arbitrary Israeli siege, to prove that the embargo/blockade can be legally broken and to deliver relief supplies to Gaza". Since they used the term "break" - I think it's okay to use it here as well. ShalomOlam ( talk) 11:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Minor edit request. But since there is an article, there should be a link to him, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Peck
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Done Thanks!
Spigot
Map
12:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Seem like the boat will not make its way to Gaza soon because of the lack of accompanying reporters [11]. -- Gilisa ( talk) 05:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I wish to change the sentence "The flotilla had refused Israeli requests to change course to the port of Ashdod, where the Israeli government had said it would inspect the aid and deliver (or let humanitarian organizations deliver) Israeli-approved items to Gaza" in the first paragraph to "According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after the flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast. [9] ". The reasons are
So I read through Wikipedia:PRIMARY and my impression is that a primary source is not allowed if it is not verified by others secondary RS. In this case, the youtube video HAS been verified and reported in many RS. So it would be OK to include it, but we should also include refs to good RS secondary sources that verify it. Thoughts? Zuchinni one ( talk) 18:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
1, 2, and 3. I'm not sure how this could be included in the article. Wikifan12345 ( talk) 09:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452
I believe the legality section should not be in pro/contra sections, but in sections by legal issue. As I see it, there are three issues, the second one in two parts: the legality of the blockade; the legality of boarding ships in international waters presuming the blockade itself is legal or presuming it is illegal; and the proportionality of the force used. Each of these 2 large sections and 2 subsections would have pro and contra arguments. This would lead to less repetition than the current structure, which is organized by source, and thus states many arguments redundantly. Homunq ( talk) 11:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
A group of Israeli lawyers, including Avigdor Feldman, petitioned the Israeli High Court charging that Israel had violated the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea by capturing the boats in international waters. [193]
see http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898429,00.html The petition is not particularly relevant, without a disclosed legal basis accepted by the high court. I suggest removing this mention or update with the high courts decision. AFarber ( talk) 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Justice Beinish responded to the petition: "It is clear that the suit was filed in haste. Even though the petitioners knew nothing of what had occurred, they did not hesitate to hurriedly place the gravest possible stain on the IDF forces' actions while using sharp and abrasive language that was out of place..." I strongly suggest removing the passage since there was no petition in the end and the passage does not contribute factually and is not NPOV. At least Justice Beinish didn't think so AFarber ( talk) 14:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Today a video from the raid in the Greek ship Sfndoni has been published by http://tvxs.gr/node/59618 (tvxs.gr). In the video you can hear the first minutes of the raid and the discussions between the activists and the Israeli soldiers. You can hear gunshots etc, some part of the video conversation is in English language. This is a rare documentary because all the recorded material, photos, videos has been stolen by the Israeli army during the raid. Ggia ( talk) 14:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
israel's footage of soldiers being attacked takes place during the day though it was widely accepted to happen at night time. http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Israel_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate3 ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
thats not night vision its basically the same footage of the US soldiers shooting Iraqi journalists from helicopter incident. And its obviously fake, just look at how everyones goofball fighting like they were in the 3 stooges —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandate3 ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
??? Are we really discussing this ??? Is anybody here an expert in determining the authenticity of these videos by watching a few seconds of them on youtube? WP:OR is not going to be included in the article anyway. How about getting some RS that support your claim. Until then this is just a waste of time. Zuchinni one ( talk) 23:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that an IDF primary source here says "attacked by Mavi Marmara passengers" and "9 flotilla participants were killed" (my bolding). When an IDF article uses more neutral/generic terminology than a Wikipedia article it might suggest that we have a slight problem. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Could someone please confirm whether the IDF name for the operation was מבצע רוחות שמיים and provide a sensible translation, sky spirits, sky ghosts, sky something or even better has anyone found an English RS with the IDF's name for the operation in it ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
<- That's great, thanks, lots of links to sources too via the google link in the discussion. Someone should add it. I have to sign out. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the IDF name for the operation was "מבצע רוחות שמיים 7". So the most sensible translation is "Operation Sky winds 7". ShalomOlam ( talk) 20:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Stating that the convoy was a "humanitarian aid flotilla" is POV and flotilla's side propaganda, mainly for the following reasons:
ShalomOlam ( talk) 18:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to get you attention about the following definitions of the flotilla's goals, as published in official documents by the flotilla's administration:
Only 1 out of 4 of the goals is related to a humanitarian cause. The rest - 3 out of 4 goals - are not humanitarian causes. This should be noted in the article. (I'm not sure how) ShalomOlam ( talk) 00:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
In the lead there was a recent change from "killed" to "shot and killed". However there doesn't seem to be any RS that all the people who died were shot. So what is the correct wording here?
Zuchinni one ( talk) 18:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This BBC article gives a good idea of where this all went down. Anyone want to suggest how to refer to the location in the article? It seems to have been a bit confusing because of different RS giving slightly different wordings ... but no maps other than this one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm
Zuchinni one ( talk) 20:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at the content that was added here? Cs32en Talk to me 21:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I have made a brief linguistic analysis concerning the reporting verbs from the section of the article which details the description of events from both sides: the Israeli account, and the account of the journalists/flotilla organizers/activists.
Broadly speaking, reporting verbs/language psychologically prepare the reader to comprehend what they are about to read in a particular way. They can put the reader into a pre-perception frame of mind coloured by neutrality, e.g. somebody ‘says’ something, they can put the reader on the alert, e.g. ‘according to’, or they can encourage an attitude of scepticism, e.g. sb. ‘alleges/claims’ sth.
What I discovered in this portion of the article is a distinct anti-Israeli bias.
Below is an indicated version of my findings:
italic – indicates neutral language
bold – indicates alerting language
BOLD CAPS – indicates sceptical language
The most commonly used reporting verb, ‘say’, is neutral and so has not been highlighted.
Israel's account
According to the Israeli military, Israeli commandos prepared to encounter political activists seeking to hold a protest, were armed with paintball guns and handguns as sidearms.[86][87] The soldiers had orders to peacefully convince the activists to give up, and if not successful, use non-lethal force to commandeer the ship. The commandos were instructed to use the sidearms in an emergency, when their lives were at risk.[88] The Israeli military reported that the commandos were immediately attacked after descending from helicopters onto the deck of the ship. Soldiers were beaten badly, including stabbings, and one was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet (9.1 m) below.[89] Two Israeli commandos had their guns wrested away. An Israeli commando said that there was live fire at some point against them from below deck.[90] Some of the commandos suffered gunshot wounds.[90][91] According to Major Avital Leibovich of the IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the activists attacked the soldiers with knives, slingshots, spikes, and clubs, and with pistols that were seized from Israeli commandos.[92][93][94] One soldier reported that the attack "looked like the Ramallah lynching."[95] Stun grenades and tear gas were used in an attempt to disperse activists. After this proved ineffective, the commandos requested and received permission to use live ammunition. The commandos then shot activists in the legs, which forced them to disperse. The commandos reached the bridge and took over the ship after 30 minutes.[96][97][98] The Israeli military released 20 videos of the incident.[99] One video ALLEGEDLY SHOWS how the first commandos to rappel down to the deck were attacked by a mob, and includes a soldier being thrown to the lower deck. Other videos CLAIM TO SHOW at least one incident in which a stun grenade and fire bomb was thrown at the soldiers, as well activists beating one of the soldiers and trying to kidnap him.[84] Another video, edited from the ship's surveillance footage, IS DESCRIBED BY THE IDF AS SHOWING activists preparing for a clash hours before the Israeli Navy made contact with the ship.[84] Another video shows the first four commandos to rappel onto the deck were attacked by activists with bars, axes and knives. The fourth commando saw his team leader on the deck, with a Turkish activist holding the pistol he had grabbed from him and pointing it to his head. He jumped from the rope and managed to shoot the gun wielding activist, 20 seconds after the first soldier landed on the deck.[100] According to a preliminary navy investigation, some passengers attempted to take hostage three unconscious commandos by dragging them into one of the passenger halls below . They were held in passenger halls for several minutes until they regained consciousness and managed to join the other soldiers.[100] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, echoing other Israeli accounts, said that the events represent a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[101][46][88]
Journalist's, flotilla organizers' and activists' accounts
Organizers of the convoy have denied the account of Israeli military. Arafat Shoukri, of the Free Gaza Movement (FGM), one the co-organizers of the flotilla convoy, said those on board one ship had called them by telephone to say that Israeli helicopters had arrived.[102] He said that from that moment on, he had witnessed shootings, and afterwards people on board shouted 'We are raising the white flag, stop shooting at us'.[102] He dismissed Israel's claims of activists having pistols and other weapons as "cheap propaganda".[102] According to Mavi Marmara activists and personnel, Israel initially opened fire with warning shots but when the ship didn't stop the attack began. Activists said that sound and smoke bombs were used and then IDF commandos surrounded the ship and boarded from helicopters and from the sea. In contrast with the Israeli account, activists say that Israelis did fire on the boat before boarding, though they said that the use of force was non-lethal at that point. Activists on board agree that there was resistance but say it was not organized; rather the Israeli helicopters, ships and gunfire "created the atmosphere that people wanted to defend themselves."[103] Activists say that the Israeli commandos used electric shocks on those who tried to form a human ring on the bridge.[104] The wife of the Mavi Marmara captain, Nilüfer Ören, stated that IDF began tracking them after 90 miles (140 km), there were 40 ships surrounding the convoy and the announcement was made while the commandos were boarding from helicopters at 04:45 am. She also said that sound bomb and smoke bombs were used. Therefore activists and crewmembers used gasmasks.[105] Norman Paech, a former member of the German parliament Left Party who was aboard the Marmara said he only saw three activists resisting. "They had no knives, no axes, only sticks that they used to defend themselves," he told reporters. But he said he could "not rule out" that others used weapons somewhere else on the boat.[106] Another eyewitness Huwaida Arraf says that the Israelis smashed her face against the ground and stepped on it; later they cuffed her and put a bag over her head.[107] Writer Edda Manga said five of the activists died directly while the rest died because they were denied medical treatment.[108] Kutlu Tiryaki, a captain of another vessel in the flotilla, said that the passengers did not have weapons at all, but only came to bring humanitarian help in a peaceful manner. [109] According to Al Jazeera journalist Jamal Elshayyal, at this point soldiers already shot "almost indiscriminately" with live ammunition from the helicopter.[110] According to Elshayyal three persons died while passengers including a Knesset member tried in vain to make the soldiers help the wounded.[110] Flotilla proponents and Turkish charity group leaders said that since the ships were on international waters, "even if we had used guns", abandoning the non-violence principle would still be legal as self-defense from Israeli "kidnapping" and "piracy".[111][112] Prof. Mattias Gardell who was on-board stated that the soldiers came on-board with sharp loaded weapons with laser sights and at least four persons were killed execution style.[113] Due to a communications blackout after the attack, it was originally difficult to get accounts from activists on board. Newly released activists are beginning to make statements to the press.[102][104][114] Activist Huwaida Arraf reported that once onboard the Challenger One, Israeli troops seized all communication equipment, cameras and memory cards from activists.[115] IHH president Bulent Yildrim stated that "passengers on the ship showed civil resistance, the press was there, and that the İHH (had) called on the passengers not to allow Israeli soldiers in".[116]
Summary of findings:
Israeli perspective:
neutral - 2
alerting - 3
sceptical - 3
journalists'/flotilla organisers'/activists' perspective:
neutral - 3
alerting - 3
sceptical - 0
I draw this to your attention and hope that in the interest of fairness your editors will put it right, as I do believe that Wikipedia has a
NPOV policy. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.213.255.3 (
talk)
21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure that the information in this particular portion of the article will be POV - bias is inevitable as each side presents their particular perspective. What is of concern is the way in which this information is presented to the reader with the use of particular linguistic reporting structures - bias in this area is not inevitable and Wikipedia may control its use to ensure balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.255.3 ( talk) 22:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This all falls to pieces if you take into account the history of Israeli sources sugar coating themselves. The sources of the 'other side' is not Palestine; it's a whole array of countries that don't give a damn and may as well be more neutral. -- Leladax ( talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Per Leladax. If we've got references to one side "sugar coating" their stories, then we should include them as it will help give readers perspective. Rklawton ( talk) 00:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
CNNWorld
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).