![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I don't know why some editors keep reverting the caption of one of the images to "A photo by the IDF showing items recovered by the Israeli Defense Forces from the Mavi Marmara; these items, which include knives, cutlery, sticks, and other diverse tools, were used as weapons[144] against the IDF by activists on board."
According to wiki-rules, one should not state opinions as facts. All we know is that IDF has said it has found these, and has said they were used as weapons. That's an opinion. It should not be stated as a fact. Let people read and make up their minds as they wish. It is very disappointing to see opinions are repeatedly asserted as facts.-- DoostdarWKP ( talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So are we in agreement here and in the section above on the image captions? I believe there are three total (beating, guy being tossed, weapons displayed) that need to be adjusted to "The IDF" or "Israeli sources". Groovy? Cptnono ( talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage for interested editors.-- Nosfartu ( talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"(some of whom had ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas [8])"
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366106430&oldid=366104829
Zuchinni one ( talk) 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Immediately after the intro says that nine pro palestinian activists died, it says "(some of whom had ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas)." I'm not disputing this fact, but it looks like it was just put there to demonize the protesters. Information like that belongs later in the article where they discuss the details of the passengers. The most important thing is that the protesters were killed, not that some of them had ties to Hamas. 174.18.21.75 ( talk) 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The MS Sofia and the Eleftheri Mesogeios are the same ship: The photos at http://www.shiptogaza.se/sv/b%C3%A5ten-foton (the Swedish site) show the word Mesegeios (in Greek letters) in some pictures and Sofia in the others.
The photos at http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/showallphotos.aspx?mmsi=239219000#top_photo (of the Eleftheri Mesogeios) show the word Sofia (in Latin alphabet) on the older photos and Sofia and Eleftheri Mesogeios in Greek alphabet on others.
Moreover, the Free Gaza Movement's press release mentions only MS Sofia, and there are a total of six not seven vessels. -- Fjmustak ( talk) 00:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF recorded video AFTER IDF from helicopters killed 20 Sleeping Aid Workers & Injured 100, as people fought back to stay alive, IDF started shooting videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF SHOT SLEEPING PEOPLE ON THE AID FLOTILLA http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/31/israel-murders-at-least-16-human-rights-activists-on-route-to-gaza-on-the-open-sea/
elderly-activist-shot-and-let-bleed-to-death http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-activist-shot-and-let-bleed-to-death-2207343.html
“They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot.”
“The Mavi Marmara was bombed right in front of our eyes. They threw the wounded into the water,”
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212103-israel-killed-more-than-9-threw-wounded-into-sea-witnesses-say.html
Why would they shoot sleeping people or would people still be sleeping unless they had the first-strike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Just like they weren't able to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on the Egyptians before the world found out what happened. They were not able to kill all the passengers onboard and blame it on Iran. 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 06:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452 The IDF identified a group of about 50 men – of the 700 on board – who were well-trained and were stationed throughout the ship, mostly on the upper deck, where they laid an ambush for the IDF soldiers who rappelled onto the deck from helicopters.
The members of this violent group were not carrying identity cards or passports. Instead, each of them had an envelope in his pocket with about $10,000 in cash. The defense establishment suspects the funding for the mercenaries may have come from elements within the Turkish government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.191.50 ( talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This was already discussed below, and the consensus seems to have been that we should include it in the "Israel's account" section at least. Sorry for posting twice, I only thought to search after replying 79.179.96.247 ( talk) 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Requesting comment on the inclusion of this map, which tries to create a visual representation of the international reaction to the Gaza flotilla raid. There has been a serious debate on the talk pages of two separate articles and we don't seem to be able to reach a consensus. We would appreciate the input of the community to help us resolve this issue. In addition the this section there are additional discussions here:
Zuchinni one ( talk) 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that a map in the reactions section would help summarize the international official reactions and present the information in an accessible manner.
I offered this map before, but there were some concerns with the map. This time I have changed it. All the sources can be found on the reactions article. Bless sins ( talk) 05:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me illustrate one of the problems I see with this map and why it seems to be a combination of
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR.
Because of this I am strongly opposed to the map in both this article and in the main International Reactions article.
At this point it might be worth asking for an independent WP:Third_opinion because this is getting to be a major topic with strong opinions on both sides.
Would anyone else support asking for WP:Third_opinion?
Zuchinni one ( talk) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
However if you look at the actual BBC article linked as a source, you see "Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as completely unacceptable" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10218450.stm)
He said he was concerned at the raid taking place in international waters. Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as "completely unacceptable", saying he deplored the loss of life.
The inherent problems are described in more detail here for a similar article. Think about it.
I think enough discussion is done and map can be inserted in article. -- Nevit ( talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I think its been carefully discussed and can be added. -- JoeJoe11 ( talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think adding the map could be useful. If finding the position of a few countries are controversial, those specific instances can be discussed first here; no reason to throw the whole thing away because of a few instances. The map is as informative as a map can be. -- DoostdarWKP ( talk) 11:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the map provides useful information, as long as the citations to back up the coloring are reliable. DaveApter ( talk) 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the map is not that it is really OR, but grouping country's responses into only two categories does not accurately describe them, to put China's reaction in the same category as Turkey's is misleading. Mek108
The caption has seen some POV warring and it's about time to discuss it directly.
If you watch the video it is unquestionable that these are activists beating a soldier who is on the ground. The POV dispute is only whether this happened before or after the soldiers "attacked." The current caption does not explain this well. I therefore propose the following caption:
I think that should satisfy NPOV and adequately explain the image. — Rafi 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the image and caption here is better: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/middleeast/02media.html — Rafi 17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
we have to take the idf footage with a pinch of salt i'd say as it's the army who has committed the massacre. overmore it's well possible the video was manipulated. the very least one can catch is that they didn't publish those passages which show the killings. also, they have confiscated cameras and mobile phones of the activists (and still not given back).-- Severino ( talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposal:
"Snapshot of footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods hitting a fallen soldier."
— Rafi 20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
<- I see there is more edit warring over this caption despite there being a 1RR restriction, discretionary sanctions and a talk page section to discuss the caption... I think some users are kind of losing sight of what we are doing here. The images we use should illustrate the important aspects of this event. What were the important aspects of this event ? Nine people being killed, 60-ish people on the boats being injured, some seriously, and 10 soldiers being injured springs to mind given its prominence in RS. That's what we are supposed to be illustrating, all of those things, not just one of them. We aren't here to facilitate the transmission of specific narratives and focus only on imagery that has been specifically selected for exactly that purpose by an interested party. Can I appeal to editors to try to step out of their partisan camps and work towards a balanced illustration of what happened both in terms of imagery and the associated RS based captions ? These edit wars/NPOV non-compliance issues are kind of lame. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a tag to the material for until a consensus is reached. The discussion seems to be going in a somewhat circular fashion with some people saying 'I think X is POV' while others say 'I think X is not POV'. Since directly quoting someone doesn't seem to be resolving the dispute, it would seem there are a number of options:
So maybe people could say what they aren't opposed to here, and then once we agree on how to resolve the problem we can start doing it.-- Nosfartu ( talk) 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I see a figure with a stick or similar object over his or her head. It could be an Israeli, or passenger or anyone. I don't see anyone being beaten. The passengers have disputed the IDF account. As we have two different accounts, the existing caption goes. First Verse ( talk) 01:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Posting individual snapshots are misleading. As Cenk Uygur has noted, the whole engagement lasted over an hour but the IDF has only released about two minutes of footage, and NONE from when the soldiers started firing. They killed nine people with multiple gunshots, plus the 30 others wounded so all-in-all the commandos must have fired at least 50 shots, none of which they show on video. Did the IDF just stop filming once the commandos starting shooting? Of course not. The IDF is selectively releasing video to shape public debate, and Wikipedia should not go along with them by posting their few images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.241.63 ( talk) 06:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Activistboatclash.jpg
I see that while I was signed out the caption was scaled back and then the image was removed entirely.
I argue that the image is critical to the IDF narrative, and after all it is in the section titled "Israel's account." The video clip was played widely in the American media and the two idfnadesk versions have over 2.6 million hits on Youtube [3] [4]. It is the most provocative evidence in support of the IDF account, so it's no wonder some editors are opposed to it.
I agree with Nosfartu, the debate has been circular. I'll try to summarize and respond.
Arguments against the image/caption:
Response:
This is now my preferred caption:
I hope consensus isn't hopeless. — Rafi 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead sentence says flotilla was carrying 663 pro-Palestinian activists. What does pro-Palestinian means? Baharyakin ( talk) 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/
-- Nevit ( talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be fair to call them "humanitarian activists" as their mission was to bring humanitarian aid to a "ghetto".-- Severino ( talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The martyr video published by Israel came to be a previous shot by Iranian state-run TV. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
-- Nevit ( talk) 00:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Norweign expert, Palle Ydstebø, views have been taken out of context in what seems to be a biased fashion.
In the "weapons section" the focus is on how this expert says there is no "military" equipment, and "normal items".
But if you actually read the article, you get a _very_ different impression. In the referenced article, he also says this:
"... the large number of ax and hammer handles. Such solid wooden handles is very good as a battlefield weapon… When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful pop-peas, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight. .. if several attacks a soldier with a knife and gun battles, they can both harm and ultimately kill him."
To keep any semblance of fairness and balance here, his expert opinion needs to be put in it's full context also giving his views on possible premeditation of violence, and the pictures showing "very good battlefield weapons".
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The facts are unnecessarily vague. I suggest including personal accounts of Al-Jazeera cameraman for example,
http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6521UG.htm
and account of Israeli soldier who claims to have killed six of the pro-Palestinian activists:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445
The independent accounts presumably from different political perspectives appear to corroborate each other. AFarber ( talk) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Al-Jazeera interview with Jamal Elshayyal includes the statement that the Israelis were firing live ammunition down from the helicopter prior to the boarding and that he knew this because one person was shot through the top of the head. Seems like this would also have made it into the final edit of this paragraph. http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.217.86 ( talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that the story regarding Turkish fighting has been "evolving" over the past few days. Specifically, the Turkish role in the attack been clarified from "non-violent peace activists" to "planned resistance to an illegal boarding using non-lethal weapons". Given that non-IDF ammunition casings were found at the scene, the ship's captain claims his passengers threw their guns overboard, and several IDF soldiers have gunshot wounds, I suspect that the Turkish side of the story will continue to evolve. I completely support are prohibition against WP:SYNTH, but I suspect that a reliable source has (or will) notice this odd change in stories and report on it. I suggest we be on the lookout for this because I think it will speak volumes about the reliability of statements put out by the activists verses the reliability of statements put out by the IDF. and yes, if the IDF story has similarly "evolved", I think we should include that as well. Rklawton ( talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010
Perhaps I didn't make my recommendation clear. I'm proposing we add a section about how one (or both?) side has repeatedly changed their story. We've seen this even as this article has evolved. This isn't a "forum" or "soapbox" issue - this is an article improvement issue. Specifically, I'm suggesting one or more editors look for reliable sources that point out the obvious (rather than rely on our own syntheses) - as it relates directly to the aftermath and world reaction. Rklawton ( talk) 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UT
Currently they are together with the flotilla participants and organizers. But that might suggest that the all the journalists support the viewpoints of one side.
If journalists are NPOV it seems they should be separated from BOTH the israeli and activist accounts. Zuchinni one ( talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(Originally raised in this discussion: Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz")
This Walla News article [10] includes a recording of this dialogue. I've included a translation of the article (original in Hebrew) and a transcript of the conversation in the recording below:
A transcript of the recording:
- ???, this is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade.
- Shut up, go back to Auschwitz.
- We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter.
- We're helping Arabs going against the US, don't forget 9/11 guys.
82.102.159.23 ( talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
an account that should be taken "with a pinch of salt" as it comes from the army which is responsible for the killings (and needs relief now). also, we would need a reliable translation.-- Severino ( talk) 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a desperate attempt at vilifying the crew of the ship. I wouldn’t include it till it is verified by a reliable third party. Likeminas ( talk) 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Now on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxY7Q7CvQPQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.132.173 ( talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So epople stop reverting my edit claiming "opinion", this audio recording is NOT the original, but an audio reproduction by the IDF. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html RobMasterFunk ( talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It is also reported on Ynet: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html and HaAretz: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1172392.html ShalomOlam ( talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see at least two Israel dominated POVs just in the lead - numerous sources (including the live al-Jazeera reports) have claimed that Israel munitions had killed two activists before the assault started. Some poorly translated Turkish sources are claiming there are a number of people missing or alternatively that there were more deaths with the bodies thrown overboard. 86.181.224.19 ( talk) 20:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the point in having a "Historical Perspective" section on this current event article...perhaps it should be separated and/or removed.
Yarou ( talk) 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I could continue giving examples of comparisons with the SS Exodus. Randam ( talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed at length here: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_5#Claims_of_previous_boardings_in_international_waters Also keep in mind that A LOT of the more relevant background information Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_5#how_it_all_began... was removed due to length issues. At best this deserves a link, and not an entire section, but I'm not sure that this event is relevant at all. Zuchinni one ( talk) 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's make a compromise. The entire section "Historical Perspective" goes away, in return there will be a short "See also" section + 1 image of the Exodus. Nothing more, nothing less. OK? Randam ( talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding that some of th statements in the article aren't accurate representations of what's in the sources. I took out:
Activists say that the Israeli commandos used electric shocks on those who tried to form a human ring on the bridge. ref name="Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists"/
Because the source doesn't seem to me to indicate that this took place on the Free Mediterranean but instead on the main ship where the conflict took place. I'm also not sure that something attributed to six greek participants should be changed to "activists" which implies to me at least that the accuasation was widespread. Bu tmaybe that point is too nitpicky. If the source does say that this took place on that ship then feel free to restore. Or restore it to a more general section rather than one about a ship not mentioned in that part of th article. Thanks. Freakshownerd ( talk) 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
EDIT-Misread
Here's the quote from the source:
And, it turns out you're correct about an extra ship: the Sofia and Free Mediterranean are the same boat. I'm restoring and merging the deleted section.-- Carwil ( talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As per Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Location and the following BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm
It might be a good idea to remove reference to "off the coast" as the location of the raid.
Why?
The best thing that I can come up with is to say 'Northwest of Gaza, in international waters'
But I'm very open to suggestions.
Any major opposition to removing "off the coast"? Zuchinni one ( talk) 03:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National news bulletin 2 PM (GMT+10)on Saturday, 05 June 2010 said the MV Rachel Corrie has been seized. Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is an RS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10244301.stm Zuchinni one ( talk) 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite a few reports that the Rachel Corrie had been boarded, the BBC Radio News cited a passenger on the vessel, about 3PM (GMT+10) Saturday as saying she has not yet been (despite the presence of zodiacs and other vessels nearby). Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
BBC Radio News has just quoted the IDF: "As of now we have not boarded the ship." Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 05:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV news has just reported that Israeli forces have boarded the MV Rachel Corrie. Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 11:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
St.-Sgt. S. - commando who killed 6. The Jerusalem Post, 6.4.2010 http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 IDF.is.Lying ( talk) 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"Bayhan said the journalists in the ship including him tried to protect the video footage and photos they took and he hided a small flash disk in which he saved the photos he took on the ship under his tongue but it was noticed by an Israeli doctor during a medical examination and was taken away from him".
Today’s Zaman photojournalist tried to hide flash disk under his tongue, 03 June 2010, Thursday
Yaron Hadany 09:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaron hadany ( talk • contribs)
Why showing a photo of the IDF soldiers and not the terror activists on the boat attacking the soldiers? I think removing the photo will make this article more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talstol ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sarah777 what do you want? Why showing Israeli soldiers only and not the actions of the people on the ship? If this article is not going to put two pictures of the two sides of this conflict, the best thing to do in order to keep on this article neutral is to remove the picture.
In addition, "This article is so biased in favour of the Israeli position" which is totally wrong, this time the attempt to make the IDF look like "terrorists" didn't work that well so you say it is Pro-Israeli. But what you do not understand is that the IDF used the most human actions this time and many times before, that's why you think it is "biased" - which is not that true actually due to the picture and some of the text in the article. Talstol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC).
This should be trimmed down to verifiable facts. There is plenty of room for both sides' accusations against each other in the "accounts" sections. Two example concerns are:
1) To the average reader, anything put in the lead appears to be extremely relevant. Some of the bits are, but others, like the Turkish autopsy report, belong elsewhere in the article.
2) As the amount of he-said / she-said has grown, the language has become more POV. For example "angry" activists. Who knows they were angry, perhaps they were just defending themselves. Regardless, this is POV and does not belong in the lead.
These are not the only problems with that paragraph, just specific examples. Zuchinni one ( talk) 09:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The use of the word "raid" is wrong. According to some on-line dictionaries, a raid is: "a search without warning" or "a sudden surprise attack". But it is known that the attack was not sudden or surprise, and there were lots of warning before this took place. So, "raid" should be replaced with something else. Any suggestions? ShalomOlam ( talk) 09:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that this article should be changed into "Gaza flotilla" article and the new article should speak about the whole flotilla subject, and the results. It is not very neutral to make an article about the "RAID" itself, because the "raid" was only a part of the flotilla incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talstol ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Article says that the number of passengers injured is 60, but all RS attached to the article do not support this. One of the RS says "several were injured". Other say there were 28 injuries. So I don't know where the number "60" comes from, but it should be removed, if there are no RS. ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Activists on a Gaza-bound Turkish ship seized four Israeli marines before other commandos stormed aboard using live ammunition, a Lebanese cameraman said in an account on Thursday that echoed elements of Israeli testimony. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6521UG Please add this to the article 79.178.42.134 ( talk) 10:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
editsemiprotected
The first sentence of the article now calls the incident a "seizure of ships by Israeli naval forces." Where the commandos and their helicopters part of the Israeli Navy or a "naval force"? -- 62.78.143.66 ( talk) 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck."
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 Saint91 ( talk) 12:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we take this source (IPSnews) as reliable source?
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51704
89.138.131.66 ( talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Why aren't these displayed in the article when there are so many from the Israeli military?
-- 71.156.87.5 ( talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, one (not two) photo that is characteristic of international public reaction is entirely reasonable, fitting perfectly alongside WP:SUMMARY. The IP-number user is reasonable with regard to balance and NPOV. Also, a well-constructed, NPOV map of state reactions could be appropriate as well.-- Carwil ( talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a very good analysis in Stratfor a few days ago [15] which discusses the raid and what it means for international opinion. Basically it makes the point that the flotilla provoked Israel into a very difficult situation, and discusses the fallout especially with Turkey. It also makes the analogy, which I haven't seen anywhere else, to a situation in 1947 between the Zionists and the British, which was depicted in the movie Exodus. As this is a fairly dense work and this article doesn't yet have an obvious section on "Strategy" or "Geopolitics", I'll defer to those with more experience in I-P editing, but this would make a fine addition to the article. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 15:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can the killing be classified as a war crime? i know, the victimis were civilians but maybe exactly that is a pro argument.-- Severino ( talk) 16:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone has added this to the intro that some passengers have said that the firing occurred after the start of the on-deck skirmish. I have been following the news and have never seen anything like this. Our article doesn't support this either. Please provide a reference. It would be nice to see who has made the claim; and even if this is the case (it would be interesting to see) we should not mention it as "some have said this", "some have said that" since that is giving undue weight. But let's see the source first.-- DoostdarWKP ( talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to split off the "Mavi Marmara boarding" section. The article is getting to long, and splitting will make editing the article easier. Cs32en Talk to me 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
To SALUT: you can be cynical if you want, but I didn't write that. For instance, the mention of live ammunition is probably not true and the person heard stun grenades before landing on the boat which the Israelis and others mentioned in their account. I am suggesting removing the hearsay and reducing the text into a readable consistent account. AFarber ( talk) 22:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to split off the "Mavi Marmara boarding" section. The article is getting to long, and splitting will make editing the article easier. (This has already been discussed in the preceding section, but the discussion there digressed into loosely related questions concerning the content of the section.) Cs32en Talk to me 03:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice that the 7th ship had the website for FreeGaza.org written in HUGE letters on its deck. They must have known they'd be filmed from above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba0iXUzxu0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
hm whats so funny about that?-- Severino ( talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=366267348
The edit above seems to add POV, but I'd like other opinions. Zuchinni one ( talk) 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
So it sounds like everyone would be OK with "On June 1 Witnesses to the Israeli Raid". I'm going to change it, but if the change is controversial you have my permission to revert. Just say why in here :) Zuchinni one ( talk) 00:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
OK.-- Severino ( talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Cs32en Talk to me 01:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Passengers admitted fighting with the Israeli commandos..."
"Passengers say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding..."
These statements are ambiguous as if they could equally easily imply more than one passenger, or all of the passengers.
And both of them are true of some (plural) passengers, but are wrong in the universal sense. So, is this good enough as it is? Or should it be clarified? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
How should we consider these edits? Salut, -- IANVS ( talk | cont) 01:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop edit warring. Thank you, NW ( Talk) 03:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"
The incoming fleet was known to Israel government, military and intelligence. Weeks before May 31 2001- the Israel Navy and General Staff held dozens of advance meetings over and the IDF led preparation for all aspects of the operation. The main military drafters were Israel Navy commander Admiral
Eliezer Marom , Chief of Staff
Gabi Ashkenazi and his deputy, Major General
Benny Gantz. The Israel Navy provided solutions to expected and unexpected circumstances. Benjamin Netanyahu and Edmunt Barrak were complacent that the raid would not raise to big world reactionsCite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). Maariv an Israeli press reported before the raid on May 28 some general aims of operation.
[1]
[2]"
Thoughts? NW ( Talk) 03:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Al Jazeera cameraman Andre Abu Khalil, also aboard the Mavi Marmara, concurs that the initial wave of Israeli soldiers were overpowered but that there were four captured rather than three, who were "brought to the lowest deck (with) fracture wounds".[148]"
The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages says this:
ARTICLE 1
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the "hostage") in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages ("hostage-taking") within the meaning of this Convention.
Any person who:
attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or
participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.
Has there been any mention of this?
Faaaaaaamn (
talk)
06:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Helsinki principles [1]
5.1.1 Neutral ships in belligerent ports
A neutral ship in a belligerent port enjoys the same protection against attacks as civilian objects in land warfare… Neutral warships in belligerent ports retain their right of self-defense.
5.1.2 Protection against attacks
(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.
(4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they
(a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces;
(c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system;
(d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 Visit and search … [B]elligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
-- Gilisa ( talk) 06:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
he:המשט לעזה (2010) Unorganised links, IDF commando testimonies and captions are required
Already translated
|
---|
tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı
Click for Turkish article Translations
|
---|
===Israel did not allow healing the wounded!===
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) The dialogue with captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raidThe 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. |
el:Επίθεση κατά νηοπομπής ανοικτά της Γάζας
Priority unique accounts that aren't available in English. Kasaalan ( talk) 07:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
From which country did the ship Challenger 1 left from? Is there information about this? Randam ( talk) 08:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Other ships" section is not relevant to this article. Should be removed, or move to "See also" section. ShalomOlam ( talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The section about the "weapons" found by the IDF is a strech because basically anything could be used as a weapon. I think using the word "weapon" gives the article a bisased view of what the IDF considered to be weapons. Throwing a dish over somebody's head could definitely hurt somebody but (I assume that) in most people's minds a dish wouldn't be categorized as a weapon. Likeminas ( talk) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
as the iDF has attacked the ship (in international waters), resistance occured which can be classified as self defence.-- Severino ( talk) 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
they werent butter knives any way. even ignoring any pictures or anything, you cant stab and wound someone with a butter knife without super-human strenght. they have a round tip. unles what you consider to be a butter knife is what most people consider a steak knife. 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No one disputes that this video depicts activists beating a soldier. No need for hedging in the caption; attributing the video to the IDF is enough for NPOV. If anyone has an RS that disputes the contents of the video, please provide.
I have changed the caption to Snapshot from footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods beating a fallen soldier. I argued for this above and several editors agreed.
Discuss here before making changes, please. Enough of the edit warring.
— Rafi 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, a senior Israel Defense Forces officer also spoke at the committee meeting on Tuesday, explaining the details of the IDF's operation on the Gaza flotilla on Monday.
He said that the army had decided against sabotaging a ship in the Gaza flotilla at the center of Monday's deadly clashes, out of fear that the vessel would be stranded in the middle of the ocean and at risk of a humanitarian crisis.
(...)
During his briefing on the operation to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Colonel Itzik Turgeman hinted that the IDF had sabotaged the engines of the other five ships, saying that "they took care of them."
IDF.is.Lying ( talk) 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Leave arguments about the legality to the lawyers, then cite the reliable sources that quote them. TFOWR idle vapourings 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is not NPOV. It heavily supports the Israeli logic of "If we attack you and you defend yourself, then you attacked us and we defend ourselves" by including many photos and views from Israel Army. I suggest it be tagged for NPOV. It is presenting a very distorted image of the incident. -- 94.123.198.52 ( talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
|
# 6 Boarding * 6.1 Mavi Marmara boarding o 6.1.1 Activists and flotilla organizers' account o 6.1.2 Israel's account o 6.1.3 Journalists' accounts * 6.2 Other boardings o 6.2.1 Sfendoni o 6.2.2 MS Sofia o 6.2.3 Challenger One * 6.3 Investigation for on-board weapons * 6.4 Fate of participants * 6.5 Fate of aid cargo * 6.6 Fate of ships
We need a new main header for 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6. These are not about "boarding". Header suggestions? -- Kslotte ( talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe something like post-boarding would be good? Zbase4 ( talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Helsinki 5.1.2(3)
State is allowed to attack trade vessels waving neutral country flag if there is reasonable infrastructure to believe they caryy summegled cargo or intend to break naval blockede and although early warnings were given they clearly and delibertly refuse to be stopped, searched, boarded or diverted from course. -- Gilisa ( talk) 06:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The SF Chronicle article ( "Israel's Gaza blockade legal, many scholars say". Sfgate.com. Retrieved June 6, 2010.), prominently cited here and in the legal reactions subarticle, does a very poor job of explaining the methodology of its survey. How many "scholars" were surveyed by the Chronicle? What were their qualifications? How were they chosen? Does "most" mean 60% (3/5), 55% (5/9) or 90% (18/20)? The article answers none of these questions. Of the named sources in the article, you have:
Thus, the scholars quoted are 1 "legal", 1 "probably legal", and 2 "illegal".
I believe that, given these issues with the article, the one "most but not all" sentence from this article is being given undue weight. If the article stated anything which could be evaluated for significance, such as a percentage, I would not be saying this. 187.143.10.134 ( talk) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In my view both Israeli and Turkish governments knew what would going to happen yet did not back down and chose to use the case for domestic politics. Anyway my additions:
I support. Kasaalan ( talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
While apparently well-intentioned, this section is overloaded, discuss points one-by-one as editors and edits advance them. Respectfully, RomaC ( talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Aid convoy"? They were mainly pro Palestinian and actually all media sources refered to them as such, the lead is WP:SYN by ognoring that. They were aiming to break the blockade and to pay world attention to it, also, they were instructed to change their course to Ashdod port and to unload there cargo and send it to Gaza through the land crossing, both Israel and Egypt suggested them to do it but they ignored and refused, so calling it "aid convoy" is misleading at best. There is no real dispute any longer that soldiers were attacked while boarding and before even the chance to open fire. It's also supported by the testimony of one Journalist of Al Jazira, certainly not pro Israeli media source, that was on the boat. Changes must be made accordingly. This all flotilla were organised by the IHH, certainly not hnumanitarian organisation. The lead seem to cpoint to Israel's guilt -- Gilisa ( talk) 10:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The aid was only one goal of the convoy. Other goals are political. So saying it is only a convoy of aid is simply not true. ShalomOlam ( talk) 11:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
IHH [17] web-site: F. A. Q. Could you define the Flotilla which is sailing to Gaza in April? It is a civilian initiative that includes various intellectuals, artists, politicians, representatives of nongovernmental organizations and similar figures representing Turkish and European people, that aims to break the embargo of Gaza by sailing to the territory on ships. Not a word about "humanitarian" or "aid". ShalomOlam ( talk) 12:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
of course it is disputed that soldiers were attacked first! -- Severino ( talk) 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually most RS call it Aid convoy so we have to follow that, otherwise RomaC has already given a detailed reasoning. -- yousaf465' 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Activist Idris Simsek, who was on board one of the six ships of the Freedom Flotilla during the Israeli attack, claims that four wounded activists were thrown into the sea. [18] Can someone with an account add this important information to the article? 206.116.24.143 ( talk) 10:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If we can use national papers what is the issue with Iranian Tv ?I think we should remove the above mentioned photo. -- yousaf465' 04:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead now includes an Israeli term, "Operation Sky Winds" -- which is innocuous and pretty, suggests a cool breeze rolling across the Mediterranean at dawn. But there are others who characterize the event differently, and that should be reflected as well, because we can't present just one side's narrative. RomaC ( talk) 14:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
your claims about the translation, the procedure how the names was chosen and so forth are OR.-- Severino ( talk) 16:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
One of the main reasons that "Gaza flotilla raid" was chosen as a name, is that most RS seemed to be using that terminology. That name should stay unless people on the talk pages can convince others it needs to change. However it seems perfectly reasonable to mention that the Israelis called the raid "Operation Sky Winds", in the same way that we mention the activists called themselves "The Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Zuchinni one ( talk) 17:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose to include the operation name in section Gaza_flotilla_raid#Boarding and having it consistent with Shayetet_13#Gaza_Flotilla_Operation. And maybe add redirect to the boarding section from the operation name (whatever it is, Sky Winds or Sea Breeze). -- Kslotte ( talk) 17:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Would have thought this was contentious enough to merit discussion in advance if adding belatedly and unclear. Edits added just now by a single user to include categories such as Piracy (who officially defines this?) and Political Repression (this was meant to be a non-political aid convoy, I thought?) at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=366392705&oldid=366388728 Regards, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd taken out three of the four pending discussion. (edit conflict three times whilst trying to reply here!) Thanks, TFOWR; I was wondering whether any of the regs on this article recalled previous discussion on such matters. 'Piracy' did indeed seem the most obviously contentious. Harami2000 ( talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I just spotted this one from onboard the ship itself => see http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article490465.ece/Israel-says-activists-prepared-for-fight-on-ship . Is this "newly released" and/or worth pursuing further? Rather less ambiguous that the night vision shots from the Israeli ship, although I would be in favor of retaining that video clip frame regardless. Cheers, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 17:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies - I should've clarified since this is ambiguous as to whether it was taken 'on deck' or later, 'below decks'... Harami2000 ( talk) 17:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The article below, just published in Haaretz, seems highly significant. A group of senior Israeli Navy officers are calling into question the reaction of the Israeli government to the events. Any thoughts as to how (or whether) it should be used?
A few paragraphs from the article:
A group of top Israel Navy reserves officers on Sunday publicly called on Israel to allow an external probe into its commando raid of a Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla last week, which left nine people dead and several more wounded. In a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, the Navy officers denounced the commando raid as having "ended in tragedy both at the military and diplomatic levels…
"First and foremost, we protest the fact that responsibility for the tragic results was immediately thrust onto the organizers of the flotilla," wrote the officers. "This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the values of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.113.64 ( talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Pro-Israel folks, we've done a good job with this piece in getting our perspective across, so I suggest that we move on to other wiki articles of vital relevance to our interests, no? At any rate, it's good to see some of our hard work pay off. 67.180.26.60 ( talk) 06:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
If I remember right, this IP have repeatedly commented here and left anti-israeli unreliable sources on this TP. His/her comments were always deleted from the TP by several editors and his/her editing is considered distrupting. The reeason I don't delete them now is because Sean.hoyland replied him/her and I don't want to delete his comment as well. Using the term Pro-Israel folks just meant to create the appearance of Pro Israeli bias, which is the farest thing this article can be described as. --
Gilisa (
talk)
06:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Faaaaaaamn, I think, was right in removing this section as vandalism hence no reason given. However, Sean.hoyland reverted challenging for a reason, which Faaaaaaamn did not give when deleting again. If Gilisa is right, and I have no reason to doubt, this was placed here for malicious reasons, to suggest that this article is biased and to try get "pro-Israel folks" away from the article so that they can then push their POV. I suggest that this section be speedily archived. 930913( Congratulate/ Complaints) 07:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Collection of articles against IHH activists and IDF commandos along with general and other related articles, eyewitness accounts. In progress. Please add links so that we have a better collection. Kasaalan ( talk) 08:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
I don't know why some editors keep reverting the caption of one of the images to "A photo by the IDF showing items recovered by the Israeli Defense Forces from the Mavi Marmara; these items, which include knives, cutlery, sticks, and other diverse tools, were used as weapons[144] against the IDF by activists on board."
According to wiki-rules, one should not state opinions as facts. All we know is that IDF has said it has found these, and has said they were used as weapons. That's an opinion. It should not be stated as a fact. Let people read and make up their minds as they wish. It is very disappointing to see opinions are repeatedly asserted as facts.-- DoostdarWKP ( talk) 22:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So are we in agreement here and in the section above on the image captions? I believe there are three total (beating, guy being tossed, weapons displayed) that need to be adjusted to "The IDF" or "Israeli sources". Groovy? Cptnono ( talk) 23:21, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Caption on IDF footage for interested editors.-- Nosfartu ( talk) 01:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"(some of whom had ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas [8])"
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366106430&oldid=366104829
Zuchinni one ( talk) 00:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Immediately after the intro says that nine pro palestinian activists died, it says "(some of whom had ties with terrorist organizations such as Hamas)." I'm not disputing this fact, but it looks like it was just put there to demonize the protesters. Information like that belongs later in the article where they discuss the details of the passengers. The most important thing is that the protesters were killed, not that some of them had ties to Hamas. 174.18.21.75 ( talk) 00:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The MS Sofia and the Eleftheri Mesogeios are the same ship: The photos at http://www.shiptogaza.se/sv/b%C3%A5ten-foton (the Swedish site) show the word Mesegeios (in Greek letters) in some pictures and Sofia in the others.
The photos at http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/showallphotos.aspx?mmsi=239219000#top_photo (of the Eleftheri Mesogeios) show the word Sofia (in Latin alphabet) on the older photos and Sofia and Eleftheri Mesogeios in Greek alphabet on others.
Moreover, the Free Gaza Movement's press release mentions only MS Sofia, and there are a total of six not seven vessels. -- Fjmustak ( talk) 00:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF recorded video AFTER IDF from helicopters killed 20 Sleeping Aid Workers & Injured 100, as people fought back to stay alive, IDF started shooting videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 23:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
IDF SHOT SLEEPING PEOPLE ON THE AID FLOTILLA http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/05/31/israel-murders-at-least-16-human-rights-activists-on-route-to-gaza-on-the-open-sea/
elderly-activist-shot-and-let-bleed-to-death http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elderly-activist-shot-and-let-bleed-to-death-2207343.html
“They even shot those who surrendered. Many of our friends saw this. They told me that there were handcuffed people who were shot.”
“The Mavi Marmara was bombed right in front of our eyes. They threw the wounded into the water,”
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212103-israel-killed-more-than-9-threw-wounded-into-sea-witnesses-say.html
Why would they shoot sleeping people or would people still be sleeping unless they had the first-strike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 23:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Just like they weren't able to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on the Egyptians before the world found out what happened. They were not able to kill all the passengers onboard and blame it on Iran. 67.169.146.118 ( talk) 06:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177452 The IDF identified a group of about 50 men – of the 700 on board – who were well-trained and were stationed throughout the ship, mostly on the upper deck, where they laid an ambush for the IDF soldiers who rappelled onto the deck from helicopters.
The members of this violent group were not carrying identity cards or passports. Instead, each of them had an envelope in his pocket with about $10,000 in cash. The defense establishment suspects the funding for the mercenaries may have come from elements within the Turkish government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.191.50 ( talk) 05:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
This was already discussed below, and the consensus seems to have been that we should include it in the "Israel's account" section at least. Sorry for posting twice, I only thought to search after replying 79.179.96.247 ( talk) 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Requesting comment on the inclusion of this map, which tries to create a visual representation of the international reaction to the Gaza flotilla raid. There has been a serious debate on the talk pages of two separate articles and we don't seem to be able to reach a consensus. We would appreciate the input of the community to help us resolve this issue. In addition the this section there are additional discussions here:
Zuchinni one ( talk) 09:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that a map in the reactions section would help summarize the international official reactions and present the information in an accessible manner.
I offered this map before, but there were some concerns with the map. This time I have changed it. All the sources can be found on the reactions article. Bless sins ( talk) 05:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Let me illustrate one of the problems I see with this map and why it seems to be a combination of
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR.
Because of this I am strongly opposed to the map in both this article and in the main International Reactions article.
At this point it might be worth asking for an independent WP:Third_opinion because this is getting to be a major topic with strong opinions on both sides.
Would anyone else support asking for WP:Third_opinion?
Zuchinni one ( talk) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
However if you look at the actual BBC article linked as a source, you see "Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as completely unacceptable" ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk/10218450.stm)
He said he was concerned at the raid taking place in international waters. Prime Minister David Cameron condemned it as "completely unacceptable", saying he deplored the loss of life.
The inherent problems are described in more detail here for a similar article. Think about it.
I think enough discussion is done and map can be inserted in article. -- Nevit ( talk) 14:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree, I think its been carefully discussed and can be added. -- JoeJoe11 ( talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I think adding the map could be useful. If finding the position of a few countries are controversial, those specific instances can be discussed first here; no reason to throw the whole thing away because of a few instances. The map is as informative as a map can be. -- DoostdarWKP ( talk) 11:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the map provides useful information, as long as the citations to back up the coloring are reliable. DaveApter ( talk) 21:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with the map is not that it is really OR, but grouping country's responses into only two categories does not accurately describe them, to put China's reaction in the same category as Turkey's is misleading. Mek108
The caption has seen some POV warring and it's about time to discuss it directly.
If you watch the video it is unquestionable that these are activists beating a soldier who is on the ground. The POV dispute is only whether this happened before or after the soldiers "attacked." The current caption does not explain this well. I therefore propose the following caption:
I think that should satisfy NPOV and adequately explain the image. — Rafi 16:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the image and caption here is better: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/world/middleeast/02media.html — Rafi 17:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
we have to take the idf footage with a pinch of salt i'd say as it's the army who has committed the massacre. overmore it's well possible the video was manipulated. the very least one can catch is that they didn't publish those passages which show the killings. also, they have confiscated cameras and mobile phones of the activists (and still not given back).-- Severino ( talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Proposal:
"Snapshot of footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods hitting a fallen soldier."
— Rafi 20:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
<- I see there is more edit warring over this caption despite there being a 1RR restriction, discretionary sanctions and a talk page section to discuss the caption... I think some users are kind of losing sight of what we are doing here. The images we use should illustrate the important aspects of this event. What were the important aspects of this event ? Nine people being killed, 60-ish people on the boats being injured, some seriously, and 10 soldiers being injured springs to mind given its prominence in RS. That's what we are supposed to be illustrating, all of those things, not just one of them. We aren't here to facilitate the transmission of specific narratives and focus only on imagery that has been specifically selected for exactly that purpose by an interested party. Can I appeal to editors to try to step out of their partisan camps and work towards a balanced illustration of what happened both in terms of imagery and the associated RS based captions ? These edit wars/NPOV non-compliance issues are kind of lame. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I added a tag to the material for until a consensus is reached. The discussion seems to be going in a somewhat circular fashion with some people saying 'I think X is POV' while others say 'I think X is not POV'. Since directly quoting someone doesn't seem to be resolving the dispute, it would seem there are a number of options:
So maybe people could say what they aren't opposed to here, and then once we agree on how to resolve the problem we can start doing it.-- Nosfartu ( talk) 00:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I see a figure with a stick or similar object over his or her head. It could be an Israeli, or passenger or anyone. I don't see anyone being beaten. The passengers have disputed the IDF account. As we have two different accounts, the existing caption goes. First Verse ( talk) 01:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Posting individual snapshots are misleading. As Cenk Uygur has noted, the whole engagement lasted over an hour but the IDF has only released about two minutes of footage, and NONE from when the soldiers started firing. They killed nine people with multiple gunshots, plus the 30 others wounded so all-in-all the commandos must have fired at least 50 shots, none of which they show on video. Did the IDF just stop filming once the commandos starting shooting? Of course not. The IDF is selectively releasing video to shape public debate, and Wikipedia should not go along with them by posting their few images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.241.63 ( talk) 06:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Activistboatclash.jpg
I see that while I was signed out the caption was scaled back and then the image was removed entirely.
I argue that the image is critical to the IDF narrative, and after all it is in the section titled "Israel's account." The video clip was played widely in the American media and the two idfnadesk versions have over 2.6 million hits on Youtube [3] [4]. It is the most provocative evidence in support of the IDF account, so it's no wonder some editors are opposed to it.
I agree with Nosfartu, the debate has been circular. I'll try to summarize and respond.
Arguments against the image/caption:
Response:
This is now my preferred caption:
I hope consensus isn't hopeless. — Rafi 05:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead sentence says flotilla was carrying 663 pro-Palestinian activists. What does pro-Palestinian means? Baharyakin ( talk) 17:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
http://maxblumenthal.com/2010/06/under-scrutiny-idf-retracts-claims-about-flotillas-al-qaeda-links/
-- Nevit ( talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be fair to call them "humanitarian activists" as their mission was to bring humanitarian aid to a "ghetto".-- Severino ( talk) 19:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
The martyr video published by Israel came to be a previous shot by Iranian state-run TV. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians
-- Nevit ( talk) 00:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Norweign expert, Palle Ydstebø, views have been taken out of context in what seems to be a biased fashion.
In the "weapons section" the focus is on how this expert says there is no "military" equipment, and "normal items".
But if you actually read the article, you get a _very_ different impression. In the referenced article, he also says this:
"... the large number of ax and hammer handles. Such solid wooden handles is very good as a battlefield weapon… When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful pop-peas, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight. .. if several attacks a soldier with a knife and gun battles, they can both harm and ultimately kill him."
To keep any semblance of fairness and balance here, his expert opinion needs to be put in it's full context also giving his views on possible premeditation of violence, and the pictures showing "very good battlefield weapons".
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 08:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The facts are unnecessarily vague. I suggest including personal accounts of Al-Jazeera cameraman for example,
http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6521UG.htm
and account of Israeli soldier who claims to have killed six of the pro-Palestinian activists:
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445
The independent accounts presumably from different political perspectives appear to corroborate each other. AFarber ( talk) 13:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The Al-Jazeera interview with Jamal Elshayyal includes the statement that the Israelis were firing live ammunition down from the helicopter prior to the boarding and that he knew this because one person was shot through the top of the head. Seems like this would also have made it into the final edit of this paragraph. http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.217.86 ( talk) 18:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed that the story regarding Turkish fighting has been "evolving" over the past few days. Specifically, the Turkish role in the attack been clarified from "non-violent peace activists" to "planned resistance to an illegal boarding using non-lethal weapons". Given that non-IDF ammunition casings were found at the scene, the ship's captain claims his passengers threw their guns overboard, and several IDF soldiers have gunshot wounds, I suspect that the Turkish side of the story will continue to evolve. I completely support are prohibition against WP:SYNTH, but I suspect that a reliable source has (or will) notice this odd change in stories and report on it. I suggest we be on the lookout for this because I think it will speak volumes about the reliability of statements put out by the activists verses the reliability of statements put out by the IDF. and yes, if the IDF story has similarly "evolved", I think we should include that as well. Rklawton ( talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010
Perhaps I didn't make my recommendation clear. I'm proposing we add a section about how one (or both?) side has repeatedly changed their story. We've seen this even as this article has evolved. This isn't a "forum" or "soapbox" issue - this is an article improvement issue. Specifically, I'm suggesting one or more editors look for reliable sources that point out the obvious (rather than rely on our own syntheses) - as it relates directly to the aftermath and world reaction. Rklawton ( talk) 22:12, 4 June 2010 (UT
Currently they are together with the flotilla participants and organizers. But that might suggest that the all the journalists support the viewpoints of one side.
If journalists are NPOV it seems they should be separated from BOTH the israeli and activist accounts. Zuchinni one ( talk) 18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
(Originally raised in this discussion: Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz")
This Walla News article [10] includes a recording of this dialogue. I've included a translation of the article (original in Hebrew) and a transcript of the conversation in the recording below:
A transcript of the recording:
- ???, this is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade.
- Shut up, go back to Auschwitz.
- We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter.
- We're helping Arabs going against the US, don't forget 9/11 guys.
82.102.159.23 ( talk) 19:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
an account that should be taken "with a pinch of salt" as it comes from the army which is responsible for the killings (and needs relief now). also, we would need a reliable translation.-- Severino ( talk) 20:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a desperate attempt at vilifying the crew of the ship. I wouldn’t include it till it is verified by a reliable third party. Likeminas ( talk) 20:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Now on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxY7Q7CvQPQ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.238.132.173 ( talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
So epople stop reverting my edit claiming "opinion", this audio recording is NOT the original, but an audio reproduction by the IDF. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html RobMasterFunk ( talk) 00:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
It is also reported on Ynet: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3899131,00.html and HaAretz: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1172392.html ShalomOlam ( talk) 00:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I can see at least two Israel dominated POVs just in the lead - numerous sources (including the live al-Jazeera reports) have claimed that Israel munitions had killed two activists before the assault started. Some poorly translated Turkish sources are claiming there are a number of people missing or alternatively that there were more deaths with the bodies thrown overboard. 86.181.224.19 ( talk) 20:34, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't really see the point in having a "Historical Perspective" section on this current event article...perhaps it should be separated and/or removed.
Yarou ( talk) 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I could continue giving examples of comparisons with the SS Exodus. Randam ( talk) 00:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
This was discussed at length here: Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_5#Claims_of_previous_boardings_in_international_waters Also keep in mind that A LOT of the more relevant background information Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_5#how_it_all_began... was removed due to length issues. At best this deserves a link, and not an entire section, but I'm not sure that this event is relevant at all. Zuchinni one ( talk) 01:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's make a compromise. The entire section "Historical Perspective" goes away, in return there will be a short "See also" section + 1 image of the Exodus. Nothing more, nothing less. OK? Randam ( talk) 03:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm finding that some of th statements in the article aren't accurate representations of what's in the sources. I took out:
Activists say that the Israeli commandos used electric shocks on those who tried to form a human ring on the bridge. ref name="Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists"/
Because the source doesn't seem to me to indicate that this took place on the Free Mediterranean but instead on the main ship where the conflict took place. I'm also not sure that something attributed to six greek participants should be changed to "activists" which implies to me at least that the accuasation was widespread. Bu tmaybe that point is too nitpicky. If the source does say that this took place on that ship then feel free to restore. Or restore it to a more general section rather than one about a ship not mentioned in that part of th article. Thanks. Freakshownerd ( talk) 00:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
EDIT-Misread
Here's the quote from the source:
And, it turns out you're correct about an extra ship: the Sofia and Free Mediterranean are the same boat. I'm restoring and merging the deleted section.-- Carwil ( talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
As per Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Location and the following BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10219391.stm
It might be a good idea to remove reference to "off the coast" as the location of the raid.
Why?
The best thing that I can come up with is to say 'Northwest of Gaza, in international waters'
But I'm very open to suggestions.
Any major opposition to removing "off the coast"? Zuchinni one ( talk) 03:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
A report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Radio National news bulletin 2 PM (GMT+10)on Saturday, 05 June 2010 said the MV Rachel Corrie has been seized. Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 04:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is an RS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10244301.stm Zuchinni one ( talk) 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Despite a few reports that the Rachel Corrie had been boarded, the BBC Radio News cited a passenger on the vessel, about 3PM (GMT+10) Saturday as saying she has not yet been (despite the presence of zodiacs and other vessels nearby). Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 05:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
BBC Radio News has just quoted the IDF: "As of now we have not boarded the ship." Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 05:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation TV news has just reported that Israeli forces have boarded the MV Rachel Corrie. Bernard Macdougall ( talk) 11:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
St.-Sgt. S. - commando who killed 6. The Jerusalem Post, 6.4.2010 http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 IDF.is.Lying ( talk) 06:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"Bayhan said the journalists in the ship including him tried to protect the video footage and photos they took and he hided a small flash disk in which he saved the photos he took on the ship under his tongue but it was noticed by an Israeli doctor during a medical examination and was taken away from him".
Today’s Zaman photojournalist tried to hide flash disk under his tongue, 03 June 2010, Thursday
Yaron Hadany 09:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaron hadany ( talk • contribs)
Why showing a photo of the IDF soldiers and not the terror activists on the boat attacking the soldiers? I think removing the photo will make this article more neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talstol ( talk • contribs) 09:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Sarah777 what do you want? Why showing Israeli soldiers only and not the actions of the people on the ship? If this article is not going to put two pictures of the two sides of this conflict, the best thing to do in order to keep on this article neutral is to remove the picture.
In addition, "This article is so biased in favour of the Israeli position" which is totally wrong, this time the attempt to make the IDF look like "terrorists" didn't work that well so you say it is Pro-Israeli. But what you do not understand is that the IDF used the most human actions this time and many times before, that's why you think it is "biased" - which is not that true actually due to the picture and some of the text in the article. Talstol ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC).
This should be trimmed down to verifiable facts. There is plenty of room for both sides' accusations against each other in the "accounts" sections. Two example concerns are:
1) To the average reader, anything put in the lead appears to be extremely relevant. Some of the bits are, but others, like the Turkish autopsy report, belong elsewhere in the article.
2) As the amount of he-said / she-said has grown, the language has become more POV. For example "angry" activists. Who knows they were angry, perhaps they were just defending themselves. Regardless, this is POV and does not belong in the lead.
These are not the only problems with that paragraph, just specific examples. Zuchinni one ( talk) 09:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The use of the word "raid" is wrong. According to some on-line dictionaries, a raid is: "a search without warning" or "a sudden surprise attack". But it is known that the attack was not sudden or surprise, and there were lots of warning before this took place. So, "raid" should be replaced with something else. Any suggestions? ShalomOlam ( talk) 09:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that this article should be changed into "Gaza flotilla" article and the new article should speak about the whole flotilla subject, and the results. It is not very neutral to make an article about the "RAID" itself, because the "raid" was only a part of the flotilla incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talstol ( talk • contribs) 14:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Article says that the number of passengers injured is 60, but all RS attached to the article do not support this. One of the RS says "several were injured". Other say there were 28 injuries. So I don't know where the number "60" comes from, but it should be removed, if there are no RS. ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Activists on a Gaza-bound Turkish ship seized four Israeli marines before other commandos stormed aboard using live ammunition, a Lebanese cameraman said in an account on Thursday that echoed elements of Israeli testimony. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6521UG Please add this to the article 79.178.42.134 ( talk) 10:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
editsemiprotected
The first sentence of the article now calls the incident a "seizure of ships by Israeli naval forces." Where the commandos and their helicopters part of the Israeli Navy or a "naval force"? -- 62.78.143.66 ( talk) 11:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
"T. said he realized the group they were facing was well-trained and likely ex-military after the commandos threw a number of stun grenades and fired warning shots before rappelling down onto the deck."
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 Saint91 ( talk) 12:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Should we take this source (IPSnews) as reliable source?
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51704
89.138.131.66 ( talk) 12:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Why aren't these displayed in the article when there are so many from the Israeli military?
-- 71.156.87.5 ( talk) 14:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
In my humble opinion, one (not two) photo that is characteristic of international public reaction is entirely reasonable, fitting perfectly alongside WP:SUMMARY. The IP-number user is reasonable with regard to balance and NPOV. Also, a well-constructed, NPOV map of state reactions could be appropriate as well.-- Carwil ( talk) 15:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a very good analysis in Stratfor a few days ago [15] which discusses the raid and what it means for international opinion. Basically it makes the point that the flotilla provoked Israel into a very difficult situation, and discusses the fallout especially with Turkey. It also makes the analogy, which I haven't seen anywhere else, to a situation in 1947 between the Zionists and the British, which was depicted in the movie Exodus. As this is a fairly dense work and this article doesn't yet have an obvious section on "Strategy" or "Geopolitics", I'll defer to those with more experience in I-P editing, but this would make a fine addition to the article. Squidfryerchef ( talk) 15:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Can the killing be classified as a war crime? i know, the victimis were civilians but maybe exactly that is a pro argument.-- Severino ( talk) 16:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone has added this to the intro that some passengers have said that the firing occurred after the start of the on-deck skirmish. I have been following the news and have never seen anything like this. Our article doesn't support this either. Please provide a reference. It would be nice to see who has made the claim; and even if this is the case (it would be interesting to see) we should not mention it as "some have said this", "some have said that" since that is giving undue weight. But let's see the source first.-- DoostdarWKP ( talk) 17:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to split off the "Mavi Marmara boarding" section. The article is getting to long, and splitting will make editing the article easier. Cs32en Talk to me 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
To SALUT: you can be cynical if you want, but I didn't write that. For instance, the mention of live ammunition is probably not true and the person heard stun grenades before landing on the boat which the Israelis and others mentioned in their account. I am suggesting removing the hearsay and reducing the text into a readable consistent account. AFarber ( talk) 22:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I suggest to split off the "Mavi Marmara boarding" section. The article is getting to long, and splitting will make editing the article easier. (This has already been discussed in the preceding section, but the discussion there digressed into loosely related questions concerning the content of the section.) Cs32en Talk to me 03:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice that the 7th ship had the website for FreeGaza.org written in HUGE letters on its deck. They must have known they'd be filmed from above.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ba0iXUzxu0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one ( talk • contribs) 19:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
hm whats so funny about that?-- Severino ( talk) 23:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=366267348
The edit above seems to add POV, but I'd like other opinions. Zuchinni one ( talk) 00:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
So it sounds like everyone would be OK with "On June 1 Witnesses to the Israeli Raid". I'm going to change it, but if the change is controversial you have my permission to revert. Just say why in here :) Zuchinni one ( talk) 00:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
OK.-- Severino ( talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Cs32en Talk to me 01:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Passengers admitted fighting with the Israeli commandos..."
"Passengers say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding..."
These statements are ambiguous as if they could equally easily imply more than one passenger, or all of the passengers.
And both of them are true of some (plural) passengers, but are wrong in the universal sense. So, is this good enough as it is? Or should it be clarified? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 00:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
How should we consider these edits? Salut, -- IANVS ( talk | cont) 01:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Stop edit warring. Thank you, NW ( Talk) 03:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"
The incoming fleet was known to Israel government, military and intelligence. Weeks before May 31 2001- the Israel Navy and General Staff held dozens of advance meetings over and the IDF led preparation for all aspects of the operation. The main military drafters were Israel Navy commander Admiral
Eliezer Marom , Chief of Staff
Gabi Ashkenazi and his deputy, Major General
Benny Gantz. The Israel Navy provided solutions to expected and unexpected circumstances. Benjamin Netanyahu and Edmunt Barrak were complacent that the raid would not raise to big world reactionsCite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). Maariv an Israeli press reported before the raid on May 28 some general aims of operation.
[1]
[2]"
Thoughts? NW ( Talk) 03:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Al Jazeera cameraman Andre Abu Khalil, also aboard the Mavi Marmara, concurs that the initial wave of Israeli soldiers were overpowered but that there were four captured rather than three, who were "brought to the lowest deck (with) fracture wounds".[148]"
The International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages says this:
ARTICLE 1
Any person who seizes or detains and threatens to kill, to injure or to continue to detain another person (hereinafter referred to as the "hostage") in order to compel a third party, namely, a State, an international intergovernmental organization, a natural or juridical person, or a group of persons, to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the hostage commits the offence of taking of hostages ("hostage-taking") within the meaning of this Convention.
Any person who:
attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking, or
participates as an accomplice of anyone who commits or attempts to commit an act of hostage-taking likewise commits an offence for the purposes of this Convention.
Has there been any mention of this?
Faaaaaaamn (
talk)
06:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Helsinki principles [1]
5.1.1 Neutral ships in belligerent ports
A neutral ship in a belligerent port enjoys the same protection against attacks as civilian objects in land warfare… Neutral warships in belligerent ports retain their right of self-defense.
5.1.2 Protection against attacks
(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.
(4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they
(a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(b) act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces;
(c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system;
(d) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
5.2.1 Visit and search … [B]elligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.
5.2.10 Blockade Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.
-- Gilisa ( talk) 06:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
he:המשט לעזה (2010) Unorganised links, IDF commando testimonies and captions are required
Already translated
|
---|
tr:Gazze insani yardım filosu saldırısı
Click for Turkish article Translations
|
---|
===Israel did not allow healing the wounded!===
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) The dialogue with captain of Mavi Marmara during the Israeli raidThe 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. |
el:Επίθεση κατά νηοπομπής ανοικτά της Γάζας
Priority unique accounts that aren't available in English. Kasaalan ( talk) 07:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
From which country did the ship Challenger 1 left from? Is there information about this? Randam ( talk) 08:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Other ships" section is not relevant to this article. Should be removed, or move to "See also" section. ShalomOlam ( talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The section about the "weapons" found by the IDF is a strech because basically anything could be used as a weapon. I think using the word "weapon" gives the article a bisased view of what the IDF considered to be weapons. Throwing a dish over somebody's head could definitely hurt somebody but (I assume that) in most people's minds a dish wouldn't be categorized as a weapon. Likeminas ( talk) 20:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
as the iDF has attacked the ship (in international waters), resistance occured which can be classified as self defence.-- Severino ( talk) 18:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
they werent butter knives any way. even ignoring any pictures or anything, you cant stab and wound someone with a butter knife without super-human strenght. they have a round tip. unles what you consider to be a butter knife is what most people consider a steak knife. 69.115.204.217 ( talk) 01:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
No one disputes that this video depicts activists beating a soldier. No need for hedging in the caption; attributing the video to the IDF is enough for NPOV. If anyone has an RS that disputes the contents of the video, please provide.
I have changed the caption to Snapshot from footage provided by the IDF, showing activists with rods beating a fallen soldier. I argued for this above and several editors agreed.
Discuss here before making changes, please. Enough of the edit warring.
— Rafi 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, a senior Israel Defense Forces officer also spoke at the committee meeting on Tuesday, explaining the details of the IDF's operation on the Gaza flotilla on Monday.
He said that the army had decided against sabotaging a ship in the Gaza flotilla at the center of Monday's deadly clashes, out of fear that the vessel would be stranded in the middle of the ocean and at risk of a humanitarian crisis.
(...)
During his briefing on the operation to the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Colonel Itzik Turgeman hinted that the IDF had sabotaged the engines of the other five ships, saying that "they took care of them."
IDF.is.Lying ( talk) 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. Leave arguments about the legality to the lawyers, then cite the reliable sources that quote them. TFOWR idle vapourings 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article is not NPOV. It heavily supports the Israeli logic of "If we attack you and you defend yourself, then you attacked us and we defend ourselves" by including many photos and views from Israel Army. I suggest it be tagged for NPOV. It is presenting a very distorted image of the incident. -- 94.123.198.52 ( talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
|
# 6 Boarding * 6.1 Mavi Marmara boarding o 6.1.1 Activists and flotilla organizers' account o 6.1.2 Israel's account o 6.1.3 Journalists' accounts * 6.2 Other boardings o 6.2.1 Sfendoni o 6.2.2 MS Sofia o 6.2.3 Challenger One * 6.3 Investigation for on-board weapons * 6.4 Fate of participants * 6.5 Fate of aid cargo * 6.6 Fate of ships
We need a new main header for 6.3, 6.4, 6.5 and 6.6. These are not about "boarding". Header suggestions? -- Kslotte ( talk) 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe something like post-boarding would be good? Zbase4 ( talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Helsinki 5.1.2(3)
State is allowed to attack trade vessels waving neutral country flag if there is reasonable infrastructure to believe they caryy summegled cargo or intend to break naval blockede and although early warnings were given they clearly and delibertly refuse to be stopped, searched, boarded or diverted from course. -- Gilisa ( talk) 06:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The SF Chronicle article ( "Israel's Gaza blockade legal, many scholars say". Sfgate.com. Retrieved June 6, 2010.), prominently cited here and in the legal reactions subarticle, does a very poor job of explaining the methodology of its survey. How many "scholars" were surveyed by the Chronicle? What were their qualifications? How were they chosen? Does "most" mean 60% (3/5), 55% (5/9) or 90% (18/20)? The article answers none of these questions. Of the named sources in the article, you have:
Thus, the scholars quoted are 1 "legal", 1 "probably legal", and 2 "illegal".
I believe that, given these issues with the article, the one "most but not all" sentence from this article is being given undue weight. If the article stated anything which could be evaluated for significance, such as a percentage, I would not be saying this. 187.143.10.134 ( talk) 07:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
In my view both Israeli and Turkish governments knew what would going to happen yet did not back down and chose to use the case for domestic politics. Anyway my additions:
I support. Kasaalan ( talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
While apparently well-intentioned, this section is overloaded, discuss points one-by-one as editors and edits advance them. Respectfully, RomaC ( talk) 19:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
"Aid convoy"? They were mainly pro Palestinian and actually all media sources refered to them as such, the lead is WP:SYN by ognoring that. They were aiming to break the blockade and to pay world attention to it, also, they were instructed to change their course to Ashdod port and to unload there cargo and send it to Gaza through the land crossing, both Israel and Egypt suggested them to do it but they ignored and refused, so calling it "aid convoy" is misleading at best. There is no real dispute any longer that soldiers were attacked while boarding and before even the chance to open fire. It's also supported by the testimony of one Journalist of Al Jazira, certainly not pro Israeli media source, that was on the boat. Changes must be made accordingly. This all flotilla were organised by the IHH, certainly not hnumanitarian organisation. The lead seem to cpoint to Israel's guilt -- Gilisa ( talk) 10:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The aid was only one goal of the convoy. Other goals are political. So saying it is only a convoy of aid is simply not true. ShalomOlam ( talk) 11:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
IHH [17] web-site: F. A. Q. Could you define the Flotilla which is sailing to Gaza in April? It is a civilian initiative that includes various intellectuals, artists, politicians, representatives of nongovernmental organizations and similar figures representing Turkish and European people, that aims to break the embargo of Gaza by sailing to the territory on ships. Not a word about "humanitarian" or "aid". ShalomOlam ( talk) 12:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
of course it is disputed that soldiers were attacked first! -- Severino ( talk) 18:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually most RS call it Aid convoy so we have to follow that, otherwise RomaC has already given a detailed reasoning. -- yousaf465' 04:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Activist Idris Simsek, who was on board one of the six ships of the Freedom Flotilla during the Israeli attack, claims that four wounded activists were thrown into the sea. [18] Can someone with an account add this important information to the article? 206.116.24.143 ( talk) 10:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
If we can use national papers what is the issue with Iranian Tv ?I think we should remove the above mentioned photo. -- yousaf465' 04:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead now includes an Israeli term, "Operation Sky Winds" -- which is innocuous and pretty, suggests a cool breeze rolling across the Mediterranean at dawn. But there are others who characterize the event differently, and that should be reflected as well, because we can't present just one side's narrative. RomaC ( talk) 14:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
your claims about the translation, the procedure how the names was chosen and so forth are OR.-- Severino ( talk) 16:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
One of the main reasons that "Gaza flotilla raid" was chosen as a name, is that most RS seemed to be using that terminology. That name should stay unless people on the talk pages can convince others it needs to change. However it seems perfectly reasonable to mention that the Israelis called the raid "Operation Sky Winds", in the same way that we mention the activists called themselves "The Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Zuchinni one ( talk) 17:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I propose to include the operation name in section Gaza_flotilla_raid#Boarding and having it consistent with Shayetet_13#Gaza_Flotilla_Operation. And maybe add redirect to the boarding section from the operation name (whatever it is, Sky Winds or Sea Breeze). -- Kslotte ( talk) 17:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Would have thought this was contentious enough to merit discussion in advance if adding belatedly and unclear. Edits added just now by a single user to include categories such as Piracy (who officially defines this?) and Political Repression (this was meant to be a non-political aid convoy, I thought?) at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=366392705&oldid=366388728 Regards, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 17:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd taken out three of the four pending discussion. (edit conflict three times whilst trying to reply here!) Thanks, TFOWR; I was wondering whether any of the regs on this article recalled previous discussion on such matters. 'Piracy' did indeed seem the most obviously contentious. Harami2000 ( talk) 17:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I just spotted this one from onboard the ship itself => see http://www.timeslive.co.za/world/article490465.ece/Israel-says-activists-prepared-for-fight-on-ship . Is this "newly released" and/or worth pursuing further? Rather less ambiguous that the night vision shots from the Israeli ship, although I would be in favor of retaining that video clip frame regardless. Cheers, David. Harami2000 ( talk) 17:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Apologies - I should've clarified since this is ambiguous as to whether it was taken 'on deck' or later, 'below decks'... Harami2000 ( talk) 17:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The article below, just published in Haaretz, seems highly significant. A group of senior Israeli Navy officers are calling into question the reaction of the Israeli government to the events. Any thoughts as to how (or whether) it should be used?
A few paragraphs from the article:
A group of top Israel Navy reserves officers on Sunday publicly called on Israel to allow an external probe into its commando raid of a Gaza-bound humanitarian aid flotilla last week, which left nine people dead and several more wounded. In a letter to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, the Navy officers denounced the commando raid as having "ended in tragedy both at the military and diplomatic levels…
"First and foremost, we protest the fact that responsibility for the tragic results was immediately thrust onto the organizers of the flotilla," wrote the officers. "This demonstrates contempt for the responsibility that belongs principally to the hierarchy of commanders and those who approved the mission. This shows contempt for the values of professionalism, the purity of weapons and for human lives." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.113.64 ( talk) 21:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Pro-Israel folks, we've done a good job with this piece in getting our perspective across, so I suggest that we move on to other wiki articles of vital relevance to our interests, no? At any rate, it's good to see some of our hard work pay off. 67.180.26.60 ( talk) 06:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
If I remember right, this IP have repeatedly commented here and left anti-israeli unreliable sources on this TP. His/her comments were always deleted from the TP by several editors and his/her editing is considered distrupting. The reeason I don't delete them now is because Sean.hoyland replied him/her and I don't want to delete his comment as well. Using the term Pro-Israel folks just meant to create the appearance of Pro Israeli bias, which is the farest thing this article can be described as. --
Gilisa (
talk)
06:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Faaaaaaamn, I think, was right in removing this section as vandalism hence no reason given. However, Sean.hoyland reverted challenging for a reason, which Faaaaaaamn did not give when deleting again. If Gilisa is right, and I have no reason to doubt, this was placed here for malicious reasons, to suggest that this article is biased and to try get "pro-Israel folks" away from the article so that they can then push their POV. I suggest that this section be speedily archived. 930913( Congratulate/ Complaints) 07:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Collection of articles against IHH activists and IDF commandos along with general and other related articles, eyewitness accounts. In progress. Please add links so that we have a better collection. Kasaalan ( talk) 08:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)