This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm not entirely convinced this page should exist. As a significant contributor to the 2010 Thai military crackdown, I took note that there was no page for international reaction. The reasoning behind the decision was that it violated several Wikipedia standards, including the following:
* WP:MEMORIAL * WP:RECENT
Even though the Israeli-Arab conflict often evokes powerful emotions from readers, using the precedent set in that article, it is my belief that this article should be considered for deletion.
See Talk:2010_Thai_military_crackdown#International_Reaction for the arguments used. And, if this article is let to stand, why it was not allowed to stand in the case of the 2010 Thai military crackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixer Fixer ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with this page, indeed the international reaction to Israeli action is very important, especially since close allies like Turkey, Britain and USA have all re-acted negatively. -- Welshsocialist ( talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is, this page is solely an anti-Israel propaganda page trying to convince people of Israel's wrong doing. This page needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.162.116 ( talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:MEMORIAL certainly doesn't apply. WP covers recent and breaking events - and certainly ones major enough to feature on the main page. If this wasn't here, it would need to be incorporated back into the main article. But feel free to try for an WP:AFD. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as I see, there are more international reactions to this incident than to the Thai crisis. Voicing demands, condemnations etc. are more forceful and relevant reactions than expressing the wish for non-violence, as was the general position of most international countries and organizations with regard to the Thai crisis. The incident is generally not being regarded as a (mostly) internal affair of one country. Cs32en Talk to me 23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This page draws more parallels from Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake than the Thai Military Crackdown. I think it should remain. The article so far has remained matter-of-fact and has not breached NPOV (as far as I can tell). Should it do so, then it's certainly cause for considering deletion. -- Topperfalkon ( talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This page should remain as it is of historical interest the largely negative reaction Israel received for this incident is something that has not been seen before. Rarian rakista ( talk) 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to update the image to include Sudan? -- can dle • wicke 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Some Turkey-Isreal reactions: [1] (source from main article) -- Kslotte ( talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Prof Ove Bring of Uppsala and Stockholms Universities, advisor to the Foreign Department of Sweden, claims that the Israeli attack is a clear violation of international Public International Law in peace time, and that the security zone of Israel is something that the Israel have set up by themselves. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3741823 Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 04:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Karsten Buhl et al from Center for Militære Studier (CMS) at Københavns Universitet agrees with the statements by Ove Bring above http://politiken.dk/udland/article984082.ece .. although it is not clear to me how this belongs in this very specialized sub-article MX44 ( talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I want to add material regarding the international law:
LINK:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/57jmsu?opendocument
QUOTE FROM LINK:
"
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) 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 or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system; " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomentality ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As discusssed above regarding the map, combining criticism and condemnation together is inappropriate and gives the wrong impression. Additionally, many of those nations currently listed in that category don't actually fit. Such as France, the UK, and Portugal (to name 3 major European powers). How about revert it back to how it was rather than rewrite the same information from the map in a different format, information already being discussed here regarding its questionable clarity and accuracy? 24.46.71.166 ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added a bit of info to Spain, but I am unable to add the source. I took it from europapress. If anyone could add it I would be grateful, if not, I will do it myself tonight. Leirus ( talk) 08:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
For updating this will be helpful. Google news.-- yousaf465' 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[2] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's what's written in the article: "In Azerbaijan political scientist Fikret Sadikhov expressed concern: “The fact that Turkey is against Israel’s actions may worsen our ties with Israel since Turkey is our ally and our positions coincide in most issues. However, we understand that we have quite close partner relations with Israel which we would not like to worsen." Commenting on the event, he said, "if these are civil ships, the Israelis have gone beyond the frameworks of their military capacities which can certainly worsen the situation."[54]"
First of all, why is the personal opinion of this guy being presented here as the Azerbaijani reaction to this clash? He's just a political scientist - he can't speak on behalf of anything or anyone except himself. Second, if you want something really official, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement in which it voiced its concern, called for an investigation, expressed its wish that those responsible for the attack be punished, reiterated its readiness to provide humanitarian aid to Palestine, and once again stated its position concerning the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, i.e. that Azerbaijan, literally, 'supports the (co)-existence of two sovereign states with equal rights: Israel and Palestine'. Here's the link: http://day.az/news/politics/212019.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 ( talk) 12:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe it should be mentioned that even inside Israel there are a lot of voices opposing the raid, with labels raging from "fiasco" to "a sea of madness". See for example the first page of Haaretz newspaper, 31 May. Almost all of the articles are negative towards the raid operation. I'm not sure as to how to insert this in the article, I might give it a try later on, but those of you more knowledgeable of the whole thing maybe would do a better job. -- Steloukos ( talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
According to their head they sent a letter to the belligerent party.-- yousaf465' 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to remind all users of WP:LEAD.
We should definitely summarize the reactions of countries. This is because the policy states:
The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.
Reactions of countries are important, because more than half the article is just about them.
Furthermore,
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
Hence, we need a way to summarize the countries' reactions such that the lead can be "a concise version" of the article on its own.
The size of the lead of this article should be "Three or four paragraphs" because this article is "More than 30,000 characters" (it is around 80,000 characters).
Also, the lead doesn't necessarily need sources, though I can copy and paste them if anyone wishes:
Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.
Hope this clears up things about the lead. I also, hope users will not remove relevant material from the lead after reading this. Bless sins ( talk) 02:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we need this here? Maybe a wikilink to that page, but a "see also" doesnt warrant its space here as the section is not about "supranational" its only about the reaction/statement from them. Lihaas ( talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
this cover up {not in soutce} finf. Why to do that? Ai 00 ( talk) 07:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Almost near another split, article is 90k and in the next few days will more than likely see some more with more protests planned in europe (and elsewhere). Friday prayers in the islamic world this week should give some fodder for news. Lihaas ( talk) 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas ( talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the protests in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan under the reaction headline, inc source: [5]. Neftchi ( talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
the WP article on Holy See makes it quite clear that, despite the ambiguous use of "Vatican", it is the Holy See which " maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations.[10] Foreign embassies are accredited to the Holy See, not to the Vatican City, and it is the Holy See that establishes treaties and concordats with other sovereign entities. When necessary, the Holy See will enter a treaty on behalf of the Vatican City."
even the article linked after it is listed under "V" for "Vatican" says "Santa Sede", which is Italian for Holy See:
" Medio Oriente: assalto israeliano a pacifisti, Vaticano "preoccupato"
31 Maggio 2010 12:36 ESTERI CITTA' DEL VATICANO - Grande preoccupazione e dolore sono stati espressi dalla Santa Sede per l'attacco di Israele alla flottiglia che stava portando aiuti umanitari a Gaza: sentimenti riferiti da padre Federico Lombardi, direttore della Sala Stampa vaticana. (RCD) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.238.137 ( talk) 16:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
cant be bovvered to de-undo the action of the person who changed it back to Vatican though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.238.137 ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Activists have been given a warm welcome in Turkey. BBC news-- yousaf465' 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Note WP:MOSFLAG: "Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance" and "Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations". The article need some clean-up. -- Kslotte ( talk) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The current map at the top of this article has been the subject of A LOT of debate. Most of that debate can be found here Discussion on Reactions Page and here Discussion on Flotilla Page, either directly on the Talk pages or in links presented on these talk pages.
At this point there seem to be strong opinions on both sides and it would probably be best to temporarily take down the map until a consensus is reached either through the talk sections or via an Request for Comment or Third Opinion.
Zuchinni one ( talk) 08:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Baharyakin has added the map again. I removed it. Maybe we should vote on it? ShalomOlam ( talk) 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently throughout the article nations are divided into two categories:
This division is misleading as it means nations such as Australia are put into the first category. In fact, statements by the Prime Minister of Australia are variants of:
"the Australian Government condemns any use of violence under the sorts of circumstances that we have seen." (7th last paragraph from the transcript here: [1] )
This could be considered a condemnation of Israel, the activists, or both. At the moment, this page interprets it as a condemnation of Israel (see the red colouring for Australia on the map at the top of the page).
I propose a third category, "States that have condemned the use of violence by parties involved in the incident" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.102 ( talk) 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are some pictures of a protest in Turkey. Mabe you want to choose one for this article.-- Kimdime ( talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Music video satire of the event. I think it belongs on the page as part of the reaction. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broad Wall ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the talk page on the main article There has been a lot of demonstrations around the world. In Sweden more than 21 different demonstrations with the one in Gothenburg with more than 4000 people (reference: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.380323-protest-samlade-tusentals).
There is photos of that demonstration in the commons: File:Demonstration against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza May 31st 2010 (4).jpg to mention one.
Could someone with more wikipedia experience please add this or to the Swedish reactions or start a new category for demonstrations? Averater ( talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded some from the protest in Stockholm (we have a WP:RS for about 7000 persons [7]) to Commons:Category:Gaza flotilla clash. // Liftarn ( talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are there only photos from anti-Israeli demonstrations? There have been plenty of ones in support of Israel. Does this not violate NPOV? Examples: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 82.102.159.23 ( talk) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why was the map removed? How it is WP:OR? All the sources are in the article. Such maps exist on International recognition of Kosovo, International reaction to the Gaza War etc. Bless sins ( talk) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been involved in a discussion about the map on the main page of the event. The more I look at it the bigger of a problem I have. For example, look at the UK response to currently in this article
I don't understand why you label the entire UK as condemning Israel when that has only come from Scotland and Ireland. This map seems to be more of an editorial than a fact.
If the map is to be included it should be clear, factual, and non-editorial. Zuchinni one ( talk) 04:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a bit of a discussion I was having with Bless Sins on his talk page. I hope this helps to clarify concerns over the map.
I hope that this has helped. Zuchinni one ( talk) 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Zucchini One - Ireland has not been part of the United Kingdom for 88 years now. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not OR as most maps on WP are made by users from RS.
Regarding the three-colour division:
1) countries that condemned/protested the action
2) those that did not
3) No statements/No data
This should be quite unproblematic.
Since every country/organization demanded an inquiry and every one of them expressed sympathy for the losses, the only remaining distintion is between direct criticism of Israel vs. criticism of the actions by Israel. And the former is absolutely irrelevant as far as the actions carried on by Israel (the main topic of this article) is concerned.
No problem then. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk | cont) 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with you regarding the German example. What is important here is the protest of the action, and not for the blockade. Regarding the sympathy for the losses, maybe it is not a politically relevant issue after all, so we maybe should avoid that distinction as a whole.
Now about the gradation in diplomatic terminology: you are absolutely right about it beign a much more complicated subject than a simple yes/no. However, it should be possible to draw a significative line (or two, or maybe three), in the same way many editors have done over many WP geopolitical maps before.
New division proposal
1)Codemnation of Israeli actions
2)Protestation of one or more aspects of Israeli actions
3)Demand for an inquiry w/o further criticism
4)Support of Israeli Action
5)No data/No statements.
Salut, -- IANVS ( talk | cont) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the focus. The important question is about the legality of the Israeli action, and/or some of its aspects. If the Israeli action is protested for any reason or reasons, or entirely condemned, it is unimportant then if the same State do understand the Israeli motives to do it, or if it condemn the existence of the State of Israel, or if it regret the loss of life. On the contrary, it would be relevant if a State blame the flotilla for the incident, supporting Israeli justification for its action. But maybe we should state more clearly that this legality/legitimacy issue is the focus of this debate. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk | cont) 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Turkish reactions need to go either to the Other countries or the Non-EU members sections. -- 87.202.65.120 ( talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
well i think it should be in the European/Non-EU members section, because, although Turkey isn't a EU country it's an European country which continues entry negotiations with the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.169.176.190 ( talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved Turkish reactions to Non-EU section, as it was there before recent edits. Kavas ( talk) 21:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
President of the Czech Senate Přemysl Sobotka said: "The flotilla was a planned provocation designed to drag Israel into a trap. Many in the European community think like me, but are afraid to express their position publicly". http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/115/283.html ShalomOlam ( talk) 11:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
[17] Lihaas ( talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Here it is, see it before the copyright guys knock at my door.-- yousaf465' 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Israel declared the Gaza Strip sulaikysiantis all ships to achieve mėginsiančius Published: 1 June 2010. 11:34 15min.lt
AFP / "Scanpix 'brief. / Israel opened fire on peaceful vessels.
Photo: Israel fired at the ship which carried the charity, killing dozens of people Photo: Around the world - the Israeli attack perturbations Israel will not allow any ships to reach the Gaza Strip on Tuesday warned one of the country's high military official. Increase text of the article Reduce the text of the article
Meanwhile, activists supporting the Palestinians promised to try to re-run enclave of the blockade, although their attempt was frustrated by a bloody Israeli Navy commando attack. "Will not allow any ships to reach the Gaza Strip and the supply of stocks terrorist base became the site that poses a risk to the heart of Israel" - Deputy Minister of Defense of the Jewish state guernsey Mattan told public radio. This statement comes from Vilnius, where the "freedom flotilla" organizers announced the way towards sending two more ships with humanitarian aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip. On Monday, the Israeli forces before the attack on one of the six ships were sent to kill nine activists. Greta Berlin from the movement of the "Free Gaza" news agency AFP said that the next attempt to break the blockade will be held no sooner than after a few days. "Rachel Corrie" is now the Italian coast, and another vessel tebetaisomas "- stated Mr Berlin.
This section needs to be copyedited immediately. As it stands it is already skewed towards the reaction in the North American media; I fear this will only get worse as more people add to the article. I propose:
Ottre 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I notice that we have a couple of lines under NATO about the invocation of Article 5 of the treaty. But we don't have any RS that mention Turkey asked for, was considering asking for, might ask for or should ask for such a declaration. Or any other member for that matter. So I think it should be removed. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's totally inadequate. Right now the article reads "Thirteen European countries condemned or protested Israeli actions: Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.". It's simply not true. Whoever added this list forgot: Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania and, of course, Turkey. In addition, Cyprus, Denmark and Switzerland summoned Israel's ambassadors.
The line below that reads "Israel was also condemned by Turkey (which recalled its envoy), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States." is inaccurate as well. The reaction of Turkey should be mentioned above, among those of European countries. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the United States did not condemn Israel. Aside from this, Turkey was not the only country to recall its envoy - so did South Africa.
Another thing: I think that the reaction of the Czech Republic should be carefully monitored. Something's fishy about this one. The only link that supports the statement that it 'expressed full support for Israel.' leads to the website of an Israeli news agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 ( talk) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I am informed (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) the U.S. has not condemned the attack. It has joined other countries in urging a full investigation into the incident but no condemnation has been expressed. Is this correct? I ask because I see it on the lead of the article. Likeminas ( talk) 16:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Interpreting Clinton's quote as condemnation of Israel is WP:OR and unacceptable. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's what I found:
This link to a Czech newspaper: http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/tema/zpravy/predseda-ceskeho-senatu-konvoj-do-gazy-byl-planovanou-provokaci/485826&id_seznam=80
apparently confirms that the chairman of the Senate has indeed called the aid convoy a provocation. However, please pay attention to the following passage below in the article (Google Translator is your friend):
"Odlišný postoj od Sobotky mají zástupci české levice. "Reakce Izraele byla naprosto neadekvátní, incident se stal v mezinárodních vodách, jde o porušení mezinárodního práva," řekl ČTK poslanec a zahraniční expert ČSSD Jan Hamáček. Doufá, že i české ministerstvo zahraničí bude žádat důsledné vyšetření incidentu, zvlášť potom, co akci Izraele odsoudila Rada bezpečnosti Organizace spojených národů. Místopředsedkyně sněmovního zahraničního výboru Kateřina Konečná (KSČM) by chtěla, aby Česko ihned podniklo vůči Izraeli diplomatické kroky. "Pokud budeme před tímhle zavírat oči, tak nám hrozí takový průšvih, že se z toho tady všichni zblázníme," dodala. Za nebezpečné označila to, že by česká vláda neodsoudila tento, jak řekla, pirátský akt v mezinárodních vodách." and especially this: "České ministerstvo zahraničí si izraelského velvyslance ke konzultacím kvůli incidentu nepředvolalo. Černínský palác se také nechystá vydat samostatné prohlášení k události, protože souhlasí s vyjádřením ministryně zahraničí EU Catherine Ashtonové, sdělil dnes ČTK mluvčí ministerstva Filip Kanda."
Basically, it says that the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic does not plan to issue a separate statement because it concurs with the statement of the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. Now, the actual statement of the EU foreign policy chief was anything but full support for Israel. I therefore suggest that the words "Czech Republic ... expressed full support for Israel." be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 ( talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead section is a disgrace. It does not reflect the article content, or the reality, is written in obscure words, and could have been assembled by Israeli Government PR. The reaction is in fact, as seen below the lede, almost universally negative, and condemnatory of Israel's actions, with a few countries noting that the convoy might have been a bi provocative (but not denying that it was legal, or that Israel's actions, the Occupation, and the current blockade, are all illegal. 194.186.53.229 ( talk) 07:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Please, be polite and do not present your opinions as facts. The legality of the blockade is in question and there are certainly issues with the lead. I myself am trying to figure how to make it look more coherent... Leirus ( talk) 09:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
over the last few hours there has been an edit war on the lead. instead, lets keep the status quo and discuss any changes. In my opinion, this one before the frequet warring is most neutral as it expressly divides what each said in summation. Lihaas ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
should we have a list for this?there may be monetary or physical donations. already AP reprots donations by Russian and Oman
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please replace the entry on Germanys reaction with the following (between the dashes):
In an unusually strongly worded statement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's office said Israel's response to the ships seemed disproportionate at a first glance. [2] Merkel also said she had urged Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu to lift the Gaza blockade during a phone call both of them had. [3] The German government did not change its point of view that Hamas is the sole cause of renewed violence in the Middle East [4] German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle voiced "deep concern" at reports of deaths when Israeli commandos stormed a flotilla of six activist ships heading to Gaza. [5]
Reasons: 1. It is of great importance that Merkel only made a preliminary assessment of the situation, so the "at first glance" must be reproduced. The Deutsche Welle article is a reference for her statement. 2. Merkel did not "reaffirm" a demand to lift the blockade to my knowledge. If she had ever called for lifting the blockade, a citation for that must be included. 3. That Merkel now has called for lifting the blockade needs to be cited, which I have with the link to the Monsters and Critics article which contains text of German press agency DPA. 4. It is quite important in this context that the blame for violence still lies solely with Hamas according to the German government. A reference for this position is the Spiegel Online article I have cited. 79.221.243.122 ( talk) 14:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change "Isreal" to "Israel" in the section "Results of International Actions", last sentence, because it is misspelled.
Gaandolf ( talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be added into the article? [20] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
how about including the information to contradict the reactions toward Israel and the lack of any reaction/protests/condemnations against N. Korea?
from LA Times's report to TV media (e.g: Foxnews), none are mentioned here or in the [Gaza flotilla raid] article, clearly the clash has antisemitic responses from the world and the edits in these articles on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.126.233 ( talk) 18:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
UK and France call for a International probe [ Kouchner and Hague pressure Israel over Gaza].-- yousaf465' 05:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Arab league is listed as if it is a continent, but its not. Most countries are in Asia so it could go there. OR alternatively, how about a lead section of "parties directly involved" or something of that sort and israel, turkey and the Arabs can go in there. (this was done in ither kosovo or s. ossetia/Abkhazia's int'l reactions, if memory serves) Lihaas ( talk) 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Done and alphabetical. Lihaas ( talk) 11:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it needs a section of its own. -- Cerian ( talk) 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Rasmussen Reports are considered a RS, they seem like they are, but this is actually the first I've heard of them. They recently published the results of a US survey regarding the incident, which if it is a RS, seems like it ought to be included in the article. Here's the link to the page on the results. IMHO it contains many relevant quotes, such as "Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters believe pro-Palestinian activists on the Gaza-bound aid ships raided by Israeli forces are to blame for the deaths that resulted in the high-profile incident." and "51% say Israel should allow an international investigation of the incident." 24.46.71.166 ( talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Per this edit [22], I have temporarily re-added it because it make redundant "demonstrations" as a subject for section + sub-section. Any other ideas for this? Original there was another title which was changed to criticial, we could revert to that or come out with another here. Lihaas ( talk) 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think "States that have protested or condemned Israel" Map should be included for a brief understanding. Baharyakin ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
<- Can you discuss it in the existing sections one of which is in the main article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link to a collection of political cartoons that express a variety of points of view. They're copyrighted, so the best we can do is put them in external links. I thought I'd put them here for discussion first. I think they're appropriate because the collection comes from a variety of sources and represent a variety of points of view [23] Rklawton ( talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
International media section is dominated by American news. If we start to fill other countries media reactions, it may need to have it's own page. Here is my proposal;
1.Create a new page and contain only small part of it in the current article.
2.Reduce the length of American media covarage and add more different nation's media news.--
Cerian (
talk)
19:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Netanyahu's probe + Iran's Red Crescent Society said it would send 2 aid ships possibly backed by the IRGC Lihaas ( talk) 05:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be relevant and informative to add how Turkish PM Erdogan hails the Azerbaijani reaction, see source at [24]. Neftchi ( talk) 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
here: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/118/514.html
He says: "It should be remembered that the prime minister and defense minister (of Israel) suggested all along to allow the entry of humanitarian equipment into Gaza. They have a right to protect Israeli citizens and soldiers. They wanted to make sure no weapons were smuggled on these ships. The soldiers were attacked on the boat. When you have a country that always fighting for excitance and survival - incidents happen and sometimes, unfortunately, even death". ShalomOlam ( talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This file shows a strong reaction and might be considered to include. 76.112.225.183 ( talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Baharyakin ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
[[:File:OctopusNAS1.jpg|right|thumb|A similar Nazi anti-Semitic cartoon, circa 1938--An octopus with a Star of David over its head has its tentacles encompassing a globe.]]
I think the use of cartoons in this article is not a good idea. The cartoons is obviously not antisemitic since it's only a (well founded) critique of the actions of Israel. Equating Israel with Jews may be antisemitism. // Liftarn ( talk)
This isn't about
censorship. The image may be
unencyclopedic and
unnotable. How is it relevant? Has it been portrayed in any reliable sources? In what context are they discussing it? Wikipedia isn't meant for
trolling in either direction, and hopefully none of us take the
bait.--
Nosfartu (
talk)
16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
well the user with the hebrew name (and others) doesn' t seem to have a problem with the "parody" of the israeli group which is mentioned and linked in the article (and also not the israeli state, who he claims persecutes racism and stuff but in fact has distributed the video).-- Severino ( talk) 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
it does seem that it's disputed what is dehumanizing and what is not. see for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eileen-read/the-jerusalem-post-should_b_601857.html -- Severino ( talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey folks, illustrations don't have to be "notable" to be included in an article, and we have no policy that says they do. Illustrations need only be illustrative and the best available (i.e., uploaded with a free license). Since the image in question illustrates a significant point in the article (i.e., its inclusion isn't gratuitous) , the only grounds for removing it would be to replace it with a more suitable image. Rklawton ( talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is nor the gallery of Latuf, neither a collection of cartoons about the Gaza flotilla raid. It is very easy to pick some drawing work from a kindergarten, ask for CC-BY-3.0 license from the owner and publish them here, also it's easy to make derivative work from Latuf cartoon and upload it to commons, but it is useless to put them in article, the same for Latuf cartoon. It is very nice from Latuf that he publishes his works in copyleft license, but it's not enough reason for putting it in the article, Latuf is a very minor cartoonist. The cartoon should be removed from the article. Netanel h ( talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
latuff is the object of hostility but thats not the reason that makes him and his cartoons notable. also, if this cartoon is offensive also the racist video is, which is linked in the article.-- Severino ( talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
in israel, which considers itself always a part of the west, a racist video like the mentioned is not only possible but has even the consent and support of the government..-- Severino ( talk) 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This debate is now closed. Further comments should be made in the formal RFC below. |
i'm not agreed with the text under the cartoon. it's drawn by an brazilian cartoonist. the text makes claims about palestinian/arab medias. in which palestinian/arab newspapers has it been published? it seems inappropriate to lay this text under the cartoon.-- Severino ( talk) 11:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This debate is now closed. Further comments should be made in the formal RFC below. |
There are other cartoonists in the world... If you support adding the Brasilian cartoon into this article, why not Israeli as well? For example:
ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
is this cartoonist notable outside IL? does he have an article on wikipedia, like latuff?-- Severino ( talk) 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This debate is now closed. Further comments should be made in the formal RFC below. |
It is stated in the article that the czech republic condemmed the Israeli action. As an israeli, i'm very aware of the fact that the Czech republic was one of the few countries that didn't condem us- nevertheless, the chairman of the czech parliament declared he supports the israeli action. I would like to know on what source did you base this information. Itay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.117.10 ( talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
As of the timestamp of this post, I am placing editors of this article under a restriction of one revert per 24 hours in an attempt to facilitate talk page discussion. Blatant vandalism may be reverted without regard for this restriction. Anyone who violates this restriction or who "games" the system will be blocked. Vioaltion may be reported directly to an uninvolved administrator or to WP:AE. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Elvis Costello was added here [34], but this is incorrect, he canceled his performance in Israel before the raid as can bee seen reported here on May 18th: [35] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Reactions/probe info:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm not entirely convinced this page should exist. As a significant contributor to the 2010 Thai military crackdown, I took note that there was no page for international reaction. The reasoning behind the decision was that it violated several Wikipedia standards, including the following:
* WP:MEMORIAL * WP:RECENT
Even though the Israeli-Arab conflict often evokes powerful emotions from readers, using the precedent set in that article, it is my belief that this article should be considered for deletion.
See Talk:2010_Thai_military_crackdown#International_Reaction for the arguments used. And, if this article is let to stand, why it was not allowed to stand in the case of the 2010 Thai military crackdown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sixer Fixer ( talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with this page, indeed the international reaction to Israeli action is very important, especially since close allies like Turkey, Britain and USA have all re-acted negatively. -- Welshsocialist ( talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes there is, this page is solely an anti-Israel propaganda page trying to convince people of Israel's wrong doing. This page needs to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.162.116 ( talk) 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:MEMORIAL certainly doesn't apply. WP covers recent and breaking events - and certainly ones major enough to feature on the main page. If this wasn't here, it would need to be incorporated back into the main article. But feel free to try for an WP:AFD. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
As far as I see, there are more international reactions to this incident than to the Thai crisis. Voicing demands, condemnations etc. are more forceful and relevant reactions than expressing the wish for non-violence, as was the general position of most international countries and organizations with regard to the Thai crisis. The incident is generally not being regarded as a (mostly) internal affair of one country. Cs32en Talk to me 23:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This page draws more parallels from Humanitarian response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake than the Thai Military Crackdown. I think it should remain. The article so far has remained matter-of-fact and has not breached NPOV (as far as I can tell). Should it do so, then it's certainly cause for considering deletion. -- Topperfalkon ( talk) 16:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This page should remain as it is of historical interest the largely negative reaction Israel received for this incident is something that has not been seen before. Rarian rakista ( talk) 08:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible to update the image to include Sudan? -- can dle • wicke 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Some Turkey-Isreal reactions: [1] (source from main article) -- Kslotte ( talk) 02:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Prof Ove Bring of Uppsala and Stockholms Universities, advisor to the Foreign Department of Sweden, claims that the Israeli attack is a clear violation of international Public International Law in peace time, and that the security zone of Israel is something that the Israel have set up by themselves. http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=3741823 Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 04:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Karsten Buhl et al from Center for Militære Studier (CMS) at Københavns Universitet agrees with the statements by Ove Bring above http://politiken.dk/udland/article984082.ece .. although it is not clear to me how this belongs in this very specialized sub-article MX44 ( talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I want to add material regarding the international law:
LINK:
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/57jmsu?opendocument
QUOTE FROM LINK:
"
Neutral merchant vessels
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) 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 or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system; " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomentality ( talk • contribs) 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
As discusssed above regarding the map, combining criticism and condemnation together is inappropriate and gives the wrong impression. Additionally, many of those nations currently listed in that category don't actually fit. Such as France, the UK, and Portugal (to name 3 major European powers). How about revert it back to how it was rather than rewrite the same information from the map in a different format, information already being discussed here regarding its questionable clarity and accuracy? 24.46.71.166 ( talk) 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I have added a bit of info to Spain, but I am unable to add the source. I took it from europapress. If anyone could add it I would be grateful, if not, I will do it myself tonight. Leirus ( talk) 08:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
For updating this will be helpful. Google news.-- yousaf465' 09:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
[2] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 10:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's what's written in the article: "In Azerbaijan political scientist Fikret Sadikhov expressed concern: “The fact that Turkey is against Israel’s actions may worsen our ties with Israel since Turkey is our ally and our positions coincide in most issues. However, we understand that we have quite close partner relations with Israel which we would not like to worsen." Commenting on the event, he said, "if these are civil ships, the Israelis have gone beyond the frameworks of their military capacities which can certainly worsen the situation."[54]"
First of all, why is the personal opinion of this guy being presented here as the Azerbaijani reaction to this clash? He's just a political scientist - he can't speak on behalf of anything or anyone except himself. Second, if you want something really official, our Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued a statement in which it voiced its concern, called for an investigation, expressed its wish that those responsible for the attack be punished, reiterated its readiness to provide humanitarian aid to Palestine, and once again stated its position concerning the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, i.e. that Azerbaijan, literally, 'supports the (co)-existence of two sovereign states with equal rights: Israel and Palestine'. Here's the link: http://day.az/news/politics/212019.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 ( talk) 12:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I believe it should be mentioned that even inside Israel there are a lot of voices opposing the raid, with labels raging from "fiasco" to "a sea of madness". See for example the first page of Haaretz newspaper, 31 May. Almost all of the articles are negative towards the raid operation. I'm not sure as to how to insert this in the article, I might give it a try later on, but those of you more knowledgeable of the whole thing maybe would do a better job. -- Steloukos ( talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
According to their head they sent a letter to the belligerent party.-- yousaf465' 17:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to remind all users of WP:LEAD.
We should definitely summarize the reactions of countries. This is because the policy states:
The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.
Reactions of countries are important, because more than half the article is just about them.
Furthermore,
The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article.
Hence, we need a way to summarize the countries' reactions such that the lead can be "a concise version" of the article on its own.
The size of the lead of this article should be "Three or four paragraphs" because this article is "More than 30,000 characters" (it is around 80,000 characters).
Also, the lead doesn't necessarily need sources, though I can copy and paste them if anyone wishes:
Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.
Hope this clears up things about the lead. I also, hope users will not remove relevant material from the lead after reading this. Bless sins ( talk) 02:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Do we need this here? Maybe a wikilink to that page, but a "see also" doesnt warrant its space here as the section is not about "supranational" its only about the reaction/statement from them. Lihaas ( talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
this cover up {not in soutce} finf. Why to do that? Ai 00 ( talk) 07:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Almost near another split, article is 90k and in the next few days will more than likely see some more with more protests planned in europe (and elsewhere). Friday prayers in the islamic world this week should give some fodder for news. Lihaas ( talk) 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Lihaas ( talk) 21:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the protests in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan under the reaction headline, inc source: [5]. Neftchi ( talk) 16:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
the WP article on Holy See makes it quite clear that, despite the ambiguous use of "Vatican", it is the Holy See which " maintains diplomatic relations with states and participates in international organizations.[10] Foreign embassies are accredited to the Holy See, not to the Vatican City, and it is the Holy See that establishes treaties and concordats with other sovereign entities. When necessary, the Holy See will enter a treaty on behalf of the Vatican City."
even the article linked after it is listed under "V" for "Vatican" says "Santa Sede", which is Italian for Holy See:
" Medio Oriente: assalto israeliano a pacifisti, Vaticano "preoccupato"
31 Maggio 2010 12:36 ESTERI CITTA' DEL VATICANO - Grande preoccupazione e dolore sono stati espressi dalla Santa Sede per l'attacco di Israele alla flottiglia che stava portando aiuti umanitari a Gaza: sentimenti riferiti da padre Federico Lombardi, direttore della Sala Stampa vaticana. (RCD) " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.238.137 ( talk) 16:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
cant be bovvered to de-undo the action of the person who changed it back to Vatican though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.238.137 ( talk) 16:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Activists have been given a warm welcome in Turkey. BBC news-- yousaf465' 07:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Note WP:MOSFLAG: "Do not use supernational flags without direct relevance" and "Use of flags for non-sovereign states and nations". The article need some clean-up. -- Kslotte ( talk) 04:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The current map at the top of this article has been the subject of A LOT of debate. Most of that debate can be found here Discussion on Reactions Page and here Discussion on Flotilla Page, either directly on the Talk pages or in links presented on these talk pages.
At this point there seem to be strong opinions on both sides and it would probably be best to temporarily take down the map until a consensus is reached either through the talk sections or via an Request for Comment or Third Opinion.
Zuchinni one ( talk) 08:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Baharyakin has added the map again. I removed it. Maybe we should vote on it? ShalomOlam ( talk) 16:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently throughout the article nations are divided into two categories:
This division is misleading as it means nations such as Australia are put into the first category. In fact, statements by the Prime Minister of Australia are variants of:
"the Australian Government condemns any use of violence under the sorts of circumstances that we have seen." (7th last paragraph from the transcript here: [1] )
This could be considered a condemnation of Israel, the activists, or both. At the moment, this page interprets it as a condemnation of Israel (see the red colouring for Australia on the map at the top of the page).
I propose a third category, "States that have condemned the use of violence by parties involved in the incident" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.102 ( talk) 08:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Here are some pictures of a protest in Turkey. Mabe you want to choose one for this article.-- Kimdime ( talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Music video satire of the event. I think it belongs on the page as part of the reaction. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Broad Wall ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned in the talk page on the main article There has been a lot of demonstrations around the world. In Sweden more than 21 different demonstrations with the one in Gothenburg with more than 4000 people (reference: http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.380323-protest-samlade-tusentals).
There is photos of that demonstration in the commons: File:Demonstration against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza May 31st 2010 (4).jpg to mention one.
Could someone with more wikipedia experience please add this or to the Swedish reactions or start a new category for demonstrations? Averater ( talk) 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I uploaded some from the protest in Stockholm (we have a WP:RS for about 7000 persons [7]) to Commons:Category:Gaza flotilla clash. // Liftarn ( talk) 22:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Why are there only photos from anti-Israeli demonstrations? There have been plenty of ones in support of Israel. Does this not violate NPOV? Examples: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] 82.102.159.23 ( talk) 21:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Why was the map removed? How it is WP:OR? All the sources are in the article. Such maps exist on International recognition of Kosovo, International reaction to the Gaza War etc. Bless sins ( talk) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been involved in a discussion about the map on the main page of the event. The more I look at it the bigger of a problem I have. For example, look at the UK response to currently in this article
I don't understand why you label the entire UK as condemning Israel when that has only come from Scotland and Ireland. This map seems to be more of an editorial than a fact.
If the map is to be included it should be clear, factual, and non-editorial. Zuchinni one ( talk) 04:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a bit of a discussion I was having with Bless Sins on his talk page. I hope this helps to clarify concerns over the map.
I hope that this has helped. Zuchinni one ( talk) 03:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Zucchini One - Ireland has not been part of the United Kingdom for 88 years now. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not OR as most maps on WP are made by users from RS.
Regarding the three-colour division:
1) countries that condemned/protested the action
2) those that did not
3) No statements/No data
This should be quite unproblematic.
Since every country/organization demanded an inquiry and every one of them expressed sympathy for the losses, the only remaining distintion is between direct criticism of Israel vs. criticism of the actions by Israel. And the former is absolutely irrelevant as far as the actions carried on by Israel (the main topic of this article) is concerned.
No problem then. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk | cont) 06:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with you regarding the German example. What is important here is the protest of the action, and not for the blockade. Regarding the sympathy for the losses, maybe it is not a politically relevant issue after all, so we maybe should avoid that distinction as a whole.
Now about the gradation in diplomatic terminology: you are absolutely right about it beign a much more complicated subject than a simple yes/no. However, it should be possible to draw a significative line (or two, or maybe three), in the same way many editors have done over many WP geopolitical maps before.
New division proposal
1)Codemnation of Israeli actions
2)Protestation of one or more aspects of Israeli actions
3)Demand for an inquiry w/o further criticism
4)Support of Israeli Action
5)No data/No statements.
Salut, -- IANVS ( talk | cont) 07:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
You are missing the focus. The important question is about the legality of the Israeli action, and/or some of its aspects. If the Israeli action is protested for any reason or reasons, or entirely condemned, it is unimportant then if the same State do understand the Israeli motives to do it, or if it condemn the existence of the State of Israel, or if it regret the loss of life. On the contrary, it would be relevant if a State blame the flotilla for the incident, supporting Israeli justification for its action. But maybe we should state more clearly that this legality/legitimacy issue is the focus of this debate. Salut, -- IANVS ( talk | cont) 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Turkish reactions need to go either to the Other countries or the Non-EU members sections. -- 87.202.65.120 ( talk) 16:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
well i think it should be in the European/Non-EU members section, because, although Turkey isn't a EU country it's an European country which continues entry negotiations with the EU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.169.176.190 ( talk) 20:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I moved Turkish reactions to Non-EU section, as it was there before recent edits. Kavas ( talk) 21:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
President of the Czech Senate Přemysl Sobotka said: "The flotilla was a planned provocation designed to drag Israel into a trap. Many in the European community think like me, but are afraid to express their position publicly". http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/115/283.html ShalomOlam ( talk) 11:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
[17] Lihaas ( talk) 13:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Here it is, see it before the copyright guys knock at my door.-- yousaf465' 07:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC) Israel declared the Gaza Strip sulaikysiantis all ships to achieve mėginsiančius Published: 1 June 2010. 11:34 15min.lt
AFP / "Scanpix 'brief. / Israel opened fire on peaceful vessels.
Photo: Israel fired at the ship which carried the charity, killing dozens of people Photo: Around the world - the Israeli attack perturbations Israel will not allow any ships to reach the Gaza Strip on Tuesday warned one of the country's high military official. Increase text of the article Reduce the text of the article
Meanwhile, activists supporting the Palestinians promised to try to re-run enclave of the blockade, although their attempt was frustrated by a bloody Israeli Navy commando attack. "Will not allow any ships to reach the Gaza Strip and the supply of stocks terrorist base became the site that poses a risk to the heart of Israel" - Deputy Minister of Defense of the Jewish state guernsey Mattan told public radio. This statement comes from Vilnius, where the "freedom flotilla" organizers announced the way towards sending two more ships with humanitarian aid deliveries to the Gaza Strip. On Monday, the Israeli forces before the attack on one of the six ships were sent to kill nine activists. Greta Berlin from the movement of the "Free Gaza" news agency AFP said that the next attempt to break the blockade will be held no sooner than after a few days. "Rachel Corrie" is now the Italian coast, and another vessel tebetaisomas "- stated Mr Berlin.
This section needs to be copyedited immediately. As it stands it is already skewed towards the reaction in the North American media; I fear this will only get worse as more people add to the article. I propose:
Ottre 14:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I notice that we have a couple of lines under NATO about the invocation of Article 5 of the treaty. But we don't have any RS that mention Turkey asked for, was considering asking for, might ask for or should ask for such a declaration. Or any other member for that matter. So I think it should be removed. -- JGGardiner ( talk) 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
It's totally inadequate. Right now the article reads "Thirteen European countries condemned or protested Israeli actions: Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.". It's simply not true. Whoever added this list forgot: Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Lithuania and, of course, Turkey. In addition, Cyprus, Denmark and Switzerland summoned Israel's ambassadors.
The line below that reads "Israel was also condemned by Turkey (which recalled its envoy), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States." is inaccurate as well. The reaction of Turkey should be mentioned above, among those of European countries. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the United States did not condemn Israel. Aside from this, Turkey was not the only country to recall its envoy - so did South Africa.
Another thing: I think that the reaction of the Czech Republic should be carefully monitored. Something's fishy about this one. The only link that supports the statement that it 'expressed full support for Israel.' leads to the website of an Israeli news agency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 ( talk) 12:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As far as I am informed (and please, correct me if I'm wrong) the U.S. has not condemned the attack. It has joined other countries in urging a full investigation into the incident but no condemnation has been expressed. Is this correct? I ask because I see it on the lead of the article. Likeminas ( talk) 16:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Interpreting Clinton's quote as condemnation of Israel is WP:OR and unacceptable. Breein1007 ( talk) 01:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's what I found:
This link to a Czech newspaper: http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/tema/zpravy/predseda-ceskeho-senatu-konvoj-do-gazy-byl-planovanou-provokaci/485826&id_seznam=80
apparently confirms that the chairman of the Senate has indeed called the aid convoy a provocation. However, please pay attention to the following passage below in the article (Google Translator is your friend):
"Odlišný postoj od Sobotky mají zástupci české levice. "Reakce Izraele byla naprosto neadekvátní, incident se stal v mezinárodních vodách, jde o porušení mezinárodního práva," řekl ČTK poslanec a zahraniční expert ČSSD Jan Hamáček. Doufá, že i české ministerstvo zahraničí bude žádat důsledné vyšetření incidentu, zvlášť potom, co akci Izraele odsoudila Rada bezpečnosti Organizace spojených národů. Místopředsedkyně sněmovního zahraničního výboru Kateřina Konečná (KSČM) by chtěla, aby Česko ihned podniklo vůči Izraeli diplomatické kroky. "Pokud budeme před tímhle zavírat oči, tak nám hrozí takový průšvih, že se z toho tady všichni zblázníme," dodala. Za nebezpečné označila to, že by česká vláda neodsoudila tento, jak řekla, pirátský akt v mezinárodních vodách." and especially this: "České ministerstvo zahraničí si izraelského velvyslance ke konzultacím kvůli incidentu nepředvolalo. Černínský palác se také nechystá vydat samostatné prohlášení k události, protože souhlasí s vyjádřením ministryně zahraničí EU Catherine Ashtonové, sdělil dnes ČTK mluvčí ministerstva Filip Kanda."
Basically, it says that the Foreign Ministry of the Czech Republic does not plan to issue a separate statement because it concurs with the statement of the EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton. Now, the actual statement of the EU foreign policy chief was anything but full support for Israel. I therefore suggest that the words "Czech Republic ... expressed full support for Israel." be removed from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.94.230 ( talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
The lead section is a disgrace. It does not reflect the article content, or the reality, is written in obscure words, and could have been assembled by Israeli Government PR. The reaction is in fact, as seen below the lede, almost universally negative, and condemnatory of Israel's actions, with a few countries noting that the convoy might have been a bi provocative (but not denying that it was legal, or that Israel's actions, the Occupation, and the current blockade, are all illegal. 194.186.53.229 ( talk) 07:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Please, be polite and do not present your opinions as facts. The legality of the blockade is in question and there are certainly issues with the lead. I myself am trying to figure how to make it look more coherent... Leirus ( talk) 09:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
over the last few hours there has been an edit war on the lead. instead, lets keep the status quo and discuss any changes. In my opinion, this one before the frequet warring is most neutral as it expressly divides what each said in summation. Lihaas ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
should we have a list for this?there may be monetary or physical donations. already AP reprots donations by Russian and Oman
{{
editsemiprotected}}
Please replace the entry on Germanys reaction with the following (between the dashes):
In an unusually strongly worded statement, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's office said Israel's response to the ships seemed disproportionate at a first glance. [2] Merkel also said she had urged Israels Prime Minister Netanyahu to lift the Gaza blockade during a phone call both of them had. [3] The German government did not change its point of view that Hamas is the sole cause of renewed violence in the Middle East [4] German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle voiced "deep concern" at reports of deaths when Israeli commandos stormed a flotilla of six activist ships heading to Gaza. [5]
Reasons: 1. It is of great importance that Merkel only made a preliminary assessment of the situation, so the "at first glance" must be reproduced. The Deutsche Welle article is a reference for her statement. 2. Merkel did not "reaffirm" a demand to lift the blockade to my knowledge. If she had ever called for lifting the blockade, a citation for that must be included. 3. That Merkel now has called for lifting the blockade needs to be cited, which I have with the link to the Monsters and Critics article which contains text of German press agency DPA. 4. It is quite important in this context that the blame for violence still lies solely with Hamas according to the German government. A reference for this position is the Spiegel Online article I have cited. 79.221.243.122 ( talk) 14:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}} Please change "Isreal" to "Israel" in the section "Results of International Actions", last sentence, because it is misspelled.
Gaandolf ( talk) 17:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be added into the article? [20] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 13:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
how about including the information to contradict the reactions toward Israel and the lack of any reaction/protests/condemnations against N. Korea?
from LA Times's report to TV media (e.g: Foxnews), none are mentioned here or in the [Gaza flotilla raid] article, clearly the clash has antisemitic responses from the world and the edits in these articles on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.126.233 ( talk) 18:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
UK and France call for a International probe [ Kouchner and Hague pressure Israel over Gaza].-- yousaf465' 05:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The Arab league is listed as if it is a continent, but its not. Most countries are in Asia so it could go there. OR alternatively, how about a lead section of "parties directly involved" or something of that sort and israel, turkey and the Arabs can go in there. (this was done in ither kosovo or s. ossetia/Abkhazia's int'l reactions, if memory serves) Lihaas ( talk) 09:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Done and alphabetical. Lihaas ( talk) 11:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it needs a section of its own. -- Cerian ( talk) 19:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if Rasmussen Reports are considered a RS, they seem like they are, but this is actually the first I've heard of them. They recently published the results of a US survey regarding the incident, which if it is a RS, seems like it ought to be included in the article. Here's the link to the page on the results. IMHO it contains many relevant quotes, such as "Forty-nine percent (49%) of U.S. voters believe pro-Palestinian activists on the Gaza-bound aid ships raided by Israeli forces are to blame for the deaths that resulted in the high-profile incident." and "51% say Israel should allow an international investigation of the incident." 24.46.71.166 ( talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Per this edit [22], I have temporarily re-added it because it make redundant "demonstrations" as a subject for section + sub-section. Any other ideas for this? Original there was another title which was changed to criticial, we could revert to that or come out with another here. Lihaas ( talk) 13:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
I think "States that have protested or condemned Israel" Map should be included for a brief understanding. Baharyakin ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
<- Can you discuss it in the existing sections one of which is in the main article ? Sean.hoyland - talk 17:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link to a collection of political cartoons that express a variety of points of view. They're copyrighted, so the best we can do is put them in external links. I thought I'd put them here for discussion first. I think they're appropriate because the collection comes from a variety of sources and represent a variety of points of view [23] Rklawton ( talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
International media section is dominated by American news. If we start to fill other countries media reactions, it may need to have it's own page. Here is my proposal;
1.Create a new page and contain only small part of it in the current article.
2.Reduce the length of American media covarage and add more different nation's media news.--
Cerian (
talk)
19:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Netanyahu's probe + Iran's Red Crescent Society said it would send 2 aid ships possibly backed by the IRGC Lihaas ( talk) 05:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be relevant and informative to add how Turkish PM Erdogan hails the Azerbaijani reaction, see source at [24]. Neftchi ( talk) 12:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
here: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/118/514.html
He says: "It should be remembered that the prime minister and defense minister (of Israel) suggested all along to allow the entry of humanitarian equipment into Gaza. They have a right to protect Israeli citizens and soldiers. They wanted to make sure no weapons were smuggled on these ships. The soldiers were attacked on the boat. When you have a country that always fighting for excitance and survival - incidents happen and sometimes, unfortunately, even death". ShalomOlam ( talk) 05:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This file shows a strong reaction and might be considered to include. 76.112.225.183 ( talk) 15:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Baharyakin ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
[[:File:OctopusNAS1.jpg|right|thumb|A similar Nazi anti-Semitic cartoon, circa 1938--An octopus with a Star of David over its head has its tentacles encompassing a globe.]]
I think the use of cartoons in this article is not a good idea. The cartoons is obviously not antisemitic since it's only a (well founded) critique of the actions of Israel. Equating Israel with Jews may be antisemitism. // Liftarn ( talk)
This isn't about
censorship. The image may be
unencyclopedic and
unnotable. How is it relevant? Has it been portrayed in any reliable sources? In what context are they discussing it? Wikipedia isn't meant for
trolling in either direction, and hopefully none of us take the
bait.--
Nosfartu (
talk)
16:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
well the user with the hebrew name (and others) doesn' t seem to have a problem with the "parody" of the israeli group which is mentioned and linked in the article (and also not the israeli state, who he claims persecutes racism and stuff but in fact has distributed the video).-- Severino ( talk) 22:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
it does seem that it's disputed what is dehumanizing and what is not. see for example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eileen-read/the-jerusalem-post-should_b_601857.html -- Severino ( talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey folks, illustrations don't have to be "notable" to be included in an article, and we have no policy that says they do. Illustrations need only be illustrative and the best available (i.e., uploaded with a free license). Since the image in question illustrates a significant point in the article (i.e., its inclusion isn't gratuitous) , the only grounds for removing it would be to replace it with a more suitable image. Rklawton ( talk) 19:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is nor the gallery of Latuf, neither a collection of cartoons about the Gaza flotilla raid. It is very easy to pick some drawing work from a kindergarten, ask for CC-BY-3.0 license from the owner and publish them here, also it's easy to make derivative work from Latuf cartoon and upload it to commons, but it is useless to put them in article, the same for Latuf cartoon. It is very nice from Latuf that he publishes his works in copyleft license, but it's not enough reason for putting it in the article, Latuf is a very minor cartoonist. The cartoon should be removed from the article. Netanel h ( talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
latuff is the object of hostility but thats not the reason that makes him and his cartoons notable. also, if this cartoon is offensive also the racist video is, which is linked in the article.-- Severino ( talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
in israel, which considers itself always a part of the west, a racist video like the mentioned is not only possible but has even the consent and support of the government..-- Severino ( talk) 16:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
This debate is now closed. Further comments should be made in the formal RFC below. |
i'm not agreed with the text under the cartoon. it's drawn by an brazilian cartoonist. the text makes claims about palestinian/arab medias. in which palestinian/arab newspapers has it been published? it seems inappropriate to lay this text under the cartoon.-- Severino ( talk) 11:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
This debate is now closed. Further comments should be made in the formal RFC below. |
There are other cartoonists in the world... If you support adding the Brasilian cartoon into this article, why not Israeli as well? For example:
ShalomOlam ( talk) 10:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
is this cartoonist notable outside IL? does he have an article on wikipedia, like latuff?-- Severino ( talk) 17:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This debate is now closed. Further comments should be made in the formal RFC below. |
It is stated in the article that the czech republic condemmed the Israeli action. As an israeli, i'm very aware of the fact that the Czech republic was one of the few countries that didn't condem us- nevertheless, the chairman of the czech parliament declared he supports the israeli action. I would like to know on what source did you base this information. Itay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.117.10 ( talk) 19:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
As of the timestamp of this post, I am placing editors of this article under a restriction of one revert per 24 hours in an attempt to facilitate talk page discussion. Blatant vandalism may be reverted without regard for this restriction. Anyone who violates this restriction or who "games" the system will be blocked. Vioaltion may be reported directly to an uninvolved administrator or to WP:AE. Thank you for your cooperation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Elvis Costello was added here [34], but this is incorrect, he canceled his performance in Israel before the raid as can bee seen reported here on May 18th: [35] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Reactions/probe info:
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)