Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 12

Active discussions
Archive 5 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Asking for consensus to remove two words ( POV )

At line 8 and 9 : " At least seven of the commandos were also wounded—two seriously "

We should remove " two seriously " it's POV. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily just the other were wounded by not seriously. Like the i.spoke perso say "on the other ships no one get scratch", in fact some get broken bones. All true , snaky true, but you cant catch by quoting: ".ijk." <this was lie. 11:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk)
I don't see why that's POV. To me it seems like factual information (and credible) that has been reported by reliable sources. We have much less information about the wounded activists, but that's not a reason not to use the information we have about the wounded IDF. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
But i need has additional words according to IDF two Israeli solders were wounded seriously and five not seriously. There were no independent side to verify 'IDF words' eg the UN, EU, AL or someone considered an independent investigator. It can be added that 4 passengers was killed from close range fire eg 6 inches and 5 from long distance. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree. I don't have a problem with saying something like "the IDF said that two of their soldiers were seriously injured". I would take issue if we were to say "two of the soldiers were seriously injured" without a reliable source to support it (I consider the IDF and the IHH unreliable in matters like this). TFOWR 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

We can add "According to the IDF", but the wording seems okay to me, that is how I think all news items are related. (One IDF man had his ear sliced off, although it was later reattached in hospital.) It would be good if we had infomation about the wounded activists too. Chesdovi (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for this quite biblical[1] healing?
As a general observation, the entire article is rife with unqualified statements of fact that should be attributed. E.g., "according to", "reported that", etc. Particularly with conflicting accounts aplenty, statements of fact should be attributed to sources rather than simply citing the source in a footnote at the end of a bald statement of fact. Other than that I think the article generally reflects strong efforts to maintain NPOV despite the incredible level of controversy. Marbux (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC) OK, there were (at least) 24 activists who were sufficiently seriously wounded to need to be transported by air ambulance back to Turkey; 19 of them on 2 June [1], three of them on 4 June [2] and two of them unknown date but after 4 June. Physchim62 (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A bit more. Israel said that there were seven activists still in hospital after then Turkish planes left on 2 June [3]. That fits with a report I read (but can't immediately find again) that one of the hospitalised activists was Australian, as the Anatolia reports above only refer to Turkish activists plus one Irish citizen. So, 26 activists needing hospital treatment nearly 72 hours after the raid. Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, here's a source that one of the hospitalized activists is Australian. Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"wounded" is factual ; "seriously wounded" is POV like "seriously dead" is POV , but "dead" is a fact. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"Seriously wounded" is a common term meaning life threatening wounds. It's used in the media daily, unfortunately. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Correct, Dead is dead. There are, however, leves of wounds, hence the emphasis when they are serious. This is not a POV adjective. Chesdovi (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Chesdovi. A broken arm is "wounded", but rarely life-threatening: in English, we have the phrase "walking wounded" for people who are hurt but not seriously. At least one Israeli soldier was still in hospital several days after the raid, which seems pretty serious to me – so were many activists, it should be said. Physchim62 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thks, I learn English in the same times ;-) (in English, we have the phrase "walking wounded") So, I understand that , as us, you have words to explain your point of view. This is a POV adjective and purple prose as it on the sentence. U need to be more accurate because the level of gravity is not the same for all of us. Samuel B52 (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Use the medical term "in serious condition," as reported by hospitals in the wounded section. Adjust with other RSs. And relax with the tension.--Carwil (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Some general comments. 1) I suggest that Samuel read up on what POV refers to for wikipedia purposes. What he refers to as POV above is not within the wiki meaning. I recognize he is a new editor, and understand how a new editor can make that mistake. In short, POV refers to a point of view of an editor; not to a RS having a point of view -- if an RS reports something, it is verifiable, and not a POV issue. 2) Saying "the IDF said" is fine. But I would not say that the IDF is unreliable in matter like this. 3) Agree w/the statement that attribution is appropriate where there are conflicting reports on an issue. 4) As to the counting of the wounded activists, there is a danger in adding from different reports of double counting. We already know that one of the dead had dual citizenship. The same can obviously be true of the wounded, with different sources reporting different nationalities. I would stick with one RS that supports a statement as to total wounded, and not mix and match which might lead to overcounting.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
We don't have a single RS for the wounded activists, but we do have two RSs for a single point in time (evening of 2 June) which say that 19 activists were repatriated to Turkey in air ambulances while 7 activists remained in Israeli hospitals: for that single point in time, I don't think there's any danger of double counting. Estimates for the total number of wounded activists vary widely, from about 30 to about 60, hence the use of the vague term "dozens" in the article. Let's hope that one of the investigations into the raid comes up with some sort of criteria for "wounded" and "seriously wounded" and does a tally of the activists based on those criteria: for the moment, there's little more that WP can do. Physchim62 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment: So far as I know there is no standard definition for "seriously wounded". People usually read it as life-threatening wounds, but when the German police count officers seriously wounded during a demonstration the definition is something like "wounds that led to a sick certificate". This is of course not at all the same thing in general. In this case we have no reason to believe that the IDF is using such a ridiculous definition, but it's necessary to read sources with the problem in mind. Hans Adler 09:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The French penal code also uses the criterion of the sick note to classify different grades of criminal assault! Physchim62 (talk) 11:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You are right about our French law. But it depends from points of view made by one or several medicine specialist. We have specialist who make a diagnostic and a another one, or several, for counter analysis. Please also note this fact : the level of gravity will not be the same regarding the situation. Some "seriously wounded" are just "wounded" during a war or a big disaster like after the earthquake in Haïti. The classification is not the same because we need to improve our actions to save people. Some timea "seriously wounded" is just a "wounded" and he can wait for treatment. So "wounded" is a fact and we need to be accurate about it or just say " wounded" because we are on a lead. There is a special section to describe with accuracy how the "wounded" are. Samuel B52 (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate your work in this section. But tere is still hangover
At least seven of the commandos were also wounded.
the bolded words are distraction. I cant believe that the I's reporter cant count up to eight or they cover it up. If there will be 8 they will certainly reported it already given the broken chairs legs they counted as weapons. The word 'also' is for enlarging the I's casualties or to diminish it - distraction. Or if the peoples had to be blinded in dozens what about it can say (one) more than half dozen for the sake of symmetry ?99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree : we should also remove this words At least and also Samuel B52 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If that is what the RS says, it is not a distraction. It is a verifiable (to RS) statement. And appropriate. There are various reasons why the "At least" language might be used, but we don't have to know which is the case (e.g. -- 7 in one hospital, 7 from the helicopter landers, etc.). It's sufficient that the RS says "at least" -- we don't vary what the RS says to suggest that fewer Israelis were wounded. That's POV-by-editor editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The notability of an encyclopaedia is better with no approximation. I think that now, we know exactly how soldiers were wounded. there is no need to do allegation, ambiguity and others things like that ... It's not the WP policy to be like that Samuel B52 (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sourced material

User:Samuel B52 has removed two references in the article to the fact the nine passengers killed were IHH members. [4] [5]
This information is sourced to the Wall Street Journal [6] (see sub-headline) which in his last edit Samuel claims is not a reliable source.
Since I will probably be reported if I try to fix this, could someone else do it? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, in this revert he claims the Australian is not a reliable source, which it is, and that the information does not appear in the source, which it quite clearly does. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The text of the article says "members of or volunteers for". I'm quite willing to put it back in, but I don't think it belongs in the lead where you originally placed it: "activists" presumes that the people on board were reasonably supportive of the IHH, to go further is to presuppose that there is some special status attached to being an IHH member, and that's something which is far from proven. Physchim62 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The WSJ article clearly says the IHH says they were members. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
From the fourth paragraph of the source:

The nine activists known to have been killed in the clash on board the IHH-owned Mavi Marmara were members of or volunteers for the group, Mr. Yildirim said

Of course, everybody on board, apart from the ship's crew, could be said to be a "volunteer" for the IHH, so the source isn't really saying much but, if it helps calm things, I shall place the accurate version of the source in the "deaths" section. Physchim62 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Putting aside your personal opinion on what "could be said", the WSJ sub-headline says:

Group Says Nine Killed Were Its Members

No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So you are incapable of reading four paragraphs of English prose? While you're perfectly capable of writing forty such paragraphs to disrupt this talk page in trying to defend the morally indefensible. Do you honestly believe that a headline is more significant than the text that is below it? OK, I'm really going to take your opinions seriously... Physchim62 (talk) 17:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
@TFOWR: I suppose the above is also "straying close" to a line?
I also have to wonder when one of the multiple people who were lecturing me about the article being too long and that we don't need the opinion of a single person in the IHH section are going to do something about this No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
What did Physchim62 say when you raised the issue with them? If you're not happy with Physchim62's response I'd suggest the next step would be WP:WQA. TFOWR 20:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Which issue? His abusive comments or his lack of consistency on what should or shouldn't go in the article?
If you're referring to the abuse, the next step if I decide to take one will be WP:AE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As for the second diff you provide, Samuel is correct to revert your insinuation: the relevant point is that the IHH is banned in Israel but not in other countries, especially not in the U.S. (because we all know that the U.S. is really lax on extremist islamicist terrorism, don't we). Physchim62 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. IHH was banned in Israel as part of a group. What group it was is relevant. Since you decided it's important to mention the IHH is not banned in the US, it is also appropriate to note that the group the IHH belongs to, was. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for raising this with Samuel B52, I appreciate that.
Samuel B52: as I understand it, sources in languages other than English are OK, if we are unable to replace them with English sources. We prefer English sources, and try to replace non-English sources where possible, but non-English sources are OK if we're unable to replace them. (Itsmejudith - is that correct?)
Beyond that, I've not looked at the edits in question. It would be good if you could both continue discussing here, if that's OK? (If you feel it would be better to continue privately, I've no objection). I'll try and take a look at the edits shortly.
TFOWR 16:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a fair summary of WP policy on sources to me. Physchim62 (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
So, If you change the word and make your own story, may be could you write on a blog ? Please follow the source as well and use the correct words like the reliable source. Samuel B52 (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Said the guy who inserted words into a direct quote [7] claiming he was adding accuracy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
@Itsmejudith: Please use a reliable source to make links and additions as WP policies. Is it clear enough ? Samuel B52 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


Physchim62, I disagree with your comments claiming all activsts were implicitly volunteers with IHH. It can be said that all activists are volunteers with Free Gaza. But IHH is just a subset of the Flotilla, who _may_ have had an overall very different agenda than the Free Gaza people. So, if RS say that all of the dead come from this one particular group, that is relevant and notable. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

All, I disagree with your comments about IHH, because a resume is not a story. If you want to write a story about IHH, there is a special page for that in WP or in a web site. We are talking about a raid not about the list of the US Tresory terrorist list. This is not a James Bond jungle ; we need to follow WP policy. And please keep your allegations about me and keep courtesy. Cheers Samuel B52 (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
If something is WP:V and some editors think that it's relevant, the right way it to subscribe to WP:Don't-give-a-fuckism and let it be. This talk page has a reason. I'm not sure why this information is being removed. Can't you improve it instead of removing? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
What if the information is verifiably incorrect? As in "The Washington Post claimed in a headline that all the dead were members of the IHH, but later in the same article quoted the president of the IHH saying that the dead were either members or volunteers." Physchim62 (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The article did not quote the head of the IHH. Notice the lack of quotation marks. Anyway, any reference to them being members or volunteers was removed from the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It had been removed, yes, and not by me: I restored it here, and it's still there at the moment. Physchim62 (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It was removed from two places. You restored it in one. Could you correct the lead as well? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
No, because I don't think it belongs in the lead. Physchim62 (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Why do you think the fact these people had something like this in common doesn't belong in the lead? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Putting it in the lead would mean that "Wikipedia" (whatever that is) thinks that piece of information is particularly relevant: I don't think it is particularly relevant, not to the point of putting it in the lead. The dead had many other things in common: they were all male, they were all muslim, they all had Turkish parents, etc, etc. What is so special about them all being either members of or volunteers for the IHH? Isn't that something to be expected on a boat kitted out by the IHH for an official mission of the IHH? You are trying to promote a factoid to a status it doesn't deserve, in my opinion. And don't forget, as I mention further down this thread, that the fact that all the dead were connected with the IHH can have multiple interpretations, not all of them the ones I think you're trying to push! Physchim62 (talk) 01:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
As for verifiable information that some editors think is relevant, there are literally thousands of WP:RS which state that the IDF has committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (aka, "war crimes") in the very recent past, and I'm sure that several editors believe that this has some connection with their behaviour on 31 May. Would I be justified in creating a section detailing all the allegations made against the IDF over the past, say, three years in this article on the grounds that it is verifiable from reliable sources and has a connection with the subject of this article? I would promise, of course, to include a sentence at the end stating that the IDF denies all the allegations... Physchim62 (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Doubt is healthy. Is there dispute about WP:V, could you provide disputing WP:RS quotes? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. Maybe you want to improve the phrasing to reflect the source better. Feel free. However WSJ is an WP:RS. Agree, kind of sloppy one. Agree though also with number of other editors - the basic idea is clear. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
At the risk of WP:FORUM, which basic idea? That IHH members were particularly violent? Or that the IDF singled out IHH members for "special treatment" (aka "murder")? There's evidence for both those points of view, which is why we need to be careful in our treatment of sources. Physchim62 (talk) 00:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed not a forum, editors should not treat it as such to promote their opinions. The basic idea is reflected here. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Which RS said that the IDF singled out IHH members for "special treatment"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoa. Abundantly-sourced cause of death is not important enough to go into the lead, but specific aid group affiliation, based on one source, must be there? Why? RomaC (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I thought I was the only editor still arguing against cause of death in the lead?
Agree: the lead should summarise the article, not get drawn into protracted and lengthy discussions about details that belong in the article-proper. People died and were seriously injured. How they died, what organisations they may have belonged to, and what colour is their hair - those details should be kept out of the lead.
TFOWR 09:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is not about what color is their hair. This is a relevant common denominator. If we have room to say they were "pro-Palestinian activists" we certainly have room to say they were IHH members, a group that said their goal was to reach Gaza or die trying. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly relevant to the article. I'd be interested in a convincing argument as to why it belongs in the lead. TFOWR 11:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Because when you have several hundred people from 37 countries belonging to various groups, but only people from one country and one group are killed, it is very unlikely to be a random event. When leaders of that group declared they will reach Gaza or die trying, the fact that all the dead are members of the group becomes even more pertinent. The fact they were all IHH has been very widely reported and is very important to the subject of the article and should be included per WP:LEAD. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that it's been widely reported (if it hadn't, it wouldn't be in the article-proper). I'm asking why, per WP:LEAD, it should be in the lead. Is it a notable controversy? Is it important to the topic according to sources? Simply stating "per WP:LEAD" doesn't help me understand why you feel it should be in the lead. I understand and accept that this is all pertinent to the article-proper - just not why you feel it belongs in the (already excessively long) lead. TFOWR 12:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:LEAD:"The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources".
Do we disagree that according to reliable, published sources this is material is important? I think an argument can be made that both Israel and the IHH have been playing it up, which makes it even more important. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It's certainly important enough to be in the article - no dispute there. Where I do have reservations, which thus far have been unaddressed, is the importance to the topic. I can't see this affecting the reader's understanding of the topic, if it were left out of the lead. TFOWR 13:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It affects the reader's understanding of the topic because the reader won't know that despite having people from 37 countries and various groups (mentioned in the lead), only people from one country and one group were killed (not mentioned in the lead). As mentioned above, this is not random, and it has been widely reported and noted as significant by reliable sources. "Widely reported" puts it in the article. "Noted as significant" puts it in the lead, as far as my understanding of LEAD goes. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now we're cooking! OK, I'd suggest that the first step would be to state why it's notable in the article-proper, then summarise that in the lead. (Or, given that I'm a self-confessed numptie, point me towards the part of the article where the flotilla participants are covered). TFOWR 13:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll wrangle some sources when I have a few moments. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! (And apologies for dragging this out) TFOWR 19:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Nice rationalization. But how do you explain that this was known before boarding. skip next section. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed change

from:

Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered,[4][5] while several activists on board said that the IDF had opened fire on the ship before boarding.[16][17][18]

to:

Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered,[4][5] what several activists on board confirmed that IDF felt endanger before boarding[2] and had opened fire on the ship while boarding.[16][17][18]
  1. ^ Matthew 26:51
  2. ^ " We are afraid that there will be a terror attack by the boats"

The comando was told in advance by its political arm :

(larger quote) This operation was approved by Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak and will be led by the commander of the Navy, Lieutenant Colonel Eliezer Maron, who is nicknamed “Cheney.” If the people aboard the boats will not agree to turn around, the operation will transfer to the stage of force. “We are afraid that there will be a terror attack by the boats,” said a high ranking officer. “If terrorists have gotten on the boats or if there is an intention to use hot weapons against our forces, we will use full seriousness and caution. We want to avoid using force but as soon as there will be danger to the life of our forces we will be forced to use live fire as a last resort.

more 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the proposed change works - I dont see how the activists can confirm the feelings of the IDF. The English of the proposed change also needs to be improved. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is composed sentence, it (try to) unite common and Israeli logic. But you can rephrase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Clovis, the activists has not confirmed what you suggest. --Kslotte (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, what about:

Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered,[4][5] whilewhat not negate passengers statements that the IDF had opened fire on the ship before boarding.[16][17][18]. The use of force was planed before boarding and troop was told they life will be endangered[1]
  1. ^ We are afraid that there will be a terror attack by the boats,” said a high ranking officer. Israeli pres days before the event see more^

I can't see what the proposed change is trying to acheive in terms of improving the article. The Maariv article appeared three days before the raid, so cannot say anything about what actually happened! There's really nothing we can do at the moment to be more precise about when live ammunition was first used: the activists say just before boarding, the IDF says just after boarding, we can only note the two positions. Physchim62 (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I so not see I's(Israelis) saying they didn't fire before boarding. How you get this conclusion form the words in lead ? It just say They fired when they felt they were enlarged. Dosnt say after boarding or before. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

removal of balancing

Marokwitz, please explain why you remove balance of POV ?

see :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368374219&oldid=368372100

It is a important balance of POV. High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for 27 nations is a relevant POV. And I just put it. I will put it again.

And please explain why don't you talk here for that removal ? Samuel B52 (talk) 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I already explained. This is too much detail for a background section. No need for a full set of quotes and counter-quotes regarding the blockade in this context. This article is about the flotilla raid. Those opinions can be added to the blockade article. Marokwitz (talk) 12:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree with Marokwitz. --Kslotte (talk) 13:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I explained that it is a balance POV. We can't remove it without removing the explanation about security POV. Wiki is not a book. We have place speciality to do that balance POV. It is a WP policy to respect balance POV Samuel B52 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the reason for the removal of this material is quite clear. It simply didn't add anything to the article. Lots of quotes and counter-quotes are not an encyclopedic format. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
OK all, please should you follow in next section to find a consensus. OK ? We close this one Samuel B52 (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Ask for consensus to clear the "Background" section and Balance POV .

I think that this section is not for a explanation of the Gaza conflict with too much details. WP have already a page for that which is linked. Do you think that it is relevant to add several links to insist about rocket and prisonier here ? A conflict is a conflict. there is no need to explain each action made during the conflict. So the security argument to explain the blockade and a balance argument seams to be OK to understand the situation. At now, there is more 10 arguments or links for rockets and so. We understand with one link. There is no need to put in all the pages several links for rockets and prisoners.


===> Please have a look at : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid#Background

===> We don't respect POV and it make no sense to repeat same arguments several times.

I ask for a consensus to find a way to improve this part. It could be :

1) = POV = " Israël said blockade is for his own security " ==> a source or citation

2) = balance of POV = " blockade does not make Israel safer " a source or citation


Samuel B52 (talk) 13:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Alternative names

The article title is decided by editors, but we are also meant, in the lead, to note alternative terms used in connection with the event. We currently have "Operation Sea Breeze" from the Israeli side. To me, this suggests a cool dusk, sipping pina coladas on the beach. Idyllic. But, might there be other ways of terming what happened that we should also note in the interests of a balanced perspective? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Provided the alternative terms are commonly used, no argument here. TFOWR 14:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes there are several arguments : => 1) how will we name the next flotillas for Gaza ? => 2) The common name of the flotilla was "Freedom Flotilla" see :=> http://www.flickr.com/photos/freegaza/4599521000/ and :=> http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,698916,00.html. The Flotilla belong to the FreeGaza movement and they called the flotilla "Freedom Flotilla". This is enough relevant for an argument I think. Do we need to count the number of medias which called the flotilla like " Gaza Flotilla" and the others who called " Freedom Flotilla " ? Why can't we use the two or use simply " Freedom flotilla for Gaza" or something like that ? Which is more common to use ? Your personal name or a sobriquet made by journalist ? Samuel B52 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, we don't need to consider future names just yet, not until it happens (at which point we will "disambiguate").
I think there are two, separate issues here:
  1. What the article is called (currently "Gaza flotilla raid").
  2. What alternative names we list in the first paragraph of the lead.
I'm ignoring the first issue for now, though I suspect you're quite right, and it will become an issue sooner or later (there have been several attempts to change the title already. For the record, I opposed them at the time because it was quite soon after the article had been renamed. I'm less concerned about that now).
On the second issue, the first paragraph of an article should state the article name in bold, then list other names (like "Operation Sky Breeze"). The issue here is whether we include another common name or names. I've not looked into this myself, but it sounds as if you believe "Freedom Flotilla" is another common name? What do other editors think? Any other options?
TFOWR 14:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
So this is my question also. We have several common name used. In this case which is more relevant ? I think that the creator name for the moment is more relevant because in newspaper we have the two name used . ( Sorry, I don't understand what means you are going to dodge1. I have no doubt that you are not talking about your car but I didn't find an alternative signification). I'm OK to wait and put the name in bold for that time like your proposal as "Freedom Flotilla". Samuel B52 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I also concur with TFOWR, the article name is not really the issue right now but alternative names which are meant to be noted in the lead. RomaC (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with You. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to move information

The sentences

"Israeli deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon told CNN that MV Mavi Marmara carried 600 peace activists and 75 mercenaries with links to al-Qaeda and other terror organizations. "They were well equipped and ambushed our soldiers. We found the money on their bodies, $10,000 apiece" he said."

at the beginning of the subsection "Israli investigation" are not related to the investigation. While Israel may, of course, include that in its investigation, there is no source in the article that says that this is or will be the case. I ask for consensus to move these sentences to an appropriate place.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Should you give more accuracy please? Where do you want to put that ? Please explain your POV ... Samuel B52 (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no POV involved here. The information could go in a (new) sub-section in "Post-boarding", or in the section "Investigation for on-board weapons", which would have to be renamed in this case.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

{ {collapse top|Comment which is not related to improving the article }}Including RS is a main factor to improve article 244

Do Ayalon or the like pay to the commandos to shot and kill the $10000 priced bodies? Unprecedented merce-mart if is true a but where is it RS?99.90.197.244 (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)|}
when I asked " please explain your POV" it was for asking you to give us your point of view on " how we should modify as your request". It was not about WP policy  ;-) But I agree with you, we should place it in " post boarding " like sub-section. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Sami -- I would suggest again, as I have before, that you read up on wp:pov. I recognize that you are a brand new wikipedian, without any prior wikipedia experience (as are a high number of editors on this page). But if you continue to use a phrase that has a specific wikipedia connotation, in a manner that is at odds with the wikipedia usage, that does not help others understand the point you are trying to make. It's like an American in London insisting on using the word subway to describe a train, while the Londoners understand it to mean an underground pedestrian passage. I hope that helps.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, I understand and I agree , That's why I made a explanation above. Samuel B52 (talk) 17:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
@ Cs32en : I agree with your proposal. We should have more accuracy like that Samuel B52 (talk) 22:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to remove synthesis in lead section

The sentence "But some nations still asked for international investigation." is based on two reports about two governments that demand an international investigation. However, we cannot extrapolate from two examples to making a statement about governments or nations in general. In particular, given previous statements that have not been withdrawn, it rather would seem that not "some", but a large number of nations are asking for an international investigation. Also, "still" seems to imply that nations in general would retract their calls, while "continue to ask" would be a more neutral description. I ask for consensus to remove the sentence from the lead section (and the article), as it is not properly sourced and tends to express a POV.  Cs32en Talk to me  13:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree to replace "but" by ==> "Some nations continue to ask" . But I strongly disagree to remove the sentence from the lead. It resume the international investigation demands. ( Sorry my English is poor ;-) ) Samuel B52 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph starts with the sentence: "Israel has rejected calls from the United Nations and others for an international investigation into its raid on the Gaza aid flotilla." So the information that there is a widespread call for an international investigation is already in the article. The main reason for adding the sentence "But some nations still asked for international investigation." seems to make the reader believe that other nations would have retracted their positions. That's a subtle way to misrepresent the facts, and we shouldn't allow this to remain in the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I explain the process :
1) International demands for international investigation  ; 2) Israël propose an internal investigation  ; 3) Some nations' dont agree with that and continue to ask for international demands. So it's very clear and there is no redundancy I think. Samuel B52 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no inherent contradiction here, of course. However, "some nations" is an extrapolation from two examples and therefore constitutes synthesis Cs32en Talk to me  14:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If you believe that a guy like Ban ki moon who work for the United nations is not relevant, could you explain what is relevant for you, and what is not, please ? this is not a extrapolation when a guy who work for several nation ask for international investigation. I think there is no ambiguity here. I've made a modification as you asked before but now I don't see why you demand that . Samuel B52 (talk) 14:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I really think that you completely misunderstand my arguments, Samuel B52. Of course the position of the UN is highly relevant, and Ban's statement may well be included in the lead section. What is unacceptable is that the sentence "But some nations continue to ask for international investigation." makes readers believe that other nations would have retracted their calls for an international investigation. This is a subtle way of introducing pro-Israeli POV into the article, without proper sourcing, and this is why the sentence should be removed.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What about this quote: somehow it was omitted or removed

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me take the second question first. What the U.N. Security Council called for was a credible, transparent investigation that met international standards. And we meant what we said; that's what we expect.[8]
Please note that "But some nations continue to ask for international investigation" has already been modified. May be should you have a new look and give us your impression at now Samuel B52 (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"Some nations continue to ask for international investigation." is the current wording of the sentence. In my view, removing the word "but" does not change the meaning of the sentence significantly. In particular, it does not remove the synthesis from the sentence.  Cs32en Talk to me  16:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
So, I'm sorry but why did you spoke about that word just before ? I understood that it was a problem for you, as you wrote above. The sentence is important to make synthesis of the situation and for the reader's understanding. It's completely in accordance with a factual situation and with linked ref. Samuel B52 (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You are writing "The sentence is important to make synthesis", yet synthesis is exactly what Wikipedia policy is strongly urging us to avoid. As arguments in discussion on Wikipedia are judged and weighted based on the extent to which they are derived from Wikipedia policies and guideline, please provide such arguments that follow from those policies and guidelines.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
according synthesis I agree with you that we should give more accuracy. So, because for the moment I found two nations and Ban ki moon as a United nations representative, I propose something like that " Ireland, Turkey, and United nations , in the person of Ban ki moon, continue to ask for international investigation ". And now we are in accordance with synthesis. What do you think about that proposal ? Samuel B52 (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Since no countries watsoever did support the Israeli investigation AFAIK, it is not SYNTH to suppose the international position in this regard stays the same. If you want, find some country (US?) that did support the Israeli investigation and write: "by now, just US has supported this initiative". Otherwise you'll be doing some kind of SYNTH. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 09:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I understand you point of view. We should add the term "institution" and the accuracy about US position. So and like that : "Ireland, Turkey, and United nations institution, in the person of Ban ki moon, continue to ask for international investigation. In his side, US support the Israeli proposal of a domestic commission ". Do you think it's better ? Samuel B52 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
What I tried to say is that many countries demanded an independent investigation (i.e. not by a party involved) and did not yield that position when Israel announced this investigation. So, lacking official statements on the contrary, it is SYNTH to suppose that they did accept the intiative. Is it clearer now? Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 09:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes it's clear, but the sentence don't talk about any kind of acceptance. It just explain the process of a sort of diplomacy work. One side continue to ask for international investigation and the other side support a domestic commission. Where do you read that there is a lacking official statements please ? We show, I think, that there is two different points of view in this affair, because we have the two terms " international investigation" and "domestic commission" and the two side. This is the fact, isn't it ? Or may be could you make a proposal of exact sentence you prefer ? Samuel B52 (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer removing the current sentence just to add what (if any) countries do explicitly support the "domestic investigation". As far as we consider that no other country had explicitly renounced its demand for an independent investigation, this is the most appropiate way to deal with the issue. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 10:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Because we don't have the result at now, and because we don't do any kind of allegation on the result of diplomacy work, I prefer to keep the sentence with the accuracy you mentioned above. And when we will have the result, we should change the sentence with exact country's position. At now, it is a kind of reminder of what is the actual situation I think. So, this is why I don't agree to delete complete sentence as I understand you ask. I agree to add accuracy if we have official position about specifics country's. Do you have some RS links about officials positions for the investigation to do that ? Samuel B52 (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid, and do not forget to mention all the countries that did demand an independent investigation and did not yield to the Israeli proposal. Otherwise, your sentence would remain quite unbalanced. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 10:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
as you suggest above, there is a special section here Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid to describe the exact positions of different countries. Why should we repeat this work in the lead ? This is just a resume according synthesis and Lead policies. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Then I propose: "As of now, the Israeli "domestic investigation" announce was explicitly opposed/critized by X, Y and Z. Dozens of countries that had demanded an independent investigation before, however, did not explicitly approve the Israeli proposal." Salut, out to watch Argentina. --IANVS (talk | cont) 11:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any opposition for that, except the respect of WP policies about what is a Lead and a synthesis. Also, please note that there is a difference between "condemnation" and "investigation" after Israeli assault like in Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid and "investigation" or "condemnation" about the Gaza blockade made by Israel. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Many countries demanded an independent investigation. And they did not take that back. That's all. Until further notice, there is no synthesis at all. Thus, your proposed sentence, while based on RS, remains unbalanced in context. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism" on see also by Chesdovi

Please, look at this modification : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368405919&oldid=368395588 We don't write all the plans which are not yet done. I will removed it. first, make the plan, and after we will think to put it here. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism" is not a very helpful way of categorizing that edit. However, the "Kurdish Freedom Flotilla" seems about about as notable as the "We con the world" video – a sick joke, but not important to the article. Mind you, I'm intrigued as to how the Israeli students are planning to get a flotilla of boats carrying humantiarian aid to a land-locked territory! Physchim62 (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please, how can we categorize this kind of edit ? did I made a mistake ? Samuel B52 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"Inappropriate" would be better than vandalism! Physchim62 (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If you think that the Kurdish flotilla is not relevant, that is all you really need to say. But keep in mind the wikipedia principle of WP:BOLD and the WP:1RR. If you've already used your revert for the day just mention it in the discussion page and if someone else agrees with you they might remove it without you needing to do anything :)
Personally I'd agree with you on the idea that it's not relevant, especially since at this point its just an idea, not a real event. However, if they do actually try to send aid that might change things. But at the moment it's just a political statement. Zuchinni one (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Concur w/ Zuchinni one. As long as "its just an idea" it's probably not all that notable. NickCT (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to have been removed, just as I was going to do it myself. Physchim62 (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I kinda think it's an OK "see also" - but you know I'm pretty liberal on "see alsos" ;-) I saw it as a humorous response to a tragic situation, kind of like the "...and finally" item on the evening news. I won't argue for its inclusion in the section, though - I suspect I'd lose horribly...! TFOWR 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur with TFOWR. I suspect that he is correct that he might lose horribly in a one-vote-one-editor no-matter-how-few-edits vote (sort of like the General Assembly at the UN) ... though he would win dramatically if !votes related to the number of edits each editor had made on wikipedia, or included only those non-IP established editors (say, with more than 3,000 edits) (sort of like the Security Council at the UN).--Epeefleche (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Notability is questionable for that article. I support leaving it out until this has been developed into something more concrete. And I think a link in reactions sub-page would be more appropriate. --Kslotte (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm slightly sceptical as to whether the plans will ever become more concrete: what I liked about the article was the Quixotic nature of the plan... "let's sail away, to a land-locked territory!" ;-) TFOWR 18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah well, if it teaches the youth a bit of geography, it won't have been all bad :P ;-) Physchim62 (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
;-) ...and, to be fair, it's a more practical idea than levitating the Pentagon! TFOWR 10:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Please don't use the word "vandalism" against editors, it violates WP:AGF and may get you banned. Marokwitz (talk) 06:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the accuracy. It was a ambiguity with exact term. I understood now. Samuel B52 (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Fate of participants section

In the fate of participants section, there are a few paragraphs that start with "as of 1 June" which seem not to be relevant anymore. I believe all the passengers have been released by now, including Raad Salah and the other Israeli Arabs.
Remove? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Samuel B52 (talk) 20:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't expect otherwise. Would you care to explain why? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Can we confirm whether or not the passengers have been freed. My impression was that only the Israeli citizens remained in jail beyond June 1st. But I have no idea what their status is now. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
The four were released to house arrest on the 3rd. All the passengers were deported by the 2nd.
There are several paragraphs that can be removed, as they are no longer relevant. They can be replaced with something describing the fact the passengers were detained until their deportation a couple of days later, and that the four Arab Israelis were released to house arrest. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. --Kslotte (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
To be pedantic, there were seven non-Israelis in hospital on 2 June and three other non-Israelis who were not deported (one beacuse her husband was one of the people who had to stay in hospital). But it's fair to say that all non-Israeli activists were released by the end of 2 June. Physchim62 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Time to do a little consensus dance :D Zuchinni one (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll go outside and have a smoke while you tango. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
four Arab Israelis were released to house arrest = you mean: "arrested in house arrest". It seem cynical or relational: when Gaza on starvation looks like (KL) camp do house arrest mean release/freedom in pro-Israeli opinions or press?.99.90.197.244 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree that "released to house arrest" is not good. "Placed under house arrest" would, I think, be better? TFOWR 10:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
@Mr Nice Guy : because we need to know the chronology. but we should find a better solution to keep the chronology clear, I think. Did you have any idea to do that ? Samuel B52 (talk) 22:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Captions to photos

I suggest we standardize captions to photos in how they reflect their source. We now have two general approaches: 1) to say "Source x" at the end; and 2) to have text saying something like "taken from a video of x". I don't particularly care which format is used, but suggest that they be consistent.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

could you be more accurate please ? What is your suggestion ? Samuel B52 (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is "Source:" in all the photo captions? Is it really relevant to the article? It is mentioned on the fair use rationale, there's not much reason for it to clutter the image caption. SpigotMap 21:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
For sure it's relevant, I think. We need to know from where come the sources if we want follow it. Samuel B52 (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
My suggestion (assuming there is consensus that it is relevant, which raises a fair question) that we use one of the two formats I describe in quotes my first post above. Whichever format people prefer.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Valid RS for such a huge addition?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368450606&oldid=368446050

The edit above adds a large new paragraph to the "Background" section of the article. The source for this edit comes from a single editorial here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7149459.ece

The author and paper are good RS. But I'm not sure that a single POV editorial can justify such a large addition to the background (which has been repeatedly trimmed due to information overload). Zuchinni one (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Catherine Ashton represents the foreign policy positions of a group of countries comprising a few hundred million people, which justifies the inclusion in the article. However, the paragraph is too long, presumably a result of the one revert rule which discourages clean-up efforts.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Catherine Ashton balance security argument like write at first place. This is a balance of POV Samuel B52 (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it's not clear if this is her personal opinion or an official statement ... it seems to be more along the lines of opinion to me, but I could be wrong. In either case a single sentence might be appropriate, but a full paragraph is just too big. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Catherine Ashton can't take any risk with her speech. Please see High_Representative_of_the_Union_for_Foreign_Affairs_and_Security_Policy and European Union. Samuel B52 (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Well there seems to be agreement that this paragraph is too long, it also gives WP:Undue weight to the opinion of a single person. Unless there is objection I will bring it down to a single sentence and include it with one of the other background paragraphs. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus in the lead?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=368455641&oldid=368453750

In regards to the above edit. There is currently a debate over whether to even include the exodus in the 'See Also' section (which I have no objection to) but there is zero consensus and it certainly is a controversial addition to the lead.

I recommend that the contributing author remove this unless a clear consensus agrees with inclusion in the lead.

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about another place ... please, did you have any idea ? Samuel B52 (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Samuel, you have been participating in a discussion HERE-"See Also"as to whether or not Exodus should be added to "See Also" so I'd recommend you continue to discuss a possible inclusion there, but for the time being please remove it from the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I Think It's the best place to describe the event and what's happened in the world. As it we understand better the world reaction Samuel B52 (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read the WP:Lead for an explanation of what the lead is and what belongs there. You will see that the Exodus does not meet the criteria. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Sentence removed. --Kslotte (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I already done. Please see " The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies" Samuel B52 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Read also earlier discussions about Exodus. --Kslotte (talk) 21:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I already done also. please read carefully my point of view and tell me if you don't understand. In the "see also" section discussion on talk page. I'm open minded and clear (I think, but my english is not really good). Please read carefully with attention Samuel B52 (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Samuel: You did re-add Exodus, even if consensus haven't been established. There is still no consensus even for See also. --Kslotte (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't see a justification for including SS Exodus in the article itself (but as I've said before, I'm a numptie... so if there is a justification let me know), only in the "See also" section. I'd add that the WP:LEAD should only contain information that is already in the article-proper (i.e. excluding the "See also" section, "External links", etc). TFOWR 10:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The possible similarities: the M.sea; a ship forced to changing course, but only one ship. What else was similar? Why not =see also= some other similar 'sounding' raids where some peoples where shot&kill. Anyway both are bad ideas. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

In the talk page, several users spoke about several reasons to add this link on the article and had given several RS ref. In a such event, the comparison made by some journalists in the world improved people reactions. We saw that in England and in France, this comparison had a repercussions on minds. first because the boat started from a French port, secondly, because it was a British boat. Because several users told before and support this edit, and because RS show the link with this event, why don't we insert it ? 84.97.194.55 (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Please read a part of the policy " The lead should establish significance, include mention of notable criticism or controversies". We are trying to make an encyclopaedia, I think, and we can't change History. It's a good think to know how events happened. It's a part of apprenticeship need. Well, I think some here are ok to keep WP in accordance with real facts. If you feel nauseous, It sould be a question of sensibility, I think. Please take a little back recoil. Samuel B52 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Order of Activist accounts

The first couple of accounts in this section, are actually from less biased (if not neutral) crew members who seem to be giving a fairly balanced account of events. Accounts from activists, which are more biased, come later in the section.

Since this is the "activists account" section, should actual activists accounts be given more prominence and moved up?

Or as perhaps a better idea, if we can get agreement that the crew are relatively unbiased, would it make sense to create a "crew member accounts" section, or perhaps even group them with the journalists?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be even better if we could move towards unifying the three current subsections, to try to give a coherent picture of what seems to have happened while noting discrepencies between the different accounts where necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 23:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I support Physchim62's proposal. I'd also like to renew my suggestion to split off the Mavi Marmara boarding section, which might help us to discuss the necessary changes in an orderly way, and would also reduce the length of the article (130kB at present).  Cs32en Talk to me  00:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree to to split off the Mavi Marmara boarding section and supprt Physchim62's proposal. I think also we should reduce the length of the article. Samuel B52 (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we can seriously spin off the boarding section from this article: it is the central part of the story and the various disputes. However, we could always work on a copy of it – say Gaza flotilla raid/Boarding – to try to fuse the three sets of accounts together without hampering other edits on the main article. I imagine that the section would be around half its current length once the accounts are fused. Physchim62 (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The crew is "unbiased"? Are you seriously suggesting that the crew of the Gaza flotilla which defied orders by Israeli navy and was arrested are "unbiased" ??? What a strange idea. Marokwitz (talk) 11:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
As you suggest , we should change the term " demand" by "orders" in the lead for more accuracy. This is exact term when an army force talk, I think Samuel B52 (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"Orders" has the same problem as "arrested" which we discussed above: it implies that the demands were legitimate, something which is strongly disputed. I would actually tone the language down, and qualify the initial radio contact as Israeli "requests" [that the flotilla change destination to Ashdod]. Physchim62 (talk) 12:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea from Physchim62 to create a working space to try to hammer out a new version of the Mavi Marmara boarding section which puts undisputed claims along with conflicting claims into one section.
And Marokwitz, yes I was absolutely suggesting the the crew of the flotilla _might_ be unbiased. I shared your initial skepticism, but from looking at their testimony, it seems that they have been 100% candid. It's from their testimony that we have a timeline and confirmation of "activists" cutting away parts of the ship to use as weapons at least two hours before IDF ships approached. Rather than rejecting them outright as biased, why don't you look at their quotes and their video interviews, and see if you can find anything where you question their bias? If you find anything biased, I'm certainly listening. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of photos in Israeli accounts section?

Is there any reason to have 3 images?

It seems that one is enough, especially since the others just duplicate what's shown in the first image?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also the problem that none of the three images comply with WP:NFCC 8. Physchim62 (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
If they don't comply, I don't know what does. We already consulted an uninvolved administrator just a couple of days ago and he ruled on this question. In any case the right place to discuss it is Wikipedia:Non-free content review.Marokwitz (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62, did you hear about fair use? These photos certainly comply with that. Also, one photo can't represent the Israeli side or even what was documented from the flotilla. I truely think three is too little, but maybe it's the max can get into wikipedia articles. In any case, limiting to lower number doesn't seem requested and we will not reduce the number of photographes.--Gilisa (talk) 09:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
fair use? These photos certainly comply with that. That's a very bold statement! The images are currently being reviewed at the non-free content review board. TFOWR 09:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
When I looked just now, the third had gone (I'm seeing File:Activistboatclash.jpg and File:Peace activists throwing an Israeli soldier over board.jpg. To be honest, both seem OK to me: one is "activists with iron bars", t'other is "activists ejecting soldier to lower deck or ocean". My preferred one is the first, but I'm happy with both, assuming they qualify as fair-use. Last time I talked about images I was complaining that that we didn't have a good balance yet (not our fault, lack of decent images, etc). There seems to be quite a good balance now, FWIW. TFOWR 10:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Without seeing the third photo, I agree with the consensus in this string as to the other two photos. They do precisely what photos are meant to do -- provide visual info as to what is being discussed.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Three was clearly too many. This one section was packed with photos while the other sections had one or no photos. But I agree with the two people above that it now looks fine with two photos. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Free Gaza or IHH?

It is stated: "Channel 2 (Israel) has aired footage of an Israeli Navy sailor being stabbed by one of the Free Gaza activists." could some one check and confirm there were Free Gaza activists on board of the Mavi Maramara? thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talkcontribs) 11:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't speak Hebrew myself but could see Free Gaza being lumped in with the other groups since they have been such a driving force in these boat trips. Simply saying "activist" would be fine by me if there is any dispute. Also, it looks like we are linking to violation of Channel 2s copyright which is not acceptable. Can someone familiar with the video turn it into a {{cite episode}} and remove the link which might becontributory infringement?Cptnono (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I have changed "Free Gaza activist" to "activist", as the source does not mention "Free Gaza". In addition, the source is a YouTube video, so per WP:YOUTUBE and copyright concerns, we need to consider removing the sentence unless an appropriate source is added to the article.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(slightly off topic) It actually is not against YOUTUBE since that reads "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." It is in violation of COPYVIO and if you are interested in getting something clearer for YouTube in relation to both external links and citations (it is needed) there is a dead conversation I am trying to revive at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) :) .Cptnono (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification! Indeed, the page WP:YOUTUBE only deals with the external links/copyright aspects, not the reliability aspects of the issue.  Cs32en Talk to me  22:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Rename page

There have been more than 14 "raids" by the IDF on flotillas to Gaza. None of them rasied an eyebrow as no violence was instigated by the activists on borad in the past. This page needs to be remaned to reflect this fact. Any suggestions? Chesdovi (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

But, does these other raids have a Wikipedia articles? I supose not. We have to deal with renaming, if and when the other raids have articles. We only need to rename when we need to distinguish Wikipedia articles from each other. We can also use Template:Dablink to avoid minor distinguish issues. --Kslotte (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The other aid shipments are dealt with in the Free Gaza Movement article, and a couple of less innocent shipments are mentioned in the "See also" section; none of the raids was as deadly as this one, as far as I can see. I should note that the other raids on FGM ships happened much closer to Gaza than the attack on the Mavi Marmara. We shouldn't rename this article on the basis of past shipments, we should wait until there is a new convoy which requires us to disambiguate articles. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well as long as it is made clear that this "raid" has not been the only one. That would be misleading. Chesdovi (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think we need some type of WP:OTEU to Free Gaza Movement article. --Kslotte (talk) 15:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Template:Other uses templates - documentation --Kslotte (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox image

I'd like to change the infobox image from the map to the image of the Mavi Marmara. The reasoning is that the map is not clear without information which is further down the article and, even if you click on the map, the text is in Spanish: so I would move the map down to the "Boarding" section, where it used to be before it was moved up to the infobox. The Mavi Marmara image at least gives an impression that this is a big passenger ferry, so gives a sort of "feel" to go with the rest of the discussion. Comments or objections? Physchim62 (talk) 13:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, give links to the images, so it is easier compare what your intentions are. --Kslotte (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
An image of a boat does not convey much. The detailed map gives much more of an overview of the mission. Maybe both can appear somehow? Chesdovi (talk)

Wikimapia.org Tags

I added the tags related to the flotilla at wikimapia.org after some level2 user keeps on deleting them. Please if anybody would have a way to know why those tags specifically are being deleted - while other moving objects are kept nearby - let me know. I am writing this comment here coz my user was banned at wikimapia.org after questioning the nutrality of such an action in a private message to that user Kessale (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

See the thread above this one. TFOWR 15:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
User-generated content is not a reliable source. Wikimapia links should be deleted. --Kslotte (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The guideline is WP:SELFPUBLISH. --Kslotte (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

'shot and killed' vs. 'killed'

I think that using the term 'shot and killed' is POV. This implies that the Israeli troops either murdered, hunted down or executed the nine dead people. I think that the term 'killed' is more neutral. If someone disagrees, maybe we should vote on it. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And I'm sure we've had this discussion before... Anyway, "killed" is "killed". No need for scary, POV adjectives or other modifiers. TFOWR 10:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
The difference between shot and killed refers to those who were shot and wounded versus those that were shot and killed. At least that is my understanding of it upon viewing the revision. Had there been no wounded, it would be unnecessary, I leave the revision/improvement of this though to other editors.GaussianCopula (talk) 10:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, some people were "wounded" or "injured". Others were "killed". "Shot and wounded" and "shot and killed" are both over-long, and risk opening the POV floodgates. TFOWR 10:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I fully agree. --Kslotte (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
As I indicated before. The correct wording of "shot and killed" should be "wounded and killed". I do not see though any implication of POV regarding what is being implied with regards to possible executions using the wording "shot and killed". I only see it as poor wording. GaussianCopula (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict × but I'm not shure) No. Since no single person was killed other way. All killed were shot. It is understandable: this looks bad for some groups but i.i.z.a are minority, very active however globally-numerically minor.99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
You indicating, but since they were shot and killed is important to differnciate from other possible happenings; there may were also shot and missed, wounded by bounced bluets, wounded by bluet penetrating targets (eg doble shots), shot by friendly fire, only exception "for over-long, and risk opening the POV" will be: killed and survived. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
"Shot and killed" does not mean execution-style, although there are witness accounts that say "They walked up to the man co-ordinating facilities for journalists, put a gun to his head and shot him dead at point-blank range" [9], this backed up by autopsies that say shot in the back of the head at less than 40cm. Now there's some scary modifiers. But just "shot and killed", that dispassionately presents the cause of death. They didn't have heart attacks, they didn't fall down stairs, they didn't get kicked to death -- they were shot and killed. How is that POV? And the term "shot and killed" is a common one, with 17 million ghits. RomaC (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think "shot and killed" is potentially misleading, even if it is strictly correct. It seems to imply that only nine people were shot, which is untrue. Also it implies that the all nine were shot dead, when it is alleged that three or four of the victims died because the IDF actively prevented them from receiving medical attention. So I'm happy with just "killed", as this sentence is in the lead and we're trying to keep the lead as short as possible – we can explain the gory details later in the article. Physchim62 (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Killed" is even more dispassionate than "shot and killed". "Shot and killed" is indeed a common phrase: I don't believe that should deter us from better phrases. And shame on The Herald for using purple prose... I'd cancel me subscription if it weren't for the fact that I steal my flatmate's copy...
"Wounded and killed" makes no sense to me - you're either "wounded", or you're "killed". It's like pregnancy - there are no half-measures ;-) Ditto for "killed and survived" - I assume that should read "shot and survived" (which I would be OK with).
TFOWR 11:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How can wounded and killed make no sense to you? If you are shot then A> You are killed or B> you are wounded. Doesn't seem difficult, I would think. GaussianCopula (talk) 11:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I read it as "wounded and killed" is an OK description. You meant "wounded" is OK, and "killed" is OK - both or which I'd agree with. Apologies. TFOWR 11:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
sO WHEN you admit misunderstanding and apologize why you do not change it back to shot and kill. the word shot was cut during 'discussion' contrary to notable reality. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I'm going to have to apologise to you, too - I have no idea what you're saying.
Just to be clear: I strongly prefer "killed" to "shot and killed", for the reasons stated above. I strongly prefer "wounded" to "shot and wounded" or "hit with an iron bar and wounded". I am OK with "shot and survived", because surviving being shot is somewhat unusual.
TFOWR 12:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, sorry for not your sorry. Now I'm sure what do you strongly prefer. I hypothesize that you want wash out the words and shot and kill is to strong wording to bad for one side of flotilla "clash". Can you falsify it ?99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
No worries! And that's quite right - "shot and killed" isn't as neutral as simply "killed". My concern is that if we start using phrases like "shot and killed", then we'll end up with an explanation for every injury. I won't change the article — I avoid editing it unless there's a serious problem — but it does seem that there's consensus here to make the change, so I'd certainly have no objection to another editor changing it. TFOWR 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. "Neutral" doe not mean avoiding facts. RS say the activists were shot and killed, these deaths are central to the event's notability, it is not right to censor this info. RomaC (talk) 13:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "shot and killed" is used twice:

  • He stated, "There is no doubt from what I saw that live ammunition was fired before any Israeli soldier was on deck." and that two persons were shot and killed before the soldiers had started boarding. (my emphasis)
  • Nine activists were shot and killed in the raid, including ...

On the first occasion it is unnecessary to specify "shot and" - it's readily apparent we're talking about live ammunition being used. I fail to see how this is "avoiding facts" or "censorship".

On the second occasion I repeat my earlier point: it's purple prose - the key thing is that nine people died. We've already told the reader how they died, so, again, "avoiding facts" or "censorship" don't apply.

Cheers, TFOWR 13:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

but we need accuracy and no approximation. " shot and killed" inform how they have been killed. It's not purple prose but accuracy. I Agree with RomaC. We need this sentence as it. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
and this is absolutely not a POV, it's very factual ! Samuel B52 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with RomaC and Samuel B52. "shot and killed" is just factual. To remain NPOV, it needs to be in the context of a "clash". But that's certainly true in the lead. So, I vote for putting it back. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I concede there's a case for it to be included in this part: He stated, "There is no doubt from what I saw that live ammunition was fired before any Israeli soldier was on deck." and that two persons were shot and killed before the soldiers had started boarding (though I still consider it redundant). Is that where you were thinking, or did you mean the WP:LEAD instead (or as well as)? TFOWR 17:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

detail of

(numbers ~) 60 passengers where wounded 40 shot and 9 (all) killed by shots 4 from close range 5 from distance. Details of wounds on both sides should be described. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 13:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

A few things -- IP 197.244, I also often have difficulty understanding what you are writing please don't take it personally but I assume you are challenged with English -- so, is it that you want "shot at close range" in the article? That is there, later in the article. I also thought that belonged in the lead as it was reliably sourced and germane. Second, TFOWR I like that fancy outdent line, is it new I see how it's done I will use it. As for the cause of death, strongly believe it belongs on first reference (can be just "killed" subsequent to that if outside a quote) and it's not a mere detail it is central to the event, and not at all, in my opinion, is this "purple prose," which I understand to be flowery or ornate writing, it's a very concise, well-supported and undisputed description of how these nine died -- I think it's one of the most important pieces of information in the lead. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
{{outdent}} is cool! I don't know if it's that new, I've been using it for a few months at least. Purple prose? That's probably a little unfair of me, and is more a comment on the newspaper that used that term (it's my local paper...) I still think "shot and" is redundant on the first use, as it's not within a quote, and clear that the previous quote is referring to the use of live ammunition - consequently I don't consider it necessary to qualify "killed". The key thing is that "two people were killed before the soldiers had boarded" - how there were killed is (a) obvious, and (b) not that important: what's important is that they died, and that they died prior to the boarding. TFOWR 13:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please explain why stating the cause of death (shot) can be POV? Is there any doubt that the cause of death was indeed gunshots? What about alternative ways to phrase it? "Shot dead"? "Killed by gunfire"? // Liftarn (talk)

IMHO, Liftarn is right, per my comments on the issue when it was last discussed on Talk. To reiterate, if "shot and killed" indicates some kind of execution scenario to you, than replace it with "killed by gunfire" or something else that clearly indicates the cause of death, since that (like dying) is the common denominator for the nine dead. If neither "shot" nor "killed" is in doubt, how in the world is this POV?--Carwil (talk) 13:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm certainly not saying that an editor arguing for "shot and killed" is non-neutral; my objection is to the phrase itself - for the reason Carwil highlights: it can be read as suggesting more that is intended. My primary objection, however, is that it's redundant - unnecessary - and that keeping it only serves to qualify or modify "killed". I'd actually be kind of OK with "killed by gunfire" on the first use. Beyond that I'd strongly prefer simply "killed". TFOWR 13:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Further clarification: we do state the cause of death, immediately before the first usage of the phrase "shot and killed": it's for that reason that I consider "shot and" to be redundant. TFOWR 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I'll sit back awhile and see what other editors think. But the first reference to the nine passengers' deaths right now is just "killed". There's nothing about cause of death until later in the body of the article, and there it is attributed to an al-jazeera journalist. I regard (and I believe RS support this) the deaths as perhaps the single most important aspect of this event, and so prefer concise information on cause of death on first reference. The suggestion that "shot and killed" is POV is only worthy of our consideration if there is another (non-fringe) POV that contradicts that they were shot and killed. There is not. So, other objections might be verifiability, but that is also sound. Undue weight? First-reference carrying two words of content on cause of death is not going to bloat the lead. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

May I summarize this discution? It is agreed that the term "shot and killed" is factual, but it is still potentially misleading, and also redundant. Therefore, the term should be replaced with "killed" (I believe that this was the majority opinion). ShalomOlam (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ShalomOlam, it's not redundant at all, at least not in the LEAD, where RomaC and I are both concerned about it. I agree that it is a bit redundant in the first instance mentioned by TFOWR above, but have no idea why the specificity is a problem, since it rules out other possible scenarios of their deaths. And I agree with TFOWR that the lead could say "were killed by gunfire." Where the three of us are perhaps not in agreement is this sentence:
  • Nine activists were shot and killed in the raid, including ...
This is the beginning of the deaths section; stating the cause of death adds to clarity, at no real cost. Again, there are multiple permutations "died of gunshot wounds," "were shot and killed," "were fatally shot," "were shot dead," you name it. In the end, the issue may not be the "execution connotations" of "shot and killed" but the timing connotations: "shot dead" implies immediate death, which didn't occur for some (they were still seeking medical attention later); "shot and killed" might suggest immediate death, but certainly is open to them dying later.
Finally, I count Bob Drobbs and Samuel B52 on the side of keeping "shot and" or "by gunfire", alongside RomaC and myself; where's the majority?--Carwil (talk) 01:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
How 'bout "shot and killed or mortally wounded"? I see that a lot in history books. The implication is clear: people died, some instantly, some after awhile, and all as a result of gunfire. Rklawton (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
"Shot and killed" is a very common phrase in English, perhaps second-language users should be aware of this (17 million Google hits). I see no policy-based reason for removal: they were shot, and they died. On the other hand, "died from gunfire" is weasely and especially problematic as there is, in the article, the assertion that passengers took away commandos' guns. We have a very common term describing what happened, we ought to use it. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I would go for Liftarn's suggested alternative, shot dead. Anybody else?     ←   ZScarpia   11:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

David Trimble

Comments on David Trimble's use as an inquiry observer by Craig Murray.     ←   ZScarpia   19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The current cite is to Der Spiegel. I'd regard a newspaper as infinitely preferable to a blog, even a blog from an academic specialising in international human rights. I suppose a second cite wouldn't go amiss, but I'm not convinced it's a great source. TFOWR 19:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
One of the reasons that I posted the link is because Craig Murray's posting contains links to the websites of news organisations.     ←   ZScarpia   19:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You're quite right, my apologies. Well, in that case: the Guardian is great source! (The BBC and Yahoo articles focus on the Bloody Sunday enquiry, the Guardian looks at this incident). TFOWR 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Seems like editorializing to me. David Trimble is who he is; the Israeli inquiry is what it is. We should try to report describe them, but without anticipating the future. Physchim62 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not convinced. The Guardian article was from their news section, not their blog section, and did comment on EU reactions to the raid, and NGO's reactions to the EU's reaction. TFOWR 10:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The article already notes that the Israeli government is hoping to stop a UN inquiry from being mounted and that in order to do that it must satisfy demands that its own inquiry be independent and credible. Given that, I think that it is relevant to mention that there is disquiet over the composition of the committee being set up and the reasons why that disquiet has arisen.     ←   ZScarpia   00:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Just in case it's of interest to anyone, the Promised Land blog contains links to articles gathered from the Israeli press, including ones about the Gaza flotilla raid (e.g.: [10][11][12][13][14]). The bog is written by Noam Sheizaf, a freelance journalist and editor who has worked for Ha-ir local paper in Tel Aviv, for Ynet.co.il and for Maariv.     ←   ZScarpia   19:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli investigation section

Report in Der Spiegel

Der Spiegel opined that the observers have positive views towards Israel.[text 1]

  1. ^ Schult, Christoph; Steinvorth, Daniel (June 16, 2010). "Chip im Slip". Der Spiegel. Retrieved June 16, 2010. Doch auch die beiden ausländischen Beobachter sind als ausgesprochen israelfreundlich bekannt (Yet the two international observers are known to have exceptionally friendly views towards Israel.)

Der Spiegel reported that the two observers are known to hold particularly friendly views towards Israel. This is not (necessarily) the opinion of Der Spiegel or of the author of this article, and it is not an opinion piece. It needs to be changed back to its original wording ("Both observers are known to have exceptionally friendly views towards Israel.").  Cs32en Talk to me  11:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  • I have changed this back to its original wording. The revert, under the guide of a seemingly innocuous edit summary ("ce, mos, words to avoid"), resulted in a clear misrepresentation of both the status and the content of the source.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The language does not even belong. This fails to indicate the source for the statement. It doesn't even indicate that there is a source. And, it speaks not to a fact, but as to their views. And given the circumstances, it of course is a highly controversial statement, as it calls into question their objectivity -- given their supposed views. As this is a BLP issue, and a highly controversial one, its a BLP violation. Per wp:blp, I'll remove it, though others should feel free to discuss it further (without reverting, under the blp rules).--Epeefleche (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
The reliable source for the statement is Der Spiegel, obviously. If you think this source is unreliable, please bring the matter to the Reliable Sources noticeboard. I have left a note at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Epeefleche concerning your consecutive reverts.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be careful with using Der Spiegel as a source for controversial claims that are ultimately a matter of opinion. Der Spiegel is well-known for its editorial style and the mixing of opinions and facts. See for example the study "Spiegel-TV: Analyse Eines Politischen Fernsehmagazins" by Matthias Michael, page 170-193 ("Zudem wird deutlich, dass sich der Spiegel nicht dem Gebot der Trennung von Nachricht und Kommentar verpflichtet fühlt" on page 172). Of course Der Spiegel is as reliable as most mainstream news sources for facts, but as I said I would be careful with statements that are matters of opinion. Add to that the BLP concerns, as we cannot label living person as partial without having very good sources. Pantherskin (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that this belongs. Aside from the fact that it is a non-English source, Epee is right that it is an opinion which is not referenced. It certainly wouldn't surprise me to learn that Israel chose international observers that were friendly, but this just seems like a newspaper opinion at this point, and not fact. I suggest it be removed until there are additional supporting RS, and then have it re-inserted. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
If the article would read: "Israel has appointed two observers that are exceptionally friendly towards the country," then it may be unclear whether this would be a piece of information or the opinion of the author. The article, however, reads: "sind als ausgesprochen israelfreundlich bekannt" ("are known to have exceptionally friendly views towards Israel").  Cs32en Talk to me  20:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've just found a similar article (not necessarily a verbatim translation) in Der Spiegel's English internet edition. Skipping the word "ausgesprochen" ("exceptionally"), it reads: "But those two foreign observers are known as being friendly towards Israel: David Trimble, the Protestant Nobel Peace Prize winner from Northern Ireland, and the former Canadian judge Ken Watkin, who converted to Judaism several years ago." [15]  Cs32en Talk to me  21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Known by whom? And what does friendly towards Israel mean? The Spiegel regularly mixes opinions with facts in its news reports, and the vague and unsubstantiated nature of this statement it is rather unclear whether this is the opinion of the Spiegel author(s), the opinion of the Spiegel author(s) about what other think about Trimble and Watkin or really a factual statement about what these two are known for. Pantherskin (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, well Trimble was a co-founder of a group named the "Friends of Israel".[16] Coincidentally, the group was launched on the same day as the Gaza flotilla raid. ← George talk 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
George, can you find an RS for that? I think putting in that he founded that group is a good way of stating factual information without getting into unknown opinions. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Ynet, Financial Times, The Times (London), Israel Today, Today's Zaman, Vancouver Sun, Beverly Hill Courier, The Age, Irish Central  Cs32en Talk to me  11:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Opinion piece in The Guardian

Chris Doyle the director of the council for Arab-British understanding (CAABU). writing in the The Guardian has opined that "[s]uch an inquiry would have to have full powers making it mandatory on all parties to co-operate including Israel, Turkey and the activists. Any party found responsible for illegal actions should then be held to account" in order to be fully credible. The Guardian noted that the activists will not be taking part in the investigation. [1]

This is an opinion piece, and I don't see an independent secondary source that would indicate the notability of this opinion. I suggest to remove this paragraph.  Cs32en Talk to me  11:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I already removed that material once. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Activists' and flotilla organizers' accounts - too long

virtually unreadable.--132.69.238.124 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The entire "Mavi Marmara boarding" section should be split off into another article, with a summary of the information in this article.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Don't split off. Briefen and put revelvant extranuous material to references/footnotes. Chesdovi (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Council for Arab-British Understanding

This has been removed twice (edit waring). Comments? --Kslotte (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Opinion_piece_in_The_Guardian. If you can show why this guy's opinion is notable, please do so above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
For the record, this is not a violation of WP:1RR. --Kslotte (talk) 12:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Given the other comments included in that paragraph, the inclusion of this poor summary of the position of the Council for Arab-British Understanding seems like WP:UNDUE. We should accurately describe the inquiry (including, for example, the non-voting status of the foreign observers and the inability to interview the IDF soldiers who took part in the attack) and let the reader decide. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations regarding the intent of the parties

" Bulent Yildirim, the head of the IHH, said that the IDF would have tried to assassinate Sheikh Raed Salah, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, stating that an IDF hit list of 16 activists to be assassinated would have fallen from the pocket of an Israeli commando during the raid. Salah said that IDF soldiers would have shot towards someone else who they would have confused with himself.[160]"

unintelligible. I suggest that Users who can't speak English well should have written in their native Wiki pages...(sarcasm). Will someone please remove/rewrite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.199.9 (talk) 12:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think you can write it better then please present your rewrite for inclusion here. Off2riorob (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not your errand boy, until someone decides to rewrite it properly, should be removed as it clearly doesn't make any sense.
  Not done I'm not the IP's errand boy, either. TFOWR 13:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I've not found the cited source myself but, personally, the idea that the IDF set out to assassinate Sheikh Raed Salah rings WP:REDFLAG alarms for me. It's like the allegations against Erdogan: we need particularly good sources to justify including the comment in an article. Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
what are we, 8 years old? what does it mean: "the IDF would have shot toward someone who they would have confused with himself"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.199.9 (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the writing of someone who isn't a native speaker and the IP is right, it should come out unless and until we agree to add it in English. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take it out now, and appreciate your courteous request. TFOWR 14:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. TFOWR 14:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
IPs will be IPs (sigh). Itsmejudith (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of my best wikifriends are IPs, so I for one should know better. Thanks for nudging me towards decency ;-) TFOWR 14:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=178617 from there...Salah himself also had accused Navy commandos of trying to kill him during the takeover of the Gaza-bound protest ship.

“IDF soldiers tried to kill me. They shot toward someone else they thought was me,” he said before a court hearing. Off2riorob (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have added the information and used the wording from the source, i.e. the Jerusalem Post article cited above. I'd agree that transforming the sentence into an indirect quote and adding further information about the people involved in the sentence itself made the sentence rather difficult to read. We need to present this as an allegation of course, not as a fact. The idea that the allegation was made does not fall under WP:REDFLAG, in my view, and I assume that other reliable source have reported on the allegation, too.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Suggested rewording:

"Bulent Yildirim, the head of the IHH, said that the IDF would have tried to assassinate Sheikh Raed Salah, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel. Salah said that IDF soldiers would have shot at someone else who they would have confused with himself.[160]"

The information about the alleged hit list is less important here, and the interested reader can find that information in the source.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Usually it is better to improve than to remove completely. Hope this engrish is better Feel free to improve. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

confirmed? people who confirm usually have indisputable evidence, better words are: claimed or said, other than that, seems ok. but there is still the question of why is this information relevant here, and not the video released earlier today by Israel's foreign office: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1174966.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.199.9 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that "confirmed" is not the correct word in the context.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
My line of thought was Sheikh Raed Salah said, Bulent Yildirim confirmed. Feel free to improve though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

See also

All kinds of historical naval events are being added to this section now, and it is starting to look a bit confusing. As an WP:Inclusionist, I'm in favour of including naval seisures involving Israel, or seisures of passenger or aid ships in general. I don't mind the presence of Exodus, Karine A, and Francop; since they were all seizures involving Israel, and can help the reader understand the motivations and aftermath of this event. However, I do not see any relevance regarding stuff like the Yugoslavian blockade of NATO, The Struma, or the sinking of RMS Lusitania. --386-DX (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say the Exodus "involve Israel", while The Struma doesn't? Both are Jewish immigrant ships escaping the Nazis that were seized while en route to the british mandate of Palestine, with loss of life. Both predate the establishment of Israel. Marokwitz (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The Struma was not seized or raided, but I see your point. Fair enough. --386-DX (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with The Struma, but note my previous comments re: SS Exodus (I'm in favour, as it highlights "The Rest of the World's Involvement" (in these cases, Britain)).
I mentioned before that peripherally related topics (topics that might feature in a "perfect, 100% complete, no cross referencing necessary" article) were OK: my only real concerns would be (a) number of see alsos (it seems fine right now), and (b) WP:NPOV. I'd like to see a balance of POVs - including the "uninvolved" point-of-view (topics like The Struma and SS Exodus, which show the outside world's involvement in the wider issue). TFOWR 16:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
There is already a HUGE discussion above in regards to the Exodus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#SS_Exodus_in_See_Also
And there certainly was not consensus that it should be included. It's already been deleted more than once. I propose removing it, until we can get consensus about _exactly_ what should be included in "see also" to maintain a neutral point of view. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the NATO blockade of Yugoslavia (Operation Sharp Guard) as a recent example of a naval blockade (and in Mediterranean waters as well) that operated rather differently from the Israeli blockade of Gaza. I'm certainly not reverting to put it back in, but I think it is one example of an article which is related but which doesn't need to be discussed in prose in this article, i.e. a candidate for the "See also" section. The first two links in the current "See also" section simply shouldn't be there because they are already mentioned in the article text. Physchim62 (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Operation Sharp Guard is an interesting example. In that case, deadly force (disabling fire) was authorized to halt ships that refused to stop. In the present case, the Israeli's tried boarding a ship disobeying orders rather than firing upon it. It illustrates Israel's point that it tried using the minimum force necessary to enforce its blockage. Up until I read Operation Sharp Guard, I wasn't sure how much force could be used to enforce a blockade. The way the subject is addressed in this article, one would assume that Israel was just bloody-minded and didn't care about casualties. By way of comparison, I see now this isn't true. As a result, I support including a link to Operation Sharp Guard in the See also section. Rklawton (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
"removed unrelated, obviously non neutral POV addition to the "see also" section" Ho hum. Physchim62 (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
A modification appears without consensus. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367926720&oldid=367926610 ). Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The RS make links. So, please put again the link in see also section about : ( * SS Exodus, a ship carrying Jewish emigrants to Mandate Palestine, seized by the Royal Navy with four deaths among the passengers.).I think it's worth discussing this on the talk page and getting consensus first. Samuel B52 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I hate to say it (as I'd quite like the SS Exodus and The Struma to be "see alsos") but the consensus has to be for their inclusion, not their removal. I'm unconvinced that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH are that relevant here: WP:SEEALSO is pretty broad, and boils down to "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". Agree that discussion should continue, we seem well short of consensus either way at this point. TFOWR 09:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I hate to repeat it also but the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH give reasons to include this in article. WP:SEEALSO tell us if we could put this reference in a special section. The consensus has NOT to be for their inclusion, but for the place where we want to put it. I'm convinced that the removal without consensus to delete it, do not respect policies. Samuel B52 (talk) 09:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
At the moment there doesn't appear to be a consensus for their inclusion in the "See also" section. As you say, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH apply to the main article, much less so to "see also", where editorial judgement applies. You and I may disagree with the current editorial judgement, but I'm not aware of any policy that says we should add without consensus, or object to a removal in the absence of consensus. (1RR notwithstanding, obviously). And easy on the bold, there! Bolding does not make an argument any more persuasive, any more than appending "- Fact!" to the end of an argument would. TFOWR 10:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think some of the items on "See Also" are not relevant. Keep in mind - there are "Categories" in Wikipedia, for navigation to similar articles. Not all items, that share a category with this article, should be added to the "See Also" section. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
wiki policies apply first and secondly specific consensus apply. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH tell us what inclusion we can make. If you want to change this policies, we have to find a consensus with all the wikipedia community for this rules before. But at this time wiki have policies which tell to include because RS make the link and write comparison between the two incident. You take POV when you deny this policies. The consensus could be for the removal , not for the add. If you don't agree, we must change change the wiki policies first.( the bold is to be more clear and mark the explanation with argument. It's not to be more persuasive. It's for the comfort when we read and for less fatigue. If your really don't like bold and the others don't like, I can stop. Just ask me.) Samuel B52 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Could you use italics instead? It's easier to read. Bolding is a bit like SHOUTING. I've bolded below for emphasis only because it's within a quotation.
I'm basing my views on the "See also" section on WP:SEEALSO, in particular:
A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one.
However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.
Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question.
There is — so far as I can see — no requirement for sourcing; the only requirement is editorial judgement (we discuss and arrive at a consensus) and common sense.
TFOWR 11:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Incidentally, my goal here — as I've stated elsewhere — is to include all POVs, including the "we don't think we're involved POV" exhibited by, say, Britain. TFOWR 11:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
(I'm sorry, I don't know how to write in italic. I'm a French user. I don't have the same interface as usual.) So could you please explain to me why wiki community policies exist ? The Commons sense you are talking about is clearly not the same for every one and regarding 'see also " section. If we don't put in this section, we could put directly in introduction. In case of discordance, the policies are here to take decisions. Policies tell us that we can include in this article. There is a hierarchy in rules before consensus. To make the removal in accordance with the community, you should replace it in another place with a consensus Samuel B52 (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries: I use '' before and after the text to be italicised. Sorry, I don't know how to do it with the interface.

WP:OR and WP:SYNTH apply to the content of the article much more than to the "See also" section, because the "See also" section consists of purely internal links. Without any sourcing requirements to support/oppose a "See also" link, all that's left is our judgement. So... per WP:SEEALSO we should consider whether a link covers a topic that would be in "a hypothetical perfect article": if we were to write an article without any links to other articles, one that covered absolutely everything the reader needed to know in order to understand the topic, what would we include? It's not a case of ignoring policy, it's a case of these policies not really applying to "See also" sections. The important thing for me is to cover all the peripherally related topics, reflecting every point of view.

On en.wiki, content may be added without consensus, however it may then be removed. Content should remain where there is consensus to keep it. If there is not consensus to keep it then it may be removed. TFOWR 12:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Instead of linking directly to these events, would it be a better solution to link to an index page (or category) of, say, naval blockades or similar? Ketil (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

As you write we may add without consensus ( in accordance with policies), and consensus should remain to delete it if the add respect the policies. We are in this case. We are OK with policies but some of us don't want to see it. So, do we ask for arbitrage ? Samuel B52 (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe. I'd like to see a consensus develop for what does and does not get included. Ideally I'd like to see that happen here, on this talk page, but it may be that we can't decide between ourselves, and it becomes useful to get an outside viewpoint. I'm still hopeful that we can achieve consensus here, however. TFOWR 13:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, but in waiting that consensus, we should put the sentence again . IT is in accordance with wiki policies. The removal need a consensus. Samuel B52 (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Is that right? Or after it's been removed, should it stay removed until there is consensus that it belongs in the article? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Including SS Exodus seem obvious since several independent RS have made such a connection and the obvious similarities (boat, blockade, civilians getting killed, public outcry). Some have also analysed the historical significance and Bloody Sunday (1972) and the Sharpeville shootings have also been used in comparisons. // Liftarn (talk)

I did some research and as I understand the process, it's Wikipedia:BRD. It was boldly added. It's been reverted (more than once). And it seems that it should remain reverted, until after it's been discussed and we have consensus that it should be included in the article. That is the wikipedia process, is it not? Unless someone can explain to me why and how Wikipedia:BRD is not the process, I'm going to delete the line soon. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:BRD is an essay only. That said, it's a damn good essay, one I wish everyone would follow, and it's particularly applicable here, given the 1RR sanctions.
Only real caution I'd advise is: if you've already reverted once in the past 24 hours: let someone else remove it.
TFOWR 18:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. I've removed it. I figure (a) I'm got no reverts today, (b) I support its inclusion, so no one can accuse me of anything bad, and (c) you all now owe me a favour ;-)
There's clearly no consensus for its inclusion (I hope that'll change, but until then...)
Anything else I'd like to keep and you all would like to see gone? ;-)
TFOWR 18:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with this new removal. Please put this link again. Samuel B52 (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I've never reverted anything, but you beat me to it.
As for trying to get consensus. Are either sides here willing to make any sort of compromises? Is compromise even possible here; or is this just black and white? I'm still new here. But since this is considered by some to be very POV, could it be balanced by other "see also" from the opposite POV to create agreement and balance? Would that make sense? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Heh, gotta be fast round here ;-)
I'm kind of a shade-of-grey here. My POV (everyone's got one!) is: I live in Britain, and felt that this particular "see also" (SS Exodus) highlighted Britain's involvement in the creation of Israel. Here in Britain we tend to regard Israel/Palestine as "somebody else's problem", a problem far away, that doesn't concern us.
I can't speak for any editors with pro-Israel or pro-Palestine views. Indeed, I can't even say that this is a POV issue - it's entirely possible that opposition to including the Exodus as a "see also" is based on better understanding of WP:SEEALSO than mine.
You should also note that I'm pretty liberal when it comes to "see alsos". There's a comedy thread down below where I argue for a "see also" secure in the knowledge that mine is a lone voice...!
TFOWR 19:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I try to have no position regarding pro-israel or pro-palestine. But the fact is that as encyclopaedia, WP couldn't' hide some history links. This is why, I think it is important, in any point of view, to keep the link. It's for a understanding of history of that country.( from the beginning to now ). So I will put it again ;-) Samuel B52 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
In general, I don't see "see also" links as anything worth arguing over. The "see also" sections of most articles are pretty eclectic, it doesn't imply any sort of editorial acceptance, simply that someone thought that a given link might be intersting to someone else who read the article. Physchim62 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Please note that we are not in a general encyclopaedia but on WP which provided link possibilities. And , in general, I don't see the air, but I'm very sure that I respire it. ;-) We are several editors for this add. Samuel B52 (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Personally I don't think the Exodus is relevant, but I have no opposition to its inclusion. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. I'm using my first ever revert to undo Physchim62's readdition of what TFOWR just deleted.
Here's why I think it's POV. There are absolutely _no_ direct connections between the two events. And without any direct connection, it sure seems to make an implicit association Israel's actions and the sending of hundreds of Jewish holocaust survivors back to Germany.
Come on people... How do we get consensus on this? Do we need arbitration? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Read WP:POLITE and mind your manners. Just because you don't agree with an inclusion does not give you the right to insult other editors. I'll refer this inclusion to mediation as it is being discussed since the day of the raid. --386-DX (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Question: how on earth is Bob drobbs' comment not polite? TFOWR 13:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since, in the newspaper articles about the raid I've read, the Exodus is mentioned quite frequently, my opinion is that it is legitimate to mention in the Wikipedia article that the comparison is being made. Since there is no direct connection between the events, though, I don't think that it is legitimate to link to the Exodus article from the See Also section. A problem that I have found is that all the newspaper articles I've read which actually describe the Exodus incident are factually incorrect (stating, for instance, that one of the deaths was caused by a blow from a rifle butt in the face, that resistance from the Exodus came from nothing more severe than the throwing of potatoes and canned food, that those doing the boarding were British commandos and that the Exodus was stopped before being boarded), indicating that their reliability is pretty questionable.     ←   ZScarpia   10:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Names

The Gaza flotilla raid, code named Operation Sea Breeze by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and ......... < fill in how named by another pole sources . Something " massacre " ? Now we have neutral and IDF name its quite polarized, don't you agree? . 99.90.197.244 (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Operation Sea Breeze" is the official IDF name
"Gaza Freedom Flotilla" is the offical name by FGM and IHH
"Gaza flotilla raid" is the Wikipedia name
and several redirects exists
--Kslotte (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
the zionist party name is on top of article but not the free world name "Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Redirect is a hidden place. Why to hide free world name since so far zionist cabinetry hide to travel. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

New footage from Marmara ship

New footage from Marmara ship: 'Millions of martyrs to Gaza'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3907170,00.html

This new informations needs to be summarized and added to the article. 1 paragraph should be enough, should put an end to the question of whether the activists planned to attack or attacked spontaneously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.199.9 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


also found in haaretz, should be included and soon... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.179.107 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does it show other than they were prepared to defend themselves? FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead

I think that the lead is too long, and requirs a lot of editing. There is also some redundancies in details in it. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the typical result of edit warring. Please be more specific though Marokwitz (talk)
I agree with Marokwitz, could you please explain exactly what would you like to change ? Samuel B52 (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
One example: the lead first says: "Nine people were killed by Israeli commandos in a conflict that ensued aboard one of the ships", and in the next paragraph: "Activists aboard the flotilla's largest ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, clashed with Israeli Shayetet 13 special forces as they abseiled onto the deck of the vessel". This is redundant. Both say the same thing, but use different words. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Arrested v. detained

I think the lead saying that activists are "arrested" is not correct, for instance Washington Post uses the word "captured". AadaamS (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Arrested or detained are the terms frequently used in reliable sources. Why do you object to this term? Marokwitz (talk) 09:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree to change "arrested" as "captured" in accordance with Washington Post RS and WP:OR and WP:SYNTH policies. Samuel B52 (talk) 09:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand how the word captured makes sense. Also, pretty much all the RS use the term arrested, and Israel also used that term. The definition of the word captured just does not apply here. Zuchinni one (talk) 09:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think both words are fine, but changing "arrested" to "captured" implies that IDF had no jurisdiction to preform the arrests, and this is taking POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
So, perhaps should you read the exact definition of the two words. In this case, in international water, and without war declaration, we don't "arrest" ( suppose a jurisdiction ) but we "capture" ( no evidence of jurisdiction ). In this case, legals evidences miss. I agree with ShalomOlam. This is taking POV Samuel B52 (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
To me "detained" is more neutral than "arrested", as "arrested" does seem to imply a legitimate jurisdiction (which is disputed). Physchim62 (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Marokwitz: "arrested" is less NPOV because it implies the soldiers had jurisdiction, "captured" simply means "to take control" and passes no judgment on whether that control-taking was done legally or not. Since the legality of both the raid, the flotilla and the blockade is in dispute, I think the question of the legality of the various actions should be left to the "Legality" section and left out of the lead. Therefore I think "captured" is less POV than "arrested". If the majority of RS use the term "arrested" then fine, let it stand as it is. I have used en.wiktionary.org to look up the definitions of "arrest" and "capture". AadaamS (talk) 11:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think Detained will be the most neutral term. Marokwitz (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
as WP:RS and neutrality policy, we don't have to change the sense of a RS to make him neutral. "captured" is required as RS. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The reliable source being currently used (Washington Post) says "protesters were offered the choice of flying home immediately or facing arrest and imprisonment. By Monday evening, most were opting to be arrested" 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"Detained" is indeed used in the picture caption of the link I posted above, but can also mean to be put under judicial custody and the legality is disputed. Why do you prefer detained to captured? Oh wait ... I googled and bbc.co.uk, telegraph.co.uk and other sources use the term "detained" and "detainee". So I agree that detained is a good substitute for "arrested" AadaamS (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
because legality is not clear about that event ( see special section in Talk page ), we should use "captured". this source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/06/02/DI2010060202027.html use "captured" which is correct. It's preferable, I think, to use first a dictionary to know the signification of a word, not a press magazine. Samuel B52 (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Definition of detain - confine: deprive of freedom; take into confinement - I can't see what's non neutral about this term. Marokwitz (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the proposed words – arrested, detained, captured, held – can be used in the case of a legitimate detention. My problem with "arrested" is that it is only used in the context of legitimate detention, and the legitimacy is disputed here. "Captured" seems to imply that the activists were all running around the ship trying to avoid being captured, when the vast majority were not. On the other hand, "captured" seems appropriate for the IDF soldiers who were held by the activists, as we can assume that all of them were trying to avoid being captured. Really POV terms would be "kidnapped" (used by the Irish Foreign Minister in reference to the activists) and "held hostage" (used by several editors on this talk page in reference to the IDF soldiers). Physchim62 (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree(?), and would vote for Israeli soldiers (and flotilla ships) being "captured", activists being "detained". My problem with "arrest" is not so much the implication of legality, as Israel think they act in accordance with Israeli laws, but the implication of a subsequent judicial process and punishment - while most (or is it "all" now?) detained activists were simply sent home. Similarly, "taken hostage" implies being captured for a specific purpose (negotiation, say), while here they were simply released. Ketil (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree, though I'd maybe prefer something less dramatic than "captured" for the soldiers, it's difficult to think of anything more appropriate. "Arrested" is, I'm sure, supported by some RS - it's also not very neutral (it implies a legal basis for the detention, etc etc). "Captured" or "detained" are far better. If we could find one word that covered both situations (soldiers + passengers) I'd be very happy, but that's maybe asking too much... TFOWR 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I think all hell would break loose if we said "detained" for the soldiers! Physchim62 (talk) 13:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

@Ketil, the article should not just reflect the Israeli view on the legality of the detentions! As for the release of activists, there's another slight problem in the lead with the sentence "Israel responded that it would release 620 of the 682 arrested people and deport them back to their countries." As I understand it, Israel wanted to keep certain activists, but relented after diplomatic pressure from Turkey. Not all the activists were immediately deported, because some were too badly injured to travel, and Israel allowed at least one relative of a badly injured activist to stay to accompany them. The last news I've seen was from about Friday 4 June, which says that there were still two wounded Turks in Israel [17]. Physchim62 (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR: I don't see why one word should cover both what happened to the passengers and what happened to the IDF soldiers. The aim of the IDF force was to capture the flotilla ships with all on board and force them to go to a destination not of their choosing. The flotilla never had the aim to capture IDF soldiers. (Just for the record I still agree on "detained" to describe what happened to the activists) AadaamS (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
"Captured" also suppose an intentional preparation before. It's the case for military units who "captured" passengers as prisoners. Samuel B52 (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Although I still prefer captured to detained (which means "take into custody", implying legal confinement), I still far refer detained to arrested. Most people here seem to agree on "detained" so can I go ahead and change it? Or should we have a vote or something? The article still says "arrested" btw. AadaamS (talk) 09:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you changed it to 'captured' since there was clearly no consensus there. I suggest you change it to detained as per your comment above. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think captured would be the best since both arrested and kidnapped carries legal implications. // Liftarn (talk) 08:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I also think captured is better than detained which is better than arrested. Nobody has explained to me why "detained" is better than "captured" yet. AadaamS (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons in the lead

Does anyone have a link on any discussion concerning the removal of weapons in the lead? I thought it was a huge part of the story and good there but it was removed and I wasn't paying attention to the discussion page.Cptnono (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I miss to that the half truth/half lie statements are silenced/resowed. I propose move it moved to separate article documenting how the "excellent Israel PR" works. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
99.90.197.244, keep your comments on the subject how to improve the article, this is WP:NOTAFORUM. --Kslotte (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
I bag your explanation? Again: to improve the article is important to track of the flow of leading or misleading information. Then will be clear how and why the article changing. Some blatant lies go uncounted, just deleted and replaced by new better 'release' The info-clash is important part of so called 'clash'. I do not see any effort to improve the article to and write a section/co-article about it.99.90.197.244 (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
How about you start a different talk section on the infoclash. Wy were the weapons used removed from the lead. It was all verified by both sides and independent media.Cptnono (talk) 02:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Have no idea. Assuming all act in good faith, I can't for the life of me think how that could possibly have happened.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is a source with the amounts of other "aid" that was found on the ship: http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2010/jun/11/gaza-toehold-removal-israel/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbfelber (talkcontribs) 12:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
So put a line back in maybe? It was major part of what happened and is confirmed. Lead is left vague and not a propery summary without it.Cptnono (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Debit Card Use

In the Guardian article cited, the reporter writes that the activists claimed that their cards were used. So the fact is that there were claims; it's not yet clear if the claims were factual. Some of the details in the article also seem questionable--the Englishman, Musagi, claims that all the charges were made after June 9, though he also says that he canceled the card on June 7. Also, those making the claims have not filed complaints with the Israelis. Also, the mention of the claims implies that fraudulent abuse was a policy of the Israelis; the article makes it clear that this is not the case, as the reporter cites the Israeli policy of severely punishing soldiers who are involved in cases of identity theft. Until the details are clarified, I would suggest the following phrasing of the sentence:

"The Guardian reported that several activists had complained of charges being made to their confiscated debit cards and cell phones. An Israeli spokesman stated that any such illegal use of confiscated possessions would be investigated and that the punishment for such acts by military personnel was particularly severe."109.186.158.55 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

  Done No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Nicely succinct. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 06:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. There are 16 words on the theft of the credit/debit cards and charges made on them, and 32 words qualifying this with the source and possible punishment as suggested by an IDF spokesperson. And how do we go from "(we) suggest waiting until this subject matter is clarified" in the source, to "any such illegal use of confiscated possessions would be investigated" in the article? This seems like editors reading what they want to hear, the article is about the cards being confiscated and used, not about what might happen next. Also "severe" is not in the source so it is original research to use the term especially in speculation regarding possible punishment. RomaC (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Also, the article was updated to confirm that the activists have bank statements and one of the banks agreed to treat the transaction as fraudulent. --386-DX (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How to call for arbitration? SS Exodus

The SS exodus issue is becoming ridiculous. In the last 24 hours the see also link has been:

And this has been going on for weeks.

I've advocated trying to reach some sort of compromise or understanding, but it's not clear that a compromise is possible or if anyone is willing to even try to reach one.

It's my understanding that the process should be WP:BRD, and that it should remain reverted (deleted) until after we can come to consensus.

But this edit warring needs to stop.

If the two sides won't even try to come to an agreement, is it time to call in outside arbitration? How is that done?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem here is to be able to see (long thread discussions) that there is no consensus. I think it is enough if we are able to notify those involved to understand it. --Kslotte (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be good to summarize the Exodus case and add it to the sticky thread at the top. --Kslotte (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Agree with both of the above. For the record, I removed it purely because it appeared that there was no consensus for it to be included. I support its inclusion, but not before there is consensus to do so. TFOWR 22:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what this is about but I suggest that you try and formulate it as an RFQ. Arbitration is premature. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Ksolette: I know that at least during the last 4 changes everyone involved knew very clearly that there was existed no consensus. One big dispute at the moment is whether something seen as POV and which has already been removed multiple times, should remain in the article until there is consensus to remove it, or if it should be removed until there exists consensus for it's inclusion.
Can you help answer that question? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm not familair with resolving edit warring by calling for outside help. --Kslotte (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, see these two sections from this talk page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#SS_Exodus_in_See_Also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#See_also
This discussion has been going on for almost 2 weeks with many edits and many reversions, and it doesn't seem that we're any closer to getting consensus on it. That's the status. So, what exactly is a RFQ in this context, and how would it be used here? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


What are the similarities? I see ship here and there (ups there 6 ships) .What else? 99.90.197.244 (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC) ps. I see also one similarity grave violation of human rights: ago to Jews in diaspora and now to Palestinians in homeland.

That's about it - so it's strongly POV and not very comparable. But I think the real test is whether or not there are sufficient, neutral reliable sources making this comparison. Rklawton (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Why is it more POV than Francop Affair or Karine A Affair, two articles which have remained in the "See also" section without problems? Let's remember this is the See also section: we don not need "neutral reliable sources" to include something, nor should we be looking for "consensus to include". I have yet to see a single real argument ("It's POV" is not an argument) as to why this link should not be included in the "See also" section, and the fact that it is repeatedly removed seems to me to be another example of the double standards applied by some editors here. Physchim62 (talk) 23:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62: Here's why I see it as POV. It makes an implicit association between Israel searching and delaying the delivery of aid to Gaza with the sending of Jewish holocaust survivors back to internment camps in Germany. That's an extremely negative, and POV, association to make when there are zero direct connections between the two events.
The standard for putting items in a "see also" section is common sense and editorial judgment. So I ask this, why add something POV to the "see also" section of a neutral article, when there are no solid reasons that it needs to be there? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I see one GoogleNews hit for Karine A Affair, none for Francop Affair, and about a dozen for SS Exodus, including this Guardian piece, appears the Exodus is being discussed/referenced in relation to the GFF. Don't support an extended look at any of the above three appearing in the article proper, but shouldn't we include them in See Also? RomaC (talk) 00:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Physchim62, consensus is needed over any disputed edit, where did you come with the notion that it's not applying for "See also"? Romac, journalists comparing the Gaza flotilla to SS Exodus are opinion journalists or at least dealing with opinion journalism in regard to this issue. Opinion journalists from the other side may not make any comparison, but it doesn't say they are ok with this those from the "Guardian" made. Both Francop and Karin A were boarded by Israeli navy seals outside the teritorial waters of Israel. Both boats cargo were headed to Gaza eventually. The compariosn to these two therefore raise no political concern. Personally I can live with these two outside the "See also" as well. --Gilisa (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Gilisa, Op-Ed pieces are reliable sources if used properly, check it out. As I see it the idea is not to present facts taken from the Guardian article. Also the Herald Tribune / New York Times and a bunch of others have drawn a comparison. Like I said I don't necessarily support a section or even content on this in the article body, but what's wrong with Wiki articles about other notable attempts (Karine A, Francop) at breaking a blockade in that part of the Mediterranean being linked in See Also? RomaC (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) I've come across See also inclusion disputes before and have formulated a view that I think should apply across the board. "See also" is there to help the reader navigate around the encyclopedia. Listing an article there does not imply that Wikipedia makes any kind of causal connection between issues dealt with in articles. Therefore people should not edit-war to keep a link OUT OF See also. On the other hand, if an issue is relevant to a topic it should normally be mentioned and linked in the article. See also sections shouldn't usually be long, and shouldn't be a rag-bag of peripherally connected articles. Therefore people should not edit-war to keep a link IN See also. I bet no-one finds that helpful! Make a decision and move on. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:SEEALSO says that links that are included in the article are not generally duplicated in the "See also" section: so we are always going to have a ragtag of articles which might be interesting to readers but which were not considered important enough to include in the main text. My proposition for a criterion here is "could be of interest to readers who have read this article". Physchim62 (talk) 14:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's right, the See also section will always be a bit rag-baggy, but hopefully not too rag-baggy. Not all good articles have a need for See also. I will now check out some random FAs for interest. See old versions of Chav for the problems with runaway See alsos. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • This inclusion has already been discussed very extensively and multiple times. Please search the talk page archives before reverting anything or presenting any arguments which have already been put forward and answered before. If you read the earlier discussions, you will see that the general agreement was to include it in the article. The conclusions were: 1) The comparison was made by numerous high-profile news sources around the world, including Haaretz in Israel. 2) Just because everyone does not agree that it should be there is no reason to revert it. See WP:DRNC. 3) It is no less related to the event than some of the other items in the list. So if you want to ask for editor assistance, ask for a third opinion, refer it for informal/formal mediation, or arbitration, be my guest. Until then, it shall stay in the article per WP:DRNC. --386-DX (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
    • If you would like to escalate this, request a third opinion, mediation, or arbitration, please see WP:DRR. --386-DX (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Itsmejudith: Listing an article there does not imply that Wikipedia makes any kind of causal connection between issues dealt with in articles
I respectfully disagree with you. Putting something in "see also" almost unquestionably means the editors are drawing some sort of casual connection between two things. What does putting "Nazi" in George W. Bush's "see also" section say? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
386-DX, you read the discussion a bit differently than I did. 1) It's extremely POV to draw up comparisons between these two disparate events. 2) Just because some editors want it, does not mean that it should be included in the article. 3) At least one somewhat "neutral" party, TFOWR supported it's inclusion, but deleted it because he didn't think we have enough consensus to put it there.
There are exactly zero connections between the Exodus and this recent event. Yes, some journalists have made comparisons between the two events. But let them make those POV comparisons, not us. And those POV comparisons already been covered at least a little bit in the "reactions" page. That's exactly where they belong. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
I concur with Bob drobbs, the connection, if even exist, is very very subjective one. First, and this is not disputed, the Exodus wasn't boarded by the IDF. Second, it was not flotila of activists intend to express solidartiy with one side or another, but baiscly transport ship with its passengers Jewish holocaust servivors, recognised by the UN as refugees. We can continue with the comparison for hours, but baiscally, there are no similarties that make it just in the "see also" section. --Gilisa (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Including SS Exodus seem obvious since several independent RS have made such a connection and the obvious similarities (boat, blockade, civilians getting killed, public outcry). Some have also analysed the historical significance and Bloody Sunday (1972) and the Sharpeville shootings have also been used in comparisons. // Liftarn (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Liftarn, it doesn't seem obvious, and the fact some sources made commentary doesn't make it sourced comparison, it's within the opinnion journalism area and not merely a report whose realability is not an issue to subjective interpertation. Besides boat and public outcry there are no similarities, certainly not more than to any other ship been boarded by any other navy. And there are dozens like these every year, mostly in Europe btw, of African refugees and work immigrants looking for shalter or for job oppertunities. Should we include these as well? No. --Gilisa (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
How is this still going on? If it is that important and connected simply put a line in the reactions section that some journalists wrote opinions about it. Why are editors so adamant that it goes int he See also section?Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
You have a point. Marokwitz (talk) 06:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm more curious why some editors are so desperate to keep it out of the See also. // Liftarn (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Because it is an attempt to violate the neutral point of view which is Wikipedia's cornerstone. Marokwitz (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
In what way can be an POV violation? It is perfectly in line with WP:SEEALSO. // Liftarn (talk)
It may be inline with WP:SEEALSO, but is clearly against WP:NPOV. If Wikipedia policy worked according to your logic, then we can also add Nazi Germany to the "See Also" section, since some Iranian commentator compared Israeli commandos to Nazis. That's not how a neutral encyclopedia should work. Marokwitz (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
So you say there are several similarities between the actions of Nazi Germany and Israeli commandos? // Liftarn (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
If that's what you understood from my answer, then probably you should read more carefully. Marokwitz (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'll refer this inclusion to mediation as it is continuously being discussed since the day of the raid. --386-DX (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to revert edit to lead section

This edit is likely to be found controversial. I therefore ask for consensus to revert the edit. The content may then be discussed on the talk page, of course.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, sounds like commentary to me. The cargo delivery is already mentioned later in the lead anyways. ← George talk 23:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the edit immediately; an appropriate time frame for discussion of this case may be 24 hours, or close per WP:SNOW, if a sufficiently large number of editors have expressed their opinions.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Support reversion of the Uzza edits, this is an account with 12 previous edits the user has not come in to Talk but made wholesale changes to the lead and body, looks like a sleeper and, anyway -- "ironically"? RomaC (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The word "ironically" is not supported by the cited source and is POV, so I agree with RomaC that it should be removed. Other than that, no problem with the edit has been argued, and I myself don't see any, so I don't see any justification for a revert. The Hamas refusal to accept the aid is not at present mentioned later in the lead, so there is no redundancy. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. It is just written like an editorial. Ironically and "refused". Attempt to reword instead of wholesale removal. If it turns out to be too much then consider it.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The comments above indicate that the edit should either be reverted or significantly altered. By inference, the edit is controversial (although this particular aspect has not been discussed explicitly). Unless there is objection, I'm going to revert the edit, pending discussion and based on talk page consensus, and move the content of the edit to the talk page, so that it can be discussed here.  Cs32en Talk to me  01:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I put on my bold hat and took a stab at cleaning the sentence up. I moved the text down to where I felt it belonged chronologically, and tried to remove the editorializing Cptnono mentioned. Have a look. ← George talk 01:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I changed the sentence from:

"The flotilla's cargo was inspected by Israel and delivered to the Gaza border shortly after the incident, where Hamas authorities ironically refused to accept it."

...to:

"The flotilla's cargo was inspected by Israel, and approved items were trucked to the Gaza border in the days following the incident. Hamas authorities refused to accept the aid until all the detained activists from the flotilla were released."

← George talk 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the changes. Thank you!  Cs32en Talk to me  01:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
100% agree with George's changes Zuchinni one (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There's an obvious issue of accuracy in the last clause. All the activists were released, and Hamas still hasn't accepted the cargo. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
George, the fact is no RS argue that any of the detained activists wasn't released. Infact, they all admit all were released. Hamas however, again according to RS, still refuse to accept the aid. Therefore such edit will fail to meet WP:NPOV. --Gilisa (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Any sources for that? --386-DX (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
As I wrote, there are many. If more are asked, they will be provided. --Gilisa (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I have no idea if the detainees were released or not (not something I read about daily). I was only writing the sentences based on the sources that it was attributed to (which was five days old, if I recall correctly). If there are more recent developments in the situation, editors should feel free to update the sentences. ← George talk 15:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It is good that someone had the balls to tinker with the poor sentence. I'm busy wearing my lazy-and-let-everyone-else-edit pants this month. I think the confusion comes from Israel not allowing certain materials in and Hams sayin they would not accept it based on the detainees and that. It was in the source provided. So a quick little midification should fix it right up.Cptnono (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Some questionable past edits

1. [18], is the wording change appropiate?

2. [19],does this belong to the already too long lead? Should it be moved? Word "bloodshed" sounds a bit POV.

--Kslotte (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

3. [20], the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2010. ... this looks a bit odd, is it according to MOS?

--Kslotte (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

4. [21], how reliable is Wikimapia as a source?

--Kslotte (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I just copied the coordinates from the main article and paste them at the wikimapia link Kessale (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
No and no for the first two. Physchim62 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
  1. I'd strongly prefer "demands" to "orders": "orders" implies a degree of legitimacy, and that's disputed.
  2. Too much detail for the lead, would be OK in the article, I understand what the editor meant by "bloodshed" but I'd prefer a less WP:POV-laden term.
  3. Kind of. My reading of WP:LEAD is that all of "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" should be bolded. Incidentally, I think that "Operation Sky Breeze" should be bolded as well. Usual disclaimer about my intellect applies.
  4. User-generated content? Not at all reliable.
TFOWR 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC) Added a.4 TFOWR 15:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Bloodshed is POV to which side? This word is taken from the BBC? I think is should be mentioned in the lead that there had been previous attempts which had not had the same outcome. Chesdovi (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Media use strong words to get attention and make sales. In Wikipedia we prefer to use more neutral words. --Kslotte (talk) 15:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Blood was shed on both sides. How else could you term it. Why is it a "strong" word? What does it connote? Use another word if nece. Chesdovi (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"Death". This was the first attempt that ended in deaths. TFOWR 15:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Support for the word "death". --Kslotte (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Support for "bloodshed". -- The main issue here is that WP:RS used "bloodshed". I don't care much about original thought and fail to see how "death" is less inflaming, though agree on its neutrality flaws. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
"violent confronation", "fatalities"... Chesdovi (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Happy with "confrontation", OK with "violent confrontation", happy with "fatalities" (and I really wish I could avoid writing things like "happy with fatalities"...) Also, I'm not that unhappy with "bloodshed", the more I think about it. I'd still prefer "death", however. TFOWR 12:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Number 3 is done. Other are still open. --Kslotte (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning #1, I'd suggest to use "request" instead of "order" or "demand". "Order" implies some kind of legitimate authority, while "demand" might be seen as an unspecified proposal.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with word "order", but I see that word "request" is too weak in this context. I would prefer "demand" as compromise. --Kslotte (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I really don't understand how this is a "demand" or "order". They had several choices including 1) turning around 2) going to Ashdod and having the cargo inspected there 3) Going to Egypt for delivery through Rafah 4) continuing on to Gaza and getting boarded. When you have more than one choice of action it is not a "demand" or an "order". Zuchinni one (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Number 4 is done, 1 and 2 is still open. --Kslotte (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Number 1, changed to word "request" .... after the flotilla refused Israel's requests to have the cargos inspected at the port of Ashdod and items permitted by Israel delivered by. land. --Kslotte (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Concerning #2, I suggest simply removing ", but the first that resulted in bloodshed." We could also remove the information that the other vessels were boarded without casualties, as we generally do not focus on what did not happen. (The controversy about the significance that there were no deaths on the other five ships is not relevant enough to be included in the lead.)  Cs32en Talk to me  22:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. --Kslotte (talk) 08:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

About number 3,the boldness seems to have been removed. OK, for me. Hopefully according to MOS. --Kslotte (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

About 2: The "other vessels" sentence seems to be removed. I changed (tried to make compromise) the word "bloodshed" to "deaths". The word death cannot be misinterpreted, dead is dead. No one is half dead. --Kslotte (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

All issues should now be resolved. --Kslotte (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Dbfelber, 20 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In "Cargo of the flotilla" I would like to add that the flotilla also had 100 metal rods, 200 knives, 50 wooden clubs and 150 military vests: http://www2.hernandotoday.com/content/2010/jun/11/gaza-toehold-removal-israel/ .

Dbfelber (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The source appears to be a letter to the editor - I don't think this is a reliable enough source for inclusion in an article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There were not that many items even according to the IDF. That ship was carrying some 500 people on a week long journey, of course there would be kitchen knives. Nothing worth to mention about that. Most of the "metal rods" were cut from the ship's bars as confirmed in passenger testimonies and videos released by the IDF. As for the "vests"; they are not military vests, they are vests for health personnel, and they have a very clear red crescent amblem on them as you can see in the photos. --386-DX (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  Not done --Kslotte (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Initial contact

"Five days after the raid, IDF released an audio recording purporting to be of a radio exchange between the Israeli Navy and the flotilla. After Israeli warnings that the ships are approaching a blockade, voices responded "Go back to Auschwitz!" and "Don't forget 9/11".[93]"

The released audio recording wasn't "purporting to be of a radio exchange between the Israeli Navy and the flotilla." it was originally claimed as a radio exchange between the Israeli Navy and Mavi Marmara. However, under scrutiny by the independent media which pointed out many factual mistakes in the Israeli account, IDF was force to issue this clarification:

http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/05/clarificationcorrection-regarding-audio-transmission-between-israeli-navy-and-flotilla-on-31-may-2010-posted-on-5-june-2010/

this link is footnote 95 in the article yet the preceding paragraph is clearly mischaracterizing the original claim made by IDF as "a radio exchange between the Israeli Navy and the flotilla".

I think that this paragraph should state: "....., IDF released an audio recording purporting to be of a radio exchange between the Israeli Navy and Mavi Marmara, then later under scrutiny clarified its claim as "a radio exchange between the Israeli Navy and the flotilla".[95]"

It seems that IDF is doing pretty good job "sanitizing" this article, but please keep some semblance of impartiality here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wieszcz (talkcontribs) 03:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This whole reference should be dropped it seems to have been edited in primarily with the objective of poisoning the well. RomaC (talk) 06:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
RomaC, the reference should not be dropped, it's a good one. The rest is your own interpertation. --Gilisa (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi again Gilisa, can I ask you why, in your interpretation, an admittedly edited IDF audio issue purporting to catch trash talk from a random passenger is a good addition to the article? Cheers, RomaC (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all because the issue was reported by multiple RS and is therefore WP:N. Also, because that trash talk shows that some people on the flotilla think that Jews should go back to Auschwitz. It's pretty unlikely they were able to reach a ship's radio and broadcast their hate without someone high ranking on the ship allowing them to.
Why do you think this notable incident of hate should not go in the article? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
The only problem I have with it is the lack of clarity. The initial tapes were edited, and there may be some dispute over who transmitted what and when. Once those issues have been cleared up, and if it's still notable, then sure, let fly. Otherwise we have something along the lines of "someone, possibly within the flotilla, may or may not have been baiting the IDF" - and that's not really very useful. Rklawton (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Rklawton, the entire article is full of lacks of clarity. There is much about what happened that we don't know, and we may never know. We simply have two different and jumbled sides to the story. But this one piece of the puzzle is definitely notable and should remain. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Wieszcz original point is right in correcting the account. But it seems that we might want to just remove "Five days after". We could write in detail that there was an original claim, that was then amended. But we made an effort not long ago to reduce the weight of this entire section. As for accuracy in keeping track of "claims" would we also want to put in each and every claim that was made by the activists which later turned out to be false? I don't think so. We should stick to just the latest available information. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I still stand by my first proposition, it is accurate and factual, and as for poisoning the well, it cuts both ways: very incendiary language about Auschwitz and 9/11 was used in that radio recording, IDF claimed that it was the communication between the navy and Mavi Marmara, under scrutiny IDF had to retract (correct/clarify) that claim and as mentioned further in the section, concede that since it was made on an open radio channel these highly inflammatory remarks could have be made by anybody. I think that since a claim with such an incendiary language was put forward and then discussed in the article, most care has to be used in accurately describing that event. I understand that so much of your (the volunteers and paid IDF personnel) effort went to "sanitize" this article for IDF, but by making it so ridiculously one-sided your are defeating your own purpose, and making Wikipedia less credible overall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.141.103 (talk) 03:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS makes it clear that "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", so no matter if some papers picked up the IDF release of an edited "reconstruction" with a trash-talking voice whose identity and location are unclear at best -- even Israel now says they don't know who or where the voice came from. Tell me, in 50 years when people look back at the event, is this "Auschwitz" crack going to be notable? Does the WWII article note US soldiers shouted "Jap" or "Eat lead, Kraut!"? C'mon. The reason some editors want inclusion seems to be in the hope that it will poke readers toward the opinion that the passengers were awfully bad dudes -- ie, project the official IDF line onto the article. RomaC (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
The reason some editors want removal seems to be in the hope that it will poke readers toward the opinion that the passengers were saints -- ie, project the official FGM/IHH line onto the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, rather than speculating about the motives of other editors, how about WP:AGFing and concentrating on whether this detail is pertinent? We shouldn't be trying to paint the flotilla participants or the IDF soldiers as saints or sinners. TFOWR 15:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we will ever know all of the facts and definitively we won't know the intentions of all of the parties involved, so let stick with what we know. It seems that in the present form, the paragraph doesn't cover all of the facts of this matter. My proposal is accurate and is based on facts, it cuts both ways: for the flotilla, it could indicate that there were some people on board who were using definitively very incendiary antisemitic (Auschwitz comment)and antiamerican (9/11 comment) language, on the other hand, it could be interpreted as IDF propaganda stunt put on for the world's Jewry (Auschwitz comment) and the American audience (9/11 comment), which went wrong. Whatever it was let the readers decide it for themselves, I don't want to get into a counterproductive argument like the "shot and killed" argument above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.66.131.25 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Two edits

These two edits, was edited without comments. Are these appropriate? --Kslotte (talk) 08:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not. The user has removed crucial and factual information from the article without any valid reason. --386-DX (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
All edits by this users may be possible POV. Someone (with knowledge how to approach) could notify the user. --Kslotte (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The first edit looks fine - they removed quotation marks from around "refused", which is OK as the two articles cited didn't use quotation marks. I've not yet looked at the second edit. TFOWR 14:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The second edit I'm less sure about: the text removed seems useful: After intense diplomatic negotiation with Israel, the UN has agreed to oversee the transfer of 70 truck-loads humanitarian aid from on board the flotilla including medical supplies, building material. It was uncited, however. TFOWR 14:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Here is the info, supported by this primary source. fyi, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
My point was that Uzza52 may have removed the text because it was uncited at the time they removed it. (Basically, unless I'm missing something, I'm not seeing anything much of concern in Uzza52's two edits). TFOWR 16:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Resolved. OK, good that there is no issues with the edits. It looked a bit suspicious at first. I have notified the user to use edit summary field. --Kslotte (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit summaries could have saved us a lot of time here ;-) I'd add that removing uncited text is regarded as OK on most articles, but I'm sure most of us at this article would regard it with more concern than we might elsewhere. I'd hope that regulars on this talk page, at least, always use edit summaries. TFOWR 10:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo of demonstrations in Sweden

I'm not sure where the photo of the Sweedish demonstrations came from, its not in the source listed, and I've looked through some other sources with no luck. I'm going to remove it since it can't be properly sourced, but feel free to re-add if I missed something or if you find a good source.

Here was the source that was listed: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64U4SN20100531

Here is the edit where I removed the photo if you find a source and want to undo it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=369651082&oldid=369638293

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the source for the image. The images WikiCommons page lists flickr as the source. The BBC reference was cited to support the text that people protested in Stockholm. ← George talk 04:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and re-added it. My guess is that you just missed (or misinterpreted) the source for the image. ← George talk 04:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it wasn't clear that the source was a wikicommons photo. Maybe we should add that as a ref also so its clear. What do you think George? Zuchinni one (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be unusual to do so. If you click on an image (almost any image), you can see its copyright info. For instance, the image of the Rafah crossing in the background section is also from flickr, but doesn't have any references in this article. I'm not sure why the text for the image of Stockholm needs a reference at all. ← George talk 14:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering I took and uploaded the photo I would think it would have been easiest to just ask. // Liftarn (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Psht! Why do that when I can just remove it and claim to be a genius at finding unsourced material? Seriously though, my bad, the sourcing of the text in the caption confused me. I'm glad the pic is back up and credit is going where it is due :) Zuchinni one (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Return to "Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 12" page.