Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Mavi Marmara boarding section

The entirety of that section relays IDF commando's claims as fact, uses IDF propaganda images showing a very distorted picture of what occured, in which the injuries to ten armed professional soldiers are recounted in great detail and the actual killings of ten people is treated as some minor inconsequential detail. I intend to correct the POV issues there. Starting with the balance of photos and the description of the assault by the IDF. nableezy - 19:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. You may not believe me, but my interest is actually in making sure that both sides of the story are honestly told. If there are any instance where the IDF claims are taken as fact vs. statements of fact in RS being given in the article as fact, then that should be addressed. I just expect the same on the other side. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Palmer report URL and incorrect map

The Palmer report link goes to a dead 404 page. One copy of the report is athttps://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf The accompanying map showing the route is not attested. According to the Turkish Commission the Marmara made a course correction at 11:30 and was headed towards the coast of Egypt. The purported "planned route of the flotilla" does not seem to be correct. Mcdruid (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

In further reading add "Billis, Emmanouil (2022). The limits of discretion in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes at the international level: The Mavi Marmara saga. Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice, 10(1), 1-26. doi:10.15845/bjclcj.v10i1.3686" 109.242.62.172 (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Gaza flotilla raid → Gaza flotilla attack – "Raid" is a euphemistic term in the context that prioritizes the Israeli POV of this event as some sort of mundane military operation, when in fact it was a highly illegal act of aggression in international waters that was tantamount to piracy. In pure numbers terms, "Gaza flotilla raid" is not a majority or even dominant term for the events, and cannot be claimed as a WP:COMMONNAME. In news results, 2010 "gaza flotilla" attack actually returns more news results, at 2,090 hits, than 2010 "gaza flotilla" raid, with 1,630 hits. The same holds true for scholarly results, for which 2010 "Gaza flotilla" attack produces 1,390 hits, as compared to 817 hits for 2010 "Gaza flotilla" raid. Furthermore the scholarly results for "raid" plummet to 243 hits if you exclude the term "attack", while the results for "attack" still remain at 744 hits when you exclude the term "raid". Other terms used include crisis and incident, but these are somewhat couched, formal and imprecise. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:commonname. Google results for "Gaza Flotilla Raid" meaningfully exceed (7x) those for "Gaza Flotilla Attack." In both cases the exact search phrase is placed in quotes -- what Google calls "Exact Match."Johnadams11 (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Input not permitted for internal discussions on WP:ARBPIA topics from users with fewer than 500 edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 1) where is the 500 edit policy stated, and 2) why do you believe an MR is equivalent to an RFA? Johnadams11 (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Johnadams11: WP:PIA general sanctions include extended confirmed restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:commonname. Google results for "Gaza Flotilla Raid" meaningfully exceed (7x) those for "Gaza Flotilla Attack." In both cases the exact search phrase is placed in quotes -- what Google calls "Exact Match." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Bastun: As I already clearly presented in the opening statement, there are literally hundreds of scholarly mentions, that do not even use the word 'raid', so the word is quite clearly not required to describe the event and quite self-evidently not the common name. Gaza flotilla attack is not being proposed as a WP:COMMONNAME (because there is none) but as a descriptive title, per WP:NDESC. Were one to go purely with Google, [1] Ngrams actually shows 'Gaza flotilla raid' to be more or less neck-and-neck with 'Gaza flotilla incident', and if anything slightly behind 'incident' in the long run, so again, not the clear common name. And then if you look at scholarly sources, 2010 "Gaza flotilla" incident still turns up 744 hits, again without the word raid' ... so the 'raid' case is weak indeed. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

This is a move request. You know how those work? You make your case. Other people make their cases. You do not need to, and nor should you, engage with and attempt to rebut every other contributor. That is called bludgeoning the process. What is clear, though, is you do not know how to use Google search properly. "Gaza flotilla raid": 22,800 hits; compared to "Gaza flotilla attack": 3,400 hits - using exact match search terms, rather than just "Gaza flotilla" as the exact search criteria. No idea why you're now trying to prove "incident" is more used than "raid". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Bastun: If editors use blatantly silly methodologies to make their case, or worse still, simply copy and paste responses from unqualified editors, then yes, I will rebut them. And as anyone who is not a complete novice in move discussions knows, raw google results are borderline worthless because they include, for one thing, Wikipedia mirrors. That is no way to poll reliable sources. At the bare minimum you should look at only news results (and specify the year for events like this). Better still you should refer to scholarly literature, which is what I have already provided links to, and which you seem to be ignoring. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Dude... we have an expression where I come from. "When you're in a hole - stop digging." You opened this section by quoting Ghit results (from what is a poor search). It's ok for you to do it, but not anyone else? So two of us demonstrated that when one uses correct, exact terms - "Gaza flotilla raid" and "Gaza flotilla attack", the former has more results. This is a much more relevant result than your "Gaza flotilla" one.

But sure, you're correct on one thing, Google Scholar is better than straight Google searches. Doing so: 2010 "Gaza flotilla raid": 356 results. 2010 "Gaza flotilla attack": 57 results. QED. Now - how about we shut up and let other people participate? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Even if Iskandar doesn't like it, the term 'raid' has been the long-standing consensus for over a decade for a reason. Moreover, according to the UN-led Palmer report, Israel's maritime blockade of hostile Hamas-ruled Gaza is legal, so the term "illegal" (as Iskandar323 said) is subjective and not unanimous at all. Also 'raid' is far more neutral than 'attack', the latter implying a premeditated aggression rather than a defensive response by soldiers who came under brutal attempt of lynching after boarding one of the ships that tried to break the blockade (passengers on the other ships didn't resist violently, so there were no violent incidents, which makes the term "attack" even more laughable). The same goes for the other buzzwords promoted by Iskandar, such as "piracy" and what not. Wikipedia's objective is to report facts on a neutral manner, not WP:right great wrongs. Dovidroth (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Dovidroth: A word to the wise. It is a good idea to stay impersonal. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• It is. You should practice what you preach. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 21:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• The mind boggles at how one can 'raid' without premeditation... Iskandar323 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as raid is a neutral balanced term. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 14:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phrasing modification

"A Turkish media report said that two Israeli fighter jets and a helicopter circled over a Turkish exploration ship searching for gas reservoirs off the coast of Cyprus, breaching Cypriot airspace, ignoring warnings from Turkish air controllers in Northern Cyprus, and approaching the Turkish coastline in the process and that they were only driven off when two Turkish fighter jets were scrambled to intercept them.". This seems misleading as the fact that Turkey for one, doesnt have the right to dictate what is an infringement of another countrys territory (In this case, Cyprus'), that would fall on the Cypriot authorities. "ignoring warnings from Turkish air controllers in Northern Cyprus", Turkish air controllers have no legal jurisdiction in Cyprus and the proper authority for that would be Nicosia Area Control Centre which is the legal authority for the Cypriot FIR and leading on from that, "northern Cyprus" is not a recognised entity and according to the UN it is recognised as part of the Republic of Cyprus, as such I think that that whole paragraph really needs a change in phraseology seen as the Republic of Cyprus (The legal authority on the island), made no issue about Israeli jets flying in its territory. AlphaCharlieBravo206 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

References