Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Islamist organization

The editor User:Kslotte who violated the multimple revert rules and other rules has now been blocked. However, there is still no material on the page about the well-documented ties of the the IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı) to Islamist ideas and sponsorship/advocacy of violence. Here is some documentation:

The Daily Telegraph suggested that the IHH is "a radical Islamist group masquerading as a humanitarian agency", however conceded that these "claims remain controversial"

According to Henri Barkey, an analyst for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the IHH is, an Islamist organisation as it has been deeply involved with Hamas for some time," and "Some of its members went on the boat saying that they had written their last will and testament." Broad Wall (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

More could be added, but surely omitting such information from this article is a gross violation of NPOV.Broad Wall (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read the Wikipedia entry on IHH. According to a International Studies Danish Institute research [2], the IHH had ties with Islamist armed groups such as Hamas and Al-Qaeda, and was even caught storing weapons and bomb-making instructions in its HQ in Istanbul, in a 1997 police raid. So describing it as a radical Islamist group is correct, although harder labels could also fit. MathKnight 07:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just thought it would be important to keep in mind that Hamas (as opposed to only its military wing) is considered to be a terrorist organisation by a few countries, most of which are staunch allies of Israel. Mshahidil (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Claims of previous boardings in international waters

Alan Dershowitz claims [3] in Huffington Post that "the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security". He does not give much more detail. A commentor in HP provided a link to WP article SS Exodus, where there is a similar case: civilian ship, international waters, boarded by soldiers, civilian deaths. I wonder if this is not relevant as background? At first I added a "see also" [4], but it was reverted [5] by Licory. Any thoughts? — fnielsen (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Any one other than Alan making the connex? Cause this might be a little too a flock of seagulls for our taste if the RS aren't delivering...--Cerejota (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed the SS Exodus doesn't seem that similar to this case. It was over 50 years ago, things have changed significantly since then and if I understand the article correctly, it wasn't trying to run a blockade but deliver immigrants unwanted and unwelcome by the people (the British) who had control over the territory they were trying to go to, said people of course being the ones who boarded it. Boarding ships trying to deliver illegal immigrants isn't of course particularly uncommon even nowadays although I'm not sure if it usually occurs in international waters (many of the ships probably lack registration and other things which probably changes the legal situation anyway). Unless I missed something, the people in defacto control of Gaza had no problem with the people or goods in the ship arriving at Gaza, and they definitely weren't the ones who boarded it. So it isn't that surprising few sources have picked it up as a similar case. Perhaps there are better examples. Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"Similair" is relative definition. I see both Sol Phryne and SS Exodus are the most similar cases available (that we know off). SS Exodus was seized like Gaza flotilla. Sol Phryne had the same type of political drama as Gaza flotilla (but a different approach and outcome). I propose both links should be added back with well written description after. --Kslotte (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This only compares to that boarding last year or in 2008 or MAYBE with those two ships from Iran that Israel seized and carried tons of rockets and whatnot. Metallurgist (talk) 02:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

I see as usual that the external links section is turning into an advocacy link farm. External links need to comply with WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE and the selection of links mustn't skew the neutrality of the article. Can I suggest that all of the MFA video links are replaced with a single link to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs site which includes most if not all of these videos i.e. this one ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea based on consolidation alone.Cptnono (talk) 04:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with both of you. Good idea! Zuchinni one (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with myself, I'm just saying... It's also better because the MFA site puts them in context and presents them as part of a narrative whereas listing them by themselves does the opposite. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh... all this focus on NPOV sickens me :). Seriously, go for itCptnono (talk) 04:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. It took out a few other links, disembarkation (snooze) and aid transfer (oh come on!). I hope the MFA will set up a better link in due course to take people to a collection of all the pertinent material. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Kasaalan replaced all the links and I have added a link on his talkpage for him to come here and discuss his revert. Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Israel_Navy_warns_flotilla_31-May-2010.htm

The link you provided doesn't even opening. Gives 404 error. Kasaalan (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That link does seem open and is the hub of all links and it imo a lot better and policy compliant that all the youtube links. Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is it does not open directly. I can reach it via 3rd party sites. I will check if it is about my computer settings or IDF only lets some countries to access data. Kasaalan (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked it is not my computer settings. If you create a webcite it may be acceptable. But if the link is not global, it isn't helpful much. Kasaalan (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Links working good and You tube links are actually recommended to avoid. Much better to have one hub link that multiple you tube links. Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked with 2 more friends, link is uncaccessable to certain parts of the world. I can access via proxy, but not useful at all for rest of the users. Kasaalan (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also we may keep separate IDF videos with titles in notes section as 1st hand video evidence, instead external links. If you still like to remove use hide feature. Kasaalan (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Inaccessible from where? You tube is inaccesable from many places also. I don't support your edit at all. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

# 8.2 Legal opinions opposing the action

This section (unlike the preceding support section) is vague in or entirely lack actual reasoning on why the actions should be legal or illegal. There are too many entries just repeating each other. Many entries do not appear to actually constitute a (qualified) legal opinion at all, but just a negative opinion using references to legality. A prime example is the very beginning of the section:

Richard Falk, U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territory said that “Israel is guilty of shocking behavior by using deadly weapons against unarmed civilians on ships that were situated in the high seas where freedom of navigation exists, according to the law of the seas” and called for those responsible to "be held criminally accountable for their wrongful acts".

Cut out the non-legal opinions, reduce the actual legal opinions to a representative sub-set, and give their actual reasoning as to why the actions should be considered illegal.

As the section currently reads, it has near to no informational value, and only serves to give an image of "Many more people disagree than agree with the Israelis; ergo the Israelis are wrong", which simply is not encyclopedically acceptable. 88.77.182.69 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Setting aside the slightly pertinent fact that Falk is a professor of international law, I think the whole section, pro and con is the usual drivel people crowbar into these articles to push the partisan views they like. It reduces the quality of the article and provides a platform for opinionated advocacy. In my view something along the lines of the statement from the Washington Post is enough for this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

For comparison/sanity check, have a look at the way the BBC covers the legality of the raid in their legality infobox without the drama/advocacy. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more. Give me both sides' quality-reducing dramatic opinionated advocacy drivel every time over dogmatic assertions which may not give a full view of both sides and help the reader think for himself. There's a natural and unavoidable progression to such sections - they become bloated enough eventually that everyone agrees that they must be carefully cut by consensus.John Z (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How come no one looks into the fact that this was in The Economic Exclusive Zone of Israeli waters, and hence not the high seas. There are clear differences. In stead a lot of "experts" claim International waters, but that is after the 200 nm limit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.47.81 (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Background section: Too much History?

I'm not sure that the background section is the right place for such a detailed account of the political history leading up to the blockade. While the history is relevant it might be better to have a short sentence and a link to another wikipedia article with further details.

I am not going to make any edits to the background, but this seems like something that should be discussed as it's getting quite long as of this revision: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365588288

Zuchinni one (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I think it is fine, except that it should be split into two. We need to tell the reader the basics (Hamas/Gaza/de facto and why/intl view/blockades and why/attempts to breach blockades). Other stuff is really not so much background as preparations and specifics of this event. I'll try to figure out how to split them--Epeefleche (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I made the change, per this talk page, and some user reverted it without reading. In short, we have an "Events leading up to" section. That's where some of the material now in "background" belongs.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Background section should refer primarily to the intentions and rationale for both the flotilla heading Gaza and the Israeli Army objecting this. The Palestinian Civil War and the Gaza Blockade are covered in extension in their respective articles, so it is not needed to explain this at lenght in here. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 07:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with IANVS here. The background seems to just be covering far too much information that, while related, is not directly the background of the event. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Huh? I know you've only been around for 300-something edits, so you may not be familiar with wikipedia articles, but that's certainly not inappropriate background for an article of this length. It's exactly what the RSs provide as background. Readers are entitled to know the answer to "why", and the background is more important to that than ... say ... the country flags in the article (and takes up about the same space).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not just point people to the information that already exists elsewhere in wikipedia and focus on the background for this specific event here. That does three things: 1) gives easy access to the background information 2) lets users read the article without having to sift through tons of history of the I-P conflict. 3) keeps wikipedia easier to edit by not requiring editors to watch and update the same information across multiple articles. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

In favour of this. There is too much information to put forward a coherent, accurate account of the historical context. Mshahidil (talk) 09:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OH NOES HERE WE GO AGAIN!!! Childrens: there is a reason why "see also" templates exist. I have to start spanking naughty behinds? Behave...--Cerejota (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• "Childrens"? There is a reason dictionaries exist. And spell-check. And as to some of the "no" voters, there is a reason that sock rules exist. And as to Cerjota, there is a reason that "Background" sections exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

marvelous

Our article and the lead says the following or thereabouts

• Rejecting the offer, organizer Greta Berlin stated: "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians"

• AFP reported [6]

"We are taking 10,000 tonnes of material that Israel refuses to allow into Gaza," Berlin said. The cargo included water filtration units, pre-fabricated homes and crayons for children, she added. "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians," she said.

Seems a bit different. We're kind of losing a bit of context. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see how. The context is right there in the article -- as the AFP reported, this was a response by Berlin to why she was not accepting the Israeli offer to deliver the supplies to Ashdod, and let them be delivered overland. That's the relevant context, and it is reflected in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with sean here. This might be OK to add ... but not in the lead. Background section seems more appropriate. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was part of a response by Berlin to why she was not accepting the Israeli offer to deliver the supplies to Ashdod, and let them be delivered overland. It was the part that left out the part about how it's 10,000 tonnes of material that Israel refuses to allow into Gaza including water filtration units, pre-fabricated homes and crayons for children. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it true that ALL of the aid was banned? I hadn't heard that before. I only heard that some of the aid included items banned by Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Various items are banned and they change in somewhat non-transparent way. There was a recent legal case about it which I'm not sure anyone has incorporated into the pertinent articles yet. See 'Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case' for example. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever we do, it strikes me that we should reflect in the lede: 1) what the organizers said they were seeking to deliver; 2) the offer to deliver the materials overland, 3) the rejection of that offer, and 4) the statement by the organizer as to the purpose (which, obviously, in material and not completely intuitive, and explains the rejection of the offer). All is key to the incident, and the four paras we are allotted in the lede should accommodate them. I'm happy for Sean to try his hand at reflecting #1 if he feels it is not done sufficiently. But by no means whatsoever can the organizer's statement of the avowed purpose of the flotilla -- especially when it is other than what might be assumed -- be considered innappropriate for the lede and relegated to "background" ... it is clearly key to the story, and takes but a sentence.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of Free Gaza being more concerned with the PR side of things than actually delivering aid is well documented. I personally see this quote as almost verifying it for this operation. However, the context is a little vague the way that writer did it. Although I like the line to a certain extent, it might be better for the reader and editors to simply find another quote. Comes across a little SYNTHY on the writer's part who doesn't have to deal with NPOV. Maybe it isn't... I just can't tell. Israel saying it was primarily a provocation would be something that might fit in the lead but that would be touchy and have to be handled with caution. Cptnono (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If it was to be included the wording should change. Flotilla organizer Greta Berlin rejected Israel's offer to deliver the humanitarian aid, stating, "It's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians". However I'm still not sure it belongs in the lead. In the meantime I'll reword it. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, that's not correct. The point of why she isn't allowing it to be delivered overland is that, as she says, its not about the aid. Why would you seek to censor that out? It's like an editor with an opposite POV eliminating the other half of the sentence. The full sentence is "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians". Provide further context if necessary, but don't POV cherry-pick out the key provision.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I think I agree with all 3 of you mostly. It seems to me though Berlin is saying that it's a) about breaking the blockade because b) Israel won't deliver the material (allegedly). We need to capture the whole thing somehow. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sean, I'm OK w/capturing more (I expect -- I trust you to try your hand at that). I think deleting what she said smells to censorish. It's clearly key. As to what she meant by that, that would be synth, but my understanding from the context was a bit different. I also happen to know a bit about her, so that is my further background. She doesn't believe there should be borders anywhere in the world between nations. So what she describes as a "siege" naturally rankles her. She wants to break it, because it is an extreme manifestation of what she is politically against. That is more important than item-delivery. (I think, btw, she also said, jokingly I believe, that she was an anti-semite because of one of her husbands, who was Jewish). The only material that I am aware of that they said they had which Israel said would be a problem was the concrete, from what I've seen. But her issue, as suggested by her statement (at least how I read it), is that its not about the aid, and whether it gets there, but about breaking down blockade -- even if she were assured all material would get through, I don't think she would have agreed, from what I've read of her in the past.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to censor anything ... they both have the same meaning to me, one is just shorter and thus seems more appropriate. The lead not about giving all the details, but a good summary. I'm still not sure the quote should be included at all. But I'm open to changes in both wording and inclusion. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sean I'm not clear where part 'b' came from in your analysis above. It seems she's not concerned with whether or not the aid will be delivered at all ... just breaking the blockade. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Zuch--I agree with your last point. I don't think you can convey that without the first part of that sentence. It's the one thing we have from an organizer as to the avowed purpose of the flotilla, which is obviously key to this article. And given the different interpretations even on this talk page, I think those few words deserve to be quoted. If others feel further context is needed, that's fine (I'm not sure it is).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how you know here Epeefleche, but my interactions with her here on Wikipedia left much to be desired. I also feel it is about making a point and not the aid with them. This has been pretty clear in the past. It should be easy enough to find a line in the press that says that. It might be worth seeing if an alternative is available just to make this crystal clear (if it is the case of course).Cptnono (talk) 08:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I wasn't too tied to the wording, just wanted to keep it as short as possible. I'll add back in the It's not about delivering humanitarian aid part, but the over land/sea stuff is just extraneous. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I had not looked at this discussion. I have no objection to summarising the background of the events in the lead; but if you are mentioning Israel's offer and Berlin's rejection, you should also mention why it was rejected. The sentence "Flotilla organizer Greta Berlin rejected Israel's offer to deliver ..." should be modified to Flotilla organizer Greta Berlin had rejected the offer saying that the cargo "includes material that Israel refuses to allow into Gaza". Of course one can then insert the reason for blockade as well; there is no end to it. If the first paragraph is about what happened on 31 May 2010 in the international waters, "According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after the flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast." is a better, accurate and NPOV description; trying to insert Israel's earlier offer in the very first paragraph seems like an attempt to justify the Israeli action. Walky-talky (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

<- The point is (I think ) that when both parties say 'aid' they are talking about different things and that is the problem. Israel says it will deliver the 'aid' (conveniently not mentioning the giant and hilarious exclusion list = my point b i.e. the many items that aren't allow in) and the activists say Israel won't deliver the 'aid' (conveniently not mentioning the thousands of tonnes of material that isn't on the exclusion lists that they do allow through). And we are stuck in the middle trying to figure out how not to turn Wiki into a care facility for neutrality agnosia sufferers in the sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So does that mean you disagree with the current wording? If so I'm totally open to suggestions. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, the article would move at least one step towards neutrality if, in the first paragraph, we just say what happened instead of why it happened. It is true that flotilla rejected the offer; in fact "The flotilla organizers described Israel’s suggestion of sending the aid to Gaza through official Israeli channels as “both ridiculous and offensive. Their blockade, their ‘official channels,’ is what is directly causing the humanitarian crisis in the first place,” the organizers’ statement said."[[7]] But this (and all other offers/ reasoning) should be given, in later paragraphs, in the context.

Given that the purpose of the article is to discuss the raid, perhaps this would be better placed later in the article. The rejection is already mentioned when "the flotilla refused to change course". But I'm not feeling strongly about it either way. What I am strongly against is letting the Lead turn into lots of blurbs and quotes.

Also, who put in the statement above mine? No signature ... Zuchinni one (talk) 09:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni one, I'm not that fussed but I'm with Walky-talky, 'if you are mentioning Israel's offer and Berlin's rejection, you should also mention why it was rejected.' (in the article body). I'm not convinced that truncated quotes and complex he said/she said belong in the lead. I'd prefer to the keep the lead simple and non-contentious for a while. Epee, interesting about "She doesn't believe there should be borders anywhere in the world between nations.", me neither. I find it's really quite inconvenient not having a diplomatic passport. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm ... this quote has been undergoing a bit of an edit war anyway. I wasn't really thrilled with it to begin with. I think the best thing to do is to remove it for now from the lead, unless there is a consensus as to how it should be added. However I think the Israeli offer to deliver the aid that was not banned should remain. Because this was a direct part of the events ... where as the Greta Berlin quote came prior to the ships leaving (from what I understand). Also Israel made the offer to deliver the aid Just Prior to the boarding. So I think it should remain. However it might be worthwhile to link to a list of banned items ... I looked for one before but couldn't find it. As a matter of fact I made this suggestion here before as well and can't find that either. Thoughts? Zuchinni one (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing it from the lead is fine by me. Note also the quote below. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

regarding "However it might be worthwhile to link to a list of banned items ... I looked for one before but couldn't find it.". There isn't one officially available as far as I know. That's the root of this hullabaloo, the decision procedures regarding what gets in, how much gets in and when it gets in aren't public and aren't influenced by the requests from the aid suppliers or the requirements on the ground...allegedly, so reliable sources say...etc. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We also have this source that is directly in the context of the discussion: [8]

The Israeli government said it would allow humanitarian aid on the flotilla into Gaza through its normal channels. An IDF spokesman said the vessels "refused to comply with an invitation to come to Ashdod port where they could transfer aid into the Gaza strip." 'Audrey Bomse, legal advisor to the Free Gaza Movement, told CNN the group did not believe the Israelis would let the cargo into Gaza and that the cargo also included reconstruction aid which Israel does not allow into Gaza'

--DoostdarWKP (talk) 09:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Here is the current quote and all the intact references so that it can be easily added again if needed.

Flotilla organizer Greta Berlin rejected Israel's offer to deliver the humanitarian aid, stating, "This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it's about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians".

Zuchinni one (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

All this fuss just because sb insists that the offer Israel made when Free Gaza movement declared its intention to go ahead with flotilla ( but not the occupation, not the humanitarian situation in Gaza, not the repeated appeal of the international community to lift the blockade) should be mentioned in the very first paragraph. This article is primarily about what happened and not why it happened. The lead now is trying to say that Israel offered a solution ( to whatever it is) but flotilla rejected and thus this raid happened. This is not a neutral description of the events. Walky-talky (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• That's preposterous. The purpose of the flotilla, as stated by an organizer, is not relevant -- and Walky-talky, with 99 edits to his name, Zuchinni, with 391 edits, DoostarWKP, with 109 edits, are the ones driving this discussion? Will a sysop kindly take a look at this? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the complement Epeefleche, I had not noticed that I was driving this discussion. Anyway, let me repeat what I have to say ( with my history of 99+ edits) and I hope you will have some better argument other than edit counts. Did I say "The purpose of the flotilla, as stated by an organizer" , is what is relevant here? What is relevant here is what happened. There is a long history to it. There is the Hamas take over of Gaza, there is the declaration of the blockade by Israel, there is the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, there is the Free Gaza movement and its attempt to draw attention to this situation, there is the Israeli attempts to avoid this and there is the Free Gaza movement decision to go ahead with its mission. Each of these parties have their own reasons, version and all these are worth mentioning in this article, with due weight and in context. All these events happened before the Flotilla set sail. The first paragraph of this article is about what happened on 31 May 2010 in the international waters. There is no need to mention the reasoning given by various involved parties in the first paragraph itself. It can be given in the chronological order later. That is why I reverted to "The activists were planning to break through the Israeli blockade of Gaza and deliver humanitarian supplies. According to Israeli sources, its forces boarded the ships after flotilla ignored calls to change course and head away from the Gaza coast." Why is it not neutral? ( is it because I had only less than 100 edits?) The Israeli offer to deliver the goods through the port of Ashdod happened before flotilla started its sail. It should be mentioned in the 'Events leading up to the raid' section. Israeli forces may have repeated this offer at the seas as well. But the only source to it is a primary source, that too Youtube. All reliable sources mention this offer as it happened before flotilla set sail; while Israel was making efforts to avoid this situation.( a situation which will draw attention to its blockade of Gaza). Mentioning this in the first paragraph is not neutral and is certainly misleading. If this is neutral, then you can expect neutral version like "The activists were planning to break through the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which resulted in what aid agencies described as one of the worst humanitarian crisis they have witnessed and was trying to deliver essential humanitarian supplies, banned by Israel."Walky-talky (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole quote - with the "carrying 10,000..." context, should be in the article somewhere - perhaps the background section is best suited. Prodego ^talk 17:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Did Activists state that they would not resort to violence if boarded?

The article says that the Activists had stated beforehand that they would not resort to violence if boarded. This is sourced to: "Up to 16 killed as Israeli forces storm aid convoy" , but this source doesn't say anything of the kind, and I can't seem to find a source that does say it. 132.65.16.64 (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at this: http://www.nrg.co.il/images/news1/filo-bilgi-dosyasi_en.pdf It does not say that the activists would not resort to violence if boarded. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

persons, passenger or activists?

Not all people who took a part/were killed/were injuried at the flotilla were peace-activists (some were journilists). And Not all people who took a part/were killed/were injuried at the flotilla were passenger (some were crew members). Therefor, maybe the use phrases "activists" and "passengers" should be replcae with something else? (some parts of the article reffer to them simply as "persons"). ShalomOlam (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

IFJ Condemns Gaza Attack and Demands International Inquiry after Reports of Media Casualties

IFJ Condemns Gaza Attack and Demands International Inquiry after Reports of Media Casualties

http://www.ifj.org/en/articles/ifj-condemns-gaza-attack-and-demands-international-inquiry-after-reports-of-media-casualties#e16c53924797f75e336ce81899b11d61

--Nevit (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz is the only reliable source that governs victims number?

nice propaganda move. real classy. --Leladax (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a difference with victims number between Haaretz and other sources? ShalomOlam (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean ? What's up with Haaretz ? It's hard to think of an RS off hand that publishs so much material critical of various Israeli government policies. Is that the issue ? It's an RS. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, Haaretz is often accused of publishing pro-palestinian views. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Who is responsible

The decision to go ahead with the operation was taken collectively by the "group of seven", the inner security council, whose members include Barak, Meridor, the foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, as well as the prime minister, Binjamin Netanyahu.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/israel-flotilla-raid-fiasco-gaza

--Nevit (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Using the word "responsible" is POV. One can argue that the MV Mavi Marmara's Captain is responsible, since he tried to break the blockade, and refused to escort Israel Navy into the port of Ashdod. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be clear in article that who ordered the Israel army to attack the ships in international waters. If the decision to attack was made by military authorities or civil authorities. It should also be clear that who ordered or gave permission to open fire on civilians. These questions are far more fundamental than if they had sticks or they did not obey Israel in international waters. --Nevit (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FM Davutoğlu called the incident as "State Terror" seeing the politicians as those who are responsible. If the Israel agree on an independent international study it would be more clear that who is responsible. But it seems hard from Israel's previous records.

--Nevit (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

One can argue that whatever the activists did as a response was legit, since they were boarded in international waters. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not here we can't. We can cite reliable sources that say that, but analysis by us as to whether the response - or even the raid itself - was legitimate/illegal/any-other-adjective is original research. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Duh, I know, simply presenting Shalom with a hypothetical opposing view to his own. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It was directed at both of you, who should by now both know better. Maybe continue the discussion on your talk pages? I'd hope you both know about WP:NOTAFORUM too, but seeing as you're both having a forum-y discussion...TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. I was just illustrating why "responsible" is not the right word to use here. It is not used by the Guardian, and it is Nevit's opinion. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"The group of seven" are no inner security council. They are seven ministers, who were authorized by the governmet (all 30 ministers) to make executive decisions in the name of the governmet, on issues (mostly security issues) that can't wait until the next weekly governmet meeting. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC) "Group of seven" are: Binjamin Netanyahu, defence minister Ehud Barak, foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, Minister of Internal Affairs Eli Yishai, Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon, Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor and Benny Begin, a minister without portfolio. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel PM Defends Deadly Raid on Aid Convoy http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Israel-PM-Defends-Deadly-Raid-on-Aid-Convoy-95435204.html --Nevit (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Funny claim in the Background section

"It provides humanitarian relief around the globe, but has also been accused of providing support to al-Qaeda and Jihadist insurgencies in Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan and other locales."

The source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/7790919/Gaza-flotilla-the-Free-Gaza-Movement-and-the-IHH.html 1- "Israeli authorities claimed that the group is "sympathetic to al-Qaeda"." 2- "But they accuse it of overtly supporting Hamas, designated as a terrorist group by both the United States and the European Union, and also of being in contact with al-Qaeda cells and with the Sunni insurgency in Iraq."

In the source, no Israeli authorities accuse the IHH of "providing support to al-Qaeda and Jihadist insurgencies in Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan and other locales." 211.25.207.22 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced claim removed. Thanks. --IANVS (talk | cont) 11:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please take in account this 2006 report from the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) an independent research institution which was was established by an act of the danish Parliament and therefore is a serious souce. On this report, the author citing counter terrorist french judge Jean-Louis Bruguière also mention some ties of the IHH with Al Qaeda and jihadist movements.--Kimdime (talk) 11:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

File cannot be found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.34.117 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Worked for me. Metallurgist (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the claim of the blockade being legal under the Geneva convention claim, as in the Gaza blockade article sources state that Israel claims that the Geneva convention does not apply as Gaza is not a sovereign nation. The source is also an Australian newspaper and it is confusing whether the statement is based on fact or is an opinion of the journalist. Also the journalist does declare an interest, so may not be entirely neutral Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if Israel says Geneva doesnt apply there, that does not make the boarding actions illegal. Theres no law regarding non-state entities. Metallurgist (talk) 02:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Journalist on IDF ship's bridge reports: the flotilla ship said "Go back to Auschwitz"

Israeli journalist Joshua Brenner, of Walla! internet portal, which was present on the IDF ship's bridge reports: in reply to IDF's order to stop the flotilla ships replied "Go back to Auschwitz" and "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad!" Source in Hebrew:

על התדר הפתוח, יכלו כל ספינות המשט לשמוע את האזהרות. והן גם דאגו להחזיר. "תחזרו לאושוויץ", ענתה ספינה אחת, אחרת השיבה ב"ג'יהאד, ג'יהאד, ג'יהאד". המפגש האלים היה בלתי נמנע.

translation: "Over the open frequency band all the flotilla ships could hear the warnings. And they replied. "Go back to Auschwitz", one ship answered, another one replied with "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad". The violent clash was inevitible."

Joshua Brenner, מיוחד - כתב וואלה! עם כוחות השייטת בלב ים (Special: Walla! reporter with naby forces in the heart of the sea"), Walla!, 1.6.2010 and ref —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.77.4.43 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• So should be the impression that this confirm that Israel government official on press conferences lie to journalist. The wording what was communicate between aid caring ships and IDF navy differ substantially. Ai 00 (talk)

The New York Daily News has repeated her account.[9] Maybe she is not telling the truth. Maybe Greta Berlin is not. Good thing it isn;t for us to decide.Cptnono (talk) 23:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This Walla News article[10] includes a recording of this dialogue. I've included a translation of the article (original in Hebrew) and a transcript of the conversation in the recording below:

The Marmara to the navy: "Go back to Auschwitz"

A recording of the radio network shows the dialogue between navy ships to the command bridge of the Marmara. The activists on-board the ship were called to stop and replied - "We're helping Arabs, don't forget 9/11"

The IDF Spokesperson released a tape tonight (Friday) that records parts of the dialogue between the command bridge of the ship Marmara when entering Israeli territorial waters, and the navy ships calling it to stop where it is. The tape has a man's and woman's voices as they converse with navy forces.

"This is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade," is heard on the radio in a call to the bridge of the Marmara. One of the activists responds to IDF forces - "Shut up - go back to Auschwitz," and immediately afterward a woman can be heard telling the navy: "We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter." Then the man's voice is heard again, saying "We're helping Arabs going against the US, don't forget 9/11."

Hundreds of the Gaza flotilla activists who were deported from Israel landed starting Wednesday in Istanbul and received a warm welcome by thousands of cheering supporters, carrying Turkish and Palestinian flags and shouting calls against Israel. Also on the planes were the 9 bodies of the activists killed during the commandos' takeover of the ships, four of them Turkish citizens.

The planes carried 466 of the deportees, mostly Turks but also British, Norwegian, Dutch and Spanish citizens. Some of the deportees claimed that the number of dead was greater than what was reported and that Israel had removed evidence from the scene. "We've been scared, frightened, kidnapped and attacked with battleships while we were taking aid to needy people in Gaza," said Mustafa Ahmet, a British citizen of Turkish origin.

A transcript of the recording:

- ???, this is the Israeli navy, you are approaching an area which is under a naval blockade.

- Shut up, go back to Auschwitz.

- We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter.

- We're helping Arabs going against the US, don't forget 9/11 guys.

82.102.159.23 (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPOV editing

Issue raised with editor on talk page, no need to single-out editors here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is it me or is this user unaware of policy regarding reliability? --- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 11:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC) It's not you. TFOWR left a message on their talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, thanks :) --- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 12:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I should have mentioned this at the time - I collapsed this section. I had already (as noted above by Sean.hoyland) raised the issue with the editor in question. I don't think we should be naming individual editors here. Incidentally, if anyone does want to discuss a concern about an individual editor prior to discussing with that editor, I'd be happy to chat about it first. TFOWRidle vapourings 12:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Czech reaction

President of the Czech Senate Přemysl Sobotka said: "The flotilla was a planned provocation designed to drag Israel into a trap. Many in the European community think like me, but are afraid to express their position publicly". http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/115/283.html ShalomOlam (talk) 11:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A full translation would be lovely. I dont know much Hebrew or how Wikipedia deals with translations. Metallurgist (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

[11] Got it Metallurgist (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should be closed from further editing until NPOV is reached

everytime i check the article, it reads pro-palestinian and any attempt to change that is blocked or reverted back.

though on youtube, IDF's spokesperson youtube page is an RS (since it's an official channel of the IDF) but is completely ignored.

also everytime someone mentions Haaretz, Ynet or other israeli news sources, they immediately get a respone of Not NPOV source, and though they are used, most of the details are pro-palestinian, e.g: i gave this article interviewing the israeli captain that was thrown from the deck, but any reference to it, quotes were not added.

why claims that the soldiers shot first were added but the israeli side is unwritten?

This article is clearly without NPOV, the discussions here proof that.

i also used google translate to check other languages, and in some cases this article gets pro-palestinian approch in different languages without neutrality what so ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• There does seem to be a problem here. And it appears to be exacerbated by apparent sockpuppetry.--Epeefleche (talk) 12:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • A discussion at ANI gives one possible reason. I suspect "both sides" are directing new editors here. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • I wish they were new editors. But they "quack" like seasoned editors. All signs point to socks at work, not newbies.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • I tried to add the "Armada of Hate" wording, so picked in Israel and required for balanced NPOV from anti-Palestinian POV but i was scared to do it and threatened to be banned. But, instead of media blackout , why dont you encourage anti-Palestinian harder activity in editing and discussion. However since there is more people in the rest of the World i can understand the argument of media blockade. Ai 00 (talk) 12:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
      • why dont you encourage anti-Palestinian harder activity in editing why dont you encourage anti-Palestinian harder activity in editing and discussionBecause one of our core principles is neutral editing. Hint, hint. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Edited per comment below. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
        • but you just skipped one word "in editing and discussion" Ai 00 (talk) 13:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
          • My apologies. Fixed now. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

<- I also think there is a problem but it cuts both ways. We probably need a few editors with time to file edit warring 1RR reports or ANI reports for editors who repeatedly break mandatory policies. It's a thankless task though. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

New video released showing the activists waiting with cold weapons

If I'm not mistaken the activists main claim was that they got attacked first and the weapons were only picked and used as self defense and they were not waiting with weapons.
New IDF video, I guess it was recorded by someone on board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24
Shows the activists throw a stun grenade at the navy boat, and waiting with bats and chains.Faaaaaaamn (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The video does not show whether they were fired on before. And again, this other video shows Israelis aboard the ship in the beginning, apparently before the clash itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_A0Dhx3VKM&feature=player_embedded 12:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Security cam prior to attack shows armed protestors prepare a plan of attack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

Israeli Egyptian blockade?

Is this article about the events happened subsequent to the attempt by the Free Gaza Movement to break through the naval blockade imposed by Israel and deliver humanitarian goods directly to Gaza? As far as I know, there is no naval blockade imposed by Egypt and there has not been any attempt by the Free Gaza Movement to break Egypt's closure of its border with Gaza. Then why is an Egyptian blockade mentioned in the lead? I had reverted it once but someone has reverted me. Please remove it or justify your edit. Walky-talky (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This article gives details, though it doesn't specify the naval blockade, just the blockade in general. I believe, though I'm definitely not certain, that Egypt has temporarily lifted their blockade of Gaza following this incident. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Walky -- I have a question. Have you ever edited under another name? As to your question, the blockade has three sides -- two land, and one sea. One of the land sides is Egyptian. (obviously, if any of those sides opens up, the blockade is ineffective).--Epeefleche (talk) 12:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, airspace. But this article concerns a challenge to the naval blockade. RomaC (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Egypt opening the Rafah crossing is a notable event that happened as a direct consequence of the raid/clash. It's a big deal. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Sean. And with the first part of what RomaC said (of course, underground too ... but that is included in the land blockade).--Epeefleche (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems a little like trying to make reality reflect Wikipedia, by linking to the Israeli-Egyptian blockade article in the lead. RS on this event are clear that the GFF was challenging the Israeli blockade. Two if by land, one if by sea ;) Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The decision of Egypt to close its borders with the Gaza (which is not landlocked ) because it does not recognise the authority of Hamas is worth discussing in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. (Its decision to open its border is worth mentioning in the Aftermath section here.) What is relevant here is that Israel has declared a naval blockade of Gaza, says it is justified and legal, Free Gaza Movement declared that its mission is about breaking Israel's siege on 1.5 million Palestinians, Free Gaza Movement went ahead and tried to break the Israeli naval blockade and this lead to the Gaza flotilla raid. Do we have any reliable sources ( no WP:SYN please, at least for the lead) saying "The activists were planning to break through the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of Gaza" .Walky-talky (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to blockade of Gaza. People can read about it in the linked article. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

missing persons

There are no international observers, there was media blackaut and electronic jam personal media confiscation and agency review of personal media. In this environment instead of revile body bag more PRwise is mis a count. It may be also used against Israel but i believe the people on ships where counted before set sail. (what was the number; changing numbers come from Israel). Some reports are aleredy[12]. Do anybody opose to put new section =Missed persons= or is to early? Ai 00 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

how it all began...

If the background section is not brought under control, this what we will have to include.

What part of "hyperlinked encyclopedia" don't y'all (good faith, civi) recentist need explanation about? The part that there are dozens of articles that already provide background to which we can link?

Also, make sure to RS the background. Some of it seems like it belongs with a flock of seagulls.--Cerejota (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC) -->

Hey now ... that's NOT FAIR ... there is substantial evidence that the universe actually began when a small pocket of subspace from another universe was pinched off. If we're going to include the big bang we have to include the context. Cerejota, your bias is evident and I don't think you should be a part of this discussion. :P Zuchinni one (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey's Chief Rabbi Isak Haleva slammed Israel

Turkey's Chief Rabbi Isak Haleva slammed Israel on Tuesday over the deadly results of the Navy raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla, accusing the Jewish state of engaging in an unnecessary provocation and inappropriate behavior.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898025,00.html

--Nevit (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more like 'be careful' than slammed and considering what he is surrounded by, he might have been "forced" to say it, but were not really here to judge that part. Metallurgist (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead is getting too long

The lead is getting too long. IMHO, third and forth sections about reaction should be moved and lead will only contain the basic facts. --Kslotte (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Some people were looking for a list of banned items. This article on the BBC from May throws some light on this topic. --HighKing (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

İbrahim Bilgen heart attack?

[13] What source says this? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Remove all IDF photo unless it is approved by a independent source

I believe that in a situation like this any IDF source is not reliable:

• It might be completely fabricated photo or video.
• In a photo caption in the article it says: "A snapshot of footage from the boat allegedly showing an Israeli soldier being beaten. Source: IDF footage"
• How do you know that which one is soldier and which one is activist. Let's rely on IDF and assume activist was beating; In that case that beating might be because of a self-defense in a clash. We don't know what happened even one second ago of that photo.

• If you really believe IDF is a reliable source than we have to write what IDF stands for clearly in each caption Yakamoz51 (talk) 14:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. IDF is an army accused of the incident. IDF sources by the best guess are biased by selection, if not biased by fabrication. IDF jammmed all communication so that no independent photo video source was available. IDF also collected all photo video devices and mobile phones of passengers, journalists and activists. --Nevit (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The account of the IDF is essential to understanding the incident. Nobody is claiming the IDF is the final arbiter of truth on the issue. By your logic, we would have to discount any testimony provided by people on the Gaza flotilla. Plot Spoiler (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF has blocked access to independent sources of information creating a state of unbalanced knowledge. So I have to disagree with you. Israel Blocks Access to Flotilla Press: http://firedoglake.com/2010/06/01/israel-blocks-access-to-flotilla-press-and-participants/ --Nevit (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Question to Nevit: Do you have any knowlege or evidence that the IDF have ever fabricated anyt photo or video its spokesman has released to the press? ShalomOlam (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I request that the article includes independent photo and videos as much as those prepared by IDF. Since IDF has blocked our access to independent information, using too much of propaganda material released by IDF is not compatible by NPOV. --Nevit (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You did not answer my previous question. Please read it again. The answer should be either "yes" or "no". ShalomOlam (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The answer is we can not know the answer unless all information is released. You can not say anything by looking at a video in information age. Any kind of editing is possible. We have to look at videos captured by journalists on fleet, photographs, mobile phone records. But that does not change the fact that attack was intentionally ordered by political leaders of the state. Videos will only show how it happened. --Nevit (talk) 15:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The question was: "Do you have any knowlege or evidence...?". It seems to me you don't. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know since I am denied to know by state of Israel. I propose removing of Israel state's propaganda material. Until we have enough independent information to verify that they are reliable. This is necessary to base article on neutral grounds. --Nevit (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your proposal . I think that photos/videos provided by IDF should be used in the article, but only if the caption will say that IDF is the source, and it will say "IDF claims the photos are of..." instead of writing "The photos are of...". ShalomOlam (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone willing to see propaganda material can visit the IDF site. We should keep the article neutral. --Nevit (talk) 16:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's also delete every single passenger account of the event, since their stories might be fabricated propaganda. (sarcasm, if that wasn't clear enough) -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I also disagree (with Yakamoz51). Yes, it might be completely fabricated photo or video. But it also might be 100% true. If you write that the photos/videos were provided by IDF, and write "IDF claims the photos are of..." instead of writing "The photos are of..." - then it's okay. ShalomOlam (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Shalom. As long as we qualify the photos I think they are ok. "IDF claims the photos are of..." seems wholly appropriate. NickCT (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to say there is a need for balance. IDF is certainly a reliable primary source for their perspective - that is, if we have sources that say "IDF said X" and then we have an IDF picture that shows "X", then of course they are reliable. So one cannot question them as a primary source. However, we do not deal in primary sources, but on tertiary sources... it is is what these sources tell us where we should have our ears.

It is all in making sure that just because the IDF has put a tight lid on infos, essentially becoming the only primary source on the events, we do not needlessly bias the article towards the IDF perspective. Neutrality, which ultimately stems form balance, has to be preserved and one way to preserve it us by judicious uses of sourced material. Just because you can doesn't mean you have do it. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that the IDF is not a neutral party, but it shouldnt take one to realize they are an important part of developing an encyclopedic article - we can neither ignore them, nor make them the sole or dominant voice. All positions that ignore this principle, in my opinion, belong outside of wikipedia, as they obviously do not grasp what we are trying to do here. --Cerejota (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that ALL IDF footage of the clash that I have seen, correlates exactly with all angles from the IDF, and with the footage filmed by the activists. The identification of personnel, in my opinion, is very clear, most notably because the IDF are the ones who come from the helicopter. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The IDF is notorious for outright fabrication of evidence (eg the front cover of "The USS Liberty Incident" is a US picture passed off as an Israeli gun camera picture) and lies (eg denying they used white phosphorus in Lebanon and Gaza). Under such conditions their version may be significant, but only as the excuses of an unreliable defendant. 94.116.26.21 (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I edited the captions and clearly stated that photos are released by IDF and they are claiming that. Btw those knives (except one) and tools are all either kitchenhold or plumbing items. Yakamoz51 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Those knives were used for stabbing the stomach of at least one Israeli soldier, who requiered surgery after that. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to imply that you can't stab someone with a kitchen knife or bludgeon them to death with a wrench? I guess the slingshots are used to deter seagulls from making a mess on the deck. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

But showing a picture of kitchen knife on the deck hardly implies that it was intended to be used as a weapon against soldier holding a gun. I think IDF sources are biased. They should be removed, or at least, captioned as released by IDF. Holding a pro-Palestine or Pro-Israeli stance in the article loses its credibility. So, additions by Yakamoz51 are correct. --Remukhan (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, we use what reliable sources say. This picture has been shown on various RS thus it can be shown in this article, noting that the IDF published it. On a side note, since there's video of passengers stabbing and bludgeoning soldiers (from Turkish TV no less), it is certainly appropriate to show what kind of weapons were found. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as it states that source is IDF, I agree with you. I think the issues stands resolved now. --203.112.90.138 (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I also believe that IDF as a source is biased. We should refrain from using any source from pro-Palestine or pro-Israel source. The article is full of either extreme right now. --Remukhan (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We should try to remain netural as possible but facts brought to light by both sides should be presented without bias. It is wrong to completely remove or reject concrete evidences includng images and videos or caption them in vague language to undermine them even though they present important facts. Moreover most Yakamoz51's comments are clearly showing bias.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if someone try to enter someone's yacht(i.e. a pirate) illegally, He'd use his kitchen knife. And he'd be the first one who attacked also. And no body can accuse him.

BUT, if the pirate is more powerfull at least in media than the yacht owner, Then pirate would say he just want to seize the yacht. He first warned the owner and when owner didn't reply positively he tried to catch the owner and was beated by the him.

And he would release some videos/photos supporting his claim that he is attacked. And some editor's may use it because he is "the primary reliable source" 141.217.43.142 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Footages tend to omit negative aspects and promotes positive aspects of the source. So instead removing IDF footage, we should state it is a footage and IDF claims, and provide opposing footage screenshots/claim to balance article by NPOV. Kasaalan (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The IDF is an authority figure. If we say they are biased, we may as well say all police forces are biased. This, if used in any article, would require a note "Source: LAPD" or whatever the case may be. I know some people in their mind think that Israel lies, but until proven a lie, any countrys official photos and accounts must be accepted as accurate. Metallurgist (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

About using IDF as source

How Israel’s MFA FAKED photos of seized weapons http://ibnkafkasobiterdicta.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/gaza-flotilla-how-israels-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-fakes-photos-of-seized-weapons/

Please don't allow the wikipedia to be a used propaganda tool by IDF. Use independent and reliable sources instead. Don't use any photos if they are not verified by independent sources.

--Nevit (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

According to a blog from an idiot that doesn't realize that Exif info is often wrong because people don't set the internal clocks on their cameras (esp. after changing batteries). TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you believe in belief you will never believe in evidence. --Nevit (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What evidence? There is no evidence that these are fabricated. --Metallurgist (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, the IDF is not more and no less POV than the activists. If you wish to remove every bit of info the IDF provides, then we also should strike from the record anything the activists say about what happened. Sorry, but to keep NPOV, we need _both_ sides of the story. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We only have the audiovisual material released by Israel. And eyewitness accounts that Israeli side is continuously trying to discredit by including materials relating them to political, racial and organizational groups. Eyewitness is second degree evidence and audio video material is first degree. Israel has blocked access to audio-visual material acquired by journalists on the mission. We have unverified propaganda material at one hand and second degree evidence at other hand. Israel intentionally and deliberately has created a difficult situation for us to evaluate what happened. --Nevit (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Israelis subdued captain by pointing gun at a child

Israelis subdued captain by pointing gun at a child http://gulfnews.com/news/region/palestinian-territories/israelis-subdued-captain-by-pointing-gun-at-a-child-1.636007

--Nevit (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any proof or evidence to support this? The flotilla was for people 18-60 years only. Is there any proof there were people under 18 years old abord any of the ships? ShalomOlam (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If there were children on this boat, their parents are probably insane, irresponsible, or simply fanatics.

In the event there were children on board, it is probable that their parents were fanatics. But, in the event that this news were certain, would any of that excuse pointing a gun to a child? No excuses for that, brother. --IANVS (talk | cont) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the event isn't certain, nobody needs to excuse it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

<- It's a WP:REDFLAG. If it's not covered in multiple RS forget it. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Haven't looked at this story yet - I'm getting errors on that link, but as our article reports, many sources reported that there was a mother and a 1-year old child on board the Mavi Marmara, who have been released. e.g. [14] Nothing about pointing a gun there.John Z (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That article is deadlink. Metallurgist (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Other sources for gun pointing at child story; they say it is from The Guardian- Guardian story others: [15] [16] [17]. Gulfnews link doesn't work for me, Guardian ones do.John Z (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Death(s): At least ten activists

The article states: "Death(s): At least ten activists". This is not true. It is not confirmed that all death(s) are of activists. This should be replced with: "Death(s): At least ten people", until it is clear if all death(s) are of activists or not. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, many of the dead may be activists, but the passengers included aid workers, observers and others who might be described as adventurers/tourists. Or even martyrs. Until Israel releases their names and they've been categorised, they should not be stigmatised 94.116.26.21 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the sources say?--Cerejota (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Most major Israeli news reports reffer to these as "nine dead participants (of the flotilla)", or just "nine dead". ShalomOlam (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The majority of sources, including the source cited, say that only 9 people died. Why does this number keep being changed to ten on this article? --PiMaster3 ^talk 15:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if the names and nationalities of those who were killed could be incorporated into the article as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.15.132 (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The United Nations Human Rights Council Approves International Probe

The United Nations Human Rights Council Approves International Probe

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177279

--Nevit (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The US, the Netherlands and Italy voted against International investigation of incident. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e18d2a8a-6e23-11df-ab79-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss

--Nevit (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel rejects independent probe calls http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177188

I believe a section on international probe should be present on article.

--Nevit (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli reactions

I've just changed the section heading Israeli augmentations to Israeli reactions. At the moment the section simply states the MFA output. The section should I guess capture the spectrum of reactions from Israeli society/media and maybe human rights groups (although perhaps we should have a separate section for human right s grouops and integrate the Israel based groups in with the rest). Sean.hoyland - talk 16:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That would belong to International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid#Israel, International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid#NGOs, or International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid#Demonstrations. Regarding the existent topic in this article the Israeli argumentation on its actions is quite pertinent, though. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean specifically by 'That' :) Sean.hoyland - talk 16:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The notion of 'Israeli argumentation' includes things other than the MFA is my point. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The "spectrum of reactions from Israeli society/media and maybe human rights groups" should be at the International reactions article pertinent sections. What should belong in the section here are the official statements regarding the operative, being from MFA et al. as well. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 16:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems a bit odd to me in the sense that the MFA isn't Israel. Anyway, so we need sections for statements from both the MFA and the people on the boats in this article if we are to provide equal real estate to the various parties. Since that information won't be forked out to a separate article the prominence of the information may be undue relative to the huge international reaction which seems problematic NPOV compliance-wise. I guess it will work itself out over time. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Sean here ... the current way the Israeli reactions section is done is very NPOV. One quote from a politician who is not the leader does not constitute the Israeli reaction. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean not WP:NPOV. :) To elaborate, if we are just going to have an MFA statement in there it should be integrated into the article rather than be given undue prominence. The MFA shouldn't get it's own section for it's statements unless the activists also get their own section for their statements. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia isn't part of the MFA's web presence, not officially anyway. :) I see someone has added a media reaction summary. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops ... lol ... yes very non-NPOV Zuchinni one (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is Israel's naval blockade of International waters legal?

Leave maritime law to the lawyers, then cite the sources that quote them.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is Israel's naval blockade of International waters legal? If Yes, how many Km's are the limit? --Nevit (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Israel is not/was not blockading international waters. Israel - and Egypt - are blockading Hamas-controlled-Gaza. By land, by air and by sea. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC) How many km's are you allowed to block? You can not block the whole sea? It should be a limit. I am asking for limit. Is there any limit to law or is it limitless? --Nevit (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I am not a lawyer, so I don't know. IDF claim that special laws apply here, and since there is an on going war between Israel and Hamas-controlled-Gaza, IDF is allowed to act, even on international waters. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Tuesday, 06 January 2009 00:00 Subject: Blockade of Gaza Strip Source : Israeli Navy All mariners are advised that as of 03 January 2009, 1700 UTC, Gaza maritime area is closed to all maritime trafic and is under blockade imposed by Israeli Navy until further notice. Maritime Gaza area is enclosed by the following coordinates: 31 35.71 N 34 29.46 E 31 46.80 N 34 10.01 E 31 19.39 N 34 13.11 E 31 33.73 N 33 56.68 E [18] 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 16:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A930913 (talk • contribs) I collapsed this thread. Interesting discussion for user talk pages, but it's WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. TFOWRidle vapourings 17:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey to review all ties with Israel

Turkey's parliament called on the government Wednesday to review all ties with Israel http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=177282

--Nevit (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Aharonovitch opposes activists' release What are you talking about? Metallurgist (talk) 03:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

İbrahim Bilgen

I don't really understand why the political ideology of İbrahim Bilgen (belonging to an Islamist party; a major feature of the Turkish political system: islamist vs. secular parties) is constantly removed, with hilarious comments (the last being a "grammar fix"). --Ecemaml (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

new video shows prepartion of the terrorists arming themselves with weapons before the clash

I think the new video released from the ship's security camera changes the whole picture. It's not Israel's version. Videos show that no soldiers shot first. The idea implied in the article's pictures and captions that IDF may have doctored pictures or that it's not reliable, is pure antisemitic. Enough of that. If IDF "claims" then the antisemitic news agencies "claim" as well. 85.250.248.46 (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Link?Shrike (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU&feature=player_embedded#!Shrike (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

These videos do give a degree of credence to Israel's account. Though a video can be cropped to tell a particular story. I'd say that the Israeli's account should be updated to make it clear which of their claims they have not backed up with video evidence. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Or we could, you know, ignore those people who are obviously just here to push a POV. Also, "It's not Israel's version"? The user who posted that on youtube is idfnadesk. They describe themselves as "IDF Spokesperson's Unit". Here's their profile. Seriously, would all of the POV-pushers kindly GTFO? It's hard enough to make a neutral and fair article on a subject such as this without having to deal with your lies and misinformation. That goes equally for pro- and anti-israeli people. The Internet is a big place. Take your bickering elsewhere. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Shrike, I think you need to take a closer look at that video footage. First of all, surveillance camera footage is almost always in black and white. Secondly, The activists are show wearing life vests, however, in all other video shots of the incident, no life vests are worn, it is also highly unlikely that in the heat of the moment these activist preparing for battle remembered to dawn their life vests. Lastly and most importantly, The footage in this video shows no wobble or sway at all. If this was really filmed on a moving boat, in the middle of the Mediterranean, the footage would not be completely still, as it is in this shot. Also, the Israeli commandos entered from helicopter, they did not board the ship by rappelling up the sides. This is a crude attempt distort the facts of this story. This situation is confusing enough without people uploading fake videos to youtube. Sam H 00:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The video seems real. If it is real it shows some activists making preparations to defend against a raid. On the other hand, with Infrared thermal views, Israel army could easily spot those people before raiding. So they knew what they would get into. Commandos raided from both helicopters and from sea boats. The footage shows activists with wooden sticks, slingshots, a high pressure water hose with no blade, kind of weapons, and an organized attack/defense against the raiders.

On the other hand those weapons aren't comparable with automatic rifled/knifed commandos. There is only a number advantage. Also no shaking in the video is a bit suspicious as you say. The bigger the ship the more it shakes on sea. And of course it is a footage. It doesn't show how IDF commandos shoot people at all. If it would be unedited we would see how the kill activists. On high waters noone has any right to intertwine any ship. Kasaalan (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The video appears to be corroborated by this video, which shows water being sprayed, stuff being thrown, and it shows a commando attempting to put up a grappling hook. As for Sam Hs comments: 1. "almost always in black and white" is meaningless. You even say so yourself. This is one example of color security tapes. 2. There are loads of videos with them wearing life vests. They were notified by radio that they would be boarded and had plenty of time to put them on after the warning or before. 3. There is no wobble or sway when something is bolted to the object that is moving. 4. The video I posted above appears to corroborate this video somewhat. Metallurgist (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF claims its action were according to internatinal law

IDF claims its action were according to internatinal law: http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/114/623.html?hp=1&cat=875 ShalomOlam (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza convoy raid may boost militancy

Gaza convoy raid may boost militancy http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6512VD20100602 --Nevit (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That article contained speculation what could happen next. Didn't contain much concrete actions. --Kslotte (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Weapons Picture is not NPOV

If you look at the file talk then everyone is rightfully saying that they just look like "tools" and stuff you can find on any ship. I'm not sure if this source can be used, or if we should wait and see if the media will cover it (unlikely), but here, you can see pictures with slingshots with "Hizbollah" written on them, the saws they used to cut the metal poles from they ship that they used as weapons, and knives that were obviously not kitchen knives and one of which even looked like a punch dagger - demonstrating the obvious premeditated nature of the violence on the part of the "peace activists." TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Video of them arming themselves, putting on gas masks, and throwing objects at the IDF before they boarded. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Video of them throwing objects at soldiers - including a stun grenade. TheGoodLocust (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop advocating on behalf of the IDF spokesperson. It isn't allowed. If you have something to add to the article please find a secondary reliable source that describes it. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unless we are going to also add pictures of victims or videos from funerals, then it might make sense to cool the rhetoric.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Showing video isn't advocating for any spokesman other than the truth. If you want a secondary source since eyes aren't good enough then here you go. They threw stun grenades and waved metal rods around before they were even boarded. Those are facts not "rhetoric." TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see what is wrong with Good's discussion. Seems appropriate. As to primary sources, that's an exaggeration of any concern about primarys -- we wouldn't for example want to censor the article by cutting out all quotes attributed to people on boats on both sides, pictures from both sides, videos from both sides, etc. Well, most of us wouldn't. There does seem to be a highly active contingent of editors with very few edits who would like to.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

How many images to include in the article is a perfectly reasonable discussion. I just don't understand the point of having what the Christian Science Monitor described as a video parsing contest to show the most bruises, kvives, shootings, funerals, etc.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Primary sources, I agree. If the IDF say "X" we can say that the IDF said "X". Likewise, if the flotilla organisers say "Y" we can say that the flotilla organisers said "Y". Both parties know best what their respective claims are. The issue, I believe, with WP:PRIMARY sources comes with the rest of the article, the part not relating to statements by the IDF or the flotilla organisers. What the article says happened - that we need to get from WP:SECONDARY sources. I don't trust the IDF or the flotilla organisers for, say, the number of casualties. I trust the BBC and CNN and Channel 10 and Al Jazeera to stake their reputations on accuracy, and I'm far happier citing them than either of directly involved parties. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Epee, I do see what is wrong with this behavior. This kind of thing, 'Showing video isn't advocating for any spokesman other than the truth.', is why we have the discretionary sanctions. If that is how an editor approachs an article they need to walk away for a while and come back when they understand that this is just an encyclopedia not another battlefield in the Israel-Palestine conflict per the sanctions. All of these IDF videos and the associated MFA narratives will be covered in reliable secondary sources if they are worth our attention. It's not about censorship, it's about people fighting lame wars here when they are required to comply with policies and the discretionary sanctions. If they simply do that, comply with policy, stick to article content rather than 'the truth' I have no problem with it at all. There does indeed seem to be a highly active contingent of socky editors with very few edits and if you have an idea who they might be let me know and I will try to help prove it/file SPI reports. I don't care which side they're on. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with this sentiment. I would just like for us to keep in mind that Wikipedia isn't intended to be a collections of photographs or media files, that's what Wikimedia Commons is for and to keep in mind this isn't a video parsing contest.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: I'd like to replace the current weapons photo with this one or this one. I'd prefer the first one since it is clearer, but alternatively, I could combine several photos into a collage and add that. Note: These are from the same source used for the photo that is currently in the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 18:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I just had a closer reading of WP:PRIMARY: Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Further, to be copyright compliant clear attribution would have to be given and the resolution may have to be lowered. --

Nosfartu (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, that's why I didn't propose to include pictures showing where the metal rods and where they were sawed off from parts of the ship to use as weapons since that description would require a secondary source. TheGoodLocust (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal Opinions

Many more opinions were cited against legality than for legality of the action. For instance the opinion of Harvard Law Prof Alan Dershowitz was not cited http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/dershowitz/ AFarber (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well you may quote him like other sources. But also note that he is long-time advocate of Israel, and author of The Case for Israel. Kasaalan (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming confrotation with 2nd wave of ships

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/02/gaza.raid.activists/index.html

So we all know that more ships are on the way and it looks like there will be another confrontation.

Anyone feel like pre-empting how this should be covered in relation to the current article?

Zuchinni one (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question. I think it may make sense - already now - to split this article into one about the whole flotilla and one about the raid. Currently, the list of ships fits only awkwardly into the article, since it contains ships that have nothing to do with the raid. — Sebastian 19:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel threatens to use more force. So it is not a matter of sticks. or If we attack you and you defend yourself, then you are attacking us and we are defending ourselves. It is a political decision by government of state. http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177134 --Nevit (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

First step is the add a new section for example "2nd wave of ships" last. But we need to start to think how to split up the article, it starts to get WP:TOOLONG. --Kslotte (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Could at first be put in section "Aftermath". --Kslotte (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The other five ships were raided also, but they put up little or no resistance. Metallurgist (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli reaction

I added. Do the Israeli reaction section has to be build only on israeli goverment PR. NPOV rather require balanced coverage. If there is Armada of Hate there the toronto Star sectrum was IMO good dePOV. What do you think? Hovever i prefer this outcome since there is way to find hate other than in ourselves soul reflection. So the if you do with love to other no hate will ever exist and if you cal somebody H word it is in you. Pace Ai 00 (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking renaming "International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid" into "Political reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid". And then merge the "Israeli reactions" there, but leave a few sentences in the main article. What do other think? --Kslotte (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with your idea, Kslotte. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 23:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It was named "Reactions to ..." only. Simpler is better. The section in the main article needs still updating to correspond as summary of the reaction article. --Kslotte (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Six or seven ships involved in raid? MS Sofia?

All texts say six ships. But there is seven in the list: Challenger 1, Eleftheri Mesogeios, Sfendoni, MV Mavi Marmara, Gazze, Defne Y and MS Sofia. How is MS Sofia involved? If remember correct she wasn't in the list two days ago. --Kslotte (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW. The two greek ships "Eleftheri Mesogeios and Sfendoni" could be split in two separate entries. --Kslotte (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal accounts

There is currently a difference of opinion whether personal accounts should be included, which leads to some looping between various versions with accounts from either side. See this diff for the maximum difference so far. Can we discuss this from a neutral point of view? — Sebastian 20:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Report of American beaten and jailed by Israelis

[19][20][21]--149.166.34.100 (talk) 20:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that WP:REDFLAG should apply here. Also - in one of the links provided it is said: "The report could not be independently confirmed". ShalomOlam (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

KTVU and SFGate are unreliable now? Was the one source saying it couldn't be confirmed because of Israeli military censors? If the IDF is a reliable source for reporting and can censor other coverage, how does that impact the story?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle is Northern California's largest newspaper, and one of the largest in the United States, serving primarily the San Francisco Bay Area. It has a circulation of 312,118 daily. The paper has received the Pulitzer Prize on a number of occasions.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SFGate did not say anyone was beatan. SFGate says that one person "suffered a scrape". ShalomOlam (talk) 21:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

"In his message, Paul Larudee said he was injured as he resisted arrest on the ship and that he was currently refusing to sign deportation papers in protest." Also, the first source is actually from some really small Berkley newspaper and was simply reprinted by the San Jose Mercury News. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You are quoting an Israeli representative. The San Jose Mercury News is the major daily newspaper in San Jose, California and Silicon Valley. It has a circulation of 230,870 daily. It reported he "was badly beaten". KTVU reported his wife "learned via the U.S. consulate that her husband was jailed and beaten in the aftermath of Monday's controversial Israeli raid on the flotilla" and that he reported "blackened eye and bruises all over his body". Why is there such an effort to paint his injuries as minimal (when he can't be shown in public), and why such an attempt to call these sources unreliable?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the fact that one of the sources wrote "report could not be independently confirmed" - speaks for itself. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Israeli government won't speak on his condition or release him speaks for itself. The IDF doesn't have any pictures of him?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The only thing that speaks to is that he refused to sign the deportation papers - as stated in the article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with them beating him and holding him in a windowless cell? They can't even show him in public?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

You said they wouldn't release him - but didn't mention that was only because he wouldn't sign his deportation papers. Rather dishonest eh? As for having a "windowless cell" (assuming you actually got this "fact" right) do you think cells usually have windows? Do you think Israel has the resources to organize "visiting hours" for the hundreds of "activists" they've had to deal with? Good grief dude. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

They have resources to record a military raid but they don't have resources to announce his status to the press? How much does it cost to NOT put a wall up in a cell?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should they "announce his status" over the hundreds of other people? I guess that must be the entitlement/activist mentality at work. And I don't think you understand what a "cell" is - they need walls in them and like airplanes not everyone gets a window seat. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Since was beaten may looks like Rocky after 10th round so its natural that they want to cure a lite his flesh. Thats the lesson from movie.

 Done Request to add information in reliable sources about beaten American to article.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your "reliable" sources say the "The report could not be independently confirmed". That does not sound reliable to me... ShalomOlam (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the Israeli government not discussing his status have to do with it? There is plenty of coverage..--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Another source said the 64-year old man was tasered. He said he was defending another passenger.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no "another" source. There is only one source in all of these reports, and that's Betty Larudee, who most likely gave an interview to one just reporter. There are no other sources, beside Betty Larudee, and she is not reliable. WP:REDFLAG apply here. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how you can justify the beating and tasering of a 64 year old man trying to deliver humanitarian aid by armed soldiers from an organized military, and further call mainstream newspapers unreliable. I give up.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If he is old enough to resist arrest then he is old enough to get tasered bro. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Two more "red flags". The Associated Press is reporting that "Akiva Tor, the Israeli consul general in San Francisco" has at a minimum confirmed "Larudee was taken to a prison, bruised and cut."[22]--149.166.34.100 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And I guess he has belonged to what Israel calls a terrorist group for awhile now.--149.166.34.100 (talk) 23:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)