Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:29, 1 June 2010 editVictoriaearle (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers62,095 edits →Picture caption: image← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:07, 3 December 2024 edit undoFanccr (talk | contribs)127 edits →Monument destruction: ReplyTag: Reply 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{ITN talk|31 May|2010}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Israel|class=b|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|
{{WikiProject Palestine|class=B|importance=mid}} {{WikiProject Israel|importance=mid}}
{{WPTR|class=B|importance=Mid}}}} {{WikiProject Palestine|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Turkey|importance=Mid}}
{{ITNtalk|31 May|2010}}
{{WikiProject International relations|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Military history|class=B|B1=yes|B2=yes|B3=yes|B4=yes|B5=yes|National-task-force=yes||Balkan-task-force=yes|Middle-Eastern=yes|Maritime=yes}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Death |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Piracy |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}}
}}
{{press
| author=Nir Hasson
| title=The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Misplaced Pages
| org=Haaretz
| url=http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/the-right-s-latest-weapon-zionist-editing-on-wikipedia-1.308667
| date=August 18, 2010
}}
{{press
| author=Robert Mackey
| title=Misplaced Pages Editing for Zionists
| org=New York Times
| url=http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/wikipedia-editing-for-zionists/
| date=August 20, 2010
}}
{{split article| collapse=| from=Gaza flotilla raid
| to=Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid| date=May 31, 2010, 18:43
| diff=| from_oldid=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&action=historysubmit&diff=365265318&oldid=365264672
| to2=List of participants of the Gaza flotilla| date2=June 1, 2010, 09:20
| diff2=| from_oldid2=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=365394846
| to3=Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid| date3=June 4, 2010, 16:42
| diff3=| from_oldid3=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366044501&oldid=366036174
| to4=Ships of Gaza flotilla raid| date4=June 7, 2010, 08:52
| diff4=| from_oldid4=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366523467&oldid=366522325
| to5=2010 easing of the blockade of the Gaza Strip| date5=June 23, 2010, 16:48
| diff5=| from_oldid5=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=369762467&oldid=369752592
| to6=Turkel Committee| date6=June 30, 2010, 13:20
| diff6=| from_oldid6=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&curid=27550585&diff=371007017&oldid=370997502
| to7=Freedom Flotilla II| date7=June 25, 2011, 15:26
| diff7=| from_oldid7=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=436155705&oldid=436155073
| to8=Gaza Freedom Flotilla| date8=July 17, 2011, 20:42
| diff8=| from_oldid8=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=439999148&oldid=439930004
}}
{{tmbox|image=]|text=<center><big>'''WARNING</big><br>In accordance with ], editors of this article are restricted to 1 ] per 24 hours'''. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.}}
{{Controversial-issues}}

{{NOINDEX}} {{NOINDEX}}
{{old move|date=4 February 2023|destination=Gaza flotilla attack|result=not moved|link=Special:Permalink/1138956782#Requested move 4 February 2023}}
<!-- Do not remove the sanction template -->

{{sanctions| Discretionary sanctions: ]}}
{{calm talk|#FFCCCC}}
{{pbneutral}}
{{controversial3}}
{{Forum}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 202K
|counter = 1 |counter = 18
|minthreadsleft = 10 |minthreadsleft = 6
|algo = old(12h) |algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Gaza flotilla clash/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}


== Move requests == == Biased weight of text ==

=== Requested move ===
{{movereq|Gaza flotilla incident}}
Putting aside that "clash" is very uncommon terminology here for battles of whatever kind, in order for an event to be an actual "clash," there has to be of course a kind of conflict between people of comparable fighting capacity. The term "clash" here, while trying to be fair to the Israeli side, is used in a way to suggest this was a battle between combatants, rather than a one-sided raid by armed military forces on a rowdy but nevertheless bona-fide peacenick partyboat. -] (] | ] | ]) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:I like clash. Many sources are referring to it as such, and there ''was'' a conflict. The sources simply disagree as to the cause and the aggressor (in other words, everything! Except for the existence of it). ]</small><sup>]</sup> 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:We should stick with the status quo until the media decides on a name. ] (]) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::We ''have'' to stick with the status quo until 7 June ;-) The page is move protected until then.
::Well, I 'spose we could go through a ]...
::]<sup>]</sup> 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:"Clash" has the benefit of being reasonably specific. "Incident" is horribly vague and could refer to anything. Did the ship's cat get sick? Did someone fall down a staircase and hurt themselves? Did the food go bad? Any one of those could be an "incident". -- ] (]) 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
There are many sources calling it a massacre so "incident" sounds like whitewashing. --] (]) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(interrupted) Ale_jrb, clarify please: Do these sources name the incident "The gaza flotilla clash," or do they simply use the term in passing to describe the event, for example as in 'Israeli forces "clashed" with international activists.' In any case, what we title incident articles here is only in part based on what news reports call them during the immediate aftermath, and the issue goes both ways: There are plenty of sources that may use the term "massacre," which, unless overwhelmingly supported,will probably have to discarded as "POV" likewise. -] (] | ] | ]) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:All of this goes to show that the wisest cause of action would be to wait a few days to see how this pans out. It's barely 12 hours since it happened, after all. The current article title isn't so horrible that it needs to be changed immediately. -- ] (]) 16:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::I prefer "raid", since many neutral sources put it that way. Also, just made this into an actual page move request. ] (]) 16:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Thats not good. You should have waited with a RfM for now. --] (]) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes that is not good move requests are for use in different situations. ] (]) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*Massacre is getting , higher than Gaza flotilla clash and much higher than incident, with those results I could support ] ] (]) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:Whatever individual sources say, combined there is disagreement as to the aggressor - massacre and raid both imply that it was a deliberate attempt to kill as many people as possible, which isn't the ''general'' theme of the sources. Clash is somewhere in-between, is more descriptive, and is also the status quo. Until there is a clear agreement that it was a massacre or raid, I oppose changing the title. ]</small><sup>]</sup> 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::Massacre does not have to be pre-meditated, it simply has to be the outcome. ] (]) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

* '''Comment''': I don't personally have a problem with an RfM being opened ''now'', though I don't personally agree it's ideal at this time. I'll !vote nearer the end of the RfM. ]<sup>]</sup> 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - ghits don't tell you how many of those sources are RS and they're the only ones that count. I agree this isn't the right time. No rush. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Request removed, no one dies. ] (]) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

* Chris 0: "We should wait..." Nah. Wikis free us from such constricted ways of reporting and editing. -] (] | ] | ]) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* Funkmonk: "I prefer "raid." - Incorrect. The incident may have started out as a raid, but that terminology ignores everything else that happened. -] (] | ] | ]) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* PS: Note also Bibi's cancelled trip: . That spells " incident." -] (] | ] | ]) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*It's ''too soon'' for a common title of the incident to be established in the media. We ] and then discuss any possible move of the article.--<span style="background-color: maroon; color: white">]</span>&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 16:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* I think we ]. There will be plenty of time to agree on a name here once reliable sources have agreed on a name.--] (]) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

* Is it just me, or does "Flotilla Clash" sound like a great name for a band? <small>]</small> ]<sup>]</sup> 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
**To me it sounds like "tortilla crash".--] (]) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
***Now ''that's'' what I'll call my band... Laydeez and gennelmen, put your hands together for... ''"Tortilla Crash"''!!! ]<sup>]</sup> 17:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:Note how ] doesn't use "massacre" as its main title, instead relegating it to an "also known as", even though I've usually heard it referred to as "massacre". It's not likely that this will be changed to "massacre", not least because it's obviously biased. Just give it up, please. --] (]) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::Then again there is the ]. It just depends what sources call it.--] (]) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::That's because Tiananmen Square was not just about a massacre. There were protests there for weeks beforehand, leading up to the massacre. The story is bigger than the massacre on its own. -- ] (]) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::The Boston Massacre happened 240 years ago. Perhaps that's what some here mean when the say "let's wait ." -] (] | ] | ]) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

{{cquote|Netanyahu spoke by telephone with Obama prior to his departure to explain why he had decided to cancel their meeting, The two planned to coordinate another date for their talks, and Netanyahu promised to keep the U.S. president updated as developments unfolded with regard to the Gaza flotilla incident.}}
This is from , and is relevant here for three reasons: One, because Haaretz is a legitimate news source, so there's no issue of bias one way or another. Two, it uses the term "Gaza flotilla incident," as I have suggested above. Three, it references Netanyahu's cancellation of his U.S. visit, with an explanation that puts in in context of dealing with the political fallout from the flotilla incident itself, and nothing else. -] (] | ] | ]) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::::As others have said, it's too vague. And yet again, plenty of "reliable" agencies use "raid". ] (]) 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

=== Move request 2 ===

{{movereq|2010 Israeli raid on Free Gaza Movement ships}}

The New York Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera use the term "raid". In addition, the current title does not clarify who took part in the events. I suggest to rename the article to '''2010 Israeli raid on Free Gaza Movement ships'''.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 17:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:A similar request appears above. It may be best to centralize them.--] (]) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::I hope that we can focus to a greater extent on discussing how ] report on the event in this section.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::Yes, let's please keep just a single ''"to move or not to move"'' discussion, things are hard enough already. ] (]) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


This is from :
:Netanyahu spoke by telephone with Obama prior to his departure to explain why he had decided to cancel their meeting, The two planned to coordinate another date for their talks, and Netanyahu promised to keep the U.S. president updated as developments unfolded with regard to the Gaza flotilla incident.
It is relevant here for three reasons: One, because Haaretz is a legitimate news source, so there's no issue of bias one way or another. Two, it uses the term "Gaza flotilla incident," as I have suggested above. Three, it references Netanyahu's cancellation of his U.S. visit, with an explanation that puts it in context of dealing with the political fallout from the flotilla incident itself, and nothing else. -] (] | ] | ]) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Comment: The proposed title "]" is obfuscatory, and is obviously less effective than simply "]." The issue that the latter may be ambiguous is however a valid one, which can be mitigated simply with renaming it to ] (unless there are other similar incidents planned this year). The above proposed title is in fact POV language, as it promotes the use of the word "raid," which is insubstantial given the gravity of the events. It likewise uses the overly-specific term "Free Gaza Movement ships" rather than the more general "flotilla" &mdash;ie. there is no compelling reason to be overly specific here, when there is no ambiguity about which "flotilla" the incident regards. Regards, -] (] | ] | ]) 18:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:Incident is awful. Raid is top of the search results, what about ] Also why do we need two move templates that dictate that the discussion should stay open for seven days? ] (]) 18:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article should remain where it is and with its current title until more information comes out. 'Raid' is a far more biased word than clash. Until we have all the details of what happened we need to be as unbiased as possible. However in the future this might be a reasonable change.] (]) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:We go by ] Raid is presently being used by the most sources. ] (]) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::I would think that ] applies here. The event is too recent to state that raid is the best title ... although that may be the case in the future. Currently some reliable sources are using the word 'Raid' but not all of them. In this case it seems that wikipedia should stay as neutral as possible regarding the name. In a few weeks when things have calmed down it might be appropriate to change the title.] (]) 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
===And the game here is...===
Keeping the odd and infrequently used term "clash" (which implies some equality of force capability) for a week or so will result in the term clash being used more often in the press than it is now, because our little Misplaced Pages article will rise to the top of the google searches. Don't know why this happens, but it does, and so do some of the people who say, "let's wait to rename" the article. That said, I will leave this battle to others.] (]) 20:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:That generally doesn't happen. We do however have a large contingent of people who prefer POV terms like "clash" which draw equivalences of certain kind, while rejecting others. The issue here now is to take a vote to move it to "incidents."-] (] | ] | ]) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Ok, but I have seen it happen - Deepwater Horizon water spill, and White House travel office controversy are two examples. It's still an issue b.c. the longer it remains as "clash" the more hit clash will have on Google. Agree on "incidents" though, and will vote for that if someone ever organizes the voting. The way it is now, someone will just make a disingenous tally, of the scattered comments and then archive the whole discussion. Maybe I'm just too cynical...] (]) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

=== Sources using the term "raid" ===

*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 20:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

=== Sources using the term "clash" ===
, Athens News Agency.

=== Sources using the term "incident" ===
Various.

=== Sources using the term "massacre" ===
Various.

=== Boarding? ===

I suggest that boarding should also be considered as a name; I think that clash describes the event as an all out battle between forces, and raid describes a surprise attack on the boats by the IDF as if they were at war. As far as I know, the intention of the IDF was to take control of the boats with force (boarding) to stop them going through the blockade. I feel that the name should try to represent the whole event, as opposed to the fighting between the IDF and the some of the passengers; boarding is a better noun for the event while at least being able to give some indication to the nature its nature unlike incident with basically says "something happened", clash while deals only with the fighting or raid with I think is to war-based in this case. Thoughts? ] (]) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

==="Gaza flotilla attack" also used===
Just to make sure this option is not ignored. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; . ] (]) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

== Renaming issues ==
The above sections regarding the renaming of the article are getting lost amongst the various comments. I'd like to consolidate discussion regarding renaming options here to a new section, and start taking votes. -] (] | ] | ]) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to wait. There are already multiple sections above regarding moving or renaming the article. Currently "Gaza flotilla clash" is a good neutral name. If things change in the coming weeks then the name can change as well. But this just needs to wait.] (]) 20:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the mainstream media will probably come up with a commonly used term for this event. That term is what should be used as the name, whatever it is. ] (]) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

===Renaming proposals===
==== Keep as ], or add date ====
* Comment: Adding this as an option, to discern whether what oppose voters are saying is based on mere opposition, or actual support for something. Alternatively "add date" will signify that you think the date should be added, ie. ]. -] (] | ] | ])
* '''Comment''': ]. I re-added this below, sorry! Once things settle down I'll combine the two sections into this one. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''': As mentioned below, I think clash is too simplistic and the situation is still developing and is MUCH more complex. I think the only appropriate term so far mentioned is 'incident'. ] (]) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Comment''': Adding year 2010 is against Misplaced Pages policy ]. ''... over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed.'' Currently there aren't any other "Gaza flotilla" articles. --] (]) 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*: '''Commenting on the comment''' - I wondered about that. I 'spose my !vote below (were it not for the wishy washy "not now" option) would be for no year prefix, plus whatever I !voted for. I'm not making sense, am I? ]<sup>]</sup> 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how ] describe it.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' keeping clash with or without the 2010 prefix. Oh, and shouldn't you combine these two categories to avoid double-counting or other types of voting confusion. ] (]) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

==== Rename to ] ====
* '''Support'''. Someone above said "incident" was "awful." What exactly is "awful" about using the word "incident" here? -]
* '''Support''' sounds like the best option. -- ] &lt;]&gt; 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' "incident" is not describing what has happened here and its very vague. --] (]) 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. What's awful about it is that it's hopelessly vague. Someone falling down stairs could be an "incident". The ships having engine trouble (which happened) was an "incident". The first rule of article naming is to '''be specific'''. -- ] (]) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Seems too vague ] (]) 21:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Please explain what you mean by "vague." There are plenty of articles that use the form "]" on Misplaced Pages: ], ], ], ], ], (see ). In what must be deliberate comedic recursion, your own comment here appears to be itself "vague." -] (] | ] | ]) 21:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::: In my view, "incident" may be a fallback term if we cannot find or agree on a term that more specifically describes the nature of the... incident.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::: ;-⌉ -] (] | ] | ])
* '''Oppose'''. We should use a term that RS are using to describe the event, and include alternative terms used by both sides. This is a term that avoids description. ] (]) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. This is the most appropriate title. Diplomatically all events like this are referred to as "international incidents". It will also still be valid 2 weeks from now when the dust settles. All the other titles are too 1-sided or capture only 1 aspect of the article. ] (]) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. This is consistent with reports in CNN and other news agencies, and doesn't take sides. ] (]) 21:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Weak support'''. I would prefer 'raid' because imho it is a better description, but that is original research and I can't come up with reasons why 'incident' would be incorrect. ] (]) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

==== Rename to ] ====
* '''Support''' See the sources in the ]. The incident did not take place in Gaza, so "Gaza" seems to be misleading. "Flotilla", while being used by the Free Gaza movement as a PR term, is not the appropriate word for an encyclopedic description.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' It more accurately describes the balance of forces during the incident. Also per above sources. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose ''': a “raid” can be peaceful, and doesn’t adequately describe what happened. “Clash” does. ] (]) 21:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::] and ] actually do not focus on possible peaceful connotations of the term, and I don't think that "raid" is being interpreted as a peaceful action.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Surely the intention was for the raid to be peaceful? ] (]) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. ] (]) 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' It is widely used (perhaps even most used), it is better than 'incident' which is not sufficiently descriptive, and it is better than 'clash' which indicates a battle between armies rather than interception of a (group of) vessels by a patrolling army. ] (]) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Raid is the best word describing the situation. ] (]) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' This is the name appearing the most in sources, which is consistent with naming guidelines. Could wait awhile to make sure the name has been settled on in sources though.--] (]) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Closest thing to "storm" and "board". ] (]) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

==== Rename to ] ====
* <strike>'''Oppose'''. Hugely ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</strike> <small>Still reckon it's a bad choice, but I'm going with (a) ], and (b) go with the most ]. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</small>
* '''Strong support''', Video shows only civilians in bright orange life jackets, and Israeli commandos, not a peaceful boarding party. Israel planned to kill people and not board the ship, and negotiate to bring supplies to Ashdod. Israel is lying, and we know it based on al-Jazeera's live and real-time report. (UTC)
* '''Strong support''', many sources call it a massacre ] --] (]) 21:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. ] specifically requires article titles to display the highest degree of neutrality, which this patently doesn't do. -- ] (]) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Situation is still developing, but WP policy requires we use a non-passionate encyclopedic tone in articles. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Charles Manson, then, didn't "murder" people, he "killed" them.

* '''Oppose''' - This violates ]. ] (]) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - This term is only used here and there and is hardly supported by any reliable sources, certainly when restricting to sources that are not directly related to either Israel or Palestine. And indeed it also violates ]. ] (]) 22:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - Hugely ]--] (]) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

==== Rename as ] ====
* '''Comment''': adding "status quo" option (with year prefix) for completeness. Can't say I'm too keen on it, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. The event is defined by the IDF boarding of the ships, that is the action that most RS focus on, and should be what we use to title the article at least for now. "Clash" voices one side's narrative. ] (]) 21:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. I think clash is too simplistic and the situation is still developing and is MUCH more complex. I think the only appropriate term so far mentioned is 'incident'. ] (]) 21:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how ] describe it.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

====Rename as ]====
* '''Oppose'''. Massively POV - we need to wait till the smoke clears and the dust settles, then we can make an informed decision.--] (]) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' The world "humanitarian" is controversial. The stated primary purpose of the flotilla was not to deliver aid, but "We want to break the siege of Gaza". Many people argue that the flotilla was designed more for propaganda purposes than to deliver aid. Groups likes the Red Cross are "humanitarian", but these people were political activists with a definite agenda. Since we all agree that they are 'activists' "Israeli Attack on Activist Fleet" might be more apt. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==== Rename to ] ====

"Aid convoy" is almost as short as "flotilla", but does not have the military connotation. See the discussion above for the proposed change from "clash" to "raid".&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 00:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

==== Do Not Rename For At Least 2 Weeks ====
* '''Comment''': Renaming now is a bad idea. We need wait for things to settle down and then choose an appropriate name. Until then 'Gaza flotilla clash' is reasonably neutral] (]) 21:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. It's not even 24 hours since this happened. We don't have to rush this - there is no deadline. -- ] (]) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. I agree with ] on this especially based on what he said hours ago: "Let's put this issue to one side for now. I don't think we actually need to get into the detail of what the IDF guys were armed with at this stage, particularly as what actually happened is still so unclear." ] (]) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''': <strike>tending towards agreeing,</strike> with the caveat that sources should firm up of a preference much sooner than two weeks. Incidentally, I'd like to use the most common version used by sources, rather than what I/we prefer. Happy to go with consensus, though. ]<sup>]</sup> 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC) <small>Re-signed, edited comment</small>
*'''Support''': "incident" says nothing, "raid" tells only part of the story and "massacre" is POV. "Clash" is really the best option, at least at the moment. Adding the year prefix is probably ok though. ] (]) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Situation is still developing, lets allow the pieces fall into place and then decide on a qualified stable name. --]<sup>]</sup> 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''': Actually I would support waiting a week or so (but two weeks is fine too), so that we have a better idea of the name used in reliable sources. ] (]) 21:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''': Not reasonable, this is Misplaced Pages! ] (]) 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how ] describe it.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. If we have a better title now we should pick one. Otherwise we might as well wait 2 weeks to edit the whole article (silly in my opinion) ] (]) 21:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. We should look at the encyclopedic value of the title, not the popularity of the article to determine the naming issue. --] <sup>]</sup> 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Time is not an object that can be quantified with such inelegance or precise attention to the wrong detail. -] (] | ] | ]) 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Weak oppose'''. Although it is true that too much page moving causes confusion and is not elegant, I think these arguments are outweighed by the fact that hardly any source uses 'clash' and my POV-opinion that 'clash' is not a very good description of what happened, anyways. ] (]) 23:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. In two weeks, millions of users will read this article as clash, thinking that the event happened between two armed parties. After two weeks, when the news is not hot, nobody will be reading the article. A change has to be done before it is removed from wikipedia main page. ] (]) 23:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Strong oppose''' ditto IP user 144.122, plus the fact that after 2 weeks, there actually will be a lot of google hits under "clash" ''because of this wikipedia article''. At that point, several editors will then vote to keep the clash title.] (]) 23:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. we need to wait till the smoke clears and the dust settles, then we can make an informed decision. ] (]) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. we need to wait till the smoke clears and the dust settles, then we can make an informed decision.--] (]) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

==== Do not rename for at least 20 minutes ====
* '''Support''' - ;-) ] (] | ] | ]) 21:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - too long. ;-) ]<sup>]</sup> 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''', retrospectively. ] (]) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', the 20 minutes have already passed and the article naming is not sufficiently important to justify time travel. ] (]) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as long as the 20 minutes is continually restarted... -- ] (]) 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggested this earlier but my suggestion somehow disappeared. What's wrong with "Operation Sea Breeze" for the title? This is a completely non-judgmental name coined by the IDF itself and it is also widely used. See this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22operation+sea+breeze%22+gaza ? All issues that led to this incident be called various other things can be discussed and explained properly in the text itself but the title should be something that creates the least opposition to the terms used in it from any side. If any term with the the slightest judgmental hint triggers such a hot opposition, isn't it better to use a wording that has no judgmental hint whatsoever? "Operation See Breeze" should work, I think. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Edit Request: Marmara boarding add link to video ==

{{tld|editsemiprotected}}
It would be appropriate to have section "4.2 Mavi Marmara boarding" link to the following link in External links section "Video: Close-Up Footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara (YouTube)". Any reader reading this section would like the opportunity to view any and all footage of the boarding as it becomes available.

For example, new text marked by ##### text #####:

According to Major Avital Leibovich of the ], the activists attacked the soldiers with ]s, knives, ], spikes and ].<ref name="OnboardWeapons" /> #####See footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara.##### A spokesperson for ...

] (]) 20:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: This is currently being discussed above. Please comment here -- ] ] (]) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: Having links inline is not per Misplaced Pages policy ] #2. Edit request rejected. --] (]) 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: The ] page you reference says "External links should not '''normally''' be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, '''and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable''' ." You seem to be narrowly defining the Misplaced Pages policy and I would argue that this is an instance where it would be appropriate to at least mention the fact that the video exists if not link to it. I will submit a new request for this. ] (]) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:: Your request wasn't about an ] either. There is also a natural point of view ] issue with this. Concern discussed here earlier when the videos where added. --] (]) 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::: While I may not have been specific enough Zuchinni one understood the request. The formatting of the reference to external links section was not important so much as the rationale that it is only logical if the article mentions the boarding and the external links section has video of the boarding there should be a self reference within the article. Not sure what ] issue you are referring to. Maybe you can be more specific. As I said above, "Any reader reading this section would like the opportunity to view '''any and all footage of the boarding as it becomes available'''" - this is certainly neutral. ] (]) 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:::: Sorry, ] wasn't directly written, it was my assumption after reading ] user TFOWR commented "one side's videos". The video are filmed and edited by IDF. They may leave out parts clip not in their interest for political gain. --] (]) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A link has been added to direct people to the videos in the External Links section. ] (]) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: It is work around, that aren't either good. The change was therefire reverted (not by me). --] (]) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:There is video of passengers being shot who were not doing anything. You can't insinuate that the passengers of a sovereign ship were the violent party when they were the ones defending themselves from people with guns and helicopters in international waters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9JcZzmibaQ ] (]) 00:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Belligerents ==

The Free Gaza Movement were not belligerents. Yes, they obviously attacked Israeli soldiers as they boarded the ship, but the Israeli act of boarding the ship was itself the belligerence. Remember that the IDF had been firing upon the boats before commandos ever boarded. The FGM activists were defending their ship. The IDF illegally boarded the MV Mavi Marmara and other vessels, and were the clear belligerents. Asserting that the FGM were belligerents in this is a clear case of POV. ] (]) 21:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Do you have a source for "the IDF had been firing upon the boats before commandos ever boarded"? Didn't see that in CNN, Fox, O2, local radio... ] (]) 21:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:There is currently no evidence of the exact timeframe of the attack. It is not clear that Israelis were shooting at the ship before boarding.] (]) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::Belligerent means combatant: someone who fights (or is fighting). It is a neutral term. ] (]) 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Its further definition (and connotation) is that of an eagerness for battle. The FGM flotilla was sailing west, away from Gaza. Hardly showing an eagerness for battle. The FGM activists were unable to attack IDF soldiers on boats and helicopters before they illegally boarded their ship. They were not belligerents. ] (]) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::: Colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive. --] (]) 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have added the FGM as "Defender(s)" using the Infobox civilian attack template. The reason I have added them as such and removed them from "Belligerent(s)" is because the IDF is being considered the belligerent by every source that isn't the IDF.

*
**"'''Israeli commandos have attacked a flotilla''' of aid-carrying ships off the coast of the Gaza Strip..."

*
**"International leaders expressed shock and dismay Monday over the '''Israeli Navy's pre-dawn storming of a flotilla''' of ships carrying humanitarian aid for Gaza..."

*
**"'''Israeli commandos rappelled down to an aid flotilla''' sailing to thwart a Gaza blockade on Monday"

*
**"Amnesty International has called for Israel to launch an immediate, credible and independent investigation into '''the killing by its armed forces of at least 10 activists on boats''' protesting the Israeli blockade on the Gaza Strip."

*
**"The '''Israeli commando raid Monday on an aid flotilla''', which left at least nine people dead, has dragged relations between Israel and Turkey to a new low"

*
**"'''Israeli naval commandos conducted a deadly raid on a flotilla''' of aid ships bound for Gaza on Monday"

*
**"Israel offered a vigorous defense Monday amidst a rapidly deepening international dispute over '''its deadly overnight raid on a flotilla''' of ships carrying aid bound for Gaza.
] (]) 21:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Almost everyone would agree that Germany attacked Poland in 1939 but a wiki summary box would still describe both as the belligerents.] (]) 21:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:Because the conflict between Germany and Poland was a conflict between two military forces obviously engaged in battle. There is absolutely '''no comparison''' between a military attack upon another military and a military attack upon a civilian vessel. ] (]) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::A civilian vessel trying to breach a blockade. See 67(a). ] (]) 22:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Both parties bore arms, they are both belligerents. Both parties were defending something, both parties are defenders. In order to ensure NPOV neither party should be labeled as belligerents or defenders - the template simply does not fit this incident. ] (]) 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The FGM should definitely not be labeled as Belligerents. But the use of both terms Belligerents and Defenders gives a non-neutral POV of what happened. I suggest that we use the terms "Blockade Force" and "Blockade Runners" ] (]) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

== US the only important country that has a neutral or 'standby' position still? ==

Can that be included as sourced? --] (]) 21:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:I doubt you'll find a source that calls the US the "only important country" with a neutral position. Also, what about Canada? And Italy, who deplored the loss of life but called the flotilla a provocation? ] (]) 21:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: Israel's reckless actions would not be possible without protection from the states with nuclear power, you name it neutral. --] (]) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:: Nevit, that s an outright accusation Where are your sources for that? Nuclear powers are Russia, PRC, USA, UK, France DPRK. Are you saying that there some kind of international cabal which enabled Israel to stop the convoy. What with France, Russia, the PRC all condemning it? And there is that part about Israel being a nuclear power. Do you honestly believe that Israel needs any tacit support to do what it wants to do?--] (]) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

== Notable people onboard FGM flotilla ==

What's the criteria for adding people to this list? Some of them are at best local celebrities mentioned in one local source. ] (]) 22:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: ] --] (]) 22:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:: After some thoughts I think the criteria here is a no that tight as following ] strictly. Here it's about listing them, not about creating articles of them. --] (]) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: Feel free to drop someone you feel doesn't meet the criteria. --] (]) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::That's for articles, no? If you use that half the list is gone. ] (]) 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

== Category:Jews and Judaism-related controversies ==

Is this really an appropriate category? Yes, it's obvious that Israel is a Jewish state but this was not an attack led by the International Jewish Hivemind. It is not at all pertinent to the religion of Judaism but rather relates to the conflict between the State of Israel and Palestine. There are Jews who do not support Israel and to accuse all Jews of having a part in this controversy is a rather harsh claim. ] (]) 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: Can you reference for your statements? --] (]) 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How about Jews Against Israel, all orthodox or hasidim organisation?--] (]) 23:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

AND . need more? try here --] (]) 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::What do I need to reference? It's obvious that this wasn't done in the name of Judaism. Zionism, sure, but there is no tenet of Judaism that calls upon Jews to stop humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza. ] (]) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:::: I am aware that being Jew and being Israeli are not synonymous. I just asked reference for your last statement: "There are Jews who do not support Israel". Can you give some references to some major Jewish organisations in different countries cited in valid media? Reference it please. --] (]) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Being Jewish and being Israeli are not synonymous. Neither is being Jewish and being in the IDF. --]<sup>]</sup> 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::::I realize. Did I say something to the contrary? I was arguing for this category's removal, not inclusion. ] (]) 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::::I was supporting your position, not arguing against it. Sorry if I was unclear in my statment. Regards --]<sup>]</sup> 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:i concur with its removal] (]) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Is "subdued peacefully" correct? ==

The opening paragraph contains the phrase "Five of the six ships were subdued peacefully."

Does it count as being peaceful subdual when you are threatening with deadly force? I don't know about Turkish, international, or Israeli laws, but in my location menacing another with a deadly weapon and putting them in fear of bodily harm is considered assault. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Agreed. Change to "captured without injury after being boarded by armed commandoes" or "placed under arrest after being boarded by armed commandoes". ]<sup>]</sup> 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: ] is the term used by Turkish M. of foreign affairs.
: Maritime piracy, according to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) of 1982, consists of any criminal acts of violence, detention, rape, or depredation committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or aircraft that is directed on the high seas against another ship, aircraft, or against persons or property on board a ship or aircraft. Piracy can also be committed against a ship, aircraft, persons, or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any state, in fact piracy has been the first example of universal jurisdiction.

: --] (]) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::According to the 67(a), it is not a criminal act to attack a ship trying to breach a blockade.
::: Attacking foreign ships in international waters is an act of war. There is no possible justification for that action, and certainly not when there is no evidence that they carried anything in the way of weapons to arm Israel’s enemies. But I do not think that Turkish foreign ministry go further than diplomacy. --] (]) 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::::Attacking foreign ships is not an act of war under certain circumstances. See the above San Remo document. They don't have to be carrying weapons. That's covered by 67(f). ] (]) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::::: What would you do if you heared Iran had attacked a humanitarian ship in international waters and killed 15 or so civilians aboard and arrested more than 500. Israel is not immune from international law. --] (]) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Israel is not immune from international law. Attacking a ship trying to breach a blockade is not against international law. What does Iran have to do with this? ] (]) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::Anyway, "peacefully subdued" doesn't preclude threatening with deadly force. It means someone was subdued without a fight. It is the correct terminology in this case. ] (]) 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:::Just to add fuel to the fire, International naval forces have been doing this same thing in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean area around Somalia for years. The list of naval forces includes the PRC, Russia, UK, USA, france, japan, India, etal. Naval forces can interrupt acts of piracy at sea and have been doing so for eons. The USN followed Confederate ships into European ports and interdicted them on the high seas. The USN countered the Barbary Pirates who operated throughout the med and in the Eastern Atlantic under Thomas Jefferson.--] (]) 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::::Err, thank you for the fuel. The people who participate in the flotilla are not pirates, and they do not present any danger to anyone traveling on the sea. The comparison is therefore, in my view, somewhat misplaced.&nbsp;<span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085">&nbsp;]&nbsp;]&nbsp;</span> 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm the original author of that line... if that means anything, and I agree that it's not the best choice of words. A similar thing is now said in the intro which claims there was "no actual use of force". By definition, I think boarding and seizing a ship is an act of "force". Can both of these be changed to a more suitable "seized without incidents of violence". ] (]) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Kidnapping too, and unlawful detention ==

In addition to the point that this was (State) piracy - glad to see that some Israelis are taking their country to their own High Court on this matter, as referenced from the Jerusalem Post - but it also needs to be mentioned that Israel, with no justification, has kidnapped the 700~ people, and threatened that if they do not agree to be deported, it will (unlawfully) detain them. The country, and the article needs to capture this, seems to have thrown aside the rule of law entirely. ] (]) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kidnapped??? bwwaahhahahahahahahahah!!! ] (]) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

: You may be surprised and I am not a lawyer but it appears to be legal. Can you refute the legal arguments presented here? . Also see someone mentioned above. ] (]) 22:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::In cases of drug smuggling and pirates, countries _do_ have a right to board ships and make arrests in international waters.

:: So, Israel may very well have been within it's rights to arrest these people.

:: ] (]) 22:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::There are also notable sources which say exactly the opposite: eg . Does a policeman (in any country) have the right to shoot someone dead in the street? sometimes, but it's very rare... ] ] 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::: Regarding your logic: Israel recently is sending 3 Nuclear submarines off the coast of Iran. Iran says Israel don't do it! Israel does. Do Iran has a right to destroy them? --] (]) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:: The Sam Remo manual however, says that they can only detain after a visit and search has identified contraband or other offensives. This is not the case. 146 (f) cannot occur. ] (]) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

==FYI==
An interesting review, with usable references, detailing the events and possible legalities can be found .--- ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup><sub>'']''</sub> 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


==Is denying an account, an account of events?==

The organizer's account section begins by saying this.

"Organizers of the convoy have strongly denied the account of Israeli military. "

That doesn't speak to their account at all; It is simply their very vague response to Israel's account.

Should this section only contain the sequence events which they claimed _did_ happen.

] (]) 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:I agree with Bob, however we don't have another account of the events aside from the Israeli military right now. So I feel that in order to remain neutral we should include this denial. Once the other side is more clearly established this should change. ] (]) 23:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

== Minor error but editing is locked ==

First sentence read "The Gaza flotillawas a raid..." where it should read "The Gaza Flotilla Clash was a raid..." <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Weapons found on board ==

Video of weapons on board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM
] (]) 23:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Could someone edit the third paragraph of the introduction to correct the "firefight" phrase as well as any weapons found sections? There were no firearms found on board other than two weapons taken from the IDF soldiers. Quote: '''Mr. Sheizaf wrote that Channel 10, an Israeli television station, reported that the Israeli military had completed a search of the ship and “no weapons discovered except for the two pistols that were taken from the soldiers.”''' All they had were slingshots and pipes. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/echoes-of-raid-on-exodus-ship-in-1947/ ] (]) 00:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== NPOV lead ==

A more neutral lead was restored by me saying "''The '''Gaza flotilla clash''' was a raid by Israeli military forces against a groups of pro-Palestinian human-rights activists. It took place in ] in the ] on 31 May 2010. The activists, unofficially sponsored by ...''" But ] (who is just recovering from a block) removed it saying "calling it a raid "against pro-palestinian activists" is not NPOV," which I admitted maybe fair, but then he continues to want to have it his way with insertion of "armed" in the lead when it is controversial and deceptive (as per the article). Another editor removed it and yet again he adds it. I asked for the caveat "alleged" and he seems to think this too is a weasel word. So let's discuss a lead for the first 1-2 sentences.] (]) 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not 'deceptive' to call the Turkish TERRORISTS on the flotilla armed if they use their weapons like this --->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo ] (]) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

'''There seems to be an editing war going on right now between ] and ]. Any way to stop this?''' ] (]) 23:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::I don't know, i was in there too. I posted it on talk finally, it seems the former has a history of this, he was blocked just this week. Well, anyways im outta here] (]) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::I've just tried asking them to consider taking a break. Maybe a more experienced editor could talk to them? They've both breached 3RR. ] (]) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::I've advised Breein1007 to cease reverting. If he continues I suggest making a report at ] where an admin can issue a 3RR block. If it comes to that, the following are the diffs of his 3RR violation, which you will need to make an AN3 report: , , , . -- ] (]) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::::::Thanks ChrisO. They seem to have found other things to do. ] (]) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

==Admin lockdown==
Think the article should be locked so only admins can edit, newinfo can be put here in a section. The article has still not calmed down.] (]) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of lockdowns....Someone above actually had the GALL to say the following:
"Even if they are provoked, they should not have lost their cool and tried to seize the control of the events without killing this much people"
Got it! This is the standard that supposedly objective people are judging Israel by.
Take a look at this video and tell me whether Israeli soldiers acted imprudently!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo&feature=player_embedded#at=18
Whoooooooo!!! ] (])

I'm not an Admin, but I may agree with Lihass. The article is started to get overcrowded with replicated information. There are also edit wars going on in the intro section. If we can block the offending users that would be best, but if not then Admin lockdown might be the right choice. ] (]) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
::requested here (] (]) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:::Bad decision. I've raised this at ]. This is not the way we approach developing news stories. -- ] (]) 00:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Edit request from Mmyymmyy, 31 May 2010 ==

{{tl|editsemiprotected}}
<!-- Begin request -->

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CBoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vilp.de%2FEnpdf%2Fe025.pdf&rct=j&q=Helsinki+Principles+on+the+Law+of+Maritime+Neutrality&ei=AEYETMGCIoGQOP3L8dYE&usg=AFQjCNEC89JmugQNN3P0n2IvTnkB1h0IlQ

Helsinki Principles on the Law of Maritime Neutrality


5.1.2(3) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or breaching a blockade, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search, capture or diversion.

5.1.2(4) Merchant ships flying the flag of a neutral State may be attacked if they
(a) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system;
(e) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.

5.2.1 Visit and search
As an exception to Principle 5.1.2. paragraph 1 and in accordance with Principle 1.3 (2nd sentence), belligerent warships have a right to visit and search vis-à-vis neutral commercial ships in order to ascertain the character and destination of their cargo. If a ship tries to evade this control or offers resistance, measures of coercion necessary to exercise this right are permissible. This includes the right to divert a ship where visit and search at the place where the ship is encountered are not practical.

5.2.10 Blockade
Blockade, i.e. the interdiction of all or certain maritime traffic coming from or going to a port or coast of a belligerent, is a legitimate method of naval warfare. In order to be valid, the blockade must be declared, notified to belligerent and neutral States, effective and applied impartially to ships of all States. A blockade may not bar access to neutral ports or coasts. Neutral vessels believed on reasonable and probable grounds to be breaching a blockade may be stopped and captured. If they, after prior warning, clearly resist capture, they may be attacked.

<!-- End request -->
] (]) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
:You did not use the template correctly. There needs to be consensus to add the info. Your edit needs to be trimmed] (]) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

:Can we see the section that says this applies to international waters. Can we have a citation for where Israel has declared war on Gaza? ]<sup>]</sup> 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::We've had this sort of thing before. It's ], which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. You need to have reliable sources which discuss this specific question in relation to the flotilla affair. You can't simply add your own analysis and interpretation, particularly not in such a technical area as international law. -- ] (]) 23:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

::The San Remo manual doesn't mention international waters as a condition that this applies to. I therefore assume that it doesn't? ] (]) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


I just wanted to call attention to the first statement in the second paragraph: "The Free Gaza Movement's flotilla had planned to break through the Gaza blockade, despite Israeli declarations that they would turn the ships back and transfer the aid via land through Ashdod port."

I just read through the cited article (http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-commandos-gaza-flotilla-activists-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089), and I couldn't find anything saying that Israel offered to transfer the aid. Maybe I missed it?

--Afbrino

::: Yeah you missed it. There are MANY reliable source news reports of Israel offering to transfer the aid. Here is one of them http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-aid-convoy-can-unload-cargo-in-ashdod-for-inspection-1.292560 ] (]) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Footage of events leading up to boarding of the ship ==

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pn-l_JltCB4

The above link is the full live stream that took place online, as it happened, which thousands of people witnessed.

Timeline -

0:00 - 0:04 - An injured man can be seen being helped on to the floor. The camera pans to view a trail of blood left by the injured man.
0:08 - 0:18 - Another man can be seen hiding in the doorway, crouched down as Israeli naval boats can be seen passing by and gunfire is heard.
0:23 - 0:30 - Further injured passengers can be seen, a single gunshot can be heard at 0:24
0:30 - 1:04 - More injuries including a person who has a serious head injury are viewed as the reporter describes the attacks going on. Several gunshots at 0:46, 0:52, 1:02.
1:05 - 2:00 - An arabic reporter describes the events, a rather large bang can be heard at 1:37.
2:00 - 2:14 - People can be seen being herded to lower decks, to avoid being injured by the gunfire and to treat the wounded. The body of a man who appears to be seriously injured or possibly dead is being carried.
2:14 - 2:19 - Another Israel naval patrol vessel can be spotted near the ship.
2:26 - 3:30 - First official confirmation of the IDF boarding the Mavi Marmara (This may be doubted though.) 1 CONFIRMED killed, several injured.
3:30 - 4:06 - White flag has been raised by the Captain, IDF continues to fire live munitions at boat (According to reporter only.)
4:06 - 4:37 - Ching chong wing wong.
4:47 - 5:36 - Further gunfire heard over the sound of a loud speaker. Passengers largely calm. (Possibly not actually boarded yet?)
5:36 - 5:40 - Large burst of gunfire heard over reporter.
5:40 - 5:52 - Uneventful
5:52 - 6:02 - The moment that has been broadcast on news stations and by the IDF, supposedly the INITIAL boarding (Earlier confirmation likely wrong) of IDF forces.
6:02 - 6:11 - Violence ensues with the activists attacking the IDF forces. Largely unprovoked.
6:11 - 6:42 - Uneventful
6:42 - 7:11 - Reporter confirms 2 dead, and Captain has raised the white flag. People being moved to lower decks to surrender.
7:11 - 7:39 - Faint gunshot heard at 7:13, reporter beings to head inside. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

This is a heavily edited video and it is unclear what the timeline is. ] (]) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the full, live stream, and i put the timeline there with the link. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:: It is clearly edited ... the video repeats itself multiple time and there are jumps between parts of the video. ] (]) 00:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::The audio is live, accompanied by footage as it was broadcast on television. consider using some of the info from it, as the footage of civilians attacking troops as they board the civilian vessel is not the whole story. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

I'd be happy to put it in the External Links section but find a version of it that won't have copyright issues. I have a feeling that William Tong doesn't own this. ] (]) 00:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks, I don't know anything about copyright and have no real interest pushing one side of the story or the other. I was mainly motivated by how little information was present in the relevant section of this article, i expected wikipedia to be quicker than this. ok i've presented what i wanted to show, ill stop bothering you guys now. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Requested edit (please add image) ==
]
Can an admin user please kindly add the following image? It summarizes the countries which were critical of the raid.] (]) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Have you got citations to support this? Also do you intend to update it?

: This would probably be better off in the International Reaction article. ] ] (]) 00:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:: As time past almost all countries world wide expressed some type of reaction. I don't see map are in anyway logical in this situation. --] (]) 00:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I don't think this map is a good idea. If red represents countries critical of the raid, what does the gray color mean? Does it mean they support Israel's actions? I doubt it. Also I'm pretty sure the map could be considered ] since we have to decide what constitutes a criticism and what doesn't, which can be quite subjective. ] (]) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Syria is not in the map, despite this:
http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/05/31/290931.htm
http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/05/31/290872.htm
http://www.sana.sy/eng/21/2010/05/31/290903.htm --] (]) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::I like the idea of a map to represent the worldwide reactions but for reasons of balance would advocate the use of three colors to represent respectively countries who are critical, neutral or supportive of the Israeli raid --] (]) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::This is a great way to create a map of ]. ] (]) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:. --<font face="serif">]]]]</font> 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
*I don't understand the OR concerns. All the information is cited, and available in ]. I don't think its OR to conclude that if a country "condemned" Israel, that means it was critical of Israel.] (]) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

*I understand the map can be incomplete and/or obsolete as the information evolves rapidly. Since when is that a reason to block information? If one wishes to add some information, feel free to. The map is absolutely free, with no rights reserved.] (]) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::'''Support''' ] (]) 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::This could be put on the reaction page, and the reaction section here. No harm in that, its a brief summation of everything. That said i think we should wait a day or 2 because it may (and probably will) rapidly change.
::Furthermore, i agree with Wolbo to put balance on the map as per ]] (]) 01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:::Lihaas, any and all information about this event is going to change rapidly (and already is). The solution to rapidly changing information is to keep ourselves updated. Please note that images can ''very easily'' be updated. (Message me on my ], if you want more technical details).] (]) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
*Syria and Sudan have been added. Of course, ''anyone'' can take the initiative and update the image.] (]) 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Article intro needs to be re-neutralized and cleaned up ==



Prior to the admin lockdown (good idea by the way) there was some edit warring going on in the intro section.

This should be reformatted for a neutral tone by an admin, and the section probably needs to be cut down for repetitive information as well ] (]) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Here is my recommendation:

::The '''Gaza flotilla clash''' occurred in ] of the ] on 31 May 2010 when a flotilla of pro-] activists, unofficially sponsored by ],<ref>, Associated Press</ref> attempted to breach the ] and was intercepted by ]. Israeli forces boarded the flotilla after it refused the country's requests to change its route to ]'s port where the cargo could be inspected by Israel for contraband before delivery to Gaza.<ref>http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-aid-convoy-can-unload-cargo-in-ashdod-for-inspection-1.292560</ref> Five of the six ships were seized without the actual use of force. However, at least 9 passengers of the '']'' were reported to have been killed in violent clashes with Israeli soldiers who landed on the ship,<ref name="haaretz-at least" /><ref name="aljazeera-israel attacks">{{cite news|title=Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet|url=http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/05/201053133047995359.html Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet|date=31 May 2010|publisher=Al-Jazeera}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest/index.html?hpt=T1|title=9 dead as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid convoy|agency=CNN|date=31 May 2010}}</ref> with up to 60 passengers and as many as 10 ] (IDF) soldiers wounded.<ref name="haaretz-at least" /><ref name="wsj-world">{{cite news|title=More Than 10 Dead After Israel Intercepts Gaza Aid Convoy |url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703703704575277632709673018.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEADNewsCollection|date=31 May 2010|publisher=Wall Street Journal}}</ref>

::The ]'s flotilla had planned to break through the Gaza blockade, despite Israels proposal for the activists to dock in Ashdod port and transfer the aid through there.<ref name="haaretz-at least" /> After the flotilla activists ignored repeated calls to turn back, masked Israeli soldiers from the ] unit boarded the ships.<ref name="haaretz-at least" /><ref name="aljazeera1"/>

::During the boarding of one of the ships, the ]-flagged ''Mavi Marmara'', a firefight ensued<ref name=latimes/> resulting in the deaths of at least 9 passengers.<ref name="haaretz-at least" /><ref name=latimes>{{cite web|url=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-flotilla-20100531,0,1839736.story|author=Edmund Sanders|title=At least 10 die as Israel halts aid flotilla|publisher=Los Angeles Times|accessdate=31 May 2010|date=31 May 2010}}</ref>

::] (]) 00:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


:::Sorry Zuch, loaded language. ''"a flotilla of pro-] activists"''? They were humanitarian activists. ''"inspected by Israel for contraband"'' - implies the blockade is legal when, in fact, it is a breach of international law. ''Five of the six ships were seized without the actual use of force.'' - untrue. There was force, just no resistence. "Reported to have been killed"?! How about simply "killed". Of massacred or murdered if we want to be more informative. ] (]) 01:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:Sigh, we've been through at least one point you're ignoring here. A range of deaths has been given - 9 at the minimum up to 19 at the maximum. Estimates are all over the place currently. I've seen 9, 10, 14, 16 and 19 so far. There is no good reason to arbitrarily give the lowest estimate when the sources clearly indicate a range. -- ] (]) 00:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:: I wasn't really going for the lowest, but saying between 9 and 19 seemed weird ... what if there are more than 19? Perhaps we could say "deaths of at least 9 passengers, with some sources reporting a deathtoll as high as 19." ] (]) 00:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::: The sources reporting the higher figure say "up to 19". The sources reporting the lower one say "at least 9". So the true figure is probably somewhere in between. My point is that we can't specify any figure other than stating a range. -- ] (]) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:::: I'm cool with that. I have zero problem with the range being used. ] (]) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


There hasn't been any valid reason given for deleting the sourced info about the Israeli soldiers being armed with paintball guns and handguns. It was repeatedly deleted with no proper explanation by a user who said it was "irrelevant". That's not a valid reason to delete sourced content, especially when it is as a matter of fact relevant. ] (]) 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Why is that even questioned? It is very relevant. Them storming the ship with Uzis is much different then them actually attempting less than lethal force.] (]) 00:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::I think you have a pretty good idea of why it is challenged, and why people go through the article deleting sourced facts that seem to suggest Israel acted responsibly while adding unsourced lies demonizing Israel... but I digress. ] (]) 00:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::In the Irish media it is being (accurately) described as a '''massacre''', pure and simple. ''This name will stick'' and we'll get another example of pro-US/Israeli/UK political bias on Wiki throwing all the rules overboard when they don't suit the Angloshere pov. As we see from the notorious "]", the only thing that should determine the article title is what it is widely called. That does NOT mean, btw, what it is widely called in the US/UK media. Wiki-folk seem to consistantly mistake the US/UK/Israel and a few hangers-on for the "International Community". They ain't. ] (]) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::It's difficult to sympathize with that opinion after watching videos of the "peace activists" beating Israeli soldiers with metal poles and chairs as they landed from the helicopter by rope and later even resorting to stabbing and throwing overboard. But I doubt the Irish media is broadcasting these videos, right? What about you - have you watched them? Or is it too difficult to give the truth a chance and realize that maybe you aren't forming an objective opinion but are instead a victim of anti-Israeli brainwashing. ] (]) 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Yeah, watched them. And what should armed men expect when they attack a ship of unarmed civilians in International water? Of course I realise the IDF specialise in using live ammunition against folk (often kids) with sticks and stones - so nothing new here, eh? And I'd regard accusations that I'm "brainwashed" as a breach of ]. Desist. ] (]) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::::I'm trying to maintain a neutral tone. Yes there were paintball guns used, but there have been unconfirmed reports that the ship was fired on prior to the boarding, and unconfirmed reports of soldiers immediately using live ammunition. The bottom line is that we don't yet know the exact level of force that was used, but we do know there was a fight. I think we need to make sure the intro is only clear facts. ] (]) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::A big part of the problem is knee-jerk reactions. Headlines are doing it and editors here are doing it. There is no reason for this to read like a Free Gaza press release or a rap sheet. The information out there doesn't make Israel sound as evil as some might initially believe. Hopefully more will come out while this is locked to clarify it. As members fly home there will be some good balancing to Israel's PR. As terrible as any of the belligerents being killed and hurt is, we should still say that they say that they tried to enforce the blockade without bloodshed. Free Gaza has disputed it but keep in mind that there is PR on both sides. ] (]) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::: I agree with you Cptnono. But I guess we just aren't seeing eye-to-eye on what is neutral. I like this statement because it simply states facts. Not who started shooting first, or what they were using.
::::::::"During the boarding of one of the ships, the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, a firefight ensued resulting in the deaths of at least 9 passengers."
:::::::There can be additional coverage in the main article that discusses details. But the intro should be as neutral as possible. ] (]) 01:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Nope. "Firefight" implies two sides were shooting. Defending yourself with sticks doesn't make you part of a "firefight". ] (]) 01:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::::::::I see balance being able to make it neutral. Unfortunately, it is easy to assume it was a massacre and only a massacre by Israeli forces without saying "Israel says x,y,z. Free Gaza says x,y,z". And the lead needs to be a good summary. Without acknowledging that there is a he said she said like dispute we are reducing what the lead is used for. Agreed that we need to watch its length overall though.] (]) 01:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::: What you're saying makes sense. I'm just not sure how to keep it brief, factual, and neutral. Any suggestions? ] (]) 01:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::How about something like "both sides claim the violence was a result of self-defense." ] (]) 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::::I've got a much better idea. How about calling a massacre a massacre? ] (]) 01:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::The actual fighting on deck deserves some weight n the lead. We shouldn't reduce it to the point that the background and reaction receives prominence over it. So although it should be concise, there is nothing wrong with saying: "''Navy vessels approached and units came in from helicopters.... Armed with whatever... Videos shows battling... Israel says struggle ensued after... Free Gaza says no... paragraph break''" Realistically that can be done in one paragraph of a half a dozen lines. Might not be as concise as you are looking for but ] calls for it to be a proper summary. The one thing I would watch out for is adding to much commentary on the videos. It also might be a little rough since Israel has had a longer explanation than Free Gaza. Most of the background, numbers, and reactions focus on the movement so it should be easy enough to not turn this into only what Israel says though.] (]) 01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::::: A few too many indents ... going back to the left :) ] (]) 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with including details about the fighting in the Lead, but there is so much he-said she-said still that I don't know how to do it without being biased. Lets try working out a change of wording here and see where that gets us. Want to take a crack CptNono? ] (]) 01:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:LOL. I have been purposely not! A little worried about my own bias + a hang over = me slacking off. Let me see what I can come up with.] (]) 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:"Commandos <small>(unit type?)</small> carrying paintball guns and sidearms repelled onto the deck from helicopters with the intent of seizing the vessel. Organizers of the flotilla say the troops opened fire as soon as they stormed the ship. The IDF says the soldiers were attacked with weapons as they boarded, and that at least one protester wrestled a firearm from one of the commandos." Maybe add in there "video from the BBC showed an ensuing battle while footage from Aljazeera showed the protesters going below deck"] (]) 02:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

==List of ships==
I propose removing the list of ships that is in between the two background sections. Prose are preferred over lists and it is short enough to put into a paragraph in one of the background sections.] (]) 01:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
: I see it is essential under what flag the ships where. A proper situation to use flags. --] (]) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
: Maybe expand the list instead with information about ship model and passengers on board. --] (]) 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Do we need the icons and bullets or is a simple "country flagged vessel name, the country flagged vessel name..." The separate section causes what I see as an unnecessary break in the prose. Would it be appropriate to list the vessel details at the bottom as seen in sports related articles that rely heavily on lists and tables? We also have wikilinks so stuffing in additional info to justify inclusion in the middle of two potentially mergable sections seems to be counterproductive.] (]) 01:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

==OIC==

Please may an admin change the following under content 7, "Legality of the raid", due to the official name spelling of the organisation per their website in accordance of ]:<br>
Please change from<br>
"The Organization of the Islamic Conference, comprising of 57 countries, described the flotilla incident as"<br>
and please change to<br>
"The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, comprising of 57 countries, described the flotilla incident as"<br>
Regards ] (]) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
: {{done}} --] (]) 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Cheers ] (]) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== Some Facts to be included for NPOV ==

'''Fact #1:''' The flotilla was in ]s, not violating ].
'''Fact #2:''' Israel has no ]s, since it refuses to declare boundaries.

'''Fact #3:''' Israel had no right to give anyone early warnings, since the flotilla was heading for ], and Israel does not own Gaza--how would you like it if they tried to stop you from going to ]?

'''Fact #4:''' Gaza is blockaded--there are no other ways to dispense some kind of the aid (i.e. some kind of ] & ]s), which is what this whole thing was about.

'''Fact #5:''' Israeli commandos began firing from ships and helicopters '''before''' they boarded the flotilla, which means '''they were not under attack'''(see Israeli released military videos) ] (]) 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::These are rather important facts which should be included to help the reader understand the situation and to help maintain neutrality in this article. ] (]) 01:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:::Sources per each of these. ''Then it should be put on''] (]) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::What do you mean "if they tried to stop you from going to ]"? Are you assuming everybody here is American? That's rather prejudiced. ] (]) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
{{reflist}}
::::You might be interested in the article discussing the actual blockade. However, some of the things you said are debatable so don't expect immediate action.] (]) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


This has been previously discussed in the now archived Talk Page and it was roundly criticised for being: 1) non-factual 2) extremely biased. Please stop reposting things to the talk page. ] (]) 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

:Zuch - you seem to think that any suggestion that armed trained killers slaughtering unarmed civilians in International waters must be portrayed as a "firefight" between two similars! That isn't "balanced". That is propaganda, pure and simple. ] (]) 01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

::Can you list the facts in order with each facts source.--]] 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

== 'Sfendoni' Involvement ==

We seem to have conflicting information in the article. On the one hand, the article states:
:"Five of the six ships were boarded peacefully and without any major incidents."
On the other hand, it also states:
:"According to the Greek NGO Boat for Gaza, both the Sfendoni and the Mavi Marmara came under live fire."
Coming under live fire probably doesn't count as a "peaceful" boarding or one without incident. This is source #28. I don't see anything there that confirms that five of the six ships were boarded peacefully. In fact, that source says nothing about even the 'Mavi Marmara'. The article is primarily about the Canadian reaction to the incident. --] (]) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Perhaps someone can tell me why, in the description of the attack, there is so much detailed information on every Israeli commando that was captured, but absolutely none on the Marmarites who were actually ''killed''? I realize that much of the information comes from the reports made public by the IDF, but it seems to me that this causes an imbalance in reporting on the other side.
== Page unprotected and ] ==


This is an endemic problem with articles on Israel-Palestine, but something that should be addressed as it is de facto bias. ] (]) 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I have downgraded the protection on this page to ]. However, I have also placed the article under ]. Do not revert any content (obvious vandalism, copyright, and BLP violations excepted) more than once in 24 hour period. If you do, you may be blocked without warning. Instead of edit warring, consider discussing the issue further on this talk page, with the goal of attaining ]. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


:Agreed, some omissions in my opinion:
:Aye, this seems like a fair rule on such a controversial and current article ] (]) 01:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:* The introduction does not say WHO killed the activists
:Good call. Thanks. -- ] (]) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:* The article does not mention that all but 1 of the activists killed where shot multiple times, some in the back of the head
:* The introduction does not mention that many of the passengers were journalists and that all documentation was confiscated (or attempted to be confiscated) by the IDF
:*
:] (]) 01:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


== in the lede == == Add link for Palmer report ==


We should add a link to ] in the section on the UN response ] (]) 05:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
We have this in the lede....According to the Israel Defence Forces, during the boarding of one of the ships, the Turkish-flagged Mavi Marmara, a firefight ensued and passengers fired on them... its a bit opinionated isn't it. Seems to be cited to this extreme right wing blog seems a bit rubbish to claim something like that in the lede cited to this opinionated location. There is no longer any claims at all in the mainstream press that the soldiers were fired on, this POV claim needs removing from the lede ASAP. ] (]) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::Also per this edit , im not arguing with most of it, only that there is no mention of international reaction at all now.
::Some NPOV "International reaction to the incident were swift ." (the bracketed part is my optional reccomendation) ] (]) 01:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:::I'm a bit worried about the international reaction section getting out of hand in the intro. There is a separate page for it because it was getting so huge here. It's the kind of thing where if one bit is mentioned people want to add more and more. Also much of the international reaction came before the videos of the Israeli soldiers being attacked were released. I'm open to adding it back in though, but lets figure out the best way first. ] (]) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


:The section already has reference callouts linking to the report itself, but I have added a more visible section link to the relevant section in the article. -- ] (]) 07:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Lemme get this straight.....armed masked men drop onto a boat at night in International waters after firing shots - and you say they were ''attacked''? Surreal. The boat was attacked, the folk on it were defending the boat. Against pirates per international law. ] (]) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


== Monument destruction ==
==International reaction==
"There have been strong international reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash of 31 May 2010." is used in both this article and the main article. This is impressively inconsistent with the kind of descriptions used by reliable sources. NPOV doesn't equal dilute until meaningless. The event has resulted in "" as it says in the NYT. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


It looks like there was a monument to this in Gaza which was deliberately destroyed. Maybe that should be added to the article. ] (]) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
== Picture caption ==


:Could you provide a ] for this information? ] (]) 23:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
] footage of the activists beating Israeli soldiers]]
::It's covered extensively. I probably read about it on cnn at the time but I can't find a link to that. From what I found just googling it this moment this is probably the source I'd use rather than the propaganda rags. I think it's a canadian newspaper or something though I don't recognize it. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/israeli-fighter-jets-strike-gaza-home-of-hamas-billionaire-leader-ismail-haniyeh "a monument glorifying the Mavi Marmara protest flotilla of 2010 was toppled. Some of the naval commandos in the Israel Navy’s Flotilla 13 who were involved in seizing the anchorage also fought aboard the Mavi Marmara." There are a few turkish sources, I don't know how reliable they are. An account from "allisrael.com" says that it was demolished by a bulldozer. With the combination of news sources and internet search engines you can type in a search query and the internet search engine will return a list of websites that have websites to the query. ] (]) 20:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
This has been added yet again ''footage of the activists beating Israeli soldiers''


== Describing the nature of the killings in the lead ==


User @] reverted my changes adding details about the killing of the passengers in the lead. Here is there edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=1200092716&oldid=1198337623


Their edit summary: "Undue here, cherry picking POV pushing" but how is it cherry picking to describe the nature of the killing of the passengers? And how does that push a POV?
I have removed it twice...tiresome....In the picture there is no people identifiable at all. I see no soldiers, I see no activists..I see unidentifiable shadows? ] (]) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


The rest of the lead quotes directly from Israel's report which has been described as a whitewash by human rights organizations. For example, it quotes the report's description of IHH as a "hardcore group".
:It is pretty obvious what it is. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::Really, welcome to the wikipedia policies and guidelines. ] (]) 02:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


I suggest we undo the user's revert. ] (]) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::I've removed it again. Unfortunately this behavior is typical in I-P conflict articles. I blame the parents. Prodego, caption info needs to comply with ]. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


:I agree. This information seems relevant and due and is mentioned multiple places in the body.
:::The truth is whatever the Israelis say it is. Even if it's not true. Surely you know that? ] (]) 02:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:Also note that the text should read "Nine activists were killed, some *shot* in the back of the head and at close range".
:- ] (]) 23:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
:: Yes definitely relevant to the lead. Btw this page reads like a murder mystery. People are killed and wounded but the identity of the perpetrators is carefully hidden in the text. The lead says things like "During the struggle, nine activists were killed ... ", "consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution", "evidence of "wilful killing"", The reader will, of course, be wondering who the murderer is, but we don't provide any hints until later. In the History section we say a UN report found that six of the nine passengers' deaths were the result of "summary execution" '''by the Israeli commandos'''. There may be other hints scattered throughout the article, but do we ever reveal the full solution? Perhaps we are planning a sequel. ] (]) 06:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
:::agreed about how it reads. It will take some work to change that since documentation (video, photos etc) was confiscated by israeli officials and the official israeli report (turkel report) presented the passengers as the aggressors. The UN report (Palmer report) isnt much better, as described by Norman Finkelstein: "The report itself was probably the most mendacious and debased document ever issued under the UN’s aegis."
:::Ill do some reading and see if I can make this article sound more straightforward. ] (]) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


Agreed, this is relevant content that is appropriate for the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the body. The content is relevant, appropriate, and referenced. I do not understand the edit that is attempting to remove it with an edit summary of {{tpq|these details are both leading as well as undue for the lede. Find the appropriate place in the body and keep it balanced pls}}. What ''isn't'' balanced about the coverage? ]<sup>]</sup> 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Well it comes from a video, and if you watch the video... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo it is pretty clear. Sean.hoyland, you've just violated the 1RR restriction on the article if its been reverted twice before. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


:Sorry. Saying in the first paragraph they were shot in the head at close range with zero context while only mentioning three paragraphs later that the gunfire only happened after the activists grabbed a gun is not remotely balanced or NPOV. All the detail has to be in the same place and the lede as it was prior is more than balanced by expected Misplaced Pages grounds. ] (]) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
::::Its the person that re-added it without any discussion that you should be talking to. ] (]) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::"Find the appropriate place in the body and keep it balanced pls"
:::::Youtube is not a reliable source.] (]) 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::It's already mentioned multiple times in the body, as well as the fact that a UNHRC fact-finding mission "determined that Israeli commandos summarily executed six passengers"
::::I agree with Off2riorob. This picture is very unclear by itself. It could easily be captioned the other way and no-one would know the difference. ] (]) 02:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::- ] (]) 00:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Irrelevant to preserving the neutrality of the lede on a historical event. What transpired is one thing, and analysis and result is another. What the UNHRC had to say about the matter (btw invoking the UN this week does not speak much for neutral pov) is secondary to the order of events. It does not qualify an unbalanced or tilted lede. ] (]) 00:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
::::You said "Find the appropriate place in the body" and yet it is mentioned in the body multiple times.
::::"What transpired is one thing, and analysis and result is another."
::::That some participants in the event were shot in the back of the head is an established fact and is relevant and due for the lede. It is one of the reasons the event was so controversial whether or not it was justified (which the edit you removed makes no mention of or commentary regarding).
::::Also note that the omission of key facts can be a violation of NPOV as well.
::::- ] (]) 01:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
:::::Exactly. Lede summarise body. The body discusses the fact that execution-style killings took place. Reporting that referenced fact is neutral, censoring it from the lede is not. There also appears to be a 3-1 majority in favour of inclusion. ]<sup>]</sup> 10:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
::::::3-2 including @]. ] (]) 19:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)


== knives is from the turkel report ==
:::::Which is why it needs context of a proper descriptive caption that explains what is going on. Bless sins, youtube may host the video, but it isn't the source. However, it the video isn't a secondary source, which is why it isn't used for ''citations''. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::::You are not making any sense at all..within policy or without policy. ] (]) 02:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about policy, I'm just saying that it is pretty obvious what the picture shows. It doesn't mean the caption was the best, but it certainly wasn't factually incorrect. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
:That picture is a meaningless shadow puppet show. People can say is it clear what it shows but the picture will always remain a shadow puppet show. ] (]) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


@], the mention of "knives" in the palmer report cites the turkel report. "Material before the Panel confirms that this group
::If we are to have this image, then we should have an image of a wounded or murdered peace-activist to balance out NPOV. Otherwise we should remove this image. ] (]) 02:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots,388 and there is some indication
::"Well it comes from a video" and "it's pretty obvious" isn't the same as ] compliance which is what matters. Thanks for 1RR restriction reminder but a talk page header needs to be added to that effect. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 02:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
that they also used knives" where the statement about knives cites the turkel report. ] (]) 20:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)


:::At Profego, it is all about which images we explicitly choose and which ones we explicitly don't. Showing one certain image without showing a related image can be be POV, as it is with this instance. ] (]) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC) :Yes and the UN report states both no opposition to the assertion there were knives, and further states that it was presented material confirming and accepts the assertion they were likely used. This is not the Turkel report, it's the Palmer report citing its findings and conclusions. ] (]) 20:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
::Sure, I can accept that. But the writing is certainly less certain about the knives so it seems undue to mention it esp in comparison to slingshots, which there is also a lot of photographic evidence of (not sure about pictures of the knives, but I remember a picture of a ceremonial knife) ] (]) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
: . look at frame 0:49. Does anyone still have any doubt about what the picture caption shows? ] (]) 02:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::Also, you reverted the whole edit, not just the mention of knives. The description of IHH as a "hardcore" group is undue in the lead. Its not even clear what that means. ] (]) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:::@Sean.hoyland You can add one if you wish. Its mentioned 2 sections up as well. @IJA, yes but we don't have a perfect source of information. If there is an image you think would improve the article, we should certainly consider adding it. ] <sup>]</sup> 02:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
::::Yes. Is there any pictures or videos of the civilians getting shot that died? ] (]) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


::Well since we are showing an image of an activist hitting the IDF, then we should have a wounded activist to balance things out. There is video footage on the BBC website which could be used on this article. ] (]) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC) @], @] - Does the Palmer Report describe only "some indication that they also used knives" or does it "accept the assertion they were likely used"? ] (]) 20:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
:::I think the image should be removed or commented out until another can be added for balance. ] (]) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


:It says knives were found on the ship (citing turkel report) and that the turkel report describes the use of knives. The last mention of knives is the quoted one above where they claim "some indication". In any case, the reverted text says "who were '''said''' to be armed with iron bars and knives." ] (]) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
== This is not an opinion forum ==


== Inappropriate source ==
Please limit your discussion to ways to improve the article, not your personal opinion. ] (]) 02:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


The section regarding the Mavi Marmara boarding cites several times the "Meir Amit Report", which itself cites anonymous sources within the boarding party. The language used in the report is clearly partisan, and the Meir Amit center is noted on its own page (]) as being closely affiliated with the IDF. Would appreciate a review of the source to ensure NPOV and credibility standards are met. ] (]) 02:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
'''Fully support''' - Yes, please keep personal opinions about the real world off the page. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 02:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
: The Meir Amit Report is cited sixteen times in the article. As you mention, it is a partisan source so should be treated with caution. Claims made in the report should not be transcribed here in Wikivoice. On the "About us" page on its website is says "The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) was established in 2001 as part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, the government institution for commemorating the legacy of the Israeli intelligence community", So the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is "part of ... government institution", something that does not appear to be mentioned on its Wikipage. ] (]) 08:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
:Indeed a lot of this article depends on IDF sources or sources closely connected with the IDF. For example the turkel report is cited throughout, as well as sources which cite the turkel report. ] (]) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 20:07, 3 December 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gaza flotilla raid article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
In the newsA news item involving Gaza flotilla raid was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 May 2010.
Misplaced Pages
Misplaced Pages
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconIsrael Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconPalestine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconTurkey Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconInternational relations Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Maritime / National / Balkan / European / Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force
Taskforce icon
National militaries task force
Taskforce icon
Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPiracy Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article lies in the latitude of WikiProject Piracy, a crew of scurvy editors bound to sharpen up all Misplaced Pages's piracy-related articles. If you want to ship with us and help improve this and other Piracy-related articles, lay aboard the project page and sign on for a berth.PiracyWikipedia:WikiProject PiracyTemplate:WikiProject PiracyPiracy
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Piracy To-do:

Here are some tasks you can do to help with WikiProject Piracy:

WikiProject iconLaw Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Material from Gaza flotilla raid was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
WARNING
In accordance with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.


On 4 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Gaza flotilla attack. The result of the discussion was not moved.


Biased weight of text

Perhaps someone can tell me why, in the description of the attack, there is so much detailed information on every Israeli commando that was captured, but absolutely none on the Marmarites who were actually killed? I realize that much of the information comes from the reports made public by the IDF, but it seems to me that this causes an imbalance in reporting on the other side.

This is an endemic problem with articles on Israel-Palestine, but something that should be addressed as it is de facto bias. Mcdruid (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, some omissions in my opinion:
  • The introduction does not say WHO killed the activists
  • The article does not mention that all but 1 of the activists killed where shot multiple times, some in the back of the head
  • The introduction does not mention that many of the passengers were journalists and that all documentation was confiscated (or attempted to be confiscated) by the IDF
DMH43 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Add link for Palmer report

We should add a link to Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (July 2011) in the section on the UN response DMH43 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The section already has reference callouts linking to the report itself, but I have added a more visible section link to the relevant section in the article. -- Mirokado (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Monument destruction

It looks like there was a monument to this in Gaza which was deliberately destroyed. Maybe that should be added to the article. Fanccr (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for this information? Mason7512 (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
It's covered extensively. I probably read about it on cnn at the time but I can't find a link to that. From what I found just googling it this moment this is probably the source I'd use rather than the propaganda rags. I think it's a canadian newspaper or something though I don't recognize it. https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/israeli-fighter-jets-strike-gaza-home-of-hamas-billionaire-leader-ismail-haniyeh "a monument glorifying the Mavi Marmara protest flotilla of 2010 was toppled. Some of the naval commandos in the Israel Navy’s Flotilla 13 who were involved in seizing the anchorage also fought aboard the Mavi Marmara." There are a few turkish sources, I don't know how reliable they are. An account from "allisrael.com" says that it was demolished by a bulldozer. With the combination of news sources and internet search engines you can type in a search query and the internet search engine will return a list of websites that have websites to the query. Fanccr (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Describing the nature of the killings in the lead

User @פעמי-עליון reverted my changes adding details about the killing of the passengers in the lead. Here is there edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=1200092716&oldid=1198337623

Their edit summary: "Undue here, cherry picking POV pushing" but how is it cherry picking to describe the nature of the killing of the passengers? And how does that push a POV?

The rest of the lead quotes directly from Israel's report which has been described as a whitewash by human rights organizations. For example, it quotes the report's description of IHH as a "hardcore group".

I suggest we undo the user's revert. DMH43 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This information seems relevant and due and is mentioned multiple places in the body.
Also note that the text should read "Nine activists were killed, some *shot* in the back of the head and at close range".
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes definitely relevant to the lead. Btw this page reads like a murder mystery. People are killed and wounded but the identity of the perpetrators is carefully hidden in the text. The lead says things like "During the struggle, nine activists were killed ... ", "consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution", "evidence of "wilful killing"", The reader will, of course, be wondering who the murderer is, but we don't provide any hints until later. In the History section we say a UN report found that six of the nine passengers' deaths were the result of "summary execution" by the Israeli commandos. There may be other hints scattered throughout the article, but do we ever reveal the full solution? Perhaps we are planning a sequel. Burrobert (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
agreed about how it reads. It will take some work to change that since documentation (video, photos etc) was confiscated by israeli officials and the official israeli report (turkel report) presented the passengers as the aggressors. The UN report (Palmer report) isnt much better, as described by Norman Finkelstein: "The report itself was probably the most mendacious and debased document ever issued under the UN’s aegis."
Ill do some reading and see if I can make this article sound more straightforward. DMH43 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is relevant content that is appropriate for the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the body. The content is relevant, appropriate, and referenced. I do not understand the edit that is attempting to remove it with an edit summary of these details are both leading as well as undue for the lede. Find the appropriate place in the body and keep it balanced pls. What isn't balanced about the coverage? Bastun 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. Saying in the first paragraph they were shot in the head at close range with zero context while only mentioning three paragraphs later that the gunfire only happened after the activists grabbed a gun is not remotely balanced or NPOV. All the detail has to be in the same place and the lede as it was prior is more than balanced by expected Misplaced Pages grounds. Mistamystery (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
"Find the appropriate place in the body and keep it balanced pls"
It's already mentioned multiple times in the body, as well as the fact that a UNHRC fact-finding mission "determined that Israeli commandos summarily executed six passengers"
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Irrelevant to preserving the neutrality of the lede on a historical event. What transpired is one thing, and analysis and result is another. What the UNHRC had to say about the matter (btw invoking the UN this week does not speak much for neutral pov) is secondary to the order of events. It does not qualify an unbalanced or tilted lede. Mistamystery (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
You said "Find the appropriate place in the body" and yet it is mentioned in the body multiple times.
"What transpired is one thing, and analysis and result is another."
That some participants in the event were shot in the back of the head is an established fact and is relevant and due for the lede. It is one of the reasons the event was so controversial whether or not it was justified (which the edit you removed makes no mention of or commentary regarding).
Also note that the omission of key facts can be a violation of NPOV as well.
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Lede summarise body. The body discusses the fact that execution-style killings took place. Reporting that referenced fact is neutral, censoring it from the lede is not. There also appears to be a 3-1 majority in favour of inclusion. Bastun 10:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
3-2 including @פעמי-עליון. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

knives is from the turkel report

@Mistamystery, the mention of "knives" in the palmer report cites the turkel report. "Material before the Panel confirms that this group was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots,388 and there is some indication that they also used knives" where the statement about knives cites the turkel report. DMH43 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes and the UN report states both no opposition to the assertion there were knives, and further states that it was presented material confirming and accepts the assertion they were likely used. This is not the Turkel report, it's the Palmer report citing its findings and conclusions. Mistamystery (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I can accept that. But the writing is certainly less certain about the knives so it seems undue to mention it esp in comparison to slingshots, which there is also a lot of photographic evidence of (not sure about pictures of the knives, but I remember a picture of a ceremonial knife) DMH43 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, you reverted the whole edit, not just the mention of knives. The description of IHH as a "hardcore" group is undue in the lead. Its not even clear what that means. DMH43 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@DMH43, @Mistamystery - Does the Palmer Report describe only "some indication that they also used knives" or does it "accept the assertion they were likely used"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It says knives were found on the ship (citing turkel report) and that the turkel report describes the use of knives. The last mention of knives is the quoted one above where they claim "some indication". In any case, the reverted text says "who were said to be armed with iron bars and knives." DMH43 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate source

The section regarding the Mavi Marmara boarding cites several times the "Meir Amit Report", which itself cites anonymous sources within the boarding party. The language used in the report is clearly partisan, and the Meir Amit center is noted on its own page (Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center) as being closely affiliated with the IDF. Would appreciate a review of the source to ensure NPOV and credibility standards are met. 100.16.19.166 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The Meir Amit Report is cited sixteen times in the article. As you mention, it is a partisan source so should be treated with caution. Claims made in the report should not be transcribed here in Wikivoice. On the "About us" page on its website is says "The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) was established in 2001 as part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, the government institution for commemorating the legacy of the Israeli intelligence community", So the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is "part of ... government institution", something that does not appear to be mentioned on its Wikipage. Burrobert (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Indeed a lot of this article depends on IDF sources or sources closely connected with the IDF. For example the turkel report is cited throughout, as well as sources which cite the turkel report. DMH223344 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Categories: