Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

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.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) at 02:31, 1 June 2010 (→Picture caption). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:31, 1 June 2010 by Sean.hoyland (talk | contribs) (→Picture caption)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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, 18
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
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
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.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

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.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gaza flotilla raid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gaza flotilla raid at the Reference desk.

Move requests

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Gaza flotilla raid be renamed and moved to Gaza flotilla incident.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 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). Ale_Jrb 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We should stick with the status quo until the media decides on a name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 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 move request...
TFOWR 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". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources calling it a massacre so "incident" sounds like whitewashing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 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. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 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. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thats not good. You should have waited with a RfM for now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes that is not good move requests are for use in different situations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 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. Ale_Jrb 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Massacre does not have to be pre-meditated, it simply has to be the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 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. TFOWR 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. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Request removed, no one dies. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note how Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 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. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Then again there is the Boston Massacre. It just depends what sources call it.--Nosfartu (talk) 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 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 ." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


“ 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 Haaretz, 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. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As others have said, it's too vague. And yet again, plenty of "reliable" agencies use "raid". FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Move request 2

It has been proposed in this section that Gaza flotilla raid be renamed and moved to 2010 Israeli raid on Free Gaza Movement ships.

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A similar request appears above. It may be best to centralize them.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I hope that we can focus to a greater extent on discussing how reliable sources report on the event in this section.  Cs32en Talk to me  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. Andreas Willow (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


This is from Haaretz:

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. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The proposed title "2010 Israeli raid on Free Gaza Movement ships" is obfuscatory, and is obviously less effective than simply "Gaza flotilla incident." The issue that the latter may be ambiguous is however a valid one, which can be mitigated simply with renaming it to 2010 Gaza flotilla incident (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" —ie. there is no compelling reason to be overly specific here, when there is no ambiguity about which "flotilla" the incident regards. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Incident is awful. Raid is top of the search results, what about Gaza aid flotilla raid Also why do we need two move templates that dictate that the discussion should stay open for seven days? Off2riorob (talk) 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.Zuchinni one (talk) 18:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We go by WP:common name Raid is presently being used by the most sources. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I would think that Common_name#Descriptive_titles_and_non-judgmentalism 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.Zuchinni one (talk) 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.KeptSouth (talk) 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."-Stevertigo (w | t | e) 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...KeptSouth (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources using the term "raid"

  Cs32en Talk to me  20:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources using the term "clash"

Gov't: No Greeks among victims in Gaza flotilla 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? 92.9.56.235 (talk) 22:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Gaza flotilla attack" also used

Just to make sure this option is not ignored. Los Angeles Times headline; Russia Today report; The Age (Australia); UK Today News; The Hindu (India); Boosh articles syndicate; The Voice of Russia; The Journal of Turkish weekly. CarolMooreDC (talk) 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. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 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.Zuchinni one (talk) 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. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaming proposals

Keep as Gaza flotilla clash, 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. 2010 Gaza flotilla clash. -Stevertigo (w | t | e)
  • Comment: I am an idiot. I re-added this below, sorry! Once things settle down I'll combine the two sections into this one. TFOWR 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'. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: Adding year 2010 is against Misplaced Pages policy WP:PRECISION. ... over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. Currently there aren't any other "Gaza flotilla" articles. --Kslotte (talk) 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? TFOWR 21:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how reliable sources describe it.  Cs32en Talk to me  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. KeptSouth (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename to 2010 Gaza flotilla incident

Please explain what you mean by "vague." There are plenty of articles that use the form "..incident" on Misplaced Pages: Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 1960 U-2 incident, USS Liberty incident, Gulf of Sidra incident (1981), Dick Cheney hunting incident, (see Search: "incident"). In what must be deliberate comedic recursion, your own comment here appears to be itself "vague." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 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.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
;-⌉ -Stevertigo (w | t | e)
  • 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. RomaC (talk) 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. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. This is consistent with reports in CNN and other news agencies, and doesn't take sides. Marokwitz (talk) 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. Andreas Willow (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename to 2010 Gaza flotilla raid

Raid (military) and Raid 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.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely the intention was for the raid to be peaceful? Lampman (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename to 2010 Gaza flotilla massacre

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

Rename as 2010 Gaza flotilla clash

Rename as Israeli Attack on Humanitarian Fleet; Gaza 2010

  • Oppose. Massively POV - we need to wait till the smoke clears and the dust settles, then we can make an informed decision.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename to 2010 Gaza aid convoy raid

"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".  Cs32en Talk to me  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 neutralZuchinni one (talk) 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree with ChrisO 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." Tewner (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: tending towards agreeing, 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. TFOWR 21:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Re-signed, edited comment
  • 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. Lampman (talk) 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. --nsaum75 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. Laurent (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Not reasonable, this is Misplaced Pages! RomaC (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Clash" is a misleading description of what has happened and is not based on how reliable sources describe it.  Cs32en Talk to me  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) Ezra The Scribe (talk) 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. --Dead3y3 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. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 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. Andreas Willow (talk) 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. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 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.KeptSouth (talk) 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. Bob drobbs (talk) 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.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do not rename for at least 20 minutes

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legia fan (talk • contribs) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Marmara boarding add link to video

{{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 IDF Spokesperson's Unit, the activists attacked the soldiers with pistols, knives, slingshots, spikes and clubs. #####See footage of Israeli soldiers boarding the Mavi Marmara.##### A spokesperson for ...

Ezra The Scribe (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed above. Please comment here -- ] Zuchinni one (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Having links inline is not per Misplaced Pages policy WP:ELPOINTS #2. Edit request rejected. --Kslotte (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The WP:ELPOINTS 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. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Your request wasn't about an infobox either. There is also a natural point of view WP:NPOV issue with this. Concern discussed here earlier when the videos where added. --Kslotte (talk) 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 WP:NPOV 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. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, WP:NPOV wasn't directly written, it was my assumption after reading #Video of soldiers landing on boat 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. --Kslotte (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

It is work around, that aren't either good. The change was therefire reverted (not by me). --Kslotte (talk) 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 JackNapierX (talk) 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. LazySofa (talk) 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... Tewner (talk) 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.Zuchinni one (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Belligerent means combatant: someone who fights (or is fighting). It is a neutral term. Marokwitz (talk) 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. LazySofa (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive. --Nevit (talk) 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.

  • Al Jazeera English
    • "Israeli commandos have attacked a flotilla of aid-carrying ships off the coast of the Gaza Strip..."
  • CNN
    • "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..."
  • MSNBC
    • "Israeli commandos rappelled down to an aid flotilla sailing to thwart a Gaza blockade on Monday"
  • Amnesty International
    • "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."
  • New York Times
    • "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"
  • New York Times
    • "Israeli naval commandos conducted a deadly raid on a flotilla of aid ships bound for Gaza on Monday"
  • Fox News
    • "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.

LazySofa (talk) 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.Bdell555 (talk) 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. LazySofa (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
A civilian vessel trying to breach a blockade. See San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea 67(a). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 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. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 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" Zuchinni one (talk) 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? --Leladax (talk) 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? Breein1007 (talk) 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. --Nevit (talk) 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?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 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. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PEOPLE --Kslotte (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
After some thoughts I think the criteria here is a no that tight as following WP:PEOPLE strictly. Here it's about listing them, not about creating articles of them. --Kslotte (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Feel free to drop someone you feel doesn't meet the criteria. --Kslotte (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
That's for articles, no? If you use that half the list is gone. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 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. LazySofa (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

AND . need more? try here --Degen Earthfast (talk) 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. LazySofa (talk) 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. --Nevit (talk) 23:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Being Jewish and being Israeli are not synonymous. Neither is being Jewish and being in the IDF. --nsaum75 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. LazySofa (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I was supporting your position, not arguing against it. Sorry if I was unclear in my statment. Regards --nsaum75 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
i concur with its removalLihaas (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.30.196.37 (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Change to "captured without injury after being boarded by armed commandoes" or "placed under arrest after being boarded by armed commandoes". Bastun 22:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Piracy 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.
--Nevit (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
According to the San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea 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. --Nevit (talk) 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). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 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. --Nevit (talk) 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? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 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. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 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.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 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.  Cs32en Talk to me  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". Bob drobbs (talk) 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. 92.48.112.92 (talk) 22:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kidnapped??? bwwaahhahahahahahahahah!!! 68.41.55.171 (talk) 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? The Gaza flotilla and the maritime blockade of Gaza - Legal background. Also see San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea someone mentioned above. Ezra The Scribe (talk) 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.
Bob drobbs (talk) 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... Physchim62 (talk) 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? --Nevit (talk) 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. 04nunhucks (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI

An interesting review, with usable references, detailing the events and possible legalities can be found here.--- Nomen Nescio contributions 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.

Bob drobbs (talk) 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. Zuchinni one (talk) 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..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.177.46.227 (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Weapons found on board

Video of weapons on board: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM Faaaaaaamn (talk) 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/ JackNapierX (talk) 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 international waters in the Mediterranean Sea on 31 May 2010. The activists, unofficially sponsored by ..." But User talk:Breein1007 (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.Lihaas (talk) 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 68.41.55.171 (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be an editing war going on right now between Breein1007 and Wolbo. Any way to stop this? Zuchinni one (talk) 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 hereLihaas (talk) 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. shellac (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've advised Breein1007 to cease reverting. If he continues I suggest making a report at WP:AN3 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: , , , . -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks ChrisO. They seem to have found other things to do. shellac (talk) 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.Lihaas (talk) 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!!! 68.41.55.171 (talk)

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. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

requested here (Lihaas (talk) 23:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Bad decision. I've raised this at WP:AN/I#Gaza flotilla clash protected and removed from In The News. This is not the way we approach developing news stories. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mmyymmyy, 31 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

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.

Mmyymmyy (talk) 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 trimmedCptnono (talk) 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? Bastun 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
We've had this sort of thing before. It's original research by synthesis, 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 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? 04nunhucks (talk) 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 Zuchinni one (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.252.63 (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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

It's the full, live stream, and i put the timeline there with the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.252.63 (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is clearly edited ... the video repeats itself multiple time and there are jumps between parts of the video. Zuchinni one (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.252.63 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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. Zuchinni one (talk) 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.252.63 (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested edit (please add image)

Countries which criticized the Israeli raid on the flotilla.

Can an admin user please kindly add the following image? It summarizes the countries which were critical of the raid.Bless sins (talk) 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. International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_clash Zuchinni one (talk) 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. --Kslotte (talk) 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 original research since we have to decide what constitutes a criticism and what doesn't, which can be quite subjective. Laurent (talk) 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 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 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 --Wolbo (talk) 00:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a great way to create a map of WP:OR. Breein1007 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sudan. --candle•wicke 00:57, 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.Bless sins (talk) 01:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Support IJA (talk) 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 International recognition of KosovoLihaas (talk) 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 talk, if you want more technical details).Bless sins (talk) 01:28, 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 Zuchinni one (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Here is my recommendation:

The Gaza flotilla clash occurred in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea on 31 May 2010 when a flotilla of pro-Palestinian activists, unofficially sponsored by Turkey, attempted to breach the Gaza blockade and was intercepted by Israeli naval forces. Israeli forces boarded the flotilla after it refused the country's requests to change its route to Ashdod's port where the cargo could be inspected by Israel for contraband before delivery to Gaza. Five of the six ships were seized without the actual use of force. However, at least 9 passengers of the MV Mavi Marmara were reported to have been killed in violent clashes with Israeli soldiers who landed on the ship, with up to 60 passengers and as many as 10 Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers wounded.
The Free Gaza Movement'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. After the flotilla activists ignored repeated calls to turn back, masked Israeli soldiers from the Shayetet 13 unit boarded the ships.
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.
Zuchinni one (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


Sorry Zuch, loaded language. "a flotilla of pro-Palestinian 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. Sarah777 (talk) 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 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." Zuchinni one (talk) 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. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm cool with that. I have zero problem with the range being used. Zuchinni one (talk) 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. Breein1007 (talk) 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.Cptnono (talk) 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. Breein1007 (talk) 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 "List of events called massacres", 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. Sarah777 (talk) 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. Breein1007 (talk) 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 WP:NPA. Desist. Sarah777 (talk) 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. Zuchinni one (talk) 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. Cptnono (talk) 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. Zuchinni one (talk) 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". Sarah777 (talk) 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.Cptnono (talk) 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? Zuchinni one (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
How about something like "both sides claim the violence was a result of self-defense." Zuchinni one (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I've got a much better idea. How about calling a massacre a massacre? Sarah777 (talk) 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 WP:LEAD 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.Cptnono (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
A few too many indents ... going back to the left :) Zuchinni one (talk) 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? Zuchinni one (talk) 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.Cptnono (talk) 01:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
"Commandos (unit type?) 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"Cptnono (talk) 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.Cptnono (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I see it is essential under what flag the ships where. A proper situation to use flags. --Kslotte (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe expand the list instead with information about ship model and passengers on board. --Kslotte (talk) 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.Cptnono (talk) 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 WP:ENGVAR:
Please change from
"The Organization of the Islamic Conference, comprising of 57 countries, described the flotilla incident as"
and please change to
"The Organisation of the Islamic Conference, comprising of 57 countries, described the flotilla incident as"
Regards IJA (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Kslotte (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Cheers IJA (talk) 01:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some Facts to be included for NPOV

Fact #1: The flotilla was in international waters, not violating Israel's territory.

Fact #2: Israel has no territorial waters, since it refuses to declare boundaries.

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

Fact #4: Gaza is blockaded--there are no other ways to dispense some kind of the aid (i.e. some kind of baby food & toys), 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) Yakamoz51 (talk) 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. IJA (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Sources per each of these. Then it should be put onLihaas (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean "if they tried to stop you from going to Canada"? Are you assuming everybody here is American? That's rather prejudiced. Lampman (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  1. Cite error: The named reference OnboardWeapons was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. Israelis told to avoid Turkey after flotilla raid, Associated Press
  3. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-gaza-aid-convoy-can-unload-cargo-in-ashdod-for-inspection-1.292560
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference haaretz-at least was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet "Israel attacks Gaza aid fleet". Al-Jazeera. 31 May 2010. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help)
  6. "9 dead as Israeli forces storm Gaza aid convoy". CNN. 31 May 2010.
  7. "More Than 10 Dead After Israel Intercepts Gaza Aid Convoy". Wall Street Journal. 31 May 2010.
  8. Cite error: The named reference aljazeera1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Edmund Sanders (31 May 2010). "At least 10 die as Israel halts aid flotilla". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 31 May 2010.
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.Cptnono (talk) 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. Zuchinni one (talk) 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. Sarah777 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Can you list the facts in order with each facts source.--yousaf465' 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. --MidnightDesert (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Page unprotected and One-Revert Restriction

I have downgraded the protection on this page to semi-protection. However, I have also placed the article under WP:1RR. 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 consensus. NW (Talk) 01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Aye, this seems like a fair rule on such a controversial and current article IJA (talk) 01:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Good call. Thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

in the lede

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 http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896588,00.html 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. Off2riorob (talk) 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) Lihaas (talk) 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. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (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. Sarah777 (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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 "widespread international condemnation of Israel" as it says in the NYT. Sean.hoyland - talk 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture caption

File:Activistboatclash.jpg
Snapshot from the Israel Defense Forces footage of the activists beating Israeli soldiers

This has been added yet again here footage of the activists beating Israeli soldiers


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? Off2riorob (talk) 01:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is pretty obvious what it is. Prodego 02:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Really, welcome to the wikipedia policies and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2010 (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 WP:V. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The truth is whatever the Israelis say it is. Even if it's not true. Surely you know that? Sarah777 (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2010 (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. Prodego 02:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Its the person that re-added it without any discussion that you should be talking to. Off2riorob (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Youtube is not a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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. Prodego 02:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
You are not making any sense at all..within policy or without policy. Off2riorob (talk) 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. Prodego 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. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
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. IJA (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
"Well it comes from a video" and "it's pretty obvious" isn't the same as WP:V compliance which is what matters. Thanks for 1RR restriction reminder but a talk page header needs to be added to that effect. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:20, 1 June 2010 (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. IJA (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Close-Up Footage of Mavi Marmara Passengers Attacking IDF Soldier. look at frame 0:49. Does anyone still have any doubt about what the picture caption shows? Yuri Tsoglin (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2010 (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. Prodego 02:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Is there any pictures or videos of the civilians getting shot that died? Off2riorob (talk) 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. IJA (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I think the image should be removed or commented out until another can be added for balance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

<- talk page header updated to reflect 1RR status. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not an opinion forum

Please limit your discussion to ways to improve the article, not your personal opinion. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully support - Yes, please keep personal opinions about the real world off the page. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories: