Talk:Gaza flotilla raid: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 03:24, 6 September 2011 editWikifan12345 (talk \| contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,039 editsm →Unexplained removal: new section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 20:07, 3 December 2024 edit undoFanccr (talk \| contribs)127 edits →Monument destruction: ReplyTag: Reply
(738 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~skiptotoctalk~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
	{{~~talk~~ header~~\|noarchive=yes~~}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{ITN talk\|31 May\|2010}}
	{{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.}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=B\|
	{{calm talk\|#FFCCCC}}
			{{WikiProject Israel\|importance=mid}}
	{{controversial3}}
			{{WikiProject Palestine\|importance=mid}}
	{{splitfrom
			{{WikiProject Turkey\|importance=Mid}}
	\|page=Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid \|date=May 31, 2010, 18:43 \|diff=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_clash&action=historysubmit&diff=365265318&oldid=365264672
			{{WikiProject International relations\|importance=Mid}}
	\|page2=List of participants of the Gaza flotilla \|date2=June 1, 2010, 09:20 \|diff2=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=prev&oldid=365394846
			{{WikiProject Politics\|importance=Mid}}
	\|page3=Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid \|date3=June 4, 2010, 16:42 \|diff3=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366044501&oldid=366036174
			{{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}}
	\|page4=Ships of Gaza flotilla raid \|date4=June 7, 2010, 08:52 \|diff4=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366523467&oldid=366522325
			{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography\|importance=Low}}
	\|page5=2010 easing of the blockade of the Gaza Strip \|date5=June 23, 2010, 16:48 \|diff5=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=369762467&oldid=369752592
			{{WikiProject Death \|importance=Low}}
	\|page6=Turkel Committee \|date6=June 30, 2010, 13:20 \|diff6=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&curid=27550585&diff=371007017&oldid=370997502
			{{WikiProject Piracy \|importance=Low}}
	\|page7=Freedom Flotilla II \|date7=June 25, 2011, 15:26 \|diff7=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=436155705&oldid=436155073
			{{WikiProject Law \|importance=Low}}
	\|page8=Gaza Freedom Flotilla \|date8=July 17, 2011, 20:42 \|diff8=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=439999148&oldid=439930004
	}}		}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|collapsed=yes\|
	{{WikiProject Israel\|class=b\|importance=mid}}
	{{WikiProject Palestine\|class=B\|importance=mid}}
	{{WPTR\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject International relations\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WikiProject Politics\|class=B\|importance=Mid}}
	{{WPMILHIST\|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}}}}
	{{ITNtalk\|31 May\|2010}}
	{{NOINDEX}}
	{{press		{{press
	\| author=Nir Hasson		\| author=Nir Hasson
Line 38:		Line 28:
	\| date=August 20, 2010		\| date=August 20, 2010
	}}		}}
	{{~~archives~~\|~~auto~~=~~yes~~\|~~search~~=~~yes\|bot=MiszaBot\|age=3\|units=months\|index=Talk:~~Gaza flotilla raid~~/Archive index}}~~		{{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}}
			{{old move\|date=4 February 2023\|destination=Gaza flotilla attack\|result=not moved\|link=Special:Permalink/1138956782#Requested move 4 February 2023}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}		\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 202K		\|maxarchivesize = 202K
	\|counter = 16		\|counter = 18
	\|minthreadsleft = 4		\|minthreadsleft = 6
	\|algo = old(90d)		\|algo = old(90d)
	\|archive = Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive %(counter)d
Line 53:		Line 66:
	\|indexhere=yes}}		\|indexhere=yes}}

	== ~~Problematic~~ ~~sentence~~ ==		== Biased weight of text ==

	There is this one-line paragraph:

	: According to some accounts by passengers, IDF soldiers denied medical treatment to several wounded activists who died shortly thereafter.

	I've looked through the sources, and it's not clear to me what this refers to, most accounts seem to be about people being hindered in the midst of battle. The way it is now, it reads as if IDF was actively letting people die of the wounds in the aftermath, which again seems NPOV. The references point to various eye-witness accounts that are rather chaotic. I'd like this to be more explicit in what it describes, or removed. ] (]) 12:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:More explicit?
	Yes. Or detailed, precise. I understand that some would prefer blanket statements that confer one side as evil and the other as good, but I'd like to have a more specific information, each fact appropriately sourced.
	] (]) 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
	:Are eyewitness accounts not good enough for you?
	:The UN report into the incident states that injured activists were made to wait up to 3 hours for treatment, while being tied up as well.From the UN report,
	130. The flotilla organisers and other passengers engaged in efforts to request the Israeli
	forces to provide the necessary treatment to the wounded persons. One organiser used the
	ship’s intercom to request assistance in Hebrew and persons also communicated directly
	through the cabin windows or by placing signs, written in English and Hebrew, in the
	ship’s windows. These attempts proved unsuccessful and it was up to two hours before the
	Israeli forces took out the wounded persons. However, the wounded were required to leave
	the cabins themselves, or taken outside in a rough manner, without apparent concern for the
	nature of their injuries and the discomfort that this would cause.
	131. The wounded passengers were taken to the front of the top deck where they joined
	other passengers injured during the operation on the top deck and where the bodies of
	persons killed during the operation had been left. Wounded passengers, including persons
	seriously injured with live fire wounds, were handcuffed with plastic cord handcuffs, which
	were often tied very tightly causing some of the injured to lose sensitivity in their hands.
	These plastic handcuffs cannot be loosened without being cut off, but can be tightened.
	Many were also stripped naked and then had to wait some time, possibly as long as twothree
	hours, before receiving medical treatment. Medical treatment was given to a number
	of wounded persons on the top deck by the Israeli forces.] (]) 13:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:Where does that say that anyone died of their wounds shortly after being denied medical treatment? ] (]) 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	::Here you go, from one of the links on the line that he is complaining about.From Knesset member

	Zuabi said that naval boats surrounded the Mavi Marmara and fired on it before soldiers abseiled aboard from a helicopter. She went below to the ship's hold and said that, within minutes, two dead passengers were brought inside, followed by two more who had been seriously wounded.

	soldiers refused her requests for medical assistance for the injured passengers, who died shortly after.] (]) 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:So the article should say "According to Zuabi, two wounded passengers died shortly after soldiers refused her request for medical assistance". ] (]) 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	::Well no as another link on the end of that sentence in Turkish has evidence from a crew member I believe stating that due to the Israelis not giving medical aid more people died.You have read thru the links before commenting right?Going on the links it looks like the statement that is being complained about is in order and has sources to back it up, therefore there is no reason to change it or remove it ] (]) 14:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:::Unfortunately I don't read Turkish. Could you translate the relevant passages? ] (]) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	::::Well there you go then, I rest my case.Try google translate.Thanks. ] (]) 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:::::Not sure what case you're resting. While google translate might be good for getting the gist of things, I doubt it should be used for an encyclopedia. I gather you don't know Turkish either? ] (]) 21:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	::::::I rest my case because obviously I have done the research into it.Go read the Turkish official inquiry into the incident, it says and I quote:Numerous testimonies also indicate that at least three of the deaths occurred because Israeli soldiers denied timely medical attention to the wounded. So we have numerous statements that state that the Israelis failed to treat the wounded and some died. ] (]) 22:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::So we can attribute it to the Turkish Inquiry, which presumably includes Zuabi's opinion as well. Nice web site there, by the way. Not the sort of link I'm inclined to follow. I don't like giving traffic to hate sites. ] (]) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	::::::::Up to you if you do not want to read the report.I am linking to the report not to any so called hate site.It seems to be the only place that has the report that I could find.I will put the link in the article tomorrow and from that site unless you can provide another source. ] (]) 22:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::That's not a reliable source for official reports. If you put a link to that site in the article, I'll remove it. If this is an official report, you should be able to find it somewhere that meets RS criteria. ] (]) 22:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:{{outdent\|:::::::}} Obviously it is the official report.You can do what you want.I see nothing wrong with it.Guess you will have to explain yourself when you delete it and if you continue to delete it then I will report you.Anyway as it happens I have just found another link for it here.Funny how this report does not have a page of its own on this site, I will make one and link it to the Gaza flotilla article.] (]) 23:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	::{{ec}}See ]. That site is only reliable for its opinions. "Obviously it is the official report" is not exactly a policy compliant reason to include it.
	::The new site you just posted doesn't load for me. ] (]) 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	:::Loads fine here.I will be posting that tomorrow.It comes from this site http://www.turkishweekly.net/ ] (]) 23:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	::I've been able to access the PDF at this URL without any problems. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 23:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
	::For those that can't access it, the passage from that PDF that appears relevant to this issue is:
	::<blockquote>"Numerous testimonies also indicate that at least three of the deaths occurred because Israeli soldiers denied timely medical attention to the wounded. Sümeyye Ertekin and Halis Akıncı testified that the Israeli soldiers hit those doctors trying to help the wounded with the butts of their rifles. Edda Manga says 'They did not allow the medics to treat the people; the doctors and nurses were forced at gunpoint to leave the wounded.' Ali Buhamd‘s testimony contains a grim mixture of some of the points made above: 'I saw a soldier shooting a wounded Turk in the head. There was another Turk asking for help, but he bled to death.'"</blockquote>
	::Those sentence reference a half dozen eye witness testimonies in the footnotes, and . ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
	:::Does it look like the official report from a reliable source? It still doesn't load for me for some reason. ] (]) 09:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
	::::It is the official report and the source looks fine. ] (]) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
	:::::I was asking George. I've seen what you consider a reliable source. ] (]) 10:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
	::::::No need to be so nasty.I believe it is obvious that George thinks it is fine otherwise he would have said something.Anyway I have added the link to the article.Have fun.] (]) 10:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
	::::::It's 117 pages long, with 375 footnotes, and lists 45 conclusions at the end. It lists the Turkish National Commission of Inquiry as the author of the report, and it does read like something put together by a Turkish commission tasked with submitting a report to the UN. The Turkish Weekly website looks like an ordinary news journal (including national and international news reports, op-eds, and book reviews), so my inclination would be to say that it's reliable. Obviously that doesn't mean it's neutral or impartial, but probably reliable by Misplaced Pages's standards for Turkish viewpoints, claims, and witness accounts of the incident. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 18:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::Can someone explain to me how eyewitness accounts from the flotilla can be considered RS? If the political agenda was to runa blockade that they knew would be stopped. And running a blockade makes you a combatant. Then how could a combatant be considered to give any reliable information of what actually happened. Or would it be more likely that they would give an account of what they want people to believe happened? Were the testimonies in these articles taken in interviews? Or were they taken in courts under the threat of perjury? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	::::::::Where are they being used as RS? Your own analysis that "running a blockade makes you a combatant" aside, keep in mind that there's a difference between saying someone said something happend, and saying that something happened as fact. ← ]<sup> ]</sup> 20:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
	:::::::::My point being is that the entire two paragraphs in the injuries sections that start with "according to" should be removed. Both the IDF POV and the Passenger's POV. They aren't relevent, nor can either side be considered RS or NPOV. All this adds to the article is a bunch of unverifiable speculation, or "accounts" from both parties "he said, she said" if you will.. I would like to direct you to ] and then ask yourself does this section really add to the article, and does it help resolve the neutrality of it? I don't think it does. Both paragraphs are Highly POV to opposite ends, and at the end of the day do not actually add to what actually happened. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Photos prove Mavi Marmara passengers had guns ==

	claims IDF has pictures proving there were guns on board. And
	they are. One oven shows ] to be a liar. Again and again, Israel is vindicated. I leave it up to the prevailing editors to decide how to incorporate this development, unless my help is wanted. --] (]) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
	:If those are the pictures that the newspapers used for reporting in that way I think we might have a good case for calling into question their RS status. It looks like the images were taken from cctv, I doubt that a camera man managed to stand that still for that long, I would prefer that they granted access to the full sequence for that period. It looks like the person alleged to be Zaobi is coming down a set of stairs 1 minute and 8 seconds after a guy has passed through the frame. Is that guy passing through holding a rather oddly proportioned firearm in his left hand? My immediate reaction is that the proportions are off, is his thumb insanely long or the rest of his fingers absurdly short? As for the guy with the beard, it seems like he could be holding a range of things. Anyway - unless there are more pictures available I am pretty disappointed with the media at not being more critical in their assessments. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 05:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

	== Rewrites to mature articles ==

	Hi, all. In , Reenem just performed what effectively amounts to a rewrite of much of the article, moving it substantially in a more pro-IDF direction. It's my opinion that making such sweeping changes to a highly-contested but relatively mature article is just unproductive, in that it presents a ''fait accompli'' of too much change to reasonably discuss. I could revert that, and then just as easily go through and make sweeping changes to move the article in a pro-Flotilla direction, which wouldn't stick, either. So I'm just going to revert his changes, and suggest that he either make them in much smaller increments over a much longer period, or that he try to gain consensus for all of them in a body, here, on talk.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 06:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

	:Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, there is no such thing as a "mature article" where edits are not allowed. At Misplaced Pages we encourage bold edits as long as they are based on reliable sources. Specifically, did you see anything factually wrong or unreliably sourced in the edits? The minimum you could do is to give a solid explanation for why you are reverting. It's unfair to the person who obviously spent time and effort. ] (]) 06:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

	:<small>At 6:32, 9 June 2011 UTC, Marokwitz restored Reneem's hour and 1/2 worth of changes, in . - Ohiostandard, 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC) </small>

	:I agree that instead of reverting the text could be re-worked to a mode neutral tone. Unfortunately I personally don't currently have the time to go through this article :( I am, by the way, still of the opinion that what individual "soldiers" did doesn't need to be recounted in this article. --] (]) 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

	::<small>After Marokwitz's restoration, the next two-hours of new edits were again made by Reneem, in , beginning at 16:51, 9 June 2011. - Ohiostandard, 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC) </small>

	::Marokwitz is correct that Misplaced Pages normally encourages bold edits, but he neglects to consider that "be bold" only works in very controversial articles if the usual ] cycle is respected. Reneem was very bold, I reverted, and Marokwitz reinstated, after just eleven minutes.

	:: spanned at least 17 edits, with no edit summaries. If you'll look at that diff, with many passages moved around, and with all the additions and deletions and re-phrasings, it's nearly impossible to see the "forest" view of the changes introduced into the article. And trying to stepping through each discrete edit via individual diffs is an exercise in frustration, in part because the diffs load so slowly due to article size and because of the lack of edit summaries but especially because one can't maintain the continuity of the cumulative effect of the changes, when moving from diff to diff. Without having the benefit of knowing what his (procedural) intention was for any given subset of saved edits, and with no edit summaries, it would be a huge undertaking to carefully evaluate his changes. It would probably take twice or three times as long as it took to make them.

	::There's simply no realistic way for editors to evaluate article changes of this magnitude, made so quickly, in other words. The only feasible alternative for an editor opposed to the dramatic shift toward the POV of the Israeli military that has been introduced here is to respond in kind, by simply editing in an entirely unilateral way, to perform a massive rewrite in the other direction. Reneem and Marokwitz's actions here may seem gratifying in the short term, but they're both experienced enough to know how provocative those actions are, and how likely they are to result in a response-in-kind.

	::I'd suggest that they revert to the relatively stable last version by user Iloveandrea, saved at 15:09, 5 June 2011 UTC, and introduce their desired changes either here, first, or at a moderate-enough pace to allow other editors to actually evaluate them. To refuse to do so is simply to invite either an edit war or, more likely, a rewrite in a direction that they'll dislike every bit as much as supporters of the flotilla's goals dislike the version they've now generated.

	::I repeat: There's no practical way for editors to scrutinize or evaluate or comment upon such extensive changes made over so brief an interval. I'd invite Reneem and Marokwitz to please reconsider, and conform to wp:br'''d''' instead of trying to force the article into the shape they want it in.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

	::I have to second the request by OhioStandard, on looking through the consolidated diff I see a trend towards 'tight prose' regarding reports putting the IDF in an unfavorable light yet expansion on other issues. That said, it seems like there are a number of 'good changes' - which makes it unfortunate that we need to revert, on the other hand we can easily apply those changes again from the starting position.
	::I would also ask that any sources which are removed are pasted here upon doing so, I also think that we should require that edits display good use of edit summaries (which my edits admittedly did not). <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 22:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
	::: I think OhioStandard's idea is good too, provided of course that Reenem is willing to go along. Another idea would be, if extensive edits are made, to make them at once so other editors wouldn't need to click through dozens of them which takes too long. In that case, the "edit summary" can be posted here on the talkpage. Cheers, --] (]) 15:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

	::::Please see subsequent sections for current status about this.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 10:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

	== Link to videos on captions? ==

	Both the captions of the killed passenger and the Israeli soldiers have no links to the videos in question, which seems weird in the age of Youtube.
	Is there something I'm missing, or should they be added? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== Removed paragraphs ==

	The following paragraphs were removed, and re-inserted, and removed and reinserted.

	<div style="background-color: #EEFFE6; border: 0px solid LightSlateGray; padding: 5px;">

	:On the ''Mavi Marmara'', activists violently resisted Israeli commandos with improvised weapons, and allegedly with live fire, including from guns seized from the Israelis, and temporarily captured three commandos.{{Citation needed\|date=June 2011}} Israeli commandos responded initially with non-lethal weaponry before resorting to live fire.{{Citation needed\|date=June 2011}} Israeli MP ] said that the Israeli Navy started firing five minutes before commandos descended on the flotilla.<ref name="recount"/> Nine activists were killed, and dozens of activists and seven Israeli commandos were injured. The five other ships were apprehended relatively peacefully, with activists showing ] that was suppressed with non-lethal force. Israeli Foreign Minister ] said, on the other five ships, "the people got off without a scratch."<ref name="recount">. CNN Wire Staff, June 1, 2010</ref>

	:Numerous passengers aboard ''Challenger 1'', ''Sfendoni'', and ''Free Mediterrenean'' stated that the soldiers used tasers, plastic bullets, stun grenades, and beat up the passengers.<ref name="CNN Autopsies">{{Cite news\|url=http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/04/gaza.raid.autopsies/ \|title=Autopsies reveal 9 men on Gaza aid boat shot, 5 in head \|author=Ivan Watson \|coauthors=Talia Kayali \|date=June 4, 2010 \|publisher=CNN World \|accessdate=June 4, 2010}}</ref><ref name="freegaza.org">{{cite web\|url=http://www.freegaza.org/en/testimonies-from-israeli-jail/1221-in-their-own-words-survivor-testimonies-from-flotilla-31-may-2010 \|title=In their own words: Survivor testimonies from Flotilla 31 May 2010 \|publisher=Freegaza.org \|date= \|accessdate=2011-04-03}}</ref><ref name="openedfire">{{Cite news\|author=Dorian Jones \|coauthors= Helena Smith \|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/01/gaza-flotilla-eyewitness-accounts-gunfire \|title=Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists \|publisher=Guardian (UK) \|date=June 1, 2010 \|accessdate=June 2, 2010 \| location=London}}</ref> A report in '']'' said that several people from other ships had also been wounded.<ref group="text">{{Cite news\|title=Israel asalta la legalidad internacional \|url=http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Israel/asalta/legalidad/internacional/elpepuopi/20100601elpepiint_1/Tes\|accessdate=June 1, 2010\|newspaper=] \|language=Spanish \|quote=Al menos una parte de la versión del Ministerio de Defensa israelí resulta poco creíble: en las otras naves, donde supuestamente nadie opuso resistencia, también hubo heridos, como pudo comprobar este periódico hablando brevemente con algunos de ellos mientras eran ingresados en camilla en un hospital de Ashkelon.}} (At least one piece of the account from the Israeli Ministry of Defence is scarcely believable: in the other ships, where nobody apparently offered any physical resistance, there were also some wounded people, as this newspaper was able to verify by briefly talking to some of the passengers when they were being admitted on stretchers to a hospital in Ashkelon.)</ref> Free Gaza organizer Huwaida Arraf, who herself was on the ''Challenger 1'', said that some activists on the other five ships were beaten so severely they were hospitalized.<ref>{{cite web\|url=http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51753 \|title='We'll be Back – With Bigger Flotillas' \|publisher=Ipsnews.net \|date=2010-06-08 \|accessdate=2011-04-03}}</ref>

	;References

	{{reflist\|local=yes}}

	; References with quoted text or translations
	{{Reflist\|local=yes\|group="text"}}

	</div>

	I removed them again for the following reason. There are separate sections for raid of each ship. If these deleted paragraphs contain info missing from these sections, then it must be merged into the corresponding sections. Otherwise the article turns into a repetitive mess, if every editor will insert some text wherever he/she likes. ] (]) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' to Yceren Loq: Your second removal of this content violated the 1RR (only one reversion per 24 hours) rule in force for this article. Please be careful to obey this in future, as other editors are doing. To passing admins: I suggest no block in this case as YL has clearly tried to initiate a dialogue... --] (]) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' This is the second recent failure to respect ] while editing this article (not a policy or guideline, but widely followed). The cycle is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, ..., revert and start a discussion". --] (]) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

	'''Comment''' This discussion is about a disputed change to the current consensus, which has been determined by the established ''status quo'' which included the content. Thus a result of "no consensus" will mean that the content will be restored. Let's try to sort out acceptable changes... --] (]) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

	'''Oppose removal''' I will oppose wholesale removal of this content which has several references (including CNN and the Guardian with which I am familiar) and clearly acts as part of the summary for the individual boarding subsections. There are two Citation needed tags dated June 2011 which should be addressed (a month is normally allowed for provision of a reliable reference or other suitable response). I would be quite happy with a shorter, still balanced, summary with some content and references moved to specific subsections. Yceren Loq, since you wish to change the current text, perhaps you can suggest a suitable rearrangement? I will try to look in more detail myself this weekend... --] (]) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
	*Sorry, I did not take in a consideration taht this is a hot topic. I have no objections to the content ''per se'', only to uncontrolled duplication, which may easily lead to "micro-POV-forks". I understand the argument about summary. However IMHO a summary must be the summary of ''wikipedia's article'', not of everything else in the world uttered. In particular, I don't think Liberman's political utterance (about "without scratch") is a valid part of a summary.] (]) 22:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
	*I will be happy to restore the deleted piece, according to the rule of the game at this page, but I will urge you to reconsider the "summary" part. As a first step, I would suggest to remove the mentioned Liberman's qote, since it is clearly does not deliver a precise fact, but rather a metaphor of the fact that other ships had much less drama. ] (]) 22:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

	'''Comment'''. A few points to make. '''(1)''' I'm too bleary-eyed to verify it right now, but the one ref out of the preceding five that I'm sure is still in the article is the "CNN Autopsies" ref of June 4, 2010. I know that because I had to make edit to copy the URL from the article to the talk page. '''(2)''' As I write this, the above two paragraphs aren't in the article. I didn't restore them because I knew they were under discussion here. '''(3)''' If they do go back in, probably the best way to restore them would be to copy-paste from the above, the article has seen many changes have been made in the meantime, since these paragraphs were moved here. Also, I'll try to review this content issue soon, myself, and give my two cents.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 09:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

	== Trying to avert edit war ==

	In the hope of averting a huge edit war over an article that's likely to see a lot more page views in the very near future, I'd like to point out these facts:

	* The departure of a is imminent, and Israel to stop this one, too. huge spikes in page views likely.

	* Much of the article has just been by Reenem, the contributor, with 256 edits currently.

	* Three users have ] that Reenem's 3 and 1/2 hours of rewriting be reverted and discussed, or at least introduced in smaller increments, so it can be evaluated by others.

	* Reenem hasn't responded to that request, but has made a couple of article edits. He doesn't much care for talk pages.

	* Editors opposed to the strongly pro-Israeli shift of the sweeping changes made have seen no attempt to honor ] from either Reenem or Marokwitz, another frequent contributor, with 226 edits at present.

	* For these reasons I've reverted a second time to the 15:09, 5 June 2011 UTC version by user Iloveandrea that preceded Reenem's changes.

	* Unfortunately, this also means that some subsequent changes have been affected. I've put up an "in use" tag on the article to give myself time to try to manually restore all subsequent changes, except where they can't be restored because they concern text that Reenem added in his 3 and 1/2 hour stretch. I'll remove the "in use" asap.

	* My plan and goal is only to manually effect the reversion of Reenem's 3 and 1/2 hour stretch that we need to discuss here; I will not be adding any content of my own in this process.

	Since doing so will necessarily be a much more complicated process than if the bold-revert-<u>discuss</u> norm had been followed, I'd appreciate it if everyone would look at the edit history and verify that nothing else has been changed. But once that process is complete, can we all please try the "discuss" part, i.e. can we discuss changes made or proposed in a genuinely incremental way rather than by a massive rewrite?  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 02:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

	:Okay, I've completed the manual revert of Reenem's (essentially) uninterrupted string of 17 edits; plus his two more made beginning at 21:09, 10 June 2011. I've also created a section below, currently collapsed, that we can use to try to actually review those. I think I "put everything else back" pretty accurately; people might like to double check based on the edit-summary comments I left as I was stepping through that "putting things back" process.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 09:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

	== Sequential discussion of Reenem's 17+2 edits ==

	<!--------------------- add parameter "expand=true" to the above to keep this uncollapsed by defaullt -------------------->
	;Suggested protocol:
	Discussion of one edit in this sequence should not commence until the previous one reaches consensus.  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC).
	: Thanks for preparing this discussion. I have added a section at the end to collect references and started off the first part with a suggestion. I have also limited the collapsed section to the unstarted discussions. --] (]) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

	<small>{{highlight\|Following sections will each need to be populated with diffs and timestamps. First one done by Ohiostandard at 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC).}}</small>

	<big>'''Reenem's 1st edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp: --] (]) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->
	'''Suggestion, comments''' I propose the following for this paragraph:
	<div style="background-color: #EEFFE6; border: 0px solid LightSlateGray; padding: 5px;">
	The operation began with an attempt to board the ship from speedboats. As the boats approached, activists fired water hoses at them, and hurled numerous objects including iron pipes, stones and chairs. When the commandos tried boarding the ship, activists cut their ladder with a chainsaw. The boats then turned slightly away from the ship, but remained close.{{Sfn\|IDF timeline part 1\|2010\|loc=5:57–6:22}}<ref name="DeathInTheMed"/> The IDF later found weapons including slingshots and marbles.{{Sfn\|IDF timeline part 2\|2010\|loc=7:09}}
	</div>
	I cannot find "pelted" in the refs. I seems unnecessary to provide a complete list of the "junk" which was being thrown and I could not find all the previously mentioned items. Some events seem to have happened later, thus I have removed "The Israelis replied with paintballs and stun grenades. One stun grenade was picked up and thrown back into a boat." (The stun grenades seem to have been associated with the subsequent helicopter deployment.) If anything else needs to be added, please provide precise references, particularly start time or range for a video. I will start updating the video references in the article to make this easier. Obviously, just because I could not find a mention of something does not mean it is not there, but that illustrates the need for precise references for anything that an author regards as particularly significant. --] (]) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

	:Thanks for the exacting review, and thanks especially for noticing the timeline jumble. My only cavil with the text that you propose is with the word "operation". That's what it was from the perspective of the Israeli military, but I'd submit that flotilla participants probably wouldn't use that word, and I dare say that the international perspective would be more likely to call it an incident. Is there some re-wording we can come up with that doesn't describe the whole sequence of events as an "operation"?  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 09:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

	There seems little point in continuing the analysis of these edits, particularly since the original editor has changed the above quoted paragraph again without commenting here. If the original editor wished to discuss any of these changes, that would be fine. Otherwise let us forget them and move on. --] (]) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

	{{collapse top\|title= <small>subsequent edits through 18:57, 9 June 2011 UTC, and two more beginning 21:09, 10 June 2011 UTC</small>}}
	<big>'''Reenem's 2nd edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 3rd edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 4th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 5th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 6th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 7th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 8th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 9th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 10th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 11th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 12th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 13th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 14th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 15th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 16th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Reenem's 17th edit in series'''</big>


	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion: <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	<big>'''Two more edits by Reenem'''</big>

	'''<u>Comment</u>'''. Edits beginning 21:09, 10 June 2011 UTC through 2:12, 11 June 2011, inclusive, are fully comprised in these two edits.

	'''(A)'''
	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion<!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	'''(B)'''
	<br />
	* Discussion begins timestamp:
	* Consensus reached timestamp:
	* Consensus outcome:

	;Discussion <!-- Please post all discussion below this point -->

	{{collapse bottom}}
	<!--
	this part can collect references for the above discussions (probably no need to sign changes here)
	refs with multiple inline links are best list-defined here, others can remain defined inline
	-->
	<big>'''References'''</big>
	{{Reflist\|local=yes\|refs=
	<ref name="DeathInTheMed">{{Cite news
	\|title=Death in the Med
	\|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/default.stm
	\|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5sQWBREWH \|archivedate=September 1, 2010
	\|publisher=BBC \|date=August 20, 2010 \|accessdate=June 11, 2011
	\|postscript=. See also .
	}}</ref>
	}}

	; References with quoted text or translations
	{{Reflist\|local=yes\|group="text"}}

	;Citations
	{{Refbegin}}
	<!--FIXME: feature=channel for url here too? -->
	*{{Cite video
	\|title=Flotilla Incident Timeline (English: Part 1 of 2)
	\|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwoqGJJltPU
	\|publisher=] ] Channel \|date=15 Jul 2010
	\|accessdate=11 June 2011 \|ref={{SfnRef\|IDF timeline part 1\|2010}}
	\|postscript =. Hebrew commentary with English subtitles.
	}}
	*{{Cite video
	\|title=Flotilla Incident Timeline (English: Part 2 of 2)
	\|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpPvs3YSE4g&feature=channel
	\|publisher=] ] Channel \|date=15 Jul 2010
	\|accessdate=11 June 2011 \|ref={{SfnRef\|IDF timeline part 2\|2010}}
	\|postscript =. Hebrew commentary with English subtitles.
	}}
	{{Refend}}

	== Removed content ==

	I have removed two unsourced sentences, tagged since June 2010. No objection to their being restored with a reliable reference.
	:; Injuries
	:There were reports of scuffles at ]. Ó Luain was injured when a row broke out with Israeli authorities but he was not seriously hurt.{{Tlx\|Citation needed\|date{{=}}June 2010}}
	--] (]) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

	Also removed the CNN Türkiye ref, which appears to add nothing to the information of the previous Keinon ref which is in English. Please provide a translation if necessary, automatic translators are still hopeless for Turkish.
	:;Ship passengers
	:, 20.08.2010, CNN Türkiye.
	--] (]) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

	I've removed Shoval (2010) because it provides the same information as the other two refs (although with what looks like a direct quote from the interview). I'm placing it here with a translation of the corresponding quotation. This reference may be useful for supporting other content.
	:;Investigation for on-board weapons
	: {{Cite web \|last=Shoval \|first=Lilach \|date=4 June 2010 \|url=http://www.israelhayom.co.il/site/newsletter_article.php?a=6822 \|title=מצאנו על הספינה תרמילים מנשק זר \|publisher=] \|accessdate=17 June 2011 \|language=Hebrew \|quote={{lang\|he\|הקצין הבכיר חשף חלק מהממצאים שנתגלו בחקירת האירוע: 'בין ציוד הלחימה הרב שמצאנו היתה גם כוונת של רובה. לא מצאנו את הרובה אבל יש לנו עדויות שהם זרקו כלי נשק למים. הזיהוי הפלילי מצא על האונייה גם תרמילי כדורים שאינם מתאימים לנשקים שלנו. אנחנו בודקים לאילו כלי נשק הם מתאימים'.}} }}
	--] (]) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

	I have changed this reference since the title and url were revised later on the publication day. Article text updated accordingly and one phrase removed which does not appear in the revised article.
	:;Detention of activists
	:<s>At least 32</s> "About 629" activists were detained by the ], after they refused to sign deportation orders<s>, including two who were wounded but refused hospital treatment</s>.
	::<s>{{cite web
	\| last = Kyzer
	\| first = Liel
	\| coauthors = Yair Ettinger
	\| title = Israel detains dozens of Gaza flotilla activists upon arrival in Ashdod
	\| work = Haaretz Daily\|accessdate=31 May 2010\| date = 31 May 2010
	\| url = http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-detains-dozens-of-gaza-flotilla-activists-upon-arrival-in-ashdod-1.293339
	}}</s>
	:A Turkish mother who had brought her one-year-old child with her agreed to extradition after she was advised that prison conditions were "too harsh" for her baby.
	::{{cite web <!-- title revised from Israel detains dozens of Gaza flotilla activists upon arrival in Ashdod, original url was http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-detains-dozens-of-gaza-flotilla-activists-upon-arrival-in-ashdod-1.293339 --> \|last1=Kyzer \|first1=Liel \|last2=Yair \|first2=Ettinger \|date=31 May 2010 \|title='The ship turned into a lake of blood,' says activist on Gaza flotilla \|url=http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/the-ship-turned-into-a-lake-of-blood-says-activist-on-gaza-flotilla-1.293339 \|work=Haaretz \|accessdate=24 June 2011}}
	--] (]) 22:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

	Removed a dead link, two other refs already support the same content:
	:;Flotilla motives
	::{{cite web \|url=http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=3080528 \|title=Israeli PM wants direct talks with Palestinians \|publisher=Nationalpost.com \|date=27 May 2010 \|accessdate=2 June 2010}}{{Tlx\|dead link\|date{{=}}June 2011}}
	--] (]) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

	== Dates ==

	The date formats in this article were a complete mess, with all three MOS-supported styles having been used haphazardly in the body of the article and several other unsupported styles also appearing. Apart from looking horrible, this would have caused problems for anyone using a screen reader where such inconsistencies can be very distracting and it was difficult to edit the article since not even subsections used a consistent format.

	I have now standardised the article on the "international" format dd Mmmm yyyy for the following reasons:
	* a template in the info box already specified use of this format: {{Tlx\|Start date\|df{{=}}yes\|2010\|05\|31}}
	* the bold date in the article lead (which has to stay like that anyway, I think) as well as the repeated date at the start of the second para both already used this format (there was another inconsistent date format in the first para as well.)
	* both the UN and Turkish reports from which we have quoted use this format (the Israeli Meir Amit report uses Mmmm dd, yyyy)

	Apart from those more technical reasons, I think that using the international format for this article is in some senses the more neutral choice and will provide the best overall reader experience.

	Please keep the article consistent in this respect now it is tidied up. --] (]) 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

	== I suggest a review of sources as well as some other stuff ==

	There is over 250 odd sources for this article with some of them repeating info that where later clarified or corrected in later articles written by the source. This would be fine and dandy if this was a data dump for anything that matched "Gaza flotilla raid" on Google search, but I feel that it does a disservice to people seeking the actual happenings of the event.

	The easiest part of editing this article would be to get rid of sources (as well as information obtained from such sources) that have "spokesperson" in it. The job of a spokesperson is to spin events (propaganda) and is hardly NPOV in any sense. The only place such sources belong to is in spinoff articles detailing the reaction that governments or institutions have towards the event in question. --] (]) 11:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

	: I agree that the article needs pruning and/or splitting (again), it is twice a reasonable size at present at least. It would be difficult to remove all the "spokesperson" refs in a simple way as that would selectively remove reports based on official sources and practically speaking there were no unofficial sources for the Israeli operation itself. Often citations from more than one viewpoint are needed to support the neutral content of the article. A few refs can probably be removed from the places where there are multiple inline refs at the same place in the text, or where several citations are concatenated into a single inline ref. It is probably also the case that there is too much detail in some sections. Anyone removing content should explain clearly why in edit summaries and consider moving it to the talk page rather than simply deleting it. I have been using the ] section for that. It will help if other editors keep to the same format if adding other removals there. --] (]) 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
	:: I agree that the level of detail is out of hand here, e.g. actions of individual "soldiers" shouldn't be mentioned here at all. --] (]) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
	::: I've moved the details about ] to that article. --] (]) 15:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

	== Proposed split - "Gaza Flotilla" and "Gaza Flotilla Raid" ==

	{{Discussion top\|1=The result was '''split''' as detailed below. Closing the discussion to record the clear consensus. Please see ] --] (]) 22:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)}}
	In an effort to both shorten the article and break it into more logical chunks, I propose splitting it -- "Gaza Flotilla" and "Gaza Flotilla Raid". These are individually notable enough to merit their own pages. And, this is consistent with ] which has it's own page.

	-- ] (]) 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

	: Sounds like a natural division. The problem would be retaining enough convoy details in the raid article to make it reasonably standalone. Perhaps move some details into a template which can be transcluded into both articles? Probably Gaza flotilla (2010) would be a clearer title (edit: but see below). Here is a suggestion for how the sections could be distributed:
	{{Col-begin}}{{Col-break}}
	:; <s>Gaza flotilla (2010)<s> Gaza Freedom Flotilla
	:* Overview
	:* Flotilla organization
	::* Ships
	::* Cargo
	::* Ship passengers
	:* Flotilla motives
	:* Initial leg (perhaps preceded by a Preparation section? add after the split)
	::* Pre-raid sabotage rumors
	:* ''Raid and aftermath (main article tag, brief summaries from the other article)''
	:: ''summary of Raid, Casualties, Conclusion of raid, Aftermath, Reactions sections)''
	:* Future plans (rename to Subsequent activities or whatever)
	:* Film (perhaps need this in both articles?)
	:* References
	:* Further reading
	:* External links
	{{Col-break}}
	:; Gaza flotilla raid
	:* Overview (of the raid)
	:* ''Flotilla (main article tag, summary of other article)''
	::* ''Flotilla organization (detailed summary needed to make this article independent)''
	:::* ''Ships''
	:::* ''Cargo''
	:::* ''Ship passengers''
	::* ''Before the raid (perhaps a better title for this?, brief summary of rest of the other article)''
	::: ''summary of Flotilla motives, Initial leg, Pre-raid sabotage rumors''
	::* Future plans (move into the summary, rename to Subsequent activities or whatever)
	:* Raid (retain current content and sections)
	:* Casualties (retain current content and sections)
	:* Conclusion of raid (retain current content and sections)
	:* Delivery of cargo (retain current content and sections)
	:* Aftermath (retain current content and sections)
	:* Reactions (retain current content and sections)
	:* Film (perhaps need this in both articles?)
	:* References
	:* Further reading
	:* External links
	{{Col-end}}
	:--] (]) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
	:(italicised summary sections for clarity) --] (]) 22:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
	:: Bueller? -- ] (]) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
	::: Since the flotilla was called the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" and there is already a redirect of that name leading to this article, I suggest we use that name for the new article, with suitable hat notes. Updated above. --] (]) 04:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

	::::You're right, Bob: A split is certainly called for; the article is just far too long. And this proposed division of structure seems pretty sound to me, as well.

	::::I'd like to stress, in the strongest possible way, however, that I think we need to all agree on this or on some modified format/structure for the two articles that will result, ''before'' going forward with the split. There will doubtless be tweaks that people will want to make after any split, but at least a broadly-based agreement on structure will help prevent a full-scale dust up, I think. '''So does anyone have any objection to the "split structure" proposed above?''' Or any suggestions to modify it?  – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 00:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC) ''<small>( Let's leave this open for comment for the usual seven days, please, before going ahead. )</small>''
	:Sounds like a good idea. And it should be relatively easy to do it in a way compliant with NPOV, something like what is outlined above. It's roughly a chronological split, with one article covering everything up to the flotilla being in mid-sea, and the article on the raid covering everything from the start of the raid. ] (]) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
	{{discussion bottom}}

	== Split to Gaza Freedom Flotilla: implementation ==

	It so happens that I have time this weekend to prepare the split contents. I will follow the outline in the previous section. I have no objection whatsoever if somebody else would prefer to do this... --] (]) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
	: I've started to make the split, but I'm currently being delayed by server errors while trying to save the main update to this article, so for a while the flotilla details are duplicated here and there and I may make the update in several stages some of which would display reference errors. Sorry about that. --] (]) 18:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
	: Finished the main edits now. Thanks for your patience if you have been being patient. I have left inuse on the new section for a while but I will remove it "soon". I will be making one or two other edits as well, so please continue to edit the rest of the article as normal. --] (]) 18:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

	== Unencyclopedic language in lead ==

	I have removed the phrase using the word "fizzled" in the lead. This is a clearly pejorative, unencyclopedic word which should only appear in a directly attributed, qualified, quotation and is thus unsuitable for the lead of a Misplaced Pages article. The reference used to support it has a grammatical error in its title: I'm sure we can find a competently written piece to confirm the current (final?) status of the flotilla as necessary. If somebody wishes to restore "fizzled" somewhere else in the article, by all means do so in a suitable context. Please take the trouble to provide a fully complete citation if you do, there are plenty of examples of what is needed. --] (]) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

	Man.. what's with all the passive voice? Who's writing this article? Whoever you are, would you please write it better with a more encyclopedic tone and style? - ] (]) 05:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

	== Can Mankell's statements be established or refuted? ==

	], an eyewitness, says "Israeli commandos fired at will from helicopters" at passengers of MV Mavi Marmara - see http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israelis-cannot-make-the-gaza-reality-disappear-1.373632. What is the status of this ]? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Yes, much can be clearly inferred from the videos, especially the ones from the activists.

	:The actual helicopter scene taken from the ship with sound and images, can be seen in two videos by the activists, (as opposed to the videos from the Israelis). The shots are heard and are seen with the paintball liquid hitting the wall, and two activists notifying the rest that it is not live ammunition. This strongly coincides with the Israeli narrative. At least one of the two shown wounded activists, dragged into the ship following the roof attack, clearly have a plastic bullet wound from close contact.

	:Both the Israeli (IDF) and activist (IHH) narrative talk about the stun grenades prior to the first attack, and the Israeli images show the roof-deck before and during the raid, clearly no-one is seen hurt or wounded at that stage.

	:On the other hand the Israeli video with the soldier yelling "Yes! Yes! I see him, he's holding a gun and using live ammunition" and the recorded command following that: "End all paintball, use live ammunition" are not clearly from the first 5 minutes, and it can be inferred from some Israeli sources (like the timeline video) that there were soldiers that attempted to use their guns including the first three abducted soldiers after being stabbed with knives, and the forth one seeing his friends being beaten and his commander thrown head down.

			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.
	:So, the answer to your question is: Yes, there are many indications (these are only a few) that there was no firing of live ammunition from the helicopter. But that doesn't mean that both side's narrative is completely consistent. both have loopholes and obviously censored parts in the released videos. (the IHH video is cut in some places, and there are people saying: Do not photo this, in several scenes, while the IDF videos stop at a certain moment and do not give the full picture, although obviously they have it.) By closely following the facts, it is possible to reconstruct what actually happened. ] (]) 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

			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)
	== other issues. ==

			: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
			:*
			:] (]) 01:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

			== Add link for Palmer report ==
	Should that be moved into the article?

			We should add a link to ] in the section on the UN response ] (]) 05:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
	I haven't read this article in quite some time, but I do not remembering seeing the "blockade of the gaza strip" template.

			: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)
	I don't understand why the second intifada is part of the infobox. That is independent of the blockade and flotilla raid right? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

	== ~~UNHRC~~ ~~bias?~~ ==		== 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. ] (]) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
	Having read the article, this is something that appears somewhat flawed to me: That in particularily the part concerning the independent UNHRC report, nothing is mentioned of the rather heavy critisism for laying undue weight on critisising Israel above more urgent matters that the council has received from high UN officials, UN members and at least one NGO.
	Seeing as how it's written in the Misplaced Pages article on the UNHRC, and more importantly puts the results of the fact-finding mission, the very serious allegations made against Israel in the report, the concerns about the report from the United States and the European Union's wish that it be transefered from the council in a new perspective, I think it should be briefly mentioned in the beginning of the "The UNHRC fact-finding mission" part.

			:Could you provide a ] for this information? ] (]) 23:12, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
	Also, in the part of the article mentioned, it is written that "the fact-finding mission headed by three prominent international jurists". Whom are these, and should it be included in the same part of the article?
			::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)

			== Describing the nature of the killings in the lead ==
	Feedback? ] (]) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

			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
	: Who (or which organisation etc) made these criticisms about undue weight? Can you provide a reliable reference here to support the statement? I haven't the time to check for jurists' names now, but I would first look through the report to see if the authors are listed there. --] (]) 23:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

			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?
	:: All this is new to me, but if I may, I'd suggest the following as introduction:
	::# ] lead, 3rd paragraph
	::# ]
	::# ] similar story with HRC predecessor
	:: I guess the IP user is referring to these WP articles. --] (]) 23:26, 12 August 2011 (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".

			I suggest we undo the user's revert. ] (]) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
	::: As I wrote, much of it can actually be read in the ] on it. For starters we have ], ], ], ]. The EU, Canada, the US, and from what I gather at least one NGO, ]. I think there are more, but right now I haven't looked up any more.
	Looked it up, the jurists are ], ] and ]. Can't say I found much about them that concerns the subject of the article other than their involvment in the writing of the report. Personally I still think that their names should be included, to make the article more complete.
	ElCommandanteChe, yes, it was mostly that I refered to, but also to the other article which I've linked to above.
	Does anyone think more research, sources, etc. should be included to back changes? ] (]) 00:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

			:I agree. This information seems relevant and due and is mentioned multiple places in the body.
	The report itself can't be used as a source to say the three are "prominent." I got rid of it, POV. I also filled out Israel's response about why they won't support the UNHRC's mission. It is in the same source used to say Israel won't let the group interview its people.
			:Also note that the text should read "Nine activists were killed, some shot in the back of the head and at close range".
	] (]) 10:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
			:- ] (]) 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)
	: To quote a fictional Indian shopkeeper from a TV series circulating around the fictional stories of the fictional yellow inhabitants with four fingers on each hand in a rather corrupt fictional city: Thank you, come again! ] (]) 23:34, 19 August 2011 (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)
	== Unaddressed issues ==
			::"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"
			::- ] (]) 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 ==
	*
	*Why the heck is the Gaza blockade template still in existence? Who is responsible for its creation and where can an editor file a petition for a deletion? The template is simply inaccurate. Including events prior to the blockade, such the second intifada, before Israel withdrew its army from the strip makes no sense at all.

			@], the mention of "knives" in the palmer report cites the turkel report. "Material before the Panel confirms that this group
	So? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 06:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
			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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 20:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
	== Problematic edit on the UN report ==
			::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)
			::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)

			@], @] - 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)
	In , an editor has presented the opinion of Joseph Ciechanover, the Israeli member of the UN commission, as a fact. However, as Ynet news, the source, only refers to the opinion of Ciechanover, and Ciechanover is not an independent expert with regard to the report, the assessment must be presented as Ciechanover's opinion. Furthermore, neither Ynet news nor Ciechanover uses the term "flotilla problem", and the specific wording of the edit thus either mixes Ciechanover's views and the editor's views, or an original interpretation of Ciechanover's views.

			: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)
	As I have already reverted some other content during the last 24 hours, I am asking other editors to address this issue. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 00:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
	:I see a direct quotation. "It is the opinion of the Israeli government, blah blah blah." "in dealing with the flotilla problem" is possible editor language and could be tweaked to "flotilla incident" or simply "flotilla raid." We can't plagiarize sources. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 01:58, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
	::Which direct quotation are you referring to? Neither the article nor the source (the Ynet news article) contain the phrase "It is the opinion of the Israeli government". Nobody has advocated plagiarizing sources, by the way. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 02:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
	:::Okay I'm just a bit confused. You are stating an edit is showing an opinion of the Israeli government or person as fact, right? Here is the edit:
	:::<blockquote>The only major area of disagreement between the Israeli government and the Palmer report's findings is that the Israeli government rejected the claim that Israel used "excessive and unreasonable" force in dealing with the flotilla problem.</blockquote>
	::::What's the issue specifically? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 02:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
	:::::The issue is that this is an opinion that is presented as a fact. Ciechanover does not speak for Israel, and even if it were a statement by the Israeli government, we would need to attribute it, as we cannot know whether the Israeli government (as all governments, individuals, companies etc.) has presented its own thoughts truthfully. In addition, the presentation of Ciechanover's opinion is not following the source. I can't see any statement in the source that would support the wording "flotilla problem", nor do I see a statement characterizing the disagreement as the "only major area of disagreement". These appear to be ] of the statements contained in the source. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 04:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
	:So do you suggest a rephrase or a whole-sale deletion? ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 04:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
	::The observation that the assessment of the use of force is a major disagreement between the UN commission and Israel is probably correct. This should have been reported on by multiple sources. So my approach would be to look for a more appropriate source (a fact-based news article rather than an article based on an interview), and then replace the current content with content based on that source. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 12:19, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
	:::I rephrased the text so that it says exactly what the article says. I don't think this changes the basic meaning, but it should eliminate your complaints about OR wording. ] (]) 09:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
	:::Thank you for correcting the text! My main concern were assessments like "the only" that are ] of the source. While I think that there are better sources around, this is what we can write based on that particular source. <span style="border:1px solid;color:#000085"> ] ] </span> 10:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

	== ~~Unexplained~~ ~~removal~~ ==		== 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 (]) 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)
	after no reasoning was provided here. Article has improved substantially since July, and any neutrality issues can be resolved through collaborative editing. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 03:24, 6 September 2011 (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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

A news item involving Gaza flotilla raid was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 May 2010.

[REDACTED]

Misplaced Pages

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Israel Mid‑importance

This 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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles.
Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page.
Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration.
Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005
Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel.
Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah
See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages.
Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data.
Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes.
Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention.
Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel.
NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries
Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel.
Stubs : See Israel stubs.
Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People
Other :
- Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary.

Palestine Mid‑importance

	Palestine portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Maritime / National / Balkan / European / Middle East

This 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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	National militaries task force
	Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)
	European military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Low‑importance

	This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Piracy Low‑importance

This 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

Low

This 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:

Requests: John Lopez (pirate), Lords of the Spanish Main, Benjamin Bennett (governor) (see What links here), Thomas Walker (pirate), Richard Bishop (pirate)
Expand: Charles Vane, Edward England, Emanuel Wynn, George Lowther, Pierre Le Grand, Roche Braziliano, Thomas Cocklyn, Woodes Rogers, Piracy in the Indian Ocean
Verify: Daniel Johnson (pirate), Henry Jennings, François l'Olonnais, Olivier Levasseur, Edward Davis (buccaneer)
Copyedit: Golden Age of Piracy
Images: MV Delight, MV Powerful,

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Nir Hasson (August 18, 2010). "The right's latest weapon: 'Zionist editing' on Misplaced Pages". Haaretz.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Robert Mackey (August 20, 2010). "Misplaced Pages Editing for Zionists". New York Times.

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.

Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid (talk | history) on May 31, 2010, 18:43 from this version
List of participants of the Gaza flotilla (talk | history) on June 1, 2010, 09:20 from this version
Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid (talk | history) on June 4, 2010, 16:42 from this version
Ships of Gaza flotilla raid (talk | history) on June 7, 2010, 08:52 from this version
2010 easing of the blockade of the Gaza Strip (talk | history) on June 23, 2010, 16:48 from this version
Turkel Committee (talk | history) on June 30, 2010, 13:20 from this version
Freedom Flotilla II (talk | history) on June 25, 2011, 15:26 from this version
Gaza Freedom Flotilla (talk | history) on July 17, 2011, 20:42 from this version

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: