Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Physchim62 (talk | contribs) at 21:26, 9 June 2010 (→Plot thickens - Erdogan knew about violence ahead of time?: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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.

Error: Target page was not specified with to.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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: edit history watch purge 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Mid‑importance 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Mid‑importance 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

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

Threads may be archived manually within minutes of posting.

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 20 sections are present.

Recurring topics

Some topics have already been discussed, but keep reappearing. I would like to remind my fellow editors to read the following topics before making pertinent changes:

• /Archive_2#Activists or passengers? - decision was to keep "passengers" for now.

Please add to the list as you see fit. — Sebastian 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ANOTHER RECURRING TOPIC: The wording of the accounts in the Lead. Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Addition_of_qualifying_statements_in_the_lead

There was a recent change here. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=365708414

Perhaps the wording should be discussed again.

Zuchinni one (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you might want to move that section down here? — Sebastian 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If you like, I don't know exactly what the standards are for reformatting the Talk page and I don't want to confuse people by accidentally handling it wrong. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Death

An editor has removed the cause of death information from the lead diff, with the edit summary "If this info remains in the lead, then, for balance, I will add in the details of all the injuries of Israeli soldiers (where/how they were stabbed, what injuries they suffered". RS seem to focus on the deaths of the ships' passengers over injuries to the commandos, so I don't know what "balance" would be served by including that information in the lead. But if someone wants to make a case they could do so here rather than removing germane and well-sourced content regarding a central aspect of the event. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Ths is not a IDF outfit so there is no need to balance body count like 1 isold to 1000 other . Article had to be NPOV not a "balanced". What if something like this was not balenced. Anyway how you can balance a death to scratches ? Ai 00 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, is it the custom of WP to include specific details of how people are killed in such a confrontation (e.g. shot from behind, shot multiple times) in the lead? Is it not sufficient to say that the Israeli raid/actions resulted in the death of 9 activists? If you feel these details are necessary specifically in the lead, than it would also be necessary to say in the lead that one soldier was stabbed in the abdomen, another fractured his skull, etc, rather than just saying that X soldiers were injured (and the same can be said regarding details of the activist injuries as well). Regards, Kinetochore (talk) 00:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You could propose your idea, Kine, and if there are sources other than the sensationalistic Israeli Ynet website then it should be considered. But try to be neutral here: Are you really proposing that a principal quality of this event is injuries suffered by commandos? Is that what made this noteworthy? The RS I see all point to the deaths of the passengers over injuries to commandos. Of course cause of death is notable, RS make it so eg. "The revelation that many of those killed – eight Turks and a US-Turkish citizen – were shot in the head at close range by members of Israel's Shayetet 13 naval special forces team only exacerbated the sense of anger in many quarters, above all in Turkey." Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated to this topic, but Ynet news much less sensationalist than Al Jazeera, and its certainly an RS.Kinetochore (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

See HERE for a previous discussion that directly related to this topic. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. Believe the coroner's info should make its way back into the lead, because a principal element of this event, if not the principal element, is the killing of the passengers. What you believe that info on the cause of death might imply is OR, and removal is unwarranted. Also do you really see a qualitative equivalence between an anonymous IDF soldier's saying he saw "murderous rage in their eyes" and a medical examiner's report on wounds and cause of death? RomaC (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, principle element is indeed killing of the passengers, but the ways in which they were killed (i.e. from behind) is irrelevant to an overall summary of the conflict, unless you have some other reason for wanting inclusion in the lead. Kinetochore (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason I have is encyclopedic accuracy. They died: How did they die? Do you see a problem with including this information, or do you think it is not reliably sourced? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be included, but is it central enough to be placed in the lead? Seems to me to be a one-sided attempt to imply activists were "executed." Is there enough of a consensus on this point among RS to place it in the lead? 132.69.136.166 (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello IP, I agree, would this event even have a Wiki article if nine passengers had not died? I'm not sure, but do any other attempts to deliver aid to Gaza have their own articles? The deaths do seem very "central" according to RS, and Wiki editors' personal opinions on what reliably sourced and verifiable information on the deaths might imply should not really matter here. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the deaths are central, but I still disagree that the details of their deaths are important enough belong in the lead (instead of somewhere else in the article). The proximity from which the activists were shot does not belong in a summary of the raid.Kinetochore (talk) 14:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

close range shootings

Here is an exchange that I had with Zuchinni one on topic. It belongs here more than anywhere else. ManasShaikh (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Manas! I would like to ask you to revert your recent addition to the Gaza flotilla raid lead. This information is included elsewhere in the article and if we include it in the lead we will also need to include, for balance, the IDF statements about the passengers wearing bullet proof vests (thus accounting for the shots). There are also POV issues with this information as per the Talk section.

Please see the following discussions Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Cause_of_Death AND Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#2nd_paragraph_of_lead_getting_full_of_he-said_.2F_she-said_.26_POV_language and consider contributing your thoughts before making changes to the lead.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zuchinni one, thanks for the feedback. What's there is news report from Third party. I am not quoting the activists. So the need to quote "both sides" does not appear. However, if you think that the IDF's claims are important, please go ahead and add the information with references. We can discuss from there and improve the article. Thanks. ManasShaikh (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize that you are quoting a 3rd source. It is based off the Turkish autopsy and was discussed in depth earlier on the talk page. The problem is not the fact that it is a 3rd source, but rather that it is POV and makes implications about the Israeli soldiers being especially violent. This is the same kind of implication made by Israeli news reports of the attackers wearing bullet proof vests and autopsy results from Israel that suggest the troops were fired upon by weapons not used by Israel, and thus on board prior to their arrival. The lead has been very contentious and as a result the length was getting out of control.

I agree with you that the Turkish autopsy results are relevant and should be included in the article. But by including them in the lead you introduce the kind of well-intentioned POV that has resulted in MANY edit wars. If we include all the POV info in the lead it will be out of control and full of innuendo rather than facts. This is in opposition to WP:Lead.

I hope that makes sense and you understand why I'm asking you to remove it from the lead.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zuchinni one Thank you for your feedback. As you have implied, it is clearly an important piece of information. Now facts are not considered POV. The auspsy reports are beyond dispute. On the other hand, the newspapers report Israeli claims. No proof has been provided- nor did the newspapers were able to verify the claims.

In fact, I'd argue that the fact is so important and relevant, that the exclusion of it may be considered POV. The WP:NPOV article puts it wonderfully- "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral, point of view."

Please also have a look at WP:NOTABILITYManasShaikh (talk) 23:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Good call on bringing this to the talk page Manas :)

Regarding the inclusion of this information. Here are my thoughts. Currently both the Turkish and Israeli governments have POV on this raid. That is one of the reasons why information released by the Israeli government has been tagged with words like "alleged" and "claimed". However the same has not been done for the Turkish government's statements. My concern here is that they be treated equally. Either both as POV or both as NPOV. The autopsy results released by the Turkish government may indeed by very relevant. But in that case shouldn't information which directly relates, such as the Israeli government's statements about activists wearing bullet proof vests, and Israeli soldiers having gunshot wounds?

If we take both government statements as true and NPOV then Israeli soldiers could have been quite justified in shooting back at people, who were shooting at them, and furthermore shooting them in the head since they supposedly had bullet proof vests.

I think information from both sides should be considered POV and should stay out of the lead and be remanded to the main body of the article where there is plenty of room for it. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Zuchinni one, you are making a fundamental mistake. Turkey is a third party, not part of the conflict. This is a dispute between the peace activists and Israel so the two sides are Israel and the activists.. Moreover, the autopsy reports are not governmental claims. Nor are they released by the government. We will add the word "claim" to anything that the activists and Israel says and is not verified by a third party. For example, the activist account that Israelis were firing before they boarded is a claim, and the article reports it as such. ManasShaikh (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Turkey not at all a third party. The government supports the IHH, which it considers to be a charitable organization. Also if you look at the official statements from the Turkish government, they are anything but NPOV. If you think that the autopsies and the reports were not authorized by the Turkish Government, then, using your logic above, the reports from Israeli hospitals of the gunshot wounds the soldiers received are also extremely relevant and need to go in the lead. I feel the lead needs to be NPOV and factual. The inclusion of BOTH of these reports is neither and they should not go in the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "The government supports the IHH"? Considering it a charitable organisation means they support? So UN also supports IHH, I suppose? Israel has been accused of wrongdoing. Turkey has not. Therefore Turkey is third party. Turkey is not writing wikipedia article that it has to be NPOV. It can of course take a stand. That does not make a party to the conflict.

The whole point of contention is the death of civilians on that ship. Therefore the information that some of the activists were killed in close range is critical, and not having it in the lead is misleading the readers. ManasShaikh (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Zuchinni one. --Kslotte (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with Zuchinni one on this one. Although this is factual and crucial information, it probably should not be included in the lead. --386-DX (talk) 23:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Manas here - the autopsy reports have nothing to do with the Turkish government or someone's opinion or POV. Moreover evidence of close range shootings is highly important, whether it is incriminatory or not. To balance it out one can follow it with the IDF or Israeli government response to the autopsies, if one has been issued. Proudbharati (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Or to balance it, one can say that the IDF claims its soldiers received gunshot wounds to the head (did it say that?) and autopsy reports from Turkey claim the activists were shot from close ranges. They both seem pertinent and deserve a place in the lead and are an integral part of the discourse because these are important components of what transpired on the ship that morning. Proudbharati (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Manas and I am shocked that we are even talking about this. Autopsy reports are not POV. The Turkish government just won't make up such reports, it would be incredibly dishonorable and since the govt has asked for an international investigation, they would be shooting themselves in the foot if they did so. If we don't want anything that comes from Turkey, then we should ban EVERY single report and video from IDF as well. Abureem (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To Proudharati and Abureem, the question is not whether or not to include the autopsy information. I think everyone is in agreement that it should be a part of the article. The question is whether or not it should be in the lead. Look at the standards in WP:LEAD. This simply is not the place for a full balanced discussion about what happened and why. That is what the rest of the article is for. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed in at least three sections now. I suggest that we continue in Gaza_flotilla_raid#Lead.2C_shot_in_close_range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 386-DX (talk • contribs) 19:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead, shot in close range

This is the edit by user ManasShaikh, that need to be reverted according to WP:LEAD. The statement is true, but to detailed for lead. Secondly, the has been discussions earlier that word "passenger" should be used. --Kslotte (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

that edit should be left to stay (for the time being) on both points. Physchim62 (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by using "passenger"? If you mean replacing the word "activists" in the context of the clash, I shot that down before. But I support the revert.  —Rafi  22:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement is not only too detailed for the lead, but it is based solely on the testimony of one Turkish official (who states that it is a preliminary conclusion). Turkey is an involved party in the incident, and is going through some turbulent times in terms of democracy. It would be highly irresponsible for us in this case to reprint the statement of a Turkish government official with no qualification. Certainly the mainstream media is not doing that. In fact, barring a couple of exceptions, the mainstream media seems to be too skeptical to bother reporting the statement at all. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

ROFL! An official report from the authorities of the country which all nine victims held nationality, and you pretend that it is not a reliable source! Not to mention that the Israeli authorities had access to the bodies for more than two days, and no doubt took detailed pictures and notes, so any claims from the Turkish authorities could easily be contested. Get a brain, mate. Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It's still too detailed for the lead. In fact, in the past hour a lot of detail has been added to the lead without forming consensus here first. Let's avoid the edit wars, folks.  —Rafi  00:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done The lead has been cleaned. "Shot at close range" is still stated elsewhere in article. --Kslotte (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose the hasty removal, there was no consensus. Cause of death is multiple gunshots at close range. Why not state that clearly, the deaths are central to the event. RomaC (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reading this discussion, it looks to me like there is consensus for removal from the lead, seeing as only one person objected, and that the objection is to a straw-man position and based entirely on speculation. Also, the burden of gaining consensus is on the one adding material. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the revert, for a concrete reason: the shots at close range corroborate the IDF's account that live shots were fired when the soldiers were in mortal danger in a mob armed with cold weapons. But presented superficially, the information portrays the soldiers as brutal aggressors. To avoid either impression we should leave such detail to the article and obey Misplaced Pages:Lead#Relative emphasis.  —Rafi  01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly an editor's support or opposition for content should not be based on the impression they imagine it might give. That's not policy. Also, editors should not participate simply to present the Israeli narrative. Passengers say the IDF shot before boarding, IDF says there was a melee and the soldiers shot only as a last resort and in self-defence. Both these are positions, and both are reflected. Let's don't confuse that with facts, the dead were shot repeatedly and at close range. This is the autopsy, by a medical doctor, and has been widely reported. RomaC (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

RomaC, did you understand that we are talking about don't having the "shots at close range" in the LEAD section of the article? --Kslotte (talk) 02:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand we're talking about the lead and first reference to the deaths, giving cause of death: "...shot repeatedly at close range". This phrase complies with "lead" (is a summary of more-detailed info found down in the body); and complies with Misplaced Pages's three core content policies, "neutral point of view" (phrase is from a clinical autopsy), "verifiability" (phrase is supported by many reliable sources) and "no original research" (passenger deaths are at the core of the event, the main reason we have this article). If the concern is the addition of five words to the lead, let's make room by removing these redundant six words: "The sequence of events is disputed." which immediately precede content showing that the sequence of events is disputed. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The range of the shootings is a very important important detail of the description, and it is not lengthening the sentence considerably. However, we may consider removing the "repeatedly" part, as it implies that the shots were fired continuously. Please also see WP:DRNC. --386-DX (talk) 18:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith, please. No one is disputing facts or neutrality of phrasing. My argument is that emphasis on graphic detail is POV.  —Rafi  03:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. See reasons above. ManasShaikh (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Kslotte, let me remind you of a few rules: one, you have to reach consensus before you can revert. Two, if consensus is not reached then there is a procedure to follow. Three you have to give reasonable time for all parties to respond (on WP that's about a day or two). You can't put up a notice and within a few hours remove even if all the editors that showed up within that hour agreed with you. I want to make sure we are on the same footing on that one. Therefore, I request you to undo your revert. Let us discuss, and if it does not work out, then we can follow the procedure that wikipedia has set out for such disputes. Another note: don't make different threads for the same discussion. I will move this whole discussion into that tomorrow. As for your arguments, see the discussion above for my response. ManasShaikh (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, ManasShaikh, please don't make significant changes to the lead without establishing consensus.  —Rafi  03:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, and that's why the article should be restored, a consensus should be reached, and then any possible changes should be implemented. Any change implemented without giving enough time for people to respond is in violation of WP rules ("Don't do big things suddenly; the community is more likely to accept your edits if you do them slowly and make effort to keep the community involved. While consensus at policy pages can and does change, it usually does so slowly."). ManasShaikh (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to your original "close range" edit. It should remain reverted until consensus, which will probably require the input of more opinions. I also have an idea for a compromise, but I'm too tired now to hash it out. Sorry for suspense. Going to bed.  —Rafi  04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ. This whole argument is about whether my edit should be removed. It can not and should not be done without reaching a consensus. But it was. Therefore I decided to revert it back to what it was. Until a consensus is reached. ManasShaikh (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

However, I am willing to hear what you will propose. ManasShaikh (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I tightened up the cause of death info and removed redundant wording as above. But the opening of this graph remains problematic re; neutrality: "On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, activists fought the soldiers with metal clubs and other weapons as the latter rappelled one by one onto the deck of the ship. Nine activists were killed... " Again, this -- Passengers attacked, then IDF defended -- advances a cause-effect order that basically parrots the Israeli narrative, which is disputed. So we shouldn't open with this, we should open with "Nine passengers died..." which is more important information, and then summarize the IDF and GFF perspectives. RomaC (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should discuss this paragraph as a whole. I'm going to start a new thread about it at the bottom (it's a new topic anyway) where it will receive more attention.  —Rafi  14:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please undo that and continue discussing in this section. There is a reason that this paragraph is here, and it is to avoid the repetition of the same arguments. --386-DX (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How to deal with the very large Mavi Marmara boarding section

Currently the section is split up into the accounts of different groups. But this is an encyclopedia and eventually we need to have this section stop being personal accounts and start being verified facts.

Now that more information has come out many of the accounts are backing each other up. For example this interview with an Al-Jazeera reporter confirmed some of the IDF video footage & stories:

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html

This is not a complete list ... just a sample.

Confirmed:

• Time of the raid
• Israeli soldiers attempting to board by both helicopter & boat (it seems they tried by boat first)
  • Some videos showed some activists tried to use high pressure water against boats. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Initial use of non-lethal force by Israelis: http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/06/04/gaza.raid.autopsies/ Zuchinni one (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Israelis started using live fire within 90 seconds of boarding (from the helicopters)
  • Not confirmed at all. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • The wording I used was unclear. The confirmed fire was not from the HELICOPTERS, but from the soldiers who boarded the boats via abseil from the choppers. Confirmed here: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177445 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuchinni one (talk • contribs) 09:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Passengers seized weapons from Israeli soldiers: Confirmed by flotilla organizers: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-organizer-admits-activists-seized-weapons-from-israeli-soldiers-1.293929 Zuchinni one (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• soldiers being attacked with iron bars (apparently railings from the ship). http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html Zuchinni one (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• soldiers being held captive (and apparently having their weapons removed, although it is unclear if these weapons were later used in the fighting)
  • Some were beaten badly by a group. Don't know exact number. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • It is reported that two soldiers were thrown from an upper deck to a lower deck. No one is sure yet if they were held captive there or not. They escaped from lower deck by jumping into sea, and soon after retrieved by other Israeli naval forces. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Confirmed they were held captive by al-jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/06/201063123021327499.html Zuchinni one (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Journalist causalties. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the reports that remain unconfirmed:

• Use of bullet proof vests by passengers
• The passengers trying to take down the helicopter by tying the abseil rope to the ship
• That passengers had firearms prior to the Israeli boarding (they claim to have found shell casings and sights that don't fit Israeli weapons)
• Use of stun grenades by passengers (although the video seems pretty clear I have not seen any non-Israeli RS that mentions this)
• "Go back to Auschwitz" claims
• Israel denying medical aid to wounded (although considering this request seems to have occurred during the fighting, it would not surprise me if it was true)
  • Some reports say that wounded refusde to receive medical aid on board from Israeli medics. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Can you provide a reference Zuchinni one (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
      • As far as I know some heavy wounded did not treated immediately. They said they waited hours to get medical treatment. On the other hand after capture some wounded activists declined medical treatement in Israel territory. TV reports are nice but hard to reference. Kasaalan (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
• Israeli soldiers firing from the helicopter down at the passengers
• Paintball guns used a "glass type" ammunition
• Use of live fire by passengers Zuchinni one (talk) 20:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you share source for that. Kasaalan (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

BBC Here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/10203333.stm Zuchinni one (talk) 09:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any solid proof on the article. One soldier claimed 1 activist was holding rifle. No rifle found. did any commando has any wound by rifle bullet. Kasaalan (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In the ref there is a statement from a journalist who witnessed the events, which directly supports this. There is also now confirmation from the flotilla organizers that passengers seized weapons from the soldiers. http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-organizer-admits-activists-seized-weapons-from-israeli-soldiers-1.293929::::

Perhaps the seizure should be confirmed and the use of the weapons by passengers reverted to unconfirmed. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Another related ref: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/news.aspx/137780 Zuchinni one (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Activists claimed they took the rifles, however they throw them off to the sea. Kasaalan (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Israel is covering up casualties? At some point, a reporter or activist claimed that "more were missing". Any names?
• Casualties were caused in close quarter combat. This is the IDF viewpoint, but articles about the autopsy results seem to vaguely imply this was not the case. Were any casualties caused by a firearm different from IDF service pistols? E.g. casualties caused by live fire from helicopters (claimed by the Al Jazeera on-board reporter) should be easy given autopsies, or by inspection of the ship deck. kzm (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the problems with figuring out what has happened is that the IDF confiscated all the video they could find of the event. While it seems fairly undisputed that the footage is legitimate, the timing of when the events occurred is in question, and footage that might support passenger POV has not been released. This means that it can be difficult to confirm passenger claims, since the IDF seems to have all the hard evidence.

It seems to me that the individual accounts are important, especially because that is the majority of evidence that the passengers have. But if we leave this section grouped as different accounts it will just remain impossible to manage from an editor's point of view, and impossible to read easily from a visitor's point of view.

I suggest that we do the following:

1. Change the format of this section into Confirmed Facts and Unconfirmed Reports (or different wording if you prefer). Each of these can have all the associated references attached to it. (It might be best to use a list format for the time being and change it to prose later). The list format will also make it easy for people to know what needs confirmation and prevent duplication.
2. Create a new article devoted to the personal accounts of the passengers, journalists, and soldiers involved and provide a link.
3. The link to the personal accounts article should explain that for the time being the IDF has most of the 'hard evidence' that shows what has happened and they have not released it all. Thus it has been easier to confirm IDF reports than passenger reports.

Please share your thoughts :)

Zuchinni one (talk) 08:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Overall it sounds like a very good and solid idea to me. I'm just not sure about the word "confirmed". If it's "confirmed", confirmed by whom? I think "Known Facts" might be better. Or perhaps "Undisputed Facts", but that's not perfect either. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I like your suggestion for 'undisputed facts' I think its more NPOV :) Zuchinni one (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

General questions then. If we don't answer these now, it'll come up very soon after adding the section. How would you propose determining what is "undisputed"?

• The same article which mentions "90 seconds after boarding" also says that soldiers were shot and beaten unconscious _before_ S. pulled out his weapons. Is that also "undisputed"?
• The article says "contrary to earlier reports", is that a strong suggestion that there is/was some dispute. How solid does the new info have to be to become "undisputed"?
• Is one reference enough to determine something is "undisputed"? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Condensing section "Legal assessments"

We have three section in Legal assesments. Since we have issues that the article is WP:TOOLONG, I propose that this section should be condensed shorter (about half the size) into sub-article Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid should contain. The question is what is essential and what should go? --Kslotte (talk) 17:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Some condensing done. A few sentence shorter. --Kslotte (talk) 21:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

One of my changes was reverted. We don't need Cuban Missile Crisis comparisons in main article. We have a sub-article Legal assessments of the Gaza flotilla raid for that. I suggest to remove the sentence. --Kslotte (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems better. --Kslotte (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine w/paring, while still conveying sense. Suggest: "They also said that they were comparable to other unrelated blockades, such as in the Cuban Missile Crisis and the first Gulf War." I think we can afford the very few extra words, which provide much greater context. Good bang for the buck, so to speak.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but isn't running a military blockade in itself an act of war if any resistance is offered? For example, if somebody wanted to run a blockade of Boston in 1700s, or Cuba in Cuban Missle Crisis, or Haiphong harbor in 1972, would it matter if it was an aid ship full of peaceful unarmed activist and aid workers if they were stopped by any of the respective navies? If the Iranian Navy wants to deliver aid to Gasa (which they now plan to do) with sufficient force to overrun any Israeli patrol boats, who would be the aggressor? Bachcell (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Paintball

The use of paintball guns is sourced, but it looks very strange. Why bring paintball guns? Is it some translation error and they are refering to Flexible baton round (beanbag)? Gardell identified the weapons as Uzis (but he's not a military expert) and Edward Peck says they were attached to automatic weapons. // Liftarn (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Paintball guns are commonly used for non-lethal deterrence. Usually the paintballs are filled with a type of irritant similar to pepper spray, but I haven't seen mention of this. Zuchinni one (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF has night vision, so they were aware the preperations made on ship. So either they sent their commandos to be attacked by a several people with paintball rifles. Or they are simply lying about rifles. Kasaalan (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

aside: I'm not convinced about that logic, sorry. If the IDF were fully aware of such preparations they would surely either have released the video they have of that (rather than the ship's security camera video) and/or not had their commandos descend in such a 'casual' manner to be attacked and captured? (The IDF were the ones with the paintball weapons, btw). Harami2000 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF had night vision, they released IR thermal footage themselves. There is no way IDF didn't check the ship board with cameras prior to raid. The security cameras clearly show a group making preperations over board outside ship 20-30 minutes before raid. There is no way IDF raid with paintball guns unless they are lethal. Kasaalan (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen sources saying the guns fired some kind of glass marbles. It is also possible that it refers to a type of grenade that contains rubber coated metal balls. // Liftarn (talk) 21:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Getting hit by regular paintballs, from guns that are not pressure-limited (like recreational paintball), could easily be confused for something harder, like glass. The preceding statement is pure WP:OR and comes directly from an extremely painful personal experience :P Zuchinni one (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen several sources alledging (or maybe just speculating) the use of rubber bullets at first. That would seem logical, if the IDF were expecting to have to do some crowd control. Physchim62 (talk) 21:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In this video you can see Israel's soldiers handling paintball weapons (0:25) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24&feature=player_embedded

And some stun grenades falling in the boat, althought the origin of this grenade i think can't be known. --Bentaguayre (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone here speculating on whether or not they were really paintball guns and whether or not it makes sense that the IDF decided to send in commandos with paintball guns is violating WP:OR, WP:TALK, and WP:SOAP. I suggest you stop immediately and start discussing things that are actually relevant and sourced that can be improved in the article. The use of paintball guns is widely reported in WP:RS and therefore there is nothing dubious about it. Nobody has any valid reason to suspect any mistaken translations, either. I am removing the inappropriate dubious tag. Breein1007 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The source for the paintball claim is IDF and that is a single, partisan source. As we have conflicting statements about the weapons used it is relevant to the article. // Liftarn (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not true. The fact that the soldiers were equipped with paintball guns is widely reported and not solely attributed to IDF claims. Here is one example that I just quickly found . There are many more. Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Those news sources just repeat the IDF claims. We also have at least two RS quoting witnesses who say they carrid automatic weapons. // Liftarn (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not true that they just repeat IDF either, activists say in interviews that IDF used paintball guns with "glass" ammo (what is that, btw?) first, then rubber bullets, then live ammo. One of the witnesses apparently talked about Uzis, but also identified the troop carrying helicopter as Apache. I think it is undisputed that they used paintball guns. They may or may not have used assault rifles or other weapon as well. On the other hand, the autopsy says all the victims were shot with 9mm, so whatever other weapons they brought or used, IDF didn't appear to actually hit anybody with them. Ketil (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You can see the first IDF soldiers boarding in this IHH video (from 8:49). Those weapons there are definitely not assault rifles, but rather some kind of riot gun. Physchim62 (talk) 22:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

noone will claim that the israel military used solely paintball guns...--Severino (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not even the IDF! But the IHH video was live-streamed off the ship, so the IDF who appear at the end (boarding from the sea) must have been among the first on board. That backs up the IDF claim that they started with non-lethal weapons. Physchim62 (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And I recently found a third source saying it was not paintball guns. // Liftarn (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider this: Flayer (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that Slate had an article today about the use of paintball guns here. Also we do have an article on pepperball ourselves. --JGGardiner (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

MV Rachel Corrie

The section Gaza_flotilla_raid#Boarding_of_MV_Rachel_Corrie needs some work and especially correlation with MV Rachel Corrie. Also the info at Gaza_flotilla_raid#Other_ships needs to be correlated. --Kslotte (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been split into a new article Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie. A lot of text chunks that needs much clean-up at this point. Help is appreciated. --Kslotte (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For the reference, arguments for splitting is WP:SIZE and there is enough text to have an article on its own. --Kslotte (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The section should be removed, since MV Rachel Corrie did not take part in this flotilla. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Mv Rachel Corrie was part of the flotilla from the very beginning. It was delayed due to the mechanical problems. Even the IDF Video refers to Rachel Corrie as the "7th ship in the flotilla". --386-DX (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We have a separate sub-article Ships of Gaza flotilla raid, where we can fill in the two ships that where meant for the flotilla, but couldn't make it for some reasons. The content can be found in the history of the main article. --Kslotte (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they were delayed doesn't matter, Challenger 2 and Rachel Corrie were part of the flotilla. If we'll include the names of the ships, we must include those as well. They are a very significant part of the event. --386-DX (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They where part of the flotilla, but not part of the raid. That should be made clear when adding the ships. The raid of Rachel Corrie has its own article Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie. --Kslotte (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit, is appropriate to remove it? MV Rachel Corrie is part of flotilla but not part of the raid. Should that sentence be in lead or not? Or should we move it elsewhere in the article? --Kslotte (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence seems to be back, OK in my opinion. --Kslotte (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo bias

There were nine aid workers murdered and 30 injured yet we have five pictures of Israeli armed men injured or being beaten and NONE of the 40 humanitarian workers killed or injured. This is WP:NPOV and balance, Wiki style? Given the casualties balance might be four pictures of the victims of the massacre and one of the killers. Sarah777 (talk) 11:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any pictures available to us of the casualties? If so, we should definitely start adding them (and removing some of the current images). Note, though, that some of the wounded soldier images come from the IHH and other non-Israel sources. TFOWR 11:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Everyone agrees that the "aid workers" were attacked. The most controversial and disagreed about issue is whether the soldiers were attacked - so the images cover this aspect. Even the veracity of the images have become an issue, hence the variety. So no, that's not bias. I agree though, if we could find an image of a dead "aid worker" - I think we should include it. Rklawton (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much per above: it was in doubt (lack of good RSs) for a /long/ time that the soldiers were non-trivially wounded and captured at all and it was only several days belatedly that I found another Al Jazeera account which helped to resolve that controversy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=366279451&oldid=366277070 ). No-one ever doubted that passengers on the Mavi Marmara were killed. Yes, I can see value in adding images passenger-side /if/ available but requiring some form of pro rata accounting or removal of images simply because of lack of "numerical balance" might also be seen to be POV as there is no contention on those killings regardless of availability or non-availability of suitable images. 02c only, anyhow. Harami2000 (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody was murdered. If you think otherwise, than you don't know the meaning of the word "murder". Same goes to "massacre". ShalomOlam (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they were murdered. Forensic reports, as well as multiple eyewitness accounts reveal that some people were shot execution style, from very close range and multiple times. --386-DX (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(Multiple times isn't exactly "execution style", is it?) The wounds could also be the result of chaotic close-quarters fighting. But I haven't read the accounts you refer to, only the reports from the autopsy. Ketil (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here you have one

http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/oic-condemns-freedom-flotilla-attacks-1.634966

--Bentaguayre (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is too much undue wight on the IDF pov through the images, either many of the images are removed, or we add some non-IDF created images too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree the pictures give the impression of bias. --John (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User Maashatra11 has removed two photos released by IHH claiming that they are "nonreliable, unverifiable" whereas these photos have been published by numerous international newspapers and media organisations around the world. Please report them for violating the policy of "1 revert per 24 hours". I don't know how. --386-DX (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So is anyone going to remove the images? As it stands it is a one sided portrayal of the events. Mo ainm~Talk 20:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The two of the removed images were then added back. I don't think there is a need to remove any of them any more. We seem to have a good balance. The other thing is, there are no released images of the passengers after the raid, since the cameras, computers, and the storage equipment was seized by Israel. --386-DX (talk) 23:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons???? funny???

This section doesn't contain any information or useful discussion. Is it okay to delete it in order to trim this talk page? Ketil (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Let the archive processing take care of it. --Kslotte (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What weapons are these? http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Weapons_on_Marmaris.jpg Kitchen weapons and plumber weapons???? This whole operation take several hours.Israeli commandos take everyone as hostage for more than 5 hours and sit every hostage from his legs.No one go to drink water or go to wash room for more than 5 hours.During this 5 hours they collect all these types of weapons from the ship and set them on one place and take a picture. Totally unacceptable weapons. Modern weapons are not small Kitchen knife and plumber tools.Modern weapons are assault guns like Ak or M16, etc. This ship contains several VIP, Parlimentarians of Germany, Swizerland,etc, etc, NGOs and several other big persons.Not only Muslims are on that ship but also hundreds of Christians, Buddhas, Hindus and Jews are also on that ship.And they to to Gaza to give them Aid.because IDF stop everyway of Gaza.Gaza is now a Gail.So international countries supply food to Gaza. And one important resistance is not terrorism.Resistance is right to every of that nation which is occupied by a powerful nation.eg. Afghanistan in 1980 when Russia attack, India after British conquer, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.94.245 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, cold weapons are weapons. There was already a discution about this above. You are welcome to read it. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

By weapons are meant guns or knives. But as we know no israelis were killed, and in contrast to the Israelis, wounded commandos were tended by the humanitarian aid group...The contrast is revealing. Jalusbrian (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons when used, certainly, but not taken on there as weapons: the sort of thing I might use against a burglar if I had it to hand. The Hürriyet photos show a bag of onions as a weapon—somehow the IDF managed to miss that one on their search of the ship! Physchim62 (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

These are Kitchen knifes and plumber tools.Dont you think so.

And one thing Palastein freedom movements dont use these smallest weapons.If they use these weapons then they cant get freedom.They use modern assault weapons.

And one important thng that all those ships are full of food, and other supplies for Gaza peoples.

I think israeli commandos find these weapons from the kitchen.Then they throw all the stuff so called weapons on one place and take a picture.Their are 5 ships full of supplies, not weapons.And some come from Euroup.Their are also several generalist on the ship.5 generalist from my country Pakistan.These generalists also fear when they saw that israli boats comming.So they also pick up buckets full of water and throw water on the boats.Actually they dont want israeli to enter the ship otherwise innocent peoples killed by israeli soldiers.

This raid is violation of human rights, violation of law of international waters.

Thats correct that passengers of ships throw stones and water on israeli boats because the passenger knows that if israeli soldiers come inside the ship, they kill innocent people as it happen.

Only one weapon according to passengers and that is a weapon similar to a toy.I dont know what that weapon called.Anyways i tell the shape.A wood in ""Y"" shape.In upper ends rubber band is fixed and you can throw stone by this toy weapon.That toy weapon is also used by Palasteni civilians in protest against israel.They throw small stones on israeli soldiers by using this toy weapon.While israeli soldiers as reaction they fire bullets from their M-16 on the civilians which kill and wound several civilians.If you visit Palastein then you also say that israel is a terrorist country.I saw several videos in which forion generalist stop isreli soldiers to fire on Palasteni civilians.Watch this video.An American generalist stop israeli soldiers to fire on Palasteni civilian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItdRTpoJ7_E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NybtQVA8ps

Their are millions of videos in which israeli soldiers killed innocent civilians.Israeli behievious on foreigners is also worst.I saw that on National geographic.A documentary on Palastein.When cameraman and and his team life freely in Palastein.When they go to border they see a warzone bewteen israeli soldiers and Palasteni civilians.Palasteni civilians collect food and other supplies which come from the whole world.While israel fire on those civilians.The story is too much long.When the cameraman and the team go to israel an israeli soldier enter the bus in which the team is sitting.He slap on the cameraman and say him to off the camera.Cameraman do what he says.This incident really make me so much anger.

Anyways every devil has end.like pheron, germans, tribe lood and tribe add(tribes in Arab and Africa in BC ages.So israel will also end.

this last comment seem to origin from a fake who pretends to be (pro-) palestinian..-Severino (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Why you want to stop duscussion?Is supporting good is now a sin? is talking against Dajjal is now a sin?Is their no freedom of speech?Have you want to lock our mouth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.165.170 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of these objects can be classified as weapons if only MacGyver use them. Kavas (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's very interesting-I guess that almost anyone I know is such MacGyver, no wonder that this show is antique. Please cease with all of the OR you are making here. --Gilisa (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

by the way i remember the first israeli claims shortly after the attack against the ship and the killings, according to which the activists had firearms with them on bord and also that on the freight for gaza were such...--Severino (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This israeli claim is totally based on lie.The activists have only small stones and a toy.I dont know what the toy named but that toy shape is ""Y"".They use that toy to throw rock on israeli terrorists.

If activists have firearms then they kill several israeli soldiers because activists on ship is more than 600.

But actually israeli soldiers wounded.Wounded is because of the small stones which activist throw on israeli soldiers to push them away.

Anyways israel want any excuse, so they use this unbelievable excuse.

Think again.Dont believe on any israeli claim because their mostly claims are based on lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.170.129 (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Having achieved their objective the israelis still need to spin the story to their advantage...hence the embedded journos, the story of their being attacked by 'jihadis', the fearsome crew bristling with 'weapons'...Theyre so used to spreadin lies they are getting careless. Jalusbrian (talk) 08:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum. This is a dictuion about how to make the article more accurate and neutral. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalusbrian, their is no jihadis on the ship and no weapon like AK-47 etc.Looks like you make your own story which based on lie.Those are ships which have aid to Gaza for last several years.And now the people courage is full.They say that they again aid to Gaza and this time they have hundreds of journalist too to make video if israeli attack.I saw the people courage on a Geo tv program Capital talk.Even jews also hate israel after this incient.Those jews said that they are against zionest goverenment of israel.

Israel's ally also against this incident.India.Dead the reaction of india on this incident.Indian priminister also against this incident.

Many peoples on youtube which are before incident, suporting israel, but after incident, theose people become against israel.

This incident make the whole world angry against israel.Its all because foreigners killed in international waters.At last israel actual face appears on stage.As israel killed thousands of civilians in Gaza but no one respond so much but now as 9 foreigners killed by israeli forces in international waters, so this become so popular incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.23.161 (talk) 08:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right about one thing: the flotilla was mainly about being a media event, and not an aid convoy. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you dont understand what i right there.There was a few generalist in this ship this time.Others are VIP people.NOG's, parliamentarians of Switzerland, Germany, etc, etc.Senior people of other country and several other VIP people.Actually ship attract everyone.Look at this picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Mavi_Marmara

Anyways those a few generalist including one from Pakistan make a video in which those Israeli boats come.All passengers pick up buckets full of water and throw water on boats.So Israeli cant enter ship.During this, Israeli commandos land of ship by helicopter.Then those passengers throw rocks by using Y shape toy.

Israeli make hostage all of those passengers for more than 5 hours.During this period Israeli killed some passengers and beaten almost every passenger.Then Israeli soldiers send almost all to jail.Where they held for dozens of hours.

All those passengers are extremely angry.Their reaction is extreme.Not only Muslims but also Christians and Jews on that boat also have extreme angry.After buried a Turkish passenger who killed in this Israeli terrorism, a christian from Britan make a speech in Turkey, warn Israel that next time we have dozens of ships and hundreds of thousands peoples are on those ships.You(Israel) cant stop us to aid Gaza.

Some other VIP peoples (including several Jews) said that they do everything in their power to broke the siege of Gaza and aid Gaza freely.119.152.30.225 (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you dont understand what i right there.There was a few generalist in this ship this time.Others are VIP people.NOG's, parliamentarians of Switzerland, Germany, etc, etc.Senior people of other country and several other VIP people.Actually ship attract everyone.Look at this picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Mavi_Marmara

Anyways those a few generalist including one from Pakistan make a video in which those Israeli boats come.All passengers pick up buckets full of water and throw water on boats.So Israeli cant enter ship.During this, Israeli commandos land of ship by helicopter.Then those passengers throw rocks by using Y shape toy.

Israeli make hostage all of those passengers for more than 5 hours.During this period Israeli killed some passengers and beaten almost every passenger.Then Israeli soldiers send almost all to jail.Where they held for dozens of hours.

All those passengers are extremely angry.Their reaction is extreme.Not only Muslims but also Christians and Jews on that boat also have extreme angry.After buried a Turkish passenger who killed in this Israeli terrorism, a christian from Britan make a speech in Turkey, warn Israel that next time we have dozens of ships and hundreds of thousands peoples are on those ships.You(Israel) cant stop us to aid Gaza.

Some other VIP peoples (including several Jews) said that they do everything in their power to broke the siege of Gaza and aid Gaza freely.

close range shootings

The discussion has been moved to keep things organized.

Little Green Footballs do it again!

So much for some of media sources neutrality regarding the raid . --Gilisa (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussed in previous section, above (now with RS to Jerusalem Post for formal Israeli government minister complaint) but LGF itself is not a RS. As to "do it again", I'm sure plenty of other people managed to see for themselves, too, thanks! :) Regards, David. Harami2000 (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I know it's not a RS for itself, but it's avery famous and heared blog. And what starts there get quickly to RS...--Gilisa (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Reuters did the cropping? As far as I can tell, they only did the publishing. If all they received were the cropped images, then the censorship didn't originate with them. I'm thinking LGF dropped the ball on this one. Rklawton (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

If LGB could get the original images, which were taken by the foltilla passengers or by journalists that were on it but not by the IDF, then I've grave doubts that Reuters couldn't put their hands on them as well. During the second Lebanon war, back in 2006, same accusation was made by LGB against Reuters and eventually Reuters had to admit that the photos been through heavy editing (then of Israeli F-16 in attack position over the city of Beirut) but the guilty was Reuters photographer in Lebanon and the agency fired him after fact. It maybe similar issue here, but I doubt that this time it's only one men guilt. --Gilisa (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:OFFTOPIC... --Kslotte (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

::You're right, let's stay with this Israel have complaint on bias reporting, that's very much in line with the topic. It's not WP:OFFTOPIC--Gilisa (talk) 20:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

"LGF won the "Best Israel Advocacy Blog" award from the Jerusalem Post in 2005".........(and it seems it has deserved the price)--20:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So Little Green Fascists is for sure NOT a valid source Jalusbrian (talk) 08:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Jalusbrian, if so-I wonder why Reuters appologized again. And I have never had any problems with "Fascists" of this kind. I consider your comment as provocative. --Gilisa (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead, shot in close range

The discussion has been moved to keep things organized.

Please, don't move the sections. Talk page should behave as a talk page. --Kslotte (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent removal of journalist Ben-Yishai

It seems that there were some recent edits where all mentions of the eyewitness journalist Ben-Yishai, who was traveling with Israeli forces were removed.

However there are no RS to back up these changes. Can anyone find some RS to back this up, or should we revert the edits?

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Which specific changes are you referring to? --386-DX (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't find them all, but for example we previously had a discussion about using the wording "traveling with Israeli forces" in the lead. That is gone. And here: a user claims that he was not an eyewitness: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=366683518&oldid=366683115

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that was me, there's a discussion about this above as well, but he was not an eyewitness to what went on on the ship: he was on an IDF ship all the time the disputed events were going on. There's no need for that sentence in the lead and, as it was written, it was misleading, so I simply removed it. Physchim62 (talk) 00:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure he was an eyewitness? The attack was carried out at night and filmed from the helicopters using night vision cameras. The news story doesn't mention if he was actually an eyewitness. His news report says "All of the mercenaries wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests and were armed with either bats, slingshots, metal bars, knives or stun grenades" whereas it is clearly evident from the recorded videos that this was not the case. It seems like most of his news report consists of information relayed to him by the soldiers during or after the attack. --386-DX (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The (competing) BBC explicitly says that journalist Ben Yishai was an eyewitness, and that his account is the best account of the events. The best account so far of what happened has come from Ron Ben Yishai, a reporter with the Israeli newspaper Yediot Achronot, who was an eyewitness. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the BBC story was published on the morning of June 2nd, before any of the detained passengers were released by Israel. He was an eyewitness in the sense that he witnessed the raid, but there is no account of him being an eyewitness to the events that took place on Mavi Marmara. His news report contains numerous details which would have required him to be in multiple places at the same time. I am not necessarily saying that he is lying or is uncredible, just pointing out that he didn't actually witness first hand the every single detail on his news report. --386-DX (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm, his account is of the Marmara clash, so when the BBC says he was an eyewitness, what else would it be referring to? If, as a result of the release of the activists, an account surfaces at any point that is better than Ben Yishai's, according to the mainstream media (of which Ben Yishai is a part), we should definitely take that into account, but that doesn't seem to have happened. I also don't see any detail in his account that would require him to have been in two places at once. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the details of how close he was to the action, but remember that there was a boat that tried boarding before the helicopters came, and there were passengers that blocked the soldiers from coming on board using bats, slingshots, metal bars, stun grenades, and hoses. And I can't tell for sure, but it sure looks like the passenger in this video is wearing a gas mask. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24 The gas masks are more obvious in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU#t=0m52s

I can't speak to how he got his information, but he was certainly a witness to events as they occurred and thus was a witness. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

He was on an IDF ship for all the time, as were the other reporters. He can be a witness to what went on on that ship (as far as he was allowed to see it) but he was not a direct witness to what went on on the Mavi Marmara. His testimony is worth less than that of any person who was actually on board. Physchim62 (talk) 01:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing the reason the BBC flatly disagrees with you is because of the principle that journalists' accounts are more valuable than participants' accounts in a clash (I think Misplaced Pages policy also advocates this principle), and because the videos released by the IDF demonstrate that much could be seen and heard from an adjacent vessel or a helicopter. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 01:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As I explained a few minutes ago; the reason BBC page disagrees is because there wasn't yet any other report about the incident when it was published on the morning of June 2nd, the activists were still under Israeli arrest. It is not a matter of "journalist vs activist"; there were numerous international journalists aboard the ship. Once again; I am not disputing his credibility as a journalist or claiming that he has lied, but numerous details in the news report contain factual inaccuracies as confirmed with the released images, videos, and official IDF statements. It is evident that he wasn't an eyewitness to the events that took part on the ship. For example, there was no way he could know that "All of the mercenaries wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests" without actually being on the ship. That was clearly not the case as confirmed by the live videos of the event, which proves that he was not a 1st hand eyewitness, and was relaying some of the information. --386-DX (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Many of the accounts from journalists on board were not eyewitness accounts either, as many were below deck or otherwise away from the fighting. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous recordings of the live broadcast before the Israeli soldiers took complete control of the ship. Once again; there was no way he could know details like if "All of the mercenaries wore gas masks and ceramic bulletproof vests" without physically being on the ship. The operation was carried out at night and filmed using infrared cameras from a distance, which do not show such details. Since he was not physically on the ship, we can conclude that he wasn't a first hand eyewitness to the events that happend on the ship. --386-DX (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And what if he was on the original IDF boat that tried to board the ship? Neither of us know exactly where he was, so any presumptions or logical deductions are WP:Synth. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if he was on the original IDF boat, he couldn't have seen "All of the mercenaries", considering the boat did not approach, and also due to the size of the ship. In the footage released by the IDF, the passengers are not clearly wearing any "bulletproof vests", which discredits the possibility you mentioned. --386-DX (talk) 02:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't see how his removal can be justified without removal of the other Al Jazeera statements, as they also include hearsay and are not necessarily independent. The facts of his descriptions may be disputable, but the fact that he made them is not. As long as the statements are wholly attributed and contain context, they probably should remain in the article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not disputing if he made the statements or not, and we're not removing them. We only removed that part that claimed that he was a first-hand eyewitness. --386-DX (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• I've restored part of his description which describes IDF planning (As he should have had access to this), and left off eyewitness accounts. I'm now questioning whether its worth having a journalist report section at all. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The journalist is also stated as an eyewitness in the initial contact section: "saying he heard 'Go back to Auschwitz' over the radio". The referenced news story does not state if he actually heard those statments himself. I therefore modified it accordingly. --386-DX (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"boarding of five of the ships passed without serious incident"

This part of the sentence in the lead is heavily POV. As confirmed in the article's "Other boardings" section, there was indeed violence and clashes on other ships as well, but no mortalities. I suggest we remove this portion of the sentence due to this reason, and also to make it more more compliant with WP:LEAD guidelines. --386-DX (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I almost did this myself when I went through the lead. Nothing is lost by starting that sentence with "On the Mavi Marmara…" Physchim62 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support --Kslotte (talk) 01:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, there were beatings and electric charges reported on other ships that may seem tame by comparison but it is something. That and the sentences following the above-cited are problematic, as they present a causal narrative -- bad boys acted up and so got shot -- this is disputed. Suggest that having/supporting more on what the passengers did to the soldiers than what the soldiers did to the passengers suggests a biased editing agenda, please look at RS the central element of this event is the dead guys. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

386-DX is right. The second sentence of that paragraph also has pretty bad English. I propose the following opening, with better grammar and some POV language removed in both directions:

On one of the ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists aboard the ship clashed violently with the Israeli landing party. According to video footage and soldiers' testimonies, activists attacked the soldiers with cold weapons as the latter rappelled onto the deck of the ship. Nine activists were killed by soldiers. All of the dead had gunshot wounds. Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured. The sequence of events is disputed...

Let's see what people think.  —Rafi  01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I did an edit before I saw your suggestion. Activists "fought" soldiers is more neutral than attacked, as the activists considered the raid to be an attack by the IDF. "cold weapons" is a bit of a technical term for the lead, even if its linked. just my thoughts on what I've already written, compared with your suggestion. Physchim62 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

With due respect I think you should take a more passive approach to edits on the lead and confer here first. Anyway, I like my first sentence more because it transitions better from the previous paragraph and introduces the Marmara more gently. I think "fought" suggests an even-handedness that's a bit misleading considering the footage . The previous version was "assaulted;" I think attacked is more neutral. Do you oppose any of my other changes?  —Rafi  02:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with debating sentences one by one is that they change all the time! But to answer your substantive point, no, I don't think "attacked" is neutral at all, because it presupposes that the IDF were some sort of police force which had a right to be there, a point which is much in dispute between the two sides. They "fought": maybe one side was in the right, maybe the other, maybe neither of them. Physchim62 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, the point is to slow down the changes and create consensus! The non-minor changes, at least. I'm also trying to change a few sentences at a time.

As for the content: you can "attack" in self-defense. The disputed circumstances are clarified later in the paragraph. It's hard to call this anything other than an attack on the boarding soldiers. We may need others' opinions.

What about the rest of my proposal?  —Rafi  02:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus forming that we need less detail in the lead, so go ahead and remove my "front and back of the body" bit (if it's still there). It would be nice if we could cut down the number of references in the lead as well (shunt them into the main article, or simply delete them if they're duplicates). but what do others think? Physchim62 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty good right now. Some of my proposal has been implemented and the rest can be scrapped. The references could probably use some cleaning up. Just one thing: I propose reverting "raided and captured" in the first paragraph back to "boarded," which was changed without consensus. "Boarded" is neutral; "raided and captured" has a tone of piracy.  —Rafi  03:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Boarded" suggests that the overtaking was peaceful. All passenger statements from numerous ships confirm that Israeli soldiers used violence to seize the ships whether there was violent resistance or not. I therefore believe that the current wording is fine. --386-DX (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "raided" has slightly wrong connotations - how about "boarded and captured" as a compromise? Ketil (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible inappropriate edits

This. --Kslotte (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support revert. This good-faith editor apparently didn't notice the HTML comment about edit-warring.  —Rafi  01:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should have marked it as vandalism so that I wouldn't have burnt through my 1rr. Oh well. All fixed.Cptnono (talk) 02:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We have reached consensus here an talks, so I assume your 1RR isn't burnt. --Kslotte (talk) 02:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono ... I've been saving up my 1RRs for the past few days ... you can have all mine if you like. That's like 4RR!!! LOL :) Zuchinni one (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree on this one. This may be reverted. ManasShaikh (talk) 04:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice Z1. We should see if the admins will let us establish some sort of market for reverts. Might as well have it in the open instead of editors doing it under the table through emails and IRC. Sounds less controversial than Emissions trading :)

In all seriousness, the 1rr has been a hassle (especially for newer users) but overall it has worked well on this page. Cptnono (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, the only reason I offered you the 1RRs I've been hoarding is that I heard their value is going to fall sharply against the euro next week. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

After having been blocked for a day several hours after two technical reverts that were (1) following established customs and (2) aimed at finding a wording that would be consensual, I've been thinking about restricting my constributions to additions. Any improvements to the presentation of the content should be made by those with lower risk aversion with regard to the suspension of their ability to edit on the project.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Do suspicions belong in the lead?

The lead should be as factual as possible and free from speculation. The sentence "IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF" is pure speculation.

If that sentence is removed then the following one, refuting it, can be removed as well.

"Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons."

What the IDF 'suspects' is just not lead material.

Zuchinni one (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. If there are no disagreements about that we can remove it from the lead. ManasShaikh (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not pure speculation, it's actually based on ballistic test results which show that at least one of the firearms were used, don't belong to the IDF. And as it's sourced, it should be there. --Gilisa (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't account for it being in the lead. Just like the "shot in the head and back" it is a detail that should be left to the rest of the article, not the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ShalomOlam (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

the israeli claims which have the purpose to bring relief to it's military action doe belong -if- to the israel account.--Severino (talk) 10:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• The only part of the lead where I'm currently seeing "suspicions" is IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF; Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons - that seems OK to me, in that it summarises nicely an issue that's discussed later in the article. Both viewpoints are summarised without WP:UNDUE exposure to one or the other, and it makes clear who believes what. I'm guessing I'm a little too late to the party - "shot in the head and back" has gone now, so I can only speculate what it said and why it was removed (it does sound inappropriate for the lead, though). TFOWR 10:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"terror activists", not "peace activists"

http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART2/117/369.html Article that claims that some of the "activists" have no "pro-peace activities" in their resume, only "pro-terror activities". Just because someone claims he is a peace activists, does not mean that he is one. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading this with Google Translate it seems to be an editorial, not a news report. I'm not sure why this is here. Editorials don't belong in the article, and I'm not sure this would help with the discussion to improve it.

Zuchinni one (talk) 08:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

My point was: "(peace) activists" is a definition that the "activists" pick for themselves. Making the use of it in the article POV. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A ctrl+f shows the only use of "peace activist" being in a citation. I think we are fine.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think activist is the more NPOV phrase.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, while noting that it depends on the sources and context. I wouldn't object to, say, a TD or other parliamentarian being described as a "peace activist" (if supported by sources etc etc), but as a general rule "activist" is better. TFOWR 12:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I must read all comments before replying!

Agreed - though I used "/" on Firefox ;-) Only found "peace activist" once, in a citation. Strictly it should be "peace activist", not peace activist, per the source used. TFOWR 12:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Referring any activist as a peace activist would be POV, even if they are one. --386-DX (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing "The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief " to IHH only

For these reasons:

1. This is the foundation's article name in Misplaced Pages. This is how it's known and refereed in the world as well.

2. There are Israeli and American allegations this foundation is related to terror groups and using the full name is implying to certain POV. 3. The full name as it appeared in the article is translation of the full Turkish name while the abbreviations refer to the Turkish name only.

--Gilisa (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the first name we mention the IHH we should provide their organisation's full name (appropriately sourced, etc). After that we should certainly stick to IHH.

There's a similar issue with "Israeli Military" and "IDF" in the WP:LEAD. There's no obvious connection for a reader between "Israeli Military" and "IDF". I'd suggest something like:

The Gaza flotilla raid, code named Operation Sea Breeze by the Israeli military (IDF), ...

The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish NGO İnsani Yardım Vakfı (IHH), ...

Cheers, TFOWR 10:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Policy: Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. RomaC (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

What RomaC said. "Suggest" probably wasn't the best word for me to use in regard to the MOS. TFOWR 10:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! TFOWR 10:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It will be reverted. First, the abbrevation is of Turkish name (as appeared in the title of the article about it itself, the English name is only given afterward and within the article itself). I've no problem with the IDF as Israeli Defence Forces. But there is a huge chip on the shoulder of anyone who choose to present the full translated name of the IHH, which is allegedly affiliated with terror organisations. I see it as blatant POV pushing which aims to present the IHH as inocent non controversial aid organisation-and it's certainly not the case. Choosing the abbrevartions is the only neutral option. --Gilisa (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Those all sound like issues that could be fixed, rather than reverted (e.g. by using the Turkish name, instead of an English translation).

...and please try and remain focussed on content, not "editors with huge chips on their shoulders". I have no love for either side. TFOWR 12:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL are not necessary here, but thanks. It's not a matter of civility, I just couldn't and can't put it in other words. Let's not ignore the difficulties to keep this article clear of POV and certainly the IHH issue is very relevant, so again, I see no violation of Misplaced Pages policies in my comments here. Considering the allegations regarding the IHH and the nature of this article and the endless discussions and edit warring about every word in the lead, there is no place for the full name. And again, the full name is not only superfluous but also implying. So the chip is still there as I see it, at least on the full name itself, although I'm deeply and honestly apologize in front of anyone who mistakenly took it personally. --Gilisa (talk) 12:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a few concerns: first, the abbrevation is of Turkish name (as appeared in the title of the article about it itself, the English name is only given afterward and within the article itself). I've no problem with the IDF as Israeli Defence Forces. - quicker to type, easier to write, and avoids civility concerns. I wasn't warning you, by the way, simply reminding you that we all should try and avoid anything unrelated to content. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA both apply to talk pages and edit summaries as well as articles, by the way, so do avoid "chip on shoulder" comments.

Incidentally, you didn't address the issue of fixing rather than reverting the edit. Would you be happy with the Turkish name for IHH instead of the English translation?

TFOWR 13:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no essential problem with the Turkish name aside for that it will soon attract editors to add or revert to the full English name. I didn't address it first time simply because I was distract by my feeling that I should clearify myself. BTW, you may notice that the IDF is called in the lead "Israeli Military" while the abbreviations are Isreal Defense Forces (and I've no problem with that). I prefer to leave it Turkish IHH as it's already or to change it to Turkish IHH foundation. And WP policy does not force as to use the full name, we can use the Turkish name to bring end for this discussion. --Gilisa (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer "Israeli military (IDF)" to be "Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), but I can live with either way.

Regarding the MOS, no: When introducing a new name or term in an article, use the full name or term on its first occurrence, followed by the abbreviated form in round brackets. I personally feel the Turkish name is better here, rather than relying on a potentially contentious translation, but I also feel that the MOS is quite clear on using a non-initialism on the first occurrence.

TFOWR 13:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

How about just leaving it the way it is right now....? :) ShalomOlam (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that "IHH" is better than "The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief" - simply because the latter it too f***ing long..... ShalomOlam (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but the full name is only being used once, in the lead. (Incidentally, I'd prefer the Turkish name, because using a translation opens up all sorts of other sourcing and POV issues). TFOWR 12:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As per TFOWR, the first use should be in full (For IDF also) then abbreviate. I dont think it makes sense to suggest POV when calling something its name (since its fact), but as Shalom stated, its so long that its tiring. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've change it to: "IHH" (with the link). If someone does not know what IHH is - they can use the link. That's why it's there... There is no need for the full (and too long) name to be in the lead of this article. ShalomOlam (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Shalom, per the above, Misplaced Pages policy clearly says use full name on first reference and abbreviations afterward: Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations. If you want to change policy then propose that on the appropriate project page, but knowingly violating policy here is not acceptable. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What RomaC said - it makes life easier for the reader (remember that we're all familiar with the topic; a reader from, say, rural New Zealand might well not know what IDF and IHH stand for). Also, it opens up the lead to POV: "IDF gets explained in full, why doesn't IHH?" Easy solution: follow MOS and do them both. TFOWR 13:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

@TFOWR, the translation is the English translation that IHH itself uses, so there shouldn't be any problems with that. Physchim62 (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, ta! My only concern is with sourcing, and if the IHH use this translation, I'm OK with that. TFOWR 13:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mavi Marmara was fleeing west at full-speed

Mavi Marmara was fleeing west at full-speed

http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&t=p&msid=105850101290900282044.000488693d292cc900280&f=d&daddr=01:56:57+UTC+%4032.684151,33.447491&ll=33.155948,33.903809&spn=2.24413,4.938354&z=8&iwloc=0004886954ddf781b1491

Data source: http://marinetraffic.com/ais/datasheet.aspx?datasource=ITINERARIES&MMSI=616952000

Can any one confirm the direction of fleet at the time of conflict?

--Nevit (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If my calculations from the marinetraffic link are correct (IST is UTC+3), then the ship is heading due south until 04:40 IST. So apparently it turns west and accelerates about the same time it is boarded by IDF. Ketil (talk) 12:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the positions on http://witnessgaza.com/ (which appear to come from the Free Gaza Movement)? There's a slight discrepency with the marinetraffic data, nothing important for the description in the article but I was still expecting them to be identical. Physchim62 (talk) 14:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is true it may explain why the IDF thought the ship was trying to bring down its helicopter (Israeli soldiers said the abseil lines were tied to the boat by the passengers) Zuchinni one (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt that. The ship's maximum speed is specified as 10 knots on its article page, which is far too slow to drag a helicopter. --386-DX (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Location of Raid

Stating that the raid took place in "International waters of the Mediterranean Sea" is misleading, since one might think that this happened "at the open sea", when in fact it happened merely 28km away from Israel teritorial waters (according to Yedioth Ahronoth). ShalomOlam (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We need a map to support your view. Btw. There are many many many sources official and unofficial that say the incident happened in international waters. --Nevit (talk) 10:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(A) This is not my view. This was a fact stated by Yedioth Ahronoth. (B) No RS say how far from Israel teritorial waters the incident took place. ShalomOlam (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming we have reliable sources to support "International waters of the Mediterranean Sea"? Assuming that we do, I honestly don't find that statement misleading. We can't do much to prevent a reader erroneously inferring "open sea" from a statement that includes the name "Mediterranean", all we can do is cite it and hope that the reader reads the source. TFOWR 12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it should be stated that the raid took place between Israel and Cyprus? ShalomOlam (talk) 12:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the location is given in the article and is sourced. It took place 125 km out to sea: assuming territorial waters of 12 nautical miles, that 103 km outside of Israeli territorial waters. Perhaps Yedioth Ahronoth is simply lying? Or passing on lies? Physchim62 (talk) 13:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Lying? Many times RS go wrong with the facts, many times three different RS from the same country, any country, unless it's a tyrani, tell 3 different things and then we use majority or other ways to indicate what should be the right version. Lying is a very big word. I can tell that I heared one Israeli radio suggesting that the raid took place 65 km from Israeli coast if I'm correct. And Israeli sources never argued it was done in the territorial waters of Israel. Nontheless, it doesn't make the raid illegal according to Helsinky principles. And anyway, Israeli media have sources within the Israeli navy which know better than me and you where exactly the raid have occured. --Gilisa (talk) 14:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There were also numerous factual inaccuracies and heresay in his news report as extensively dicussed earlier. I believe we cannot take his report as a reliable source as opposed to those of the eyewitnesses on board Mavi Marmara. Even if we can; numerous statements by the activists, journalists on board, and the ship captains reveal that they were about 70 miles off coast when the raid started. --386-DX (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Any one (or 700) who was on board is not to be taken as RS forgranted. The same way that you don't take waht the Israeli soldiers that boarded the boat as reliable forgranted. Also, the captain is far from being RS, considering the radio transmission recording published by the IDF. --Gilisa (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing contradictory with the evidence published by the IDF and the ship captains' statements. If you are referring to the radio transmissions, the authenticity of that audio is still highly disputed as discussed earlier. --386-DX (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The radio transmission is not disputed. I had enough with these games. --Gilisa (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The radio transmissions are disputed since the day they were released by the activists, ship captains, journalists, and the general public. Nobody is playing games here, and it is not courteous of you to make accusations like that. Please see WP:POLITE and WP:AGF. --386-DX (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is some confusion (at least to me) to what degree the dispute concerns the edited or unedited clip. But the activist site clearly disputes that anybody said anything like the Auschwitz remark, so it is clearly disputed by some, also in the (allegedly) unedited version. Ketil (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The only reason this is "disputed" is because they claim they didn't say it. Now please be honest - if they did say it, would they have admited it now? ShalomOlam (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As for location, I don't see any reason to dispute the position reported on e.g. marinetraffic (section above). I think it's better to give distance to shore than to "territorial" waters, since there may be different definitions of the latter. "International waters" also seems to be the consensus, and accepted also by official Israels views. Ketil (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote about, Yedioth Ahronoth reported that the place of the event was 28km away from Israel teritorial waters. IF it's true - it's important and should be added to the article. Is there a RS that says something else? ShalomOlam (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the BBC ref which supports the line in the article at present, which puts the raid at 80 miles of the coast. There are also the automatic position signals picked up by marinetraffic.com and the positions reported by the Free Gaza Movement, which both agree the BBC. Yedioth Ahronoth is spouting bullshit yet again. Physchim62 (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, please add RS of BBC, that says the raid took place 80 miles of the coast of Israel, and let's add this fact to the article. ShalomOlam (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Weapons Image Caption

The current caption reads "The IDF recovered various items from the Mavi Marmara; some are visible in this picture, including knives, sticks, metal bars, and other diverse tools, that were used as weapons against the IDF by activists on board. Source: IDF". This is implying that all items in the image were used as weapons, whereas there is no statement or proof for that, even from the IDF. I'm therefore modifying the caption to state that "The IDF recovered various items from the Mavi Marmara; including knives, sticks, metal bars, and other diverse tools, some of which were used as weapons against the IDF by activists on board. Source: IDF".

We should add a reference to a reliable source that actually describes what the image shows. The changed version is better than the former version, but it is still not properly sourced.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. The image was released by the IDF, and the source is stated as IDF. What the image shows is items from the ship some of which were used as weapons. There was no claim from the IDF that everything in the image was used as weapons. --386-DX (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The source of the picture is stated as IDF, but there's no appropriate source for the image caption right now.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph in lead

This is how it stands right now:

On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, activists fought the soldiers with metal clubs and other weapons as the latter rappelled one by one onto the deck of the ship. Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers, some shot repeatedly and at close range. Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, with some of the commandos suffering from gunshot wounds. Passengers, including reporters on board, say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while Israelis say that the firing occurred after soldiers were ambushed by passengers. Different accounts disputed whether the activists used the soldiers' pistols against them. IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF; Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons.

The addition of shot repeatedly at close range was a disputed one (inserted without consensus, I might add). I argued that, presented superficially, it portrays the IDF as brutal aggressors. The word assaulted in the second sentence was also recently changed to fought.

I propose the following changes that should satisfy both POV's.

1. Change fought to swarmed; that's a more specific description that doesn't comment on the rightfulness of the activists' behavior.
2. Change and other weapons to knives and other weapons, so that shot at close range is not as shocking. Multiple soldiers had knife wounds so this is also notable.
3. Add that some soldiers were seriously injured.
4. The lead image shows a commando with an assault rifle, so we should also maybe mention that the first soldiers to board were not so heavily armed, or find a different lead image.
5. Also, rearrange the sentences in a more balanced and logical order as follows:

On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, activists swarmed the soldiers with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons as the latter rappelled one by one onto the deck of the ship. Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers, some shot repeatedly at close range by pistols. Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, some seriously. The sequence of events is disputed. Passengers, including reporters on board, say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while Israelis say that the firing occurred after soldiers were ambushed by passengers. Different accounts disputed whether the activists used the soldiers' pistols against them; some of the commandos suffered from gunshot wounds. IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF; Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons.

The sentence The sequence of events is disputed distinguishes the established facts that precede it from the disputed facts that follow it.  —Rafi  14:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good work overall. Perhaps we can find a word even better than "swarmed". Homunq (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support. --Kslotte (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving the sentence "The sequence of events is disputed" so that it comes second (highlights that the entire event is controversial, disputed). I'm actually OK with "fought", I'm less happy with "swarmed". I get what you're trying to suggest - could I suggest maybe "surrounded"? It seems even more neutral to me. TFOWR 15:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I dislike "fought" because it suggests an even-handedness I find misleading . "Swarmed" is maybe too dramatic, "surrounded" is kind of an understatement. Maybe "overran"?  —Rafi  15:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Fought" is the correct word for the reasons that Rafi dislikes it! It does not take sides as to who was in the right an who was in the wrong. Otherwise, I suggest: "activists defended themselves with whatever they could find against hired thugs sent by a terrorist state." Physchim62 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I dislike "fought" because it suggests an even-handedness I find misleading . "Swarmed" is maybe too dramatic, "surrounded" is kind of an understatement. Maybe "overran"?  —Rafi  15:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Overran the commandos" implies that the activists overpowered all commandos, which is untrue. I think fair description is "fought back" or "defended", but I am fine with fought. ManasShaikh (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I have a new proposal below.  —Rafi  15:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me ;-) Do we have a source using "overran" (no idea about sources for "surrounded" or "swarmed" either, to be honest)? TFOWR 15:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not saying I agree with the graph's structure and relative weight, but "as the IDF commandos activists rappelled onto the deck of the ship, they were met by passengers with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons" would at least put these events in the order they happened. RomaC (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Rafi, with all due respects you don't seem to understand how wikipedia works. Any new editor is not only allowed, but actually encouraged to make any changes they see fit. If that is reverted, they are encouraged to revert it back if they think in good faith that it was a valuable addition. At that point, all parties should stop reverting, and try to reach a consensus. I hope that is clear. As to your edits, I don't see why things incriminating IDF should not be there in the lead. They keyword is "Neutral" point of view. If a fact is verifiable, reported in an NPOV manner, and is important, then it has to go into the lead.

In fact, the amount of time we have spent on those four/five words, show the importance of those facts.

By the way, I find it interesting that whenever a discussion is started about something that whitewashes Israeli actions, support comes within minutes. But you guys take time to respond. That may be suggestive, or it may just be chance. We may have to check. ManasShaikh (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been consensus on this talk page that this article's lead is sensitive and consensus should be reached before significant changes. Your specific problems with "us guys" would be better discussed on my personal talk page. Please use this area to focus on content. Keep in mind WP:AGF.  —Rafi  15:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

In terms of RS, "attacked" is used by CSM and personally I think it's neutral and doeesn't comment on justification. WaPost uses "set upon." How about As IDF commandos rappelled onto the deck of the ship one by one, they were set upon by activists with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons?  —Rafi  15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

While we discuss "fought," is there consensus for points 2-5?  —Rafi  15:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

AFAIC: (2) is fine; (3) is fine if we use the sentence Rafi proposes in (5); (4) seems like too much detail for the lead. Physchim62 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I incorporated (4) by saying the activists were shot with pistols. I think that's a fair use of detail. I agree that "They carried paintball guns etc." would be too much.  —Rafi  16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

2, no strong view. 3, the way I read that sentence ("Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, some seriously") seemed to me to read that both passengers and soldiers were injured, some seriously - I think that's fine. 4, disagree: I don't think there's any need to second-guess what the reader may infer from an image (which may be removed or replaced separately from the text). 5, broadly agree, subject to my previous points, and my strong preference for "The sequence of events is disputed" to be the second sentence (this is a controversial incident, we should highlight that fact upfront, and also it reads better if it isn't stuck inside the middle of events). TFOWR 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFOWR that we should warn readers early that there is dispute about exactly what happened. I would go even further, something along the lines of "The exact sequence of events is still uncertain." After all, this is a big ship, and different witnesses were at different places: it is difficult to fit the different accounts together simply for that reason. Physchim62 (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a rehash incorporating the points that have been made:

On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. The sequence of events is disputed. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, as IDF commandos rappelled onto the deck of the ship one by one, they were set upon by activists with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons. Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers, some shot repeatedly at close range by pistols. Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, some seriously. **** Passengers, including reporters on board, say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while Israelis say that the firing occurred after soldiers were ambushed by passengers. Different accounts disputed whether the activists used the soldiers' pistols against them; some of the commandos suffered from gunshot wounds. IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF; Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons.

The **** is where the second sentence originally was. I think the transition there is now a bit awkward, but acceptable.  —Rafi  16:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• That's OK by me for the time being, to give us all a chance to breathe a bit! "Metal bars" might be better than "metal clubs", and I keep looking at the last sentence asking myself if it is really saying anything at all, but these are relatively minor points. Physchim62 (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, sorry, I did not read this version.agree with this one. Although the last two lines can be sent into the body. I am fine either way. The English could use some improvements though. How about this-

On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. The sequence of events is disputed. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, as IDF commandos rappelled onto the deck of the ship one by one, they were fought by the activists with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons. Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers, some shot repeatedly at close range by pistols. Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, some seriously. **** Passengers, including reporters on board, say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while Israelis say that the firing occurred after soldiers were ambushed by passengers. Different accounts disputed whether the activists used the soldiers' pistols against them; some of the commandos suffered from gunshot wounds.

ManasShaikh (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right; bars are more accurate.  —Rafi  16:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I can't respond right now. I'll respond in in about 8 hours. Again, don't declare "consensus" within a few hours. ManasShaikh (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If editors on both sides of the issue think the current draft is more NPOV than the current lead, I think we can make the edit and then take your criticism when you come back.  —Rafi  16:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Nothing on WP is a final version! Physchim62 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll make the edit in a few minutes; dealing with all those refs will be a pain so I want to eat something first. :)  —Rafi  16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In response to Rafi above were he says sentence should be As IDF commandos rappelled onto the deck of the ship one by one, they were set upon by activists with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons? There is no evidence that every single invader was fought, I can recall one image were 3 or 4 armed commandos are standing at the back of the ship with no one attacking them. So for this reason I would oppose that sentence. I also think fought is perfectly neutral and should remain it makes no judgment just states what happened. Also I have removed the word ambushed from the lead it is not neutral the activists on the ship were not hiding when the IDF boarded the ship so it wasn't a ambush. Mo ainm~Talk

Also "one by one" don't get that. Also we detail the flotilla, would be good to include some indications of IDF strength? Personnel, equipment, there were helicopters and boats, mention that, what kind how many etc. This is red flag / speculative "IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF; Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons." Don't see the rush to change the whole graph it was just proposed a couple of hours ago. RomaC (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

That sentence you dispute is referring to the initial boarding when this happened. "Set upon" is the new compromise for "fought;" it is RS-based, is more specific than "fought," and makes no judgment either. I'm okay with replacing "ambushed." RomaC is proposing more ambitious changes; for now lets just try to make what we have more NPOV as Physchim62 and I agreed above. —Rafi  16:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm basically happy, but I'm coming round to ManasShaikh's way of thinking on the issue of " were set upon by activists" - all we really need to say here is that there was a confrontation between the two groups. TFOWR 17:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Then for now let's keep that sentence mostly how it is—According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, activists fought the soldiers with metal bars, knives, and other weapons as the latter rappelled one by one onto the deck of the ship.—and implement 2-5 as in my rehash.  —Rafi  17:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone got a link of the videos released by the activists? All I have seen are the ones by the IDF. Mo ainm~Talk 17:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The commandos first, clash second. Or, "resist"? But that wouldn't fly. There is rushing going on, and see too many weasel words, causal narratives and phrasings eg. "On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party" This could just as easily be proposed as "On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, commandos clashed with passengers" Looks like some of the compromises here are between the IDF position on the one hand and neutrality on the other. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus on that will be more difficult. There seems to be consensus on points 2-5, so I'll make those to improve the current POV.  —Rafi  17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you don't have consensus on 2-5 either. It's not a vote. Or a race. The fact is for example instead of "activists fought the soldiers with metal clubs, knives and other weapons" it could just as well be proposed we say "passengers resisted the commandos with metal railings, kitchen knives and other improvised weapons" The parameters are a bit skewed. RomaC (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, "activists" has been strongly preferred to describe the fighters by AP, Reuters, BBC, NYT, Aljazeera, Jpost, and many others. We've agreed on "metal bars." "Fought" is a neutral choice between "resisted" and "assaulted;" I think it's too neutral but will put up with it for now. I'm not going to wait until you've approved the entire article to start fixing some of these sentences.  —Rafi  17:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you realise that "resisted" is hugely WP:NPOV ;-) This sentence is pretty much my only real concern with the latest proposal. I suppose there's no chance we could just reduce it to "There was a confrontation between the soldiers and the activists on-deck"? Or something equally neutral (no list of scary sounding weapons, no scary adjectives)? TFOWR 17:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose As the re write stands, please don't rush into the changes as no consensus is here at present. Mo ainm~Talk 17:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR: Part of why I want to fix these sentences is to balance shot at close range which was added unilaterally, specifically with points 2 and 3. If you want to reduce all of that to "there was a confrontation; people died and were injured" that is fine with me.  —Rafi  17:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, having just the shot at close range is very unacceptable to me and I want to implement 2 and 3 as soon as possible.  —Rafi  17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers works a lot better for me that Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers, some shot repeatedly at close range by pistols. TFOWR 17:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, but some editors have been very stubborn about keeping it. Cool template there.  —Rafi  18:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

{{xt|Thank}} and {{!xt|you}}: Thank you ;-) TFOWR 19:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rafi. Also, as for the activists allegations that the soldiers opened fire before boarding-it remain as very doubtful allegation. It's a bit strange that they remain under the helycopter from where the shootings came instead of runing away or at least taking cover. --Gilisa (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not if they're Jihadist mercenaries. ;-) But we have rely on RS, not OR.  —Rafi  18:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And it is a bit doubtful that an elite bunch of commandos can get their arse kicked and disarmed by iron bar weilding activists. Mo ainm~Talk 18:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that is covered by RS. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/photographs-of-battered-israeli-commandos-show-new-side-of-raid/ But let's focus on content now.  —Rafi  18:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just an idea: is it necessary to have this level of detail in the lead? Why not just say that there was a clash on one ship which resulted in deaths? In the article body we can then cover the details and injuries on the other ships. --Dailycare (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't mind replacing the whole paragraph with On one of the ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, a violent confrontation ensued. The sequence of events is diputed. Nine activists were killed; dozens were injured, including seven Israeli soldiers.  —Rafi  20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus a sentence explaining each account: The IDF says that live fire was used only after some of the soldiers were in mortal danger; activists say the soldiers used live fire immediately upon boarding. Something like that. Good luck finding consensus on which account is mentioned first. ;-)  —Rafi  21:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Or should I say:

On one of the ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, a violent confrontation ensued. Nine activists were killed; dozens were injured, including seven Israeli soldiers. The sequence of events is diputed. The IDF says that live fire was used only after some of the soldiers were in mortal danger; activists say the soldiers used live fire immediately upon boarding.

Cool, it automatically blockquotes! :-)  —Rafi  21:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, I copy-pasted {{xt2}} by mistake. But this is still fun.  —Rafi  21:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There are still problems in that version, for example, activists (and journalists on board) say that live ammunition was used before commandos attacked the ship. This version does not include the fact that some of the activists were shot in the back. How can they be shot in the back if they were fighting? I'll prepare a version and put it for consideration. ManasShaikh (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, they could have been shot by a soldier trying to save the person they were fighting with? I think Sgt S said he shot an activist that was wielding a gun against another soldier, for instance. (Which, if true, could explain the casualty with a single gunshot wound to the head, fired at a distance). Some people seem to allege that IDF casualties were caused by friendly fire, but if you believe the IDF account that activists were using guns (captured or otherwise), activists could also be victims of friendly fire. All in all, I'm puzzled by the weight put on the autopsy results, which to me don't seem to contain any surprises, or anything that disproves or discredits any accounts. Ketil (talk) 08:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what I think is a fair description:

On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, as IDF commandos rappelled onto the deck, activists fought the Israeli boarding party with metal clubs and other weapons. Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers during the clash, some shot from behind at close range. Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, some allegedly from gunshot wounds. Passengers, including reporters on board, say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while Israelis say that the firing occurred after soldiers were ambushed by passengers. Different accounts disputed whether the activists used the soldiers' pistols against them.

I hope it is acceptable. Please suggest specific changes. ManasShaikh (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me say this clearly:

I will not accept a lead that mentions the gunshots at close range but not also at least several from the following points:

• the activists were armed with knives;
• they initially overwhelmed the landing commandos;
• some soldiers were critically wounded;
• three soldiers were briefly captured (now verified in independent RS's);
• the IDF suspects that the activists had their own guns;
• several activists expressed Jihadist views before the incident.

Some of these are clearly too detailed for the lead, but I insist that the inclusion of detail be balanced.

I also have multiple problems with your phrasing, but we can get to that later.  —Rafi  00:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rafi, how someone is killed is to much detail for the lead. --Kslotte (talk) 01:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Cause of death is central this article would not exist if people hadn't died. We're talking about five words. RomaC (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Rafi, please edit, discuss, propose, support or oppose -- but "I will not accept a lead that..." , well, that comes across a bit heavy-handed. I note you have been on Misplaced Pages less than three months and have edited this article almost exclusively. Can I ask did you previously edit under another user name, and can I suggest you "chill" a bit? Time-limit limit urgency may not be the most conducive atmosphere for reaching consensus.

Now, both your dedication and level-headedness are appreciated. Although I didn't think you would deny that you have some partisan leanings on this article's content, none of what you propose is severely biased, your suggestions are reasonable and that is why I am trying to discuss issues with perspective, word choice and order. For one, putting the passengers/activists first in a sevntence and giving them the active verb suggests they started something. I really don't care who started what, I just figure when events occur in a sequence we should describe them in the same sequence. That's why for example I prefer the commandos rappelled down and were met/set upon by the whatevers on the ship over for example activists fought the boarding party as they rappelled down one by one (note here I think qualifying with "one by one" seems to have been added only to suggest vulnerability, so I oppose that as well).

I will edit for neutrality because I believe the Israeli narrative has, in some subtle/weasely ways, assumed prominence in the article. For example, RS have used the word "aid" to describe the flotilla's cargo. This article however uses "supplies" throughout, with one exception -- the word "aid" is used in the reference to Israeli offering the seized cargo to Hamas. Funny, Anyway I'm off for awhile, RomaC (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been using and editing WP for a long time; I just bothered to pick up a user name recently. Regarding my "heavy-handedness," I was trying to express my specific, strong opposition to the close range phrase, along with what compromises would persuade me to keep it. I don't think you'll deny that "shot repeatedly at close range" are five very loaded words when not in context. I haven't addressed your issues with the phrasing yet, I'll get to them eventually and they're mostly reasonable. Cheers,  —Rafi  02:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you'll deny that "shot repeatedly at close range" are five very loaded words when not in context. I won't (i.e. I strongly agree). For me, the bottom line for the lead is that we need to say that nine people died, and many more were injured, some seriously. How they died or were injured is detail for the main part of the article. TFOWR 09:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think "shot repeatedly" implies that the wounds weren't inflicted simultaneously, something we don't know. I'd prefer "suffered multiple wounds", which is just a statement of fact. Also, I think it's fair (as long as nobody disputes the veracity of IDF videos) to say that the activists "attacked" the rappelling soldiers, the activists clearly are taking the initiative. I can see how people can claim they were (or had the) right to attack them, but I don't understand how you could use a word like "resisted" to describe that situation.Ketil (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I can see issues over suggesting that the activists took the initiative; the soldiers abseiled on to the boat first ;-) Both POVs are going to have issues around this if we let the lead grow to accommodate them - if we stick to presenting the basic facts in a neutral manner we'll avoid that as far as possible. TFOWR 11:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus in See Also

A few days ago, there was a section at the bottom of the article comparing the flotilla to SS Exodus. It was removed since the article was too large. Now that we have a See Also section, I believe including it as a bullet point there would not have any effect on the length of the article. As for relevance; a lot of reliable international news sources, , , as well as Israeli newspaper Haaretz contained reports relating SS Exodus to the flotilla. Both ships were heading towards the same region, contained civilians, were challenging a naval blockade, were stopped by force, and resulted in heavy international criticism. Now; you may personally feel that the flotilla's journey is not justified compared to that of Exodus, but you cannot deny the fact there are many similarities. Merely noting the similarity between the two events does not necessarily mean that both of them were justified or both of them were not justified. That is to be left to the reader. --386-DX (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are all editorials; WP is not an editorial. But I don't oppose mentioning the comparison in the article Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid if it's not already there.  —Rafi  15:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support, should be added with well written description and consensus as comment (if consensus is achieved). --Kslotte (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in having it as a bullet point in the "See also" section on this article: after all, the two incidents have been compared by many commentators, it is not just a whim of WP editors to compare them. I'm not sure there's any encyclopedic value in comparing them at length, but if someone wants to prove me wrong then go ahead! Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If I wasn't clear, I strongly oppose a link in the See also. Fair or not, RS based or not, it is still an editorial statement and belongs in the other article.  —Rafi  15:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a comment made by multiple independent commentators; no more "editorial" than saying that the Gaza blockade is legal or illegal! Physchim62 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a big difference between a historical comparison and legal opinion.  —Rafi  15:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, it's still just opinion. And, in the case of the blockade, much of the legal opinion is based on historical comparison! I'm not saying we should discuss the editorial pieces in this article, but a "See also" link seems more than justified to me. Physchim62 (talk) 16:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

A see also link is much more than "discussing" the editorial pieces, it's endorsing them! I still strongly disagree. I think we need others' input.  —Rafi  16:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it's endorsing them, but yes, it would be nice to have a few more voices here. Physchim62 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Support See also link per Physchim. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Including the link to the page in the See Also section does not at all mean endorsing or opposing neither the flotilla, nor the raid, or anything else mentioned in the article. Of course there are various differences between the two events, but nobody can deny that there were at least numerous material similarities. It is not POV to note that. For instance; Haaretz article which compared the two events endorsed the Exodus but opposed the motivations of the flotilla. Some other person may very well endorse the flotilla but oppose Exodus. That's why the causes or the reasons for similarity are not mentioned in the article. The justifications of the events are for the reader to make. --386-DX (talk) 17:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with adding it. It's very POV to try to draw comparisons between stopping a group of activists who are trying to run a blockade to deliver aid to Hamas, and sending a bunch of Jews back to the concentration camps. Beyond that, it simply opens up a floodgate for more POV "see also" additions. The very next addition is going to be various acts of terrorism and murder perpetrated by Hamas or even 9/11, which are both also vaguely related to this story. My suggestion would be to only include things that are directly related to this story. That includes the MV Rachel Corrie and the blockade. But "Lifeline 3" should be removed, because it only has tangental relevancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Bob, plus my comment below.  —Rafi  00:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

386-DX, It's POV and there are between 1 to 0 similarities and 0 notable similarities. Do you want me to get to details? --Gilisa (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I will say it clear, any such comparison is political-even if was made by some journalists, editors are not allow to do it themselvs. I don't find serious base for such comparison, even (if?) Exodus was the organisors source of inspiration. In any case, adding picture is a way too much.--Gilisa (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to rely on references in "See also". If there is similarities we should include it. --Kslotte (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is not even one single significant similarity and I doubt that any at all. The burden of evidence is on the one who suggest there are similarities and I can tell that this burden is immpossible to carry. It should not be included in the "see also". We try to keep this article clear of bias. --Gilisa (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You may not see any similarities yourself. However, there have been articles and editorials published in numerous high-profile newspapers all around the world, including one in Israel, comparing the two events in detail. That fact, and the debate here, shows that there are at least some similarities. Exactly what those are is a matter of opinion, and that's why we're including a link and not a paragraph. --386-DX (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no investigation committee suggested for the Exodus, everybody know who is guilty. This is not the case here and the comparison implying that the Israeli side is to be blame. Simple as that. Leave this comparison for Opinion journalists, I can't see any slightest connection between holocaust serviovrs refugees who just came out of Auschwitz and the activists on this boat (oh yeah, one of the activists is holocaust serviovor) who call IDF soldiers to return there. This is POV, to say the least, That's why it will not be here eventually. --Gilisa (talk) 19:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Your argument above at 17:12 UTC was the most reasonable so far, 386-DX, but I still argue that the connection is editorializing, no matter which direction one chooses to take it. To illustrate my thinking: I can imagine a newspaper report (as opposed to editorial) mentioning past attempts to run the blockade of Gaza, as the See also does now; I can imagine one quoting legal opinions of the blockade (as Physchim62 brought up); but I cannot imagine an objective news article mentioning the Exodus. All your sources are editorials. We can quote editorials with "This editorial says..." but we should not take cues from them on how to structure WP.  —Rafi  20:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose for two reasons: 1. It's WP:EDITORIAL, highly controversial and not NPOV. 2. It was cited to a WP:PRIMARY source (the editorial itself). It may be included in the reactions article on condition that a reliable SECONDARY source reported that somebody notable made this comparison in relation to the current event. Marokwitz (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: my reading of WP:SEEALSO is that we have broad scope to include or exclude what we want here, so including SS Exodus comes down to whether we think it's relevant - however tangentially - to Gaza flotilla raid. Beyond that, this is just my personal opinion: I live in the UK, and I think it can be a positive thing to show people like me that Britain's history is sometimes less than wonderful. For that reason I'm !voting: weak support (but don't care too much either way). TFOWR 09:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose It might be cute to write an editorial about it but that is all. Realistically, I could see some inclusion in the article since a couple lines under the reactions section would actually cause less POV and prominence issues than linking it at the bottom with a bullet.Of course if it isn't good enough for the reactions section than it certainly isn't related enough for the see also list. Cptnono (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Exodus isn't anything really closely related. But on some points it is related. We don't need to cite on references for the See also section. If we include it we need to write how it is related. So far, we have failed in explaining the relation, since it has been removed or reverted. We need to put forward a suggestion of the whole "See also" structure exactly in words. And, that way reach a consensus. --Kslotte (talk) 19:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla case source share

Collection of articles against IHH activists and IDF commandos along with general and other related articles, eyewitness accounts. In progress. Please add links so that we have a better collection. Kasaalan (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Whoever it is, do not censor me again. Kasaalan (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not censoring. It is an automatic archiving process for old threads (see this). You can always move it from the archive here if the thread is current. --Kslotte (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional news sources

Shared by   Cs32en Talk to me  22:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Merged similar threads. Add more links for a better NPOV collection of opposing views. Kasaalan (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Building materials

Is this edit necessary? Do we need these details? and is the wording WP:CLAIM appropiate? --Kslotte (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally use claim for any party involved. "Israel prevents cement and other building materials like glass, steel, iron etc. from reaching Gaza, claiming that although they have legitimate uses, it might be used to make Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels for explosives and arms." Kasaalan (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

And "glass, steel, iron etc", based on what source? having "etc" brings no clarification what is allowed and what is not. I'm did some editing. The user can click on building materials to read what they are. --Kslotte (talk) 21:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on UN Report. Kasaalan (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"steel, cement or glass, among other building materials", but still don't give any indication what is allowed and what is not. This detailed information that should rather be in article 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip. --Kslotte (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLAIM Cptnono (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"According to the Failing Gaza report by Amnesty International and other organisations cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles are "high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings." According to the UN report by Kevin M. Cahill: "Reconstruction cannot begin because Israel does not permit the importation of steel, cement or glass, among other building materials. They had also restricted the importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice by some incomprehensible logic that these items may pose a security threat. In a particularly cruel twist, even batteries for hearing aids used by deaf children cannot be imported, condemning these unfortunates to a world of silence."" Just read the reports. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"In January, 2010, the Israeli group Gisha took Israeli authorities to court, forcing them to reveal which goods were permitted and which goods weren't. Amongst the goods declared, Canned meat (including tuna), mineral water, sesame paste, tea and coffee are allowed. However, canned fruit, fruit juices and chocolate are not allowed into Gaza. Franks, Tim. Details of Gaza blockade revealed in court case, BBC News. Kasaalan (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Section "Extent of the Israel blockade" consist of information about the blockade, not the raid. The blockade has its own aritcle. --Kslotte (talk) 21:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Raid is because of the blockade. Background information is necessary. Kasaalan (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is necessary, but we won't need details here, but the details on the blockade article. --Kslotte (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We need necessary details. Extended details are already in the article section. One of the main conflict between IDF and activists are cement for example. Kasaalan (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We don't, because article is already WP:TOOLONG. "Building materials" is already clearly stated. You should move that section. --Kslotte (talk) 22:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Any support to achieve consensus in this? It is proposed that section "Extent of the Israel blockade" should be deleted (or moved to blockade article). --Kslotte (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article in its current form is too long. However, I also agree that particular section contains crucial background information related to the motivations of the blockade. I'll merge the two sections describing the blockade. --386-DX (talk) 01:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I did this edit as alternative linked solution.

Support including some details on the blockade, which is what precipitated the flotilla, and also illustrates why some items remain seized by Israel. Concerns about article length are also valid, on this concern, editors might consider the purpose of including two paragraphs and 250 words on the "Auschwitz" remark. RomaC (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Background main links

Background main links "Siege of Gaza" and "Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels" isn't relevant here. These links aren't the main reasons for the flotilla nor for the raid. --Kslotte (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Gaza is definitely relevant to the article, as that is the very reason why this flotilla was organised. I'm not sure about the tunnels though. --386-DX (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, "Gaza journey of MV Rachel Corrie" isn't main article about "Ships in flotilla". These misleading things should be reverted. --Kslotte (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Moved it to MV Rachel Corrie. --386-DX (talk) 22:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL. What does Alexander the Great have to do with anything. Cptnono (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

This ha been edited. We can link to these, but the main article template have at least been misused.

--Kslotte (talk) 22:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight

The prominance given to Israeli sources in relation to well chronicled events (and the spin they are putting on the massacre) breaches the policy of giving undue weight to extreme viewpoints. Looking at the balance of global reports it is clear that the "soldiers ambushed" spin is confined almost to US/Israeli sources. For example, the breach of international law by attacking the flotilla in international waters has been acknowledged by almost every country in the world bar the US/Israel. Yet the extreme view of US/Israel that the attack was legal is, if anything, given preference in the article. At most, the claim that the massacre was part of a legal operation should merit a footnote. Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. If you think there is bias, go ahead and be bold and change them. ManasShaikh (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's sound advice, but I'd add that if being WP:BOLD leads to being WP:REVERTed, come back here ;-) TFOWR 10:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific as to which sections or statements you believe contain pro-Israeli POV? --386-DX (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the references there is a lot of weight given to al-jazeera and other arab news sources. Al-Jazeera is a credible RS and their inclusion is completely valid. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is more weight to pro Israeli opinions, not at all. --Gilisa (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 386-DX (need more detail), though it's a concern I share in some areas - the WP:LEAD is being actively debated, with a view to making it more neutral (and briefer). One concern I still have with the lead, that I believe Sarah777 shares to some extent, is partly style, partly NPOV: I believe that (for example) "Operation Sea Breeze" should be in bold, as an alternative name of this incident; I also believe (and Sarah777 believes) that there should be other common names (in bold) too.

Zuchinni one makes a good point about sourcing, though I'd like to see Arab and Israeli sources replaced with non-Arab and non-Isreali sources where possible (frankly where Channel 10 and Al Jazeera both agree about something, there's no need - we can cite them both, it's not contentious, etc). The issue for me is where something is likely to be contentious, we should use impeccable sources (mainstream US, European, Russian, Japanese, Singaporean, etc - any source that's mainstream, reliable, and otherwise not connected to Israel or Palestine).

Gilisa, fair comment - though I'd be surprised if we'd reached a completely unbiased article at this point ;-) - do you feel there are any areas in the article where there is to much weight given to pro-Palestinian opinions?

TFOWR 09:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New testimony from passenger on Marmara

I don't have time right now, but there is new testimony here: Breein1007 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That's pretty cool. It pretty much confirms what the Israelis have been saying all along. The guy being interviewed is not just a witness, he was a participant in fighting the commandos, and is a member of the Egyptian parliament. This doesn't guarantee he's telling the truth - he could have political motives for saying what he's saying. Though what he is saying has been criticized by his peers and countrymen, his motive appears to be more anti-Turk than pro-Israel. Rklawton (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's so important about that article. It actually has a link to another ynet artice which has more accounts of passengers who say the same things. This NY Times article that I read a few days ago also has a similar story from a doctor who was onboard. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are also numerous new testimonies here, some of which look very significant: --386-DX (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I find some of these difficult to reconcile with other sources, though, so indiscriminate use of this source appears risky:

Iara Lee "They came on board and started shooting at people" - the IDF and Turkish videos clearly show that the soldiers are attacked as soon as they land, and we don't see any people shot before at least two commandoes are severely beaten. Other sources claim women were kept below deck, if this is true, she is just repeating other activists.

Passenger and journalist statements confirm that IDF opened fire before boarding on the ships. However, it is not clear if they used plastic bullets or live ammo. --386-DX (talk) 12:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They claim; they don't confirm ;-) (I can think of one way that both sides are "right"; it's my own guess though - so I won't "pollute" the talk page with my theory...!) TFOWR 12:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Opened fire before boarding" is different from "came on board and started shooting", in fact, it is the opposite sequence of events. Perhaps Lee is talking about some other boarding than the one from helicopter? As I said, it's very hard to make any sense of this statement in the context of other sources. (BTW, several activist reports IDF using live ammo before boarding, although one can question their ability to judge this, and there doesn't seem to be any casualties from it). Ketil (talk) 14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Several reports, including one from a journalist onboard speak of one or two deaths from gunshot wounds fired from the helicopters before the IDF rappelled onto the top deck. The reports should be verifiable, as they speak of one victim with a gunshot wound to the top of the head. One other point: the IDF who rappelled from the helicopter were not the first IDF on the ship, as some accounts imply. The Al-Jazeera live-stream video clearly shows IDF boarding from the sea before communications were cut (and so before the helicopter rappel). Physchim62 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to make those kinds of speculation (eg. I would respond that a commando claims that while rappelling down he shot an activist pointing a gun at someone else, explaining that head wound; furhtermore all casualties were from pistol fire), and it's certainly not our job. All sorts of wounds can result from close quarters combat.  —Rafi  16:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Norman Paech "We had not prepared in any way to fight. We didn't even consider it because we knew very well that we would have absolutely no chance against soldiers like this. The Israeli government justifies the raid because they were attacked. This is absolutely not the case." All of this goes against photos, video, and statements, both by IDF and activists.

Inge Hoeger "Nobody had a weapon." Again, video and photos, also wounded soldiers.

Ketil (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that meets WP:SELFPUB completely so any use of it needs to be with caution 386. In regards to Breein's link, it also links to a story about Mahir Tan and Kenneth O'Keefe There is also a Reuters link for those with an aversion to Israeli sources. That section needs a lot of work to consolidate it into like statements. These two should definitely be included somewhere in there. And keep in mind that it doesn't need to read like an accusation. The guys simply went down fighting. No shame in that. And also keep in mind that the guy felt justified and that is actions were not as bad as the attackers.Cptnono (talk) 02:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This only confirms earlier statements. Nothing new actually. --Kslotte (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't care and I can't conclude what were the Egyptian MP motives to give this testimony. But I have grave doubts that he had any ani Turk motives that lead him to give this testimony-he was on a flotilla went out of Turkey and supported by it. --Gilisa (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

So hooray fr confirming stuff. Are we going to update the article or at least clean up that section? Don;t see much about the passengers fighting in there. Any thoughts on the next step?Cptnono (talk) 07:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The section is consistent with almost all of the passenger testimonies so far, and also reflects the consensus in many earlier discussions. Of course we are going to keep it. --386-DX (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

386-DX, I must tell that most times I've no idea what you are talking about, and this time is not different. --Gilisa (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, once again, mind your manners and be careful with the words you are using. Please see WP:POLITE, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA. Just because you do not agree with some of my comments, that doesn't give you the right to insult me. You should focus on improving the article. --386-DX (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from OlderIgor, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Quote from the article: "Some supporters of the flotilla announced on 28 March..." The press release in footnote 63 is dated 28 May. Please change "March" to "May".

OlderIgor (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done I believe it was an error for the actual act of Marching, not the month. CTJF83 pride 02:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 Summary

There is currently a discussion regarding the summary of this event in the article 2010 on the talk page. Input would be appreciated. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 03:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

first paragraph in the lead

This is the current paragraph in the lead:

The Gaza flotilla raid, code named Operation Sea Breeze by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), was carried out by Israeli naval forces on six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2010. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), a Turkish NGO, attempted to break the blockade of Gaza and deliver aid to the Gaza strip. The six ships rendezvoused near Cyprus and departed on 30 May 2010 carrying 663 people from 37 countries. The ships were raided and captured in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. Israeli forces boarded the ships after the flotilla refused calls to change its course toward Gaza

Seems a bit like bad editing to me - a lot of redundancy (Israeli naval forces are a part of the IDF). I think this could be written a lot shorter. ShalomOlam (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. My preference is to use "] (IDF)" the first and only time, and either "]" or "IDF" after that. The same applies for all other initialisms - we should link to the organisation and after that refer to the organisation using the abbreviation.

How about something like:

The Gaza flotilla raid (also called Operation Sea Breeze or ) was carried out by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) on six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2010. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and İnsani Yardım Vakfı (IHH), a Turkish NGO, attempted to break the blockade of Gaza and deliver aid to the Gaza strip. The six ships rendezvoused near Cyprus and departed on 30 May 2010 carrying 663 people from 37 countries. The ships were raided and captured in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. IDF soldiers boarded the ships after the flotilla refused calls to change its course toward Gaza.

I'm going to stake a claim to a strong preference for calling IHH "İnsani Yardım Vakfı", by the way - it's what they call themselves, and more importantly it's what the article is called. There may be (there probably is) a case to be made for some explanation/translation, however.

Cheers, TFOWR 09:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TFOWR, it should be called IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı)

Use English names is Misplaced Pages policy. Full name on first reference and abbreviations thereafter is Misplaced Pages policy. The organization's logo and website both display the English name: The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief. It is simple to comply with Misplaced Pages policy, let's. RomaC (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you link to the relevant policies? Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English) certainly says that English should be used for article titles (an issue that should be taken up with the good editors at Talk:IHH (İnsani Yardım Vakfı)...) but I can't see a similar requirement for text within an article. In this case, my reasoning was based on Misplaced Pages:Piped link, and in particular the part about "Easter eggs", though I'm open to argument... TFOWR 10:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We should include the translation in the first reference, and perhaps refer to it as IHH in the rest of the article. --386-DX (talk) 11:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote before - the english name is too f***ing long... This article is not about the IHH, and if someone wants to know what IHH stands for, they can look it up. Using IHH is good enough. So is using IDF, UN, USA, UK... Even in the first time. ShalomOlam (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, that makes sense. --386-DX (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should scrap the last sentence in the paragraph. It doesn't add very much and, as written, it is inaccurate: at the point where the raid occured, there was no reason for the ships to change course, as the same course would have taken them to either Ashdod or Gaza. Nobody is disputing that there was contact between the IDF and the flotilla, and that the flotilla refused to consider Ashdod as a destination, but the raid was way to the north of the point where a decision on the ships' course needed to be made. This is worth a mention later in the article, in fact, as all the other Israeli attacks on aid convoys have happened have happened much further south, after the ships had turned to head into the coast at Gaza. Physchim62 (talk) 11:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is proposed to omit most of the references from the lede, I would support that per WP:LEDE. Would "assembled near Cyprus" be accurate? "Rendezvoused", if it is English at all, isn't great English. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Everything in the lead should simply summarise the rest of the article, so refs aren't necessary in the lead. I'm a bit hesitant to advocate removing them just yet, though, on the grounds that it opens up the lead to uncited additions. I certainly won't argue if someone removes them, though. TFOWR 11:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add: "rendezvous" is kind-of OK, in that it's a French loan-word (it's quite common in military parlance, I believe). I'd tend to agree that we should find a better, clearer word than "rendezvoused", however. That just looks wrong, like we're "verbing a verb"... TFOWR 12:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion for first paragraph in the lead:

The Gaza flotilla raid took place on May 31th, 2010, when Israeli naval forces raided, captured and boarded a flotilla of six ships that attempted to break the blockade of Gaza and deliver aid to the Gaza strip.

Simple, short, and to the point. I know I left out importatnt information, but that can be added in a different paragraph. The above is my suggestion to the first parapgraph only. Any thoughts? ShalomOlam (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not too bad at all. May 31st, of course, or 31st May. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No "th" or "st" ;-) I think the English used here in US English, so "May 31" or "May 31, 2010" on that basis. TFOWR 14:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It does leave out a lot. I prefer TFOWR's suggestion above in the green Georgia font. "Rendezvoused" may be an awkward word but I think it's proper English, at least in the US: . And I prefer "captured" to "raided and captured."  —Rafi  15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It leave out a lot - but only from the first paragraph. I think that a first time reader of this article will be happier with a short and to the point first paragraph. All the information that was left out is important, and should be added - but not in the first paragraph. ShalomOlam (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to revert 2 edits

I'm asking for consensus to revert the following 2 edits:   Cs32en Talk to me  14:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR sanctions allow us to WP:REVERT once, so consensus here isn't necessary (though it always helps, and I appreciate you having the courtesy to comment here). Do not, however, revert a second time (or, if you do, don't blame me for the consequences!)

The first diff provides an editor's point of view regarding an international body. I'm happy for it to go.

The second diff clarifies who Greta Berlin is. I'd like to see it toned down a lot, but the general principle is OK. , though maybe a little unnecessary ("Greta Berlin" was linked, so an interested reader can follow the link and read the article).Struck part of comment; article is red-linked. TFOWR 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR 15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously revert. Redaktor should really get a vandalism warning. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

They should get a warning, but not a vandalism warning. TFOWR 15:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Maybe a Template:Test0? NickCT (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I wrote them a personal message! TFOWR 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the edits should be reverted. I also issued them a POV warning. --386-DX (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the first diff.

I'd suggest that the second diff shows an edit that needs to be improved, rather than removed. Note that Greta Berlin is a red-link; some explanation as to who this individual is would be very useful. I'd prefer to see individuals described as "pro-X" as opposed to "anti-Y".

TFOWR 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A short description of Greta Berlin is fine, but reliable sources will probably describe her as either a "human rights activist", or a "pro-Palestinian activist", or something in between - but not as an "anti-Israel activist". The second part of the description is at best irrelevant and, at worst, it may imply that Berlin would not be able to make decisions on her own. As an aside, both edits appear to be unsourced.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed a descriptor of Greta Berlin added by Redaktor which called her "anti-Israel" and said she is married to a Palestinian. Berlin is a divorcee. While it is true she was once married to a Palestinian, she was also once married to a Jew. I don't see the relevance of either piece of information to this article. And the use of "anti-Israel" is not supported by RS and is in any case unnecessary as her role as one of the organizers of the flotilla is noted and readers can draw their own conclusions. Tiamut 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "Anti-Israel" is definitely POV, and her marriage is not relevant to the events described in the article. --386-DX (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the 1RR clause: 1 revert + 1 misunderstanding = 1 block, so I'm definitely not in the business of reverting anything here for the foreseeable future.  Cs32en Talk to me  15:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, both edits seems to have been reverted or re-written. --Kslotte (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit

There is no dispute now regarding the use of knives now that more pictures were released ().  —Rafi  16:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any knives being used in those images. There is no dispute that the soldiers were attacked though. --386-DX (talk) 18:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that there were knives around, but that wasn't actually why I made the edit that was reverted here! I took out that clause because I didn't think it added any information: it may well be true that Elshayyal didn't see any knives, but it is irrelevant, as he couldn't be in all places at once! Physchim62 (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

How about in the bottom right corner of the image right next to that line in the article? LOL.  —Rafi  18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Knives are clearly seen in pictures 6 and 10 in the link above. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Elshayyal was speaking/writing before those pictures were released! But we, of course, are not. The point is that what Elshayyal saw may well be relevant; what he didn't see is irrelevant. Physchim62 (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding this edit , the consensus a few days ago was for "actvists with rods beating a fallen soldier." I think "fallen" is a legitimate description of this specific soldier considering that point in the video. Anyway, the ref should be positioned next to "soldier" because in the past we've had problems with editors doubting if a soldier is there at all.  —Rafi  16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source for "fallen"? The soldier is apparently not standing upright, but we don't know whether he has fallen or whether he just was unable to gain an upright position after rappelling down from the helicopter. As for "beaten", the video simply shows that the activists are hitting the soldier with the sticks and/or bars. The video does not show whether this was done to render the soldier unable to use his gun, or whether this was done to punish or hurt the soldier. A lot of grey area here, of course, but I'd suggest changing "beaten" to "hit".  Cs32en Talk to me  17:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your distinction between fallen and not upright.

Here's an RS: "The edited footage showed soldiers descending from the Black Hawk into a crowd of men with sticks and clubs. Three or four activists overpowered each soldier as he landed, beating each one to the deck, where they were surrounded by more men with sticks. One soldier was tossed over the side onto a lower deck."  —Rafi  17:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There are problems with that RS: for example, it implies that the five other boats were attacked before or at the same time as the Mavi Marmara, when we know that the IDF (perfectly logically) took on the most difficult target first. There were 16 IDF who rappelled onto the upper deck: "beating each one to the deck" would imply that all 16 were attacked, which we know is untrue from the testimony of one of the soldiers involved. It also implies that the heliported troops were the first IDF on the ship, which we also know is untrue from the Al-Jazeera coverage. In short, the description is simply a rehash of IDF propaganda, and so to be taken with a large pinch of Mediterranean sea salt. Physchim62 (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My quote describes our minute of footage in question, not the entire operation. Calling the IDF account "propaganda" is POV. Frankly, the article, from Canada's number-one newspaper, has a balanced presentation of IDF and activist accounts. It is definitely legitimate RS.  —Rafi  18:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The author is an AP writer. You can also find it here.  —Rafi  19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's propaganda: "The first casualty of War is Truth"! We also know that this particular report is not entirely true because of a statement from one of the soldiers involved to the Jerusalem Post: the activist couldn't have "overpowered each soldier as he landed", because "S." was able to push three wounded IDF men against the deck wall and form a perimeter of IDF around them to begin treating their wounds. All this from a company of 15 comandos, (supposedly) in the middle of a "battlefield". Now, of course, the statement by "S." might just be more propaganda, but you don't have to be a master detective to see that the two statements, both of them from official IDF sources, are mutually contradictary. Physchim62 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to remove POV template

The {{POV}} template at the top of the article does not point to any particular section on the talk page. As such, it is not very helpful for improving the article. I suggest to remove it, unless it is being replace by a template that points to a specific section here, where the concerns could be discussed.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I support, though I wasn't too concerned about POV in the first place.  —Rafi  17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Support 930913(Congratulate/Complaints)

Comment, will this article ever be neutral? Since this is someway political battleground with censorship. Should that POV template be kept for a longer time or infinitely? --Kslotte (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Other ships

I find it odd that there is no reference to Liberty and Exodus in the article. Surely policing waters by the authorities in this water shoudl be a similarity. Both suffered attacks by authorities in international waters while approaching the levant. This seems to be a patenet similarity with also the gaza flotilla case. Rather than talking about blockade busting (which the Berlin air lift could be analagous) this referes only to the ways and wherefores of a state stopping a ship approaching. What the ship carries, its purpose and political views are surely soemthing else. Why does this need a citation in a newspaper to show this as a common legal question re the high seas?? I cannot se any wikipedia (NPOV encylopedia) reason for excluding these. If these articels are neutral they both show the issues on policing / guarding borders in this sea. If there were other ships that have been stopped or borded then these could also be added. For example the MS Achille Lauro that was borded and captured. NOTE its the use of violence that is common in all these cases and the location in the Levant seas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.182.113 (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Struma is another ship, headed from Turkey to Israel, and didn't make it. 768 people were killed. ShalomOlam (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Read also earlier discussion. --Kslotte (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ships

I replaced long section with a sortable table Gaza flotilla raid#Ships in flotilla. It needs improvement. Kasaalan (talk) 09:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. --Nevit (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The table could be moved to Ships of Gaza flotilla raid and the section could be left with bullet list of the ships. --Kslotte (talk) 14:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we able to get filled the table into empty fields? --Kslotte (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Ships of Gaza flotilla raid, there may be found more information (well written with references) about MV Rachel Corrie and Challenger 2 in the this article history. Someone could dig it from history. --Kslotte (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right. We should keep that section concise and do not add more details then there already is. I also think we should not remove them either. They were after all, part of the flotilla during most of the journey. Even the IDF refers to MV Rachel Corrie as the "7th ship in the flotilla" in their videos and press releases. --386-DX (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of sources in the sentence

At present, one of the sentences in the lead paragraph looks like this:

Passengers and reporters on board said that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while the Israelis said that firing occurred only after soldiers were attacked by the passengers.

Both of these claims were published in numerous sources. We could as well go ahead and add twenty references for each of them, all quoting the statements from either side. I therefore believe one reference for each side is enough. After all, the references in this sentence are not proving if these events occured, but proving that these claims were made; and nobody is saying that the other party didn't make these claims. --386-DX (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's really not necessary to have any references in the lead. The lead should contain only information that appears in the body of the article, and the body of the article is where the references should be. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. Yes, the lead is for summarising the article, but all claims are to be still be properly sourced as usual. Check any article in Misplaced Pages, and you'll see that it probably contains references in the lead. --386-DX (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot thickens - Erdogan knew about violence ahead of time?

This seems like big news or a number of reasons.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/probe-erdogan-knew-gaza-flotilla-would-be-violent-1.295144

• Erdogan knew ahead of time that a group of activists were planning violence.
• IHH leaders told this group to keep Israeli soldiers off the ship using "any means" necessary.
• These 40 activists were not searched like the other passengers.
• As this group began preparations for violence, there was an argument between them and the ship's crew. But the crew were unable to confiscate the weapons.
• Prior to the boarding, the IHH ordered all passengers other than journalists and this group of 40 to get under the deck.

It's unquestionably relevant and important if true. But it comes from the ITC, Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, so there is bias. Should it be added? If so, where and how?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Smacks of conspiracy theory to me. Point 1 is completely implausible. Point 2 might have some truth in it, but the IHH must have realised that they couldn't do any more than make life difficult for the IDF, there was no hope of repelling a sustained attack; the IHH, of course, denies that there was planned violence. Point 3 has been specifically denied by the Turkish government; in any case, 40 activists seems like an implausibly small number if the IHH had set out with the intention of having a serious fight. Point 4 is entirely plausible, but doesn't prove anything about pre-organised violence. Point 5 is disproved by the Al-Jazeera footage; all passengers (journalists included) were asked to move "inside" and roughly the same time as the first IDF boarded from the sea. Physchim62 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62, conspiracy just don't get in here. Those were questioned by the Israeli autoritties and participated in the violance said they were also paid for their participation. Those who were involved in the violance been through different searching procedures before boarding the Mavy Marmara in Turkey. No other country allowed this flotilla to get out of its territory and Erdogan have told he may come himself on the next flotilla. In Turkey, many secular journalists blame him for mongering war with Israel, the head of the opposition party, and the one now seem as the promised candiadate to replace Erdogan criticised Erdogan was one step before declaring war on Israel. So please, once you blamed Israeli notable source for "Lying" and now this is a conspiracy theory-what next?...--Gilisa (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Malam does not provided a single shread of evidence that Edogan was aware of any preparations for violence: it goes from "links between the IHH and Edogan's party" (well known) to Erdogan knowing about plans for violence and assisting them through port checks. In any sane country, that sort of logic would get you an entry ticket to mental hospital! Physchim62 (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ Cite error: The named reference haaretz-at least was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Slackman, Michael (June 2, 2010). "In Bid to Quell Anger Over Raid, Israel Frees Detainees". NYTimes.com. Retrieved June 3, 2010.
3. ^ Paul Reynolds (June 2, 2010). "Israeli convoy raid: What went wrong?". BBC News. Retrieved June 7, 2010.
4. ^ Al Jazeera and agencies (June 3, 2010). "Turkey holds activists' funerals" (Video and text). Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 5, 2010.
5. ^ Al Jazeera staff and agencies (2010-06-05). "Flotilla activists 'shot 30 times'". Al-Jazeera. Retrieved 2010-06-06.
6. ^ Edmund Sanders (June 1, 2010). "Israel criticized over raid on Gaza flotilla". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved June 2, 2010.
7. ^ Ivan Watson (June 4, 2010). "Autopsies reveal 9 men on Gaza aid boat shot, 5 in head". CNN World. Retrieved June 4, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
8. ^ CNN Wire Staff (May 31, 2010). "Israeli assault on Gaza-bound flotilla leaves at least 9 dead". CNN. Retrieved June 2, 2010. {{cite news}}: |author= has generic name (help)
9. ^ Yaakov Katz (2010-06-04). "'We had no choice'". JPost.com. Retrieved 2010-07-06.
10. ^ Yaakov Katz (2010-06-01). ""Vicious conflict aboard 'Mavi Marmara'"". JPost.com. Retrieved 2010-07-06.
11. ^ Jamal Elshayyal (June 6, 2010). "Kidnapped by Israel, forsaken by Britain". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 7, 2010.
12. ^ Amy Teibel (June 4, 2010). "Israel vows to stop aid ship as it approaches Gaza". Yahoo News. Associated Press. Retrieved June 5, 2010.
13. "Under Fire for Gaza Raid, Israel Blames Flotilla Organizers for Provocation". PBS NewsHour. May 31, 2010. Public Broadcasting System.
14. ^ Friedman, Matti (June 2, 2010). "Details emerge of bloodshed aboard Gaza-bound ship". The Washington Post. Associated Press. Retrieved June 3, 2010.
15. ^ Dorian Jones (June 1, 2010). "Israelis opened fire before boarding Gaza flotilla, say released activists". Guardian (UK). Retrieved June 2, 2010. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
16. ^ Yara Bayoumy (June 3, 2010). "Israeli marines were held during ship raid-witness: Soldiers freed after Israel agreed to airlift wounded". Reuters.com. Reuters. Retrieved June 5, 2010.
17. ^ Haaretz Service and The Associated Press (2010-06-03). "Gaza flotilla organizer admits activists seized weapons from Israeli soldiers". haaretz.com. Retrieved 2010-07-06.
18. Cite error: The named reference Haaretz9mm was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
19. Cite error: The named reference urlCustoms officials deny Israeli claims weapons were onboard was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
20. "Under Fire for Gaza Raid, Israel Blames Flotilla Organizers for Provocation". PBS NewsHour. May 31, 2010. Public Broadcasting System.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Turkey articles
• Mid-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• B-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• B-Class politics articles
• Mid-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• B-Class national militaries articles
• National militaries task force articles
• B-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• B-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• B-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles