Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

IHH

AP INTERVIEW: Turkish aid group had terror ties
Does this go in the article? Background section perhaps? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll add it soon if it isn't in there already. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't. This article is already busy enough. Information about IHH belongs into the article about IHH. — Sebastian 21:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this, I corrected a spelling error in the section I saw, moved it to the appropriate spot, and added relevant info on the topic about their history of weapon smuggling which the blockade was implemented to prevent. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you remove that? Wtf dude? The IFF smuggled weapons for terrorists and are trying to break a blockade that prevents the same thing. That is relevant and shouldn't be relegated to some crappy article that nobody will read. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion superseded by User_talk:SebastianHelm#Regarding_IFF_weapon_smuggling_as_background_for_Gaza_Flotilla_incident. — Sebastian 00:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this edit belong in International Reactions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=365710671&oldid=365710638

USA Today criticized the Israelis for lack of prescience for its surprise of enmity extended to the Palstenians by saying "no event was more important in the formation of Israel than the confrontation 63 years ago between the ship Exodus filled with 4500 Holocaust survivors trying to get into the Holy City, and the British Navy trying to keep them out." Three Jews were killed in the 1947 incident and the remaining were deported in to camps in Germany. The British faced recriminations from Europe and the United States, and international sentiment shifted to the Jewish settlers.

Zuchinni one (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a condemnation or praise for either group, but rather an opinion at the lack of forsight by Israel into the varied (mostly condemnation) that are expressed in the main article regarding reactions. Plus, the 1947 parallels almost identically to the 2010 event, so some mention of the 1947 event should be in the main article. If you want to move this to another sections or create a new section that's fine with me.Ccson (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think not. International reaction should be a comment or action by a country or an organization or group of people or some official (like a PM), not an editorial of a newspaper. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont' care where its place, but it should be in this article. what section should we place it?Ccson (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

None. USA Today's editors' personal opinion is not relevant in an encyclopedia. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget their opinion. The facts of the comparison speak for themselves and document at SS Exodus. What section? I'll remove the opinion just point out the obvious comparison.72.151.116.252 (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WIKI is an encyclopedia. Meaning: not the plcae for comparisons such as this. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I'll find an appropriate place.72.151.116.252 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Do what you must. It will be removed. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, one of the strenghts of Wikipedia is that links are easy. In other articles, we often have statements like "The subject of this article has been compared with [[Y]]". However, since (a) this event is currently in all papers, (b) there are hundreds of opinion pieces, (c) this article is already so busily edited that it has become tedious to edit, and (d) we don't even include the statements of whole nations here, I would rather we didn't add it; at least not until this has cooled off. — Sebastian 22:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll add a see also section at the bottom of article until this can be incorporated into the main body.Ccson (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Free Gaza Movement: trained in non-violent resistance

Resolved

Artical says: "Several of the passengers were peace activists, trained in non-violent resistance and confrontation methods". But no RS to back this up. Should be removed. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. This didn't exactly fit under the headline, anyway. — Sebastian 22:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gitmicem, 2 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

About the sentence that states "The Mavi Marmara, as opposed to the other ships in the flotilla, was manned by members of the Turkish Islamic group IHH, which had longstanding ties to terrorism and Jihad, according to European Union and Israeli officials.": In the sources that has been linked after sentence shows that the assuming tie between terrorism-Jihad and IHH has been denied by the foundation's officals and there is not a clear evidence of such an accuse. Besides, IHH is not a Turkish Islamic Group, it is a international charity established by Turkish people. The expansion of IHH is "International Humanitarian Help", the name of the foundation in Turkish is: İnsani Yardım Vakfı.

Gitmicem (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Prodego ^talk 22:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The organisation has Islamic roots. Anyone claims otherwise is certainly wrong. On the other hand I do not know any direct relation between Islamic Jihad etc. We cannot keep speculation. Kasaalan (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Islam is a religion. You may not accept it. Neither me believe. But accusing someone or some organization by its religion or race is not true. It is propaganda. It is just as ridicule as accusing the flotilla attack as an act of Jews. I can not accept your views. --Nevit (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is no accusation. Being Islamic or Evangelist etc. is a matter of political/religious choice. And IHH is an Internationally operating Islamic Charity. Also as I say, the Israel government is also right wing and religiously fundamentalist, it is a fact. Kasaalan (talk) 00:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They have no official religious position. The flotilla itself contained people of several religions including those who do not believe in religion or deities. Their main position is confronting Israel by putting it in difficult position by disobedience to end the largest concentration camp on earth. The second statement is my guess. --Nevit (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know flotilla was carrying many international activists who are not IHH members. However the organization, founders and members support Islamic views by any means. Kasaalan (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to discredit the organization by labeling it with a religion ? Officially they have no religion. What is the point in attributing them to a religion? --Nevit (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Inside NATO HQ's

Inside NATO HQ's about the Gaza flotilla raid http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/israeli_murders.html

--Nevit (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

A minor problem

After the following statement in the article; "A senior Norwegian officer stated after watching the released pictures that "This is not military equipment", while the tools and kitchen knives would normally belong on a ship" There is a dubious tag. This is accompanied by a photo of kitchen knives and tools provided by the Israeli's as evidence of weapons on board. What is dubious about this?--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why Id rather include a picture containing the gas masks, bulletproof vests and most nasty looking weapons like punch daggers then there would be less confusion on the subject. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw an article somewhere, which mentioned that in the metadata for the body armour photo that the IDF has provided that the photo was taken in 2006. While this could be propaganda and would only be verifiable through independently checking the image, I think this is a moot point. How often do you see journalists and aid workers in combat zones wearing body armour?--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A claim not in source

I am removing the following...

Prior to the boarding, activists aboard the ships repeatedly stated they would not respond with violence to the navy's interception of their flotilla.

...which is not supported by its citation. This sentence has been here a long time and it since become clear that some of the activists were bent on violence. If someone has a better source for the sentence please contribute.  —Rafi  23:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• I find it odd that this is relevant. Whether somebody contemplates violence negates the primary hostile attack/ambush by Israel how?--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 23:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

See my response in a new section below.  —Rafi  23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Legal opinions opposing the action

Several sections are removed here: [1]. These are all notable expert comments and they should be re added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Un sourced and off topic on Hamas

This about Hamas is un sourced and off topic: [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Intentions of activists

Note: I've removed some comments on both sides from the discussion below under WP:NOTAFORUM. 187.143.10.134 (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the activists clearly planned for violence, as documented in these RS's:

3 flotilla fatalities 'dreamt of martyrdom' — Ynet

Gaza flotilla attack: Turkish activists killed in raid 'wanted to be martyrs' — Telegraph

"[Remember] Khaibar, Khaibar, oh Jews! The army of Muhammad will return!" — Aljazeera (through PMW)

It may have been only a dozen or so out of 700 activists, and perhaps many more, but it only takes a few aspiring martyrs to bring a confrontation to violence.

This context is absolutely relevant.  —Rafi  23:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

At best those articles are flimsy attempts at justifying the use of disproportionate force by Israeli commandos. "They wanted to be as martyrs anyway." It is just as likely that those involved in violent scuffles with commandos were acting out of panic, or out of protective instinct (women and children were aboard). Too subjective to be useful in my opinion. Mshahidil (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

removed: whose fault Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 23:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

removed: assertion of motive TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

removed: whose fault Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

removed: hypothetical TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that is a reason not to include that reliable sources say they wanted to be martyrs, or are you just making conversation?

Does the IDF has any video of who shot the guns at the passengers?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

removed: who started it The fact that some activists intended to become martyrs is certainly relevant to this dispute.  —Rafi  00:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The question of "who started it" is certainly disputed, but is the question of "who ended it"?--149.166.34.100 (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

removed: pointing out existing dispute over points removed above Mshahidil (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If enough RS can verify this then perhaps it should be included somewhere. But remember that even if a few people were looking for trouble that doesn't mean that everyone was. Also it may be difficult to say whether or not the actual trouble started as a result of the actions of these passengers, or the actions of the IDF. Just because you state you were planning to do something doesn't mean that's actually what happened. So if this is included be very careful to stay NPOV and not go beyond the verifiable facts. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I also linked a video above showing dozens of them singing about some battle where Mohamed slaughtered a village of Jews and how "Mohamed's army was coming back." TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As I've said before, the dreams of 3/663 activists (.45%) is by no means notable enough to include in the article. And it would of course be incorrect to judge the actions of the 663 based on the dreams of the 3. Prodego ^talk 00:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not 3/663, it's three out of the dozen or so who swarmed the commandos. It definitely warrants inclusion, in a way that sticks to the bare facts as per Zuchinni one above.  —Rafi  00:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Dozens != 3. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your source says 3. Prodego ^talk 00:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

LOL, let me try that again. If there are at least three on board who aspire for martyrdom, and a dozen or so activists swarm the commandos who drop down, that is a much higher percentage than .45% and is notable.  —Rafi  00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

My source clearly shows over a dozen chanting about Muhamed's great slaughter of the Jews at Khaibar and calling themselves "Mohamed's army." Additionally, the video of the incident shows at least a dozen, on the top deck alone, swarming the IDF with weapons in hand. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the activists are clearly Islamic fundamentalists or supporters. On the other hand Israel government is also ruled by Jewish fundementalists. So at best scenario it is a clash between opposing fundementalists. removed: discussion of incident Kasaalan (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

removed: discussion of incident TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM - keep your comments to if this should be included or not. Prodego ^talk 00:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

RS #2 (The Telegraph article) contextualizes the quotes this way: "Such descriptions would be regarded by many Muslims as evidence that they put religious duty before their lives, rather than an admission that they were heading to battle." It would seem that a wide variety of intentions are covered by that. The "martyr" quotes thus don't clarify intention and don't belong in a description of the much larger flotilla's intentions.--Carwil (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Khaybar" chant certainly invokes battle. Again, this doesn't need to reflect the whole flotilla; it is relevant even if only a few activists wanted violence, because that was the outcome. We could write a new paragraph to make this distinction clear, again presenting only the verifiable facts.  —Rafi  00:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I support this being included. Just be sure to note how many of the actual activists could be noted as having the intentions (i.e.) "At least three of the activists mentioned dreams about becoming martyrs in resistance" etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.43.125 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Should the "armada of hate" be included

After the boarding took place, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that the flotilla of ships "was an armada of hate and violence." He added that the flotilla attempt to reach Gaza was "a premeditated and outrageous provocation" and claimed that its organizers had ties not only to Hamas, but also to global Jihad, and al Qaida.

The above is currently in the "Israeli reactions" section, but I don't know if it should be there.

1. The article quotes a more minor member of the government
2. He belongs to a very right-wing party and has previously made statements that are not the official line of the Israeli government and which have gotten him into major trouble Danny Ayalon
3. Even if a few people are using this term it does not mean that it is a Common_names even in the Israeli media
4. There are very vitriolic statements on both sides. And name calling doesn't add anything to the article.
5. Should we regularly quote from biased sources when describing people or groups? i.e.: "African Americans, or Niggers as they are called by the Ku Klux Klan"?
6. Should the Israeli reactions section focus on inclusion of the overall reaction in the country, as per mainstream RS and the official response? Or do we want lots of random quotes as well?

I am not going to remove this quote, but perhaps there should be a discussion on its inclusion. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We should include it as: Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon of a very right-wing party argued that the flotilla of ships "was an armada of hate and violence." That is NPOV. We report what both parties say and does. Kasaalan (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister for Zionist-right wing nationalist Yisrael Beiteinu party, argued that the flotilla of ships "was an armada of hate and violence." Detailed and reflects Ayalon's opinion as it is. Kasaalan (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If quotes are included should they appear below the overall reaction in the country and official response. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Is Israel’s Blockade of Gaza Legal?

Unsure if this pertains to the raid, but as it is the reason behind sending humanitarian aid, and as such resulted in the IDF intervention this legal analysis of the Gaza blockade may interest editors here.--- Nomen Nescio ^{Gnothi seauton}_{contributions} 00:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We may use a see also section with relevant links. Kasaalan (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec, and unclear if the previous comment belongs in this section) I'm not sure if it's a credible source, or if it pertains to the raid, either, but the analysis is absurd in dealing with the American Civil War.. I have studied that from an international law standpoint, and that analysis was not accurate at the time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not assume non-RS in areas you don't have expertise/research. Useful article for San Remo Manual. RS article by Prof. Kevin Jon Heller who is currently "a Senior Lecturer at Melbourne Law School where he teaches criminal law, comparative criminal law, and international criminal law. His work has appeared in, among others, the European Journal of International Law, the American Journal of International Law, the Journal of International Criminal Justice, the Michigan Law Review and the Leiden Journal of International Law. He is currently writing a book entitled The Nuremberg Military Tribunals and the Origins of International Criminal Law, which will be published by Oxford University Press in 2010. Prof. Heller has also been involved in the International Criminal Court's negotiations over the crime of aggression, served as Human Rights Watch's external legal advisor on the trial of Saddam Hussein, and consulted with the defense in a number of cases at the ICTY and ICTR. He is currently serving as one of Radovan Karadzic's Registry-appointed legal associates." [3] Publisher Opinio Juris "is a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations. It was founded by Chris Borgen, a law professor at St. John’s University Law School, who started the site with Peggy McGuinness of the University of Missouri Law School and Julian Ku of Hofstra Law School. Since then, the Opinio Juris team has expanded to include Roger Alford of Pepperdine University Law School; Kevin Jon Heller from Melbourne Law School in Australia; Duncan Hollis and Peter Spiro, both of Temple University Law School; Ken Anderson of American University Washington College of Law; and most recently Deborah Pearlstein, currently a visiting scholar at Princeton." [4] Kasaalan (talk) 01:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if everything you wrote is correct, it's not a reliable source, although it might be a credible basis for speculation. It's still questionable in regard the American Civil War. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Criminal Law Professor, whose papers published in various international academic journals and book published by Oxford University Press, who served as "Human Rights Watch's external legal advisor on the trial of Saddam Hussein" and involved in the International Criminal Court's negotiations over the crime of aggression. So he is international academic expert on the international criminal law field. Publishing party is also an academic online site. Kasaalan (talk) 02:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand we should note he is not an expert on Sea Laws. Kasaalan (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why this is not an RS; Opinion Juris is probably the leading IL blog. It and the comments seem to give the standard textbook analysis with respect to the American Civil War - that the USA (along with other powers) recognized the CSA as a belligerent, and therefore the laws of war at the time applied. The application to Israel vs. Hamas is common - the blockade could only be arguably legal if it recognizes Hamas as a belligerent,so it has to treat Hamas fighters as POWs etc, which it doesn't - Israel's positions are inconsistent.John Z (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Events leading up to the raid section

I moved part of the "Background" section to the "Events leading up to the raid" section, and I had planned to merge the two and put them in chronological sequence. Unfortunately, I was distracted, and have to leave now. I apologize for leaving this section in a state that leaves much to desire. — Sebastian 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Knesset member on board Hanin Zoabi denied IDF story

"Israel spoke of a provocation, but there was no provocation," she told the Knesset. Hanin Zoabi has emerged as a leading domestic critic of her government, calling their military operation "criminal."

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0602/Gaza-flotilla-raid-pushes-unknown-Knesset-member-into-spotlight

--Nevit (talk) 01:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

[BLP breach removed]TheGoodLocust (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"It was clear from the size of the force that boarded the ship that the purpose was not only to stop this sail, but to cause the largest possible number of fatalities in order to stop such initiatives in the future."

• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897396,00.html
• http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898073,00.html

Don't know the party, According to Balad (political party) it is an Arab nationalist party "whose stated purpose is the 'struggle to transform the state of Israel into a democracy for all its citizens, irrespective of national or ethnic identity.'" Zoabi commented "she was not worried about the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead she suggested that a nuclear-armed Iran would act as a counter-power to Israel." No country should have nukes. But USSR counter balanced USA. Pakistan counter balanced India. Iran may counter balance Israel. Israel has around 75-400 nuke warheads, So arguing that view is not equal to KKK. Read Mordechai Vanunu, Israel and weapons of mass destruction, Nuclear weapons and Israel. Kasaalan (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

[BLP breach removed]TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

So doesn't Israel's stated goal is to destroy Iran. Israel and Iran is very similar on threatening each other. Kasaalan (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel's goal is not to destroy Iran but to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons. I suggest you look up some video of what they teach their children in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia (hint: It rhymes with pesticide). TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is irrelevent here. We have an elected eyewitness here from ship. Do not try to discredit her from by bullying her with her political views. Being an Arab or being a Nationalist is not a crime. They have the right to defend their race when it is in danger. --Nevit (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion

As far as I can tell, the move discussion was open for less than 24 hours. I see a consensus, but it can't be clear over that short a time. As a procedural matter, I ask that a clearly posted move request be placed, and kept open for at least a week, although I have no objections to moves being made in the interim if a temporary clear consensus for another name is found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Name can be changed when enough opinions had been heard and consensus reached. It can take on hour or several months depending on article. --Kslotte (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that a firm consensus was reached. And with the auto-archiving here, the pointers may have been archived before the subpage was closed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't follow the situation, but I assume a consensus was reached. If it wasn't feel free to open the case again. --Kslotte (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate wording in the lead

There are two very similar parts of the lead appearing in separate paragraphs.

Perhaps the 2nd one should be removed.

1. The United Nations Security Council condemned "those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded", and calling for "a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards".[14] Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed regret for the loss of life, and said that the event represents a clear case of self-defense of the IDF soldiers.[15][16]
2. The UN Human Rights Council has demanded a raid investigation,[19] while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "Israel is the victim of an international hypocrisy attack."[20]

I'm trying to limit my edits to very minor wording changes that improve clarity, so I am not going to remove #2. If someone else agrees with me could you please take care of it :) Zuchinni one (talk) 01:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Phrases merged. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 05:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus in See Also section

Not sure how this is relevant.

• Exodus 1947, a ship carrying thousands of Jewish refugees in 1947 that was refused entry into British Mandate for Palestine

Zuchinni one (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That ship was also seized. It's one of the most similar incidents compared to the Gaza flotilla raid. --Kslotte (talk) 01:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

A broad see also section would be helpful if we may categorize links accordingly. Kasaalan (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There was earlier a second see also link (see earlier discussion here). But someone removed it. Issue here is this Gaza flotilla raid is quite unique in history (Wikipedia). So, we won't find articles that has all the same elements as in this raid. If we find a few similarities it is enough. I think three entries would be fine, if we are able to find that many. --Kslotte (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you can get a better comparison between the SS Exodus raid in 1947 and the Gaza flotilla raid in 2010. 1) both ships were traveling to Palestine, 2) both were raided by a navy, 3 both had deaths, 4) the living were immediately deported from Palestine, 5)both received outrage from the international community, 5) the future residents of Israe were on the 1947 boat and the same people who raided the 2010 boat. It's obvious to me, however; the SS Exodus has "see also" section that might have some more comparisons if you want at least 3.Ccson (talk) 02:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See also links doesn't have to indicate anything. They are for comparison or further info. See also sections are useful for readers. Kasaalan (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I found an article from the BBC which states and therefore still baffles me why it shouldn't be directly in the article

It is also clear that the Israelis had little intelligence about what was being prepared on the ship.

It is reminiscent of the British assault in 1947 on the Exodus, a ship carrying Jewish refugees hoping to break the then British naval blockade on Palestine.

In that incident, too, the assault force underestimated the opposition, resorted to force, and three of the passengers died.

That event did much to undermine British rule in Palestine and to increase support for a Jewish state.

Ccson (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SEEALSO, to understand what See also is for. --Kslotte (talk) 11:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla "activists" told to write their wills before coming

Here and here, along with the past weapon smuggling of the organization and ties to terrorists I think these would fit in well in a section about their motivations/background. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone determine if these are Reliable Sources? They appeared to be circular references and I couldn't find the original articles. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust, please review your framing of proposals. Your previous contributions to this discussion as well as the obvious bias in the framing of this particular contribution (as well as the quotes around "activists") makes it clear that you are pushing a biased POV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for you to edit with malicious bias, as you have in the past with pages on climate change and Barack Obama, to name two examples. 64.213.99.82 (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

MEMRI is a pro-Israel media watchdog, which co-founded in 1998 by Yigal Carmon, a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence, and another Israeli Meyrav Wurmser. Even its translations are controversial. MEMRI#Controversy Al-Aqsa TV is Hamas run TV channel. Another side of the conflict. Both sides are unreliable. However the story might be true. Kasaalan (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that the story may not have some truth. If it is true and the sources can be resolved and be found reliable, it would be important to include such information in the article. I am simply pointing out the biased nature of the proposal itself (notice the wording and the user's previous discussions) and the obvious POV that TheGoodLocust is pushing. 64.213.99.82 (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If the problem is that you dislike a certain user's POV, then I will propose his idea myself ;). Can't see the harm in discovering if the story is true or not, and it is certainly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.43.125 (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The UN Security Council

Throughout the article (including the intro and the Reaction section), it is not mentioned that the UN Security Council - in its recent statement - asked Israel to lift the blockade. I have seen this somewhere but don't remember where. Please add this detail if you have the source. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 03:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hamas in Background

The background section opens with: "Hamas is an Iranian-backed Islamist militant group that is designated as a terrorist organization by the European Union, the United States, Israel and other countries." This seems more background on the Gazan government than background on the event itself. In any case, believe this info should not be first content after the article's lead. RomaC (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The bit about Hamas is kind of wordy. But the flow of the article might be OK. Perhaps though, the first paragraph of the Background section should focus on the Blockade and not Hamas, since the entire incident was a result of trying to break through the blockade, and the blockade was not set up ONLY because Hamas took control of Gaza, but also because of attacks from Gaza into Israel. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, standard coatracking but they left out the commited to the destruction of Israel bit. It should just say Hamas with a link. People can figure out what they are, evil terrorist anti-semites vs happy social engineers/the resistance, themselves from their article (which is a huge mess). Sean.hoyland - talk 04:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Sean here. A link seems to be the best way to keep this NPOV. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some more legal opinions, on Reuters

Link here: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65133D20100602 Faaaaaaamn (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Compare the weight given in this article to legal opinions with the weight given to the reactions to the raid internationally and within Israel. It's becoming silly as usual. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

This is because we moved the reactions to a separate sub article. Marokwitz (talk)

Undue weight

Some editors are either removing material or tagging the Legal opinions opposing the action on pretext of undue weight, as far as I remember every source possible was used in Legal opinions supporting the action, ranging from little known lawyers to international experts. The problem is Legal opinions supporting the action is now either coming from the one of the belligerent party's sources or from USA a staunch ally. So we can't say that it has been intentionally unbalanced. It is just that way. Otherwise some editors are even being targeted as listed here List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Wikipedia Editors .--yousaf465 04:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Being targeted by the JIDF is something to be proud of. If someone is editing in a way that annoys them it usually means that the editor is complying with wiki policies and representing what the reliable sources say with due weight (which are of course all outrageously biased against Israel etc..yawn). The entire legal section, pro+con is getting out of control though. It's swamping the article. It needs to be cut back or split off. It's not in proportion to the weight given to this issue by the spectrum of RS that discuss the raid. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sean on both counts. I was very surprised to see some of the people who were listed as biased by the JIDF since they seemed to be so good at keeping a NPOV. In any case I think that a separate article for legality would be appropriate. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC

Agree with the convenience of a separate article on the legality of the action. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Add my vote for a separate article too. Doesn't this act of that blog/site will compromise the safety of these editors ? --yousaf465 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Vote on renaming the article

Resolved

To shorten this page, this content has been moved to a subpage. Voting is ongoing and the discussion regarding renaming of the article is still open. It can be found here.

Outcome

Clear consensus for move to Gaza flotilla raid article moved by User:Tariqabjotu . Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing this appeal as it seems clear again strong consensus support for the move Off2riorob (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Overturn the vote and rename the page back to 'clash'? The person who started the vote page yesterday, User:A930913, says below that he does not want to overturn the vote, but wants to "appeal" the result and revert the page name back to Gaza flotilla clash. The basis of his appeal is the present Wiki definition of "raid" which includes an element of surprise that User:A930913 says was not present when the navy conducted its operation on the flotilla. My questions are: 1. is there such a thing as an appeal of a vote and 2. If so, what is the procedure? Is it done by another vote of the editors as User:A930913, seems to think, or is administrator involvement required? Basically, what I am asking is, is the voting below, which has been called an "appeal", a valid way to overturn the previous vote? KeptSouth (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Oppose It seems to me that editors had the opportunity to make their arguments and to vote, and that an editor cannot simply declare there is to be an appeal because they have a new argument or a new way of stating an old argument the day after losing the vote. But if there is an appeals procedure already in existence, I think we should follow it closely to determine whether a re-vote should be allowed. KeptSouth (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Consensus can change, so I don't believe the section below is in anyway invalid, to be honest. I don't personally agree with it, but I don't think I personally agreed with the original name change either (too soon, etc). TFOWRidle vapourings 10:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC) You are saying a vote can be overturned the next day --even on the initiative of someone who previously voted and lost. Following your logic the "appeal" is also pointless because consensus on the appeal is also subject to change, the next day. The practical result of following your logic would be that editors can rename or move the page back and forth at will with the winner being the name which exists at the time an admin locks further changes. —KeptSouth (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Broadly, yes. At some point the consensus will be that further name changes are disruptive, but I'm not sure that there's consensus for that at the moment. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, there was no vote then, and there is no vote now ;-) There's simply discussion, in an attempt to form a consensus. If the consensus yesterday was for the current title, I suspect it's unlikely to have changed today. But efforts to see if it has are fine. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, there was whole page of voting, and you yourself voted.KeptSouth (talk) 11:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC) No, I participated in a discussion. In that discussion I indicated my preference, and explained why I had that preference. Even appointments, e.g. of administrators, follow discussion, not votes. You may notice that some editors use the term "!vote" when talking about such discussions - that's the reason why. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment one would think that if an overwhelming majority of MSM describe this as an attack, or raid, It is difficult to claim clash would be a reasonable alternative.--- Nomen Nescio Gnothi seautoncontributions 11:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Appeal I do not contest the outcome of the voting, but I submit that the article title chosen is factually incorrect and misleading. Raid (military) as defined by Wikipedia "is a military tactic or operational warfare mission which requires the execution of a plan where surprise is the principal desired outcome of the attack." If you read the main article, you will see that the ships were clearly warned. Since they were warned, the IDF lost the military advantage of surprise, hence this cannot factually be described as a raid. You can Endorse the change from clash to raid, or you can Overturn the change back to clash. Please do not suggest any other names here. I !vote Overturn for my reasons above. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I !vote Keep for the fact they used flash and smoke grenades and that looking at Google "Flotilla Raid" is how it is described by the vast majority of sources including ones in Israel. Rarian rakista (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I !vote Overturn for the same reasons. Additionally, raid is POV, a military and not policing operation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.61.135 (talk) 06:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC) I !vote Keep. While they had been instructed to divert their course and the fleet expected some kind of confrontation, the methods used (by night, on international waters, descending from helicopters, etc.) qualify as a raid to me.--RR (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Since raid is kind of surprise attack. Some kind of Israeli action was expected and (if) some communicated then only attack is left over. However the form of attack was surprise. Usually it may look that a boat coming (not at dark) to the ship. Few custom officer communicate, ladies and gentlemen we are IDF (the Jewish Army) and came here to.. and clarify they business. Not what was !surprise! Jump from dark sky, spry paintball, trow stun grenades and finally (if) kill at random. If this was not surprice, who are those who say it wasnt surprice ? Ai 00 (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Comment I agree that surprise was not a big factor since they radiod them and warned them (even before the ships left). However, now I am worried if raid (military) is wrong. wikt:raid seems closer to what I am thinking (1) A hostile or predatory incursion; an inroad or incursion of mounted men; a sudden and rapid invasion by a cavalry force; a foray. 2) An attack or invasion for the purpose of making arrests, seizing property, or plundering; as, a raid of the police upon a gambling house; a raid of contractors on the public treasury. Synonyms: hostile or predatory incursion): attack, foray, incursion). Maybe my understanding of the term is wrong though.Cptnono (talk) 07:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a respectable source so this based on it and omitting word 'attack' thus explicitly misquoted leverage do not bring much appellation to appeal. Looking in Jewish media for corresponding name i can find that the 'IDF operation'[5] on "armada of hate" was another triumph for Israel, sadly misinterpreted by international media. Ai 00 (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Keep. No reason at all to change this back to a worse name. FunkMonk (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Keep, as per User:RR above. Salut, --IANVS (talk | cont) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC) Keep there was a consensus on changing the name yesterday. A Wikitionary definition is no grounds to overturn it - it is not a reliable source, and it is a disfavored self reference. see WP: RS and WP:Self. Finally the Wiktionary definition of "raid" that you base your argument on is illiterate and inaccurate -"surprise" is not the desired "outcome". Surprise is a tactic - the desired outcome is defeating the enemy. You might consider changing the definition and trying again. KeptSouth (talk) 11:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

• Rename to "Gaza flotilla conflict". I think Gaza flotilla conflict would be a better name. The reasons are laid out in the other discussion. I did not see this article before just now so I haven't been able to suggest this name before. Benzocaine (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Activists vs Passengers

Large replacement of 'Passengers' with 'Activists'. Sources I have checked say 'Passengers'. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&action=historysubmit&diff=365522068&oldid=365520659 -- Firefishy (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC

I strongly oppose this. In cases where the wording would include journalists and other non-activists the word "passengers" is appropriate. But otherwise, it seems like whitewashing POV. The people were not just uninvolved passengers on a trip from X to Y, they were very clearly activists in the midst of a political mission. It's like referring to IDF soldiers navy ships as 'passengers'. Can this be reverted? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Bob here unless someone can give a good reason as to why they should be called activists. There were lots of different people on the boats, some activists, some press, crew, and some children. To blanket them all with the 'activist' moniker doesn't seem neutral. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose one approach is to just use the term used in the specific source used to provide WP:V compliance for the specific statement i.e. just say what the source says but for the love of puppies can we make sure that the sourcing of this article isn't skewed with disproportionate use of Israeli media sources as is normally the case in articles like this ? It's a big planet with many RS and excessive use of sourcing from one country (albeit quite a diverse country media-wise) never helps with NPOV compliance. I personally favour using 'people' rather than 'passengers' when we don't know what/who they were. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I normally agree with you in the use of 'people' but in this case I think 'passengers' is a more accurate description. Otherwise it might get confusing which people are being referred to, the soldiers or the passengers. Zuchinni one (talk) 03:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Zuchinni, my real point was that I think to maintain neutral POV, we need to be as specific as possible. In any cases where it may include non-activists, the word "passengers" should be used. But in cases where we are clearly speaking about people on a political mission, the word "activist" really should to be used. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Bob.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is so much agreement here, how can we describe all the casualties as 'activists'? See "Nine activists were shot and killed in the raid" - do we know their identities, let alone their political or humanitarian motivations? Until we do, this should be changed, I would think. 24.203.231.161 (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

interview with the captain thrown from the ship's deck

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897486,00.html (and the hebrew version)

'I cocked my weapon when I saw that one was coming towards me with a knife drawn and I fired once. Then another 20 people came at me from all directions and threw me down to the deck below'

(this is the quote from the main paragraph)

Note: there are already videos showing there were shooters from the ship like this one from idf's spokesperson youtube channel

Here's another interview, from Haaretz [6] No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

* Haaretz and IDF are biased sources and cannot meet NPOV standards. Because they may censor the part and broadcast only the moments they want for propoganda .

* btw it is very natural activist don't want to let any soldier onto their ships. Because they were on international waters and no nation including Israel have the right to stop them. So please mention also that what Israel did is a piracy Yakamoz51 (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your position is not acceptable. You can't disqulifies a reliable news source only because it is Israeli (I don't think you will disqualify automatically Palestinian or Turkish sources, right?). The Israeli press is a free press and Haaretz, for example, has pro-Palestinian views, while Yediot Aharonot/Ynet and Maariv are more balanced. IDF videos were broadcast in news media throughout the world (such as BBC [7]). BBC, CNN and others would not broadcast the videos if they think the videoes were not reliable. MathKnight 07:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

HaAretz is accepted as a RS by Wikipedia, and is in fact cited as a source in this very article. Re. your legal claims, these are obviously hotly disputed. However, I think it is generally accepted that aid workers should not engage in combat against forces involved in the local conflict. If you can show an example of this happening in another place in the world (plenty of aid volunteers in Africa and other war-torn countries, I believe) your claim would have more validity. 212.179.152.69 (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

They were not inside that local conflict, but on international waters, that is a very important point. About the sources, it's not the goal of Wikipedia to decide who is right and who is wrong: we have to write "X said that..." and "Y said that" if they are notable enough, and not based on their affiliation. If there is a notable source that claims that it's not true, then feel free to add "Y said they believe X lied" and not just simply "X lied". --131.188.3.21 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't read the interviews. Though a part of the conflict. Haaretz shouldn't be considered as a biased source. On the other hand the captain is thrown by 4-5 people not 20 which is very clear from the video. Kasaalan (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of them shot in the passengers' heads

Iara Lee, a Brazilian filmmaker who was also on the Mavi Marmara: "All I witnessed first hand was the shooting. They came on board and started shooting at people. We expected them to shoot people in the legs, to shoot in the air, just to scare people, but they were direct," she said, in a separate interview with the Folha de São Paulo newspaper. Some of them shot in the passengers' heads. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/02/gaza-flotilla-raid-gunfire-ship-blood

--Nevit (talk) 08:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That story makes me believe them even less. Excellent find though. There has been a lot of reports sourcing Israel so this is great. I don't know what to do with some of the quotes since they contradict video footage. It is great to have the other perspective though.Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We still don't know what happened right before the stab footage, there is some footage of Israelis already standing on the ship, with no indication of when it is. See beginning here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_A0Dhx3VKM&feature=player_embedded FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

FunkMonk in case you've been wandering here is security cam footage preior to boarding http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU

In response to the unsigned comment above, the video footage you linked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZlSSaPT_OU) is completely fake. The most obvious problem with this footage is that it is not moving as a boat should in the middle of the ocean. In fact it is not moving at all, leading me to believe that it was filmed on a staged set. The 'Israeli Commando' that supposedly rappels up the side of the ship half-way through video is never shown and, the commandos arrived by way of helicopters, They did not climb up the sides of the ship. Also, the 'water' shown at the end of the video is either animated or it is just a blue sheet being blown by a fan, however, it is certainly not real. Sam H 01:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Italia.hill77 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like WP:OR to me. Do you have any proof this is fake? Boarding parties dont just board the ship from one direction. Metallurgist (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the silly claim above: 1)All security footage from the clip can be easily verified with the insurance company which records the data on external source. 2)Faces are clearly visable and can be easily varified. 3)Security Camera mounted ON BOARD no reason for it to move (See also "steady cam"). 4)Shayetet did come up from the sea as clearly shown http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6sAEYpHF24 5)It is obviously impossible to board the ship from the sea as you are UNARMED while climbing the attached ladder and being hit by: Sling shots,chairs,broken bottle,silverware etc. 6)the frame rate is a bit funny but an amatuer editor of SFX could easliy spot this and use better tracking/stockfootage depends on method Blame it on Kubrik (;

IDF still didn't release any unedited footage where they are killing activists. IDF only released activist footage. Kasaalan (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Shooting in head confirmed. See below: #American activist among those killed by armed Israeli soldiers --Nevit (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Activist Bios and Goals

I haven't seen these people added to the list of participants:
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4265.htm - "The Egyptian flotilla delegation included two members of the Muslim Brotherhood bloc in the Egyptian parliament: Muhammad Al-Baltaji and Hazem Farouq."
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/6841211/__Hollandse_Hamasleider_was_erbij__.html&sl=nl&tl=en - "Rashed is the leader of Hamas in the Netherlands," said one intelligence source. Faaaaaaamn (talk) 13:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

3 of the dead dreamt of becoming martyrs: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898109,00.html

Some of the detainees went there specifically to attack soldiers - http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3897667,00.html

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 13:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

<-- This part seem unrelated at all

I changed the section title a bit to make it more clear. Hope that's okay.

It's unquestionably POV since it's statements attributed to Israel so that needs to be made clear. But according to their questioning of the activists, it seems that a large block of them were specifically planning before the trip even departed to attack Israeli soldiers. "... some 100 people infiltrated the peace and humanitarian aid activists making their way to Gaza, with the explicit design to attack Israeli soldiers using cold arms."

This definitely seems relevant and important. Where and how should it be added? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not only acourding to israeli media - see here: [8] Eldudarino (talk) 07:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

lol it's no surprise that memri is now in the front line of the PR battle..--Severino (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of International reactions section should be move to that page.

The section is starting to get long again with quotes one way or the other. There is an entire article devoted to this and as you can see in the discussion archive this was done specifically because the section was getting too long.

This section should go back to being a single paragraph, as discussed earlier, which neutrally covers the range of reactions, and directs to the main page. Zuchinni one (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am removing a large chunk of content in the international reactions section that already exists in the separate article.

There have been multiple discussions about this:

• Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_4#International_reaction

• Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_4#International_Reaction_2

• Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_3#International_response_in_lead

• Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_2#International_reactions_section

And there is a complete article for International reactions because the section was getting so long. Talk:International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid

The removed chunk will be placed here along with sources for ease of return if that is what people decide.

It is probably a good idea to limit this discussion to the wording of the paragraph that will be included in this article. As you can see from the discussions this has been a hot topic because it is difficult to keep a NPOV and many sources.

I am not at all opposed to fully lengthening this section, but that should be discussed before it is done since the entire purpose of the International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid article is to fully cover the international reactions.

Zuchinni one (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

BEGIN REMOVED CHUNK

The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency meeting at the request of Turkey, during which the Turkish foreign minister stated "Israel must be held accountable for its crimes" (prior to the meeting, the Palestinian ambassador to the UN called for an independent Security Council investigation). While the British ambassador said Israel should end the Gaza blockade and take steps for an investigation, the US deputy permanent representative supported the Israeli position that humanitarian aid should have gone by "accepted international mechanisms," and the Israeli deputy permanent representative said the flotilla was not humanitarian but had a mission of breaking the blockade. Turkey, the Palestinians and Arab states called for condemnation "in the strongest terms" and an independent international inquiry. 12 hours of negotiations were required to come up with a statement that suited all.

The United Nations Security Council's issued statement, which requested an "impartial" investigation of the deaths and condemned those "acts" that led to it.

As a result of the emergency meet that went into the early hours of the morning, the council agreed condemn the acts that resulted in the deaths and injuries aboard the Mavi Marmara. They also called for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards. This was different from what Turkey and the Arab states were demanded – an independent international investigation – leaving open the possibility of who would conduct the investigation.

NATO's Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the organization joined calls for a "prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation" into the raid.

Israel rejected calls by the international community for an independent investigation into the raid.

United states president wasn't quoted yrt directly. White House speaker summary is: "The president expressed deep regret at the loss of life in today's incident, and concern for the wounded". "The president also expressed the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances around this morning's tragic events as soon as possible"

Nobel-winning Elders deplore Gaza flotilla attack and called for a “full investigation” of the incident and urged the UN Security Council “to debate the situation with a view to mandating action to end the closure of the Gaza Strip.” “This tragic incident should draw the world’s attention to the terrible suffering of Gaza’s 1.5 million people..."

END REMOVED CHUNK

Zuchinni one (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with merging it into International reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid, but it seems this has only been deleted. Has anyone checked if the deleted part contains anything useful for that article? — Sebastian 19:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

At one point this information was in the other article. If it has been removed feel free to re-add. That's why I archived it here :) Zuchinni one (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian military expert

Can somebody please check this revert: [9] The expert is commenting on the photo, and on other photos, and the revert mischaracterizes the expert's opinion. The editor making the revert seems to suggest that we only should comment items shown in this particular photo, but we can't include all the photos in the article due to Non-free/Fair use and space concerns. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Didn't get a response yet, so I tried an alternative phrasing, hoping this is acceptalbe: [10] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 17:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The same sentence reverted again, partially by the same editor [11] and partially by another [12] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the second editor [13] --ReneJohnsen (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Based on the google translation[14], the reverts were proper, as " but that some of it was the types of weapons used in the Intifada" and " other types of knives and items appeared to be have been brought along for fighting with." seem to be adapted from the expert's comments on Israeli allegations, not what is in the photos.John Z (talk) 00:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The expert is commenting both on the photo shown on the right, and on the other photos. He is specifically saying that some of the knives in that photo don't belong on a ship and were brought for fighting, and that the clubs/handles also stand out. He is also commenting on the slingshots, which the Google translation mangles as "powerful pop-peas" and the gas masks, both of which are also shown in the video that he is commenting. He is not just commenting allegations. Here is the footage in question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvS9PXZ3RWM it shows alleged gas masks at 0:50 and the slingshots the Norwegian is commenting on at 0:32. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 07:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to make it clear what he is commenting on. I added qualifications about the clubs/handles and knives to make it closer to his statements. He does not seem to me to say that some of the knives don't belong (I covered that in my last edit) and were brought for fighting anywhere. The brought for fighting seems to refer to his "When it comes to the discovery of gas masks and powerful slingshots, then it may indicate that at least some on board were prepared to fight." "Når det gjelder funn av gassmasker og kraftige spretterter, så kan det tyde på at i alle fall noen om bord var forberedt på å slåss."John Z (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edit accurately describes what he says about that one image, but the article mentions more than one photo, and the expert says he has seen the videos from the IDF, and he's commenting on the gas masks and slingshots, and compares them to stuff used in the Intifada. Could we add on that "he said finds of slingshots and gas masks suggested that at least some on board were prepared to fight."--ReneJohnsen (talk) 10:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

When I last looked at it, it wasn't entirely clear to me that he had seen the videos or was just commenting on a description; as long as we make things clear and say nothing more than the article, I have no objection.John Z (talk) 01:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Google translation is not RS. Info about broom sticks, screwdrivers, wrenches, and other kitchen/garage tools still available to (as kind weapons) Palestinian people fighting Israeli tanks is inrelevant to the article since Intifada wasn't naval battle. Hovever the lack of stones make big difference. If ,the point, is very important for balanced coverage of Israeli threat by this kind arms race please elaborate on the importance. Do the picture show the kind of arms the Israeli government constantly invoke talking about Hamas arm build (as the picture seem to suggest in released by IDF this garbage collection) up, the lethal danger for existence of the state? Ai 00 (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I am Norwegian and understand the article without Google translation. Intifada doesn't have to be mentioned, but we have to accurately report that the expert says they're not military weapons, but that some of the items indeed appear brought along for the purpose of being used as weapons. --ReneJohnsen (talk) 07:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Czech Journalist

The previous sentence also needs some work: It is "One of the journalists from Czech Republic stated that no check of the baggage was done." Citing in Czech google translation. Relevant sentences are: Kontroloval někdo při vstupu na palubu, jestli u sebe máte zbraně? Ne, člověk si tam mohl pronést víceméně cokoli. Google trans: Someone checked when boarding, if you carry a gun? No, man is there to say anything more or less. So at most it may be saying that he, a journalist not on the Mavi Marmara, was not checked for a gun, but only questioned.John Z (talk) 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NONENG, English language sources are preferred, and a translation of the relevant part should be provided in cases like this. I have removed the sentence for the time being.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Listing dead people

At Gaza flotilla raid#Activists there is four people listed, but only one is notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Based on that I'm going to remove the three others. Please, comment if you are of different opinion of how the policy should be interpreted. --Kslotte (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think at the very least we need to list the names of the dead and their positions in society, whether they presently have a wikipedia article or not. Off2riorob (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

On what basis would the policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL, not apply here? --Kslotte (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been removed..

Israel has released the names of four of the dead:

• İbrahim Bilgen, a Turkish politician from the Felicity Party, engineer and activist.
• Ali Khaider Benginin, a Turkish citizen from Iraq's Kurdistan Region, and a graduate of Al-Azhar University in Cairo.
• Ali Akhbar Iritilmis, a father of four from Ankara.
• Muharram Kuchak, a Turkish human rights activist.

It doesn't look like a memorial to me, simply the cited names of some of the dead, one of them has his own article and the positions and nationalities of the dead is a part of the reporting. We should know what we can about the dead activists to reflect on what type of people the dead activists were. It;s imo important. Off2riorob (talk) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe, as a compromise, this could be added to List of participants of the Gaza flotilla? — Sebastian 19:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a compromise, rules apply to all Wikipedia articles. --Kslotte (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I did some digging about how to interpret the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTMEMORIAL: if a reader is reading the sources that support the event, names of the victims should be included when it helps to allow the reader to clearly understand the sources and the progression of the event

--Kslotte (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

And in this case I see only İbrahim Bilgen being notable enough to have a row in the article. The İbrahim Bilgen article has its own more stronger rules for "notability". --Kslotte (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What I see should be included is to what organizations the dead people belong, like "orgX 3, orgY 4, ...". --Kslotte (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

This is what happened... The three unnotables were mentioned in this article on Ynet specifically because of their stated desires for martyrdom prior to the incident. An editor bothered by that angle removed those details but left the names. I personally think the martyrdom angle is important here but can't find it sourced anywhere else.  &#151;Rafi  21:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

you can find it here [15] Eldudarino (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The martyrdom angle definitely violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Note also wikipedia is not a news site (WP:NOTNEWS), its an encyclopedia. --Kslotte (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that quotations such as "'I am going to be a shahid; I dreamt I will become a shahid – I saw in a dream that I will be killed,' Benginin told his family before leaving for the sail" are important for the context of the clash; those were aspiring martyrs wielding those metal bars.  &#151;Rafi  22:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL is inconclusive about listing small numbers of killed persons in articles about notable incidents (it does preclude granting them pages, or providing extended profiles). See the unresolved discussions here. However, within that unresolved discussion the following relevant points are made

• "Let me come back around to my point, because I think the key difference between where it seems appropriate to list victims and where it is not has to do when 1) it is a relatively small number of victims and that 2) they died at different times, likely by different means and for different reasons. That is, if a reader is reading the sources that support the event, names of the victims should be included when it helps to allow the reader to clearly understand the sources and the progression of the event."
• "Lists of the names and other relevant details of people killed in incidents, particularly violent acts, can have intrinsic encyclopedic information: this extends beyond the examples given above where people died in the same event but at different times and places. For example, the ranks or positions of persons killed give some idea of their relative importance in the event: such as those killed in the Brighton bombing, several of whom were notable in their own right. Their ages and nationalities give useful demographic information that can be expressed most neatly and completely in a properly formatted list and a list like this allows the addition of other relevant information, such as people who died later of injuries or those who may have placed themselves in harms way to save others. In theory this can all be written out in the text, but I cannot see a viable reason for forbidding a list when it can do the job much more simply."

Details of raid are sketchy right now but they will doubtless become more clear. Right now, it seems like there's a strong case for name, nationality, ship, and cause of death, for the reasons stated here.--Carwil (talk) 14:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Activists or passengers?

See also /Archive_2#Activists or passengers? - decision was to keep "passengers" for now. — Sebastian 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC), edited 21:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We should use activists. Passenger is a term for leisure activities or travel. Kasaalan (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

We should use "people", since there is no confimation that all dead were in fact activists. This is not a fact, but and assumption. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've directed several people to the other section. I will add a new link there to this Sticky part. Zuchinni one (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "people" seems to be the best choice for now. Any objections? — Sebastian 21:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

People is fine. Prodego ^talk 23:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm also in agreement with a neutral word like 'people'. 'Passengers' would be fine with me as well. Zuchinni one (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI: there seems to currently be an edit war on this subject. Zuchinni one (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli youths release balloons during a rally in support of the Israeli army

Israeli youths release balloons during a rally in support of the Israeli army.... http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-202_162-10003632.html --Nevit (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you stop posting irrelevant links you find interesting, particularly without any commentry on how they belong in this article? This is not your personal blog. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture show how irresponsibly the Israeli youth are celebrating the attack without any sign of regret for those who lost their lives in attack. how do you find this irrelevant? I did not post a comment since the picture speaks for itself. It is as self speaking as Barack Obama's suggestion that Israel can investigate the incident in which she is primary suspect. But not included in article.

I believe there are several Hasbara and NPOV issues in this wikipedia article. I suggest a NPOV tag added. I guess the pro-Israeli's would also support the suggestion, since many have ironically commented that article is not neutral enough for them.

• Smearing/defaming critics of Israel. Name calling: through the careful use of words, then name calling technique links a person or an idea to a negative symbol...

There are terms like pro-Palestinian (attributing activits to support a race), Islamist (attributing activists supporting a religion), in this article and related articles as prefix to names of people and organizations. Trying to discredit them and their actions. There is even a section claiming that the organizers had ties not only to Hamas, but also to global Jihad, and al Qaida etc. etc.

• Selective discussion of issues

Events leading up to the raid section has completely omitted the "Israeli politicians account" to attack the ships. Selective overuse of pictures supplied by released by Israel military. Distributing the article into several ones so that it becomes hard to follow. Selecting irrelevant issues as "they had sticks" as major issues. Omitting major issues as political backing of Barack Obama for Israel

--Nevit (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is not a blog or a forum. What you think the picture shows is irrelevant. Please stop spamming this talk page with irrelevant information. Where's Sean.hoyland when you need him? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Please do not attack me personally. The news source is a major news paper. It is relevant to article. Perhaps it disturbs you for some other reason. --Nevit (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not attacking you personally. Your opinion is just as irrelevant as mine. The picture is in a major newspaper, but the interpretation is yours. See WP:OR. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Blue Balloons are common in Israel to show support for the release of Ron Arad and Gilad Shalit. ShalomOlam (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is another document showing Isreeli's celebrating the killings. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMzc1N1Cx3s --Nevit (talk) 01:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop using the talk page in a forumy and soapboxy manner. You have been asked to more than once now. There of course will be some personal opinions expressed and that shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings. There of course should be some leeway. However, you should know by now that youtube is not RS. I can understand why people think you are using this page incorrectly looking at some of the other sections. How about you keep it to RSs? Nothing wrong with pointing out that there are celebrations or that Israel killed people but spamming the page with sources we cannot use is not helping and has gotten to the point where it is frustrating other editors.Cptnono (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, can an admin shoot him the ArbCom message: {{subst:Palestine-Israel enforcement}} Cptnono (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

By saying Youtube is not a RS, are you saying that these videos are forged? I believe these celebrations (If majority are in agree that they are celebrating) have to be included somewhere in the article. I stated that IDF sources are not reliable since they are propaganda material distributed bu an army involved in a deadly clash. These are ordinary videos captured by ordinary people showing the reactions of Israeli people. They are far more a RS that those distributed by Israel army. --Nevit (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Nevit just posting links showing how <insert random adjective e.g. evil> <insert random thing to be portrayed that way e.g. the IDF, kitchen utensils, thick gloves, people called Kevin etc> isn't helpful at all. If you have something you want added to the article you need to make specific content proposals based on RS. If you think something is relevant you need to say how, why and which bit of the article should be changed/updated or go ahead and update it yourself per WP:BRD if it is policy compliant. People just posting links because they like them is the wiki I-P conflict article equivalent of Hamas firing a rocket out of the Gaza Strip or the IDF crossing the border into Gaza to carry out a targeted killing. It doesn't exactly encourage collaboration. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is one of WP:PRIMARY sources. By insisting on secondary sources we can avoid the WP:POV issues that many editors, from both sides, are trying to introduce. This article is not a soapbox for the IDF. This article is not a soapbox for the flotilla organisers. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The article already has a lot of NPOV issues. There are too many Israeli I posted links from eyewitnesses, journalists who where on board etc. But the article has only 330 words from a journalist on board of Israeli ships. The article is ignoring too much of evidence in favor of one view. --Nevit (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

if the ballons were released in support of the soldiers, this indicates support for the massacre.a trist genre picture...--Severino (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Activists" sung Muslim songs glorifying the slaughter of Jews

Another source from the religion of peace. Should this go in the background section as well? TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it confirmed by multiple RS ? or is it just another youtube video ? --yousaf465 22:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The video was initially posted by Al Jazeera and Real Clear Politics is the source that I used since they explain a bit about the slaughter that is being sung about. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Source is pro-Israel Palestine Media Watch. So the footage is not a reliable 3rd party. I don't know arabic and couldn't hear any Battle of Khaybar chant. However if it is true we may include it in 1 line. Kasaalan (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually the original source is Al Jazeera. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know Arabic, and Palestine Media Watch isn't reliable. Al Jazeera has an English section, if you can find video/text there provide the link. Kasaalan (talk) 02:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I know enough Arabic to know that they are indeed singing about Jews. But other than that I can't tell you what's being said. And Kasaalan is right that Palestine Media Watch isn't NPOV at all. We need to find another reference. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• It is VERY clear and indisputable that they chant "Khyber! Khyber" ya Yahud!" which is a well-known "death to Jews" chant. Also, I dont know of anyone disputing PMWs translations. Our article says nothing about disputes. Even for MEMRI, they dispute the examples it selects, not their translations. Its really hard to get away with fake translations. And all of this is moot as my first sentence explains. Metallurgist (talk) 04:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean death to Jews. Ya Yahud means O jew just as Ya Allah. Khyber is with refrence to Battle of Khaybar. Urdu had it's origin in Arabic too.--yousaf465 07:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If we can verify the people chanting a war slogan, and they are telling "Kyhber, o Jews", and they are actually Mavi Marmara activists singing during the travel, we should include it with 1 line. No, MERI translations are questioned big time as well as their POV. Read relevant section. Battle of Khaybar was a siege by Muslim forces against Jewish forces, so it is a war slogan one way or another. Kasaalan (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar was more so a massacre of the Jews as it was time for dhar al hareb to continue, than Muslim forces vs. Jewish forces. The Jews were just trying to live in peace. .Saxophonemn (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

PMW is definitely not reliable, it's part of the wider hasbara network and has a clear agenda, which is everything but spreading the truth..--Severino (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)