Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Recurring topics

yellow

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/w/index.php?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)

close range shootings

The discussion has been moved to keep things organized.

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[Israel: remember 1947 and the Exodus ship - The Guardian][Exodus Revisited - The New York Times], [We've been here before ... but Israel has failed to learn lessons of history - Sydney Morning Herald], [Mavi Marmara and the Exodus - The New York Sun], as well as Israeli newspaper Haaretz[Fiasco on the high seas - 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^{idle vapourings} 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)

Not sure what you mean by We need to put forward a suggestion of the whole "See also" structure, I would refer to WP:SEEALSO, but as pointed out above, its pretty wishie-washy, and final editorial process ends here. I would leave it out for now. --Tom (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Agree  : there is an evident link in the story of the two "incidents". This link, or similarity, is the same part of world, the same geography . It could be easier for readers to understand the history if " exodus " is mentioned and linked directly in introduction or in another section. Samuel B52 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many other naval incidents that happened in the area. Some more relevant. For example Karine A Affair , Operation Four Species, and Struma (ship) (in which Turkey was responsible to the deaths of 768 men, women and children). I don't think that the Exodus is helpful in understanding the current article in any way. Marokwitz (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

=> This is not about Turkey but about State of Palestine and particulary about Gaza ( in which Israël was responsible to the death of 2,700 Palestinians, men, women and children by targeted killings, aerial bombings on ONU and university buildings - ex : article ) But the two "incident" also have similarities regarding the history of one land : the Palestine. How could we ignore that ? So, links are strongly recommended for understanding the situation and keeping accordance with Wikipedia policies as an internet encyclopaedia ( WP:SEEALSO ). Not only geography is concern, but it's also regarding Palestinian people and their history, and also State of Palestine. All links could be in "See also" section and "Exodus" in introduction. I live in France and even in French-speaking Countries, journalists have made the connection between the "Freedom Flotilla" and the "Exodus" ( ex :"from exodus to freedom flotilla" article). I agree we need to discuss about the " See also section" contents. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

New testimony from passenger on Marmara

I don't have time right now, but there is new testimony here: [1] 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[2] which has more accounts of passengers who say the same things. This NY Times article[3] 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: [4] --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^{idle vapourings} 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)

Do you have a link to this video? I've only seen fragments, sometimes heavily edited, but nothing that establishes a sequence of events. I think it is likely that the IDF tried to board from the sea first, but most sources seem to indicate they were not successful.Ketil (talk) 13:28, 11 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)

Sorry, but I see no manner problem in what I've wrote. You, maybe not only you, should read WP:DRAMA and WP:CONSENSUS. Yes, I don't have any idea what "consensus" you are always talking about any time you want to make new edit, you actually go many times against consensus but wrote in the edit summary line "this was discussed heavily on the TP" or something like that, like there was a consensus-while there wasn't. I didn't even start speaking about the way you treat sources or refer to other editors and etc as "pro Israelis". So please, find real consensus before editing and don't give lessons about polite behavior or assuming good faith (however, you can practice it yourself). --Gilisa (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot thickens - ITC Report / 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)

On the other hand, there is an indication that Netanyahu wanted this boarding to be violent. Otherwise, why attack at 4:30 in the morning? Boarding a ship with 600 passengers who don't really agree with you government in the early hours of the morning is hardly a sensible crowd-control tactic. Physchim62 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

A late night boarding is standard military procedure specifically because it *is* a very effective crowd control tactic. Rklawton (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Physchim62, your defense of Erdogan and attack on Netanyahu is completely OR. You haven't seen Malam's evidence. I'm sure this story will develop, and when it does, we'll summarize the RS's.  —Rafi  22:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's very effective strategy indeed considering latest events.. Anyways, I must side with Physch on this one, I dont think conspiracy theories are WP:RS. So unless we get a reliable unbiased source, this is useless to article.--Cerian (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, otherwise we can just as well cite the now well published, and far fetched, claim that the Flotilla attack was timed to coincide with a PKK attack on Turkish troops. See: http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/163791/analysis/20100531_brief_ppk_attack_turkey_curious_time FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm reading the same Haaretz report as everyone else, and I can't see the slightest shread of evidence to back up the claim they make about Erdogan knowing about the plans in advance. If someone makes a claim like that – and it's a very big claim to make – then I want to know what sort of evidence they're basing it on. It's like the IDF claim a few days ago that five of the activists had links to Al-Qaeda: two days later, the IDF was forced to admit that they didn't have any evidence on which to base that claim, they just said it anyway. For the moment, this seems like bog-standard military intox. Physchim62 (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI, here is link to the actual ITC report which has been referenced by Haaretz.

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e110.htm

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Note - at least according to the ITC, the captain said these 40 IHH "security personnel" departed with the ship from Istanbul, while the rest of the passengers didn't get on board until Antalya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob drobbs (talk • contribs) 22:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's hardly a huge scoop of new information: the ITC could have found that out by reading the (English-language) Turkish press on the day of the raid [5]! Physchim62 (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's the link! 42 passengers boarded in Istanbul and 504 in Antalya (third paragraph of the article). Physchim62 (talk) 02:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Haaretz.com. What is the basis for referring to it as unreliable? Rklawton (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz itself is a reliable source: it is one of Israel's leading newspapers. I was questioning the reliability of the underlying ITC report, or at least Bob's summary of it. Physchim62 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz is obviously a reliable source, just like Hürriyet for example. But that doesn't mean much. Even the IDF, as a government organisation, and Press TV are reliable sources in this sense. The huge problem of the IDF website and Press TV is their bias. Many news-style articles on the IDF website promise something in their headlines (such as Al Qaeda ties of the Mavi Marmara activists) which they don't even take up in the main text. And the main text is then full of obvious distortions. Similar problems with Press TV are well known, and they have pushed even holocaust denial. Haaretz has similar bias problems to a limited degree. They are much more likely to carry unconfirmed rumours and conspiracy theories that fit Israeli world views than newspapers from other regions. When they come out with sensational news confirming their bias that is not taken up on a wide scale by the international press, then we can be pretty sure it was simply false to begin with. Hans Adler 23:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sounds pretty much like an unreliable source, then. Rklawton (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the question is more "is the point of view of the ITC notable?" If so, if we want to put in a sentence along the lines of "The ITC believes that the violence was planned in advance and that a violent confrontation with Israel was the very objective of the flotilla," then Haaretz is an excellent secondary source for that. Personally, I don't think the report is that notable at all, as there is very little new information in there and the analysis is obviously designed to reach a politically predetermined conclusion, but if other want to put it in as the opinion of the ITC then fair enough. Physchim62 (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just not seeing any real evidence in this article. Wikipedia standards specifically state that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". Zuchinni one (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What Zuchinni one said. The article mentions "laptop files" but that could be anything. If this story gains traction in the next few days it could become notable, but not yet.

There has been notable criticism of Erdogan's handling of the incident, though, like [6], [7], etc. That might be worth a mention in the reactions article if it's not already there.  —Rafi  03:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All you wrote about HaAretz's reliability are speculations. The fact is that HaAretz is known to be an extreme left wing newspaper, with pro-palestinian agenda, that opposes the current right wing government in Israel. Som if they print something that is in support of this government - I would think that it will be extrimly reliable. ShalomOlam (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My own view is that we already give undue weight to Israeli propaganda; this is another clear example. They have convinced themselves that their attack on a civilian ship by armed men at night in International waters and the murder of nine civilians unarmed is somehow OK. Wiki should not be reflecting that nonsense in this article. Sarah777 (talk) 08:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If there is propaganda in HaAretz, it's not pro-Israeli-Govermment-propaganda, but against it, and pro-palestinian agenda. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Your claim may make sense in an Israeli context, but if that is so then it only shows how much Israeli views of the conflict are out of touch with the international views. (And I am mostly thinking of Germany and the UK here, not of Iran.) But I am sceptical, because it does sound a bit like the ludicrous but tiresome claims from the American right wing that the there is a "liberal bias" in American media. Hans Adler 09:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First, Hans Adler, I want to address the issue-not only Israeli RS argue that Erodgan knew before fact about the violence, but many others-also in Turkey. Evidently, knifes and clubs were found on board, and it was under his own responsibility to avoid this situation. It's a known fact that he take Turkey to Islamic oriented path, yesterday the U.S defense minister told it himself, so he clearly had a reason to clash with Israel and the arguments about this being a fringe theory are weak at least as the ridiculous as the notion according which the Israeli PM had any slightest interest for the all incident to get into violent tone. Second, U.K and Germany opinion, as well as other European countries opinion is almost traditionally anti Israeli. I'm not talking about the governments, but about the people they represent. Europe is still a place where anti Antisemitism of all forms prosper according to many studies, so there will always pressure from the public to be harsh with Israel. As one Dutch member of parliament told "attacking Israel is cheap". Also, Europe share larger financial interests with countries hostile to Israel than with Israel and as Obama presents different and new attitude through Israel, and his foreign policy is what I consider as very weak, the situation of Israel is not simple. But my opinion is that Israel should not wait and see if you hail it, it should do what's on its best interest even if it conflict with public opinion in "the rest of the world" as long as it serve it. That is what autonomic countries do all the time. However, this time I'm afraid the Israeli leader have fallen into a very well seen trap. --Gilisa (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is likely that Turkish government knew about the planned violence, or at least suspected it, given the IHH's previous record of arms acquisition etc and pronounced dreams of martyrdom. OTOH, I doubt there were firearms on board, it seems likely that IDF would have presented bullets or other evidence. As somebody pointed out above, the flotilla had no hope of actually winning a confrontation, and killing soldiers would only serve to even out the casualties, lessening the impact. But the "we checked" statement is hollow, there must be thousands of ways to hide a gun in a ship like this, and people routinely manage to smuggle guns past airport checkpoints in spite of gigantic TSA budgets. In all, I'm very unsure about the Turkish agenda here, they also were very vocal about condemning the Israeli action.Maybe they see EU and to some extent NATO as has-beens (plausible, giving the financial crisis, especially in their next-door neighbor Greece), and are aiming to strengthen ties eastwards, rather than west? Okay - so much for opinion. I think background information like this is relevant, even if of questionable origin. Ketil (talk) 08:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

1 most possibly true 2 might be true 3 not sure 4 most possibly true 5 most of the passengers lead inside the ship and deck some 10-20 group with other more violent group "defended" the board. According to some activist and journalist accounts, they tried to use pressure water against boats at the back, the one using water shot in the head. There were around 10 men on board to "defend" ship, rest of the passengers were inside ship. After people killed some more went out. They were trying to use broom sticks for making sound, and as a threat at first, after shootings it turned into chaos. There were a small group acting independently from the rest of the passengers. They also throw soda bottles to prevent boarding. By the way it is not late boarding, it is early boarding, at the exact time of morning prayer ritual of Muslims during 4:40 am. Kasaalan (talk) 10:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The boarding time was 4:30 - so it was not the exact time of morning prayer. Rklawton (talk) 12:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is turning into a WP:FORUM...  —Rafi  15:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it turns into a forum when people start arguing the IDF position or, in this case, the position of a private body making claims on the basis of non-public statements taken by Israeli state officials... Physchim62 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of the comments above are guesses and the discussions of possible motivations regarding the claims in the mentioned story. Even if this whole thing is not a conspiracy, we need some strong, factual, and multiple sources to include something this serious in the article. Please see WP:REDFLAG. --386-DX (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with physchim62. Everyone can please stop arguing. None of this matters until it starts showing up in addition RS. If that happens, then we can begin again discussing what should be added and where. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no justification to ignore this story in the article. It is clearly notable, and there are several RS reporting it, not just Haaretz (which by the way, is a perfectly RS). If we're talking about an Israeli probe, then cite it as an Israeli probe in the article. But censoring is not something that we do on Wikipedia. Here are a few examples of the English sources I have found mentioning it. It is also widely reported in Hebrew media (naturally, since it's an Israeli probe). [8] [9] [10] Breein1007 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Even if there was previous justification to ignore Israeli sources. We now have this being reported on in the Australian press. So, it's time to add something.

The question is now, "How much weight do we give it"? There seem to be a lot of various accusations in the report. How much do we condense it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we might now have consensus since some are arguing that Israeli RS are enough, and others are arguing that we need non-Israeli RS (which we now have). Unless someone objects, I'm going to add something soon about this report. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of Israeli wounded

The section in the lead which says seven Israelis were wounded is marked "dubious" – why is that? The figure of seven is widely reported in RS; it's not independently verifiable, but it seems plausible given the other information we have. Physchim62 (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's from a reliable source and its verifiable, then it meets our standards for inclusion. Rklawton (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, the "dubious" tag is gone now anyway. That's one problem sorted, at least! Physchim62 (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports an update on injuries on board the Mavi Mamara: A total of seven soldiers were wounded - four soldiers were moderately wounded, of which two were initially in critical condition, as well as an additional three soldiers who were lightly wounded. ShalomOlam (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I put dubious there, since the section on Casualties claim ten wounded, and eight hospitalized the day after. Although there's plenty of sources claiming this or that, it would be nice if the article tries to be consistent. I think it's okay to just report whatever the latest IDF report is. Ketil (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't get throught to IDF, so I'm changing it to "at least seven", until we can find a definite source. If you change it again, make sure to clean up and make consistent the Israeli casualties section as well.Ketil (talk) 08:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Which somebody gratuitously reverted...why? Ketil (talk) 11:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Another discrepancy: The lead claims 663 people in the flotilla, yet the IDF has arrested 682 people. Where did the extra 19 come from, and probably nine more, since the dead probably aren't arrested? Ketil (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Crew on the ships? I don't know, it's just a thought. Physchim62 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Order of accounts

Here's an interesting edit: [11]. put Journalists accounts behind activists, due to alphabetic order and the fact that there were not activists than journalists on board

Of course, we could rename it the Passengers' account and then the alphabetic order would be Israel, Journalists, Passengers. ;-)

Once we decide on a fair logic for the order we should also put an apostrophe in Activists'.  —Rafi  01:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We could also merge all three sections into one that is verified by 2 of the 3.Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to have a chronologcal sequence of events, each stating the opposing views when there is disagreement. I'm not sure journalists are much more credible here than the participants anyway. Ketil (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the biggest next step for this page. The passengers accounts section could go on forever with so many. I think we need to figure out a way to consolidate it into one section. We have several key points that are verified by Israel, activists, and media witnesses. I don't even know where to begin and I assume it will be contentious. The story is old enough now that there are some firm details. I'm not saying we need to get rid of "so and so said x,y,z" but not every passenger that speaks to their local paper deserves a line. This is especially true when it says the same thing as 100 others or contradicts 100 others. Cptnono (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree with all comments so far, especially "I don't even know where to begin and I assume it will be contentious." :)  —Rafi  14:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We should consider the readers. Given the title of this article, readers will likely approach the subject with the question: "what the hell happened?" With this in mind, organizing the article chronologically with witness accounts inline and in sufficient quantity to illustrate this chronology and points of view regarding the events outlined in the chronology makes a lot of sense. Rklawton (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No one has taken action, so for now I'm moving the section to where I would prefer it. Before you accuse me of WP:POINT, let me say that this was the order of the sections for a long time, and it's quite defensible.  —Rafi  21:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

One problem with the current setup is that it doesn't establish the sequence of events. I think they are something like:

1. The flotilla is warned repeatedly by the IDF to change course, and that they will be stopped forcibly if they refuse. They refuse.

2. IDF tries to board from boats, and are sucessfully repelled by the activists, using hoses, bottles, etc.

3. IDF having failed to board by boat, boards from helicopters, and we've all seen the videos. IDF lose control, three soldiers are taken hostage. Nine dead.

4. The remaining ships are boarded, passengers and crew detained and transported to Israel, and subsequently deported.

Could we have subsections like this, for instance? Then controversies could be (at least be attempted) put in the relevant context. The down side is that many accounts don't seem to specify or even care about the chronology. Ketil (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

UN Human Rights Council

The sentence about the the UN Human Rights Council suggests that it is a neutral body. However it is clear from the UN Human Rights Council article that this body is heavily biased against Israel. Surely this needs stating to provide a proper context. --Redaktor (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How come it's biased? You do know that it's an intergovernmental body of UN right?--Cerian (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

All that being an "intergovernmental body of the UN" means is that it's a collection of the biases of it's members. And some of the countries within the UNHRC have immense anti-Israeli bias (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc.). Even before getting the results of the "impartial" investigation they've called for, they're condemning in the "strongest terms" the "outrageous attack" by the IDF.

Just because some of its members have an anti-Israeli bias, that does not affect its neutralty, since some of its members also have a pro-Israeli bias. The council has members from 47 countries from all around the world, and 32 of them voted in support of the resolution. Only 3 countries voted against it. That is because the profound context regarding the event; that the Israeli forces attacked an aid ship in international waters using deadly force, was evident from the very beginning. The UNHRC didn't call for an "impartial" investigation, they called for an "independent" investigation. And even when you remove all the Arab countries' votes, there is still an overwhelming majority. --386-DX (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd call that biased. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How the UN Human Rights Council is biased? Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhWgZu6tcZU ShalomOlam (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence doesn't suggest that it is a neutral body. It contains no information about assessments of bias nor should it. This article isn't about the UN Human Rights Council. What seems more important is that the sentence appears in the lead and not the article body which is inconsistent with WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The sentence contains profound information regarding the international reaction to the event, which is a very significant portion of the article, and therefore consistent with WP:LEAD. As I mentioned above; the council contains members from 47 countries from all around the world, only 3 of which voted against the resolution. --386-DX (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sean here. This sentence simply does not belong in the lead. The main reactions section was so big it needed its own article. While the statements from the UNHRC are worthy of going there, it is unclear why it belongs in the lead and what it adds to the overall article. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article. If information is not in the article body it cannot be in the lead. It's as simple as that. So, that information needs to be present in the reactions section in order to even be considered for inclusion in the lead. But the reactions section should be a summary of the Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid article (i.e. it should resemble or be a copy of the lead from that main article). The information about the UNHRC isn't even in the lead of the reactions article. So, if RS demonstrate that it is really as significant as you say then it should be present in 4 places, the main reactions article body, the main reactions article lead, the reactions section in this article and the lead of this article. It's currently only present in the first of those 4 and the lead of this article. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

While the lead should contain summary information with due weight, there is no rule that states that everything mentioned in the lead should be mentioned in the article itself as well. There actually was mention of UNHRC in the article, but it was recently removed by someone claiming that the article was becoming too long. We may consider adding it again. --386-DX (talk) 09:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." is what WP:LEAD says. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

UNHRC does little else besides condemning Israel, so this is hardly news. It certainly has no place in the lead without explaining the position of UNHRC. --Redaktor (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could have given a policy based reason instead... Sean.hoyland - talk 09:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There are also lots more critics of UNSC for being pro-Isareli, but that doesn't make their statement any less important to be included in the lead. We should note that the critics of UNHRC mostly blame it for "focusing too much on Israel", not for having an anti-Israeli bias. Even if some were to claim that UNHRC has an anti-Israeli bias, we should note that only 3 of the 47 countries in the council voted against this resolution. --386-DX (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with 386-DX, this information should be included in the Lead and the neutrality or otherwise of a UN body is irrelevant. Mo ainm~Talk 11:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The council voted to condemn Israel's action. The council then called for an international investigation. One would expect an unbiased council to first call for and then complete an investigation. Instead, they acted like a judge who condemned the accused before the trial ever began. Hence, their bias is obvious. How can any group condemn an event without first investigating the facts? Rklawton (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You know that anyone can remove comments like this per WP:TALK ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject in this section is whether or not the council is unbiased. The comment which you threaten to remove addresses this subject by citing and analyzing the council's statement and so should not be removed. Rklawton (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The reason they called for an investigation was to get the details of the event. The council condemned Israel's action because Israel attacked a civilian aid flotilla in international waters and used deadly force. The details of the event do not change that. Please read the text. We could go ahead and debate the politics of this for days, but this talk page is not the place for that. --386-DX (talk) 12:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, you seem to misunderstand what a threat is. Let me be clear, if you continue to post your opinions about the real world I will remove your comments per WP:TALK. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how do you chose who to make this sort of threat towards? There are plenty of people posting their opinions on this page. You don't even have to scroll far to find some. Why Rklawton and nobody else? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I chose the person that catchs my eye at the time. It's true, there are plenty of people posting their personal opinions on this page many of which fly in the face of the sanctions and it needs to stop. You and others could help with that by reminding people that comments must comply with WP:TALK and removing them if they continue to misuse the talk page. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

so somebody claims the UNHRC is biased...others also would say that the US gvt. is biased (for example).--Severino (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This conversation seems somewhat pointless. I'd suggest we collapse per Wikipedia:NOT#FORUM. NickCT (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There's some WP:OR, but most of the thread seems OK to me. From an article perspective, I'd like to see it explain to non-Israeli readers that Israel has some historic antipathy towards the UN. I do agree that some of the comments in this thread have strayed well into personal opinion territory. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I just recently removed the sentence because it seemed like an obvious misfit, then got reverted, then came back and found this thread.

• First of all, the UNHRC's vote didn't get much attention in the media from what I've seen, and the fact that the UNHRC is unhappy and wants an investigation doesn't add much once we know that the UNSC is unhappy and wants an investigation.
• Second, the sentence interrupts the train of thought: The United Nations Security Council ... called for the immediate release of civilians held by Israel. ... The UN Human Rights Council condemned Israel ... Israel responded that it would release 620 of the 682 arrested people...
• Third, we need to cut down this paragraph; the UN is taking up about as much space in the lead as the actual clash.

I propose that we at least move the sentence into the body.  —Rafi  00:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rafi, that seems like a very reasonable compromise. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments on weapons found

"A senior military Norwegian officer Palle Ydstebø said that the pictures show no military weapons and many common items found on any boat, but that some of the items are effective battlefield weapons, including types of weapons used in the intifada, and indicate that some activists may have premeditated violence."

The source never mentions "effective battlefield weapons" or anything similar. He says (translation mine, may be inaccurate) "Concerning finds of gas masks and strong slingshots, it may indicate that at least someone on board was prepared to fight. The strong slingshots are of the same type used during the intifada. If people are hit by these slingshots on short range, it may hit eyes and lead to serious damage."

Original: "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. De kraftige sprettertene er av samme type som ble brukt under intifadaen. Blir mennesker truffet av disse sprettertene på kort avstand, kan det gå øyne og føre til stygge skader"

There are also comments on the damage possible with wooden sticks and knives that "can damage and in some cases be fatal".

"If people are hit from these slingshot at a short distance, it can destroy eyes and lead to ugly wounds". Ketil (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The section on weapons found is fairly important. It would be good to have some sources in English on this.

213.243.163.221 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the section and the translation which mention battle field weapons (emphasis added).

"Second, the large number of ax and hammer handles. solid wooden handles is very good as a battlefield weapon, and there can be some of these that we see used in the movies IDF has released, continues Ydstebø.

"- Det andre er det store antallet økse- og sleggeskaft. solide treskaft er veldig gode som slagvåpen, og det kan være noen disse som vi ser brukt på de filmene IDF har frigitt, fortsetter Ydstebø."

"battlefield" is wrong, "veldig gode ... slagvåpen" means "very good striking weapons". Ketil (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vg.no%2Fnyheter%2Futenriks%2Fmidtosten%2Fartikkel.php%3Fartid%3D10008056&sl=no&tl=en

Personally I believe that a non-biased analysis of the IDF photos is very important to be included in the article. Does anyone question Ydstebø's bias? But I do agree that a non-biased expert report from an English RS would be far better. Anyone have one? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Is a kitchen knife, a wrench, or a railing really a "weapon"? Is that what the dictionary calls any of these items? If these sort of items were used in a clash, then propose "improvised weapons" as a more accurate term. Honestly if someone comes into my home and I dash their noggin with a frying pan, would I be accused of having had a "weapon" in my home? The way this article had been edited, yes, I would. So, propose simply listing what was used by the passengers, without adding the word "weapon" as a descriptor. Or else term them "improvised weapons." RomaC (talk) 22:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A weapon is a tool used for hurting or damaging people. Clearly, iron railings and kitchen knives are weapons when used to attack people. (If the burglar attacked you with a kitchen knife or baseball bat, would you call it an unarmed attack?) "Improvised weapons" covers a lot of it, but not slingshots and the alleged guns. Ketil (talk) 11:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Improvised weapons" implies there was no advance preparation for violence, which is disputed. If it's used as a weapon, it is fair to retrospectively call it a weapon, whether it's for self defense or for aggression, as reflected by RS. If there's a specific sentence that uses the word "weapon" in a way you find misleading, do say so.  —Rafi  01:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to go with "improvised weapons" the sole purpose of these items is not to take into battle, but obviously can cause damage if used in a fight. Mo ainm~Talk 11:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New sentence in lead

I am adding the following to the lead:

Israel has accused the IHH of sending a group of activists on the MV Mavi Marmara determined to instigate violence; the IHH rejects the accusation.

This covers a lot of details that might otherwise belong in the lead: the Jihadist rhetoric, the on-board weapons, the suspicion that some activists had their own guns, the "mercenary" accusations, etc.

There might be legitimate length concerns here. If so, I recommend shortening the "reactions" paragraph as discussed above.  —Rafi  19:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would not agree to this addition as it gives undue weight to the Israeli side of events. Mo ainm~Talk 19:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Object ;) who is "Israel" in this sentence; why does it have to be in the lead? Has any international secondary source picked up on the hallucino-allegations? Have you read the long discussion about the ITC report above? Physchim62 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No strong objection. Per Physchim62, I'd like to see a specific term rather than "Israel" (either "the Israeli government" or "the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs"). I don't have a problem citing an Israeli claim to the Israeli government, and I don't have a problem with the Washington Post cite for the IHH denial. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 20:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's very clear that "Israel" refers to the Israeli government here. This sentence in its current form contains some good summary info as Rafi5749 mentioned, so I'd support its inclusion. Although it reflects an Israeli government POV, the sentence clearly states that it is the claim of the Israeli side and not necessarily a fact, plus it also gives the IHH POV as well. --386-DX (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It'd be even clearer if we said "the Israeli government" when we meant "the Israeli government" ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 20:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It does need some polish. Every Israeli official has been saying this since the incident; I should also find a better RS to reflect that. See also some of the American reactions at Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid#Media; it's not just Israel.  —Rafi  20:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

*"Every Israeli official"—with some notable exceptions, of course.  —Rafi  20:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case, it should be balanced by a phrase such as "The IDF have yet to explain why they killed civilians in "self-defence" with shots from both sides of the body, nor how an unarmed photographer was killed with a bullet wound to the middle of forehead, and has refused any independent questioning of IDF members taking part in the raid." Physchim62 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And if we wanted to promote agendas, we could make a list of all the nonsensical claims by activists or their supporters. Let's stick to the facts please. Ketil (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That sort of sentiment does appear in the lead. The reactions paragraph quotes some pretty strong condemnations of Israel.  —Rafi  21:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming Sean didn't see that because it's green.

Anyway, saying "Israel said" or "Israel has accused" is quite acceptable assuming it came from some official government organ. This sort of language is pretty common. It's obvious it refers to the government. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli ambassador Spain interviewed in Spanish press

The article currently carries a reference to a source in Catalan, which relatively few readers will be able to verify. El Periodico appears to publish in both Spanish and Catalan, and if there is a choice between the two, the Spanish version would be the better one to cite, as Spanish is more widely understood abroad. I have also found the following [12] story in The Guardian (UK newspaper). This is in English and appears to say that the ambassador made relatively strong statements, which led to questions and clarification. The statement in the article at the moment is about what the ambassador didn't say, which seems to be putting the cart before the horse and could be confusing to readers. So I suggest that the Guardian article should be used as first priority, failing that, use the Spanish-language press in preference to Catalan. This is of course just one of many non-English sources cited in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That might be my fault! Can you give me the reference and I'll quickly find you the Spanish version (and offer an English translation for checking). Physchim62 (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Current reference 159. Looking at it again, though, I think it is in Spanish, although from a newspaper published in Catalonia. Could you check out whether the Guardian article can substitute for it entirely? Unless we are quoting verbatim from a source, we don't need a translation. Sorry for this error; there are a lot of non-English references to check out. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the link already links to the Spanish version of the article: it's an interview, and the relevant portion is

—Su Gobierno dice que llevaban armas. ¿Por qué no las muestran a la comunidad internacional?
—Se ve en los vídeos. Se ve el cóctel molotov, se ve la granada de choque, se ven los golpes durísimos que han sufrido los soldados. Todo eso se ve en el vídeo. Y se ve a los soldados con heridas bastante graves. Nunca hemos dicho que esta flotilla llevara armas para los terroristas de Hamás. Hemos dicho que en el pasado detuvimos barcos que lo hicieron, y ese es uno de los motivos del bloqueo.

for which I offer the translation

—Your government says that they had weapons. Why don't you show them to the international community?
—You can see them in the videos. You can see the molotov cocktail, the shock grenade, you can see the really hard blows received by the soldiers. All of this is in the video. And you can see soldiers with pretty serious wounds. We never said that this flotilla was carrying arms for Hamas terrorists. We said that, in the past, we have stopped boats that were [carrying arms], and this is one of the reasons for the blockade.

In both cases, the italics are mine and the boldface represents the journalist's question. Physchim62 (talk) 22:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I should mention as well that this interview caused a minor storm in Spain, as the ambassador compared the number of deaths in the raid with the number of deaths on Spanish roads the previous weekend: the ambassador apologized the next day for that comparison. Physchim62 (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I saw that there was a controversy, big enough to have been noticed by the UK press. Can we use the Guardian article instead of El Periodico? Itsmejudith (talk) 23:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, not with the sentence as it is. The article in The Guardian goes with the controversy over the comparison with road deaths (which was front page news over here) but doesn't include the point about "we never said this flotilla was carrying arms for the Hamas terrorists". Physchim62 (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this really relevant? I mean, is anybody claiming Israel is claiming they were transporting guns? Are we going to use this article to document every thing said and not said and claimed said and.. my opinion is that we should limit this article to the most central issues, and that this is not one of them. Ketil (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possibly a good cite for the blockade article; I'm not seeing how it's useful here, though. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

New source for Israeli reports

Very sadly, this is the only English source I can find for this story. So far, anyway... but I won't be the least bit surprised if the Western media chooses to ignore this interesting little twist. Anyway, it's all over Israeli Hebrew media... it should be mentioned in the article. Breein1007 (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. The material on board represents humanitarian aid in most people's eyes: this is simply just a propaganda rehash of what was on board the ships. Physchim62 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. You appear to have misread the article. According to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, there was no humanitarian aid on the Marmara. The list of aid in that article is what was found on other ships. Breein1007 (talk) 22:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm.. Even if it's true, that's not a big deal let alone a twist, as Mavi Marmara is a passenger ship, it's not expected of it to carry stuff. That's why there are other ship's designed to carry cargo. Btw, I understand that you think western media is against Israel, that's the reason why they don't publish this kind of stuff. Don't you think it's a bit naive?--Cerian (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is none of your business to be judging what is a big deal or not on Wikipedia. That's WP:OR. And if we're going to be sharing personal analysis here, then actually, it is a very big deal. The Marmara was insistent on breaking the blockade and making its way to Gaza in order to deliver crucial humanitarian aid. But it turns out there was no humanitarian aid on the ship. All the aid was contained on the other ships which were already on their way to the port in Ashdod. The Marmara was the only one left, with no humanitarian aid, but still insisted on challenging Israel. Why? Hmm. Tough question! Refer to the section about your PM Erdogan above to get the answer. Breein1007 (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, culpa mea, I misread the article. But the article contradicts the testimony of one of the officers of the Mavi Marmara, a testimony which was considered sufficiently important that the ITC reproduced it in its recent report: "The cargo, which was loaded in Istanbul, consisted of drugs and basic merchandise (which could be seen by the lettering on the packages)." Physchim62 (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does contradict it. Which is why it is something that should be included in the article, to show that the Turkish activists said one thing, but the Israeli Foreign Ministry said the opposite. If we ignore Israel's story on Wikipedia, we are deciding that the Turkish activists told the truth and Israel lied. This is against Wikipedia's policies. We are not the judge of truth here. Breein1007 (talk) 22:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No, not the "Turkish activists" saying something different, but a member of the crew of the ship, whom the ITC chose to quote the results of his interrogation (an act of very dubious legality) because it felt that the account might be useful to them. Physchim62 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"All the aid was contained on the other ships which were already on their way to the port in Ashdod. The Marmara was the only one left, with no humanitarian aid, but still insisted on challenging Israel."

If the other ships were heading towards Ashdod, why were they all violently boarded? FFS, does Israel have only idiots at the head of its press offices? Do they really think that they can make people believe that 1+1=3, or do they just not care? Physchim62 (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, they were following the lead ship, Mavi Marmara, they weren't on their way to Ashdod. Secondly, it's my business as all who are here, to discuss what is relevant,important or reliable for to make article better. Thirdly, I'm not the one who accuses western media for their ethical rules. Lastly, this can be mentioned but not in a way as you proposed. --Cerian (talk) 22:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment You're reading too much into what the source is and isn't saying. By the Israeli definition of what constitutes humanitarian aid, there was no humanitarian aid on the ship. By the global definition—what the United Nations, or an international charity organization would define as humanitarian aid (see Humanitarian aid)—there was. How is this possible? Simple - they have different definitions of what constitutes aid. For instance, is expired medication considered humanitarian aid (expired medication is often just as effective as unexpired medication, and is more readily donated because it can't be sold)? It is per the global definition, but not according to the Israeli government's definition. Is cement necessary to rebuild schools and bombed out houses? Again, yes by the global definition, but not according to the Israeli government. And that's the whole reason the flotilla was attempting to break the blockade—they wanted to deliver supplies they deemed necessary to "save lives, alleviate suffering, and maintain human dignity", which the Israeli government wouldn't let them deliver. ← George ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• That would be true, were it not for the phrase "and had only the passengers' personal belongings". Physchim62 (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Ignoring the SOAPBOX for a second, Israel was willing to allow the aid to be delivered after inspection. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, I see, so they're reporting that one of the ships was only carrying passengers? I'm sitting here with a thought bubble over my head asking "So what?" ← George ^talk 23:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we put this information in the table that describes the ships and what they were carrying? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

Concerns about the article belong here; concerns about editors, however, should be raised with them, on their talk pages, or escalated to dispute resolution.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:Bob drobbs seems to be editing this article exclusively. Assuming good faith, I nevertheless question whether this account was created for the purposes of advocacy of a specific point of view in violation of Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality. Any response to this? User:Pedant (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC) The response is that this is the wrong place. Please review WP:TALK. Breein1007 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC) See my talk page for a fuller response. But I believe that every comment I've made in the discussions (and the very few edits I've made) have all been made in good faith with the ideas of truth, fairness, and good writing in mind. Considering this is the wrong place for this discussion, can we just delete it? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I've collapsed it. As a courtesy, I'd like to see concerns about editors raised with them, on their talk pages, not dragged into article talk pages. If editors are unhappy about approaching other editors, I'm happy to volunteer for anything... and there's always WP:DR. TFOWRidle vapourings 11:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

UNHRC

I think the sentence should be moved from the lead, for the following reasons:

1. The UNHRC's vote hasn't gotten much attention in the scheme of things.
2. The fact that the UNHRC is unhappy and wants an investigation doesn't add much once we know that the UNSC is unhappy and wants an investigation.
3. The sentence interrupts the train of thought: The United Nations Security Council ... called for the immediate release of civilians held by Israel. The UN Human Rights Council condemned Israel ... . Israel responded that it would release 620 of the 682 arrested people...
4. We need to cut down this paragraph; the UN is taking up about as much space in the lead as the actual clash.

I removed the sentence before and was reverted. It should at least be moved.  —Rafi  02:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rafi here. The UNHRC's statements are valid and should be mentioned in some way, but the lead is not the place for them. This statement in particular would be better off in the Legal article or the Reactions article. Zuchinni one (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Basically, the UNHRC is not an important organization, so it shouldn't be taking up room in the lead. It should be somewhere in the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo that shouldn't appear here

Hello. The photo named "IDF soldier treated" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Idf_soldier_treated.png) should not appear here, or at least appear with the soldier's face blurred. Soldiers from these special units never have their faces shown on the media- it's a risk for them and for security in general. I hope those of you who can replace or edit it will do what's needed instead of teasing just because of your political opinion. Thanks a lot. --94.159.137.27 (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, but why should IDF soldiers be privileged to special treatment that other people involved weren't? I understand that face blurring etc. is being done by some organizations but why should we be compelled to go along? Clearly this photo was published somewhere and that being said the person is hardly recognizable from it anyway. Mlodewijk (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If another image was forthcoming, I certainly wouldn't be averse to replacing this one, but I'm not currently aware of any reason why Wikipedia should blur photographs of soldiers. Sometimes the identity of special forces personnel is revealed for various reasons: it then falls to the force concerned to deal with the result. Wikipedia has no special obligation that I'm aware of to assist various governments' armed forces in this regard. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is that we would not (and could not) use the photos of IDF soldiers if they had not already been published elsewhere. Many countries blur the faces of soldiers (here in Spain, the press blurs the faces of police officers in all but the most ceremonial of photos), but I don't know of any precedent for doing it on Wikipedia unless the blurred photo is the only one available. Should we blur the photos of Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak as special forces soldiers? Physchim62 (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the Israeli media. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Mavi Marmara captain's interview

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-captain-activists-prepared-attack-against-idf-raid-1.295591

I came across this in Ha'artez, a left-wing Israeli newspaper that has been very critical of the raid. Apparently it is part of the captain's interview with the IDF about what happened. Unfortunately this is not the entire interview, but he says that some of the passengers prepared for violence in advance and he tried to stop them by throwing their makeshift weapons into the ocean.

This probably should be mentioned in the flotilla passengers' accounts, but given that it is only part of the interview I'm wary about readers drawing conclusions from a partial video. Has anyone seen any statements from the captain elsewhere? Do they match up with this IDF video? Zuchinni one (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To answer your direct question, no I don't know of any other statements by the captain himself. His wife (who was also onboard with their young child) made at least one statement, but she was in her cabin during the violence and she made the statement before her husband had been returned to Turkey. If we use the video, it should be made clear that the declarations were made while the captain was in Israeli custody. It seems a weak source for anything more than "Members of the ship's crew, including the captain, tried to prevent activists arming themselves with makeshift weapons." Physchim62 (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"The purpose of the blockade"

My cited edit was removed with the edit summary "cargo does not already go there." Humanitarian supplies already reach the Gaza strip in great numbers, as dozens of sources note. The sole difference here is that the convoyers wished to deliver supplies without Israeli inspection. That is what the citation showed. That is an objective fact. It is not failure to maintain a neutral POV to point out what distinguished this "attempt to deliver humanitarian supplies" from other (successful) attempts, viz. that the other ones allow Israel to search cargo for weaponry. Cite is here. Kaisershatner (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The level of goods legally entering Gaza is roughly one-fourth of what it was before the Battle of Gaza. Humanitarian supplies are routinely blocked by Israel, which has stated that the arms embargo is only "one of the reasons for the blocakde". Physchim62 (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hatner - I take a different issue with the edit you tried to put in. It is inherent in the fact that they were "trying to break the blockade" that they were "trying to avoid inspection". It seem redundant to state that they were trying to avoid inspection. NickCT (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate you both engaging in discussion about it. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the appreciation! NickCT (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To put it another way: fourth-fifths of the cargo (by weight) was cement or other building materials, which are not allowed into Gaza by Israel but which would be considered "humanitarian aid" by most of the rest of the world. To submit to Israeli inspection would have been to renounce the attempt to deliver the vast majority of the cargo. After all, what would be the point to try to deliver cargo which could pass the frontier anyway? Many Israeli commentators say that this is a "political" motive, and in a way they're correct, but it is no more of a political action than those used by many ONGs throughout the world, including in Israel. Physchim62 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes in the middle of a direct quote

Something odd has happened. In the middle of a quoted words from the flotilla organizers, cited (perfectly normally) to the CNN World website, there are other footnotes. The CNN note is 65; the others are 62, 66 and 49. I expect someone would like to see what has happened there. Perhaps some text was moved. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Israel's account" photos

How many photos are appropriate for one subsection of an article?--Brendumb (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting question coming from someone who just uploaded 4 photos and put them in the article, out of a grand total of 30 edits.

Care to disclose what previous names you used? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm typically an IP editor. Could we just discuss the content of the article please? How many photos are appropriate for one subsection of an article?--Brendumb (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSIMAGE gives some guidance. The part that seems relevant here is Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other. I had a quick look at the article - it had 10 images when I looked - and it seems OK, in terms of number of pictures and "text sandwiching".

Wikipedia:Single-purpose account also has some guidance:

• New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how much weight their views should be given.
• Existing editors should act fairly, civily, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing SPAs on their edits.

Cheers, TFOWR 17:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The image should stay. It is consistent with WP:MOSIMAGE, and the removed image adds significantly to this article. Marokwitz (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Which image? TFOWR 19:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There was one removed image which I reinserted. All the images presently in the article are useful and should stay. Marokwitz (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Heart of the sea"

We are citing two articles, probably both in Hebrew, that carry this phrase. It must be a literal translation and sounds odd in English. Could someone who speaks both English and Hebrew well suggest an alternative? Does it just mean "in the open sea"? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Links? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume it means "high seas", ie the sea outside of territorial waters. Physchim62 (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, found the links. Yes, it's a literal translation. "Open sea" works. Generally it means "in the sea where you can't see the shore". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it being used in a technical/legal sense? If so, "high seas" or "international waters" would be better translations. If not, and it's being used in a figurative sense, "open sea" would be the term. Physchim62 (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"International waters" has a specific term in Hebrew. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If a Hebrew speaker could check the translations of the article titles it would be helpful. One of them needs to be put into cite template form, if that's going to be the usual format of cites in the article. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no link to the Maariv article, so I can't check the title, but the Walla one would translate to "Special: Walla! reporter with Shayetet forces on the open seas". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Where in the article is this term being used? I couldn't find it. ShalomOlam (talk) 17:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Footnotes 60 and 85. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"BeLev Yam" means: "far out at sea". It does NOT mean "International waters". ShalomOlam (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

"Paintball guns"

Is this an accurate descriptive term here? Wiki defines paintball gun as "the main piece of equipment in the sport of paintball." Are IDF commandos also equipped with nerf balls? Can we be more specific, at least less euphemistic. RomaC (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

About a week ago there was some speculation here about the guns being FN 303s - at the time it was unsourced speculation. If we have a source that confirms that we can neatly sidestep using "paintball guns" by simply calling them FN 303s (and letting the reader make up their own mind about what "less-lethal launcher" means...)

I do agree that "paintball gun" is horrible. I have a nasty feeling, though, that it's such a snappy term it's bound to have been picked up by reliable sources.

TFOWR 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall multiple RS using this term. Not sure what's "euphemistic" about it. If it's a gun that shoots paintballs... No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A paintball gun is a piece of equipment used in the sport of paintball. Police forces and some military forces use "non-lethal weapons" and "less-lethal weapons". The media, being lazy, equates the two ;-) It's euphemistic in that less-lethal weapons can typically fire a variety of different types of round, not just "paint", and that it equates a sporting "toy" with which many people are familiar with a professional piece of law enforcement/military hardware. TFOWR 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only euphemistic if they weren't actually using paintball guns. Looking at the capture from the video, and the picture used in Paintball, they seem very similar. I'm no expert though. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair point, and I'm no expert either. I'd still love to have a weapon article we could link to, if we could find a source for the weapon used. I'll have a hunt later... TFOWR 18:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer the description "riot guns" but everyone else is calling them paintball guns so we don't really have a choice. If you look at the Al-Jazeera livestream (near the end), you can see that the weapons that were deployed at the start had barrels that are far too wide to be assault weapons, and could only have been some sort of riot gun (of which paintball guns are one type). Physchim62 (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "riot gear", [13] [14] --Brendumb (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

They are reported to be paintball guns , and the photos show what appears to be paintball guns. The paint balls may possibly be filled with an irritant ink instead of the standard type, but I didn't find confirmation . I see no good reason to use a less specific term. Let's stick with what the sources said. Calling reliable sources "lazy" and then using our own terms is not really compatible with policy. Marokwitz (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If we can find even one reliable source stating their exact model, it should be mentioned alongside or replace paintball gun, which is an ambiguous term. FunkMonk (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed a number of sources ([Associated Press, San Francisco Chronicle, FoxNews, CBC use the specific term "riot gear", so maybe we should use that barring any more information.--Brendumb (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This would be consistent with passenger accounts that the soldiers "used tasers, plastic bullets, stun grenades, and beat up the passengers" or Al Jazeera journalist Jamal Elshayyal, aboard the Mavi Marmara, who said "the first shots that were fired were either some sort of sound grenades...there was tear gas that was fired, as well as rubber-coated steel bullets...the live fire came roughly five minutes after that."--Brendumb (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't "riot gear" refer to armor rather than weapons? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is being archived quickly. A few days ago, in another paintball section, I attached the link to this article[15] which explains why paintball guns are used in situations like this. I also linked to our own Pepper-spray projectile article which describes what is perhaps the most common use of the guns. As the Slate article notes, Israel has (or had) not identified what type of ammunition they were using so we are probably stuck using the generic term. And I should say that in my experience, the preferred sporting term is "paintball marker" rather than gun. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much every RS used the word "paintball guns". We need to go with what most of the RS are saying, in the same way that the article is titled "Gaza Flotilla Raid" because that is what the RS were using. As for the first shots fired being a "sound grenade" I thought it was established that what the passengers heard was the stun grenade thrown onto the Israeli boat by the passengers. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Also the sentence in the lead begins with "The commandos said". Using the term non-lethal weapons here rather than paintball guns does not conform with either what the commandos said, or the terms that the RS uses. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'd be opposed to "non-lethal weapon", too. My preference is for a link to an article about the type of gun, but I suspect we're going to struggle to get confirmation that detailed. My objection to "paintball gun" is more a comment on sloppy journalism than anything else. TFOWR 10:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch this video at 36:00. These are obviously paintball guns, of the "the main piece of equipment in the sport of paintball" kind. You can both see and hear it. At 38:00 some Norwegian guy is also saying it's paintball rather than live ammunition. Not that this can go in the article using this source, but just for our general knowledge. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The gun at ~36:00 certainly wasn't an FN 303. I don't think there's any dispute that these guns were firing paint, instead of, say, capsicum rounds or live ammunition. TFOWR 10:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, not even the IDF has claimed they were firing normal paintball ammunition. At least one activist speaks of "some kind of paintball bullets with glass in them that left terrible soft tissue wounds." (ref in article) Physchim62 (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If you've ever actually played paintball, you know that the capsules break on impact and leave soft tissue wounds if they hit an unprotected area of the body. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Hurriyet photo

Was there any source confirming that this photo was from a journalist who witnessed the event?--Brendumb (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The pictures were taken by Turkish journalist Adem Ozkose. The picture we're talking about is #10 here No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The photo is one of a series that was published by Hürriyet, a leading Turkish newspaper so, yes, it's reliable by Wikipedia standards. It's interesting that NMMNG seems to know the name of the photographer, as that wasn't made public at the time the photos were released: they were released by the IHH, who said they restored them from the memory cards of cameras that had been seized during the raids. Physchim62 (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

He's credited in that link I provided. Not sure what's "interesting" about that. Pretty normal stuff. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This picture shows a casualty and was not from a completely independent journalist who witnessed the event (i.e. it is from IHH/Reuters). Since the source is somewhat debated, why don't we move it out of the journalist account section and move it in to the casualty section and provide attribution there? Specifically, it could go to Gaza_flotilla_raid#Israeli_military.--Brendumb (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that actually improves the article. Are you suggesting that IDF soldiers didn't get medical attention aboard the Mavi Marmara? Not even the IDF has suggested that. Physchim62 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The picture Brendumb wants to move is the one with the soldier on the floor and a guy holding a knife next to him. You know, the one Reuters cropped to remove the knife. I'm not sure what a "completely independent journalist" means in the context of a photo. The photo shows what the photo shows. Unless someone wants to claim it was doctored? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggesting that the Israeli military casualties section might be better placement for the image.--Brendumb (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Go back to Auschwitz?

See this article where the IDF appears to have backed down from the claim that this tape is reliable: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/israel-youtube-gaza-flotilla The article should reflect this. PatGallacher (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that source isn't very clear. Here's one that's clearer about what happened. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No More Mr Nice Guy's source is more expansive than the Guardian source. The current article reads

“ The Israeli media published an audio reproduction released by the Israeli Defense Force[84] of the purported radio exchange between the Israeli navy and the Define Y. ”

What is the Define Y? This ought to be fixed. NickCT (talk) 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is a a spelling error in the name of one ship, Defne Y. I just fixed it. --JGGardiner (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to remove sentence from lead

The following sentence should be removed from the lead:

One activist on board said that the Israelis fired warning shots before boarding.

The alleged event "soldiers fired warning shots" is poorly sourced ("one activist said"), and the information that one activist said they did, while well sourced (to The Guardian) is not important enough to be included in the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My impression was that this was backed up by more than the sources you mentioned. But if it doesn't then I agree with you it should not be in the lead. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There were multiple sources for this sentence, but looks like someone removed them. Correcting it now. --386-DX (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

386 is right. There are quite a few sources for this and it accurately tells the passengers' account of the events. Zuchinni one (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about the use of the words "Victims"

• "A crowd mourns the victims of the Israeli raid of the Gaza flotilla" - I wonder whether using the word "victims" is NPOV? Perhaps "casualties" would be more neutral? The word "victim" normally suggests that they were innocent and not involved in violence. Marokwitz (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  To my mind "innocent victim" would suggest innocence ;-) Similarly, "casualty" suggests "slightly wounded" (and equates the dead with the wounded on both sides). Personally, I think "victim" is fine to describe anyone who's died (with the obvious caveat that we avoid WP:POV adjectives like "innocent" etc). Besides, do we know yet whether all the dead were directly involved in the confrontation? (I'm assuming they were, but this isn't something I follow closely) TFOWR 10:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo labeled "The 19 year old Furkan moment of death"

"and then his life is put to an end with 4 bullets..."

what am I seeing here? where is Furkan? where are the 2 commandos? where do I see his body with 4 bullets? I'm not saying he wasn't shot, I'm just saying - this picture should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, no. The picture was published by a reliable secondary source, and the autopsy report showed five bullet wounds on the body of Furkan Dogan, aged 19. Much more problematic are the IDF photos just below, which don't come from a reliable secondary source and which have no reliable secondry evidence to support the events they purport to show! Physchim62 (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Where is the original source? All I see is an uploaded picture that claims something. Are the text and graphics in the original? Can we have a link? I'm going to remove the picture for now since it does not include a ref to a published source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm, did you even bother looking before you removed it? In fact, the text appears to have been added the Institute for Middle East Understanding here, the original video is here. Physchim62 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no proof that the soldiers are using lethal force, or that the victim is indeed Furkan Dogan. The image caption is also POV. --386-DX (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert that since I don't want to violate 1RR, but I'd be very surprised if that caption will be allowed to stand.

Is IMEU considered a reliable source for something like this? Even if it is, the caption should more specifically attribute the text and graphics to them.

By the way, the same picture now appears twice in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, didn't the autopsies say all the gunshot wounds were caused by 9mm rounds? Again, I'm not an expert but that doesn't look like a weapon that shoots 9mm ammunition. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well someone else has removed the image, so there's nothing I can do about the caption: it was equivalent to the captions used on the IDF photos in the section that follows. If the IMEU is not a reliable source for the added text, then neither is the IDF for the added text on its images. I'm no expert on weapons either, but that was clearly not an act of self-defence on the part of the IDF. Physchim62 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What act are you talking about? I'm not even sure what I'm seeing there, to be honest. It doesn't look like the soldier is firing his weapon since there's no flash. I believe there would be some very obvious signs if someone was shooting 4 rounds (of 9mm ammo from an assault rifle?).

If we had footage from a few seconds before, I could tell you if I think this was an act of self defense or not. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the caption sounds odd, but as mentioned, until now we have just plastered the article with POV pushing images from an involved party, the IDF, with very little resistance, so people who whine about this new picture should go ahead and remove the IDF ones too. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

yes, why not remove all the pictures from IDF - they are obviously propaganda, and have nothing to do with the raid. We should also put that picture back, and also replace the word "killed" with "murdered" all over the article, after all the IDF are all blood sucking murderers.And although I know that everything I just wrote is total BS, I don't care, I'd rather lie to myself than to miss a chance to bash Israel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any source has actually accused the IDF of drinking the victim's blood, merely of spilling at all over the deck of the Mavi Marmara. Obviously they had a right to do that, because they're from Israel and so can do no wrong. Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading edit comments

Hello all,

There has been a recent uptick in the number of edit comments that seem to be a bit misleading. I am not going to name names, and I am not going to undo any of these questionable edits. I only ask that people be honest about the changes they are making and why they are making them.

I know that this is a controversial article and that the I-P conflict can sometimes generate strong feelings. But leaving misleading edit comments is a form of WP:Vandalism called 'Gaming the system'.

Lets all do the best we can to make this a good article and lets be as clear as we can be about the content of our edits.

Cheers, Zuchinni one (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)