Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Biased weight of text

Perhaps someone can tell me why, in the description of the attack, there is so much detailed information on every Israeli commando that was captured, but absolutely none on the Marmarites who were actually killed? I realize that much of the information comes from the reports made public by the IDF, but it seems to me that this causes an imbalance in reporting on the other side.

This is an endemic problem with articles on Israel-Palestine, but something that should be addressed as it is de facto bias. Mcdruid (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, some omissions in my opinion:

• The introduction does not say WHO killed the activists
• The article does not mention that all but 1 of the activists killed where shot multiple times, some in the back of the head
• The introduction does not mention that many of the passengers were journalists and that all documentation was confiscated (or attempted to be confiscated) by the IDF

DMH43 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Add link for Palmer report

We should add a link to Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (July 2011) in the section on the UN response DMH43 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

The section already has reference callouts linking to the report itself, but I have added a more visible section link to the relevant section in the article. -- Mirokado (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Monument destruction

It looks like there was a monument to this in Gaza which was deliberately destroyed. Maybe that should be added to the article. Fanccr (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Describing the nature of the killings in the lead

User @פעמי-עליון reverted my changes adding details about the killing of the passengers in the lead. Here is there edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=1200092716&oldid=1198337623

Their edit summary: "Undue here, cherry picking POV pushing" but how is it cherry picking to describe the nature of the killing of the passengers? And how does that push a POV?

The rest of the lead quotes directly from Israel's report which has been described as a whitewash by human rights organizations. For example, it quotes the report's description of IHH as a "hardcore group".

I suggest we undo the user's revert. DMH43 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. This information seems relevant and due and is mentioned multiple places in the body.

Also note that the text should read "Nine activists were killed, some *shot* in the back of the head and at close range".

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes definitely relevant to the lead. Btw this page reads like a murder mystery. People are killed and wounded but the identity of the perpetrators is carefully hidden in the text. The lead says things like "During the struggle, nine activists were killed ... ", "consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution", "evidence of "wilful killing"", The reader will, of course, be wondering who the murderer is, but we don't provide any hints until later. In the History section we say a UN report found that six of the nine passengers' deaths were the result of "summary execution" by the Israeli commandos. There may be other hints scattered throughout the article, but do we ever reveal the full solution? Perhaps we are planning a sequel. Burrobert (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

agreed about how it reads. It will take some work to change that since documentation (video, photos etc) was confiscated by israeli officials and the official israeli report (turkel report) presented the passengers as the aggressors. The UN report (Palmer report) isnt much better, as described by Norman Finkelstein: "The report itself was probably the most mendacious and debased document ever issued under the UN’s aegis."

Ill do some reading and see if I can make this article sound more straightforward. DMH43 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is relevant content that is appropriate for the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the body. The content is relevant, appropriate, and referenced. I do not understand the edit that is attempting to remove it with an edit summary of these details are both leading as well as undue for the lede. Find the appropriate place in the body and keep it balanced pls. What isn't balanced about the coverage? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. Saying in the first paragraph they were shot in the head at close range with zero context while only mentioning three paragraphs later that the gunfire only happened after the activists grabbed a gun is not remotely balanced or NPOV. All the detail has to be in the same place and the lede as it was prior is more than balanced by expected Wikipedia grounds. Mistamystery (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

"Find the appropriate place in the body and keep it balanced pls"

It's already mentioned multiple times in the body, as well as the fact that a UNHRC fact-finding mission "determined that Israeli commandos summarily executed six passengers"

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Irrelevant to preserving the neutrality of the lede on a historical event. What transpired is one thing, and analysis and result is another. What the UNHRC had to say about the matter (btw invoking the UN this week does not speak much for neutral pov) is secondary to the order of events. It does not qualify an unbalanced or tilted lede. Mistamystery (talk) 00:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You said "Find the appropriate place in the body" and yet it is mentioned in the body multiple times.

"What transpired is one thing, and analysis and result is another."

That some participants in the event were shot in the back of the head is an established fact and is relevant and due for the lede. It is one of the reasons the event was so controversial whether or not it was justified (which the edit you removed makes no mention of or commentary regarding).

Also note that the omission of key facts can be a violation of NPOV as well.

- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Lede summarise body. The body discusses the fact that execution-style killings took place. Reporting that referenced fact is neutral, censoring it from the lede is not. There also appears to be a 3-1 majority in favour of inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

3-2 including @פעמי-עליון. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

knives is from the turkel report

@Mistamystery, the mention of "knives" in the palmer report cites the turkel report. "Material before the Panel confirms that this group was armed with iron bars, staves, chains, and slingshots,388 and there is some indication that they also used knives" where the statement about knives cites the turkel report. DMH43 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes and the UN report states both no opposition to the assertion there were knives, and further states that it was presented material confirming and accepts the assertion they were likely used. This is not the Turkel report, it's the Palmer report citing its findings and conclusions. Mistamystery (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I can accept that. But the writing is certainly less certain about the knives so it seems undue to mention it esp in comparison to slingshots, which there is also a lot of photographic evidence of (not sure about pictures of the knives, but I remember a picture of a ceremonial knife) DMH43 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, you reverted the whole edit, not just the mention of knives. The description of IHH as a "hardcore" group is undue in the lead. Its not even clear what that means. DMH43 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@DMH43, @Mistamystery - Does the Palmer Report describe only "some indication that they also used knives" or does it "accept the assertion they were likely used"? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

It says knives were found on the ship (citing turkel report) and that the turkel report describes the use of knives. The last mention of knives is the quoted one above where they claim "some indication". In any case, the reverted text says "who were said to be armed with iron bars and knives." DMH43 (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate source

The section regarding the Mavi Marmara boarding cites several times the "Meir Amit Report", which itself cites anonymous sources within the boarding party. The language used in the report is clearly partisan, and the Meir Amit center is noted on its own page (Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center) as being closely affiliated with the IDF. Would appreciate a review of the source to ensure NPOV and credibility standards are met. 100.16.19.166 (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The Meir Amit Report is cited sixteen times in the article. As you mention, it is a partisan source so should be treated with caution. Claims made in the report should not be transcribed here in Wikivoice. On the "About us" page on its website is says "The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) was established in 2001 as part of the Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center, the government institution for commemorating the legacy of the Israeli intelligence community", So the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is "part of ... [an Israeli] government institution", something that does not appear to be mentioned on its Wikipage. Burrobert (talk) 08:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Indeed a lot of this article depends on IDF sources or sources closely connected with the IDF. For example the turkel report is cited throughout, as well as sources which cite the turkel report. DMH223344 (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)