Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

MV Rachel Corrie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With due respect I think you should take a more passive approach to edits on the lead and confer here first. Anyway, I like my first sentence more because it transitions better from the previous paragraph and introduces the Marmara more gently. I think "fought" suggests an even-handedness that's a bit misleading considering the footage [1]. The previous version was "assaulted;" I think attacked is more neutral. Do you oppose any of my other changes?  —Rafi  02:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mavi Marmara was fleeing west at full-speed

Mavi Marmara was fleeing west at full-speed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Location of Raid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Undue weight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 09:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

first paragraph in the lead

This is the current paragraph in the lead:

The Gaza flotilla raid, code named Operation Sea Breeze by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF),[6][7] was carried out by Israeli naval forces on six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla in May 2010.[8] The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and The Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (IHH), a Turkish NGO, attempted to break the blockade of Gaza and deliver aid to the Gaza strip.[8][9] The six ships rendezvoused near Cyprus and departed on 30 May 2010 carrying 663 people from 37 countries.[10][11] The ships were raided and captured in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea.[11] Israeli forces boarded the ships after the flotilla refused calls to change its course toward Gaza

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

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

How about something like:

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

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

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 09:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My suggestion for first paragraph in the lead:

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

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

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

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

It does leave out a lot. I prefer TFOWR's suggestion above in the green Georgia font. "Rendezvoused" may be an awkward word but I think it's proper English, at least in the US: [2]. And I prefer "captured" to "raided and captured."  —Rafi  15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Asking for consensus to revert 2 edits

I'm asking for consensus to revert the following 2 edits: [3] [4]  Cs32en Talk to me  14:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

I wrote them a personal message! TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I've reverted the first diff.

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

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 15:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I've removed a descriptor of Greta Berlin added by Redaktor which called her "anti-Israel" and said she is married to a Palestinian. Berlin is a divorcee. While it is true she was once married to a Palestinian, she was also once married to a Jew. [5] I don't see the relevance of either piece of information to this article. And the use of "anti-Israel" is not supported by RS and is in any case unnecessary as her role as one of the organizers of the flotilla is noted and readers can draw their own conclusions. Tiamut^talk 15:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Other ships

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

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

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

Disputed paragraph in lead

This is how it stands right now:

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

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

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

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

On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, activists swarmed the soldiers with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons as the latter rappelled one by one onto the deck of the ship.[1][2][3][4] Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers, some shot repeatedly at close range by pistols.[5][5][6][7][8] Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, some seriously. [9][10][6] The sequence of events is disputed. Passengers, including reporters on board,[11] say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while Israelis say that the firing occurred after soldiers were ambushed by passengers.[12][13][14][15][16] Different accounts disputed whether the activists used the soldiers' pistols against them;[17] some of the commandos suffered from gunshot wounds.[9] IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF;[18] Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons.[19]

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

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

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

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

I dislike "fought" because it suggests an even-handedness I find misleading [6]. "Swarmed" is maybe too dramatic, "surrounded" is kind of an understatement. Maybe "overran"?  —Rafi  15:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

I dislike "fought" because it suggests an even-handedness I find misleading [7]. "Swarmed" is maybe too dramatic, "surrounded" is kind of an understatement. Maybe "overran"?  —Rafi  15:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In terms of RS, "attacked" is used by CSM [8] and personally I think it's neutral and doeesn't comment on justification. WaPost [9] uses "set upon." How about As IDF commandos rappelled onto the deck of the ship one by one, they were set upon by activists with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons?  —Rafi  15:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. The sequence of events is disputed. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, as IDF commandos rappelled onto the deck of the ship one by one, they were set upon by activists with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons.[1][2][3][4] Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers, some shot repeatedly at close range by pistols.[5][5][6][7][8] Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, some seriously. [9][10][6] **** Passengers, including reporters on board,[11] say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while Israelis say that the firing occurred after soldiers were ambushed by passengers.[12][13][14][15][16] Different accounts disputed whether the activists used the soldiers' pistols against them;[17] some of the commandos suffered from gunshot wounds.[9] IDF investigators suspected that the activists also had firearms of a type not used by the IDF;[18] Turkish customs officials rejected this, saying that they checked the vessel for weapons.[19]

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

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

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

On one of ships, the MV Mavi Marmara, activists clashed with the Israeli boarding party. The sequence of events is disputed. According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, as IDF commandos rappelled onto the deck of the ship one by one, they were fought by the activists with metal clubs, knives, and other weapons.[1][2][3][4] Nine activists were killed by Israeli soldiers, some shot repeatedly at close range by pistols.[5][5][6][7][8] Several dozen other passengers and seven Israeli soldiers were injured, some seriously. [9][10][6] **** Passengers, including reporters on board,[11] say that the Israelis opened fire before boarding, while Israelis say that the firing occurred after soldiers were ambushed by passengers.[12][13][14][15][16] Different accounts disputed whether the activists used the soldiers' pistols against them;[17] some of the commandos suffered from gunshot wounds.[9]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then for now let's keep that sentence mostly how it is—According to videos filmed both by the IDF and the activists, activists fought the soldiers with metal bars, knives, and other weapons as the latter rappelled one by one onto the deck of the ship.[3][2][14][15]—and implement 2-5 as in my rehash.  —Rafi  17:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or should I say:

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think is a fair description:

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

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

Let me say this clearly:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with TFOWR. The details do not belong in the lead, just the basics of what happened. As soon as details begin to get added then everyone wants to join in and balance the lead by repeatedly adding and removing POV. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Building materials

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

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

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

Based on UN Report. [10] Kasaalan (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

"According to the Failing Gaza report by Amnesty International and other organisations cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles are "high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings." [44] According to the UN report by Kevin M. Cahill: [45] "Reconstruction cannot begin because Israel does not permit the importation of steel, cement or glass, among other building materials. They had also restricted the importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice by some incomprehensible logic that these items may pose a security threat. In a particularly cruel twist, even batteries for hearing aids used by deaf children cannot be imported, condemning these unfortunates to a world of silence."" Just read the reports. Kasaalan (talk) 21:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I did this edit as alternative linked solution.

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

I dropped this section, since there is only Kasaalan that want to have it. Issue should be discussed before re-adding. Earlier compromise was this. --Kslotte (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit [11]

There is no dispute now regarding the use of knives now that more pictures were released ([12]).  —Rafi  16:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Also, regarding this edit [13], the consensus a few days ago was for "actvists[1] with rods beating a fallen soldier[2]." I think "fallen" is a legitimate description of this specific soldier considering that point in the video. Anyway, the ref should be positioned next to "soldier" because in the past we've had problems with editors doubting if a soldier is there at all.  —Rafi  16:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Here's an RS: "The edited footage showed soldiers descending from the Black Hawk into a crowd of men with sticks and clubs. Three or four activists overpowered each soldier as he landed, beating each one to the deck, where they were surrounded by more men with sticks. One soldier was tossed over the side onto a lower deck." [14]  —Rafi  17:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The author is an AP writer. You can also find it here. [15]  —Rafi  19:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

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

You don't know if any two sources conflict because we don't have a complete chronology, and you're practicing OR anyway. Regardless, you can see each commando get overpowered in the video, you can see them surrounded and bloodied in the photos. If for some reason you can't, the AP is absolutely reliable enough to explain it to you.  —Rafi  22:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have two Israeli sources which contradict one another: it is not OR to say that the statements are logically incompatible. As for the AP, they helpfully give a long disclaimer admitting that they can't vouch for the journalistic accuracy of the IDF material they distribute! Why don't we simply say "overpwoered several soldiers as they landed": that is consistent with all sources, I believe. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I dispute your contradiction. Show me an RS.  —Rafi  15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The goal here is to write a caption for File:Activistboatclash.jpg‎. This has already been thoroughly discussed, as I summarized here shortly before consensus was achieved. The AP provides even stronger secondary RS for that caption, and frankly it hardly needs secondary RS because the video is so straightforward.  —Rafi  15:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to remove POV template

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

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

Support 930913(Congratulate/Complaints)

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

I added it sorry didn't link it to the "POV Tag" section which is now archived. RomaC (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Support I'm tired of people who have their own POV agendas so casually drawing into question the validity of what is on the whole a very good article, simply by placing a tag on the top. Unless there's a very good argument for it, then remove it. Lampman (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. This is not a very good article. The weight given to Israeli accounts, terminology (Operation This, Operation That), propaganda and film "evidence" is overwhelming. This article needs to be filleted and cleaned out. I may get around to that in time but I'm busy at the moment. Sarah777 (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support - Given the topic this article has been handled extremely well and while there are definitely still some statements that create bias towards both sides, the article is overall good. Zuchinni one (talk) 08:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Support Although I personally believe that most of the burden lies with Israel regarding this event, I still think that the article looks neutral enough in its current form in reflecting the facts. There is balance in the mention of claims from either side. I don't think that defining it as a military operation constitutes as opinion or POV. --386-DX (talk) 08:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Unless the POV concerns are catalogued so that they can be addressed, the tag serves no practical purpose. RomaC explained why he tagged it here but it was archived as he said. I'm pretty sure, having just read through the entire article for the first time in a while, that there are a number of POV issues that could be listed and addressed. Perhaps individual article sections should be tagged once that is done rather the entire article. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose "The flotilla had planned to break through the Gaza blockade, ignoring Israel's proposal for the activists to dock in Ashdod port and transfer the permitted items in the cargo through there.[4] After the flotilla activists ignored orders to change course, Israeli soldiers from the Shayetet 13 unit boarded the ships at around 04:00 IST[81] with sidearms and paintball guns" this text is posted right next to a picture of a commando with an assault rifle. The POV tag should stay until the article isn't full of things this. It's obviously trying to downplay the violence with which the ships were assaulted and emphasize the 'shahid' angle. Until this is neutral, really neutral, it should still have the POV tag. User:Pedant (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to call that an assault rifle. It looks like a paintball gun to me. This is not a valid reason to keep a POV tag. That said, I am not going to comment on what I think of the tag at this point. Breein1007 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:FORUM for a second, are you sure it's a paintball gun? You can see the Israeli paintball guns in the infamous video and this looks more like an M-16. Regardless, this was probably photographed long after the clash ended.  —Rafi  02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ships

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table is sortable and much more compact. Bullet lists are long and they are not dynamic. However we need many improvements for the article about ships. Kasaalan (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The point with sub-articles is to have short summary (= bullet list) on the main page and the sub-page having more details (= the table) about the subject. --Kslotte (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Number of sources in the sentence

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

Passengers and reporters on board said that the Israelis opened fire before boarding,[13] while the Israelis said that firing occurred only after soldiers were attacked by the passengers.[14][15][16][17][18]

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

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

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

You don't have to source claims in the lead if their properly sourced in the article body, but many people source the lead anyway. Five sources for the Israeli statement is definitely overkill, we should just pick one and bin the rest, they don't add anything. Physchim62 (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Pick the best one. And in this article especially everything needs to be sourced.

Also, I think it should be "Some passengers and reporters," because Andre Abu Khalil for example says live fire came 10 minutes after the first soldiers boarded.  —Rafi  22:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That point now seems to have gone from the lead but, if it comes back, "several activists/passengers" might be the better phrase: not everyone on the ship has come out with a statement one way or the other (not by a long stretch!) but there is more than one statement in that sense. Physchim62 (talk) 13:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

International reactions

I don't think that the International reactions paraphrapg in the lead should remain there. This article is about the raid, not events that happend after the raid. There is no real need to go into that much details in the lead. ShalomOlam (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead is quite good the way it's now. It may need some small tweaks though.--Cerian (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead is too long. ShalomOlam (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the lead looks fine. It is not too long in relation to the length of the article. The international reactions to the raid are a very significant portion of the event. --386-DX (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

International reaction to this event is pertinant to the understanding of what happened and obviously needs to be included here. Mo ainm~Talk 11:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The "international reactions" paragraph looks OK to me. It could possibly be a little briefer, but it seems neutral.

If we were to try and shorten it, I'd suggest that The raid prompted international reactions, including widespread outrage, from national authorities, supranational bodies and NGOs, as well as civilian demonstrations around the world. could be shortened to The raid prompted international reactions, including widespread outrage, and civilian demonstrations around the world. Though I'd like to find a better way to link "international reaction" with governments/NGOs/etc.

TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about the wording of the statement "including widespread outrage" - its a little inelegant (ie the raid prompted widespread outrage or reactions included outrage). 'Including' and 'widespread' dont sit well together. (Not that I have a better idea). Clovis Sangrail (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How about The raid prompted strong international reactions, including widespread condemnations and civilian demonstrations? It even rhymes, if you're looking for elegance. ;-) It's also less vague and less judgmental compared to "outrage."

I agree that this paragraph can be less detailed, because it has its own article. I think the UNSC sentences can stay but the UNHRC sentence should go.  —Rafi  16:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Lede, end of 2nd para

Turkish customs officials rejected this ... [21], following IDF investigators suspected ... [20]. However, [20] dated June 4 and [21] dated May 31. Clearly there is a dispute between Turkey and Israeli officials, however there is a timeline issue: rejected this is inappropriate. Additionally Israeli PM addressed customs/security departure procedures on June 6: Group who attacked IDF troops boarded ship separately, reflected by number of RSes: 1 2 3, relates to this discussion. Possibly customs/security departure procedures could be discussed in Events during the preliminary stages and separate group in Israel's account. Any thoughts? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agada, itals instead of bold please IREEeee! :)RomaC (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

[20] is just a source that was late to the party; we can find an earlier one if you like. But per the rest of your comment, I think it might be better to replace these 2 sentences (which in the meantime have disappeared!) with the following, which is much more notable and has stronger basis: Israel has accused the IHH of sending a small group of activists on the flotilla who were determined to instigate violence; the IHH rejects this. Sources for both sides won't be hard to find.  —Rafi  16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath

Some material for this section. Subjection to some ending lines, This is artificial setup. To wowe political capital as tough guys? Now it looks like Israel stared war with NATO shooting at signatory flagships with some warriors jumping in front. Looks like tough Israel is going to sink every ship, (and perhaps shut down every airplane dropping aid [did anybody try by air? Eg rush medical?]) ships sending aid as they said "besieged" zone. {collapse| Oval Office

11:58 A.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Hello, everybody. Be careful, careful.

Before I begin, I know that there was just a vote in the United Nations Security Council. I'm going to comment on that separately. I don't want to detract from the topic at hand here. So for reporters who are interested in that issue, I will be making a statement about that after our session here.

I just want to thank President Abbas for being here, and his delegation. We just concluded some very productive discussions on this issue. I commended President Abbas for the excellent work that he and Prime Minister Fayyad have been engaged in over the last several years in strengthening the security as well as improving the economic situation for his people. He's done so through hard work and dedication, and I think the whole world has noticed the significant improvements that we've seen as a consequence of his good administration.

But obviously there is a lot of work that remains to be done so that we can create a two-state solution in the Middle East in which we have an Israel that is secure and fully accepted by its neighbors, and a Palestinian people that have their own state, self-determination, and the ability to chart their own destiny.

Now, we've just gone through a difficult period in the region. We saw the tragedy with the flotillas, something that I think has drawn attention all around the world to the ongoing problems in Gaza. As part of the United Nations Security Council, we were very clear in condemning the acts that led to this crisis and have called for a full investigation. And it is important that we get all the facts out. But what we also know is that the situation in Gaza is unsustainable. I think increasingly you're seeing debates within Israel, recognizing the problems with the status quo. And so President Abbas and I had very extensive discussions about how we could help to promote a better approach to Gaza.

We agree that Israelis have the right to prevent arms from entering into Gaza that can be used to launch attacks into Israeli territory. But we also think that it is important for us to explore new mechanisms so that we can have goods and services, and economic development, and the ability of people to start their own businesses, and to grow the economy and provide opportunity within Gaza.

And so we are going to be working hand in hand to make sure that we come up with a better approach, and urge Israel to work with all parties involved -- Egypt, the Palestinian Authority, and the international community -- to find a resolution to this issue.

In the meantime, the United States -- which is already the biggest humanitarian aid donor in Gaza -- is going to be announcing an additional $400 million in assistance for housing, school construction, business development -- not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, because we think it's important for us to reaffirm once again our commitment to improving the day-to-day lives of ordinary Palestinians.

Now, what we also discussed, though, and what we will continue to work on over the next several months is the fact that not only is the status quo with respect to Gaza unsustainable, the status quo with respect to the Middle East is unsustainable. It is time for us to go ahead and move forward on a two-state solution that will affirm the needs of Israeli citizens and will affirm the needs of Palestinian -- Palestinians who are desperate for a homeland.

We have had very productive proximity talks. Senator Mitchell -- who is here, I think standing in the back -- has been very active, working with both the Palestinians and the Israelis to try to start moving this process forward. And I want to thank President Abbas for participating in these proximity talks even under some difficult circumstances. He has shown courage and tenacity in wanting to resolve this issue. And we believe that with Israelis and the Palestinian Authority coming together, making clear that a peaceful, non-violent solution that recognizes both the security needs of Israel as well as the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians is the right way to go, can yield real progress in the coming months.

It's important that we understand the sense of urgency that the Palestinian people feel in this process. Obviously you've got organizations like Hamas that have not recognized Israel, have not renounced violence, who are calling for a different approach. And we think it's important that, given President Abbas's commitment to a peaceful diplomatic solution to these issues, and I think the desire of people both in Israel and Palestine -- Palestinian Territories for a peaceful solution, that we move forward. And the United States is going to put its full weight behind those efforts.

I did share with President Abbas, in order for us to be successful in these next several months, that both sides have to create an environment, a climate, that is going to be conducive to an actual breakthrough. And that means on the Israeli side, curbing settlement activity and recognizing some of the progress that has been made by the Palestinian Authority when it comes to issues like security. It means on the Palestinian side -- and I was very frank with President Abbas that we have to continue to make more progress on both security as well as incitement issues. And if we can over the next several months try to lift up what are the honest and legitimate concerns of both sides and if both Palestinians and Israelis can recognize that they have a common interest in moving off of what has been this dead end, then I believe that potentially we can make significant progress before the end of the year.

So I just want to let President Abbas know that I said when I took office this was an issue that I cared deeply about and I was willing to spend a lot of time and energy and political capital on. That commitment has not wavered. And I think the American people want to see a resolution of this issue that is equitable. We will continue to work side by side with you, as well as the Israelis, to resolve this in a way that is good for the children and future generations both in Israel and in a future Palestine.

So thank you very much.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (transpation.) Thank you, Mr. President. And we, indeed, have just held very important discussions that touched on the political process as well as the very important latest development that happened in Gaza.

Of course we value and deeply appreciate all the efforts of the United States, as well as the effort of President Obama, and all the assistance and help for pushing forward the economic and security levels. And we have reached a satisfactory picture of the economic and security levels. Yet we are determined to keep pushing forward in our efforts to bring it up to the next level.

And I also appreciate the attention and the determination of President Obama in seeing that we push forward the political process as soon as possible. And I assert and I affirm that we will not give up on this endeavor ahead of us, because it is in our interest, it in the interest of Israel, in the interest of the world, and also, most of all, in the interest of the United States.

We know that time is of essence; we know that we must not miss this opportunity. We affirm the importance of bringing about peace and security in the region.

And I would like to thank President Obama for the support that he will give to Gaza -- and we have just talked about that now. This is a positive signal of the United States that the United States cares about the suffering of the people in Gaza and about the suffering of the Palestinian people.

And we also see the need to lift the Israeli siege of the Palestinian people, the need to open all the crossings, and the need to let building material and humanitarian material and all the necessities go into the Palestinian people.

And also we appreciate the attention given to the formation of an investigation committee that would investigate what happened in the latest events, the events of what we call the Freedom Flotilla, or the Freedom Fleet.

And I say in front of you, Mr. President, that we have nothing to do with incitement against Israel, and we're not doing that. What we care about is to live in coexistence with Israel, in order to bring about the independent Palestinian state that will live side by side with Israel in peace and stability.

We adopt and we affirm the Arab Peace Initiative that was adopted in summits, in Arab summits, as well as in summits held by Islamic countries. Fifty-seven Arab and Islamic countries have said that they would recognize Israel if Israel withdrew from the occupied Arab land.

Mr. President, we thank you and we express our deep respect for all your efforts, specifically on the peace process and bringing about peace in the Middle East. We know the two-state solution you said is a critical interest of the United States. This is a slogan that we are proud of and we will pursue very seriously our efforts in order to bring about peace in the Middle East.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We got time for, I think, two questions. So, on the U.S. side, we're going to call on Matt Spetalnick of Reuters.

Q Yes, Mr. President, I know you're going to be making a statement later on Iran, but I just wondered if --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes, so just don't waste that question on that.

Q You're not going to answer anything --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'll do that at the next one.

Q Okay. Did President Abbas ask you to take a tougher line with Israel over the Gaza aid flotilla raid, and will you in fact do so in outright condemnation of Israel's actions? And do you support Israel's insistence on doing a flotilla investigation on its own, perhaps with some foreign involvement, or are you in favor of the U.N. proposal for a completely independent inquiry?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me take the second question first. What the U.N. Security Council called for was a credible, transparent investigation that met international standards. And we meant what we said; that's what we expect.

I think everybody -- people in Israel, people in Turkey, people within the Palestinian Territories, certainly people here in the United States -- want to know the facts of this tragedy, what led to it, how can we prevent it in the future. And I think I've said to the Israelis directly and certainly my team has communicated the fact that it is in Israel's interest to make sure that everybody knows exactly how this happened so that we don't see these kinds of events occurring again. And we expect that the standard that was called for in the U.N. Security Council to be met.

With respect to the issue of taking a tougher line, I think President Abbas and I spent most of our time discussing how do we solve the problem. One of the things that we see is that so often rhetoric when it comes to issues in the Middle East outstrip actually solving issues. And our conversation was focused on how do we actually allow more goods, more services into Gaza? How do we allow businesses to thrive? How can we get construction moving? How can we put people to work in Gaza?

The Palestinian Authority is already doing a number of things inside of Gaza, providing employment opportunities, providing assistance to people directly. The United States is already providing assistance. But the status quo that we have is one that is inherently unstable. And I think the Israelis have come to recognize that.

The question now is how do we create a different framework so that people in Gaza can thrive and succeed; so that extremists are isolated as opposed to having an excuse for engaging in violent activities; but also, how do we do it in a way that Israel's legitimate security concerns are met.

We -- and I think President Abbas agrees with this -- recognize that Israel should not have missiles flying out of Gaza into its territories. And so there should be a means by which we are able to stop the flow of arms that could endanger Israel's security. At the same time, we're doing so in a way that allows the people in Gaza to live out their aspirations and their dreams both for themselves and their children. And that's something that we're going to spend a lot of time focusing on. And we've already begun some hard-headed discussions with the Israelis in achieving that.

Q (in Arabic)

And, Mr. President, if I may ask you a question --

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay, I was just finding out what you were asking him. (Laughter.)

Q I can translate that to you if you want. I just asked him that there is talk that the administration wants to move from proximity talk to direct negotiation, what the Palestinian Authority wants to see as a condition to move to that stage.

And if I may ask you, the European Union has proposed opening of the Gaza crossing. Would you endorse that, with the E.U. supervision? And the money you talked about now, the $400 million, what mechanism -- who is going to distribute this money? Because in the past it has been a problem regarding the money.

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (Translation) With regards to the transitioning from the proximity talks to the direct talks, we did not say -- we are not saying that we have conditions. What has happened is that we agreed that should a progress be achieved, then we would move on to direct talks. We are working in order to make progress. President Obama is working for that to see progress. And we -- this is what we have.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect to the aid to Gaza, I'll let my team give you the details in terms of how that will be administered and how the money will begin to flow.

With respect to the broader issue of lifting the blockade, as I said before, I think the key here is making sure that Israel's security needs are met, but that the needs of people in Gaza are also met. And it seems to us that there should be ways of focusing narrowly on arms shipments, rather than focusing in a blanket way on stopping everything and then in a piecemeal way allowing things into Gaza.

So if we can get a new conceptual framework -- and I'll be talking to my European counterparts, as well as Egypt and Israel and the Palestinian Authority -- it seems to me that we should be able to take what has been a tragedy and turn it into an opportunity to create a situation where lives in Gaza are actually directly improved.

But let me make this final point, that in the long run, the only real way to solve this problem is to make sure that we've got a Palestinian state side by side with an Israel that is secure. And so we're going to be dealing with these short-term problems, but we also have to keep our eye on the horizon and recognize that it's that long-term issue that has to be focused on. So many of the immediate problems in front of us have to do with the fact that we haven't solved this broader problem.

Okay? Thank you very much, everybody.

END 12:21 P.M. EDT}}

taken from [16] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ia 01 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hamas rocket attacks

What is the relevance of this section in the article? Should we also list the amount of inocent civillians killed by Isreal since 2001? I intend to remove this section and am raising it here first to see what justification for its inclusion are. Mo ainm~Talk 11:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Presumably because the rocket attacks were the reason given by Israel for the blockade? The amount of civilians killed by Israel isn't pertinent to the blockade or the flotilla, tragic though the deaths are. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

So by that reasoning we need to include the reasons why the rocket attacks are happening. Mo ainm~Talk 11:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

One side claims the blockade was unjustified and so the interdiction was unjustified. The other side claims the blockade was justified because a state of armed conflict exists - and cites the rocket attacks as an example. As a result, the rocket attacks are relevant to this article. Rklawton (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We need to explain the background to this incident. I don't personally believe that we need to go beyond explaining why there was a blockade, but I'm open to arguments. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the background contains too much irrelevant info, and can be reduced to a single paragraph. It'd be simplest to acknowledge the rockets and Gilad as the reason for the blockade (... deaths) ; and acknowledge the blockade blocks many household items and has been criticised as affecting civilians disprortionately. for further info we can link to the original pages. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 12:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The first part of the Background section is wholly adequate as it explains that there is a blockade, links to the article on the blockade and states international reaction to the blockade. We don't need to know how many Isrealis were killed in rocket attacks and if we do then we also need to say why these attacks are happening and say thousands of Palestinians have been killed and have had there home destroyed. Mo ainm~Talk 12:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The background section links to four articles; with that in mind I'd tend to agree that there's scope for shortening the section. Flip-flopping on Hamas rockets, my reading of the background is that rocket attacks occurred since 2001, but that the blockade wasn't put in place until after the Battle of Gaza - is that right, and if so why are we mentioning the rocket attacks? TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 12:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This approach sounds reasonable. Related to this, we might consider a section (and then an article) on the legality of the interdiction. The rocket attack - and much other information - would be useful in this section. Rklawton (talk) 12:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) I agree with most of the above. At the moment, there are two issues which just aren't discussed together: the Israeli policy that it is essential that Hamas doesn't acquire any more (and certainly not any better) rockets to lob at southern Israel, for which there is probably a lot of international sympathy; and the line that the current blockade is the way to acheive that goal, for which there is fairly universal rejection outside of Israel. We have lengthy articles explaining the blockade, the rocket attacks etc: this article should follow WP:SUMMARY. Physchim62 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. The rocket attacks are not that relevant to this article. Even their relevance to the Gaza blockade has been disputed, and the rocket attacks are not even a subsection of that article. We may possibly mention it in the background info, but it certainly should not be a section on its own. --386-DX (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having a section about it is overkill. Having one sentence linking to it is OK. --Kslotte (talk) 12:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Physchim62 (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec, post facto agree) Agree the rocket attacks only need a sentence in the preceding paragraph, certainly not a whole paragraph. There is the problem that this is only a part of the Israeli justification. Do we want to go into the arguments about collective punishment and the alledged strategy of further driving a wedge between the strip and the west bank? Without those arguments to section only grants undue weight to one side of the story about the siege. Misarxist (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention strengthening Hamas (as the current blockade does) so as to make a political settlement of the wider conflict far more difficult ;) Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, liking the new background section! I tweaked it slightly, per WP:OVERLINK (and to avoid a redirect). TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Rklawton (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Ho-hum, it is now being expanded with Bibipologism again: we should revert to the version that seems to have had consensus support here, and then start a new discussion as to any outstanding problems. Physchim62 (talk) 14:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Objection

 Not done

• Proposed state for Summary

• Why there is a raid
  • Because there is an aid flotilla that went against blockage
• Why there is an aid flotilla
  • Because there is a blockade of Gaza
• Why there is a blockade
  • Because there are rocket attacks and a war
• Why there are rocket attack
  • Because there is a war and blockade

So instead WP:SUMMARY, removing {{main}} wikilinks and paragraphs with important details leads to a WP:CENSOR of all the relevant info about the background of the conflict.

Summary yes, Censor no

Removed Content

Removed Content Hamas rocket attacks Main article: Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel Palestinian rocket and mortar attacks on Israel from the Gaza Strip have occurred since 2001. As of January 2009, over 8,600 rockets had been launched, leading to 28 deaths and several hundred injuries, as well as widespread psychological trauma and disruption of daily life. The weapons, often generically referred to as Qassams, were initially crude and short-range, mainly affecting the Israeli city of Sderot and other communities bordering the Gaza Strip. Defenses constructed specifically to deal with the weapons include fortifications for schools and bus stops as well as an alarm system named Red Color. A system to intercept short-range rockets is being developed. However, in 2006 more sophisticated rockets began to be deployed, reaching the larger coastal city of Ashkelon, and by early 2009 major cities Ashdod and Beersheba had been hit by Katyusha and Grad rockets. Attacks have been carried out by all Palestinian armed groups and according to a 2008 poll are supported by most Palestinians, though the stated motives and goals have been mixed. The attacks have been widely condemned for targeting civilians and are defined as war crimes by human rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The attacks were a stated cause of the Gaza blockade, Operation Cast Lead (Dec 27, 2008 - Jan 21, 2009) and other Israeli military operations in the Gaza Strip, including Operation Rainbow (May, 2004) and Operation Days of Penitence (2004), Operation Summer Rains (2006), Operation Autumn Clouds (2006), and Operation Hot Winter (2008). Extent of the Israel blockade Main article: 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip § Goods blocked According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs "everything from wheelchairs, dry food items, and crayons, to stationary, soccer balls, and musical instruments" has been blocked by Israel at various times. According to the Failing Gaza report by Amnesty International and other organisations cement, glass, steel, bitumen, wood, paint, doors, plastic pipes, metal pipes, metal reinforcement rods, aggregate, generators, high voltage cables and wooden telegraph poles are "high priority reconstruction materials currently with no or highly limited entry into Gaza through official crossings." According to the UN report by Kevin M. Cahill: Reconstruction cannot begin because Israel does not permit the importation of steel, cement or glass, among other building materials. They had also restricted the importation of lentils, pasta, tomato paste and juice by some incomprehensible logic that these items may pose a security threat. In a particularly cruel twist, even batteries for hearing aids used by deaf children cannot be imported, condemning these unfortunates to a world of silence. Despite these Draconian regulations, UNRWA has been able to provide a basic food supply to over a million refugees in the Gaza Strip. I visited a food station where hundreds of displaced persons waited to collect their meager staples of rice, sugar, lentils and cooking oil. While this program may save people from starvation, it is a diet that does not prevent the highest level of anemia in the region, with alarming rates of childhood stunting due to inadequate nutrition.

I am putting the effort, while some users putting their effort in reverting instead improving the section. And the subtitles makes article much easier to read.Kasaalan (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the comments above before making arbitrary reverts, engaging in circular discussions, and raising the same issues again instead of addressing the responses. Please see WP:TALK. You are pushing for a far reaching inclusion and ignoring the earlier discussions. That is not constructive. --386-DX (talk) 17:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are pushing too far being ignorant of the provided sources. Kasaalan (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm "pushing too far" as well, I'm afraid. I just don't see the need for such a large background section, when we have articles covering the background already. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue is noone made any attempt to link rocket attacks of extent of banned goods before I add. Second the WP:SUMMARY at the section right now is weak and still incomplete. Also there are some recent removals main articles that I need to check. And when I try to edit, 386 tries to threaten me to report for violation of 1RR. So, whenever I try to summarize or add something he will threaten me simply because instead a proper WP:SUMMARY isn't done and most of the section is already removed. Add a better and complete list, I am fine otherwise I will create a better section in a few days. Kasaalan (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I understand - I personally think we should mention the blockade as background to the flotilla raid, but that we shouldn't be describing the raid in detail - simply linking to the existing article. I'm also still completely unsure about the rocket attacks - they seem (to me) to pre-date the blockade, so it's still not clear to me why they should be mentioned at all.

1RR does not cover adding something new. If you're in any doubts about adding something, simply post here and discuss it. I believe that your comments here indicate that you're acting in good faith with respect to the 1RR sanctions.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Kasaalan could you explain please why you think this section should be re inserted, without a mention of any deaths carried out by the IDF, as it stands it reads like Israel is being attacked for no reason (real or imagined). Could you do so a succinctly as possible without a barrage of links Mo ainm~Talk 18:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not claim it should be reinsterted fully. It needs a proper WP:SUMMARY, however extensive trimming does not help at all. {{Main}} wikilinks should be reinserted 1 Israeli–Palestinian conflict 2 Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel. Also a better list of banned goods and the humanitarian situation in Gaza right now. The demolished infrastructre cannot be repaired since there is an extensive blockade on rebuilding materials. The main idea behind flotilla was going against the extensive blockade. So instead what politicians etc. say about the issue, the section should cover facts first, then arguments if they are necessary. I provided necesarry RS links. By the way I did not fully understand your sentence. Kasaalan (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with how it currently reads? Mo ainm~Talk 18:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Israeli–Palestinian conflict
• Gaza_war#Effects
• Effects of the Gaza War
• 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip#Goods blocked
• Palestinian rocket attacks on Israel
• Gaza Strip smuggling tunnels

Maybe my style is more extensive. However without the damage on Gaza infrastructer: humanitarian crisis, real extent of blockade, rocket attacks etc. the background section does not cover much issue for the reader. The wikilinks in paragraph are not as useful as main or see also section. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The article as it stands is already to big per WP:LENGTH and you want to go into the history of the conflict, It needs to be a short as possible. Mo ainm~Talk 18:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Full List of Banned Items

The case become complicated

• Markowitz edit I will check recent edits to the section

• http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intItemId=1217&intSiteSN=143&OldMenu=143
• http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intSiteSN=119&intItemId=1798&OldMenu=13
• http://www.gisha.org/index.php?intLanguage=2&intSiteSN=119&intItemId=1795&OldMenu=13
  • Extended List of Banned Goods by Gisha as first party.
  • http://www.gisha.org/UserFiles/File/publications/Obstruction_and_obfuscation.doc

Exact sources for banned items, found and shared instead useless arguments. Kasaalan (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We need a good list for banned items to fully understand the extent of the blockade. Kasaalan (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

We already have an entire article about the blockade. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 17:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware I added the most complete list that can be found by first party, which is even missing on the article you provide. The list in 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip is not complete at all. Also the background section does not cover the section good, omitting many of the important items. The banned items are closely related for huminatarian needs like healthcare, nutrition or rebuilding materials. Kasaalan (talk) 18:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that if the list belongs anywhere, it's at the article about the blockade. This article needs to mention the blockade, not cover the same detail as the existing article. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 18:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with TFOWR, the article is getting slower and slower to view diffs. Mo ainm~Talk 18:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Citation tag

Anyone any idea what the editor who added the {{cn}} tag in the Free Gaza Movement section is looking for? Mo ainm~Talk 14:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope! Possibly "the largest sent by far", but I don't know. I'd be inclined to remove the {{cn}} tag. Best bet, though, would be to work out who added it and ask them... TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would but due to article size viewing diffs takes a while. Mo ainm~Talk 14:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, ain't that the truth ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 14:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a discrepancy between that sentence and our article on the Free Gaza Movement, which details their attempts (sometimes successful) at running the blockade. I'm not sure how to sort it out at the moment, but suggestions are welcome! "The largest sent so far" seems without dispute, by a long way, and WP:SUMMARY doesn't require us to have an exact source for that statement (although we could probably find one somewhere). Physchim62 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I removed the tag. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 16:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Good stuff. Mo ainm~Talk 16:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Article size

This article really needs to be shortened per WP:TOOLONG, it took me 3 minutes to fix a minor mistake in the artcle. Mo ainm~Talk 19:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

It is actually a complicated event with lots of crucial details, disputes, and reactions. I do not currently see any section in this article that could be removed without affecting the integrity of the event. I suggest we WP:IGNORE the length for the time being. --386-DX (talk) 20:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a lot we can easily get rid of. With a quick look over the article, here's what I think we could get rid of.

* The last two paragraphs of the lead can go. The reactions are secondary to the main event, and thus don't need to go in the lead.

* "Israel considers modifications of the blockade". I think this section can go, as it's straying way off of the main topic.

* "Turkey and Iran consider Naval escorts". This section is also straying way off of the main topic. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The reactions are a very integral part of the article, as they profoundly affected the perception, disputes, and aftermath of the event. Israel's modifiction of the blockade is likewise very much connected, and I'm sure anyone reading the article would want to know the resulting outcomes of the event. As for the naval escorts; well, it's only a single paragraph, but I wouldn't really object if someone shortened it. --386-DX (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with 386 here. While the article will need to be shortened eventually, for now all the details in the body are allowing us to improve things. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I was not arguing that the reactions should be deleted from the article. But I'm not sure that we need two big paragraphs in _the lead_ about events which occurred in the days or weeks after the actual subject of the article. I'm also worried that we've moved beyond reactions into reactions to reactions. Will we also start including reactions to reactions to reactions? Where would we cut that off? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Improving the references

For info, I am mainly here to try and improve the references, especially to deal with those that aren't in English. I came via pages in need of translation. Apparently, some of my edits have been perceived as POV. That isn't the intention. I am quite willing to discuss issues here and won't be engaging in reverts. I contribute to the reliable sources noticeboard as well as cleaning up translations, and am interested in sourcing issues. Please note that we prefer sources in English whenever possible. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! And thanks for working to improve the references; I'm sure it's a thankless task most of the time, and I doubt here will be any better - sorry!

Could I be cheeky and ask a small favour? If you find any cites without any English sources, could you raise it here? My thinking is that this will highlight the more contentious issues in this article.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 19:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Some edits

The lead now says

One activist on board said that the Israelis fired warning shots before boarding.[11] The commandos said they were attacked with knives, slingshots, and metal pipes, and switched from non-lethal weapons to live rounds after several activists seized their pistols.[12][13]

Note the angry red POV. ;-)

It goes in both directions—I think the activists claim there was more than warning shots, and the knives, pipes etc. come from the videos, not just testimony. These sentences will be reverted again and again; anyone have any ideas what to do about it?  —Rafi  20:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, one solution is to be as vague as possible in the lead! That doesn't prevent greater depth of coverage later in the article, but one activist said is simply wrong. The commandos said is probably wrong as well. Physchim62 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree they're both wrong. But I think that a vague lead will invite even more POV edits, and the level of detail is appropriate anyway.  —Rafi  21:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

New testimony from passenger on Marmara

I don't have time right now, but there is new testimony here: [17] 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[18] which has more accounts of passengers who say the same things. This NY Times article[19] 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: [20] --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 [21]! 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 [22], [23], 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). [24] [25] [26] 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: [27]. 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)

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 [28] 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)