Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Single purpose accounts

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

UNHRC

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

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

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

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

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

Photo that shouldn't appear here

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

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

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

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

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

Mavi Marmara captain's interview

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

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

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

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

"The purpose of the blockade"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes in the middle of a direct quote

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

"Israel's account" photos

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Single-purpose account also has some guidance:

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

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

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

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

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

"Heart of the sea"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurriyet photo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go back to Auschwitz?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments on weapons found

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

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

Original: "Når det gjelder funn av gassmasker og kraftige spretterter, så kan det tyde på at i alle fall noen om bord var forberedt på å slåss. De kraftige sprettertene er av samme type som ble brukt under intifadaen. Blir mennesker truffet av disse sprettertene på kort avstand, kan det gå øyne og føre til stygge skader"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes that's my point, the items in question are certainly not weapons per se, but, like a hairpin or a wine bottle or a fire extinguisher, can be co-opted for such a purpose. What concerns me is the suggestion that those on the flotilla had "weapons" and those rappelling from the choppers had only "toys" (the paintball game spin). This is of course the Israeli narrative -- that the raiding commandos were the vulnerable ones. The death toll, however, tells another story, one that is based on facts not conjecture, which makes for more policy-compliant content. RomaC (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "improvised" simply does not fit. From the wiki article: "… objects are not physically altered in any way, in an effort to make them more functional as weapons". The passengers clearly modified common items so as to turn them into functional weapons, thus they aren't "improvised". However, the word "makeshift weapons" does seem appropriate.

RomaC, what makes you think that the article gives the suggestion the soldiers were _only_ armed with toys? From my reading of it, it seems very clear that the soldiers were _also_ armed with sidearms, and that those weapons were used against passengers. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Question about the use of the words "Victims"

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

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

Misleading edit comments

Hello all,

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

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

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

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

Edit request from 79hm3H5mq4, 12 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

spelling: NGO's, should be NGOs

79hm3H5mq4 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Rklawton (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Paintball guns"

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

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

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

TFOWR 17:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps "riot gear", [1] [2] --Brendumb (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The article is being archived quickly. A few days ago, in another paintball section, I attached the link to this article[3] which explains why paintball guns are used in situations like this. I also linked to our own Pepper-spray projectile article which describes what is perhaps the most common use of the guns. As the Slate article notes, Israel has (or had) not identified what type of ammunition they were using so we are probably stuck using the generic term. And I should say that in my experience, the preferred sporting term is "paintball marker" rather than gun. --JGGardiner (talk) 21:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It may be a bruise, sometimes a rather nasty one, but certainly not "terrible soft tissue wounds". We also have several witnesses talking about automatic guns, one even identified them as uzis. Would be adding "reported to be" perhaps solve it? // Liftarn (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

One person's "nasty bruise" is another person's "terrible soft tissue wound". I also doubt they were using Uzis. There's a reason eyewitness accounts are considered very weak evidence in court. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can't see any flashes on the Cihan video, but the end of the barrel is hidden by the side of the deck from the cameraman's position. What you do see is the soldier bringing the rifle up, reloading, lowering it again, apparently shooting, bringing it up and reloading. There would be no point (or possibility) in reloading if no shot had been fired. There are 9mm rifle cartridges, so I don't think we can exclude the footage just on that basis. Physchim62 (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So the theory is that Israel is using bolt action 9x57mm Mausers? And that Turkish doctors can't tell the difference to 9x19mm pistol rounds? :-) I frankly don't see that this video shows much of anything. Ketil (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

On another note,about the photo which says: "IDF commando being treated by Dr. Hasan Huseyin Uysal, a Turkish doctor. Source: Free Gaza Movement", why did the activists offer to treat the soldiers wounds? don't the IDF have medics for that?....oh wait, the soldiers hands are tied, well now it's much clearer. what's not clear is why doesn't the caption mention that it's a captured IDF commando? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should the caption mention that the IDF "commando" was captured? If anyone is stupid enough not to understand that, the text of the article makes it perfectly clear. The difference is that the activists gave medical attention to the captured IDF soldiers; the IDF left wounded activists to bleed to death, going so far as to prevent them from receiving medical attention. To call them murderous dogs is surely an insult to dogs. Physchim62 (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a citation is needed for what is claimed in the caption. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it can be noted that Turkish media has reported accusations that there is video showing the 19 year old was beaten and shot to death. But including a still with a caption suggesting that the video shows this isn't proper. Freakshownerd (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I just add an info about the photo, after seeing in Turkish Vikipedi this picture: http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosya:IDFS13_gosterici_tekmeliyor_ve_yakin_mesafeden_vuruyor.jpg.jpg. In English, the photo title can be translated to "Soldier beat and shoot passenger". Are two pictures (on this page and on Turkish Vikipedi) not same or similar? If not, I can add the photo from turkish Vikipedi to English Wikipedia.Kavas (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

who put that picture up again? and why? now saying: "Cihan News Agency wrote it was claimed that the snapshot was related to Furkan Dogan, who was killed in the incident.[96][97] Source: Cihan News Agency". first of all We already have the same picture, just scroll up and you see it, and second of all - all I see is 2 commandos, and a flag of Turkey, tell me where is Furkan and how that picture is related to his death? oh and third, bad grammar.132.69.238.124 (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, why don't you have a look in the article's history and tell us? You could ask the editor responsible, too.

I do take your point that the image is used twice (both instances right after each other). The image should only be used once.

now saying: "Cihan News Agency wrote it was claimed that the snapshot was related to Furkan Dogan, who was killed in the incident.[96][97] Source: Cihan News Agency".

... second of all - all I see is 2 commandos, and a flag of Turkey, tell me where is Furkan and how that picture is related to his death? - the caption appears consistent with the source and the image. Cihan claimed it was related to Dogan, presumably?

TFOWR 11:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

how is it consistent? moment of death? where do you see any shooting? if that caption suggests that the israeli commandos executed him with 4 bullets on both sides of the body while he was on the ground, then it is obviously a lie, which btw isn't on the text of the source.

bottom line - the captions are purely POV. I might as well post a picture of an elephant and post a caption which says: "cow".

Uninvolved admin input requested: see collapsed thread immediately following. TFOWR 15:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Stay focussed on improving the article. Raise concerns about other editors with them, or at WP:DR.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To any admin reading this page: is the above considered acceptable discourse on talk pages? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC) It's straying close to general chat about personal opinions, rather than the article but I suspect as a former admin Physchim62 would avoid straying too far. TFOWR 15:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Saying "To call them murderous dogs is surely an insult to dogs" is "straying close"? I'll keep that in mind. Thanks for the clarification. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC) As far as I'm aware, the IDF is not an editor here... or is it? And I notice that nobody bats an eyelid over the many caricatures which are made of the activists on this page, yet I get criticized for calling a spade a spade, as it were. Physchim62 (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC) As far as I'm aware, this page is under discretionary sanctions and your repeatedly posting your personal opinion and POV here is considered disruptive. Now that I realize you're a former admin, I think I understand why nobody is taking action. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC) I feel you can contribute constructively, without adding your own opinion. That said, discussions about individual editors do not belong here and should not have been raised here. I'm collapsing this part of the thread. TFOWR 15:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

you call wiping his blood off of his head medical attention??? pathetic. oh yeah and of course the IDF prevented medical attention from the activists....yeah you should always believe Palestinian members of the Knesset, they are quite reliable. and btw quite a few of the activists are lucky to be alive, if wasn't for the helicopters evacuating them to the hospital they would have died for sure.

There are several concordant testimonies that the IDF did not evacuate certain casulties, and prevented them being attended to by medical personnel on board, leading them them bleeding to death. That is a war crime, whether you consider the activists as civilians or combatants. The photo also puts down the IDF lie that the commandos were unconscious while they were in captivity, and escaped when they regained consciousness. The soldier is obviously conscious and being well treated in captivity. Physchim62 (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the sanctions on the I/P conflict, editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Physchim62, in your statement about "murderous dogs" have crossed the line, and I respectfully advise you to step back. Furthermore I remind all editors involved in this discussion - this is not a forum. Marokwitz (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Not defending the caption which may need reworking but come on, the notable aspect of this event is the killing of flotilla passengers. Reverting removal of the only image that reflects this, there are two IDF-annotated pics of commandos purportedly being attacked, not a neutral presentation. RomaC (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The images in the IDF videos are described by multiple RS, not to mention are part of a longer video in which you can see the events leading to and after the snapshot was taken. The new one has so far been picked up by one activist group and is part of a 5 second sequence which isn't exactly clear. Also, maybe 1/3 of the pictures in the article support the Israeli POV, so claiming the presentation isn't neutral is a bit of a stretch. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal

Why was the image removed? Is Cihan News Agency unreliable? Doesn't the article include a similar Israeli image where the subject is not clearly visible, and one which was edited by the IDF?--Brendumb (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree this image is of the most notable aspect of this event the killing of the passengers as stated above by RomaC we already have images of IDF personel being "attacked". Mo ainm~Talk 16:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

If it actually showed the alleged victim, OR soldiers wielding the kind of weapon that killed him, OR a situation that could correspond to the autopsy, then maybe it would serve a purpose. As it is, it's just two soldiers and a Turkish flag, together with a very inflammatory text. (Or am I looking at the wrong picture?) Ketil (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Ketil, the picture had soldiers carrying weapons, and news source reported it may correspond to picture. IDF image doesn't show the victim either. Also, isn't it up to news agency and not us to do interpretation?--Brendumb (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Saying that a video that doesn't show anyone actually being shot or anyone actually shooting is a video of a specific person being shot is an exceptional claim and would require better sourcing than one news agency and one activist group. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Then why did you think YouTube was ok for IDF? What is wrong with repeating Cihan?--Brendumb (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As I mentioned above, the IDF video is described by multiple RS, and also has a longer sequence where you can see at least some of what the caption is talking about, for example actual soldiers on deck in a melee as opposed to nobody near those two soldiers in the new video. Actual people clearly swinging rods/clubs as opposed to nobody clearly shooting, etc, etc. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Cihan said people shooting, and we know from autopsy and funeral people shooting, you don't think anyone died in raid? maybe we use different photo and different caption, but no reason to completely remove account of death which made event notable.--Brendumb (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the article talks at length about people dying in the raid and I don't think anyone is trying to remove that. I don't think you see anyone dying in that video though. Or anyone shooting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And Cihan say: "The last video shocked the world which is being claimed that the pictures is relating with the Turkish-U.S citizen Furkan Dogan(19) who had been brutally killed by the Israeli soldiers on the Mavi Marmara Relief Ship. In the video it can be seen that Israeli soldiers are hitting and kicking him and later killing with close range shooting. Pictures were created very big furious against Israel across Turkey." Not up to us to interpret. Do you have source saying it wasn't occuring? New York Times thought Cihan reliable and previously quoted a week ago.--Brendumb (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Cihan is obviously lying about this, since, as is obvious to anybody, neither the video or still shows anything of the sort, the soldiers wield guns of a completely different kind than the ones killing FD, and his actual wounds seem unlikely to arise from this situation. But, by all means, its an RS, so feel free to help propagate the propaganda and ignore facts. Ketil (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So the Israelis are just kicking aroung a sack of onions they found on the deck, firing into it incase it's a terrorist in disguise? Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

From the video we have it's just as likely a sack of onions as it is Furkan Dogan. I don't see anyone shooting, either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So the IDF is now using assault rifles which have to be reloaded before they've even been fired??!! In the meantime, the "Israel's account" section of the article has no question of the IDF version, dispite the criticisms in reliable sources and the blatant inconsistencies in the different IDF accounts. Physchim62 (talk) 18:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What is he reloading? One of those 4 shot 9mm assault rifle magazines? He must be a world record holder for reloading a rifle, too, if that's actually what he's doing there. Not so clear about that either. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If there are sources and they are reliable then it is not up to editors to second guess what is happening. The IDF being a protagonist are far from reliable and are being used. Mo ainm~Talk 17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

@ Ketil have you a source which says that Cihan are lying if not it is just your opinion and means nothing. Mo ainm~Talk 18:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I shouldn't have used the term "lying" (since I don't have any RS sprinkled with holy water), I should have said "claims in clear contradiction of the obvious facts". You know, like how a soldier wielding what is probably a paintball gun (and certainly not a pistol) inflicts five 9mm wounds on both sides of the body. As it stands, the picture is interesting, because it shows a fairly strong Turkish propaganda effort here. Ketil (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Again according to your POV, what the video shows is IDF commandos kicking at something and then firing at it, I don't know what was being fired and at what. If a reliable source says it is one of the passengers then that is what we say here and as you are probably aware we use verifiability not truth, and let the reader decide. Mo ainm~Talk 21:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

We do indeed use verifiability. Please see this part of WP:V. A video not showing a passenger claiming it is showing a passenger being shot is an exceptional claim. You're going to need high quality sources to include it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Cihan is obviously confused itself. The link says "...which is being claimed that the pictures is relating with the Turkish-U.S citizen Furkan Dogan(19) who had been brutally killed..." So who made this claim? We have nonRS saying it but it appears to be scandal mongering ("look they shot him while he was down!!!"). So the source says that Dogan was killed. I could understand "video showing Dogan who was killed in the conflict" since that is not disputable that he died but even Cihan contradicts (or at a minimum is not clear) if that was the time of death.Cptnono (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And since we have every indication that that is a paintball gun it is grossly inappropriate to imply that he was being "killed" by it even if RS describes what nonRS is claiming.Cptnono (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting a recent edit to the photo caption here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367672151&oldid=367671669

My explanation to the editor who inserted this caption is HERE.

I am not removing the reference he added but perhaps it should be changed to an English language reference if one exists.

Zuchinni one (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me, given the current consensus here. It might be worth pinging Itsmejudith - they might be able to help with an English source. TFOWR 00:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Replacement

Opposition to the photo argued on limited visibility of the victim is not valid -- we aren't meant to look at pics and decide what we think they show or do not show, we are meant to reflect what sources say about pics. Also this opposition (the victim is not visible) by some editors seems to indicate a selection bias, as the victim is not visible in this IDF pic either. If agendas interfere with neutral participation some editors should consider stepping back. The Cihan News Agency picture should be replaced in the article to balance those of the IDF purportedly being attacked, this is obvious. If, later, more pictures surface, we can consider these. RomaC (talk)

One of the main differences between the IDF picture pulled from a video and the Cihan picture, is that in the IDF video the soldier is clearly visible (though you correctly say he is not in the picture), while in the Cihan video the soldiers do seem to be kicking someone, but there is never any person shown. I think the main argument is not with the photo itself, but rather the caption about Israeli soldiers supposedly killing someone here. That is not at all evident and as wikipedia states, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand that s/he's visible but not in the picture. RomaC (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Roma ... what I mean is that in there are two videos from which frames were taken for photos. In one video you can clearly see that it is a soldier being attacked ... even though the photo used does not have that soldier in frame. In the second video there it never shows the person who the soldiers are pointing their guns at, and it doesn't show them firing. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing exceptional about quoting what the Cihan News Agency reported. WP:V say "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth ... not whether editors think it is true". We simply quote what Cihan already reported, perfectly verifiable. Like whether someone guilty of a crime, we just say "Someone has said someone is guilty..", not "Someone is guilty.."--Brendumb (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is verifiable that the news agency said this was a video of a killing. But that claim has zero evidence, zero verifiability, and there is no reason to believe it is true. This is just like the Israeli claims of "trash talk" as described below and neither deserves a place of importance in this article. At most they deserve a minor mention and a link. But even that seems to be too much for this. Zuchinni one (talk) 05:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The photo re-added here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367708759&oldid=367692611 needs to be removed for multiple reasons. I have asked the contributing editor to remove the photo and given my reasons here: User_talk:Brendumb#Dogan_Photo. There are no major problems with the original photo itself ,and in fact it exists earlier in the article, but the text added in, and the caption are problematic. Zuchinni one (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Raising it up with the editor concerned it would take no longer than posting here, and is far more appropriate. Also consider WP:DR or raising the issue privately with, say, me.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Someone should report User:Brendumb for violating 1RR and edit warring a picture s/he knows has no consensus into the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC) You, uh, found the time to complain about an editor here but couldn't find the time to complain on their talk page, at WP:DR, WP:ANI or my talk page? TFOWR 11:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture is up again...132.69.238.124 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is clear from other videos that the passengers were fighting back with rods/clubs/something long and hard (hehe). There is no dispute so it makes our work here easier. Even the source is not clear if the passenger was being shot dead in this other video. It is clear they were kicking someone but it is not clear that that was his moment of death ("...which is being claimed that the pictures is relating with the Turkish-U.S citizen Furkan Dogan(19) who had been brutally killed..."). It might be OR to put in "then shot with a paintball gun" so I could see not saying that but saying that was him being killed is just as bad since it is pretty clear that it is not factual. I don't mind the image at all but the caption is no good.Cptnono (talk) 10:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable source claims that this is the moment of the death of an activist then that is what we say here, we can't second guess or add what we think it shows, IMO it shows nothing but I am not a reliable source. Mo ainm~Talk 10:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to repeat everything any reliable source says. We are allowed to use common sense and require better sourcing for stuff that seems like an exceptional claim, which this certainly is. There's a video where you never see any passengers or anyone shooting and a source claims it's a video of soldiers shooting a passenger. That's going to need more sourcing before it can go in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No, but we are under an obligation not to give undue weight to one side of a dispute. At present, we are using the IDF as if it were a reliable source, which it patently isn't, and applying a higher standard of inclusion to material which is disfavourable to the IDF that to material which a priori is favourable (I say a priori because it's hardly favourable if they're shown to be lying, but that's another matter). Such bias is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Physchim62, we are not here to pass our opinion on what reliable sources claim. Mo ainm~Talk 14:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest both of you read WP:V, specifically the part about exceptional claims. If you have specific issues with content you feel is sourced only to the IDF, feel free to bring it up in a new section. We're not supposed to insert unreliable content just to reduce the weight of other content. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:V and what is so exceptional about the claim? Were people killed on the ship? Yes, did the IDF kill them? Yes. So it is hardly that exceptional that this video is of the killing of one of the activists. As I have said I don't know if it is or isn't, but if a reliable source says it is then thats all that is required here by policy. Mo ainm~Talk 21:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

And this isn't a discussion about the IDF source or a perceived double standard. It is a different situation with different content, different quality of sources seconding, and the source isn't clear (not the video, the actual wording at the source). And verifiability does not mean we knowingly put in errors. Other sources say they held paintball guns and it certainly looks like one. Both SYNTH and OR mean we cannot put that in but we can still choose not to make an edit countering other points that are actually verified. Even Jimbo Wales sees a concern with the "view that we must report more or less willy-nilly on what reliable sources have said, with "reliable source" being a binary on/off judgment made based on a variety of factors." And there are numerous guidelines and policies that can be latched onto to force exclusion (NPOV is one that jumps out). This is pretty simple, just don't say "this is when he died" in the caption since the source muddles it up and there is reason to believe that that was him being kicked and shot with a paintball gun while he was killed later. Of course even the source isn't clear if it is the guy in question since they say there is a claim of it being so.Cptnono (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What's exceptional is that it asserts you can see a specific passenger being shot when you can't see any passenger or anyone shooting. If/when this is picked up by a couple high quality sources, I will not object to putting it in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

IDF video footage "doctored"?

I was looking up IMEU, and came across this link: [4] where they claim "The Israeli government released doctored footage to support the accounts of soldiers involved in the raid, which seemed to indicate they had been beaten with metal rods and chairs upon boarding".

Is there really any doubt that the IDF were in fact "beaten .. upon boarding"? I thought this was an established fact by now? Ketil (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Doctor" - to revise, alter, or adapt (a photograph, manuscript, etc.) in order to serve a specific purpose or to improve the material. Were the yellow lines the IDF added actually there in real life?--Brendumb (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The IDF footage is certainly edited – I don't think the IDF denies it! "Doctored" is maybe a strong word to use, but don't forget that even the Foreign Press Association in Israel has complained about the IDF's "selective" use of footage seized from activists [5], and the Associated Press adds a sort of 'health warning' to the videos, say it has "no way of independently verifying the authenticity". [6] Physchim62 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I know (of course) it's edited and selective, but the link implies the violence (by activists) is faked ("seemed to indicate", how's that for weasel words?:-). I don't remember this being contested before, (except immediately after the attack, when getting it wrong could be attributed to chaos and confusion) If there is actually any doubt about this, I (and the main article?) would like to know. Ketil (talk) 18:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen any serious doubt, no. If anyone has any doubt, they can look at the Al-Jazeera live-stream, but, you know, there are still people who the Apollo moon landings were faked! Physchim62 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

i.i.z.a trick to expantio ad absurdum is not es good as reductio ad absurdum.

It is doctored. Read the reports about people being executed in their sleep, the American who was shot several times in the back of the head. The jews planned this as a massacre (lavon, uss liberty, 911, staged gaza rocket attacks) and the video footage are the inhabitants fighting back to save their lives.Dandate3 (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Relative importance and weight: killings vs trash talk

On the utterance of trash talk by the passengers against the IDF, we have about 250 words:

The Israeli media published an audio reproduction released by the Israeli Defense Force[85] of the purported radio exchange between the Israeli navy and the Defne Y. The audio clip started with the message "Defne Y, this is the Israeli Navy, you're approaching an area which is under naval blockade." A man then said, "Shut up! Go back to Auschwitz!" Afterward, a woman said, "We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter." A man later said, "We're helping Arabs go against the US. Don't forget 9/11, guys."[86] Another ship reportedly replied "Jihad, Jihad, Jihad."[87] An Israeli journalist who was on board an IDF ship confirmed the IDF accounts.[87]

Huwaida Arraf, who was on the Challenger 1, has confirmed that her voice is featured in the recording, but says that the presence of her voice in the transmissions proves that the audio has been edited by the IDF.[88] The captain of Challenger 1 Denis Healey rejected the authenticity of the audiotape, stating that "There was no exchange like this by anyone on any boat during the entire time I was piloting the boat".[89] A press statement was issued by Israeli Defence Forces in the attempt to clarify this descrepancy, claiming that "due to an open channel, the specific ship or ships in the Freedom Flotilla responding to the Israeli Navy could not be identified." The IDF also has released a longer version of the radio transmission between the Gaza Flotilla and the Israeli Navy in one of their websites.

On the shooting of the passengers and cause of death, we have about the same word count:

Nine activists were shot and killed in the raid, including eight Turkish nationals and one American national of Turkish descent.[179][180] The nine were all members of or volunteers for the IHH.[58][181] The names and ages of the dead are: Cengiz Akyüz (42), Ali Heyder Bengi (39),[182] İbrahim Bilgen (60), Furkan Doğan (19), Cevdet Kılıçlar (38), Cengiz Songür (47), Çetin Topçuoğlu (54), Fahri Yaldız, and Necdet Yıldırım (32).[183] İbrahim Bilgen was a Turkish politician from the Felicity Party.[184] Furkan Doğan was an American; his father said that he had not thought that he would be killed since he was an American.[185][186] Doğan was shot five times from less that 45 cm, in the face, in the back of the head, twice in the leg and once in the back according to forensic reports.[187]

Turkish autopsy results showed that all of the 9 people shot died of 9mm gunshot wounds, 5 of them from gunshot wounds to the head.[183][20] The British newspaper The Guardian reported that the activists were shot 30 times in total, with many of them fired at close range, according to Yalcin Buyuk, vice-chairman of the Turkish council of forensic medicine which carried out the autopsies.[188] Buyuk said that five of the victims were shot either in the back of the head or in the back.[188] At least four victims were shot from both front and back.[188] "From the analysis of the bullet distance on one of the bodies," Dr. Haluk Ince, the director of Istanbul's Medical Examination Institute, said, "the gun was fired between 2 and 14 centimeters' distance from the victim's head."[20] Yalcin Buyuk said that 48 others suffered gunshot wounds and six activists were still missing.

Also note that the information on cries of "Remember 9-11!" etc., is in the top half of the article, whereas the info on cause of death was purged from the lead and now languishes in the next-to-last section. If neutral editors see a relative importance and weight problem here, hope they will edit to fix. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with RomaC here. I don't really understand why these disputed recordings are getting such an entire paragraph in the initial contact section, which I hope would be free from POV. Even if the recording were 100% verified and everybody agreed about them, I'm not sure how much this added to the encyclopedic content. At best this might be appropriate in the Israeli accounts section, but even then maybe its better to briefly mention it and link to a reference for those who want more info. Zuchinni one (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Zucchini, the "Israeli accounts" section is specifically regarding the boarding of the Mavi Marmara. Quotes from the initial contact, would not at all belong in that section. So, are you proposing a rather major restructuring of the article where "Israel/Activists accounts" become general rather than in relation to the Mavi Marmara boarding? As for encyclopedic value, I think these quotes would be rather important to show the motivations and goals of the activists. But I certainly agree that it should be cut down and reduced in weight. How's this as a 97 word version:

The Israeli media published an audio reproduction of the purported radio exchange between the Israeli navy and the flotilla. The audio clip started with the message "Defne Y, this is the Israeli Navy, you're approaching an area which is under naval blockade." A man then said, "Shut up! Go back to Auschwitz!" Afterward, a woman said, "We have permission from the Gaza port authority to enter." A man later said, "We're helping Arabs go against the US. Don't forget 9/11, guys." Activists along with the captain of the Challenger 1 have disputed authenticity of this recording.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I respect your opinion, but I'm sorry, I just don't think that the trash talk, even if verified, belongs in the article. Perhaps a short addendum to the end of another portion of the article that mentions the IDF releasing videos like "The IDF released videos of the boarding as well as audio reproductions of the pre-boarding radio conversation" Zuchinni one (talk) 05:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably Bob drobbs suggestion is more reasonable. I'm not sure branding the exchange "trash talk" covers it all: this is not a banal F word reference. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

In my humble opinion the radio talk is notable enough to include in the article , since major controversies related to the incidence should be covered, if they are reported in multiple independent reliable sources. Marokwitz (talk) 08:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Zuch and Bob & support Bob's proposed wording. I did the same thing earlier (after discussion & agreement) but someone reverted it. Can't see how this could be described as a "major controversy" given the context of nine people being being killed. Misarxist (talk) 10:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I would cut things down even more than Bob, somthing like: "The IDF released an audio recording purporting to be of a radio exchange between the IDF and the flotilla. The recording contains several inflammatory phrases such as "Go back to Auschwitz!". The captain of the Challenger I, and also activists such as Huwaida Arraf who was on the bridge of the Challenger I at the time of first contact with the IDF, have said the recording is faked." Physchim62 (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with AgadaUrbanit that these quotes go well beyond "trash talk". To be clear about what we're talking about please refer to the articles for Trash-talk, Fighting_words, and Hate_speech. But at minimum we seem to have consensus that the section should be cut down substantially. I modified Physchim62's text a bit, and updated the article.

250 words => 68 words. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli censorship

See this. It appears the Israelis were confiscating all footage by the humanitarians even as they broadcast their propaganda footage. In the light of this surely Israeli videos fail the "reliability" test? We should remove all reference to Israeli propaganda videos to a footnote as they clearly didn't want alternatives to their carefully edited (or faked) footage to appear in the world media. Sarah777 (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, even if the "trash talk" re 9/11 etc is true it justifies nothing. In Europe free speech is a a given - you don't get slaughtered because of something somebody beside you might have set. The Israeli propaganda machine is scraping the bottom of the barrel and this article is entertaining such nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 06:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is your own personal POV. WIKI article should be neutral. ShalomOlam (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The above is referenced fact. Click on it and learn. The Wiki article should be neutral - it isn't. There is massive undue weight being given to Israeli propaganda. Sarah777 (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the Israeli censorship should be mentioned there is no evidence of faked videos and in fact much of the passengers' video and accounts confirm the statements and videos released by Israel. I don't see how any of the videos released by either side fail the reliability test. Zuchinni one (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that as most of the footage by the activists was confiscated by the Israelis, giving such prominence to the Israeli video is merely facilitating the one-sided Israeli propaganda. Sarah777 (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We should use the photos we have. The Israeli's are censoring, but Wikipedia is not censored, and there are sufficient photos to show both sides of the conflict. Marokwitz (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• Where videos have been released by the IDF, we should mention their provenance (i.e. let the reader decide whether they trust the IDF). Incidentally, I believe that this is the video Fences and windows mentioned above (however, the Guardian version is only 15 minutes long, I believe, against 60 minutes (?) for the version discussed above)? I had a quick look at the photos in the article just now, and there does seem to be a shift some way towards showing the victims (i.e. the dead) instead of the casualties (on both sides). I think this is good - for most readers the incident is notable because nine people died. I don't believe we should raise the issue of censorship (by any party) in the lead; however, I do believe that the Guardian is a reliable source, and that it's worth mentioning that video footage was confiscated by the IDF. In terms of censorship on Wikipedia, we can and do show what we want - what we want at any given time may give undue weight to one side or other. I don't believe censorship is the issue - it comes back down to WP:NPOV. Personally, I'd like to see more pictures of the victims, and less of the casualties (with the obvious caveat that I'd like to see no pictures of dead people - ever - but life sadly ain't like that). TFOWR 10:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, we have a photo purporting to be of Cevdet Kılıçlar "being treated for head wounds" in the "Injuries" section. If that is Cevdet Kılıçlar, which is plausible looking at other photos, then he's already dead; but I don't know where the source for the identity comes from. I'm going to change the caption for now to simply "A passenger with head wounds" (as there's no immediate sign of medical treatment): if someone comes up with a source for the identity, we can change it back later. Physchim62 (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please retain chronological order

• Recent edits have moved certain events out of their chronological order. Remember, this is an article about a historical event. Please keep the article and it's lead in chronological order of events. Marokwitz (talk) 08:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Incidentally, the "the sequence of events is disputed" phrase seems to have disappeared from the lead: are sources now in broad agreement over what happened and when? TFOWR 10:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure, but certainly, now that things are more clear and there is less confusion, if the chronological order is still widely disputed then it should be written in the lead. Marokwitz (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Things are clearer, granted, but there still seems to be dispute over points such as when the activists started to prepare to resist the boarding, or whether the first activists were killed before or after the IDF arrived on deck: these are fairly important points in both sides' arguments, so I'd rather there were some sort of warning to readers. Physchim62 (talk) 11:25, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Agreed, if these things are still in dispute [Need to check recent sources] then a note saying so should be in the lead. Most of the recent sources that I saw, seem to settle on the roughly following version (at least this is my understanding): The Israelis, prepared for low intensity riots, used sound bombs, tear gas and paintball guns prior to and during the landing, in attempt to force the activists away from the upper deck and into the ship. One activist chucked a stun grenade into an Israeli rubber commando boat. The first soldiers to land on deck were immediately overpowered by the crowd of activists which were prepared for resistance with metal rods, knives and slingshots. In the fighting that ensued at least one soldier was thrown onto a lower deck and lost consciousness. Handguns were taken from the beaten soldiers and between three to four of them who were injured were taken by the activists into the ship. At this point the versions diverge: the activists say that the handguns taken from the soldiers were chucked into the sea not fired, and the soldiers taken into the ship were taken for medical care. The Israelis say that the seized handguns were used against the soldiers, and that the injured soldiers were taken hostage. The Israelis claim that they responded with live fire only when the lives of the soldiers were in clear danger, while the activists dispute that and say that the Israelis opened live fire and killed passengers who were not posing immediate danger. The captured soldiers were then returned after intervention from an Israeli Palestinian knesset member who was on board. Marokwitz (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
        • A few more points:
          • Preparation. Israel says that violent confrontation was the aim of the Mavi Marmara voyage and that preparations started even before the ship left Istanbul. The activists say they tried to avoid confrontation, and especially confrontation by night and in international waters, and only started to prepare to defend the ship when it had been surrounded by the Israeli Navy (about two hours before boarding).
          • First shots. Israel says that the first live shots were fired by soldiers on the upper deck. The activists say that two passengers were already dead from live fire before IDF soldiers boarded.
          • Release of captive soldiers. Activist accounts differ on this one; one account says they were released in return for a promise of medical aid from the IDF, other accounts say they were released unilaterally to avoid an escalation of IDF violence. There are also differing accounts as to the gravity of their injuries, with Israel speaking of "unconscious", one activist speaking of "fracture wounds", and released photographs showing fairly minor injuries in two cases.
        • Physchim62 (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

SS Exodus in See Also

A few days ago, there was a section at the bottom of the article comparing the flotilla to SS Exodus. It was removed since the article was too large. Now that we have a See Also section, I believe including it as a bullet point there would not have any effect on the length of the article. As for relevance; a lot of reliable international news sources[Israel: remember 1947 and the Exodus ship - The Guardian][Exodus Revisited - The New York Times], [We've been here before ... but Israel has failed to learn lessons of history - Sydney Morning Herald], [Mavi Marmara and the Exodus - The New York Sun], as well as Israeli newspaper Haaretz[Fiasco on the high seas - Haaretz] contained reports relating SS Exodus to the flotilla. Both ships were heading towards the same region, contained civilians, were challenging a naval blockade, were stopped by force, and resulted in heavy international criticism. Now; you may personally feel that the flotilla's journey is not justified compared to that of Exodus, but you cannot deny the fact there are many similarities. Merely noting the similarity between the two events does not necessarily mean that both of them were justified or both of them were not justified. That is to be left to the reader. --386-DX (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OPPOSE: The only similarity is that both made head lines, most readers with limited knowledge of History have heard of the Exodus that's why the journalists mention it -and probably to smear the Israelis with the same repulsion it triggered towards the Brits-, these activists were not desperate refugees and they were not even detained, not all blocades are similar: the british blocade was for people and the israeli one for weapons, some people are emotionally mislead by a superficial point: the use of the same word. The Exodus comparison should be in the Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid article since they are just that, reactions, Hope&Act3! (talk) 09:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All of this has already been debated above. Please read before you write, stop raising the same points, engaging in circular discussions, and and save your personal opinions for some other medium. See WP:FORUM. --386-DX (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend to include it per WP:SEEALSO and that several sources already have made the connection. There are several parallels between the two events. Including Todd Beamer would not be a good idea, even if some people have made such a connection. // Liftarn (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Video released

The Guardian reports on a video by Iara Lee, who was on the Mavi Marmara, being released.[7] Should the video be included as an external link? It is on Vimeo:[8]. Fences&Windows 19:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's a full one hour version of that video. I posted it above in the paintball section. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Here too, shorter version I think: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Full 1h version is at [10] I think. Anybody watch it all, and find anything interesting? I also notice that the text below the video claims there are activists unaccounted for, but doesn't mention any names. I've seen this claimed in many places, but do we have anything definitive? Ketil (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing much happening until 21 minutes, morning prayer commences and goes on to about 32. Seems to contradict sources claiming people were attacked while at prayer, at least. Ketil (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At 36:32, in what seems to be the first action by IDF, they are firing painball guns at the activists (PB magazines in profile) Ketil (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At 39 minutes we see some red liquid on a ladder - an activist (Espen Goffeng) says he think's they're using some paintball like stuff, he doesn't think it's blood. Ketil (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The liquid looks too red to be blood, although some of the activists seem to assume that it's blood. Physchim62 (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At about 40 minutes, he repeats it, says they're not using live rounds, and that they have landed ten people from a helicopter. I think he says "they've taken two of them", but it's hard to make out. At 41 minutes, we see a (second?) abseiling from helicopter. Ketil (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There's confirmation that the flotilla had changed course before the raid (about 12min): we knew that already (they were heading due west at the time of the boarding), but it's the first secondary source I've seen for that. Physchim62 (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? What confirms this? Ketil (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

At 10:57, Lee is filming the Al-Jazeera broadcast, where Jamal Elshayyal reports that the organizers have decided to reroute the vessel to avoid confrontation with the Israeli forces, especially a confrontation by night. A couple of days ago, someone else had come to the same conclusion by studying the AIS logs that are tracked by marinetraffic.com, that's in the talk page archives somewhere. Finally, you can see from where the Sun is coming up later on in the video that the ship is travelling roughly west. Physchim62 (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The marinetraffic link isn't working for me any more, but I think the same track is at [11]. This time-stamps the turn at 01:40 UTC. At 01:32 MM does 5kts south, 1:37 it's 11kts south, 1:43 it is doing 11kts southwest. Since the broadcast is obviously before the attack, either he's talking about something else, or the attack must have been a lot later than previously thought. Ketil (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I doubt it's Lee, since there's a long scene of morning prayers. IANAM, but AFAK, women are not allowed among men during prayer (or vice versa). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very interesting video indeed. Here are some highlights (this is of course my analysis which won't go in the article without an RS saying the same thing, but I think it's useful for us as editors to get as clear a picture as possible of what happened)

• There are several cuts in the video, but it's continuous from 38:23-47:32, which includes the first part of the raid with the soldiers coming down from the helicopter.
• At 39:00 there's what might be a single live shot. There's a guy speaking in Turkish into a walkie-talkie, if anyone could translate what he's saying that would be great.
• You can hear the helicopters starting to arrive over the ship around 39:30. There's a laser pointer on the deck a few seconds later.
• The helicopters are above the ship at 40:00.
• At 41:37 you can see soldiers coming down from the helicopter.
• At 42:00 you can see three passengers firing slingshots at the helicopter/soldiers.
• At 42:48 you can hear what might be the first live shot if the earlier one wasn't. Another single shot at 43:15.
• At 43:27 they bring down a wounded passenger. I couldn't tell where he's wounded.
• Rapid fire at 43:35, sounds like someone emptying a pistol clip, then there's what I think is automatic fire.
• At 45:25 you can see them bringing down a soldier (not sure if he's conscious or not, he's not struggling).
• At 45:44 an American guy says that they have "two soldiers down there bleeding an wounded". We saw this guy coming up the stairs at 44:00. He has in his possession some papers with Hebrew writing he says were on the soldiers.
• At 46:10 you can see a passenger with a wound to the leg. Another one with wounds to both legs at 46:50.
• At around 50:00 (after the cut) there's a several minute sequence where you can see passengers armed with knives, chains, metal rods and clubs waiting next to a door.
• At around 53:00 there's a pretty graphic sequence of wounded passengers.
• At 61:00 (after daybreak) you can hear who I believe is MK Zoubi talking in English over the PA. No weapons fire is heard.
  

If someone could translate what the guy is saying in Turkish at 39:00, and the other guy in Norwegian at 39:10, that would be much appreciated. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• Woah!. Can everyone stop making their own analyses of the video? Use what reliable secondary sources say about its contents, not your own interpretations or potential cherry-picking of snippets. Fences&Windows 22:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Fences. Some editors are having a field day with original research and interpretations of the videos etc., the great majority of which, of course, are IDF released, appropriated, edited and/or censored. This is not how primary sources are treated. RomaC (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This video is particularly interesting, as it comes from the activists and is thus not censored or cherry-picked by the IDF. It also appears to be largely unedited and chronological. I don't see why you consider this cherry-picking - well, unless it's because you want to ignore the facts, and just use WP as a vehicle for your own POV, that is. Ketil (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe "cherry picking" referred to the dissection of the video by various editors. Fences' point was that we should be looking at what reliable, secondary sources say about the video, not providing our own analysis of a primary source. TFOWR 13:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

663 or 682 passengers?

The number of passengers on the flotilla is listed as 663 and 682 in different parts of the article. Most news reports and IDF statements say there were 682. Shall we go ahead and replace all 663's with 682's? --386-DX (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling that there had been a brief comment on this (above, or in the talk page archives), maybe some speculation that the "missing" 19 were the ships' crew. Can't be certain however. I'd suggest holding off for an hour or so in case someone with a better memory than me has any ideas. (I'm also mindful that if 682 refers to passengers+crew we're going to restart the whole passengers/activists/civilians debate... which would fill me with despair ;-)

TFOWR 12:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No consensus, as I remember, and differing numbers with more detainees than flotilla participants. Ketil (talk) 12:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use images

We have two images from Associated Press – the one of the funerals and the one of the UN Security Council – which don't seem to add anything which couldn't be placed in text. Also, they are images from a commercial news organization, so presumably have a resale value which we are diminishing by our use. Although there's no outright ban on using fair use images from news agencies, we are usually doubly careful when we take commercial images as fair use. I think these two images should be removed (if possible, replaced by free alternatives). Comments? Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There is also the image of the flotilla passenger's hands which is from AP. Since I'm not sure what is the policy in these cases, I think that this needs to be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator. Marokwitz (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The UN SC photo seems purely decorative. I'm OK with the funeral picture. Haven't looked ay the "hands" photo yet (and acknowledging that I am - just a wee bit - involved ;-) ) TFOWR 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

All of the following images are problematic, as they come from press agencies and may breach our fair use policy: File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg, File:Furkan Death.JPG, File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg, File:Free Gaza Hands.JPG, File:Flotilla victim funeral.jpg, File:UN Security Council condemns flotilla raid.jpg. Press agency pictures are particularly problematic if the use infringes on their commercial rights or the image is replaceable. Generally we can only use such pictures if the picture itself is the subject of analysis. Fences&Windows 12:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

^ uninvolved admin. Marokwitz, don't say we don't listen to your requests ;-) TFOWR 12:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever he said, I find that a bit extreme though, especially regarding the photos from Hürriyet, these are widely seen as the Turkish response to the photos published by the IDF and show situations that were deemed too embarrassing the Israelis and censored by them. Since the Hürriyet photos directly document the story which is being discussed and there are no free alternatives , I think that would qualify as fair use. Marokwitz (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Are the IHH (or someone similar) republishing the photos? That would possibly^* side-step the concern Fences and windows has over press agencies and their lawyers... ^* What I know about fair use and copyright can be written on the back of a stamp...TFOWR 13:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

These photos cannot be used (even if republished by another group), barring one exception. The disallowance of press agency photos is given by WP:NFC#UUI #6 due to the perceived commercial value aspect; what other people due to republish that photo (with or without permission) doesn't change that photo's impact on us. The exception is if the image itself (not the actions in the image, in this case, the flotilla raid shots) has actual critical commentary. An example of this rare exception is Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. While the flotilla attack has had some significant impact, I am pretty sure no single image yet has any similar reputation as the above case. --MASEM (t) 13:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So, in that case shall I remove them? (the pictures as listed by Fences and windows) Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We just had a similar discussion at Talk: Joran van der Sloot with similar results. You just can't go out and grab other's people's property like that. I would get in touch with the organization which organized the boats, they may be very willing to release photos.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have removed the pics as listed by Fences and windows, File:Gaza-flotilla-boarded.jpg, File:Furkan Death.JPG, File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg, File:Free Gaza Hands.JPG, File:Flotilla victim funeral.jpg, File:UN Security Council condemns flotilla raid.jpg. If you want to replace any of them please discuss at the Wikipedia:Non-free content review and get consensus there . Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Concur. All are invalid fair use claims. You have the word of two uninvolved admins. Please people read WP:NFCC, especially Criterion 8. The fact that we lack sufficient free use images does not give us license to go out and grab others under the claim of "fair use". It may be a use, but it isn't fair to the copyright holder.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The three IDF images would also seem to fail on NFCC 8. Physchim62 (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not true, these image have been released by IDF Spokesperson's Unit, with fair use explicitly allowed. Marokwitz (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

How can fair use be explicitly allowed? I can see free use being allowed, happens every day. But fair use implies the non-consent of the copyright holder.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently they can, the Terms of Use of the material released includes the following words: "User may make "fair use" of the protected material as set out under law. " Marokwitz (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use always allowed under law, question is how "set out under law".--Brendumb (talk) 03:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the IDF has released these images under a free licence (allowing modification, for example), so their use on WP comes under WP:NFCC. Physchim62 (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course. It is non free content under fair use. Marokwitz (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just re-removed File:ALeqM5hsKMJuCoXVL9LGFWr3Xf1YXYwU4Q.jpg at least for failing WP:NFC#UUI #6. You can also count me as uninvolved, although I'm not an admin. So far at least there hasn't been any conversation as to reinstating these images at WP:NFCR#Gaza flotilla raid images. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

claimed in a working paper

Evan Kohlmann in a working paper from the Danish Institute for International Studies[57] claimed that the IHH has ties with radical militant Islamic groups (such as Hamas and al-Qaeda), and that the IHH aids terrorism. <-- This whole sentence looks far-fetched and POV; especially considering that the organisation has a consultative status in UNESC and no government (perhaps except Israel) is designating IHH as a terrorist organisation. Could somebody please remove this sentence? --386-DX (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a point of view, it gives Evan Kohlmann's point of view. There are no alternatives to citing the perspective of various people and organizations in this aritcle. Even if they disagree with the UN.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So why is an individual called Evan Kohlmann's claim in one of his working papers worthy to be menioned in that section? What makes his word an RS? There are far more people who claim that IDF is a terrorist organisation - should we mention all of them as well? There are people who would claim NATO, McDonalds, Red Cross, or Amnesty International are terrorist organisations. Mentioning a claim merely because someone has made it is not reasonable. --386-DX (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I recall the same statement about IHH was made by a French judge who was in charge of investigating terrorism. Will have to look up the source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence should be removed. --Kslotte (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the sentence should be removed. French Institute for International Studies ( http://www.ifri.org/ ) said that we don't have any evidence of this allegation. ( source here : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/proche-orient/flottille-nouvelle-deterioration-des-relations-entre-israel-et-la-turquie_896105.html ) Samuel B52 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

About your source with the French ex-Judge, it's not the first time he say something wrong ( see: " false for second time "http://www.humanite.fr/2010-01-08_International_Rwanda-La-these-du-juge-Bruguiere-invalidee-une-seconde ) and ( http://www.mediapart.fr/club/blog/dominique-conil/231109/jean-louis-bruguiere-meme-les-paranoiaques-ont-des-ennemis ). This ex judge, M.Bruguiere don't have credibility now. We know him as a propagandist now. Samuel B52 (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Multiple RS carried the AP interview with this ex-judge. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Bruguière seems to be the main source for Kohlmann anyway. Perhaps we should change the sentence to say that "former French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière claims that..." (we could still cite the Kohlmann report as a secondary source, as it contains references that the AP piece doesn't). Physchim62 (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Here in France, multiple source wrote that this allegation is not verified. This ex judge didn't give any evidence. We don't have this organisation on our list of terrorist. And Germany, where IHH is also, made a control to surch potential links with terrorist organisation. They didn't find anything and IHH is not on terrorist list. So, is wikipedia a media for propaganda from M.Jean Louis Bruguiere a ex judge with a lot of controversy ? If yes, I think the past and the controversy of the man sould appear after his name, and the translation of a searcher in international relation who said that this allegation is not verified. Samuel B52 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing it per WP:UNDUE, and the sentence after it ("Activists who were members of the IHH were said to be distinguishable from other activists because they demonstrated "a willingness to fight.") because it is a single editorial comment not backed up with any other allegations. It might be worth mentioning that the IHH is not allowed to operate in Israel (undisputed fact). Physchim62 (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Several RS such as Salon, ABC and CBS carried the interview with Bruguière, that makes it notable. I think that "According to France's former top anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguière..., according to X he was wrong because..." should go in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Jean-Louis Bruguière is no more a judge. But if you insist, I ask to put this just after his name : "This ex-judge is controversy and have made several mistakes in the past. ( ref : see links I give just before (or a could make a translation). )" _ and just after the sentence speaking about Bruguière allegations, we put " N.Bolat , a researcher at I.F.R.I. (the French Studies for Internationals Relations) see: (http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/actions-france_830/etudes-recherches_3119/pensee-francaise_3129/ifri_7788.html) said in a French newspaper called " lexpress " that this allegation must be verified and " have to be proved ". and after we put " The French and Germany terrorist list do not include this association as a terrorist organisation or linked as " as a note . Samuel B52 (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If Brugière's opinion were that important, the IHH would be banned in France, but it isn't. It isn't banned in the U.S. either. As far as I'm aware, the only country to ban its operations is Israel. The actions of governments speak loader than the opinions of individuals, I feel. Physchim62 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion on why IHH isn't banned is irrelevant. Brugière is an expert and thus an WP:RS on this issue. The interview was carried by several RS, which makes it notable. What he said should be attributed to him, and if there are people who disagree with him that should be mentioned, but unless you have a policy based argument to exclude it, it should go in the article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

perhaps Brugière was an expert. Now he doesn't work for justice any more, and doesn't have all the possibilities given by a job of judge he had before. He is just a old propagandist, he is not a expert.( And if we wait tree days, perhaps this guy could reveal to the world that Ben Laden and his wife was on a boat and smoked marijuana... ) If we relay his propaganda, we make his biography resume just after his name and we balance his allegation as I asked before with a real expert who work for the French government + note that both government French and German don't include this organisation as terrorist Samuel B52 (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The RS describe him as "France's former top anti-terrorism judge" and that's how we'll describe him. We should certainly add other opinions if they are reported by RS. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The RS describe him more as a politician than a investigator. ( http://www.voltairenet.org/article13591.html ) Could you give your source and the exact sentence you would like to add ? Samuel B52 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I posted it above, but here it is again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this only source you have ? this allegation is already made in IHH page. We don't need redundancy. there is already a link to this organisation at the top of the articleSamuel B52 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the recent addition as this is covered in the IHH article which is linked and this article is already to big. Mo ainm~Talk 10:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I restored it for balance as well as supporting statements made later. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't restore any balance in doing that but you make the IHH story. You shouldn't make the story of IHH here. This is not a IHH article but about a raid army article. This allegation already exist in wikipedia at the IHH special page. Please remove this add Samuel B52 (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Also editor doesn't seem to understand Bold Revert Discuss or just ignored it and reverted in any way. Mo ainm~Talk 11:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand WP:BRD is not policy or even a guideline. It's an essay. What do you understand about it? I hope you didn't think you can use it as a tool to prevent people reverting your revert. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good to know you just ignored a consensus building mechanism, and just reverted a controversial addition might not be policy but it is a good starting point at preventing edit wars. Mo ainm~Talk 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We were having a nice detailed discussion here before you reverted. For some reason you decided not to join the discussion and only revert. I guess you consider that a consensus building mechanism. A good starting point for preventing edits wars is discussing before reverting. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD isn't anything other than an essay (a good one, in my view), but it's very, very relevant here - 1RR sanctions apply to this article. Once you've reverted, discuss - or risk being blocked. Not by me, I hasten to add - I won't block anyone editing this article, since I'm "involved". TFOWR 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources describing Brugière as an expert, so this is both verifiable and notable. According to WP:NPOV, if there is a notable viewpoint that links IHH to terrorism, it is obviosuly relevet to this article's section describing the organization. 80.230.6.117 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that we don't have read a notable source relaying this allegation with Bruguiere's name in France. He seems to be only a "expert" in other country but not in his own country. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And please note that this allegation is not verifiable. A reader can't verify this allegation. Samuel B52 (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems are that the comment is from an uninvolved person from an uninvolved country and concerns his personal impressions from more then ten years ago, and that this article is about commandos boarding flotilla, not just one subsection of the flotilla. But, these problems are being overlooked in the push for some IHH-besmirching, which seems mostly some Wikipedia editors' attempt to discredit the IHH, as Israel is now attempting through a variety of media/PR vehicles. Wikipedia policies of undue weight for example should prevail here, so long as people have the time to invest to counter advocacy editing. RomaC (talk) 00:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer to think of it as "critical editing" rather than "counter advocacy editing" ;) Physchim62 (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

ITLOS photo

Why do we have a photo of the International Tribunal for Law of The Sea in the article? I don't think it's relevant enough to the event. --386-DX (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really add a lot does it...not really connected, we lost five or six pictures earlier and it was perhaps to replace the void so to speak. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed that photo. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Ron Ben Yishay's account

"at first, the soldiers attempted to stop the violence with stun grenades; however, after a soldier was reported injured, the troops then asked for permission to use their firearms, which they received.[128]

That's not what the article says, it says that soldiers first used paintballs, then after the violence continued they used stun grenades, and then when that didn't work, and a soldier was thrown down to a lower deck 30 feet below - not "injured", only then the soldiers resorted to live ammunition. For the soldiers out there who saw this - that solider might as well be dead, who knew if he survived? so I'll hardly called that simply "injured" - a poor choice of words.

possible change: at first, the soldiers attempted to stop the violence using paintball guns and stun grenades, however, after a soldier was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet below, sustaining a serious head injury, the troops asked permission to use live ammunition, a request approved by the commander.

Of course there is room to add in, but the current language is dubious.

Better to leave that account out altogether. Ben Yishay wasn't on the Mavi Marmara, he only knows what he was told by the IDF. We now have other accounts from the IDF, several of which contradict Ben Yishay's account. His account isn't journalism, it's pure propaganda, and out-of-date propaganda at that. Physchim62 (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok,thank you, Physchim.

But, I would still like a comment from one of the non-biased users

I agree - better to get accounts from the witnesses and not second hand. Rklawton (talk) 20:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about some of the claims in his news story, and many of them turned out to be in contradiction with the later findings and statements from both sides. Please search the archives before opening a new discussion. --386-DX (talk) 21:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Yishay was a wintess, please read the article before commenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing in the article suggests he was an eyewitness. And we have this account from one of the commandos, which even the Jerusalem Post admits is "in contrast to earlier reports" (but much closer to activists' statements). Physchim62 (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ben Yishay was on one of the IDF boats, not the Marmara. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Ron Ben Yishay is definitely biased, embedded kind of reporter. We clearly need to mention this. He witnessed Sabra and Shatila and had an interesting insight on Ariel Sharon's role, see Waltz with Bashir for instance. So he has solid background as a professional "war journalist" and his report about what happened is valuable for this article. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he is an "embedded" journalist wouldn't bother me if he actually had something to say. But his account is effectively a work of fiction: it is even written in a way that suggests he actually saw things which he couldn't have seen. We have other IDF accounts of the Israeli side of the story, we should use those instead. Physchim62 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to BBC he was an was an eyewitness AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the BBC has just read his piece and assumed he was an eyewitness because of the style it's written in. They've had to put an awful lot of updates in there since they wrote it on 2 June. He might be a reasonable eyewitness for the expectations of the IDF commanders, for example, but there are better sources for what actually went on on board (from the IDF spin). Physchim62 (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm fine with that paragraph now it's been reworded. Physchim62 (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

comment It doesn't seem clear what sort of "witness" Ben Yishay was. He may have been listening in on the radio communication between soldiers and the IDF ship in real time, while watching events unfold with a nightvision scope. Or he might have just been reporting on things 2nd hand. And from what we have there, we cannot make a determination. But I understand it, it's wikipedia policy to use the RS and call him a "witness" until it's determined otherwise. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

True, It's not the users to judge whether he was a witness, if a RS says he was.It truly doesn't matter what someone thinks the BBC thinks, please refrain from posting such unnecessary comments.

Except that RS does not at all say anywhere that he was a first hand witness. If you read his report, you'll see that he's citing many details that would be impossible for him to witness unless he was on the ship as the raid happened (such as what the passenger said, etc). We may very well include his story, but we cannot cite him as a first hand witness. As I said, this was already discussed for pages. Please search the archives before raising a point. --386-DX (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

and the wording on the article hasn't changed a bit. it's still "injured"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

legality discussion

I think the referenced sources are not very accurately paraphrased in the article text. For instance, the referenced article by Amy Teibel does not cite D'Amato. Secondly, the legal analysis is very weak, replete with imprecision. Instead, the relevant legal issues need to be identified and jurists' views on said issues should be individually presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya12345 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. Marokwitz (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note " After internationals pressures due to civilian activism and the Freedom Flotilla, The 08 June 2010, Mr Benny Begin, israelian minister, said that a special commission in Israel will make investigations to know if the blockade of Gaza is in accordance with international laws : "The committee that will be formed will examine two questions: Is the naval blockade in line with international law, and is the raid we conducted against the flotilla also in line with international law?" This show clearly that actually Israeli government don't know if they respect the law. ( source = http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_world/view/1061815/1/.html ). Samuel B52 (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, virtually every time I see a sentence starting with "This show clearly", what follows is usually not such a clear conclusion :) Your conclusion from the above paragraph should have been - they created a committee because of international pressure. Marokwitz (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thks for your opinion. I agree about that sentence. May be could you have a look at U.N resolutions 242 (1967), 338 (1973), 1397 (2002), 1515 (2003) et 1850 (2008), and number 1860 (2009) of U.N security council to make another remark about legality ? ( see : http://www.un.org/french/docs/cs/ ) Samuel B52 (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are primary sources. Per WP rules, we need to base our article only reliable secondary sources. I'm not a lawyer so my opinion about legality is worthless. Marokwitz (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The 08 June 2010,several RS including primary and secondary sources say: Mr Benny Begin, an israly minister said : "The committee that will be formed will examine two questions: Is the naval blockade in line with international law, and is the raid we conducted against the flotilla also in line with international law?" see : http://actu.orange.fr/a-la-une/flottille-israel-espere-attenuer-les-pressions-avec-une-commission-d-enquete-juridique_563154.html or http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/international/2010/06/08/002-israel-enquete-civile-mardi.shtml. I putted Asian source because the text is the same but in English language. This is a speech made by AFP ( The Official French Press Agency ). You can find more sources if you want, but I see no reason for excluding this speech of this Israeli minister Samuel B52 (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It should not be excluded. Marokwitz (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the inquiry panel has now been approved by the Israeli cabinet. According to the BBC, it will discuss both the legality of the actions during the raid and the wider question of the legality of the blockade. Physchim62 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so we could include this speech of Benny Begin and also this RS of BBC. Samuel B52 (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to: what Benny Begin was suggesting is what has now been announced. Begin's speech is now history. Physchim62 (talk) 01:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Samuel B52

{{editsemiprotected}} As Talk page, in "claimed in a working paper" section, I would like to remove this sentence in IHH section article " According to France's former top anti-terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, the IHH had "clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad" when he investigated them in the late 1990s.[58] " If it's not possible, I would like to add balance with the French specialist as Talk page request in the same section. Thks

Samuel B52 (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

ok.--Brendumb (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) How does cherry-picking uninvolved individuals' decade-old personal impressions of the IHH improve the article? By poisoning the well? Removing per the discussion above (Brend beat me to it) RomaC (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) x2 (!) Done here, thanks Brendumb. This does seem a bit too detailed for this article, IMO. TFOWR 13:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

someone reinsert? i missing something?--Brendumb (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes here another editor has replaced it. RomaC (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The guy is an expert on terrorism and the view supports the POV that these guys were not just an aid organization. It is an important issue and should remain in the article per NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be better to have an opinion on the IHH in the article about the IHH, instead of an article about a raid at sea? ;-) TFOWR 14:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's already done one IHH page! And as we talk before, this is not the IHH page. If we describe all allegations about all people in this article, we will have a too long article I think. Samuel B52 (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's relevant to the raid since they claimed they're an aid organization while others claim they are involved with Islamists, including the Israeli government. This is a POV that deserves to be represented in the article. It's certainly more relevant than them having special consultative status with the UNESC (which all the people who are worried about relevance and the length of the article seemed to have missed). No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the editors calling for removal of a cherry-picked tarring of a group in the aid flotilla. Rightfully, in this article we also don't get into decade-old impressions of/allegations against, say Likud or Benjamin Netanyahu, by random Frenchmen, however venerated they may be. This just isn't the place. RomaC (talk) 14:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The fact that the IHH is banned from operating in Israel is (possibly) relevant, but should be balanced by the fact that they are not banned in most (if not all) other countries). Including Brugière's opinion, when he couldn't convince his superiors or his government while being the head of the anti-terrorism unit, is simply WP:UNDUE. Physchim62 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If we remove Brugière's opinion, we are left with a POV presentation of IHH as a respectbale humanitarian aid organization, with no hint of the opposing POV, which is significantand notable. This opinion was carried by several reliable sources. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we're left with an article all about the IHH, which we link to several times. We should not go into minute detail about the saintliness/evilness of the IHH. We should not go into minute detail about the saintliness/evilness of the IDF. There are articles about these two organisations already. We should stick to what sources are saying about the Gaza flotilla raid itself, not try and wedge commentary on tangentially-related topics into this one. TFOWR 15:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is important that a casual reader who won't follow the link to the main article won't get the impression that the IHH is an organization without controversy. It's not like we're inserting 3 paragraphs about the IHH here. There's one sentence saying something nice (which is arguably relevant to this article), and one saying something not so nice (which seems pretty relevant to this article since it supports the official POV of one side involved in the raid). That's NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to having the IDF's view of IHH. I do object to this view, here, because he seems a fairly minor figure in the grand scheme of things (pertinent, perhaps, to the IHH article but not to this one). Put it another way: should we include some expert's opinion on the legality of the Israeli state? It might support the IHH view of Israel, it might even be relevant to the IDF article or even Israel, but I'd strongly oppose it here. TFOWR 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you don't object to having Israel's view of IHH, why do you objecting to having 3rd party expert's who support this view included? If the view is notable, surely it's also notable that not only Israel thinks this way? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Because the aticle is too big as it currently stands and don't see why we have to back up the claims of the IDF when we have an article which covers it. Mo ainm~Talk 18:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Because in order to achieve NPOV we're supposed to cover all notable POVs. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

...and I have no problem covering the IDF's POV. Or the IHH's POV. I do have a problem giving WP:UNDUE weight to either side's POV by wedging in various tangentially related experts' views. Detail belongs in the articles concerned; this article should focus on the details of the raid, and the generalities of the related topics. TFOWR 18:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This article should WP:SUMMARIZE the article it's linking to, and this issue is a major part of the IHH article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and saying that the IHH dispute the IDF's claims, and that the IDF dispute the IHH's claims - they're both fine. We need to summarise the relevant parts of the article - that Israel considers the IHH to be linked to terrorism. We do not need to go into minute detail why. Nor do we need to go into minute detail about the IHH's views. TFOWR 19:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So we agree that the fact IHH has been accused (not only by Israel) of having links to radical Islamist groups belongs in the summary of the IHH article we have in this article? I'd prefer if it were mentioned in general terms rather than the words of one guy, but I didn't think that sort of thing would be allowed in the article without a specific ref. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why, I do believe you're putting words in my mouth! :-o We agree that stating that Israel considers the IHH to be linked to terrorism is OK, and we agree that the IHH considers itself to be a humanitarian organisation is OK. And I repeat: a reader who wants to know the gory details about the IDF, the IHH, or anything else, can click on the link and read the article. Where we want detail is on the raid itself - you know, the subject of this article ;-) Not the tangential details about the parties involved, the individuals involved, etc etc - if the details of these things are relevant, they belong in the relevant article. TFOWR 19:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

A reader can click the link, but we're supposed to WP:SUMMARIZE the article for him according to MOS. This issue is about half the IHH article. You'd expect some mention of it in the summary.

Also, whether a major group in the flotilla is connected to radical Islamism is not a tangential detail. Particularly when it was mainly members of this group who were involved in the violence, and they present themselves as a humanitarian group. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Half the IHH isn't dedicated to Jean-Louis Bruguiere. The article split is (let's say you're right, say 50/50) between the IHH claiming to be a humanitarian organisation, and the IHH being claimed to be linked to terrorism. So... let's summarise. The IHH claims to be humanitarian. The IDF claim it's linked to terrorism. That seems to summarise the IHH quite nicely, without any need to drag in Jean-Louis Bruguiere to speak for the IDF, or Joe Bloggs to speak for the IHH. Can we get back to discussing the raid now?! TFOWR 20:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not say half the IHH is dedicated to Jean-Louis Bruguiere. I said half of it is dedicated to the issue of connections to radical Islamist groups. Also, the IDF is not the only group that claim the IHH has these links. So lets try to summarize a little better. I'll open a new section since this one is getting too long and complicated to follow. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The attempt to add this material is WP:SOAPBOXING under the guise of adding WP:NOTABLE opinion and violates WP:NPOV. Do we really have to get into a "this expert said but this expert said" battle? NickCT (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what WP:SOAPBOX means. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you make a claim, you should support it. Just saying "you are wrong" is rude. As for soapboxing, we are talking about an individual person's claim, which is very well within the boundries of soapboxing. --386-DX (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with 386. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I guess you were saying that to Nick who accused me of soapboxing without supporting the claim?

We're not talking about an individual person's claim, we're talking about a claim made by one of the main groups involved in the subject of this article against another involved group, of which all the casualties were members. We have a 3rd party expert who supports this claim. This person is a RS according to wikipedia policy, his interview was covered by several major RS which makes it notable, and it was made in the context of the raid, which makes it relevant.

Also, the allegation of connections to Islamist groups is a major part of the IHH article, and we're supposed to WP:SUMMARIZE that article here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade

Template:Campaignbox Gaza blockade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. 386-DX (talk) 19:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Asking for consensus to remove sentence from lead

The following sentence should be removed from the lead:

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

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

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

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

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

My problem is not that the information would be unsourced. I think that the account of a single passenger is not important enough to be included in the lead section.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

From France, we read that 4 persons said that the Israelis fired before boarding : Jamal El-Shayyal , Michalis Grigoropoulos , Alex Harrison , Fiachra Ó Luain. Samuel B52 (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mattias Gardell have also said that they fired before boarding.[12] "Innan den första soldaten tagit mark, föll den förste försvararen av ett skott i huvudet." (Before the first soldier took ground the first defender fell with a shot to the head.) // Liftarn (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Commander of the Israeli Sheyabet 13 boarding team also says they fired warning shots (and dropped stun grenades) before boarding the Mavi Marmara. Jerusalem Post. So it appears that eyewitnesses on both sides agree that the Israelis opened fire before boarding. // Marbux (talk) 05:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree to remove. Samuel B52 (talk) 07:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Disagree on removal but would support an edit to indicate that both activists and the commander of the Israeli boarding team of Sheyatet 13 commandos agree that the Israelis fired warning shots and dropped stun grenades before the Israelis boarded the ship. Jerusalem Post (interview with commander). The information is no longer poorly sourced. I would have no objection to an additional statement indicating that the commander's attributed statement clashes with the initial official Israeli government position that the commandos did not open fire before they were attacked by Flotilla members. Marbux (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

From the Newshoggers site, a collection of quotations from (and links to) various flotilla eyewitness accounts.     ←   ZScarpia   00:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Interview with Sheyabet commander

I've added a sentence to the first paragraph in the Boarding Mavi Marmara section, referenced to a Jerusalem Post interview with the commander of the Israeli commando boarding team, attributing to him a statement that the commandos fired warning shots and dropped stun grenades before roping down to the vessel. The statement may be the most probative evidence yet on the issue of which side attacked first. As such, it might deserve mention in other parts of the article. Marbux (talk) 05:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"Sheyabet"? Don't you mean "Shayetet"? ShalomOlam (talk) 07:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Shalom, you are of course correct. Thank you for spotting one of the cobwebs hanging from this aged brain. I'll leave the error in the heading on the talk page, else your comment would seem out of place. Marbux (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Flotilla Name

As naming conventions, name of a creation made by a group, artist, etc ... are named by originals titles, names given by the group. Why the flotilla is not named " Freedom Flotilla " as creators want ? The FreeGaza movement still called this creation "Freedom Flotilla" see photo : http://www.flickr.com/photos/freegaza/4599521000/ and newspaper : http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,698916,00.html. So, why we ignore it ? Why we don't call this event by his name ? Could anyone make corrections and rename "flotilla" by " Freedom Flotilla " ? Samuel B52 (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The first reference does say "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" believe that is what policy requires. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 02:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

AGREE.Policies regarding naming convention requires that. 07:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME recommends we use common names for article titles, not necessarily "official" names. In this case the article was named (and quickly renamed, following a discussion and consensus) shortly after the article was created. There's nothing to prevent that discussion being reopened... (Based on past experience, I'd probably oppose a name change per "too soon since the last discussion", but that argument is maybe wearing thin now...!) TFOWR 09:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

About private name, there is a special policy as an exception that should be applied before the others, in this special case. But if we don't respect this policy, we could also change all the name of artist groups, events, your own name, etc ... Medias don't have the primary right to name the reality. "Progenitors" are the first in place to do that Samuel B52 (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We have the right to decide on names, not the media. But our decisions are based on commonality, not official or "first" status. The US founding fathers decided to name their country "the United States of America"; we decided to name our article United States - because that's the most common term used. In this case when we last discussed this (a week or so ago) the consensus was that "Gaza Freedom raid" was the best name to use. That consensus may change, but I would imagine that any new consensus would take WP:COMMONNAME into account, and consider the terms used in general, not the specific term used by the IHH or the IDF. TFOWR 09:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to leave the article name as is, and add a new page, named "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" that will redirect to this article. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If you rename "the United States of America" , it's because you have jurisdiction to do that. If you follow your example, please take time to understand what was the processes to do so. It's not media who rename this land but legislator's in a democracy, which is not the case with media. We don't make elections for journalist cards attributions  ;-). I disagree to change the Flotilla name without accordance of "primogenitors" of this event, they are the only one who can rename it, it's not a problem of where is the name in wikipedia, but this is about How do we name an event. Please see naming policies, and specials case. We are not in Common situation but in a private case Samuel B52 (talk) 10:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree with ShalomOlam here: redirects our our friends. The title is descriptive and is in agreement with the majority of neutral sources reporting on the event. The term "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" is mentioned several times in the article, as it should be, but the majority of the content concerns the attack by the IDF, not other aspects. Also, the Gaza Freedom Flotilla was a flotilla, and so we are perfectly justified in referring to it as "the flotilla" where there is no risk of confusion. Physchim62 (talk) 10:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, if we rename United States it's because we can rename the article based on our policies. The legislators chose to call it "the United States of America": we chose to call our article "United States". We do not have to use the "official name", we do not have to use the "primogenitors' preferred name". TFOWR 10:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, understand that "the United States of America" is not a private area. Samuel B52 (talk) 10:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The raid is not a private area either. We're not talking about any sort of droit d'auteur here: if we were, we would have to call it "Operation Sea Breeze", as the IDF was the author of the incidents which are most discussed in the article! Physchim62 (talk) 11:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not talking about the sea or a raid but about a personal, private, civilian flotilla. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, we are talking about a raid on a neutral, civilian ship in international waters which left nine people dead. That is not a private matter in the slightest. Physchim62 (talk) 11:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the commons sense and not the media who name private thing. This Freedom Flotilla is a private event who was clearly sign by his "progenitors". Please look at the photo link above : http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,698916,00.html . When we speak about this event, we should employ his name as we employ the name of a artist or group creation. This is a special policy regarding naming policies. We don't call "Rolling stones " but " The Rolling Stone " because the group called his group like this. It's the same thing for " SS Exodus", we take name of creator event and not British name of the boat. It's the same thing for this Freedom Flotilla. Samuel B52 (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the raid, not just the flotilla. Even if it were just about the flotilla, we would still use our policies to determine the article's title. The Rolling Stones article is called that because "The Rolling Stones" is the most commonly used name of the band. United States is used because that's the most common name for "The United States of America". The usual approach here, and the one that's been suggested above, is that we create redirects for other names, so "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" (for example) would redirect to this article. TFOWR 12:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your argument is not valuable. The Rolling Stones article is called like that because 4 guys in garage decide them-self to be named as "The Rolling Stones" . They didn't ask to the people common sense or to press magazines. When we talking about a private thing, policies tell us to call him by his personal name, in any case. This is a encyclopaedia not a "people magazine". It's important for notability to respect policies. If we meet us one day, would you appreciate if I call you by a another name ? How could you be sure that I call you ? This is common sense to call things by they name, especially when they are private. This is not only common sense but good sense Samuel B52 (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me put it like this. I respect your view, however it is not supported by policy or by consensus here. TFOWR 13:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a special rule in French wiki for that. How will we make for the next flotilla ? Which name will we write ? As Rocky pictures ? Flotilla 1, Flotilla 2, Flotilla 3 ? This is a good sense, I think, to name thing by their own name. ( If the good sense disappear, may be we could write a special policy for this kind of privates events or creations in " wiki naming policy " ? We could win time for the next same case. This take 3 lines ) Samuel B52 (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There is here, too. TFOWR 13:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

With all links given to me in this discussion, I have found what I wanted. So Thks to everybody. The special policy for this special case was not so understable as in WP French policies, I think. ( For those who are interested to see the difference, you sould look at : ( http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Conventions_sur_les_titres#Cas_particuliers ) with a translator . In point 2, it's explained that " In the case of associations or groups, we use the full name used to sign or present their work: The Rolling Stones and not the Rolling Stones." And I found equivalence in WP English policy at "reliable source" in naming policy who tell us " The word "source" as used in Wikipedia has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability." So I understand that the reliable source is, in first, the creator. So, what my request is not : I don't want to rename IDF action and I don't want to "break" precedent consensus about IDF name . what my request is : I just want to rename "Flotilla" by "Freedom Flotilla" like signed by the "Freegaza" association, in each case when name 'flotilla" appear. Like that, we don't break precedent consensus, we respect the WP policies, we respect FreeGaza the creator of the flotilla, we respect the IDF operation name and we keep WP notability. Thks for your attention Samuel B52 (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Samuel B52, 14 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} in Legal assessments section, we should add this :

- " French activists aboard flotilla intercepted by Israel's Navy have filed legal complaints against Israel. The complainants charge Israel with “abduction,” “sequestration,” “violence with weapons” and “rerouting a vessel” in international waters, their lawyer, Liliane Glock, said last Friday. The cases were filed in the two activists' hometowns of Marseille and Evry, south of Paris. The plaintiffs said they were being helped by three French parliament members. " Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak unexpectedly canceled his visit to Paris, fearing lawsuits over a recent Israeli raide on Gaza-bound aid flotilla, said Yediot Ahronot on Sunday."

( English Source : "French activist complaint against Israel" : http://jta.org/news/article/2010/06/06/2739466/french-activists-file-charges-against-israel ) ( English Source : "French activist were help by minister" : http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3903695,00.html ) ( English source : "Israeli Defense Minister canceled his visit to Paris " : http://www.eurasiareview.com/201006133126/barak-avoids-france-visit-over-flotilla-raid.html ) Samuel B52 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Samuel B52 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: Please use inline citations so we know which one belongs to which. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence belong to the first link, the second to the second link, and the 3 to the 3 link. Is it enough clear ? Samuel B52 (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you tell me please if it's enough comprehensible ? Samuel B52 (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

IHH section

The IHH section is currently not a good summary of the IHH article. Around half the main article is a section called "Allegations of Islamic-extremism affiliations". Several groups have made these allegations, as well as several media outlets. IHH has close connections to Hamas. These issues are relevant to this article. None of them appear in the summary we have in this article, which makes it extremely POV and not in line with WP:SUMMARIZE.
I'm open to suggestions on how to fix this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The IHH article is currently subject to heavy dispute and edit wars. The IHH section in this article is very much in line with the IHH article looked like until yesterday. There is no RS or official source confirming the extremist or terrorist affiliations of IHH. Exluding hearsay is not POV. Most important of all, this issue has already been debated numerous times now, and it is not at all courteous of you to open a new section on the talk page merely because you disagree with the earlier discussions. Please continue above in the relevant section. --386-DX (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I said above I'm going to open a new section since that one is long and became hard to follow. I guess you missed that because that section became long and hard to follow. Also, the issue is now different. While I do appreciate the lessons you're giving me in courtesy and manners, perhaps you should re-familiarize yourself with the discretionary sanctions and keep your comments to content.

Anyway, After reviewing the relevant policies and guidelines, I no longer think we should put in specific accusations by specific people. We do need to summarize the other article better though, and that should include this controversy since it's pertinent to this article. Excluding an issue that has been discussed at length by various RS is the textbook definition of POV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to summarize the entire article: that would be pointless. There is already a {{main}} hatnote and numerous links for anyone who wants to finds out more about the IHH. The summary should be of points related to this article, and I think we do quite well as it is. How would you feel if someone added a section "Israeli atrocities during 'Operation Cast Lead'", on the grounds that it was relevant to the actions of the IDF 'commandos'? You'd think it was POV-pushing and SOAPBOXing wouldn't you? That's how many editors feel about the repeated attempts to use this article as a mouthpiece for IDF propaganda over the flotilla raid, taking that propaganda as the proclaimed truth even when the IDF itself has contradicted it. Or, here, taking two-bit gossip to slur an international NGO, just because it happens to work in Gaza. Physchim62 (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We have to summarize the article because that's what MOS tells us to do. Points related to this article include whether IHH is a humanitarian group as it presents itself, or a group connected to radical Islamism as various sources claim. This would be relevant even if not most of the violence surrounded this group, and all the people who were killed were its members. The fact some of them declared their wish to become martyrs as is common with radical Islamists, makes this issue even more relevant. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Physchim62. --Kslotte (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree, WP:TANGENT and WP:IRI --Brendumb (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This information is relevant, WP:V, WP:N, and assuming we put both the allegations and the response, WP:NPOV. Any chance one of you will come up with a policy based reason to exclude this information? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DICK? Physchim62 (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Did you read that? It's says don't be a dick. Please try again. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Both of you guys: Please read WP:CIVIL, and keep your comments related to the article. We have to keep the IHH section short and npov as the article is already WP:TOOLONG. As I said, this has already been discussed extensively, and repating the same arguments instead of checking the talk pages will not get you anywhere. --386-DX (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link to report abusive, childish users, such as physchim62? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.238.124 (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you sould ask to Sam Lowry at Brazil_(film). He worked at the minister of truth. ;-) Samuel B52 (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

more aid flow to Gaza

Two or three ships set sail now via southern routes . By ABC. The flow is clear follow so up belongs to aftermat h section. W ill one some pose oppose ? 99.90.197.244 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should open a new one, and change the name of the flotilla, like I demanded in that talk page above . Samuel B52 (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. What i missing in this article is the info-timeline . Accounting when and who released what to the mass media. It will be quite informative , will be factual and will be good help in dePOVing the article. I see a lot of conflicting press events and this go unsubscribed. Going in steps through this article show how much conceptions and deceptions was released to tire the public opinion. I understand the purpose of psychops but this is part of modern way in information era to war an infowar. Eventually it Can be made as new article and linked to main. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 18:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet another flow from Lebanon [13]. Some plan to parachuting aid from private airplane. The use unattended hang gliding is considered faster than by balloons but as pointed in source balloons was used in siege of Paris so French party seem to have sentiment to it. Finally Israel government asking other governments to stop their citizens from sending more aids. By Israel to EU: Stop your citizens 244 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

There should be a new article about any new flotilla, but only when it becomes notable. We don't even discuss the Rachel Corrie in any depth here. Physchim62 (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

so 600+ news refs in Lycos and Altavista and other searach engine is not enought for notability?

May be it can help you to understand why a RS is not reliable and notable. If you want to know why, please search on internet about allegations that Israeli war planes will fly on Saudi territories to bombard iran. Look clearly the date. And look for another news which make apologises of this allegation. Have a look on who write and all others details... Here, we follow some "primary" sources because some RS are used to lunch allegations. Newspaper with a good reputation don't do that. About other flotilla, in France, we read since several days that a Iranian boat leaved his country to join Gaza. Iranian planed to give aid with air transport also. RS which said that have a National notability. Samuel B52 (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think we need masked comando murder people to make event notable. The fact that someone trying to help besieged refuges is itself notable.

"Mavi Marmara Boarding" subsection

Seeking feedback here. The lead paragraph in this section reads: "The boarding of the Mavi Marmara resulted in violent clashes between activists and Israeli soldiers. Each side claims that the other started the violence, and the parties disagree on who acted in self-defense against illegitimate actions of the other side." The paragraph is no longer defensible as presently drafted.

The problem stems from the fact that the Jerusalem Post has posted an interview with the commander of the Sheyatet 13 boarding party to whom is attributed a statement that the boarding party fired warning shots and dropped stun grenades before rappeling down to the Mavi Marmara. "'We had no choice'" The Jerusalem Post. 4 June 2010. The only "parties" or "sides" (second sentence) mentioned in the lead parasgraph are the activists and Israeli soldiers who boarded the ship. To my knowledge, there is no published account of the boarding of the ship by eyewitnesses from the Isreaeli side other than the Jerusalem Post article. There were earlier inconsistent claims by the Israeli government that Sheyetet 13 (variously) did not fire live ammuntion or engage in violence againast the Flotilla members until the commandos were first attacked by the Flotilla members. See e.g., Haaretz article cited elsewhere in the article ("Israel says its soldiers began shooting only after a mob of pro-Palestinian activists attacked them ..."). In my vocabulary, "warning shots" count as "shooting" and dropping stun grenades qualifies as engaging in violence against the Flotilla members, both according to the Sheyebet commander before the Israeli troops set foot on the ship.

Both side's published eyewitness accounts say that the Israeli commandos fired live ammunition and dropped stun grenades before boarding the ship. And to my knowledge, the Israeli government has not, since the publication of the Jerusalem Post interview, repeated its prior claim that its commandos did not fire live ammunition or employ violence against the Flotilla members until the Flotilla members attacked the commandos. So most charitably, there are three, not two versions of this critical stage of events: (i) the Israeli government position; (ii) the Flotilla members' eyewitness accounts; and (iii) the Sheyebet commander's position. The latter two versions coincide, but the earlier official Israeli government position conflicts with them.

I am sensitive to the fact that the lead paragraph was drafted before the Jerusalem Post interview and that information available soon after an incident often needs to be revisited after more evidence becomes available. Under the circumstances, the lead paragraph was obviously written using a NPOV. But it no longer is NPOV because of the Jerusalem Post interview. The Israeli side has fragmented into two positions, one of which is a published eyewitness account that agrees with the relevant Flotilla member position on what transpired. That is why I added a sentence to the end of the lead paragraph about the Jerusalem Post account, since rewritten slightly and moved by someone else to the very end of the "Israeli accounts" subsection. But the now misleading lead paragraph was left untouched. I do not agree that the Jerusalem Post interview deserves afterthought treatment in the last paragraph in the last subsection of a section that begins with an inconsistent lead.

I have no interest in engaging a revert war so I am seeking feedback on how to deal with this topic. I apologize for the length of this post, but the Jerusalem Post article bears heavily on the weighty issue of which side attacked first. Important stuff. The lead paragraph stating that there are only two unified oppposing sides to the version of events needs rewrite. What should it say? Marbux (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've always interpreted that paragraph to refer to a real dichotomy between the two accounts. The activists say that live ammunition (not warning shots, not stun grenades) was used prior to the boarding, and that two people were killed before the IDF landed on the Mavi Marmara. The IDF (including the account you cite) say that live ammunition was only used after IDF troops landed on deck. One side must be wrong there, but it's not clear who. Note that I say "wrong", because either side might be mistaken.

The commando who gave the interview does point out that live ammunition was used very soon after the IDF reached the deck, which is consistent with the Al-Jazeera reports of a confirmed death very soon after the troops boarded (while the satellite link was still up). Of course, "very soon after" is no proof of "before". Physchim62 (talk) 15:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

In French , I have several source said that IDF shot first before boarding the ship. Witness said IDF shot from helico and from Zodiac. 4 witness tell that. I mentioned the 4 names in this Talk page. I you need source, just ask me Samuel B52 (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont feel the "we had no choice" article is all that safe to base conclusions on, since it seems more written to provoke emotion than to provide objective facts. There was another Haaretz article ) in which an interviewed soldier described firing as he rappelled (the fourth soldier) as he saw one of the others threatened. It seems a bit more of a news article. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not yet responding here. I have a deadline to meet in four hours. I will aim to swing onto this immediately after I meet the deadline and will aim to pull this note at that point. I appreciate your responses. Marbux (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

this removal about Jewish NGOs and Rabbis

Please note that I don't agree with this removal : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=367947631&oldid=367940744.

It's important to know that some Jewish NGOs and Rabbis had reactions and balance POV. Samuel B52 (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That belongs in the reactions article. By the way there were also Muslim clerics who criticized the Flotilla. Marokwitz (talk) 13:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The removal don't respect consensus Samuel B52 (talk) 13:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Specific reaction by specific and relevant group(s) would be better than "some rabbis ..." But mind we don't cherry pick, this poll provides some information on Israeli public opinion in the wake of the attacks: only 8% thought too much force was used, 84% said the IDF should do "whatever it takes" to stop a possible convoy of Red Crescent ships. RomaC (talk) 13:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And ? We saw people riot in Israel where an 21 years old American artist had be touched by a riot gun in the head and loose one eye. It's important for balance different POV. We don't have the same source in France. Around 50% of people said that Samuel B52 (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, keep the mention about "Jewish NGOs and Rabbis" reactions as it was for POV , so please undo the removal. It's important for POV to know that not all Jewish community agree this kind of violence. Please envisage too put a commentary about that video regarding a riot in Israel to protest against violence and about the order forces who shoot in pacifist people :
source vidéo : http://www.democracynow.org/2010/6/3/emily. May be could we put a commentary in "reactions" section. Samuel B52 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC) To specify "Jewish NGOs and Rabbis" here does not provide balance or a NPOV. I will actually add to that section that some suppoted the raid. Chesdovi (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

String of new edits

A user has just made 15 edits in about two hours, almost all are in line with the Israeli military and government perspective/position on the event. The editor did not appear on this Talk page to propose/discuss. Some examples:

[14]

Added details of a Palestinian "Revenge attack" two weeks later

[15]

Changed order, activists' and flotilla organizers' accounts moved from top to bottom of accounts' list. Another problem is a false edit summary: "journalists' accounts first, obviously" which does not mention that the edit also moved IDF account ahead of the Flotilla passengers' accounts.

[16]

Changed order, put "paint ball guns" before pistols in IDF. Problem is this goes against consensus that the pistols and live rounds caused the deaths which are the notable aspect of the event. Also removed "The Mavi Marmara's passengers later reported gunfire, blue flares and deafening noise from the first helicopter at this time." with false edit summary "redundant" when in fact this is the only mention of flares etc.

[17]

Inserted lengthy and controversial IDF-embedded Ron Ben-Yishai account at the top of Journalist's accounts. Edit summary: "(obviously) sole coherent journalistic account of events" goes against Talk consensus.

[18]

Added Ramallah lynching to See Also?

[19]

Changed "Nine of the activists were shot and killed " to "Nine Turkish IHH activists were killed". Again a false edit summary

[20]

Changed "Israeli officials have accused the IHH of sending a group of activists on the MV Mavi Marmara determined to instigate violence" to "Israeli officials stated that IHH activists on the MV Mavi Marmara were determined to instigate violence, and released videos of participating IHH activists declaring their desire to be martyrs" adding IDF's weasely and emotive "martyr" notation.

[21]

Added unbalanced "Israeli officials and interviewed soldiers said that the soldiers fired live ammunition only after their lives were in danger" to lead, not to the IDF account of events where such positions belong.

[22]

Added, to lead, "Israel formed a commission of inquiry to investigate the incident, headed by retired Supreme Court judge Jacob Terkel and including international observers." this unbalanced by international criticism of the internal commission.

[23]

Changed "soldiers said that the soldiers fired live ammunition only after their lives were in danger" to "soldiers and an eyewitness journalist said that the soldiers used their pistols only after their lives were in danger" this not supported by sources.

Strongly believe it should not fall to pro-Wikipedia editors to sift through and clean up this sort of blatant, aggressive advocacy editing. If editors are here to push a government's POV they may be in violation of conflict of interest. RomaC (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I AGREE. Why didn't we discuss about that ? I ask removal for all of them until we find consensus. Wiki is not a government blog Samuel B52 (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• RomaC, have you discussed your concerns with the editor? They may be unaware that their edits are causing any concern. TFOWR 09:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC) My apologies, you did. TFOWR 09:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why any editor can't simply improve or revert on the edits made by JDE. As long as a reason is clearly stated why, then even though it might be considered a burden, the modified edits will stand. I did revert 2 edits which I found not to be sustainable. One referred to "open fire" which clearly had 3 articles to support the use of such statement. Plus the one regarding "paintball guns and pistols" which is a clearly confusing wording sequence. Other editors who believe the other edits are not adequate should modify the according edits with reason as to why. Nothing I see is preventing this.GaussianCopula (talk) 10:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement that several activists claimed that the Israelis "opened fire on the ship" before boarding is not supported by the cited sources and is apparently not true. One of the sources has an activist explicitly stating that the shots were warning shots, which is not the same as "opening fire on the ship". The other sources have ambiguous claims. Like I said, the activists' accounts are often mutually contradictory, so if we are lumping them into one POV, some generalization is required. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 12:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are arguing against 3 specific articles, two of which headline the news as "opened fire" and a 3rd one which states on its opening item "soldiers began firing from helicopters above the ship as the raid began." I see no reason why you would want to change this.Why would you consider first hand accounts from individuals involved to be less quotable than those offered by Israeli government sources?GaussianCopula (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a reason why editors should not have to sift through and manually revert controversial, unsourced and falsely-summarized edits made without Talk consensus. The reason is at the top of this article's page: "This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully check the discussion-page dialogue (including archives) to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary."

Also we are on a one-revert rule here. If one user makes 15 problematic edits, one editor can't undue the damage. So, most of the edits have stood. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I added balance for two points of your list. Samuel B52 (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Almost all of those edits are reverts, as they were inserted in the article before but were modified or removed following discussions on the talk page. They were warned before both on the talk page and their user page. I am reporting them for violating WP:1RR now. --386-DX (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel war minister E Barak chicken of French court and cancels visit to France.

[24] As AP says he cancel his trip to France being afraid of possible arrest and prosecution and will move round in besieged Israel. Restricting freedom of movement is an element of siege. This info or ref should to add to the things after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. To complete my edit demand about 3 news ( for which, at now, I'm waiting for a respond ), for this situation about Ehud Barak, the Israeli defence minister, as a part in the section : # 7.3 Legal assessments. see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid#Legal_assessments . Samuel B52 (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Modified title to remove "chicken of French court" since it was just too comical. Will add info to main page. GaussianCopula (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Israel war minister E Barak chicken of French court was a basic plain language, but I OK modified version in the main article. 99.90.197.244 (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that this is completely unneeded and non helpful bringing back the original title and striking it. I have no idea why you would do this but still, I won't revert it, and just mention to you as to why on Earth you had to put that back in the title. It's silly, bad grammar, confusing and nonsensical. Just to give you a hint of what I thought then and now of the title.GaussianCopula (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Barak is Minister of Defence. ShalomOlam (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok Samuel B52 (talk) 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

the bravery of Israeli commandos

Pedia says

Israeli soldiers said they used their pistols only after their lives were endangered,[4][5] while several activists on board said that the IDF had opened fire on the ship before boarding.[16][17][18]

'Said' is chip. It seem to perfectly logic that some brave Israeli commandos get chicken before boarding, thus realizing life endangerment opened fire from air.

(Or) Who saw where they trying to hve will to fight as solders (or this is cultural difference?). To assassin one man sending 27 idem. This is not like Bond behave when a tank shout to stone throwing boys. This quoted sentence should be reworded now mislead the lead. It may be true, but the logic skip over all truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually James Bond a stereotype of British cover ops, today, appeared to commit atrocities 40 years ago. How happened that 'terrorist' are on peace side and blamed Irish had victory in court. Its rather in Jewish interest to follow this British example and confess in court where both sides having representation. By the way was Hamas elected as here was written in section background or not. If so it was removed ? unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Similar for street police

5/11/2010 I's street police shot and kiled a 'terrorist' but P'n demand an investigation. The same rules. I's. was deadly afraid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)