Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Hedy Epstein"

In the Notable People section Hedy Epstein is described as a "Holocaust survivor". Her own page doesn't even say this. I've changed it but people keep changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm, yes it does, in the very first line: "Hedy Epstein ... is known... for her background as a Holocaust survivor and Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany". -- ChrisO (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

However, she escaped Germany to England in 1939, so before the holocaust! How can she be a survivor if she was never involved? It'd be like me saying I'm a survivor of the Gulf War- having never been in the military or to Iraq!! 86.63.26.124 (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Individual opinion is WP:Synthesis, the source says she is.(Lihaas (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Not trying to cause an argument, but couldn't she be labelled as something else, as the source is herself & having seen the length of argument on her page it seems wrong to advocate for her as a survivor. It seems quite obvious she wasn't even in the Holocaust being over 600 miles away, it's not original research, it's basic maths!! 86.63.26.124 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with using the term "self-described Holocaust survivor" if the only reference source is her own web site. Although Wikipedia does discourage such sources and asks for neutral sources to be used. If one is used, then what sources to use can be hashed out. Kamnet (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Didn't the Holocaust start before 1939? Didn't the holocaust start with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935? Before 1870 Jews living in Germany were automatically defined as aliens and their rights were restricted, regardless of how many generations they had lived in the country, the Nuremburg laws were thus, to some extent, a reversion to a previous state of affairs. See: Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The 1935 Nuremberg Laws were about discrimination and exclusion of Jews from German society, not yet about the systematic killing of the entire Jewish populace of Germany and Europe, which is what the Holocaust was. That came later with the Final Solution which hadn't been decided yet in 1935 and 1939,respectively. Epstein could be called a refugee of Nazi Germany, but certainly not a Holocaust survivor. Nellov5 (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The date most often given for the start of the Holocaust is November 9, 1938. Kristallnacht/Pogromnacht. So if she escaped in 1939, it was after the Holocaust had already begun. Gavroche42 (talk) 21:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Most people mark the beginning of the Holocaust by Kristallnacht, 10 November 1938. However, Hedy Epstein is one of only two of her family to survive the Holocaust -- after she escaped Germany at age 13. This alone establishes Epstein as a Holocaust survivor.

Not necessarily, because the exact date of the beginning of the Holocaust is controversial, even among Holocaust scholars. "Before the war, the Nazis even considered mass exportation of German (and subsequently the European) Jewry from Europe. Plans to reclaim former German colonies such as Tanganyika and South West Africa for Jewish resettlement were halted by Adolf Hitler, who argued that no place where "so much blood of heroic Germans had been spilled" should be made available AS A REDIDENCE for the "worst enemies of the Germans"." (WIKIPEDIA article about the Holocaust). In other words, there was not always talk of killing the entire Jewish population, but to get rid of them by whatever means. The decision to kill all Jews without exception (= the Holocaust) wasn't actually documented until the Wannsee Conference. But even if you think the Holocaust began earlier, according to the same Wikipedia article, the mass killings didn't begin until September 1939. So if this woman got out of Germany before that date, she is not a holocaust victim, but a refugee of Nazism. 79.255.54.136 (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed Passengers

I have changed the title of this section from "Jalapenos do exist" to "armed Passengers", since this is what it appears to be about. I am completely neutral in this issue personally, but I was upset when I read the article because I felt that a wikipedia editor misled me. By this article, I was given the impression that the boat passengers/activists/whatever had firearms. Not that the word "armed" necessarily means "armed with firearms" but this is absolutely the image conjured in a reasonable mind (e.g. my own) when you merely read about a "clash" between two armed side, without any specification that the "clash" is between guys with guns and guys with sticks. It's just not reasonable to describe a conflict between soldiers with guns, and people with sticks, knives, and other improvised weapons as "clash between soldiers and 'armed activists'", since almost everyone will misinterpret that as meaning activists with guns. J y p (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist is making non-neutral edits, see this for example: [1]. He also deleted my passage about Israel media blackout from the lead. Why? Lesswealth (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Activists carrying clubs and knives should not be considered as armed forces. Editors should bear in mind that millions of people are reading this article and thousands of them use wikipedia as their primary news source. Claiming that the activists were armed will give false impression on the eyes of those people, believing as if the flotilla was armed. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So knives and metal clubs are not weapons? That's BS. These are weapons with intent of injuring or killing. It's not a matter of whose weapons are more advanced. Not to mention that according to reports from IDF (I know it wouldn't be considered "reliable" until videos are out, that's not the point) there was fire coming FROM the ship towards the IDF soldiers who were armed with paint guns and a handgun as a last resort and they started using the hand-guns only after they were lynched by the mob. My point is that there are a lot of different and clashing reporting, and while clubs and knives are not guns, these are weapons for the intention of hurting. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As weapon(s) from the soldiers were stolen and used against the soldiers by the activists then I think they can be considered "belligerents" Faaaaaaamn (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Faaaaaaamn

If the ship is attacked by soldiers and the peace activists fight back with primal tools, this can not be described as: "was a violent confrontation between armed pro-Palestinian activists" this is completely non-neutral and non-factual editing by Jalapenos do exist. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Soldiers landing on a ship is not getting "attacked". Getting beaten, stabbed and your weapon stolen, however, is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed soldiers raiding a peace activist boat on international waters is a hijacking. Peace activists have the right to defend themselves and they're boat from the attackers. There is no evidence showing that these peace activists were armed and were set to attack any Israeli ship or that they were hostile before any raid on the boat. The situation can not be described as Jalapeno edited it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with Supreme Deliciousness. I never claimed that knives and clubs are not weapons, but Nomaed,consider yourself as a reader who uses wikipedia as your primary news source. What would be your impression when you read "clash between Israeli Defecse Forces and armed activists"?. I believe writing "armed" without explaining the nature of the arms is definitely biased. And Faaaaaaamn, even the Isreali media claim that there is an attempt to steal weapons of Israeli soldiers, if it was succeeded, they wouldn't leave such a part open. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Good thing Wikipedia is not meant to be a primary news source. It also is not supposed to be scandal mongering or a number of other things that this article has the danger of turning into.Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we try to be as neutral as possible other than teaching the users the aims of wikipedia? I guess omitting the expression "armed activists" truly reflects a more neutral view. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because the new users are not being neutral. I'll revert an Israeli just as fast so don't worry about it.Cptnono (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you suggest a way in which I am not neutral, or can you claim that the expression "armed activists" is neutral? 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at your edits. Apologies if you got lumped in with all of the garbage. There is a lot of it. Consider starting an account and I will consider WP:BITE.Cptnono (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly isnt NPOV, see his contrib. list.(Lihaas (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI I am no newcomer, and I am trying to make this article look as neutral as possible. I suggested the removal of "armed" word before activists, as armed activists expression without mentioning that the "arms" are neither lethal nor advanced, is definitely POV. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Neither lethal nor advanced" -- are you aware of how easy it is to stab or club someone to death? Not calling a knife lethal is... very strange. --91.32.92.220 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have read Shibumi by Trevanian, you might think of anything as lethal. But please compare that with rifles and pistols with which the soldiers are usually armed with. We are talking about a band of civilians armed with knives and a group of trained soldiers. Even if they are provoked, they should not have lost their cool and tried to seize the control of the events without killing this much people. Thanks 144.122.113.139 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed with a knife is still armed with a weapon (presumably, since there are, like, manicurist knives) designed to be lethal, and thus a lethal weapon. But is it confirmed that they were armed, or is IDF the only source? Is "allegedly armed" more correct? --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I happen to train a weapon based martial art (we train empty handed, with sticks (clubs), knives and machetes). You (IP:144.122.113.139) have clearly no idea about the issue. This awkward sidestep to philosphy has nothing to do with the issue. A "band of civilans armed with knives" can easily kill a group of trained soldiers. It only takes one strike with a knife to kill someone, and you can do the same with a club (that's basicly how combat was done before the invention of gunpowder). You suggest that the soldiers should have kept their cool when "provoked". This both implies that being attacked wiht clubs and knives is "only provoking", which it is not. Further, special forces do not have super powers or are invincible. I'd like to see you in such a situation. I'll play your sparring partner and attack you with a knife. Let's see who keeps cool. Now enough of that. I'm not pro-Isreal in all matters, and I'm very critical about this very event, but declaring a knife as "non lethal" and asking for soldiers to "keep their cool" is not realistic, infact, it's far from wishful thinking. And I say that as a martial artist who has trained with soldiers. --91.32.92.220 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you also understand the irrelevance of your explanation. You are suggesting that knives are equivalant to rifles and machine guns in terms of ability to kill. Your claims may only hold for trained martial artists. I know how such weapons can be dangerous as I myself is an experienced user of chains and manrikis as hoby rather than self defense, however, you cannot expect those civilian to be trained of those weapons as good as you are. If a band of civilians armed with knives can 'easily' take out a team of Israel soldiers, than how did Israel survived all the wars in the past? Claiming that both groups are armed in the main article makes the impression that they were armed with similar weapons. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You apparently have no idea about combat, killing, or weapons. First, a minor aspect: machine guns were apparently not used (rather pistols and assautl rifles). Look up what a machine gun is. You do not need any sort of training to kill someone with a knife or a club. Just browse the web... most mob kills were done by untrained people, same with kills by stabbing. Your apologetic tenor strikes me as weird. Now you compare the past wars of Israels with this... Foreign state military and paramilitary organizations with guns and rockets get thrown in together with a mob of knife and club wielding protesters?? I don't really think there's an use in discussing with you, as you clearly just don't want to understand the point. Look at the videos. The soldiers could have been killed themselves. The aim of the operation clearly was NOT to kill everyone on board, they would have approached it differently in this case. However, they boarded the vehicle and in this moment got attacked with lethal weapons (iron bars, clubs and knives). Why do peaceful protesters assault apparently armed soldiers? That is at best suicidal, no matter what the legal situation is. Think of it like this: you carry a pistol and get attacked by twelve people, two have knives, four have iron bars, the rest has chairs and bare hands. What do you do? Of course, YOU keep calm and gain control of the situation (HOW?). Your statements are irrelevant, at best... ---91.32.92.220 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So whatever happened on say, flight 93 wasn't the same as this? It's somehow heroic to counter-attack in that case, while humanitarians are vicious for having the NERVE to have close range, far less effective weapons? Because if what 91.32.92.220 is saying is supposed to be true, then the passengers are equally to blame in that incident as well, I suppose. </sarcasm> ImmortalPeasant (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You imply that the soldiers were the first to use their weapons, I doubt that (also based on the material I have seen). So what do you aim for with your comparison to United 93? I've also seen images of knife wielding people on that ship. Large knives meant for fighting. Now, tell me why you consider it "heroic" to attack someone who is not threatening to kill you? --91.32.92.220 (talk) 21:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would Israeli personnel require any type of live ammunition if the humanitarians were cleared for weapons or their boarding was legal? Which it was not, as essentially the whole community of nations agrees on (not counting the United States fence-sitting position, please do not attempt to bring that up. The most powerful nation on earth does not hold more importance of opinion over the majority who have seen this as quite uncalled for regardless of what happened onboard.) ImmortalPeasant (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The video of the boarding shows us exactly why. If they didn't have live ammunition, they'd all be dead now. I presume you find this a more acceptable outcome. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Knives ARE equivalant to Paintball guns and flashbangs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.254.70 (talk) 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

according to the neutral sources, the peace activists defended themselves after their ship, which was supposed to bring relief items to gaza (which became necessary because of the blockade by israel), was attacked (in international waters) by the "tsva hagana le israel" (which was entitled to do so by the israeli government). so we can't label the incident a "clash" nor can we call the "free gaza movement" a "belligerent" or claim the activists had "weapons". probably there was also self defence (resistance) in lidice and still we call it a massacre.--Severino (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I still cannot understand how someone puts trained and properly armed soldiers with untrained and poorly so-called armed acitivists? If a supermarket is "raided" by a few thives carrying guns and if some of the personnel resisted the raid with the knives being sold in the supermarket, would you call it clash between two armed parties? Also, I am sorry that I used the word machine gun, I mistakenly taken one of the photos in a news source. The soldier on the photo was carrying a machine gun, that photo was not shot on the ship. Thanks 144.122.113.139 (talk) 22:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Death toll

Well, ok, so Aljazeera may be used as a source, but not in this article! When BBC, CNN and several other news papers report "at least 10 deaths", how can we write "at least 19 deaths" with aljazeera as a source? --Eivind (t) 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera is a valid source because they are on the scene and the BBC, CNN, and other are using their older reports in their own reporting. Our job is not to judge these things even if it goes against our personal biases. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If al jazeera can't be used thats your opinion (and bias, if i may say so). WP:RS (and a current debate on the noticeboard says it reliable.) (Lihaas (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So you assume I judge by my personal biases? :P Thank you. It's not like I ask you to use the Jerusalem Post as a reference! Choose references using common sense! --Eivind (t) 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is al-jaz bias? on what basis? it is hated out west for being too pro-arab, it is hated by the arabs for being too pro-west. Sounds pretty good to me..Lihaas (talk) 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of not over-stating the death toll, a more conservative estimate of the detah toll may be in order. The Globe & Mail, CBC News, Huffington Post and National Post all seem to be taking some kind of middle ground by saying "at least 10 people dead" etc. While Al-Jazeera is no less valid than any of these sources it cannot be discounted as false, but at the same time. Maybe saying "10-19 people dead" or some such would be helpful for neutrality until events unfold further.Sixer Fixer (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I gather, 10 is the figure released by the IDF. AJ has people actually aboard the ships, whence the higher figure. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sixer Fixer has a good idea, a range is a good compromise. Go ahead and do that. (better than removing a source to state another)Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a range. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, whoever wants to be bold go ahead and add the range.Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A quick note: The toll jumped from two to up to sixteen in the first hour but then bounced around for hours. "Up to" is sufficient since it is reasonable to assume a figure will be confirmed within 24hrs. And when it is all said and done: Anyone getting killed means that something wen wrong. I don't agree with the activists but seeing that some of them died I hope is a reminder to all that it isn't just an Israel v Arab thing. Dozens of families are devastated today.Cptnono (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The source in question doesn't state that 19 were killed by the IDF, which is what the wikipedia article is regularly stating. The other sources referenced suggest about 10 deaths occurred on each side so the sources actually agree. Chaz smith (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is it down to nine now throughout the article? FunkMonk (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Up to or a range is best, as discussed here. Until we get anymore affirmation and the situation calms down we should stick with this.Lihaas (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the last time I ever believe in using Aljazeera as a source in articles about Israel. So much for "on the scene" ... 19 killed? Seems like someone did some wild guessing. --Eivind (t) 11:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Video of soldier being stabbed

The widely seen video reported by media onboard the ship of the soldiers descending from the helicopter here slowed down to show soldiers being stabbed, shown on Israeli television: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buzOWKxN2co —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It was evident already that it happened, still doesn't explain who attacked first. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're kidding me? Go for the gut, not the shoulder. Regardless, citepisode template with a verifiable translation not youtube.Cptnono (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Kidding? Are you saying you know the true chronology of the incident? More than one ship was boarded, you know. FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I am stunned that the guy went with a wild profiled against the shower curtain stab. But that was a little off topic. I don't care who went first. If a source says that guy was stabbing a commando then it can be mentioned in the article.Cptnono (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thought you were addressing me. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A lot of sources say a lot of things Cptnono. I think you are biasedly selective on what can be covered in the article. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you show me some biased edits I made to this article? Asking for editors to not use Youtube but instead use proper sources is not biased. Or did you just want to argue?Cptnono (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Given governmental abilities to insert undercover operatives and/or create false images to excuse their illegal actions, such footage must be questioned more than that of those on the flotilla or independent media, of which I'm sure there were some. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Carol, are claiming the Israeli use of agents provocateur? Amazing.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast on ISRAELI television... Stop right there... Wikipedia is founded upon reliable, unbiased sources, this should be immediately disregarded; there is no sound evidence to begin with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.51.108 (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Auto-archive

Is it OK to add auto-archiving? 24 hours/10 minimum remaining threads sounds about right to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No objection here, go for it! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But which?Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're expecting me to be competent with archiving?! I thought they were both the same option...

No more than every 24 hours sounds about right. Thread-size varies, so I'd ignore the thread count, but my competencies really do not stretch to archiving. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. (Yes, I've readded the comment that was mistakenly removed.) Gabbe (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to come back and do it now as it only runs overnight, but thanks for doing it for me :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Piracy

Israel has acquired no rights to operate militarily on international waters nor has requested such rights, thus this military operation was illegal according to UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). The term applying to this kind of activity according to Part VII Article 101 of UNCLOS is piracy.

Article 101

Article 101 Definition of piracy Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

• According to article 103 the Israeli navy ships involved in the operation are defined as pirate ships.

Article 103

Article 103 Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.

Although Israel hasn't signed the convention 160 other countries have signed and ratified it. I propose to implement this aspect as much npov as possible.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd remind you to wait until a reliable source uses the term "piracy"; otherwise it's just our original research. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to label the operation as piracy, but to implement it as "According to UNCLOS...etc.". Nonetheless we could wait for more responses or a verification from reliable sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's original research by synthesis, which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Any discussion of the international law aspects of this issue needs to wait until we have a reliable source which explicitly addresses the question. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that this indeed qualifies as original research. In addition, I suppose that the Israeli navy was told by the Israeli government to do this, a case which seems not to be included in Article 101. I think it won't be called piracy. Piracy is generally used for private ships not allied to a state (at least in modern times), not for the navy of a state. It may violate international waters and it may be extremely disproportionate, but it's not piracy under any definition that I am aware of. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are several reliable sources calling it a breach of international law: see for example the Turkish Foreign Ministry BBC, at 0945, or UK barrister Michael Mansfield The Guardian, at 1.29pm. Probably best to leave it along the lines of "breach of international law" for the moment, whatever UNCLOS says: there's already enough heat on the topic without throwing around terms such as "piracy". Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

According to UNCLOS III any ship allied or not to a state is defined as a pirate ship per Article 103. Since there's no deadline we can always wait for reliable sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it quite explicitly states that the term piracy applies to private ships or aircraft only. But if there are reliable sources supporting use of the term piracy, of course we can use that in the article. After all, we here at Wikipedia don't make the news and we don't make the definitions, we just report. And if people name it piracy, it can be incorporated. It would certainly be notable. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the "private" part is pretty big in this definition. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign minister of Turkey called it an inhumane act of piracy [2]--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If he said that, it should definitely be attributed to him. But a very involved source is insufficient to state that it was piracy - we can simply say that he said it was. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (But basically, "what Ale_jrb said") Then we can say something like "Turkey's foreign minister has called the incident "piracy"...". We can't say "the incident is piracy", however. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, don't you think you're trying too hard to push a side? Yes, that's reportable that he said that, but why did you go through so much effort to get that label? --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Piracy II

I started a couple of hours ago a discussion regarding the definition of the attack as piracy. It seems that there are enough official/media statements that label the Israeli attack as an act of piracy.

1. Qatar Slams Israeli Piracy On Gaza Aid Flotilla
2. Israel accused of 'piracy' over Gaza aid flotilla
3. Gaza Aid Convoy Attack: Israel’s Murderous Sea Piracy a Horrendous Moment of Truth for US Policy
4. Libya accuses Israel of piracy for blocking Gaza aid ship

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you should mention that these reports refer to it as piracy. However, reports 1, 2 and 4 are all about other countries calling it piracy. E.g. 'Qatar slams...', 'Israel accused...', 'Libya accuses...' - these do not make it piracy. You should mention that these countries believe it to be piracy, but you can't simply state that it is until the vast majority of sources state that it was under international law. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very important and relevant information and should be added into the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not even trying to hide your POV, are you? --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Lawyers inside of Israeli are going with the piracy claim. Look below Piracy Revisted Truthiness54 (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that the incident can be called "piracy", also "massacre", anyway it was not a "clash".--Severino (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is now locked down. Time for a clean-up.

I campaigned, along with many others, to get the page locked down but now I can't edit anything (which is fine by me)! Anyway, now that we have some control over the page it would be a very good idea to do a line-by-line clean up by making sure we're conforming to Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. Also, many statements are sourced in this article but those sources don't support the claim. If we can do that then we'll have a great baseline from which further edits will be much easier as new information comes in.

Thanks to all of you for doing a great job and hopefully I'll be able to jump in once everything settles down. Just be mindful that the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has several sympathizers (I used to be one of them) with long-term accounts that won't be hampered by this lockdown so make sure that edits are reviewed for pro-Israeli (or any other) bias. Truthiness54 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Non registered (i.e. IP editors) and non autoconfirmed editors are going to be affected by the semi-protection of the article. If any editors so affected wish to make a change to the article, simply post here on the talk page. I'd imagine that most autoconfirmed editors would be happy to make non-contentious changes on your behalf. I certainly would. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's discuss instead of the second-by-second confusion (i admit i was caught up in it, but some was blatant undiscussed POV changes)Lihaas (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, I appreciate the offer. Truthiness54 (talk) 13:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• You can use {{editsemiprotected}}. --78.34.98.11 (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Weapons

What weapons were the soldiers using? I've seen reports that they had pistols but that doesn't sound right. Faaaaaaamn (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC pictures show them holding long-barrelled firearms, but the rez is too poor to make out what they are. They appear to be assault rifles, perhaps with suppressors of some kind. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Would expect them to have more than side arms. Analysis of the video might help. Hopefully this is done by RS. The naval hardware being used is also important. They had a couple missile boats leaving port but any info on which ones, if their weapons were used, and so on would improve the article.Cptnono (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew they looked strange. This op-ed from ynet says they were using paintball guns. [3] That photo from Associated Press shows pretty clearly they're not regular guns. Could they have had guys with paintball guns+pistols but then another "squad" or something come in with real guns? Not really sure how the military aspect of this works. Faaaaaaamn (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There was another line saying they used nonlethal force but it was removed. If enough sources can verify (I see an IP is making noise below) then maybe it should be mentioned that the commandos went in with less than lethal weapons. Sources need to be good though.Cptnono (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Assault rifles apparently.[4] Those are definitely not paintball guns in the photos. Yediot Arinoth is a low-brow tabloid with a poor record of factual accuracy, so I wouldn't take its reports too seriously. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I think it should at least be investigated though. Obviously the people weren't killed by paintball guns but the photos don't show the soldiers holding assault weapons that look like anything i've seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they may have either flash suppressors or laser designators mounted on the front of the barrels. Unfortunately the pics are too blurry to tell. They're definitely assault rifles though, as this picture shows. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just adding my 2 cents, the weapon the soldier on the left side has in the BBC picture looks like it could possibly be the Israeli Tavor assault rifle, the attachment on the barrel is most definitely a suppressor. His hand placement towards what looks like it would be the "Center" of the weapon would help illustrate that since the weapon is a bull-pup design. As for what hes holding towards the front of the gun my only thought is that its possibly a vertical grip mount with a flashlight attachment built onto it. The second picture of the soldier by the Turkish flag I'm convinced is an AR-15 styled weapon, or maybe the Israeli Galil. While its too blurry to tell the stock is clearly an AR-15 styled stock (Which can be retrofitted to everything from shotguns to AK-47's). The two silver circles towards the top of the weapon I believe would be the locking screws to hold weapon optics into place, like a dotsight or a scope. And lastly his forward hard is in a position that would be used for someone using a vertical grip. IIRC the carbine/rifle variant of the PepperBall weapon had the CO2 cylindar come backwards towards the stock, while the hopper was above the receiver of the weapon, clearly not the case here. I have seen specially designed variants for CQB training that made use of the magazine and got rid of the giant hopper. While we can't clearly see the bottom and rule out whether or not it is infact a true assault rifle or a PepperBall gun, there's definitely things pointing towards an assault rifle.

One of the major points that the IDF is trying to make is that they boarded the boat with paintball guns as their primary weapons, and only their sidearms for deadly force. They say that only after a minute and a half of conflict (where beatings are seen in the videos) were the soldiers allowed to use their sidearms. Whether or not this is true doesn't matter. Since this is the primary argument of the IDF, it should be presented in the article. 71.172.172.68 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is the IDF youtube channel a reliable source?

The official IDF Youtube channel is located here: http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk They released a video of the navy telling the protesters to turn around: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKOmLP4yHb4 Another is a short analysis of the attack from above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE Are these considered reliable? Faaaaaaamn (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No. In general YouTube is about as bad it gets in terms of reliability. In this case both parties to the dispute have videos out there - it would require our own interpretation to infer what happened from a video. We need citable claims from third-parties. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably reliable enough for a "According to the IDF, ...". They are one of the involved parties, their opinion does matter. But I wouldn't present anything like a fact. Facts come from independent parties (I admit, there are none in this conflict, there's just people who pretend they're independent). Andreas Willow (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Those lnks should be avoided, report using the highest quality independant citations only. Try not to apportion blame at this early date. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know we don't consider youtube in general to a reliable source. For more you may read WP:Sources.--yousaf465' 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In this case since the video is unedited footage coming directly from one of the main parties involved I think it would be considered reliable, especially since there are two different angles of the same time period. However we should endeavor to find unedited footage from the perspective of the aid activists as well. That seems a bit harder to come by since all the clips out there now appear to be compilations.Zuchinni one (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

People who were still in Cyprus

Associated Press is reporting that Hedy Epstein the holocaust survivor was not on the ship but still in Cyprus. There may be others but I'm not going to remove her from the main list because someone will put it back straight away.
Sources:
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1273450&lang=eng_news
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/elderly-holocaust-survivor-did-not-join-gaza-flotilla-is-safe-in-cyprus-95253484.html Faaaaaaamn (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I've removed her. Ericoides (talk) 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed her again (you were right!). Ericoides (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1273450&lang=eng_news also seems to imply that the MV Rachel Corrie is not among the six ships, does it not? Edrowland (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

UN security council emergency meeting

Sky are reporting UN security council emergency meeting this afternoon. Four Israeli soldiers injured. up to 19 civilians dead. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A brutal ambush at sea

According to Ynet military commentator Ron Ben-Yishai and witness acounts of IDF soldiers who took part in the raid: the activists attacked the soldiers gliding from the helicopter with cold weapons and beat them up

"Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back. "

"The forces hurled stun grenades, yet the rioters on the top deck, whose number swelled up to 30 by that time, kept on beating up about 30 commandoes who kept gliding their way one by one from the helicopter. At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness."

and soldiers got shot by rifle and pistols:

"“I saw the tip of a rifle sticking out of the stairwell,” one commando said. “He fired at us and we fired back. We didn’t see if we hit him. We looked for him later but couldn’t find him.” Two soldiers sustained gunshot wounds to their knee and stomach after rioters apparently fired at them using guns wrested away from troops."

Quotes from the article, bolding added by me. Source: [5], in reference form: Ron Ben-Yishai, A brutal ambush at sea, Ynet, 31.5.2010.(unsigned comment from User_talk:132.77.4.43 added by Off2riorob (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Please sign your posts and please as per talkpage MOS stop bolding your additions, it is enough to ittalic them with two marks instead of three like this

Luckily none of the soldiers was killed, but up to nineteen civilians have been killed, I am sorry for the soldiers but at least they have not been killed. Off2riorob (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I also read that source, but I didn't see any other sources claiming this way. Such information should not be added until further evidence and more information is provided. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All that money spent arming and training your soldiers, give them the element of surprise and what happens? Weapons whipped away by the nasty activists, and the innocent, defenceless men, who are only trying to serve their country after all, end up being beaten and wacked across the head with their own guns? Perhaps there should be an investigation into this "brutal ambush"? --86.40.172.76 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron clubs

The fact that activists beat Israeli soldiers with iron clubs while the latter were rappelling onto the boats is not disputed, and it it not sourced to IDF statements but to television broadcasts from the Marmara. See, for instance, the Los Angeles Times here. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work. Off2riorob (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jalapenos may exist, but you need to check that link ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That text is now duplicated - it was moved to the next paragraph, which is already discussing the conflicting reports on the violence that actually occurred. I'll reword the attribution in the next paragraph, and remove the duplication. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actual link, you must have copied it wrong: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-israel-protesters-slain-20100531,0,2138270.story

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dammit, I feel stoopid now. I'd seen that LA Times article already, should have remembered. Thanks for the correct link! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you read the source, it is quite clear that this is what one of the soldiers is saying. There is no third party evidence that states this is what definitely happened, and you therefore cannot put it across as such. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, the attribution is not correct - please stop restoring it or provide a valid reason for doing so. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

From the LA Times article: Video released by television crews onboard and a live Internet signal transmitted from the boat show armed and masked Israeli soldiers rappelling from helicopters onto the boat and being attacked by passengers with iron clubs. The television footage is now also corroborated by the account of Israeli journalist Ron Ben Yishai, cited by someone above. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I'll concede I missed that one. I won't edit it again because I've disengaged myself, but I still think it's poorly written as (whatever your point of view) it doesn't make it clear that the activists said that they attacked only because they were already being fired on, as it states later in the same article 'Responding to images of protesters striking soldiers, Berlin said the activists were acting in self-defense after soldiers opened fire. "People had the right to defend themselves against soldiers armed with machine guns," she said.' - I think missing this out is quite a serious point. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If pirates board your ship in the middle of the night, especially in international waters, you can use whatever you have in self-defence. Try boarding someone's houseboat in most of the south / center / west USA, and see what happens, and who the law protects. NPOV is important but not buying IDF / Israeli "diplomatic service" PR garbage is also. The convoy was only trying to deliver aid, and the offer of passing it on was not credible given existing known (and not disputed by Israel) restrictions and delays, and this should be clear in the context parts of the article. 178.178.14.34 (talk) 22:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Mention of aid in introduction

The fact that the ships were carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza (their main mission) isn't mentioned once in the intro. Just for comparison, the NYT states: "Israeli naval commandos raided a flotilla carrying thousands of tons of supplies for Gaza..." in the very first sentence of their story on the incident. This needs to be mentioned. --Nickman71 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters what they were carrying, since Israel has asked them to use official channels to deliver their supply, but they refused, hence the flotilla itself was the goal, and not the aid. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I added it. Whether it stays there we shall see. ShalomOlam, it matters because it matters to the sources. Can you keep your personal opinions about the real world off this page please. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This tab is labeled "Discussion", isn't it? And isn't the point of discussions for people to express their personal opinions!? ShalomOlam (talk) 15:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As the box at the top of the page clearly states, this is not a general forum, it is a discussion on how to improve the article. As the sources all take the time to clearly state what the flotilla was carrying, that's what we'll say. Ale_Jrb^talk 15:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, though understandable mistake. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the related article. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact that they were carrying Aid is totally relevant and clearly belongs in the lede.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is cement consider to be "Aid" or not? (according to some reports, some ships had cement on them) ShalomOlam (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately, the sources that state that the ships were carrying aid have done the work for us, so there is no dispute. :) Ale_Jrb^talk 15:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't dispute any fact. I just don't think that Israel's decision to board the flotilla depended on the content of the ships, and vice versa - the flotilla did not go on its way because of its content, but because of Israle's blockade of Gaza. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It can be. You can say, "... aid, including the banned cement." But do you really not see how cement can aid? --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, cement is not a Humanitarian aid, in the sense that it is not needed to save lives. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

USAID would beg to differ: they use it to build medical centres, etc ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 16:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes construction materials like cement are considered to be aid by the UN and other NGO's. You can read this UN report for more info e.g. page 16 Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be in the lead the reason for why the ship was there, carrying aid, this is important. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's in the first sentence. Has been since this was posted. ;) Ale_Jrb^talk 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

However, it is not a fact. How can this be the reason for the flotilla, if they knew that Israel will stop them? If they wanted the aid to reach Gaza, they could have sent it there in other ways (Israel even offered to do so). ShalomOlam (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all the news outlets that said that this was the reason for it know rather more, and are rather more reliable, than you are. Per WP:OR, your opinion really doesn't matter. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"This mission isnt about delivering humanitarian supplies,it's about breaking Israel's siege." Pick a source. It's reported by both sides.

Anyway, there's another reason not to hand the stuff over to the Israeli military. They couldn't be sure that everything would reach Gaza. "If successful, the flotilla will supply around 10,000 tonnes of building materials, paper for schools and a range of currently banned items to Gaza. Such as generators, water purifiers and crayons for children." --68.161.167.66 (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Widely criticized and condemned internationally"

...is both vague and redundant. Please try to be specific and precise when referring to reactions by various countries. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

NYT = "widespread international condemnation of Israel"

CNN = "The international community on Monday condemned an Israeli naval commando raid on a flotilla carrying aid for Palestinians in Gaza" Sean.hoyland - talk 15:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was OR, I said it was vague and redundant, and that we should try to be specific and precise. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you will read for yourself the "Reactions" section of the article (as I just did), you will see that most countries (that are mentioned in the article) did NOT criticized or condemned Israel, but only expressed concern and regret for the lost of lives. ShalomOlam (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think we can pick a sensible phrase from an RS and go with that to summarise it so that we are reliably and verifiably vague and redundant in a way that matchs an RS. :) Sean.hoyland - talk 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos, if you have a better way of summarizing the international reactions, please let us learn it. Thanks 144.122.113.139 (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be blunt, it's simply dishonest to claim or imply - as some editors have been trying to do - that the criticism has only been coming from Arab countries. This is not a debatable point. As the BBC News home page currently puts it, "Israeli commandos storm a convoy of ships carrying aid to Gaza, sparking international condemnation." It's not "Arabs vs Israelis" on this issue, it's "Israelis vs everyone". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Except USA which is currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy and will continue to do so until further information is made available ; all other as I understand have condemned it strongest possible terms. --yousaf465' 16:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is BBC News a country? ShalomOlam (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the point of your question is. The fact is that the general response to this has been criticism and condemnation, as numerous reliable sources have stated. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But almost no western country have released such a statement officialy. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it's one of the most reliable news outlets in the world. They didn't say they condemned it - they said everyone else did. So... your point? Ale_Jrb^talk 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My point: the article currently states that: "The United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary William Hague said he deplored the loss of life". This statement is not criticism. BBC News can say/write whatever they want, but they don't speak for the United Kingdom (or any other country). ShalomOlam (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

to deplore (transitive) To condemn; to express strong disapproval of. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it reffers only to the loss of lives. Not to Israel Nany's actions. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but regardless of the aggressor once the Israelis had boarded, the actions of the Navy led to a loss of life. Thus, it is a criticism. Which is what the sources are reporting, so that's what we're reporting. Ale_Jrb^talk 16:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The boarding did not led to loss of life - weapons being fired led to loss of life. And some reports say that Israel Navy fired their weapons only after they were attacked. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The French foreign minister has said that nothing can justify such violence. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with "widely criticized and condemned internationally", they're not one and the same. "Condemned internationally" to me conveys that several international states or organizations have voiced opposition, while "widely criticized" to me conveys that opposition is coming from a variety of sources, not necessarily government agencies or international organizations. Kamnet (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated number of dead?

It's coming from Associated Press that 16 activists have been sent to jail whilst nine are dead, not 19.
Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD9G1ST400
Picked up by Yahoo! and other places: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100531/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians_65 Faaaaaaamn (talk) 15:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As the ships now reached to the port, this information should be much more reliable. The death toll should be updated. Thanks 144.122.113.139 (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think it will be a couple of days before we know how many and who is actually dead and for the time being it should be left at 'an unknown number of people have been killed Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I speak the BBC just reported at least ten killed better to leave it vague until the time we know for sure. Off2riorob (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? It already got put down as fact that 19 were killed, the number that came from Al-Jazeera.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 16:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Israeli media are reporting 19 killed. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal Issues

It mentions The Arab community only due we have source for it ? also it not the arab community It has been described as the state terrorism and gross violations of International norms by Pakistan's ex-ambassador to USA. Also other two sources are both pro-Israel one analyst for the Israel Facts Group and other a "International law expert at Hebrew University. --yousaf465' 16:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Below is some information which could be included:

The legality of the flotilla incident has been discussed due to the fact that it took place in international waters. Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, said she was registering shock "at reports that humanitarian aid was met with violence early this morning, reportedly causing death and injury as the convoy approached the Gaza coast" and that "nothing can justify the appalling outcome of this operation, which reportedly took place in international waters." Voice of Russia reported that "Russia calls attention to the fact that the Israeli interception of a Gaza-bound international aid flotilla took place in international waters, which represents a gross violation of international law".The Organization of the Islamic Conference, an association of 57 Islamic states promoting Muslim solidarity, described the flotilla incident as "a serious escalation and a flagrant violation of the international law and human values." The organization further said it would initiate action at the level of the Security Council and the Human Rights Commission to examine the fallout of the attack.

The legal status of the blockade over Gaza has been fiercely debated. Human Rights Watch argues that Israel is still an occupying power and is responsible for Gaza under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Amnesty International said that “the blockade constitutes collective punishment under international law and must be lifted immediately.” And that as the occupying power, Israel has a duty under international law to ensure the welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, including their rights to health, education, food and adequate housing. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs has claimed the blockade is legal, writing that "under international law, a maritime blockade is recognized as a legitimate tool be used at a time of international conflict... under international humanitarian laws a state that is imposing economic sanctions does not need to provide non vital goods." At the Declaration of London in 1909 an attempt was made to protect the rights of neutral traders. The treaty was only ratified by a few nations, preventing any application of the agreements. Parts of it were, however, applied during blockades in World War I. Since 1945, the UN Security Council determines the legal status of blockades and by article 42 of the UN Charter, the Council can also apply blockades.

I am also aware that the Foreign Ministry of Turkey and a few other nations have made comments about the matter which have been cited in the media. The issue has also generated some discussion at the UN Human Rights Council. I think it would be good to give some time for international legal experts a chance to weigh in, and to try to limit to just notable political reactions. --Nosfartu (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A statement was made by a Norwegian professor at the university (specialicing in sea law) saying that the act seems to be ilegal. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3673112.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jace1982 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Henning Mankell reported shot

Henning Mankell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Swedish author (notable person) has been reported injured/shot. How should this be implemented in the article? 2nd paragraph (Norwegian source).

I don't think we should include it until we get some kind of official confirmation. The para you mention attributes the info to "former Red leader Erling Folkvord". It sounds more like a rumour than a corroborated report, to be honest. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Folkvord was wrong and has apologised.[6] Lampman (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A subsection of "notable people aboard" can do it when the affirmations are in.Lihaas (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved from top

This topic presented here pretends to be factual when it is not. The article contains allegations of "fact" and "scholarly details" that cannot possibly be known one day subsequent to the event. This is why the wiki is its own worst enemy as it is controlled by The Few who decide what the rules are and what the content should be, and is further evidence of cyber-warfare tactics being used by the most repressive regimes in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montoya44 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why most of us are so keen to enforce this policy and this policy - so that readers can make up their own minds. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Montoya44, that's simply inconceivable. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request: Add IDF Spokesperson's Unit released video

{{editsemiprotected}}

Aerial footage showing the boarding and Israeli commandos being attacked as they rappel to the upper deck has been released by the IDF[7]. Can somebody please add this to the article?

I recommend it be placed under the section detailing Al-Jazeera's reports:

Al-Jazeera reports that "all the images being shown from the activists on board those ships show clearly that they were civilians and peaceful in nature, with medical supplies on board. So it will surprise many in the international community to learn what could have possibly led to this type of confrontation."[6]

Change to:

Al-Jazeera reports that "all the images being shown from the activists on board those ships show clearly that they were civilians and peaceful in nature, with medical supplies on board. So it will surprise many in the international community to learn what could have possibly led to this type of confrontation."[6]

Aerial infra-red footage of the boarding released by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit shows Israeli commandos rappelling from a helicopter to the upper deck of one of the ships, and being attacked by people on board.

87.69.208.92 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't support this primary video loaded to youtube by one of the involved parties in the clash being added. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nor me. Stick to secondary sources reporting what the primary sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a better video. Perhaps this should go in the "see also" section? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As the other side has claimed that they fired before coming down, it's still problematic. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to including video of them firing before coming down in the "see also" section, if you have any of those. I don't see the problem here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please don't post not wikipedia reliable links on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:IRS states: Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited. The video in question was published by the IDF and so cannot be considered under this criterion. Sources that would be acceptable to use on the page would be, for example, third-party news or commentary that makes reference to the IDF's footage and press statements. As such, I am marking this request Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. haz (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Paintball rifles

I've taken out a very dubious-looking claim that the Israeli commandos were only equipped with paintball guns. Numerous sources refer to them using assault rifles and what's been depicted are definitely not paintball guns. The claim doesn't even make sense. What do people suppose caused the fatalities? Were people choking to death on paint? The picture used in this article (right) is clearly depicting an assault rifle. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's from an incredibly one-sided editorial: [8]. He says that they had handguns as backup. I'm starting to wonder if the author even interviewed anyone, or if he just made up the whole thing. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see - so it's from an op-ed, not mainstream reporting. That definitely raises warning signs. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If no reliable source can be presented that explicitly says that IDF only used paintball rifles, we cant ad it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons." [9] - for reference, the actual source. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That still doesn't confirm that IDF only had paintball weapons. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it did. I was merely pointing out that the source provided by 68.161 was a straw man, intended to made the assertion that they has paintball guns look ridiclous, when they actually did. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Not a straw man. I simply didn't see this in any other sources and it was so out there in an article that was already way out there that I was starting to think the guy just made up a story based off some reported facts. I've been trying to fight extremism on both sides here.

Also, every single instance of the paintballs before this cited the same article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.167.66 (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I admit, I should've looked deeper into the paintball gun claim before dismissing it. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The paintball gun is pretty obvious in the image I just added on the right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Look at the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo - at ~53s you can see one of the paintball guns (it looks exactly like one, and unless you provide me with a real weapon configuration that resembles what I see in the video I do believe it is one. Look at how the person who is being shot with it runs away, if this was a pistol he would drop to the floor). Infact, paintball guns can be used as non-lethal weapons against rioters, and this has been done before. However, the special forces surely did not only enter the boat with paintball guns, they sure had real weapons with them. --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Original. Research. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not original research, as there are sources out there who claim the matter of what we are discussing.... --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

On the basis that only light resistance was to be offered, the boats were boarded after being warned to turn around. With heavy resistance, this is a remarkable stupid thing to do.

So how would any other navy enforce a naval blockade? First, a clear warning in English: Turn back or we shall fire. Next, A shot across the bow – a last warning to show the seriousness of our intentions. Finally, firing at the vessel’s propeller, in a bid to paralyze the ship’s sailing and steering capabilities.

Only then, and only after allowing the ship to be tossed from side to side under the sun, the time would come for taking over the vessel using massive force: Clearing away the decks using water hoses, splashing oil on its windows, ramming into the vessel, and finally staging the takeover.

This is how any self-respecting Navy would conduct itself. However, there is only one problem here: The utilization of force and fire, which is precisely what Barak wanted to avoid. He feared the images, and therefore ordered the takeover to get underway at early morning hours, much before the ships crossed into Gaza’s territorial waters.

YNet Opinion

They were armed with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests thinking light resistance. When they got lynched after boarding by the "peace activists" and were fired at (perhaps by guns wrested from the soldiers themselves) were they given permission to use their handguns to incapacitate (i.e. kneecapping).

Were assault rifles used, I would imagine that the casualty number would be a lot higher. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The second picture is awful and should not be included. Also as I said, stop posting links to the web that are not reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is from an IDF video. Further, read Riot_gun. --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

[10] - source. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

With incidents and aftermath come competing claims, which are likewise notable. We have to note that the "paintball guns [defense]", regardless of its validity, has been repeated by a number of sources as rationale for the incident. That alone is interesting, and yes, of course there is the issue of whether its actually true or not, and we can get to that too. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am glad this section exists, I stumbled accross the paintball-thing and thought it was vandalism. As of now, it's only mentioned in the caption of the infobox-picture without sources. I don't think it can remain that way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone replaced the image. I restored the original image, which isn't great but isn't nearly as crappy as that one. The paintball image is also completely misleading in its implication that only paintballs were used, which clearly isn't the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not logical. It does not imply that only paintball guns were used. It only implies that they were used. What is the matter, really??? --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Were the paintball guns notable to and representative of the incident? For example, a Google News search would suggest they appear in less than 1% of news stories on the issue.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say so -- You don't carry paintball guns for no reason. --91.32.92.220 (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Paintball gun with the elipsoid tank; compare to File:Marmara.PNG

They were armed with paintball gun as primary non-lethal weapon and handguns as a backup lethal weapon for last resort. One can see in the middle one soldier holding a long barreled weapon, however, on top of the weapon there is an elipsoid tank charcateristic of paintball guns. MathKnight 18:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Did paintball guns turn the conflict in to an international incident being widely reported on by the international media?--Nosfartu (talk) 18:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we leave out the information that the soldiers were carrying non lethal paintball/pepper-guns as a primary weapon just because, by your judgement, this fact is not the reason why the incident is being reported by the media? I think not. In fact, it's a rather important bit to achieve NPOV. But that might not occur to you... or, does it? --91.32.92.220 (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Often paintball guns are loaded with pepper balls and used to disperse crowds. It is quite reasonable to assume that there WERE paintball guns, but even the Israeli media is reporting that the soldiers requested to switch to live ammunition. So we KNOW live ammunition was present and we have multiple Israeli news sources saying that paintball guns were ALSO present.Zuchinni one (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I already wrote they hand pistols as backup. MathKnight 19:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Independent Media Review and Analysis

According to SourceWatch,[11] this group[12] is merely pro-Israel proganda outlet, therefore I'm moving this to talk:

Dr. Robbie Sabel of Hebrew University has stated that "a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in international waters. Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every right to act in self defense."

-- Kendrick7^talk 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, its an academic opinion about a general political and military concept, rather than a source for actual information about the incident. Naturally it should go. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Sabel is an international law expert and can be quoted. IMRA may be a pro-Israel proganda outlet just like Al-Jazeera is an anti-Israel proganda outlet -- what matters is the content, which can be used as long as it is attributed. -- Gabi S. (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of his expertise, the quote doesn't belong here. If it quote deals with general support or rationale for Israel's embargo itself then it could be added to the Israeli embargo article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The source appears to be very dubious - the website appears to be run by a guy called Aaron Lerner who either publishes his own opinion or re-posts articles from other sources. It seems to be little more than a glorified blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We use glorified blogs all the time. The issue is what its substance and relevance to the current topic is. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

+1. The age old claim that "independent" or "neutral" media would exist (it does as long as it supports the POV people want to hear from) --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal, a mainstream newspaper, is categorically different from a one-man website. It's an absurd comparison. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Mainstream newspapers" include the sunshine press, do you agree? They are both newspapers and mainstream. The Wallstreet Journal has been acquired by NewsCorp and now is often as "unbiased" as Fox News --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it is less a question about whether the source is reliable for Dr. Sabel's opinion, as it is a question about the notability of the opinion. Tens of thousands of doctorate degrees are awarded each year in the U.S. alone, and anyone (or almost anyone) can have their opinion posted on to a blog. Publication in one or more notable publications is generally a better sign of notability.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, its relevance belongs to an article about the Israeli embargo or blockade of Gaza itself, and not to this particular incident, about which this particular academic has no particular knowledge. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is of course relevant to this article, as it considers exactly the legality of detaining vessels that try to enter a blockaded area. It also counterbalances the Al Jazeera "expert" currently quoted on this same issue. -- Gabi S. (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Neutrality is not about counterbalance or counterpoint, but substance. It is entirely against NPOV to draw preferential quotes out of a hat just to "counterbalance" something else. That said, the issue again is relevance: If the "Al Jazeera expert" is simply quoted about something which is not specific to the incident, but rather to the general "legality" of the embargo/blockade, then that quote too should go the more general Israeli embargo/Gaza blockade article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Famous Russian journalist was on board

Her name is Nadezhda Kevorkova (Russian: Надежда Кеворкова). Her fate is unknown yet. Please add her to the list of notable people. Mekĕti (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Nosfartu (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Video releases by israeli news sites/television

some israeli news site and channels broadcast the footage from the IDF spokesperson (which is also available at their site: http://idfspokesperson.com/ )

here are some links:

http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=722138 (check the video)

http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=722121 (check the video)

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3896733,00.html

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-commandos-gaza-flotilla-activists-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089 (soldiers interview about getting lynched)

the videoes show the immediate attack on commando soldiers as they get on to the ship and weapons prepared for attacks against them.

since most of the debate here is against israel, obviously someone should add details contradicting the allegations

(there was no massacre, the soldiers weren't even prepared for any violence, they first used Paintball-guns)

i'm surprised how Wikipedia is not as neutral as it has claimed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, who ever denied the activists attacked? We still don't know if the commandos fired shots before this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that if the Israelis opened fire with assault weapons before boarding there would only be 9 fatalities? Would the "activists" have stayed around to "greet" the soldiers with the iron clubs as seen in the video? Would the soldiers have used paintguns as seen in the video once on deck if they already had permission to use live ammo? ------

nobody knows yet, but references to the attack are being removed constantly: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what either of us think. FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

the caption for the first picture was removed, then changed while i was writing. the picture clearly shown the paintball gun, but it's not mentioned anywhere again, nor cited.

funny how that happen, especially since there are references to paintball guns in the media...

take another example, this image clearly shows how they threw a soldier from the deck, why not add such a picture, it was shown in major media sources (i saw it on foxnews and all major israeli news channels) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Funkmonk, it does matter what you think because you are on e of the editors and the monent someone writes "the soldiers fired before arrivng on deck" then it changes the whole tone from activists attacking to being attacked. There is NO PROOF that the soldiers fired before arriving on deck. However there is proof that they were attacked when they did arrive on deck with nothing more then a paintgun in hand (see videos).----

The only thinking that we can do is: 1) Is the source reliable? 2) Is the information notable? 3) Does the statement that cites the source say something that the source didn't intend?

It's not up to us to decide that the videos depict paintball guns. It's not up to us to dismiss sources who say that the boat was fired upon. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Which sources say the boat was fired upon before boarding? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Official reaction of Russia

Russia expresses disapproval and deepest concern over the matter; considers armed attack on civilians in international waters severe violation of international law; calls for the immediate end of blockade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekĕti (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a similar Russian reaction in English above in the legal issues section.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Splitting the article

The reactions section is already very big and is still expanding. I am afraid it will derail the main purpose of the article. Hence either its hould be shortened or should be created into a new article. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Shortened, would be my preference. An article just for "reactions" seems a little excessive, but I do agree the section is too long. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 17:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we could drop all the dot-flag items and write just a textual summary, moving the full reactions with all the flags to some other article?

By the way (excuse me for saying this, please don't take offense) is it really so incredibly important what all the 250 countries in the world think of it? I mean, is that really so important that it deserves an article of its own? In a year, most people will have forgotten, and all that should remain in an encyclopedia is a description of the events. That can include a sketch of the international reactions, of course. But how is the one-line reaction by each of many dozens of countries encyclopedic? Andreas Willow (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There's precedent, with many articles having such pages, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_assassination_of_Benazir_Bhutto. And it's encyclopedic because it is entirely possible someone may wish to compare the reactions of different countries. For example, in this case it's of note that the phrasing of the USA's response was quite different from that of the EU and the Arab League. 216.237.232.178 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Considering the widespread nature of the reaction, the likelihood it will be expanded (I've just added Tunisia's statement) and the history of doing this before (a recent example being International response to the 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash) I would support this idea. Protests in cities across numerous continents (Europe, Middle East, South Asia, etc), including more than 10,000 Turks in Istanbul, suggest this isn't going away just yet. --candle•wicke 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. International reaction to the 2010 Gaza flotilla incident seems appropriate. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, but the title should match this article - thus International reaction to the 2010 Gaza flotilla clash, not "incident". -- ChrisO (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) You would again first have to substantiate the usage of the word "clash" here as preferable to alternatives like "incident," "scuffle," "kerfluffle," "massacre," and "shoot-out." "Clash" here is colloquial at best. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 20:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, I am aware of the abundance of precedents, I am only wondering why we are actually doing this, that's all. You don't have to supply examples, I know there are many. It was more that while I was going to say 'Agree' that I wondered why we actually cared. After all, the Arab world protests a dozen times a year against Israeli aggression / offensive cartoons / insulting persons / etc. and one would wonder if it's still notable after so much repetition. And the same goes for the world's response. That's all. Just wondering what you guys thought about it. But I can only agree that unless we break with tradition, a separate article should result. ;-) Andreas Willow (talk) 22:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Split has already been done to International reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash because article is WP:TOOLONG. --Kslotte (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Activists or passengers?

CHECK THE NEW STICKY SECTION FOR CURRENT DISCUSSION --- Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Recurring_topics

I suggest that we should be cautious about identifying the casualties as "activists". There appears to have been a variety of people on board - activists, yes, but also journalists and crewmen. I've replaced the references to "activists" being killed or injured to "passengers". -- ChrisO (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

activists, obviously they had an agenda, there's a reason why 5 or more attack each soldier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times called them "people" or "passengers"--Nosfartu (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What agenda did the journalists and ship's crews have? -- ChrisO (talk) 18:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that's a good idea. In many sources I've come upon, they're called 'activists' or 'demonstrators'. I admit that this is somewhat original research, but I find it hard to believe that normal passengers would be involved in the kind of things that the people on board, are currently accused of. It's like calling someone being accused of being a serial murderer a '...-year old person from ...-town' and cautiously avoiding any characteristic that might sound even remotively accusatory.

In any case, is there a specific reason to use 'passengers' rather than 'activists' other than your assessment of who were on board? (e.g. are there many sources using the terminology 'passengers'?) I agree with you that it's quite a diverse group of people, but if reliable sources call them 'activists', then perhaps so should we. Andreas Willow (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no issue with calling them "activists." The term is not political, and is in fact accurate, as the very name "Free Gaza Movement" suggests. The issue of whether they were all actual peaceniks or not is of course up for debate. Chris' point about journalists and crew is a non-sequitor, as journalists are neutral and crew is either activist-oriented, or activist paid. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 18:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(cutting in) You are assuming that the activists were the only ones killed and injured. We simply have no information yet about the identities of the injured that would allow us to make that assumption. For instance, there were clearly journalists and cameramen on the scene - that's why we have pictures, after all; it wouldn't be a surprise if they were among the casualties. Until we know who the casualties are we shouldn't lump them all together as "activists" when some of them are likely not in that category at all. Otherwise you're engaging in original research by making an unsubstantiated assumption. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there any indication that there were journalists amongst the non-military injured? (My preference is for "civilian" and "soldier" - i.e. not "IDF soldier", just "soldier", but that's maybe another debate...) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Were there any indications that they were all strictly activists? I believe we should follow the example of the Times, or make a point of direct attribution and quoting from the source to avoid any factual issues. In general, passengers is a more general term.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know we have no indications at all of who was killed and injured, since the Israelis are apparently holding everyone incommunicado and haven't released a casualty list. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So perhaps, until we have more information about the event, we should either use a general term such as "passengers", "people, etc. (as the New York Times did) or we should quote the source making the statement and attribute it to them.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. We can revisit this when the casualty list has been published, but not before then. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

CHECK THE NEW STICKY SECTION FOR CURRENT DISCUSSION --- Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Recurring_topics

FN 303

S13 were armed with pistols and FN 303 guns, not assault rifles. Flayer (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Source? And it's obviously wrong anyway; what's depicted in this image is a clearly long-barrelled assault rifle. The magazine is also clearly visible. We can see the weapon side-on. It's self-evidently not an FN 303. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO - We have seen at least 3 types of weapons, so far - The assault rifles, the paintball guns and these "FN 303"'s. Tewner (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Seen where? There's a distinct lack of sourcing going on here. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

[13] Flayer (talk) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the paintball guns were actually "FN 303"'s. Flayer (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's put this issue to one side for now. I don't think we actually need to get into the detail of what the IDF guys were armed with at this stage, particularly as what actually happened is still so unclear. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Lost that one didn't you?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Piracy Revisted

Israeli lawyers have filed a case in Israel's High Court saying this raid violates international law and is piracy. Source: [14] Now that there is a lawsuit on hand and the source is The Jerusalem Post, can we please have this added to a section on the "aftermath." Truthiness54 (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not a "flotilla"

The article's name needs to be changed because it is misleading, and in a way that appears blatantly partisan. A flotilla, according to the current wikipedia definition [15] - which hasn't been edited since 24 February 2010 - is "a formation of small warships that may be part of a larger fleet. A flotilla is usually composed of a homogeneous group of the same class of warship, such as frigates, destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, gunboats, or minesweepers." These vessels were not warships in any sense whatsoever. MdArtLover (talk) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Everyone is still calling it a flotilla, so that is what we call it.--Nosfartu (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My understanding of "flotilla" was that it was simply "a small fleet". There's a dictionary definition here, which seems more accurate than the Flotilla article, which seems to focus on the naval/military use. Maybe update Flotilla... TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this is probably an example of sloppy civilian usage of a military term with a narrower meaning... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it seems this is the name the activists chose themselves - the "freedom flotilla". Hence the terminology. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How about calling it "Operation Sea Breeze" as it is called by the IDF itself? See http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22operation+sea+breeze%22+gaza ?

Mainstream media is calling it a flotilla and we should reflect that. I think it would be biased to call the article "Operation Sea Breeze" IJA (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in general flotilla means a small fleet of crafts but is mostly used especially for a United States Navy fleet consisting of two or more squadrons of small warships [16],[17] You could probably use fleet as a description for both groups of ships but "flotilla clash" clearly indicates an encounter between two naval formations. I though Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia so imho its job is to correct the media -- 92.231.44.65 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC are also calling it an "aid convoy"... Ericoides (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I would like to remind everyone that this article is covered by the discretionary sanctions that cover articles related to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The sanctions constrain behavior both here on this talk page and when editing the article. If you haven't read them please do so. Compliance is mandatory. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Aid will be delivered

According to this the aid will be delivered by land upon inspection lol CoombaDelray (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

response: Russia

Russia's Foreign Ministry criticized on Monday an Israeli raid on ships taking humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip in which at least 10 people were killed. A statement on the ministry website said Russia expressed "condemnation and deep concern" over the incident and called for a full investigation. The ministry also called the use of "weapons against citizens and the seizing of ships in open waters with no legal grounds a gross violation of commonly accepted international legal norms." It also said the events proved the "necessity to halt the Gaza blockade."

"Iron clubs"?

The second paragraph of the first section reads "Activists attacked and beat soldiers with iron clubs after they rappelled onto the vessel." I find "iron clubs" to be a very unsatisfactory term. First, because AFAIK, no such things are manufactured anywhere by anyone. And second, because the term "club" is not neutral; it expressly implies intended use as a weapon and to most people, I believe it conjures up prehistoric images of men fighting with crude weapons. I have a stack of 4-foot lengths of iron "rebar", left over from a construction project. Are those de facto "clubs" -- or indeed, weapons of any kind? It's entirely possible that the passengers in question, believing themselves under attack and looking around for anything that could be utilized as a weapon, found some lengths of steel rod, as are used on ships for turning capstans and, thinking them suitable, pressed them into service. But labeling these objects "iron clubs" implies that they were intended from the beginning as weapons. Can anyone show that was the case? If not, I think that "iron clubs" violates WP:NPOV and should be changed to a more neutral and accurate term. Bricology (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

From memory, the source (the LA Times) was quoting an IDF soldier. If it hasn't already been done, that should probably be made clear. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If true, that in itself suggests questionable NPOV. I want to find a more neutral replacement term than "iron clubs". Any suggestions? Bricology (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron (or metal) bars. Ericoides (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the source says. Attributed to whoever the LA Times attributed the quote to. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How about using a term like 'makeshift weapons, including iron poles, metal tools'Zuchinni one (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How about sticking to what the source says? ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Because "the source" is a member of the IDF, one of the two belligerents involved here, and specifically, one who is trying to justify the use of lethal force against civilians. It's in his interest to make the civilians seem dangerous and armed. We don't presume that one belligerent's description of what the others did as being neutral, because there's an inherent conflict of interest. Bricology (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The source is the LA Times, quoting an IDF member - both these things should be made clear when we cite the source. Beyond that, it's not our job to interpret what motivated the quote. We should leave that to the reader. TFOWR^{is this too long?} 19:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite mistaken. In fact, the LA Times quoted an anonymous IDF member, who said "They beat us up with metal sticks and knives". There's a substantive difference between "metal sticks" and "iron clubs". And again, we can't just cavalierly repeat what one anonymous belligerent claims, and "leave it to the reader" to try to determine if there's a conflict of interest. We wouldn't accept a former prison guard at Auschwitz' claim that he was in fact, merely a "correctional officer". Bricology (talk) 20:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is IDF footage when soldiers raided the concerned boat[18],[19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.44.65 (talk) 22:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh...anon whose IP address is in the Munich area: how do you know enough about WP to insert the appropriate number of colons for proper threading, but not know enough to sign your posts? Regardless, the videos you link to do not shed even the slightest light on the question of what objects the passengers were using. Try again. Bricology (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

VoiceOfAmerica is using "metal bars" [20] --MidnightDesert (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Works for me ;-) (and I never thought I'd say that about bludgeoning implements...) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Metal bars" is an improvement over "iron clubs", but it still leaves questions as to why metal bars were on-board. I know for a fact that steel rods called "capstan bars" are carried on large vessels for the purpose of manually turning capstans, which are basically winch drums for raising anchors, etc. (one such capstan can be seen here, with holes for inserting capstan bars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Capstan-nautical.jpg ). IF this is the source of the "metal bars", it should be explicitly stated, since it will change the complexion of the objects from the implication of premeditated, offensive weapons to that of more neutral and ad hoc defensive weapons. Bricology (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"defensive weapons" is just as NPOV as "offensive weapon" Tewner (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I presume you mean "...just as much non-NPOV..." And actually, it's not. The overarching principle here is the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. One belligerent has made an unsubstantiated claim about another. Unless and until it is demonstrated otherwise, we are obliged to presume that both parties are innocent. Calling it an "offensive weapon" implies criminal intent, and you can't do that; it violates NPOV. Bricology (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

International Waters?

Does anyone have a clear definition of what is considered international waters? According to a wikipedia article, which seems to need some work, International waters begin 200 nautical miles offshore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zonmar-en.svg Can someone knowledgeable about this issue help out?Zuchinni one (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

No, I'm afraid not! All we can do is quote reliable sources. If they use the term, we do (and we cite them, for verification by the reader). TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The EEZ is an area where the nation state has sovereign rights of economical assets. Think drilling sites, fisheries, that sort of thing. They have no power over ships passing through this zone. --Xyiyizi 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Territorial waters stretch 12 miles out to sea from a country's coastline. It appears the attack happened in international waters. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea countries can only police shipping inside their territorial waters. Yattum (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

According to http://aprs.fi/?call=D6FU2 it seems that the Mava Marmara was 130km from israeli soil when closest and 140km+ when the ais system was turned off/disabled. The distance to Gaza was 150km+ when closest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.113.178 (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the attack on the ships was illegal as they were well inside international waters. It is illegal under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, for a country to police shipping outside its territorial waters, which extend 12 miles from its coastline. It is only legal if country has been given a United Nations resolution to do so, which Israel hasn't been given. Yattum (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC reference states boarding at 64km from the coast but then the ais system must be wrong. The ship plot clearly shows that something happened at 01:4?utc when the ship turned west. Is there a way to find when and where more exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.113.178 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In Case you don't know

Raed Salah is fully healthy and he is on board of the Marmara, apparently waiting to be the last come down (with Haneen Zoubi) so remove the next sentence:"Saleh was reported to be seriously wounded." And one more thing: it's a fact that the activist attacked them first in brutally, the israelis were armed with paintball rifles, and a gun for self-defence purpose, there are videos that clearly shows that the activits attacked first. with a varity of cold weapons, and hot ones. All based on the israeli media reports and not the censored reports of foriegn media. proofs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bU12KW-XyZE I think that this will be enough.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.8.48 (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) 

Demonstrations

The Israeli attack has led to a number of demonstrations. One in Göteborg (Gothenburg), Sweden, had more than 4000 protesters. http://www.gp.se/nyheter/goteborg/1.380323-protest-samlade-tusentals Photos of the demonstration in Gotheburg is uploaded to the commons: File:Demonstration against the Israeli attack on ship to Gaza May 31st 2010 (4).jpg (the best of mine in my taste) Maybe others has uploaded more photos but I don't know.

Should this info be added to reactions or to a separate headline since it seems to has happened in a lot of places?Averater (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reactions, would be my preference. Note that there's a discussion above about creating a separate article for international reactions - it may be worth adding demonstrations to that article if it gets created. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree ... reactions seems like the right place for this informationZuchinni one (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded some from the protest in Stockholm (about 7000 persons[21]) to Commons:Category:Gaza flotilla clash. // Liftarn (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

International reactions section

Regarding User:Kendrick7: Not liking to single anyone out, but Im busy and I think this user is editing in bad faith here. I've repeated urged him to discuss their edits on the talk page before simply wiping whole cloth an entire section from the article. His "summary style" replacement: "there have been reactions [to the incident]" is too terse and inaccurate to be proper. The proper, descriptive, (and netural) terminology here is "negative reactions." Kendrick keeps citing WP:POVFORK without actually understanding it, despite my attempts at explaining it on his talk. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 19:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Certainly this section needs to be clear, and comprehensive, and with maybe priority for the flag countries of the ships, and then those with nationals aboard and kidnapped. In particular, any common proposals, such as EU action to remove Israel's anomalous "favoured trading partner status." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.48.112.92 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Section wording

There is now a separate article on the International Reactions. This section should be very brief and neutral toned with a reference to the main article. However some people have been regularly adding in non-neutral language.

I suggest we simply say:

"There has been strong reaction from the international community regarding Israel's actions during the Gaza flotilla clash of 31 May 2010"

Any objections? Zuchinni one (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel military censorship should be mentioned

I just added this information to the article. Israel's military censors are temporarily blocking information regarding the number injured and killed. That is why the figures vary. Israel's press is censored also, despite counter intuitive and conter factual comments above that state it is only the foreign press which is censoring this information. KeptSouth (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No objection from me, it seems to be well cited. However, I would note that asking people not to revert is likely not going to work, as the onus is on you to get consensus for your change. That said, you've got my !vote ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote, but that sounds a little backward to me. There is no requirement here (yet) that everyone get consensus to add sourced material. KeptSouth (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but there's no requirement that you not be reverted either - even if you ask politely ;-) This is a useful guideline, but it suggests an ideal that's still beyond what you were asking for. TFOWR^{is this too long?} 19:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Summary - First you say the onus is on me to get consensus to add RS material, then you say I am correct, there is not. You also claim I am trying to add a requirement re. not being reverted. Oh, well, no need to continue this non productive discussion. thank you for your comments. KeptSouth (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed incorrect tags which claimed my sources did not verify military censorship

I am removing incorrect tags "verification false" that have been added to my mention that the Israeli military censor is keeping some information from the press - here is what one source says "The Israeli military censor ordered a block on all information regarding those injured or killed during the storming of the ship". here is what the [second source] says "As estimates of the numbers killed in the high seas raid on the Gaza flotilla soared to as many as 19 in the Turkish and Israeli media, Israel’s military censor slapped a ban on any reporting of the toll of dead and injured."21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring information about military censorship to the lead

Edit summary [22] claims to be restoring information - but in fact, the editor deleted my doubly sourced information that the Israelis were censoring some of the information on the incident. KeptSouth (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring information again - kind of proves my point, doesn't it? [23] - if the information is "embarrassingly out of date" give me a reliable source that shows shows the censorship has been lifted. I have looked and cannot find one. KeptSouth (talk) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Restoring information about military censorship deleted from the body of the article

If you would like to remove the information again [24], please discuss it here and give a reason which makes some sense. Here is my reason for restoring the information - I think a mention of the ongoing censorship is necessary to show why the reports of numbers of deaths and injuries is so sketchy and censorship is also mentioned in the lead. The edit summary given by the removing editor - that we are trying to give the facts, makes no sense to me because the clamp down on information by the censors is very relevant as to why we don't have some basic facts and to what extent the entire article is balanced and accurate. KeptSouth (talk) 22:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

YNET and gunshot wounds

This source is a very opinionated source, as far as the gunshot woulds goes I don't see anyone reporting it now and Netanyaho recently referred to injured soldiers. Its been put back in to the article but it is weakly claimed. In this edit hereOff2riorob (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) This source is a very opinionated source, as far as the gunshot woulds goes I don't see anyone reporting it now and Netanyaho recently referred to injured soldiers. Its been put back in to the article but it is weakly claimed. In this edit hereOff2riorob (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ynet is a NPOV known new site, and Ron Ben-Yishai is an award-winning journalist. The article is not an op-ed but a militay commentary combined with interview with some of the boarding soldiers. The article clearly states:

"At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness."

and

"Two soldiers sustained gunshot wounds to their knee and stomach after rioters apparently fired at them using guns wrested away from troops."

Someone else added "military reported". You can't disqualify an article only because it was published on Israeli source. Read the entries about Ynet and Ron Ben-Yishai and you'll understand that they are news sources of repute and not little "right-wing blogspace" as someone falsely defined it. MathKnight 19:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, the last paragraph of the section "Mavi Marmara boarding" seems quite POV. It's based almost entirely on one, clearly pro-Israeli source, it reports as facts what is at the moment only unsubstantiated claims, and it repeats information supporting one side of the story, as if to drive home a point. It should be rewritten, and more sources should be added. Lampman (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are now six links to this ynet person, it is one writer apparently, although three are to the same article.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896588,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896796,00.html

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3896416,00.html

http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3896543,00.html

One of them starts with this , which when you consider that ten civilians were killed by trained comandos is completly biased, no comments from this person should be used at all imo.

A brutal ambush at sea Ron Ben Yishai recounts bloody clash aboard Gaza-bound vessel: The lacking crowd-dispersal means, the brutal violence of ‘peace activists,

it really isn't opinionated, it is a "lefty" Israeli news site, that writes about fact. 79.180.23.127 (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

A brutal ambush at sea Ron Ben Yishai recounts bloody clash aboard Gaza-bound vessel: The lacking crowd-dispersal means, the brutal violence of ‘peace activists.... The brutal violence of the civilian peace activists that ten of which have been killed by trained military commandos, don't even attempt to tell me this person is a neutral reporter. Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that "peace activists" can't be violent? I think the video tells us differently. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I care less about grainy videos released by the involved party, ten civilians have been killed, nothing is going to take that away. Off2riorob (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is going to take away the fact they were trying to bludgeon people to death, even if you call it a grainy video. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome your opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is based on what I saw. Yours? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here are some accounts of what happened from NPOV sources, presenting both sides of the story. To source the whole incident from one, pro-Israeli source is unacceptable.

• Voice of America
• BBC
• CNN
• New York Times Lampman (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I notice immediately that netanyahu is quoted as this in the bbc link.... he said soldiers had been defending themselves after they were "clubbed, beaten and stabbed".... nothing about shot at all and you would think he would know Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Attack on NATO

Turkey, the sponsor of the humanitarian mission and a NATO member, seems to consider this a terrorist attack on NATO by non-NATO member Israel. This needs to be made much clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahsudada (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What is your source? According to this news article: [25] Turkey is not invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (which summons all NATO allies to the aid of a member country attacked by a non-member). However, NATO is holding a meeting on Tuesday at the behest of Turkey. That should probably be mentioned in the article. --MidnightDesert (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Video of soldiers landing on boat

There are at least 3 separate videos at this point of the Israeli soldiers landing on the boat. They all show the same events from different angles and one of the videos seems to have been shot by people on the boat.

Should we be including links to these videos?

If so we should make sure to state that the time of these events cannot be verified. Clearly this was part of what happened, but there is no evidence to show whether it was in the beginning or the middle.

Arial footage from Israeli helicoptor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuH_0YRZS1M

Close-up ground level footage from Israeli boat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Footage from the perspective of a boat passenger: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xM0VEcPgQmg

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an updated video of the "Close-Up" video which now includes audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LulDJh4fWI Tewner (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(in response to a comment from user Zuchinni, since removed) Don't add any of those videos. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate on your reasoning for not including the videos. Also I'm confused ... which comment of mine was removed?Zuchinni one (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This one...Since there doesn't seem to be any opposition I'm going to add these videos. Please comment here if you think they should be removed.User:Zuchinni one replaced by Off2riorob (talk) 20:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh ... lol ... I thought I had given it an hour and a half for comments and when I noticed that only half an hour had passed I changed my mind :) I didn't think the comment was even up for two minutes.Zuchinni one (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries, don't add any of those videos unless you have a clear consensus of support here. Off2riorob (talk) 20:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Provided the videos are in the external links section, I don't have a problem with them. I'd have a problem if we got rid of "one side's videos", but having all three seems OK at first glance. Incidentally, it's entirely possible I'm missing the point here - there are currently two videos in the external links section - are we talking about adding one, or replacing the current two with another three? (Yes, yes, it would help if I'd worked this out before commenting...!) TFOWR^{is this too long?} 20:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone else added the videos to External Links. I've added a link in the "Israeli military account" to the external_links section of the videos released by the Israeli military. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge international reaction

Someone moved the international reaction to its own article: International reactions to the Gaza flotilla clash, which is quite unnecessary. Neither are that long and there is no reason the international reaction cant be in this article.

There was never any consensus to move the international reaction to its own article so if its no clear consensus for two separate articles, it should be moved back here and the other one deleted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The move has already been discussed above. --candle•wicke 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Where? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy WP:TOOLONG exist. Main article is 41kb and reaction article is 34kb (edit mode). This gives "probably should be divided" according to WP:SIZERULE. Therefore a merging back can be ruled out. Both article will increase in size anyway. --Kslotte (talk) 20:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the term "humanitarian" aid

This term should be removed from the opening section. There is no evidence that the aid was intended purely for humanitarian purposes. If that was the intent then it would have been sent through proper channels. --PiMaster3 ^talk 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you here. While some would argue that the flotilla was part of a publicity stunt, there are many legitimate cases where it is difficult to send humanitarian aid through direct channels ... look at N. Korea or Burma for example. There has been a lot of news from reliable sources stating that this was humanitarian aid and also the aid was inspected by multiple groups. Unless you can produce solid evidence against this being aid then the word 'humanitarian' should remain.Zuchinni one (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Aid flows into Gaza every day. If the intent of this aid was for legitimate purposes then it would have been sent through proper channels. --PiMaster3 ^talk 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Has already been discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_flotilla_clash#Mention_of_aid_in_introduction --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What was the Berlin Airlift for, if not for "humanitarian purposes", even though it was not conducted "through proper channels"? Bricology (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Act of piracy

Pro-Palestinian groups have called the incident an act of piracy, but majority of major news outlets, the UN, the US and British govt have never called it piracy. Hence to say at the beginning that it was an alleged act of piracy too strongly shifts the language in one perspective, as is unnecessary. Sugaki (talk) 20:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, this is nonsense - this is piracy, having occurred in international waters, with civilian ships. Both Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories, and the anti-humanitarian blockade are illegal too, and so no measure in "defence" of these things can legitimise state piracy. Wikipedia should be upfront in describing this, and should begin the Legality section accordingly, not with nonsensical non-justifications. As for the deaths, state-directed manslaughter (murder is probably too strong) is still manslaughter - Israel has some track record with such carelessness. 178.178.14.34 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Some edtitors keep removing this legality info as invalid without discussion.Lihaas (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Civilian ships involved currently includes an incorrect ship

The 'Civilian ships involved' list within the article currently contains the Irish registered MV Rachel Corrie amungst the six ships - The MV Rachel Corrie wasn't involved overnight and isn't due to reach the area until later in the week. This will need correcting. Does anyone know the name of the 6th ship involved? Mike Aldrich (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Undisputed facts vs. disputed facts

The following facts reported without qualification in reliable mainstream media sources are not disputed, nor are they "the IDF's version". I'd ask people who keep removing them with various excuses or presenting them as if they are disputed, particularly ChrisO, to pay attention to this.

1. The IDF soldiers who boarded the Marmara were armed with paintball guns and pistols. Ynet: However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin...The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations.
2. Activists attacked IDF soldiers with iron clubs while the latter were rappelling down to the Marmara. LA Times: Video released by television crews onboard and a live Internet signal transmitted from the boat show armed and masked Israeli soldiers rappelling from helicopters onto the boat and being attacked by passengers with iron clubs.
3. Activists on the Marmara attacked soldiers with various weapons as they landed one by one on the vessel. Ynet]:Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back.
4. Activists on the Marmara captured one soldier, wrested his handgun away from him, and threw him onto a lower deck, where he suffered a serious head wound and lost consciousness. Ynet: At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness.
5. In one case, Palestinians responded to the incident by throwing rocks and bottles at Israeli soldiers. Associated Press: Palestinian youths protesting the raid scuffled with Israeli soldiers, throwing bottles and stones at them, at a checkpoint north of Jerusalem, as senior Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat called the Israeli raid a "war crime."

Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fact, nine civilians have been killed by Israeli commandos. Off2riorob (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fact, civilians were beating the shit out of said Israeli commandos, seemingly unprovoked. This is *not the place. Tewner (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The casualties are mentioned in the article repeatedly. The fact they were caught on video trying to bludgeon people to death, not so much. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Jalapenos ... those facts are being originally reported by the Israeli media alone. While much of this may be true it can currently only be reported as "The IDF says" at best. Also this information currently exists in the article ... mostly under the "Boarding" sectionZuchinni one (talk) 20:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable and necessary force is allowed against civilians. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Zuchini is right: this is the IDF’s version of events, and it conflicts greatly with the FGM’s. As long as there are two, conflicting versions of events, they need to be reported as such. Most international, responsible news outlets have taken this discrepancy into account, and so should we. Lampman (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, these facts are not disputed, and the LA Times, the Associated Press and Ynet are not the IDF, however much you may want them to be in this case. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your LA Times quote is incorrect. The actual quote reads “Video of the attack released by the Israeli military, Turkish television and other media sources depicted a dramatic high-seas brawl in which Israeli commandos rappelled from helicopters onto a ship and immediately clashed with activists on board.” “Clashed with” is entirely different from “being attacked”. Unless it's been changed since you added it, it seems as if you’re changing quotes from reliable sources to support your case, which brings your agenda into question. In any case, this proves my point: reliable sources chose to report so-called “facts” with caution, seeing the uncertain nature of the situation at the moment, and so should we. Lampman (talk) 21:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote mining to find some biased news sources that parrot the official IDF line can be found, but they prove nothing. // Liftarn (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a massacre, not a clash

This topic should be renamed to Gaza flotilla massacre. Madhava 1947 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No because that is POV, I'll create it as a redirect though. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Madhava that is extremely biased, especially given the multiple videos of soldiers and passengers fighting each other.Zuchinni one (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

International outrage will probably subside given the plain evidence of preemptive violence against Israeli forces. But even so it could still be called a "massacre" regardless of whether that terminology is right, wrong, fair, neutral, or otherwise imprecise. Those are the issues when dealing with the use of force and its consequences. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 21:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

POV of Mavi Marmara boarding section

The Israeli and the non-Israeli "accounts" should be the same length so it seems NPOV. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a huge lack of non-Israeli accounts right now. This will have to change once more information is released. Zuchinni one (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)