Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

POV

This article is extremely pro-Israel. --J4\/4 <talk> 16:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The sections describing the individual accouns is ok, but other parts are clearly biased.Andraxxus (talk) 12:39, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The article went full circle, from pro-activist to now pro-Israel, in some respects. I have already discovered sources where information from within them was cherrypicked, where important details were ignored often because they contradicted the Israeli account. I am also worried by the amount of Israeli Government material which is being used to make up key arguments and passages in the article. These primary sources should be substituted. ValenShephard (talk) 04:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably this is the effect of Israel having been the only one to complete an investigation into the incident. However, substituted sounds very POV. Every source should be evaluated on its own merits and not substituted because it is inconvenient to someone. Koakhtzvigad (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We should use primary sources with great caution, per WP:PRIMARY. In particular, primary sources should not determine the weight of different aspects of a topic or of different views of an event.  Cs32en Talk to me  06:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

And interviews with "survivors" are not primary sources? I'd say they also qualify for WP:OR if the journalists were Wikipedia editors Koakhtzvigad (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a reason why many of these articles are pro-Israel. Zionist movements are learning their people how to play the system that is wikipedia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t52LB2fYhoY They are getting courses about how to fight their 'zionist war' on wikipedia, what the rules are and how to find the loopgholes. There is no solution to this until their force is neutralized by people in Gaza doing the same thing. But of course those people have nothing, let alone a computer. --95.96.30.170 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, PA ranks alongside Hungary and Serbia on the MPI, and it's not unlikely that Gaza is even poorer. But apparently they have internet cafes, so I think they must have a few computers as well :-) http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5424671.ece http://opennet.net/research/profiles/gazawestbank —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ketil (talk • contribs) 04:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I came here to point out this youtube video as well. I'm glad someone else has already mentioned it. It is a bit old anyway but has anyone identified the user claiming to make POV edits in the video? Perhaps tracing the other articles he edits would be a good way to counter some vandalism.--27.32.168.222 (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Tipo on the text

"on May 31, 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea.." should have one period only, and not two. (sorry if this is not the correct way of introducing a suggestion, is my first contributionn). Jorgecarleitao (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Problematic and suspicious information

This article is utterly on the side of Israel. Especially about the flotilla participants' use of weapons, there are many -actually unconfirmed and proven to be wrong by the recent UN Report on the flotilla- information. And the article is written in a way to make us believe some weapons were exactly leakt in the ship by the participants. The resources given to confirm these are generally also coming from the biased or anti Islamic (which is another problematic issue put forward in the article as if all these actions against the blockade in Gaza were organized by radical Islamic groups ) broadcast. Another idea put forward in this article is that Israel offered the flotilla to hand the humanitarian aid to themselves so that they can transmit them to Gaza. However it is obviously known that Israel forces do not allow all the aid coming from the world into Gaza. Beatrice.rfb (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, there are currently FOUR photographs of IDF soldiers including a repeated photo in the references section of a solider being thrown over board, one injured being 'dragged by activists' one having their wounds tended to and one allegedly showing soldiers being beaten. There is currently only ONE photo of a victim of the raid. There is a great joke from the late Mitch Hedberg that goes something like this: You know when you see an advertisement for a casino, and they have a picture of a guy winning money? That's false advertising, because that happens the least. That's like if you're advertising a hamburger, they could show a guy choking. "This is what happened once." ... That is how I feel about these misleading photographs. It draws visual attention the the IDF "victims" without showing the casualties from the Flotilla Participants who are the real victims. We can't say that in the article though without a citation. I was long skeptical of the jokes about Zionists 'vandalizing' the Wikipedia and changing history to favor Israel. But over the past two weeks I've witnessed this myself (most of it is archived for all to see thankfully, although most will never go looking for it) and have made a couple comments which received deflecting replies. There is a real video on you tube regarding "Zionist Editing on Wikipedia" which interviews Israelis at a seminar regarding editing Wikipedia because it is the largest source of information in the world at this time. Here is a direct quote from the video that is not taken out of context - “if someone searches ‘the Gaza flotilla,’ we want to be there; to influence what is written there, how it’s written and to ensure that it is balanced and Zionist in nature.” ... Now I'm not going to argue with being balanced but the current article is CLEARLY unbalanced in favor of Israel. Nobody wants the article to be Zionist in nature, that would make it biased as it currently is. I personally barely recall the Gaza flotilla incident and what I do remember was that it defied an "illegal" blockade in the name of peace and when IDF troops got involved they were attacked and 'forced to defend themselves'. I believed this because it was presented to me on the news that way. This article mostly supports that Israel side of the story and needs desperately to be balanced with many of the biased sources removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryal-oh (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

As an immediate measure, I suggest that material sourced to this source name="testimonies">http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e162.pdf be removed from the text, since that document is released by some "terrorism information centre" in Israel and the text is very much what you'd expect. Secondly, the article is way too long and has too much text along the lines of "then the second soldier grabbed the rope". --Dailycare (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Come on, isn't it enough "Zionist cabal" soapboxing for one week? Gimme a break, I briefly looked through the papers from the famous seminar; it's more or less a copy-paste of 5 pillars. On terrorism-info.org.il: not sure about complete removal, but since it's an NGO it should be, at least, properly attributed. On the article length: I completely agree with Dailycare, may be it's the time for massive cleanup. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this sentence means: "some weapons were exactly leakt in the ship by the participants". And the UN report actually confirms that passengers prepared weapons to be used against the soldiers (paragraph 101). Furthermore, the UN report also confirms that passengers used fists, sticks, metal rods and knives to attack the soldiers (paragraph 115-116). So, I'm really not sure what you're talking about here.

As for terrorism.info.org.il, they are an NGO with a mission dedicated to researching and reporting on terrorism. What's wrong with that? Being based out of Israel is not enough of a reason to remove a source.

But I do agree that the photos have certainly been tilted toward the Israel side. Once upon a time, I complained that the photos were tilted toward the protesters and not showing any of them attacking soldiers. Now, I agree it's gone too far in the other direction. And that should be fixed.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Being an NGO with a mission isn't enough to become a source. If a reliable secondary source publishes terrorism.info.org.il's material then it can be sourced from there. --Dailycare (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Dailycare, I don't know where you got that idea. What's the difference between a for-profit group reporting on the news, and a non-profit group reporting on the news?!? Furthermore, the identifying reliable sources page says that "primary sources" should be used with "caution" to avoid original research. But it definitely does _not_ say that they cannot or should not be used. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

One difference is that the other may be known for a professional editorial policy and fact-checking, whereas the other isn't. One reason secondary sources are preferred is precisely because that way we can let them pick and choose from among primary ones. And of course, also primary sources need to be reliable. The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center is according to its page "often regarded as being the "public face of Israeli intelligence". That may not be a ringing endorsement of reliability specifically with regard to this raid and the behaviour of the activists and Israeli soldiers during the raid. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh, you know that you can't base your argument on something that Wikipedia says :) --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Very pro Israel article, especially the actual raid part.It includes loads of what the IDF said happened and little of what others said happened. Al Jazerra reporter on the ship said that the Israelis fired live rounds before they even boarded from helicopters and hit a guy in the head standing by him.That was reported at the time on virtually every news channel but did not even make it into the raid article.Why is that?I suggest putting it in because at the moment it just reads like and IDF report.Owain the 1st (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see it. The reporter also claims that one person was shot in the head from a helicopter. Where is the body? Have you entertained the notion that the IDF account might be closer to what actually happened, than the sum of all activist accounts? Where are the "terrible injuries" caused by paintball ammo with "glass shards" in them? Who are the missing passengers, allegedly killed and presumably hid by the IDF? Ketil (talk) 12:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You do not see what?Where is the body?There were 9 of them, maybe you missed the news.I suggest you read the UN report into the events as that will tell you that the Israeli version of events is mostly fantasy as usual.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, here were eight people shot with soldier's side arms, and one killed with a bean bag shot. If somebody was indeed shot from a helicopter, it's most likely with a rifle or mounted gun, and in any case, he should have been shot from above. Now, which of them was it? I have seen absolutely no corroborating evidence of this, and I find it most likely that the reporter is simply mistaken. But if you have specific references, please bring them forward!  As for the UN report (presumably the HRC one?) it just lists a bunch of condemations, it doesn't provide the grounds for making these conclusions. So the only real information in it is that the HRC is very critical of Israel. Ketil (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect to state that eight people where shot with soldiers side arms for starters.I will quote the Turkish Dr Haluk Ince, the chairman of the council of forensic medicine in Istanbul.said that in only one case was there a single bullet wound, to the forehead from a distant shot, while every other victim suffered multiple wounds. "All [the bullets] were intact. This is important in a forensic context. When a bullet strikes another place it comes into the body deformed. If it directly comes into the body, the bullet is all intact."

He added that all but one of the bullets retrieved from the bodies came from 9mm rounds. Of the other round, he said: "It was the first time we have seen this kind of material used in firearms. It was just a container including many types of pellets usually used in shotguns. It penetrated the head region in the temple and we found it intact in the brain."Also from the Turkish report into the incident..Turkey's report said two of the activists killed on the vessel, the Mavi Marmara, were shot from a military helicopter.

"The Israeli soldiers shot from the helicopter onto the Mavi Marmara using live ammunition and killing two passengers before any Israeli soldier descended on the deck," said the report, published by state-run news agency Anatolian.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Che, good point. However there are sources on that page that substantially support the gist of the statement. --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the issue with the whole article is that it was written up as the events evolved using the press. Most of the references are to mainstream press sources, but some aren't, and should be replaced. I wonder if it is possible now to find some better sources, with more analysis than was possible at the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain, I'm all for putting back up the reports that a journalist on board the ship _claimed_ that Israel fired live rounds for the helicopters at passengers. It shouldn't have been removed. And it _could_ be true. However IMHO, it should be countered by the UN report on the Flotilla which were "unsatisfied that this was the case". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The UN report stated that and I quote"However, it has concluded that live ammunition was used from the helicopter onto the top

deck prior to the descent of the soldiers".The line you have posted is about the unsuccessful boarding from the boats. As this is the case it backs up the report from the Al Jazeera reporter that the Israelis were firing live rounds from the helicopter before they descended.Therefore his report that he saw a person get shot in the head from an helicopter should be put back in.Page 26 UN report.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added what Jamal Elshayyal an Al Jazeera reporter stated about the Israelis firing live rounds at people before they even landed on the ship and UNHRC report about Israelis firing live rounds before landing soldiers on the deck with links.I do not know why it was ever removed, it was an eyewitness account.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Owain, you're right, I was wrong. It was claims that live rounds were fired from the boats which were rejected by the UN. I have no problem at all with your change, and agree that it should never have been removed. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Note - I also tried to improve the balance slightly by removing the photo of the soldier being thrown overboard, and changing the caption of the other photo from "activists beat soldiers" to "clash between activists and soldiers". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bob drobbs, in 101. paragraph it is obviously seen that passengers did not use that tools as weapons although there were some, and when they were found they were confiscated not to be used by anyone. It is true that they reacted with some sticks, but this was a reaction to plastic and real bullets. And it is again fixed by this Report that no weapons were allowed into the ship before sailing. My gramatically wrong sentence "some weapons were exactly leakt in the ship by the participants" actually means this.

In Cargo section of the article it says "In addition, the flotilla was found to be carrying ballistic vests, gas masks, night-vision goggles, clubs, and slingshots.[52] " However, the reference for this and many other contributions comes from [The Jerusalem Post] known for its radical defence on Israeli side about this and other issues related to blockade of Gaza. Beatrice.rfb (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Beatrice, whatever _you_ may think about the Jerusalem Post, in this case they are right. The UN report makes no mention either way about the less relevant bullet proof vests and gask buts, but it _does_ confirms that activists used knives, metal rods, and slingshots to attack Israeli soldiers. Clearly these things were aboard the ship, if they used them to attack soldiers:

'"A number of the passengers on the top deck fought with the soldiers using their fists, sticks, metal rods and knives. . . At least one of the soldiers was stabbed with a knife or other sharp object. ... The Mission is satisfied on the evidence that at least two passengers on the bridge deck also used handheld catapults to propel small projectiles at the helicopters."'

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia hosting pure propaganda? I mean this isn't a slightly "biased" article, its straight props. Why is this article trying to paint a picture of bloodthirsty arab suicide bombers ambushing the gentle loving peace spreading commandos who came to bring them sugar canes and rainbows. I'd like to be constructive and help rewrite portions of this, but you might as well delete this page and start over at this point, its FUBAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.118.241 (talk) 08:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What I find interesting is that no matter what side of the fence you are on, the fact is that the flotilla was running a blockade. A declared Naval blockade by the state of Israel. Even this site says about blockade runners "Blockade-runners have always been considered enemy combatants by the blockading party and have been fired upon or captured when detected." So what did anyone expect to happen? What actually did happen? Whether it was bloodthirsty Arab suicide bombers, or whether it was Zionist Naval strong-arming. . there is one, and only one, outcome from a blockade runner getting caught. And that is what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.183.188 (talk) 21:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Problematic sentence

There is this one-line paragraph:

According to some accounts by passengers, IDF soldiers denied medical treatment to several wounded activists who died shortly thereafter.[154][162][163][164][165]

I've looked through the sources, and it's not clear to me what this refers to, most accounts seem to be about people being hindered in the midst of battle. The way it is now, it reads as if IDF was actively letting people die of the wounds in the aftermath, which again seems NPOV. The references point to various eye-witness accounts that are rather chaotic. I'd like this to be more explicit in what it describes, or removed. Ketil (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

More explicit?

Yes. Or detailed, precise. I understand that some would prefer blanket statements that confer one side as evil and the other as good, but I'd like to have a more specific information, each fact appropriately sourced. Ketil (talk) 04:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Are eyewitness accounts not good enough for you?

The UN report into the incident states that injured activists were made to wait up to 3 hours for treatment, while being tied up as well.From the UN report,

130. The flotilla organisers and other passengers engaged in efforts to request the Israeli forces to provide the necessary treatment to the wounded persons. One organiser used the ship’s intercom to request assistance in Hebrew and persons also communicated directly through the cabin windows or by placing signs, written in English and Hebrew, in the ship’s windows. These attempts proved unsuccessful and it was up to two hours before the Israeli forces took out the wounded persons. However, the wounded were required to leave the cabins themselves, or taken outside in a rough manner, without apparent concern for the nature of their injuries and the discomfort that this would cause. 131. The wounded passengers were taken to the front of the top deck where they joined other passengers injured during the operation on the top deck and where the bodies of persons killed during the operation had been left. Wounded passengers, including persons seriously injured with live fire wounds, were handcuffed with plastic cord handcuffs, which were often tied very tightly causing some of the injured to lose sensitivity in their hands. These plastic handcuffs cannot be loosened without being cut off, but can be tightened. Many were also stripped naked and then had to wait some time, possibly as long as twothree hours, before receiving medical treatment. Medical treatment was given to a number of wounded persons on the top deck by the Israeli forces.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Where does that say that anyone died of their wounds shortly after being denied medical treatment? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Here you go, from one of the links on the line that he is complaining about.From Knesset member

Zuabi said that naval boats surrounded the Mavi Marmara and fired on it before soldiers abseiled aboard from a helicopter. She went below to the ship's hold and said that, within minutes, two dead passengers were brought inside, followed by two more who had been seriously wounded.

soldiers refused her requests for medical assistance for the injured passengers, who died shortly after.Owain the 1st (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So the article should say "According to Zuabi, two wounded passengers died shortly after soldiers refused her request for medical assistance". No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well no as another link on the end of that sentence in Turkish has evidence from a crew member I believe stating that due to the Israelis not giving medical aid more people died.You have read thru the links before commenting right?Going on the links it looks like the statement that is being complained about is in order and has sources to back it up, therefore there is no reason to change it or remove it Owain the 1st (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't read Turkish. Could you translate the relevant passages? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Well there you go then, I rest my case.Try google translate.Thanks. Owain the 1st (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what case you're resting. While google translate might be good for getting the gist of things, I doubt it should be used for an encyclopedia. I gather you don't know Turkish either? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I rest my case because obviously I have done the research into it.Go read the Turkish official inquiry into the incident, it says and I quote:Numerous testimonies also indicate that at least three of the deaths occurred because Israeli soldiers denied timely medical attention to the wounded. So we have numerous statements that state that the Israelis failed to treat the wounded and some died.Official Turkish Inquiry Owain the 1st (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So we can attribute it to the Turkish Inquiry, which presumably includes Zuabi's opinion as well. Nice web site there, by the way. Not the sort of link I'm inclined to follow. I don't like giving traffic to hate sites. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Up to you if you do not want to read the report.I am linking to the report not to any so called hate site.It seems to be the only place that has the report that I could find.I will put the link in the article tomorrow and from that site unless you can provide another source. Owain the 1st (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source for official reports. If you put a link to that site in the article, I'll remove it. If this is an official report, you should be able to find it somewhere that meets RS criteria. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Obviously it is the official report.You can do what you want.I see nothing wrong with it.Guess you will have to explain yourself when you delete it and if you continue to delete it then I will report you.Anyway as it happens I have just found another link for it here.[1]Funny how this report does not have a page of its own on this site, I will make one and link it to the Gaza flotilla article.Owain the 1st (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See WP:BURDEN. That site is only reliable for its opinions. "Obviously it is the official report" is not exactly a policy compliant reason to include it.

The new site you just posted doesn't load for me. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Loads fine here.I will be posting that tomorrow.It comes from this site http://www.turkishweekly.net/ Owain the 1st (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I've been able to access the PDF at this URL without any problems.  Cs32en Talk to me  23:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

For those that can't access it, the passage from that PDF that appears relevant to this issue is:

"Numerous testimonies also indicate that at least three of the deaths occurred because Israeli soldiers denied timely medical attention to the wounded. Sümeyye Ertekin and Halis Akıncı testified that the Israeli soldiers hit those doctors trying to help the wounded with the butts of their rifles. Edda Manga says 'They did not allow the medics to treat the people; the doctors and nurses were forced at gunpoint to leave the wounded.' Ali Buhamd‘s testimony contains a grim mixture of some of the points made above: 'I saw a soldier shooting a wounded Turk in the head. There was another Turk asking for help, but he bled to death.'"

Those sentence reference a half dozen eye witness testimonies in the footnotes, and this article. ← George ^talk 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Does it look like the official report from a reliable source? It still doesn't load for me for some reason. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the official report and the source looks fine.Report on the Israeli Attack on the Humanitarian Aid Convoy to Gaza Owain the 1st (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I was asking George. I've seen what you consider a reliable source. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to be so nasty.I believe it is obvious that George thinks it is fine otherwise he would have said something.Anyway I have added the link to the article.Have fun.Owain the 1st (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It's 117 pages long, with 375 footnotes, and lists 45 conclusions at the end. It lists the Turkish National Commission of Inquiry as the author of the report, and it does read like something put together by a Turkish commission tasked with submitting a report to the UN. The Turkish Weekly website looks like an ordinary news journal (including national and international news reports, op-eds, and book reviews), so my inclination would be to say that it's reliable. Obviously that doesn't mean it's neutral or impartial, but probably reliable by Wikipedia's standards for Turkish viewpoints, claims, and witness accounts of the incident. ← George ^talk 18:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how eyewitness accounts from the flotilla can be considered RS? If the political agenda was to runa blockade that they knew would be stopped. And running a blockade makes you a combatant. Then how could a combatant be considered to give any reliable information of what actually happened. Or would it be more likely that they would give an account of what they want people to believe happened? Were the testimonies in these articles taken in interviews? Or were they taken in courts under the threat of perjury? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.183.188 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Where are they being used as RS? Your own analysis that "running a blockade makes you a combatant" aside, keep in mind that there's a difference between saying someone said something happend, and saying that something happened as fact. ← George ^talk 20:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

My point being is that the entire two paragraphs in the injuries sections that start with "according to" should be removed. Both the IDF POV and the Passenger's POV. They aren't relevent, nor can either side be considered RS or NPOV. All this adds to the article is a bunch of unverifiable speculation, or "accounts" from both parties "he said, she said" if you will.. I would like to direct you to Wikipedia:Notability (events) and then ask yourself does this section really add to the article, and does it help resolve the neutrality of it? I don't think it does. Both paragraphs are Highly POV to opposite ends, and at the end of the day do not actually add to what actually happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.60.183.188 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See Also link (Bahrain Aid Flotilla)

This link was recently added to the See Also section.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain_Aid_Flotilla

This seems to have been added as a way to promote the Bahrain flotilla, rather than because there is any connection.

I'm removing the link for the time being. If you feel this was in error feel free to re-add it, but please put your reasoning in the discussion section. Zuchinni one (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I find it surprising that this article was modeled in such a pro-israeli manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.228.78 (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reputable sources

I put a link in this article as evidence that the Israelis retracted their claims that there were mercenaries with Al Qaeda links aboard the Gaza flotilla and User:Plot Spoiler has deleted that claiming it is not a reputable source.My link was to [2]Max Blumenthal's website where he has screen shots of the actual Israeli army press office site showing how they changed their story when challenged by reporters.I see nothing wrong with this source as Max Blumenthal is an award winning journalist and best selling author who articles have appeared in The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, The Daily Beast, The Nation, The Guardian, The Independent Film Channel, The Huffington Post, Salon.com, Al Jazeera English and many other publications.I see no good reason to delete this.ThoughtsOwain the 1st (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Use an actual RELIABLE media source -- not the personal website and blog of a highly partisan commentator. Please see WP:RS. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

He is an award winning journalist who has had his articles printed in many reputable main stream media outlets.That makes him a reliable source.Owain the 1st (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.".Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that an award winning journalist and best selling author who has written for many main stream media outlets is somehow an unreliable source?Owain the 1st (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. The guy has done fine when the content is vetted by staff. That does not exist with his personal site. Have you attempted to find the same content in firmer RS and wording it in a way that does not get other editor's hackles up?

Similarly (as in bias in sources purported to be reliable) And it looks like at least one other editor has disagreed with an NGO being used as a source looking at the edit history. So can you note it now?Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you please try and keep on track? You are commenting on two different things in this thread about Max Blumenthal being a reputable source.This has nothing to do with NGO's, that is another page and another article we are commenting on.Anyway I have taken this to the reputable sources page and I will let the people there decide is it is good or not.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I assume you at least understand my point then.

In regards to the source: Going to the RS noticeboard is an excellent suggestion. While it waits there, have you considered finding a better source and wording it with extra focus on NPOV?Cptnono (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about?Wording what? It is a link.Owain the 1st (talk) 03:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you using it as a source for a specific sentence?Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you not know what is going on here?You are here commenting but seem to be unaware what is being discussed.Anyway the source is backed up by this from the Guardian. The Israeli army also backed down last week from an earlier claim that soldiers were attacked by al-Qaida "mercenaries" aboard the Gaza flotilla. An article appearing on the IDF spokesperson's website with the headline: "Attackers of the IDF soldiers found to be al-Qaida mercenaries", was later changed to "Attackers of the IDF Soldiers found without identification papers," with the information about al-Qaida removed from the main article. An army spokesperson told the Guardian there was no evidence proving such a link to the terror organisation.Owain the 1st (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The Blumenthal source isn't "backed up" by anything because it isn't a WP:RS. If the Guardian source says the same thing, then use it since it is in fact an RS. And please watch your etiquette and stop insulting other Wikipedia editors. Not cool. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have not insulted anyone so please do not post lies.Owain the 1st (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do. You have not understood the point. "a false claim that was never substantiated, and later retracted." is a POV line. The Guardian is RS. So word it according to that. To be honest, the whole paragraph needs to be reworked but overuse of the word claim and other terms reads as if the paragraph is trying to poke fun at Israel. Instead of bickering over how to rework a broken paragraph, the whole thing should be reworked. It also does not need that much play in the article. Is the point of the paragraph the attackers without paperwork, that Israel originally said something different but amended it, or both? Does that make sense to you? (not a rhetorical question)Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand fine what is going on, you do not as you were claiming that I should write a link in NPOV language which is very funny indeed.Anyway when I get around to it I will put the link back in from either the original or the Guardian depending on the outcome of the discussion on the RS board.Also I am not bickering over a broken paragraph, I am arguing about a link that I put up that backs up the line in the article and that was deleted by another editor because he seems to think that the source is not reputable.It is clear that the Israeli retracted their statement and I have proven that.Anyway I am done here I will edit it when I can.Owain the 1st (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you understood my point you would not have said that I was asking you to edit a source. I agree that makes no sense.Cptnono (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Photos prove Mavi Marmara passengers had guns

Article claims IDF has pictures proving there were guns on board. And here they are. One oven shows Haneen Zoabi to be a liar. Again and again, Israel is vindicated. I leave it up to the prevailing editors to decide how to incorporate this development, unless my help is wanted. --Metallurgist (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

If those are the pictures that the newspapers used for reporting in that way I think we might have a good case for calling into question their RS status. It looks like the images were taken from cctv, I doubt that a camera man managed to stand that still for that long, I would prefer that they granted access to the full sequence for that period. It looks like the person alleged to be Zaobi is coming down a set of stairs 1 minute and 8 seconds after a guy has passed through the frame. Is that guy passing through holding a rather oddly proportioned firearm in his left hand? My immediate reaction is that the proportions are off, is his thumb insanely long or the rest of his fingers absurdly short? As for the guy with the beard, it seems like he could be holding a range of things. Anyway - unless there are more pictures available I am pretty disappointed with the media at not being more critical in their assessments. un☯mi 05:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrites to mature articles

Hi, all. In this series of edits, Reenem just performed what effectively amounts to a rewrite of much of the article, moving it substantially in a more pro-IDF direction. It's my opinion that making such sweeping changes to a highly-contested but relatively mature article is just unproductive, in that it presents a fait accompli of too much change to reasonably discuss. I could revert that, and then just as easily go through and make sweeping changes to move the article in a pro-Flotilla direction, which wouldn't stick, either. So I'm just going to revert his changes, and suggest that he either make them in much smaller increments over a much longer period, or that he try to gain consensus for all of them in a body, here, on talk.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress, there is no such thing as a "mature article" where edits are not allowed. At Wikipedia we encourage bold edits as long as they are based on reliable sources. Specifically, did you see anything factually wrong or unreliably sourced in the edits? The minimum you could do is to give a solid explanation for why you are reverting. It's unfair to the person who obviously spent time and effort. Marokwitz (talk) 06:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

At 6:32, 9 June 2011 UTC, Marokwitz restored Reneem's hour and 1/2 worth of changes, in this edit. - Ohiostandard, 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that instead of reverting the text could be re-worked to a mode neutral tone. Unfortunately I personally don't currently have the time to go through this article :( I am, by the way, still of the opinion that what individual "soldiers" did doesn't need to be recounted in this article. --Dailycare (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

After Marokwitz's restoration, the next two-hours of new edits were again made by Reneem, in this series, beginning at 16:51, 9 June 2011. - Ohiostandard, 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Marokwitz is correct that Wikipedia normally encourages bold edits, but he neglects to consider that "be bold" only works in very controversial articles if the usual bold-revert-discuss cycle is respected. Reneem was very bold, I reverted, and Marokwitz reinstated, after just eleven minutes.

Reneem's 3 and 1/2 hours of changes spanned at least 17 edits, with no edit summaries. If you'll look at that diff, with many passages moved around, and with all the additions and deletions and re-phrasings, it's nearly impossible to see the "forest" view of the changes introduced into the article. And trying to stepping through each discrete edit via individual diffs is an exercise in frustration, in part because the diffs load so slowly due to article size and because of the lack of edit summaries but especially because one can't maintain the continuity of the cumulative effect of the changes, when moving from diff to diff. Without having the benefit of knowing what his (procedural) intention was for any given subset of saved edits, and with no edit summaries, it would be a huge undertaking to carefully evaluate his changes. It would probably take twice or three times as long as it took to make them.

There's simply no realistic way for editors to evaluate article changes of this magnitude, made so quickly, in other words. The only feasible alternative for an editor opposed to the dramatic shift toward the POV of the Israeli military that has been introduced here is to respond in kind, by simply editing in an entirely unilateral way, to perform a massive rewrite in the other direction. Reneem and Marokwitz's actions here may seem gratifying in the short term, but they're both experienced enough to know how provocative those actions are, and how likely they are to result in a response-in-kind.

I'd suggest that they revert to the relatively stable last version by user Iloveandrea, saved at 15:09, 5 June 2011 UTC, and introduce their desired changes either here, first, or at a moderate-enough pace to allow other editors to actually evaluate them. To refuse to do so is simply to invite either an edit war or, more likely, a rewrite in a direction that they'll dislike every bit as much as supporters of the flotilla's goals dislike the version they've now generated.

I repeat: There's no practical way for editors to scrutinize or evaluate or comment upon such extensive changes made over so brief an interval. I'd invite Reneem and Marokwitz to please reconsider, and conform to wp:brd instead of trying to force the article into the shape they want it in.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to second the request by OhioStandard, on looking through the consolidated diff I see a trend towards 'tight prose' regarding reports putting the IDF in an unfavorable light yet expansion on other issues. That said, it seems like there are a number of 'good changes' - which makes it unfortunate that we need to revert, on the other hand we can easily apply those changes again from the starting position.

I would also ask that any sources which are removed are pasted here upon doing so, I also think that we should require that edits display good use of edit summaries (which my edits admittedly did not). un☯mi 22:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I think OhioStandard's idea is good too, provided of course that Reenem is willing to go along. Another idea would be, if extensive edits are made, to make them at once so other editors wouldn't need to click through dozens of them which takes too long. In that case, the "edit summary" can be posted here on the talkpage. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see subsequent sections for current status about this.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Link to videos on captions?

Both the captions of the killed passenger and the Israeli soldiers have no links to the videos in question, which seems weird in the age of Youtube. Is there something I'm missing, or should they be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.159.25 (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed paragraphs

The following paragraphs were removed, and re-inserted, and removed and reinserted.

On the Mavi Marmara, activists violently resisted Israeli commandos with improvised weapons, and allegedly with live fire, including from guns seized from the Israelis, and temporarily captured three commandos. Israeli commandos responded initially with non-lethal weaponry before resorting to live fire. Israeli MP Hanin Zoabi said that the Israeli Navy started firing five minutes before commandos descended on the flotilla. Nine activists were killed, and dozens of activists and seven Israeli commandos were injured. The five other ships were apprehended relatively peacefully, with activists showing passive resistance that was suppressed with non-lethal force. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said, on the other five ships, "the people got off without a scratch."

Numerous passengers aboard Challenger 1, Sfendoni, and Free Mediterrenean stated that the soldiers used tasers, plastic bullets, stun grenades, and beat up the passengers. A report in El Pais said that several people from other ships had also been wounded. Free Gaza organizer Huwaida Arraf, who herself was on the Challenger 1, said that some activists on the other five ships were beaten so severely they were hospitalized.

References

References with quoted text or translations

I removed them again for the following reason. There are separate sections for raid of each ship. If these deleted paragraphs contain info missing from these sections, then it must be merged into the corresponding sections. Otherwise the article turns into a repetitive mess, if every editor will insert some text wherever he/she likes. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment to Yceren Loq: Your second removal of this content violated the 1RR (only one reversion per 24 hours) rule in force for this article. Please be careful to obey this in future, as other editors are doing. To passing admins: I suggest no block in this case as YL has clearly tried to initiate a dialogue... --Mirokado (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment This is the second recent failure to respect WP:BRD while editing this article (not a policy or guideline, but widely followed). The cycle is "bold, revert, discuss", not "bold, revert, ..., revert and start a discussion". --Mirokado (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment This discussion is about a disputed change to the current consensus, which has been determined by the established status quo which included the content. Thus a result of "no consensus" will mean that the content will be restored. Let's try to sort out acceptable changes... --Mirokado (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Oppose removal I will oppose wholesale removal of this content which has several references (including CNN and the Guardian with which I am familiar) and clearly acts as part of the summary for the individual boarding subsections. There are two Citation needed tags dated June 2011 which should be addressed (a month is normally allowed for provision of a reliable reference or other suitable response). I would be quite happy with a shorter, still balanced, summary with some content and references moved to specific subsections. Yceren Loq, since you wish to change the current text, perhaps you can suggest a suitable rearrangement? I will try to look in more detail myself this weekend... --Mirokado (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry, I did not take in a consideration taht this is a hot topic. I have no objections to the content per se, only to uncontrolled duplication, which may easily lead to "micro-POV-forks". I understand the argument about summary. However IMHO a summary must be the summary of wikipedia's article, not of everything else in the world uttered. In particular, I don't think Liberman's political utterance (about "without scratch") is a valid part of a summary.Yceren Loq (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
• I will be happy to restore the deleted piece, according to the rule of the game at this page, but I will urge you to reconsider the "summary" part. As a first step, I would suggest to remove the mentioned Liberman's qote, since it is clearly does not deliver a precise fact, but rather a metaphor of the fact that other ships had much less drama. Yceren Loq (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. A few points to make. (1) I'm too bleary-eyed to verify it right now, but the one ref out of the preceding five that I'm sure is still in the article is the "CNN Autopsies" ref of June 4, 2010. I know that because I had to make this edit to copy the URL from the article to the talk page. (2) As I write this, the above two paragraphs aren't in the article. I didn't restore them because I knew they were under discussion here. (3) If they do go back in, probably the best way to restore them would be to copy-paste from the above, the article has seen many changes have been made in the meantime, since these paragraphs were moved here. Also, I'll try to review this content issue soon, myself, and give my two cents.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Trying to avert edit war

In the hope of averting a huge edit war over an article that's likely to see a lot more page views in the very near future, I'd like to point out these facts:

• The departure of a second flotilla is imminent, and Israel plans to stop this one, too. More huge spikes in page views likely.

• Much of the article has just been rewritten by Reenem, the most frequent contributor, with 256 edits currently.

• Three users have asked that Reenem's 3 and 1/2 hours of rewriting be reverted and discussed, or at least introduced in smaller increments, so it can be evaluated by others.

• Reenem hasn't responded to that request, but has made a couple of additional article edits. He evidently doesn't much care for talk pages.

• Editors opposed to the strongly pro-Israeli shift of the sweeping changes made have seen no attempt to honor bold-revert-discuss from either Reenem or Marokwitz, another frequent contributor, with 226 edits at present.

• For these reasons I've reverted a second time to the 15:09, 5 June 2011 UTC version by user Iloveandrea that preceded Reenem's changes.

• Unfortunately, this also means that some subsequent changes have been affected. I've put up an "in use" tag on the article to give myself time to try to manually restore all subsequent changes, except where they can't be restored because they concern text that Reenem added in his 3 and 1/2 hour stretch. I'll remove the "in use" asap.

• My plan and goal is only to manually effect the reversion of Reenem's 3 and 1/2 hour stretch that we need to discuss here; I will not be adding any content of my own in this process.

Since doing so will necessarily be a much more complicated process than if the bold-revert-discuss norm had been followed, I'd appreciate it if everyone would look at the edit history and verify that nothing else has been changed. But once that process is complete, can we all please try the "discuss" part, i.e. can we discuss changes made or proposed in a genuinely incremental way rather than by a massive rewrite?  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've completed the manual revert of Reenem's (essentially) uninterrupted string of 17 edits; plus his two more made beginning at 21:09, 10 June 2011. I've also created a section below, currently collapsed, that we can use to try to actually review those. I think I "put everything else back" pretty accurately; people might like to double check based on the edit-summary comments I left as I was stepping through that "putting things back" process.  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sequential discussion of Reenem's 17+2 edits

Suggested protocol

Discussion of one edit in this sequence should not commence until the previous one reaches consensus.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Thanks for preparing this discussion. I have added a section at the end to collect references and started off the first part with a suggestion. I have also limited the collapsed section to the unstarted discussions. --Mirokado (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Following sections will each need to be populated with diffs and timestamps. First one done by Ohiostandard at 08:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC).

Reenem's 1st edit in series

Edit made by Reenem at 4:19, 9 June 18:57, 2011 UTC

• Discussion begins timestamp: --Mirokado (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Consensus reached timestamp:
• Consensus outcome:

Discussion

Suggestion, comments I propose the following for this paragraph:

The operation began with an attempt to board the ship from speedboats. As the boats approached, activists fired water hoses at them, and hurled numerous objects including iron pipes, stones and chairs. When the commandos tried boarding the ship, activists cut their ladder with a chainsaw. The boats then turned slightly away from the ship, but remained close. The IDF later found weapons including slingshots and marbles.

I cannot find "pelted" in the refs. I seems unnecessary to provide a complete list of the "junk" which was being thrown and I could not find all the previously mentioned items. Some events seem to have happened later, thus I have removed "The Israelis replied with paintballs and stun grenades. One stun grenade was picked up and thrown back into a boat." (The stun grenades seem to have been associated with the subsequent helicopter deployment.) If anything else needs to be added, please provide precise references, particularly start time or range for a video. I will start updating the video references in the article to make this easier. Obviously, just because I could not find a mention of something does not mean it is not there, but that illustrates the need for precise references for anything that an author regards as particularly significant. --Mirokado (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the exacting review, and thanks especially for noticing the timeline jumble. My only cavil with the text that you propose is with the word "operation". That's what it was from the perspective of the Israeli military, but I'd submit that flotilla participants probably wouldn't use that word, and I dare say that the international perspective would be more likely to call it an incident. Is there some re-wording we can come up with that doesn't describe the whole sequence of events as an "operation"?  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems little point in continuing the analysis of these edits, particularly since the original editor has changed the above quoted paragraph again without commenting here. If the original editor wished to discuss any of these changes, that would be fine. Otherwise let us forget them and move on. --Mirokado (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

subsequent edits through 18:57, 9 June 2011 UTC, and two more beginning 21:09, 10 June 2011 UTC

Reenem's 2nd edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 3rd edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 4th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 5th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 6th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 7th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 8th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 9th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 10th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 11th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 12th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 13th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 14th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 15th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 16th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Reenem's 17th edit in series [ Edit made by Reenem at ] Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion Two more edits by Reenem Comment. Edits beginning 21:09, 10 June 2011 UTC through 2:12, 11 June 2011, inclusive, are fully comprised in these two edits. (A) Edit made by Reenem at 21:09, 10 June 2011 Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion (B) Edit made by Reenem at 21:36, 10 June 2011 Discussion begins timestamp: Consensus reached timestamp: Consensus outcome: Discussion

References

References with quoted text or translations

Citations

• Flotilla Incident Timeline (English: Part 1 of 2). IDF Spokesperson's Unit YouTube Channel. 15 Jul 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2011. Hebrew commentary with English subtitles.{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)
• Flotilla Incident Timeline (English: Part 2 of 2). IDF Spokesperson's Unit YouTube Channel. 15 Jul 2010. Retrieved 11 June 2011. Hebrew commentary with English subtitles.{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: postscript (link)

Removed content

I have removed two unsourced sentences, tagged since June 2010. No objection to their being restored with a reliable reference.

Injuries

There were reports of scuffles at Ben Gurion International Airport. Ó Luain was injured when a row broke out with Israeli authorities but he was not seriously hurt.{{Citation needed|date=June 2010}}

--Mirokado (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also removed the CNN Türkiye ref, which appears to add nothing to the information of the previous Keinon ref which is in English. Please provide a translation if necessary, automatic translators are still hopeless for Turkish.

Ship passengers

Avrasya'da da, Mavi Marmara'da da aynı eylemci, 20.08.2010, CNN Türkiye.

--Mirokado (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I've removed Shoval (2010) because it provides the same information as the other two refs (although with what looks like a direct quote from the interview). I'm placing it here with a translation of the corresponding quotation. This reference may be useful for supporting other content.

Investigation for on-board weapons

Shoval, Lilach (4 June 2010). "מצאנו על הספינה תרמילים מנשק זר" (in Hebrew). Israel Hayom. Retrieved 17 June 2011. הקצין הבכיר חשף חלק מהממצאים שנתגלו בחקירת האירוע: 'בין ציוד הלחימה הרב שמצאנו היתה גם כוונת של רובה. לא מצאנו את הרובה אבל יש לנו עדויות שהם זרקו כלי נשק למים. הזיהוי הפלילי מצא על האונייה גם תרמילי כדורים שאינם מתאימים לנשקים שלנו. אנחנו בודקים לאילו כלי נשק הם מתאימים'. [The senior officer revealed some of the findings discovered in the investigation of the incident: 'the extensive fighting equipment found included indications of a gun. We did not find the gun but we have evidence that they threw a weapon into the water. Forensics traces on the shells do not fit our weapons. We're looking into which weapons match.']

--Mirokado (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I have changed this reference since the title and url were revised later on the publication day. Article text updated accordingly and one phrase removed which does not appear in the revised article.

Detention of activists

At least 32 "About 629" activists were detained by the Israel Prisons Service, after they refused to sign deportation orders, including two who were wounded but refused hospital treatment.

Kyzer, Liel (31 May 2010). "Israel detains dozens of Gaza flotilla activists upon arrival in Ashdod". Haaretz Daily. Retrieved 31 May 2010. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

A Turkish mother who had brought her one-year-old child with her agreed to extradition after she was advised that prison conditions were "too harsh" for her baby.

Kyzer, Liel; Yair, Ettinger (31 May 2010). "'The ship turned into a lake of blood,' says activist on Gaza flotilla". Haaretz. Retrieved 24 June 2011.

--Mirokado (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed a dead link, two other refs already support the same content:

Flotilla motives

"Israeli PM wants direct talks with Palestinians". Nationalpost.com. 27 May 2010. Retrieved 2 June 2010.{{dead link|date=June 2011}}

--Mirokado (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dates

The date formats in this article were a complete mess, with all three MOS-supported styles having been used haphazardly in the body of the article and several other unsupported styles also appearing. Apart from looking horrible, this would have caused problems for anyone using a screen reader where such inconsistencies can be very distracting and it was difficult to edit the article since not even subsections used a consistent format.

I have now standardised the article on the "international" format dd Mmmm yyyy for the following reasons:

• a template in the info box already specified use of this format: {{Start date|df=yes|2010|05|31}}
• the bold date in the article lead (which has to stay like that anyway, I think) as well as the repeated date at the start of the second para both already used this format (there was another inconsistent date format in the first para as well.)
• both the UN and Turkish reports from which we have quoted use this format (the Israeli Meir Amit report uses Mmmm dd, yyyy)

Apart from those more technical reasons, I think that using the international format for this article is in some senses the more neutral choice and will provide the best overall reader experience.

Please keep the article consistent in this respect now it is tidied up. --Mirokado (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest a review of sources as well as some other stuff

There is over 250 odd sources for this article with some of them repeating info that where later clarified or corrected in later articles written by the source. This would be fine and dandy if this was a data dump for anything that matched "Gaza flotilla raid" on Google search, but I feel that it does a disservice to people seeking the actual happenings of the event.

The easiest part of editing this article would be to get rid of sources (as well as information obtained from such sources) that have "spokesperson" in it. The job of a spokesperson is to spin events (propaganda) and is hardly NPOV in any sense. The only place such sources belong to is in spinoff articles detailing the reaction that governments or institutions have towards the event in question. --General Choomin (talk) 11:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs pruning and/or splitting (again), it is twice a reasonable size at present at least. It would be difficult to remove all the "spokesperson" refs in a simple way as that would selectively remove reports based on official sources and practically speaking there were no unofficial sources for the Israeli operation itself. Often citations from more than one viewpoint are needed to support the neutral content of the article. A few refs can probably be removed from the places where there are multiple inline refs at the same place in the text, or where several citations are concatenated into a single inline ref. It is probably also the case that there is too much detail in some sections. Anyone removing content should explain clearly why in edit summaries and consider moving it to the talk page rather than simply deleting it. I have been using the #Removed content section for that. It will help if other editors keep to the same format if adding other removals there. --Mirokado (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the level of detail is out of hand here, e.g. actions of individual "soldiers" shouldn't be mentioned here at all. --Dailycare (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the details about Freedom Flotilla II to that article. --Mirokado (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed split - "Gaza Flotilla" and "Gaza Flotilla Raid"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was split as detailed below. Closing the discussion to record the clear consensus. Please see #Split to Gaza Freedom Flotilla: implementation --Mirokado (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

---

In an effort to both shorten the article and break it into more logical chunks, I propose splitting it -- "Gaza Flotilla" and "Gaza Flotilla Raid". These are individually notable enough to merit their own pages. And, this is consistent with Freedom Flotilla II which has it's own page.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a natural division. The problem would be retaining enough convoy details in the raid article to make it reasonably standalone. Perhaps move some details into a template which can be transcluded into both articles? Probably Gaza flotilla (2010) would be a clearer title (edit: but see below). Here is a suggestion for how the sections could be distributed:

Gaza flotilla (2010) Gaza Freedom Flotilla

• Overview
• Flotilla organization

• Ships
• Cargo
• Ship passengers

• Flotilla motives
• Initial leg (perhaps preceded by a Preparation section? add after the split)

• Pre-raid sabotage rumors

• Raid and aftermath (main article tag, brief summaries from the other article)

summary of Raid, Casualties, Conclusion of raid, Aftermath, Reactions sections)

• Future plans (rename to Subsequent activities or whatever)
• Film (perhaps need this in both articles?)
• References
• Further reading
• External links

Gaza flotilla raid

• Overview (of the raid)
• Flotilla (main article tag, summary of other article)

• Flotilla organization (detailed summary needed to make this article independent)

• Ships
• Cargo
• Ship passengers

• Before the raid (perhaps a better title for this?, brief summary of rest of the other article)

summary of Flotilla motives, [Preparation,] Initial leg, Pre-raid sabotage rumors

• Future plans (move into the summary, rename to Subsequent activities or whatever)

• Raid (retain current content and sections)
• Casualties (retain current content and sections)
• Conclusion of raid (retain current content and sections)
• Delivery of cargo (retain current content and sections)
• Aftermath (retain current content and sections)
• Reactions (retain current content and sections)
• Film (perhaps need this in both articles?)
• References
• Further reading
• External links

--Mirokado (talk) 22:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(italicised summary sections for clarity) --Mirokado (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bueller? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the flotilla was called the "Gaza Freedom Flotilla" and there is already a redirect of that name leading to this article, I suggest we use that name for the new article, with suitable hat notes. Updated above. --Mirokado (talk) 04:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Bob: A split is certainly called for; the article is just far too long. And this proposed division of structure seems pretty sound to me, as well.

I'd like to stress, in the strongest possible way, however, that I think we need to all agree on this or on some modified format/structure for the two articles that will result, before going forward with the split. There will doubtless be tweaks that people will want to make after any split, but at least a broadly-based agreement on structure will help prevent a full-scale dust up, I think. So does anyone have any objection to the "split structure" proposed above? Or any suggestions to modify it?  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC) ( Let's leave this open for comment for the usual seven days, please, before going ahead. )

Sounds like a good idea. And it should be relatively easy to do it in a way compliant with NPOV, something like what is outlined above. It's roughly a chronological split, with one article covering everything up to the flotilla being in mid-sea, and the article on the raid covering everything from the start of the raid. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split to Gaza Freedom Flotilla: implementation

It so happens that I have time this weekend to prepare the split contents. I will follow the outline in the previous section. I have no objection whatsoever if somebody else would prefer to do this... --Mirokado (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started to make the split, but I'm currently being delayed by server errors while trying to save the main update to this article, so for a while the flotilla details are duplicated here and there and I may make the update in several stages some of which would display reference errors. Sorry about that. --Mirokado (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Finished the main edits now. Thanks for your patience if you have been being patient. I have left inuse on the new section for a while but I will remove it "soon". I will be making one or two other edits as well, so please continue to edit the rest of the article as normal. --Mirokado (talk) 18:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic language in lead

I have removed the phrase using the word "fizzled" in the lead. This is a clearly pejorative, unencyclopedic word which should only appear in a directly attributed, qualified, quotation and is thus unsuitable for the lead of a Wikipedia article. The reference used to support it has a grammatical error in its title: I'm sure we can find a competently written piece to confirm the current (final?) status of the flotilla as necessary. If somebody wishes to restore "fizzled" somewhere else in the article, by all means do so in a suitable context. Please take the trouble to provide a fully complete citation if you do, there are plenty of examples of what is needed. --Mirokado (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Can Mankell's statements be established or refuted?

Henning Mankell, an eyewitness, says "Israeli commandos fired at will from helicopters" at passengers of MV Mavi Marmara - see http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israelis-cannot-make-the-gaza-reality-disappear-1.373632. What is the status of this factoid? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.192.162 (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, much can be clearly inferred from the videos, especially the ones from the activists.

The actual helicopter scene taken from the ship with sound and images, can be seen in two videos by the activists, (as opposed to the videos from the Israelis). The shots are heard and are seen with the paintball liquid hitting the wall, and two activists notifying the rest that it is not live ammunition. This strongly coincides with the Israeli narrative. At least one of the two shown wounded activists, dragged into the ship following the roof attack, clearly have a plastic bullet wound from close contact.

Both the Israeli (IDF) and activist (IHH) narrative talk about the stun grenades prior to the first attack, and the Israeli images show the roof-deck before and during the raid, clearly no-one is seen hurt or wounded at that stage.

On the other hand the Israeli video with the soldier yelling "Yes! Yes! I see him, he's holding a gun and using live ammunition" and the recorded command following that: "End all paintball, use live ammunition" are not clearly from the first 5 minutes, and it can be inferred from some Israeli sources (like the timeline video) that there were soldiers that attempted to use their guns including the first three abducted soldiers after being stabbed with knives, and the forth one seeing his friends being beaten and his commander thrown head down.

So, the answer to your question is: Yes, there are many indications (these are only a few) that there was no firing of live ammunition from the helicopter. But that doesn't mean that both side's narrative is completely consistent. both have loopholes and obviously censored parts in the released videos. (the IHH video is cut in some places, and there are people saying: Do not photo this, in several scenes, while the IDF videos stop at a certain moment and do not give the full picture, although obviously they have it.) By closely following the facts, it is possible to reconstruct what actually happened. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

other issues.

"Ma'ariv": Israel is offering $100,000 compensation per family, provided that Turkey rescinds its demand for an apology.

Should that be moved into the article?

I haven't read this article in quite some time, but I do not remembering seeing the "blockade of the gaza strip" template.

I don't understand why the second intifada is part of the infobox. That is independent of the blockade and flotilla raid right? Wikifan^{Be nice} 08:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

UNHRC bias?

Having read the article, this is something that appears somewhat flawed to me: That in particularily the part concerning the independent UNHRC report, nothing is mentioned of the rather heavy critisism for laying undue weight on critisising Israel above more urgent matters that the council has received from high UN officials, UN members and at least one NGO. Seeing as how it's written in the Wikipedia article on the UNHRC, and more importantly puts the results of the fact-finding mission, the very serious allegations made against Israel in the report, the concerns about the report from the United States and the European Union's wish that it be transefered from the council in a new perspective, I think it should be briefly mentioned in the beginning of the "The UNHRC fact-finding mission" part.

Also, in the part of the article mentioned, it is written that "the fact-finding mission [was] headed by three prominent international jurists". Whom are these, and should it be included in the same part of the article?

Feedback? 82.182.76.119 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)