Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:44, 31 May 2010

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Israel This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Palestine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Turkey Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A news item involving Gaza flotilla raid was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 May 2010.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Discretionary_sanctions

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Pbneutral

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gaza flotilla raid. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gaza flotilla raid at the Reference desk.

POV issues

Regarding the sentence :"Following the clash, Israeli naval forces began towing the flotilla's vessels to Ashdod, from where the passengers are to be deported. Israel said humanitarian aid confiscated from the ships would be transferred to Gaza, but Israel would not transfer "banned" items such as cement." It seems unclear why "banned" would be in quotation marks. Regardless of one's belief in the morality or international legality of such a ban, it clearly does exist. The quotation marks are apparently intended to suggest that the ban is somehow illegitimate, but serve instead to suggest that is someone something other than a ban. 98.239.145.229 (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is writing this article, it seems as if passengers are members of criminal gang and so police has walked into a neighborhood and suddenly 19 people are dead. Please at least take note of the tone of the article. --yousaf465' 07:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just reformatted it. The news is only a couple hours old (at most). Wikipeida isn't news anyways. Give it a bit while it is all put together. And acording to the video from Al Jazeera, the activists were meek while BBC footage clearly shows some rough stuff form their side. So right now it is pretty up in the air who is to blame (if anyone).Cptnono (talk) 07:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Cptnono bias: you say "BBC footage clearly shows some rough stuff form (the passengers') side. So right now it is pretty up in the air who is to blame (if anyone)." I have looked at BBC and listened to BBC. There has been no such allegation. What sort of 'rough stuff' do you mean. Do you mean it was rougher than the Israeli's stuff? Who anyhow initiated the attack? You seem v. biassed. NPOV cannot be neutral between the attacker and his victim. It is clear that here Israel is the attacker.

Just clarifying, you are saying that Israel is the attacker when constantly their citizens are under attack from their Arab neighbours? When their goal was to prevent weapons from getting into terrorists hands? When there were many legal and appropriate actions that activists could have taken? - Look at the facts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.86.79.126 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

82.3.206.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC).

Did you watch the video? Dudes were clubbing the hell out of the guy. That is only my interpretation. Good thing Bloomberg and other sources second it.Cptnono (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Clubbing" is quite different from shooting. Anyway, let's not bring politics here. Also, I think the number of casualties should be updated. Mar4d (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree regarding the POV issue. You'll want to talk to User:Jalapenos do exist who has been editing it. Obviously he's as much writing it as you are, or anyone else who wants to would be. Prodego 07:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying with a few things that might appear minor. For instance, I just reverted a new account who blanked info. It is perfectly fine info that has multiple sources from what I have seen. However, it needed an "according to" to assert that it isn't fact. Give ti time. Poke around yourself. Hopefully we can keep this neutral and not frustrating.Cptnono (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have to mention which side is giving that info, otherwise it will just turn into a POV article.--yousaf465' 07:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Someone again removed the gun line so I will reach into my magic bag of tricks and add it. For now since it is so fresh, controversial, and newsey we should certainly say "IDF radio reports" or whatever.Cptnono (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The "According to" helps, but the account of the clash as it stands still only quotes Israeli and government sources. Wouldn't it appropriate to also quote the statement in the linked Al Jazeera article that, according to the Free Gaza leadership, the soldiers opened fire as soon as they boarded? Fluidchameleon (talk) 07:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

See the main movement article. I made sure to mention both. On this article however, one editor started and new accounts and IPs jumped in blanking content and vandalizing. Completely agree that the movements official word is required to balance it out.Cptnono (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be better to create a seprate Israeli section so that the official IDF account can be freely documented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.193.236 (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

the "free gaza movement" was not a belligerent and the massacre was not a "clash". the article is very POV.--Severino (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The article has (just - after you posted) been moved to "Gaza flotilla interception". Also, note that "belligerent" when formally used does not imply "aggressor", simply a party to a ... well, to whatever this is. TFOWR 14:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

well the free gaza movement was not part of a battle or so , they were -in terms of armament, military training and so on- not coequal with the israeli military, they didn't seek a confrontation with them.--Severino (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Belligerent" when formally used does not imply "aggressor"; it implies a party in a ... whatever we're currently saying this is. Equality of armaments etc doesn't enter into it. Neither does whether or not they sought a conflict, or initiated it, or whatever. "Belligerent" here means "one of the parties". Nothing more. TFOWR 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ok, a rape victim and a rapist are both belligerents then.--Severino (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Very loaded analogy there.

Anyway, yes, if the rape victim fights back. Except that, from what I understand about the word, it doesn't seem to apply to single instances of conflict. If the rape victim starts hunting for her (I'm assuming it's "her") attacker and there's this whole movie about them meeting at various places and fighting it out until one of them escapes each time until finally she corners him and kills him, then yes, it would be a major conflict that can label the two of them as "belligerents". --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

just a thing. It's turkish demonstrators tried to storm the Israeli embassy, not strom. (72.91.125.32 (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

Secondary sources

The ABC link is secondary source if I'm correct, as Israel's private channel 10 television gave that info but didn't gave the source of its information. --yousaf465' 07:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify what line? I have a list of sources in front of me that can hopefully clear up who said it.Cptnono (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mentioned the link, anyway it here At least 10 dead' as Israel storms freedom flotilla. I was talking about the the ABC link in the reaction section. --yousaf465' 07:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Youtube as source ?

You can't use youtube as a source. --yousaf465' 08:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the assault video, they just landed without any resistant and then one guy fires with his pistol. --yousaf465' 08:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few good ones. The BBC one is over at the main movement article. The Aljazeera one that kicked off the media storm is alright. But no Youtube. Citeepisode over infringing copyright.Cptnono (talk) 08:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The othersUtubbed video claim the 16 of sixteen committed suicide as usually, just thy didn't explode the explosives, too wet to high tides on sea) . However it may be low grade instruction how to direct the PR campaign. Quite useful stuff, but the late comments for IDF spokesman about stubbed solders conflict somehow this video. It make only sense if only they sutubed themselves too. Ai 00 (talk) 08:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh... couldn't you please write it in simple English. ? --yousaf465' 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I agree that it may be misleading: utubed versus stubbed. Ai 00 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the part about the people stubbing/commiting suicide themselves is more controversial than calling the ship passengers "evil" in current circumstance. This content should be the last thing to add in an article that is already not large enough currently and lacks so much information. Mar4d (talk) 09:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Massacre

This article should be moved to "Gaza flotilla Massacre" as it has been called so by many sources. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of these are quotes, blogs, or other pages referencing other conflicts entirely. I disagree with this justification for moving the page, though if a reasonable one could be found I would support that.LazySofa (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking SD?Cptnono (talk) 08:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word "massacre" is a frequent question on the English Misplaced Pages. So far, the conclusions have been that:
1) The term "massacre" is vague, and the best definition we have is that a massacre is an event that's commonly called a massacre. We can't determine that before the press settles on a common name for this event.
2) It's really hard for us to discuss it calmly. Instead we tend to uphold that proud Misplaced Pages tradition of having huge fights that soon cease to be about the matter entirely and start being about the fights.
Since we can't make such a decision yet, I suggest that we chill out and come back in a month to see how things go. --Kizor 09:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Generally a massacre is a mass killing of innocents. The victims in this case can't be classified as innocents since they apparently provoked the israeli forces.

Maybe that is your own generalisation?? Mar4d (talk) 13:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We don't have any neutral first-hand sources of provocations, it's only IDF statements. LarRan (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Category

It has been called massacre by many so Category:Massacres is appropriate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have always considered cats navigational and not labels so I don't mind it.Cptnono (talk) 09:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus for the removal of this cat ], until then it must be re added. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the cat, but it shouldn't be re-added (and shouldn't have been added) unless and until notable, neutral sources start using that as the primary designation of the incident. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't expect CNN or LAtimes to name it as massacre.--yousaf465' 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And WARCRIMES is not acceptable. That needs to go immediately. I would cry vandalism but that user looks like he isn't new so it is just sad.Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we got another one Geotv--yousaf465' 09:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And WACRIMES still needs to go.Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If the International Court of Justice ever tries this and finds Israel (or any of its military) guilty, then it is a war-crime. Until then, definitely not. 203.173.37.146 (talk) 10:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

New section

I putted Swedish pres article: Sweden calls on Israel to clarify aid convoy attack, but was quickly replaced with one from Israeli press. The attack happened on international waters so coverage may be from all countries. Right? Ai 00 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Start new sections with == ==. You do not appear to understand how to use Misplaced Pages. Can you go over to the movement page and fix your formatting errors or do you mind if I remove them? Of course intl coverage is acceptable. Your edit may have been ammended for other reasons though. Can you provide a diff (click on History, click in the bubbles next to your edit and the one above it, hit compare, copy the link in the toolbar, provide it here)Cptnono (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course he doesn't, this maze of options and rules we have isn't something we can expect newcomers to know right away. Feel free to go ahead and fix formatting errors when you see them without having to ask. --Kizor 09:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But when he starts making sweeping controversial changes with bad formatting it turns into me just reverting. So Ai 00, your attempt didn't work. Can you try posting the link to the source ere and saying what line you are adding it to?Cptnono (talk) 09:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The link is on the top of this section. (the first line ) Do you need bigger chandelier to see it ? Again: Sweden calls on Israel to clarify aid convoy attack Ai 00 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed activists?

I see that someone has added a claim to the lead that the activists were armed. I gather this is something the IDF has claimed, but we shouldn't endorse either side's claims here. We can report it - I've added a line to the lead to reflect the claim - but we cannot state it as fact at this stage. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed to swear? So fill in what you want: THIS IS A CLUSTER... We have addressed this over two articles. There are multiple sources. It was overly attributed. Was it removed by a vandal or something? What the hell man? It is claimed that a protester grabbed a gun and fired rounds.Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, we simply don't know the full facts. All we have are conflicting claims from two self-interested parties each intent on blaming the other. In such circumstances we cannot endorse one side's claims. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"I gather this is something the IDF has claimed" You need to start gathering what the sources say. Remove it from the lead if you want but also spend the time googling over complaining on the talk page.Cptnono (talk) 10:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono please calm down if you are going to participate here shouting and swearing are not productive. Thanks, RomaC (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh totally. I am all sorts of enraged and need to watch the cursing and caps lock. But seriously, this is such a mess that editors are not even looking at sources because they are deleted or they are so amped themselves that they refuse to google it. My only excuse is that I have been looking at these guys for months while the majority of people discussing haven't even bothered to look into it until now. I'm also all sorts of bent out of shape about other stuff right now so am trying to relegate myself to the talk page over making sweeping edits that are sure to be fantastic (since I am the best) but also controversial ;PCptnono (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Armed is defined as equipped with a weapon. Therefore we can't correctly refer to the passengers as armed activists as their apparent weapons: knives, axes, poles, were clearly implements that any sea vessel would carry. Furthermore, from all video shown few passengers had such implements or were using them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmap (talk • contribs) 15:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of the article

The title of the article should be Gaza Flotilla Attack rather than Clash, as a military clash requires two armed parties. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And both parties were armed.Cptnono (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The armed status of the activists is contedsted, and even the reports claiming they had weapons say that those weapons were limited in nature and number. Fluidchameleon (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The current title, "Gaza flotilla clash", is not supported by RS, the great majority of which are heading and leading with "attack" or "intercept", or "storm(ing)", etc., i.e. an active verb ascribed to the Israeli side. Suggestions for a better title:

1. "Attack on Gaza flotilla"
2. "Storming of Freedom Flotilla"
3. "Israeli interception of Gaza aid ships"

Or maybe other editors have suggestions? RomaC (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All ships are armed in some ways, and captains are entitled to carry weapons as Policemen according to international laws. The armed status of activists is obvious as they were said to be armed with clubs and knives, and it is hard to imagine a resistance by these arms against Israeli forces. I strongly recommend the third suggestion of RomaC "Israeli interception of Gaza aid ships" 144.122.113.139 (talk) 11:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this suggestion is premature. It only happened a few hours ago, after all, and the issue of who attacked who is still very unclear. Let's leave the title alone until the situation becomes clearer. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It's a bit confusing right now, but as it forms into a media narrative some title might take hold. Joshdboz (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it is still early, but see no sources whatsoever claiming that the Freedom flotilla members boarded Israeli Naval vessels or helicopters, all say it was the other way round, Israeli military commandos going onto the aid ships. So even a temporary title should reflect what we know to be true. RomaC (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "interception" is descriptive and fair, but incredibly awkward. I suggested "confrontation" on Wikinews. But mostly I'm glad that this made the front page here. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Even though it is a clash, it was largely an "interception" by nature. Mar4d (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In my mind number 2 is best. This is the most specific name. Lesswealth (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the title of the article should be changed very rapidly, as the news are hot now. In two days time, when accurate sources are reached, nobody will be reading this article. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps three questions need to be sorted out regarding the nature of the action and the correct title for it:

1. Does Israel (or any other nation) have the legal right to have members of its armed forces board ships in international waters against the wishes of the people on the ships?

2. Did the Free Gaza people invite the Israelis to come aboard their ships, or did the Israelis board the ships against the wishes of the people on the ships?

3. Did any one aboard any of the Free Gaza ships shoot at any of the Israeli ships or helicoptors before Israeli military personnel attempted to board the Free Gaza ships? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

How about "raid"? FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Raid looks very barbaric and it carries strong negative connotation against Israel. I suggest "Interception", as there is nothing wrong or POV with this word. Israel did "Intercept" the Gaza Flotilla. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Barbaric? It is routinely used for the "good guys", such as in "police raid". FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I didn't know it was used this way. My bad:( 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(left) May I suggest two titles: Gaza flotilla killings since it is definitely confirmed that people were killed by lethal force and the even more neutral Gaza flotilla incident. I have to agree that the word Clash hints to an affirmation of the POV that this was actually a battle. It is not clear yet what the case is, so that word should be avoided. Shadowmorph 12:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think "killings" is biased in favour of the activists, and "incident" is biased in favour of the Israelis. Again, I think "raid" is best. It is widely used: http://www.google.dk/search?q=gaza+flotilla+raid&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:da:IE-SearchBox&ie=&oe=&redir_esc=&ei=RqkDTPPmO9egOM-6tdYE FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is substantiated. Shadowmorph 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we have a vote or something? FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On second thought raid is suggesting very subtly something unlawful on behalf of the flotilla crews while at the same time describes a security force that storms an inactive participant or at least prima facie that the force acted with a first strike (as in "police raids suspect's house"). We cannot confirm that just yet. Therefore raid is rather POVish on both ends. Your suggested title is substantiated only by the fact that it is commonly used to describe the incident by the press. But Misplaced Pages per its policy and with no other strings attached should try to do better if possible, isn't that so? Shadowmorph 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes you can start a requested move proposal if you got the stomach for it :) - I've seen where those can lead too sometimes ;) Shadowmorph 12:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, both sides could claim it is POV, that's what makes it neutral I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

CNN uses raid, BBC uses storming, if they are not neutral I don't know what "neutral" means. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Raid" or"Attack" are the correct words and are used widely by moderate international press. Israel clearly initiated the action by boarding a ship without permission in international waters. "Confrontation" and "Interception" introduce words that complicate the information with implicit agendas. Clash is incorrect as both parties were clearly not armed for battle.

References

Look, repeated refs already although they do say farty which helps. Can editors name and reuse refs before it turns into a mess ?
^ http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7216380.ab
^ http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article7216380.ab
^ http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.2006940/gardell-ombord-pa-bordat-fartyg
^ http://www.expressen.se/Nyheter/1.2006940/gardell-ombord-pa-bordat-fartyg
Sean.hoyland - talk 09:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 11:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities of victims

Sources urgently needed. --Leladax (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is reporting that most of those aboard were Turkish citizens. No confirmation from any source that I've found of the nationalities of the casualties, but the odds are that many were Turks, assuming the Beeb is correct. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So I am not pulling up sources anymore but from what I saw a couple hours ago it was a very diverse group. There were people from all over. Most importantly, editors need to watch out for connecting the dots that were not there. 6 ships were stopped (maybe) 2 ships had not connected with the group so they may still be floating around out there with god who knows on them, and there were even more with mechanical problems. So basically, the pretrip manifest is a lot different than the ships stopped. The last umber I saw there were a couple Turks dead (reported in east Asian press) but that should not be considered in any ratio.Cptnono (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationalities included Swedes, Americans, Greeks, Pakistani journalists, a lot of other europeans; this article has a good bit of information: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest.developments/index.html?hpt=T1 Fluidchameleon (talk) 10:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added some flag icons to the notable people onboard section to reflect this diversity. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

map

Any map available so someone could create one public domain?--DAI (Δ) 10:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We would need to know the coordinates of where the ships were at the time. Does anyone have this info? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Times, distances, and even departure points are disputed in sources so I recommend holding off.Cptnono (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the course of the Eleftheri Mesogeios (confirmed to be in the flotilla) from this marine traffic tracking source:. I think it is valuable information. You could now put your expertise in vector maps to use. Shadowmorph 13:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It shows the track but how do I get it to show the coords? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The track is composed of separate points. Select the vessel and after the track shows up, click on hover the mouse over the arrows on the track. It has time stamps and coordinates. I'm trying to figure out more myself. Shadowmorph 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out a list of tracking points here Shadowmorph 13:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, and well done for finding this. I have to go out to the gym now but I'll have a go at a map when I get back. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality in quoting news sources

On such a highly charged topic, I would avoid citing anything from Israeli or Middle-Eastern/Turkish sources as "fact". We should qualify any claims (eg. number of israeli soldiers injured) as being "according to...". The opening paragraph currently states that "Israeli soldiers were injured" when there are no independent sources (ie. non-Israeli) for this. Likewise we shouldn't quote turkish/arab news reports claiming the soldiers "fired on unarmed civilians" as "fact" either. 203.173.37.146 (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything from Free Gaza needs to be handled with care as well.Cptnono (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see nearly all the news resources are Al-Jazeera which can hardly be described as neutral. Also BBC & The Times have lower death figures &c... Any chance someone could edit & remove the non-neutral POV/news?? 86.63.26.124 (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? I've been told that Al-Jazeera (the English one at least) was one of the most neutral newsthings in the world (i.e. word of mouth OR). The fact that everyone seems to hate them seems to support this. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking a blockade versus breaking through a blockade

I'm not sure who keeps messing up the grammar in the lead, but a blockade is broken when it's been entirely thwarted and abandoned by it's maintainers. What these six ships were doing was attempting to break through the blockade. -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 10:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Video of boarding

"Video of the boarding shows that Israeli soldiers rappelling down onto the vessels were immediately beaten with clubs by the activists."

This is NOT true! See the video for yourselves: . Lesswealth (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is what I saw but unless the accompanying commentary from RS said it then it should go. I have a feeling that was a little OR from another editor so feel free to remove it if you have double checked the source.Cptnono (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw it myself, unless one is blind, it's clear Israeli soldires were attacked by mob while they were clearly infrior in numbers. They had no other option but to open fire.--Gilisa (talk) 10:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Disagree a bit. It is easy to miss dude towards the end of the BBC video being mobbed as he comes off the rope. It is right before the guy in the life jacket starts banging on the commando. It isn't a big deal though since the amount of coverage of these videos will be sufficient to verify what we see sooner or later. I still would recommend removal until they do so just to keep things on the up and up.Cptnono (talk) 10:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed. Lesswealth (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They opened fire before boarding. Here's another video: LazySofa (talk) 10:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And the exact opposite is reciprocated with that interpretation.Cptnono (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont find these videos convincing beyound doubt either way, and believe interpreting them without better information is synthesis. We should be looking for sources rather than interpreting the videos ourselves. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Video showing israeli soldiers being clubbed and attacked the moment they board the ship. this could be a club or a bouquet of flowers. i cant tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.118.68.5 (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

whoever is the dumbass propagandist who is removing the statement regarding the video of activists beating the boarding soldiers, don't edit if you aren't objective. here is proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJwERhCbStI

"Objective" here means telling people what other people say. This is a pretty big deal, so there are a lot of people reporting it. Find someone who reports that interpretation and post it. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As protagonists lacking sufficient objective distance, I think we should disregard the press from both Israel and Turkey in this section as is being done in other sections of this article. They are too closely involved to be able to be relied on as accurate sources.

POV problems

The lead ended with Al Jazira report goes something like, "according to the video, it seem that the people on board (pro Palestinian activists) were peacefull in nature". Clear commentary to this video -it shouldn't be in the lead. Also, well sourced information on IDF spokersman response was removed without even leaving edit summary. --Gilisa (talk) 10:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, everyone needs to calm down and nothing should be in the lead that isn't in the article body per WP:LEAD. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried to remove it and it was put back. We should keep the lead simple for now in my view. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Iran and Pakistan are not Arab countries

This is incorrect. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to have been fixed since the responses of Iran and Pakistan have been moved to a separate section. Is this still a problem? (71.22.47.232 (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

POV & JIDF

This article has been targeted by the JIDF (Jewish Internet Defense Force) which is trying to "win the PR war" online over this incident. I suggest all edits be carefully vetted and examined before being committed.

Also the Israeli reaction has no business being the lead as they are party to this conflict. The United Nations should be the lead. Also, many more reactions can be found here and should be added to the article even if they are no palatable to the biased editors. Truthiness54 (talk) 11:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, d*rn! I think they're trying to beat an invincible opponent this time! Rursus dixit. (bork!) 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm in agreement with the view that Israeli PR is strangely prominent in this article. Let's be careful here. Lesswealth (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have specific evidence that JIDF are targeting this article i.e. can you provide links to specific statements somewhere ? The link you provided is just a general statement. If it is the case that there are JIDF users I will try to follow it up when I have time. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sean Hoyland, the JIDF maintains a list of what they call the "List of Heavily Biased Anti-Israel Misplaced Pages Editors" and they've refocused their efforts to wiping out the "anti-Israeli" bias on Misplaced Pages .

The edits on the pages that are heavily biased are very concerning. While I appreciate people feeling a sense of national pride, making up sources or heavily supporting the Israel military's perspective in this article is a violation of our neutrality policy. Like I said above, every line in this article should be vetted because there is far too much bias from the editors using Israeli sources.

Finally, all editors need to be aware that being completely neutral on this article may result in harassment by being placed on the above lists. I've always edited with just my IP but the potential for bullying made me want to create an account. Truthiness54 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

So if I beat off blatant POV by them can I get this yoke of being only here for Israelis off? I'm a Slayer fan FFS.Cptnono (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All POV pushers should be mercilessly crushed. Go for it. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic IP and profile checks demonstrate it.--67.175.193.236 (talk) 11:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Basic IP and profile checks demonstrate what ? Sean.hoyland - talk 11:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The lead is for summarizing the article, so put both reactions.Lihaas (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool... thanks. Truthiness54 (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

JIDF about this article: http://www.thejidf.org/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-wikipedia-continues-to-be.html --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! As you can see, this article is now being targeted. I suggest we lock down the article because things are getting out of hand. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, lock it. this is absurd. the amount of "edit conflicts" and vandalismLihaas (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - lock is the best alternative. Again, I'm astonished at the amount of politics that has surrounded this article in such a short space of time. I think we need a couple of admins to monitor this article too, just in case. Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"== Legality =="

Section needed. --Leladax (talk) 11:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD make one, with sources of course.Lihaas (talk) 12:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

article name

in my opinion undue blame is put on the israelis with this title, its a gross eaxageration. i suggest: unarmed arabs attack israeli helicopters in international waters.80.57.43.99 (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately Israeli saing they were: Avital Leibovich, an Israeli military spokeswoman, "we have the right to defend ourselves." "This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory, but we have the right to defend ourselves." "This happened in waters outside of Israeli territory"

Other Israeli men saying "armada of hate" but is not clear if he hate this armada or who hate who . Aid is symbol of love, but aid to those who one hate ? Ai 00 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

US response

needed. --Leladax (talk) 11:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is an American response yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.147.206 (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there it is. I don't know if "a white house spokesman" entails an official US response or just means they're about to issue a response. Well, they responded either way so it's there now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.147.206 (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

please remove the description of hedy epstein as a holocaust survivor

she didnt spend one day in a concentration camp. she spent the entire war in england

my god, she has her own wiki article which attests to this fact.

Recommend removing all names and descriptions not described in proper secondary sources.Cptnono (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

She is an Holocaust survivor. She was rescued from Germany by the Kindertransport just before the war, but all her family was killed, so she survived the Holocaust, and not by chance. But her life was forever changed. Also, it is shorter than "Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany" which seems the definition the wiki is giving her now.

Anyway, regardless of my opinion, she is called a Holocaust survivor in most of the news covering the subject (The New York Times online, for example)

The point being the source says it, until a counter source (or more than 1 NPOV) it stands.Lihaas (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all immaterial as she was not even on the boats, but in Cyprus. See sources below. Ericoides (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"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)

Media blackout

Things seem to get removed from this page in a rapid fashion, but I am strongly suggesting that we should keep the mention of the communications blackout in the introduction, as this is important for Misplaced Pages users to know while reading this article. Lesswealth (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agrreed, be WP:Bold add it.Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It was removed by Jalapenos do exist. WHY? Lesswealth (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What blackout? Sources were buzzing like crazy from all over the globe within the hour. Do you mean the movement saying their communications weren't working? Can you find an independent RS? If not make sure to do some attribution. It is a little funny that Misplaced Pages was updated before their page was!Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Israeli is jamming broadcasts but forgot/overlooked mobile phone signals, which is how the footage got out. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, also blackout at killing zone. Why the no one turned on the patrol ships lights. There is quite dark on the video. The lights can light up football field Ai 00 (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw lights in a video. How about you keep your arguments to what is clearly stated in the sources not seen.Cptnono (talk) 11:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ABC's journalist is also reporting the Israeli military is jamming communications. Feel free to add it to the article. Source: Truthiness54 (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed AGAIN. What is this, a concentrated PR effort by some folks? Lesswealth (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have restored it again, as I am strongly of the opinion that this should be in the introduction. Now I'm outta here. I'm asking others to reinsert it if it gets removed again. Take care. Lesswealth (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I dont know about the lead, leave tht for when the article calms down. But if sourced it should be in there.Lihaas (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Jalapenos do exist

Jalapenos do exist is making non-neutral edits, see this for example: . 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Dark

Why the patrol Israeli ships didn't turn lights ? Or did they but it was not recorded on video ? (a kind of dark light infrared?) This should go to the article. Ai 00 (talk) 12:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Recorded video shows the lights. Misplaced Pages is not scandal mongering.Cptnono (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ships involved

Me and Lihaas have introduced a new section: Ships involved. Please help by expanding it. --Dead3y3 12:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The tag is on, in a day or 2 it should be.(Lihaas (talk) 12:31, 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, 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)

IDF statement: no guns on board

The IDF website is stating: "According to reports from sea, on board the flotilla that was attempting to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip, IDF forces apprehended two violent activists holding pistols. The violent activists took these pistols from IDF forces and apparently opened fire on the soldiers as evident by the empty pistol magazines." Source:

This confirms there were no guns on board the boat. Again, this article is being used as part of a PR campaign by the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF). Source: . I suggest locking down the article. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how your claim of 'no guns on board' follows from your quotation of the IDF website. They say the activists took the pistols from IDF forces, not that there's no weapons in the ship's cargo room. And if you think there's incorrect content in the article (added by some JIDF or whoever else), feel free to challenge it. However, try not to make obviously unsupported claims. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Haartz Reference

The fourth reference http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-tows-gaza-aid-ships-to-ashdod-after-10-activists-killed-in-clashes-with-navy-1.293089 does not claim that two Isreali soldiers are seriously injured. It only mentions of six soldiers being wounded. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

But we did have a source that said one was stabbed in the stomach. We had another discussing that one was in critical condition. Was this removed recently? Did you look?Cptnono (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Those sources are not cited there. I will erase the part involving seriour injury. Anyone with a citation my re-add that info with citation. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many edits like this throughout the article. You should clean up whatever you can and this article needs to be locked down. Misplaced Pages has no place in being used as a PR weapon by Israelis or any other party. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Haaretz is "PR" now? Their staff are generally anti-Israeli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 12:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

People on board?

Verification needed for people on board, fairly sure Chuckle Brothers is just vandalisation (have added 'citation needed'). Please could people check any new entries for affirmation? - Norminator (talk) 12:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right - it's a stupid hoax, and the cited source doesn't exist. Removed. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

They have previous here (see ). Obviously some people (eg User:QuoDad) continue to consider it amusing. Ericoides (talk) 12:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to lock down the article

It's time we lock down this article for the unsourced edits, propaganda, and vandalism. I'm not sure how we begin this process but here's my vote. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Asked hours ago. Feel free to weigh in Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection Cptnono (talk) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Appeal to the admins. This is ridiculous, cant even type anything w/o a conflicting edit(Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see that the JIDF nutcases are directing people here now: http://www.thejidf.org/2010/05/gaza-flotilla-wikipedia-continues-to-be.html -- ChrisO (talk) 12:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Support lockdown. "From the most biased, anti-Israel media sources (such as Al Jazeera and Ha'aretz)." Wow, these guys are hard. FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What is not sourced?Faaaaaaamn (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many things are sourced but if you check the source then you'll find nothing of the sort was stated on that article. I've cleaned up several of those edits but I can't win this battle. How do I contact an admin? Truthiness54 (talk) 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also supporting lockdown. --Dead3y3 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I've commented at ANI that I hoped to avoid it, and my support now is purely down to the huge number of edit conflicts I got when I tried to edit it. Bringing discussion to the talk page and avoiding partisan editing (from pro-X and anti-X sides...) will, however, be an entirely welcome side effect! TFOWR 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been done. Thanks Wehwalt. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I don't think I'm allowed the edit the article now but a lot of you are doing good work so I'm okay with it. Truthiness54 (talk) 12:53, 31 May 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)

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 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 13:14, 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.

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

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 —  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 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 —  13:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's original research by synthesis, which isn't permitted on Misplaced Pages. 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 —  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 Misplaced Pages 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 --— ZjarriRrethues —  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 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 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 —  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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. 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. 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)

Condemnation

I'm a little confused why this edit was made to the introduction:

The original line is supported by the 5th paragraph of the Los Angeles Times source (link ):

"The Israeli raid was condemned by Arab states, the United Nations, and the European Union. European states called their respective Israeli ambassadors for meetings and, together with the United Nations and European Union, called for an investigation"

While this edit by Lihaas isn't completely on the spot:

"The Israeli raid was widely criticized, while European states (particularly those who had citizens on board) called for an investigation."

European nations and the United Nations strongly condemned the action AND called for an investigation. I really believe this edit is not true to the quoted source. Thoughts? Truthiness54 (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I replaced this with a more closely worded statement sourced to this AP article. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Irish Oireachtas members not aboard

I removed Aengus O Snodaigh from the notable persons aboard list as, along with FF TD Chris Andrews and FF Senator Mark Daly, he was prevented from boarding in Cyprus by the government there, see Monday May 31 Irish Independent piece Helvetius (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Khubaib Foundation member killed

ANY REGISTERED MEMBER... KINDLY ADD THE NAME OF "NADEEM AHMED" WHO IS A PAKISTANI AND A MEMBER OF KHUBAIB FOUNDATION IN THE NOTABLE PEOPLE ONBOARD IN THE GAZA FLOTILLA LIST. THERE WERE TOTAL THREE MEN FROM PAKISTAN. KINDLY ADD THE NAME OF NADEEM AHMED ASAP. THANKS

We'd need a reference from a reliable source (e.g. a Pakistani newspaper, or - better still - a Pakistani newspaper's website. Also: why is this individual notable (I'm not saying he isn't, just wanting to know how we'd describe him to readers).

Also: please don't SHOUT ;-)

TFOWR 14:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

definition

Did it was ever mention that the convoy attacked the idf or even breached any law. The ships were in international waters, there was no clash that was one hell of an attack with heavy fire against unarmed civilians. I'm going to remove the "between" description until someone get evidence the ships were attacking the naval army (by the way, defending yourself on your ship does NOT count as attacking) --Mido (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a WP:RS saying this go ahead

The soldiers were ambushed

"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.

However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons" ] Could someone add this to the article? Shrike (talk) 13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess paintballs made an impression on activists as at least ten of them are dead now. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been reliably reported (e.g. ) that the commandos were armed with assault rifles. Paintball guns, obviously, do not fire bullets. And as a matter of basic military tactics there's no way that any competent commander would send troops into a potential hostile area without firearms. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The commandos were indeed equipped with paintball guns, of course they also had a pistol which was only meant to be used as a last resort. check your facts before you post anything.

I guess it's quite awesome when you can seriously injure soldiers with rifles when you are unarmed yourself, too. So perhaps both accounts are somewhat untrustworthy. There are many contradictionary reports from both sides and if there's sources stating this then it should be included. I suppose deciding whether sources are correct or believable, is also some form of original research? But then again, isn't the very word 'reliable' (as in reliable sources) kind of POV-sensitive? If it's reported, it can be included in the Misplaced Pages article that it's being reported. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I gather (and I'm as ill-informed as any of us!) - that one party alleges that members of the other party took weapons from it. We don't - or shouldn't - discriminate between reliable sources. If two reliable sources say different things, we note that opinions differ. TFOWR 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

While, yes, it's possible to hurt people armed with guns if they don't plan on using them, that YNet article is so uuuuugh. It's not a news report so much as it is a dramatic retelling of the heroism of military forces who boarded a bunch of shoddily-armed civilians. They seem to be pandering to nationalists. It's not a reliable source at all. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR: Yes, the IDF does allege that they took guns from soldiers. But there are other sources for that. I feel like using that as a source lends it some sort of legitimacy as a news source that it doesn't deserve. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Why have my edits been reverted twice?

If it is not permissible to post a video from the IDF Spokesman's office showing that the IDF did warn off the flotilla in accordance with the San Remo Manual on Maritime Law; and if it is likewise not permissible to post a link to that document and a short quote from it in support, then what the hell is permissible?

Is it the case that only anti-Israel edits can be made? Is it impermissible to provide the raw data from which an actually open-minded person might draw conclusions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RonAaron (talk • contribs) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's original research by synthesis, which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages. Please don't add your personal analysis to articles. Wait for a reliable source to cover the issue first. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what it is. I posted that the San Remo Manual stipulates that it is permissible to attack vessels running a blockade. That is a fact (and I might add that it is common maritime law). I posted a link to the relevant source. I then posted the video statement from the IDF Spokesman's office showing that they did follow that protocol. Now, that may be a "biased source", but since there was nobody else on board the IDF vessel at that time, just how long do you propose one "wait for a reliable source"?

WP is in effect censoring information pertinent to the matter at hand, I can only surmise what the reason for that censoring might be. RonAaron (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Re the first revert, I posted a message on your talk page stating that YouTube is not a WP:RS. Re that revert, this page is not the appropriate forum for discussing which sources should or should not be an RS. Ericoides (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and after I saw your comment, I re-edited my initial edit, substituting the original IDF Spokesman's page for the YouTube link. That's an official gov't site, not some guy in a basement. RonAaron (talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the second revert as I did not make it. But I rather think that with your comment "that may be a "biased source"" you have answered your own question. ChrisO's point re WP:SYN is pertinent here. Ericoides (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that some newspaper should write that down before it can be used in Misplaced Pages. When that's done, we can cite it. Right now there is only videos and legislation and the interpretation of such sources is not up to us. Andreas Willow (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but remember that these days newspapers and other news outlets are pretty quick to publish to their websites - and a newspaper's website is very reliable as sources go (and far easier for us to cite and for readers to verify. TFOWR 14:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm missing something critical here. How can it be better to post a secondary source such as a newspaper article which cites a primary source, as opposed to simply posting the primary source and allowing the presumably intelligent users of WP to draw their own conclusions? I must also protest citation of the embedded Al-Jazeera correspondent as being eminently biased, though I expect my protest will fall on deaf ears. RonAaron (talk) 14:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera are an RS in Misplaced Pages just like Jpost. See Misplaced Pages:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources for an explanation of the preference for secondary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are. A primary source requires your interpretation. A secondary source provides the interpretation. We are an encyclopedia, ie a tertiary source. That is why, for example, in an article on Plutarch we have the (initially counter-intuitive) position of preferring to cite people writing about Plutarch to citing Plutarch ourselves. I really do suggest you read WP:OR and WP:SYN to clarify these key policies for yourself; this page will get cluttered up if we discuss them here. Ericoides (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's basically the difference between posting a video "showing" (i.e. subject to interpretation) they did something, and posting a video from the IDF claiming they did something. The more controversial the topic, the greater the importance of OR, NPOV, and RS. In this case it's not good enough that it looks like, from one point of view, something happened. Do you have someone involved claiming that it happened, citing the video as proof, or someone reporting that it happened, citing the video as proof? Think of it this way: Misplaced Pages can't say something such that it can be held responsible if it turns out that your subjective interpretation was, somehow, no matter how unlikely, wrong. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Clash?????????

This is a new low for wikipedia. Calling it clash sickens me even more than the actual massacre that took place which some retards are even unwilling to call it an attack. REMcrazy (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider using title of the article section above, I also made the same claim. Most people believe it should be interception or raid. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also consider the notice at the top of the page asking you to stay cool when the editing is hot. Not using the word 'retards' for fellow editors would be quite an improvement already. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved the article to interception, might not be the very best name, but certainly better than the previous one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Twitter campaign spam

Someone keeps trying to add a link to a Twitter campaign to boycott Israeli products. This should definitely not be in the article - Twitter is not a reliable source and the campaign is not notable without any reliable sourcing of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Any kind of campaign is irrelevant to this article. It's purely soap-boxing. TFOWR 13:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

notable people on board

Haneen Zoubi and Waleed Al-Tabtabaie and Abbas Nasser – Al Jazeera Arabic news journalist are still uncited claims as being on board, is there any support for these claims? Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

For Abbas Nasser, yes, just added the ref. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done

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 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)

.

false news

according aljazerehAt least 19 People were Killed and 'Injured but sentence in article indicated that :Up to 19 pro-Palestinian activists aboard the ships were killed .Article is under protection and I can't edit sentence , Infobox and section Casualties.Koper sing (talk) 13:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't get your point. What do you want changed? I think both Al Jazeera and the article claim 19 people killed and dozens injured. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote from source, "At least 19 people were killed and dozens injured" - sentence can stay as it is, I think. Ale_Jrb 14:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Live TV news is currently reporting 19 dead and 60 injured, which seems to be the latest casualty figures. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Article name

The name has just been changed to Gaza flotilla interception but I don't see any consensus or discussion, it this an agreed move? Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, no discussion either way. Ale_Jrb 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are just about half the google search results for the new title, the old title Gaza flotilla clash appears much more common to me and actually more representative of the details. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to allow discussion of the article name, without prejudice. I have no particular preference myself. However, consensus should be sought for any change of name. I suggest that the person who moved it should make a case here and seek consensus from other editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page was move protected by another admin; consensus is needed for any move. Ale_Jrb 14:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page moved illegally

User:FunkMonk has moved this from Gaza flotilla clash to Gaza flotilla interception without consensus and just said "about time this was moved". Why? This makes it even worse. People died here, remember? Calling it a massacre obviously isn't going to please some people but an "interception" is just plain ignorant to the other side of what went on here. Please move it back. --86.45.76.26 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Can this be locked against further moves by rebel editors please? It is very difficult to edit this talk page. --86.45.76.26 (talk) 14:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Illegally"?! I think you mean WP:BOLDly. You know, you could always ask them why they moved it!

That said, my personal preference is for "...clash", because it seems pretty neutral. But please, assume good faith, and avoid nonsense claims like "page moved illegally" (and "rebel editors") unless you seriously intend to report an editor to the police.

TFOWR 14:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"boldly"? Sorry, not buying it. It was an aggressively non-neutral page move, entirely without the best interests of the project in mind. And you're defending the "editor" who did it. --78.34.237.146 (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving a page on Misplaced Pages isn't "illegal".--Nosfartu (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm asking the IP - and everyone here - to display some good faith. I disagreed with the move, in case that wasn't clear to you. WP:BOLD is one of our key policies. I'm certainly not going to condemn an editor for being WP:BOLD, even if I disagree with their edit - as I do here. So in that respect: yes, I am defending them. Why aren't you? ;-) TFOWR 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah "Clash" seems to be in the middle of "interception" and "massacre".

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 14:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Illegal made me laugh a little hard. The page should be moved through the common procedure, and will probably meet article naming guidelines. A move would take a few days (after sources have settled on a name and a discussion has taken place), but ultimately might not be illegal.--Nosfartu (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand people who don't comment when we suggest better names "raid" or "interception". If you think clash is just the right word, please say so when we are discussing it. If you really care about giving neutral point of view, then please read the talk pages and have an idea of what other people's "neutral" point of view is. Thanks 144.122.113.139 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What illegal? I still think the page should be moved, and there is a discussion about it, please be part of it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your good faith (and completely "legal") move to "Gaza flotilla interception". Editors are allowed to be WP:BOLD; you were - you did nothing wrong. The great thing about being WP:BOLD is that the rest of us can revert you easily. And then we can all sit down and discuss the matter. No harm, no foul. TFOWR 15:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what's wrong with "interception". It's not like it gives a false impression, and reading the lede (or the... blurb or whatever on the main page) you'll get a better idea of what happened. "Clash" sounds like there was a military skirmish. "Raid" implies fault on the part of one party or the other, depending on who reads it. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Intercept does not convey what occurred at all, up to 19 civilians dead bringing aid on a boat. Clash is perhaps not perfect but it is better than interception. Off2riorob (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As 144 said, we've been discussing this for a long time, and the editors who prefer the current name, but haven't bothered to be part of the discussion, should comment on there instead of just complaining. FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

No one else is complaining at the moment. You moved it. It was moved back. You need a consensus to move it again, and you haven't got one. Personally, I prefer this name, but that's not really the point. What's the problem? Ale_Jrb 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Misleading write-up about Iranian reaction

(reposting this guy's comment as it got lost in redirects of talk pagesSean.hoyland - talk 14:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC))

I am unregistered so someone else will need to look at this.

I see it says this in the article as Iran's reaction: Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said that the incident was an "inhuman action of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people" and that it would bring Israel "closer than ever to its end."

This is misleading and is one of the things that infuriates me about Misplaced Pages. The link (number 70) leads to the BBC website where Ahmedinejad's quote is as follows: "The inhuman action of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people and preventing the humanitarian aid from reaching Gazans does not show this regime's strength, but is a sign of its weakness, and all this brings this sinister and fake regime closer than ever to its end."

The Wiki comment makes it appear to the reader that Ahmedinejad is talking about bringing Israel closer than ever to it's end when in fact he is talking about the ZIONIST REGIME coming to an end, not Israel.

This kind of silly misquoting needs to come to an end, he was also misquoted with the "wipe Israel off of the face of the earth" comment.

It should read something like this:

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad said that the incident was an "inhuman action of the Zionist regime against the Palestinian people" and that it would bring this sinister and fake regime "closer than ever to its end." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.108.181 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel is the Zionist regime. Zionism lead to Israel. Israel was created and Zionism ceased to exist. He wants it replaced with an Islamic regime.

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Let the sources speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur that, regardless of an individual's interpretation of the relationship between Zionism and Israel, the quote doesn't explicitly refer to Israel and might be seen as altering the meaning of his words. Duly clarified. Ale_Jrb 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah ok there must be a seperate Zionist regime I've never heard of. If the "Zionist regime" ceases to exist, Israel ceases to exist. You're nitpicking.

Faaaaaaamn (talk) 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Totally beside the point. Someone who didn't know anything about Israel and "the Zionist regime" (and I don't really know much tbh) could be confused. If the regime is Israel, then the article is still accurate, because that's what it's quoting. If they could be perceived as different, it's still accurate. Win win situation, I think. Ale_Jrb 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Nobody should transpose "Zionist regime" in a source to "Israel". They aren't the same thing. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks to Sean.hoyland for posting this, I just registered as I thought that that was the reason my post didn't appear. It reads much more accurately than it did before. Unfortunately Ahmedinejad seems to get misquoted more than most. wibble2005

Article moves and redirects

I've requested full protection of Talk:Gaza flotilla interception (i.e. not this talk page!) as comments are still getting posted there.

Cheers, TFOWR 14:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if someone would like to sanity-check my move-then-revert of section(s) from Talk:Gaza flotilla interception to here - that would be great. I moved, then reverted because it looked like the moved sections were here already. Now I'm not so sure, and my brane hurts... TFOWR 14:57, 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)

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: , 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 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 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 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 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 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 16:23, 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 15:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, though understandable mistake. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the related article. TFOWR 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 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 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 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 16:29, 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 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 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 16:40, 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, , 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)

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).

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 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

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Gaza flotilla raid. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Aerial footage showing the boarding and Israeli commandos being attacked as they rappel to the upper deck has been released by the IDF. 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."

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."

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)

Requested move

It has been proposed in this section that Gaza flotilla raid be renamed and moved to Gaza flotilla incident. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Putting aside that "clash" is very uncommon terminology here for battles of whatever kind, in order for an event to be an actual "clash," there has to be of course a kind of conflict between people of comparable fighting capacity. The term "clash" here, while trying to be fair to the Israeli side, is used in a way to suggest this was a battle between combatants, rather than a one-sided raid by armed military forces on a rowdy but nevertheless bona-fide peacenick partyboat. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I like clash. Many sources are referring to it as such, and there was a conflict. The sources simply disagree as to the cause and the aggressor (in other words, everything! Except for the existence of it). Ale_Jrb 16:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We should stick with the status quo until the media decides on a name. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 16:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

We have to stick with the status quo until 7 June ;-) The page is move protected until then.

Well, I 'spose we could go through a move request...

TFOWR 16:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Clash" has the benefit of being reasonably specific. "Incident" is horribly vague and could refer to anything. Did the ship's cat get sick? Did someone fall down a staircase and hurt themselves? Did the food go bad? Any one of those could be an "incident". -- ChrisO (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources calling it a massacre so "incident" sounds like whitewashing. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(interrupted) Ale_jrb, clarify please: Do these sources name the incident "The gaza flotilla clash," or do they simply use the term in passing to describe the event, for example as in 'Israeli forces "clashed" with international activists.' In any case, what we title incident articles here is only in part based on what news reports call them during the immediate aftermath, and the issue goes both ways: There are plenty of sources that may use the term "massacre," which, unless overwhelmingly supported,will probably have to discarded as "POV" likewise. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

All of this goes to show that the wisest cause of action would be to wait a few days to see how this pans out. It's barely 12 hours since it happened, after all. The current article title isn't so horrible that it needs to be changed immediately. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer "raid", since many neutral sources put it that way. Also, just made this into an actual page move request. FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10196628.stm
2. Swiss News: UN rights chief shocked at Gaza aid flotilla violence
3. Montreal Gazette: UN human rights chief condemns Gaza aid flotilla interception
4. Voice of Russia: Russia: Israel’s aid flotilla interception violated international law
5. Xinhua: Pan-Islamic body condemns Israeli attack on Gaza aid flotilla
6. Organization of the Islamic Conference: OIC Secretary General: Israeli Aggression on the Relief Convoy Heading for Gaza is a Crime and Blatant Violation of All International Laws Norms and Standards
7. Associated Press (2007-10-30). "Gaza sanctions: The legal argument". BBC.
8. Amnesty International Israel's Gaza blockade continues to suffocate daily life 18/1/2010
9. Berkman Center for Internet and Society: Israel: The Freedom Flotilla - PR Stunt or Humanitarian Act?
10. Template:Nl Eyffinger, Arthur & Bezemer, C.H. 1991. "Compendium volkenrechtsgeschiedenis", p. 176-177. T.M.C. Asser Instituut. ISBN. 9026821344.
11. D'Amato, Anthony A. 1995. "International Law and Political Reality: Collected Papers", p. 138. ISBN 9041100369.
12. http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/midtosten/artikkel.php?artid=10008007

• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Israel-related articles
• Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• Unassessed Palestine-related articles
• Unknown-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• B-Class Turkey articles
• Mid-importance Turkey articles
• All WikiProject Turkey pages
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests
• Requested moves