added MiszaBot |
|||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
{{controversial3}} |
{{controversial3}} |
||
{{Forum}} |
{{Forum}} |
||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|||
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |
|||
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|||
|counter = 1 |
|||
|minthreadsleft = 10 |
|||
|algo = old(24h) |
|||
|archive = Talk:Gaza flotilla clash/Archive %(counter)d |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Archives}} |
{{Archives}} |
||
Line 814: | Line 822: | ||
I suggest that we should be cautious about identifying the casualties as "activists". There appears to have been a variety of people on board - activists, yes, but also journalists and crewmen. I've replaced the references to "activists" being killed or injured to "passengers". -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
I suggest that we should be cautious about identifying the casualties as "activists". There appears to have been a variety of people on board - activists, yes, but also journalists and crewmen. I've replaced the references to "activists" being killed or injured to "passengers". -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] ([[User talk:ChrisO|talk]]) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:activists, obviously they had an agenda, there's a reason why 5 or more attack each soldier <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.250.152.79|85.250.152.79]] ([[User talk:85.250.152.79|talk]]) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
:activists, obviously they had an agenda, there's a reason why 5 or more attack each soldier <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.250.152.79|85.250.152.79]] ([[User talk:85.250.152.79|talk]]) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
::The [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html?hp New York Times] called them "people" or "passengers"--[[User:Nosfartu|Nosfartu]] ([[User talk:Nosfartu|talk]]) 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:05, 31 May 2010
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
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"[1] 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)
The article's name is misleading. A flotilla, according to the current wikipedia definition [1], is "a formation of small warships that may be part of a larger fleet. A flotilla is usually composed of a homogeneous group of the same class of warship, such as frigates, destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, gunboats, or minesweepers." These vessels were not warships in any sense whatsoever. MdArtLover (talk) 17:48, 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)
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)
"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)
- Didn't the Holocaust start before 1939? Didn't the holocaust start with the passage of the Nuremberg Laws of 1935? Before 1870 Jews living in Germany were automatically defined as aliens and their rights were restricted, regardless of how many generations they had lived in the country, the Nuremburg laws were thus, to some extent, a reversion to a previous state of affairs. See: Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany. --Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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 Wikipedia 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)
- Agrreed, be WP:Bold add it.Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 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 Wikipedia 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)
Yes, ABC's journalist is also reporting the Israeli military is jamming communications. Feel free to add it to the article. Source: [2] 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)
Jalapenos do exist
Jalapenos do exist is making non-neutral edits, see this for example: [3]. He also deleted my passage about Israel media blackout from the lead. Why? Lesswealth (talk) 11:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Activists carrying clubs and knives should not be considered as armed forces. Editors should bear in mind that millions of people are reading this article and thousands of them use wikipedia as their primary news source. Claiming that the activists were armed will give false impression on the eyes of those people, believing as if the flotilla was armed. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- So knives and metal clubs are not weapons? That's BS. These are weapons with intent of injuring or killing. It's not a matter of whose weapons are more advanced. Not to mention that according to reports from IDF (I know it wouldn't be considered "reliable" until videos are out, that's not the point) there was fire coming FROM the ship towards the IDF soldiers who were armed with paint guns and a handgun as a last resort and they started using the hand-guns only after they were lynched by the mob. My point is that there are a lot of different and clashing reporting, and while clubs and knives are not guns, these are weapons for the intention of hurting. -Nomæd (Boris A.) (user, talk, contribs) 11:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- As weapon(s) from the soldiers were stolen and used against the soldiers by the activists then I think they can be considered "belligerents" Faaaaaaamn (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)Faaaaaaamn
If the ship is attacked by soldiers and the peace activists fight back with primal tools, this can not be described as: "was a violent confrontation between armed pro-Palestinian activists" this is completely non-neutral and non-factual editing by Jalapenos do exist. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Soldiers landing on a ship is not getting "attacked". Getting beaten, stabbed and your weapon stolen, however, is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faaaaaaamn (talk • contribs) 12:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Armed soldiers raiding a peace activist boat on international waters is a hijacking. Peace activists have the right to defend themselves and they're boat from the attackers. There is no evidence showing that these peace activists were armed and were set to attack any Israeli ship or that they were hostile before any raid on the boat. The situation can not be described as Jalapeno edited it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I completely agree with Supreme Deliciousness. I never claimed that knives and clubs are not weapons, but Nomaed,consider yourself as a reader who uses wikipedia as your primary news source. What would be your impression when you read "clash between Israeli Defecse Forces and armed activists"?. I believe writing "armed" without explaining the nature of the arms is definitely biased. And Faaaaaaamn, even the Isreali media claim that there is an attempt to steal weapons of Israeli soldiers, if it was succeeded, they wouldn't leave such a part open. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Good thing Wikipedia is not meant to be a primary news source. It also is not supposed to be scandal mongering or a number of other things that this article has the danger of turning into.Cptnono (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Why don't we try to be as neutral as possible other than teaching the users the aims of wikipedia? I guess omitting the expression "armed activists" truly reflects a more neutral view. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I happen to train a weapon based martial art (we train empty handed, with sticks (clubs), knives and machetes). You (IP:144.122.113.139) have clearly no idea about the issue. This awkward sidestep to philosphy has nothing to do with the issue. A "band of civilans armed with knives" can easily kill a group of trained soldiers. It only takes one strike with a knife to kill someone, and you can do the same with a club (that's basicly how combat was done before the invention of gunpowder). You suggest that the soldiers should have kept their cool when "provoked". This both implies that being attacked wiht clubs and knives is "only provoking", which it is not. Further, special forces do not have super powers or are invincible. I'd like to see you in such a situation. I'll play your sparring partner and attack you with a knife. Let's see who keeps cool. Now enough of that. I'm not pro-Isreal in all matters, and I'm very critical about this very event, but declaring a knife as "non lethal" and asking for soldiers to "keep their cool" is not realistic, infact, it's far from wishful thinking. And I say that as a martial artist who has trained with soldiers. --91.32.92.220 (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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. Wikipedia 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 Talk page 12:23, 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)
- 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)
- Sixer Fixer has a good idea, a range is a good compromise. Go ahead and do that. (better than removing a source to state another)Lihaas (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with a range. FunkMonk (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, whoever wants to be bold go ahead and add the range.Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- A quick note: The toll jumped from two to up to sixteen in the first hour but then bounced around for hours. "Up to" is sufficient since it is reasonable to assume a figure will be confirmed within 24hrs. And when it is all said and done: Anyone getting killed means that something wen wrong. I don't agree with the activists but seeing that some of them died I hope is a reminder to all that it isn't just an Israel v Arab thing. Dozens of families are devastated today.Cptnono (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The source in question doesn't state that 19 were killed by the IDF, which is what the wikipedia article is regularly stating. The other sources referenced suggest about 10 deaths occurred on each side so the sources actually agree. Chaz smith (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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: [4]
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: [5]. 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. Wikipedia 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)
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 Wikipedia: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)
- Appeal to the admins. This is ridiculous, cant even type anything w/o a conflicting edit(Lihaas (talk) 12:33, 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 Talk page 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! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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)
- It's been done. Thanks Wehwalt. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:45, 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)
- 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)
- A lot of sources say a lot of things Cptnono. I think you are biasedly selective on what can be covered in the article. 144.122.113.139 (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Can you show me some biased edits I made to this article? Asking for editors to not use Youtube but instead use proper sources is not biased. Or did you just want to argue?Cptnono (talk) 13:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Given governmental abilities to insert undercover operatives and/or create false images to excuse their illegal actions, such footage must be questioned more than that of those on the flotilla or independent media, of which I'm sure there were some. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Carol, are claiming the Israeli use of agents provocateur? Amazing.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 13:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- But which?Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- You're expecting me to be competent with archiving?! I thought they were both the same option...
- No more than every 24 hours sounds about right. Thread-size varies, so I'd ignore the thread count, but my competencies really do not stretch to archiving. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 13:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- But which?Lihaas (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Piracy
Israel has acquired no rights to operate militarily on international waters nor has requested such rights, thus this military operation was illegal according to UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). The term applying to this kind of activity according to Part VII Article 101 of UNCLOS is piracy.
Article 101 |
---|
Article 101
Definition of piracy Piracy consists of any of the following acts: (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed: (i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft; (ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State; (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; (c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b). |
- According to article 103 the Israeli navy ships involved in the operation are defined as pirate ships.
Article 103 |
---|
Article 103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act. |
Although Israel hasn't signed the convention 160 other countries have signed and ratified it. I propose to implement this aspect as much npov as possible.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'd remind you to wait until a reliable source uses the term "piracy"; otherwise it's just our original research. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 13:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing to label the operation as piracy, but to implement it as "According to UNCLOS...etc.". Nonetheless we could wait for more responses or a verification from reliable sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's original research by synthesis, which isn't permitted on Wikipedia. Any discussion of the international law aspects of this issue needs to wait until we have a reliable source which explicitly addresses the question. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think that this indeed qualifies as original research. In addition, I suppose that the Israeli navy was told by the Israeli government to do this, a case which seems not to be included in Article 101. I think it won't be called piracy. Piracy is generally used for private ships not allied to a state (at least in modern times), not for the navy of a state. It may violate international waters and it may be extremely disproportionate, but it's not piracy under any definition that I am aware of. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- There are several reliable sources calling it a breach of international law: see for example the Turkish Foreign Ministry BBC, at 0945, or UK barrister Michael Mansfield The Guardian, at 1.29pm. Probably best to leave it along the lines of "breach of international law" for the moment, whatever UNCLOS says: there's already enough heat on the topic without throwing around terms such as "piracy". Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- According to UNCLOS III any ship allied or not to a state is defined as a pirate ship per Article 103. Since there's no deadline we can always wait for reliable sources.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it quite explicitly states that the term piracy applies to private ships or aircraft only. But if there are reliable sources supporting use of the term piracy, of course we can use that in the article. After all, we here at Wikipedia don't make the news and we don't make the definitions, we just report. And if people name it piracy, it can be incorporated. It would certainly be notable. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, the "private" part is pretty big in this definition. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign minister of Turkey called it an inhumane act of piracy [7]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- If he said that, it should definitely be attributed to him. But a very involved source is insufficient to state that it was piracy - we can simply say that he said it was. Ale_Jrbtalk 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. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- More importantly, don't you think you're trying too hard to push a side? Yes, that's reportable that he said that, but why did you go through so much effort to get that label? --68.161.167.66 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Ahmet Davutoglu, foreign minister of Turkey called it an inhumane act of piracy [7]--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:15, 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)
- I think it quite explicitly states that the term piracy applies to private ships or aircraft only. But if there are reliable sources supporting use of the term piracy, of course we can use that in the article. After all, we here at Wikipedia don't make the news and we don't make the definitions, we just report. And if people name it piracy, it can be incorporated. It would certainly be notable. Andreas Willow (talk) 13:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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.
- Qatar Slams Israeli Piracy On Gaza Aid Flotilla
- Israel accused of 'piracy' over Gaza aid flotilla
- Gaza Aid Convoy Attack: Israel’s Murderous Sea Piracy a Horrendous Moment of Truth for US Policy
- Libya accuses Israel of piracy for blocking Gaza aid ship
--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 15:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then you should mention that these reports refer to it as piracy. However, reports 1, 2 and 4 are all about other countries calling it piracy. E.g. 'Qatar slams...', 'Israel accused...', 'Libya accuses...' - these do not make it piracy. You should mention that these countries believe it to be piracy, but you can't simply state that it is until the vast majority of sources state that it was under international law. Ale_Jrbtalk 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 Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality. Also, many statements are sourced in this article but those sources don't support the claim. If we can do that then we'll have a great baseline from which further edits will be much easier as new information comes in.
Thanks to all of you for doing a great job and hopefully I'll be able to jump in once everything settles down. Just be mindful that the Jewish Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has several sympathizers (I used to be one of them) with long-term accounts that won't be hampered by this lockdown so make sure that edits are reviewed for pro-Israeli (or any other) bias. Truthiness54 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Non registered (i.e. IP editors) and non autoconfirmed editors are going to be affected by the semi-protection of the article. If any editors so affected wish to make a change to the article, simply post here on the talk page. I'd imagine that most autoconfirmed editors would be happy to make non-contentious changes on your behalf. I certainly would. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 13:01, 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. [8] 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.[9] 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)
- 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)
Just adding my 2 cents, the weapon the soldier on the left side has in the BBC picture looks like it could possibly be the Israeli Tavor assault rifle, the attachment on the barrel is most definitely a suppressor. His hand placement towards what looks like it would be the "Center" of the weapon would help illustrate that since the weapon is a bull-pup design. As for what hes holding towards the front of the gun my only thought is that its possibly a vertical grip mount with a flashlight attachment built onto it. The second picture of the soldier by the Turkish flag I'm convinced is an AR-15 styled weapon, or maybe the Israeli Galil. While its too blurry to tell the stock is clearly an AR-15 styled stock (Which can be retrofitted to everything from shotguns to AK-47's). The two silver circles towards the top of the weapon I believe would be the locking screws to hold weapon optics into place, like a dotsight or a scope. And lastly his forward hard is in a position that would be used for someone using a vertical grip. IIRC the carbine/rifle variant of the PepperBall weapon had the CO2 cylindar come backwards towards the stock, while the hopper was above the receiver of the weapon, clearly not the case here. I have seen specially designed variants for CQB training that made use of the magazine and got rid of the giant hopper. While we can't clearly see the bottom and rule out whether or not it is infact a true assault rifle or a PepperBall gun, there's definitely things pointing towards an assault rifle.
One of the major points that the IDF is trying to make is that they boarded the boat with paintball guns as their primary weapons, and only their sidearms for deadly force. They say that only after a minute and a half of conflict (where beatings are seen in the videos) were the soldiers allowed to use their sidearms. Whether or not this is true doesn't matter. Since this is the primary argument of the IDF, it should be presented in the article. 71.172.172.68 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Condemnation
I'm a little confused why this edit was made to the introduction: [10]
The original line is supported by the 5th paragraph of the Los Angeles Times source (link [11]):
- "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 [Helicopters halt Oireachtas trio in Gaza aid trip] 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 ;-)
- TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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" [[12]] 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. [13]) 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 Wikipedia 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. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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 Wikipedia. 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)
- The problem is that some newspaper should write that down before it can be used in Wikipedia. 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. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 14:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, by "write down" I meant that a newspaper's website should report on it. I just meant to say that someone blogging about it is not enough, it must be a newspaper, preferably a fairly large one (since smaller newspapers in particular might not be very NPOV). Andreas Willow (talk) 17:52, 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 Wikipedia just like Jpost. See Wikipedia: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)
- [To RonAaron] 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: Wikipedia 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)
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. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 13:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Probably reliable enough for a "According to the IDF, ...". They are one of the involved parties, their opinion does matter. But I wouldn't present anything like a fact. Facts come from independent parties (I admit, there are none in this conflict, there's just people who pretend they're independent). Andreas Willow (talk) 13:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Those lnks should be avoided, report using the highest quality independant citations only. Try not to apportion blame at this early date. Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- As far as I know we don't consider youtube in general to a reliable source. For more you may read WP:Sources.--yousaf465' 16:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
.
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_Jrbtalk 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_Jrbtalk 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_Jrbtalk 14:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Thank you Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The article's name needs to be changed because it is misleading, and in a way that appears blatantly partisan. A flotilla, according to the current wikipedia definition [14], is "a formation of small warships that may be part of a larger fleet. A flotilla is usually composed of a homogeneous group of the same class of warship, such as frigates, destroyers, torpedo boats, submarines, gunboats, or minesweepers." These vessels were not warships in any sense whatsoever. MdArtLover (talk) 17:58, 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)
- 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)
Page moved illegally
User:FunkMonk [15] 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.
- TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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)
- (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? ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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)
- 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)
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."[70]
This is misleading and is one of the things that infuriates me about Wikipedia. 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."[70] —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_Jrbtalk 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.
- Let the sources speak for themselves. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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_Jrbtalk 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, TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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... TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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)
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: [16], 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 ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- That text is now duplicated - it was moved to the next paragraph, which is already discussing the conflicting reports on the violence that actually occurred. I'll reword the attribution in the next paragraph, and remove the duplication. Ale_Jrbtalk 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
- 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_Jrbtalk 15:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If you read the source, it is quite clear that this is what one of the soldiers is saying. There is no third party evidence that states this is what definitely happened, and you therefore cannot put it across as such. Ale_Jrbtalk 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_Jrbtalk 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_Jrbtalk 16:23, 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)
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_Jrbtalk 15:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) No, though understandable mistake. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the related article. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 15:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that they were carrying Aid is totally relevant and clearly belongs in the lede.. Off2riorob (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is cement consider to be "Aid" or not? (according to some reports, some ships had cement on them) ShalomOlam (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fortunately, the sources that state that the ships were carrying aid have done the work for us, so there is no dispute. :) Ale_Jrbtalk 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 ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes construction materials like cement are considered to be aid by the UN and other NGO's. You can read this UN report for more info e.g. page 16 Sean.hoyland - talk 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- USAID would beg to differ: they use it to build medical centres, etc ;-) TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:03, 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)
- Fortunately, the sources that state that the ships were carrying aid have done the work for us, so there is no dispute. :) Ale_Jrbtalk 15:57, 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)
- 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)
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_Jrbtalk 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)
"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)
- 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)
- 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_Jrbtalk 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_Jrbtalk 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_Jrbtalk 16:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The boarding did not led to loss of life - weapons being fired led to loss of life. And some reports say that Israel Navy fired their weapons only after they were attacked. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The French foreign minister has said that nothing can justify such violence. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The boarding did not led to loss of life - weapons being fired led to loss of life. And some reports say that Israel Navy fired their weapons only after they were attacked. ShalomOlam (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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_Jrbtalk 16:40, 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)
- to deplore (transitive) To condemn; to express strong disapproval of. Ale_Jrbtalk 16:34, 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)
- 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)
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)
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"[2] and that "nothing can justify the appalling outcome of this operation, which reportedly took place in international waters."[3] 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".[4]The Organization of the Islamic Conference, an association of 57 Islamic states promoting Muslim solidarity, described the flotilla incident as "a serious escalation and a flagrant violation of the international law and human values." The organization further said it would initiate action at the level of the Security Council and the Human Rights Commission to examine the fallout of the attack.[5][6]
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.[7] 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.[8] 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."[9] At the Declaration of London in 1909 an attempt was made to protect the rights of neutral traders.[10] 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.[11]
- I am also aware that the Foreign Ministry of Turkey and a few other nations have made comments about the matter which have been cited in the media. The issue has also generated some discussion at the UN Human Rights Council. I think it would be good to give some time for international legal experts a chance to weigh in, and to try to limit to just notable political reactions. --Nosfartu (talk) 16:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
A statement was made by a Norwegian professor at the university (specialicing in sea law) saying that the act seems to be ilegal. http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/uriks/article3673112.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jace1982 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Henning Mankell reported shot
Henning Mankell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Swedish author (notable person) has been reported injured/shot. How should this be implemented in the article? [12] 2nd paragraph (Norwegian source).
- I don't think we should include it until we get some kind of official confirmation. The para you mention attributes the info to "former Red leader Erling Folkvord". It sounds more like a rumour than a corroborated report, to be honest. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
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. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Edit request: Add IDF Spokesperson's Unit released video
Aerial footage showing the boarding and Israeli commandos being attacked as they rappel to the upper deck has been released by the IDF[17]. Can somebody please add this to the article?
I recommend it be placed under the section detailing Al-Jazeera's reports:
Al-Jazeera reports that "all the images being shown from the activists on board those ships show clearly that they were civilians and peaceful in nature, with medical supplies on board. So it will surprise many in the international community to learn what could have possibly led to this type of confrontation."[6]
Change to:
Al-Jazeera reports that "all the images being shown from the activists on board those ships show clearly that they were civilians and peaceful in nature, with medical supplies on board. So it will surprise many in the international community to learn what could have possibly led to this type of confrontation."[6]
Aerial infra-red footage of the boarding released by the IDF Spokesperson's Unit shows Israeli commandos rappelling from a helicopter to the upper deck of one of the ships, and being attacked by people on board.
87.69.208.92 (talk) 14:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't support this primary video loaded to youtube by one of the involved parties in the clash being added. Off2riorob (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Nor me. Stick to secondary sources reporting what the primary sources say. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's a better video. Perhaps this should go in the "see also" section? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- As the other side has claimed that they fired before coming down, it's still problematic. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I wouldn't object to including video of them firing before coming down in the "see also" section, if you have any of those. I don't see the problem here. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Please don't post not wikipedia reliable links on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Requested 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_Jrbtalk 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...
- TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 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 [18] 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)
- Thats not good. You should have waited with a RfM for now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes that is not good move requests are for use in different situations. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thats not good. You should have waited with a RfM for now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:44, 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)
- Massacre is getting the highest google results, higher than Gaza flotilla clash and much higher than incident, with those results I could support Gaza flotilla massacre Off2riorob (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever individual sources say, combined there is disagreement as to the aggressor - massacre and raid both imply that it was a deliberate attempt to kill as many people as possible, which isn't the general theme of the sources. Clash is somewhere in-between, is more descriptive, and is also the status quo. Until there is a clear agreement that it was a massacre or raid, I oppose changing the title. Ale_Jrbtalk 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Massacre does not have to be pre-meditated, it simply has to be the outcome. Off2riorob (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I don't personally have a problem with an RfM being opened now, though I don't personally agree it's ideal at this time. I'll !vote nearer the end of the RfM. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - ghits don't tell you how many of those sources are RS and they're the only ones that count. I agree this isn't the right time. No rush. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Request removed, no one dies. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Chris 0: "We should wait..." Nah. Wikis free us from such constricted ways of reporting and editing. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Funkmonk: "I prefer "raid." - Incorrect. The incident may have started out as a raid, but that terminology ignores everything else that happened. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- PS: Note also Bibi's cancelled trip: CNN. That spells "[international] incident." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 16:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's too soon for a common title of the incident to be established in the media. We should wait at least a couple of days and then discuss any possible move of the article.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 16:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think we shouldn't panic. There will be plenty of time to agree on a name here once reliable sources have agreed on a name.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is it just me, or does "Flotilla Clash" sound like a great name for a band? Maybe best if you don't reply... TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 16:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- To me it sounds like "tortilla crash".--Nosfartu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Now that's what I'll call my band... Laydeez and gennelmen, put your hands together for... "Tortilla Crash"!!! TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 17:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- To me it sounds like "tortilla crash".--Nosfartu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Note how Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 doesn't use "massacre" as its main title, instead relegating it to an "also known as", even though I've usually heard it referred to as "massacre". It's not likely that this will be changed to "massacre", not least because it's obviously biased. Just give it up, please. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Then again there is the Boston Massacre. It just depends what sources call it.--Nosfartu (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- That's because Tiananmen Square was not just about a massacre. There were protests there for weeks beforehand, leading up to the massacre. The story is bigger than the massacre on its own. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Boston Massacre happened 240 years ago. Perhaps that's what some here mean when the say "let's wait [to rename the article]." -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
“ | Netanyahu spoke by telephone with Obama prior to his departure to explain why he had decided to cancel their meeting, The two planned to coordinate another date for their talks, and Netanyahu promised to keep the U.S. president updated as developments unfolded with regard to the Gaza flotilla incident. | ” |
This is from Haaretz, and is relevant here for three reasons: One, because Haaretz is a legitimate news source, so there's no issue of bias one way or another. Two, it uses the term "Gaza flotilla incident," as I have suggested above. Three, it references Netanyahu's cancellation of his U.S. visit, with an explanation that puts in in context of dealing with the political fallout from the flotilla incident itself, and nothing else. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Paintball rifles
I've taken out a very dubious-looking claim that the Israeli commandos were only equipped with paintball guns. Numerous sources refer to them using assault rifles and what's been depicted are definitely not paintball guns. The claim doesn't even make sense. What do people suppose caused the fatalities? Were people choking to death on paint? The picture used in this article (right) is clearly depicting an assault rifle. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- It's from an incredibly one-sided editorial: [19]. He says that they had handguns as backup. I'm starting to wonder if the author even interviewed anyone, or if he just made up the whole thing. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
If no reliable source can be presented that explicitly says that IDF only used paintball rifles, we cant ad it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons." [20] - for reference, the actual source. Ale_Jrbtalk 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- That still doesn't confirm that IDF only had paintball weapons. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The paintball gun is pretty obvious in the image I just added on the right. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "An Israeli military spokesman said some of the commandos were equipped with paintball guns but the non-lethal weapons were not enough against activists who charged in with batons." [20] - for reference, the actual source. Ale_Jrbtalk 17:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Look at the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo - at ~53s you can see one of the paintball guns (it looks exactly like one, and unless you provide me with a real weapon configuration that resembles what I see in the video I do believe it is one. Look at how the person who is being shot with it runs away, if this was a pistol he would drop to the floor). Infact, paintball guns can be used as non-lethal weapons against rioters, and this has been done before. However, the special forces surely did not only enter the boat with paintball guns, they sure had real weapons with them. --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- No. Original. Research. -- tariqabjotu 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is not original research, as there are sources out there who claim the matter of what we are discussing.... --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- On the basis that only light resistance was to be offered, the boats were boarded after being warned to turn around. With heavy resistance, this is a remarkable stupid thing to do.
So how would any other navy enforce a naval blockade? First, a clear warning in English: Turn back or we shall fire. Next, A shot across the bow – a last warning to show the seriousness of our intentions. Finally, firing at the vessel’s propeller, in a bid to paralyze the ship’s sailing and steering capabilities.
Only then, and only after allowing the ship to be tossed from side to side under the sun, the time would come for taking over the vessel using massive force: Clearing away the decks using water hoses, splashing oil on its windows, ramming into the vessel, and finally staging the takeover.
This is how any self-respecting Navy would conduct itself. However, there is only one problem here: The utilization of force and fire, which is precisely what Barak wanted to avoid. He feared the images, and therefore ordered the takeover to get underway at early morning hours, much before the ships crossed into Gaza’s territorial waters.
- They were armed with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests thinking light resistance. When they got lynched after boarding by the "peace activists" and were fired at (perhaps by guns wrested from the soldiers themselves) were they given permission to use their handguns to incapacitate (i.e. kneecapping).
- Were assault rifles used, I would imagine that the casualty number would be a lot higher. 930913(Congratulate/Complaints) 17:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The second picture is awful and should not be included. Also as I said, stop posting links to the web that are not reliable. Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
With incidents and aftermath come competing claims, which are likewise notable. We have to note that the "paintball guns [defense]", regardless of its validity, has been repeated by a number of sources as rationale for the incident. That alone is interesting, and yes, of course there is the issue of whether its actually true or not, and we can get to that too. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am glad this section exists, I stumbled accross the paintball-thing and thought it was vandalism. As of now, it's only mentioned in the caption of the infobox-picture without sources. I don't think it can remain that way. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 17:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Someone replaced the image. I restored the original image, which isn't great but isn't nearly as crappy as that one. The paintball image is also completely misleading in its implication that only paintballs were used, which clearly isn't the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- That is not logical. It does not imply that only paintball guns were used. It only implies that they were used. What is the matter, really??? --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Someone replaced the image. I restored the original image, which isn't great but isn't nearly as crappy as that one. The paintball image is also completely misleading in its implication that only paintballs were used, which clearly isn't the case. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Independent Media Review and Analysis
According to SourceWatch,[22] this group[23] is merely pro-Israel proganda outlet, therefore I'm moving this to talk:
Dr. Robbie Sabel of Hebrew University has stated that "a state, in a time of conflict, can impose an embargo, and while it cannot carry out embargo activities in the territorial waters of a third party, it can carry out embargo activities in international waters. Within this framework it is legal to detain a civilian vessel trying to break an embargo and if in the course of detaining the vessel, force is used against the forces carrying out the detention then that force has every right to act in self defense."[13]
-- Kendrick7talk 16:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well, its an academic opinion about a general political and military concept, rather than a source for actual information about the incident. Naturally it should go. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Regardless of his expertise, the quote doesn't belong here. If it quote deals with general support or rationale for Israel's embargo itself then it could be added to the Israeli embargo article. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- We use glorified blogs all the time. The issue is what its substance and relevance to the current topic is. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- +1. The age old claim that "independent" or "neutral" media would exist (it does as long as it supports the POV people want to hear from) --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal, a mainstream newspaper, is categorically different from a one-man website. It's an absurd comparison. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Mainstream newspapers" include the sunshine press, do you agree? They are both newspapers and mainstream. The Wallstreet Journal has been acquired by NewsCorp and now is often as "unbiased" as Fox News --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is less a question about whether the source is reliable for Dr. Sabel's opinion, as it is a question about the notability of the opinion. Tens of thousands of doctorate degrees are awarded each year in the U.S. alone, and anyone (or almost anyone) can have their opinion posted on to a blog. Publication in one or more notable publications is generally a better sign of notability.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- "Mainstream newspapers" include the sunshine press, do you agree? They are both newspapers and mainstream. The Wallstreet Journal has been acquired by NewsCorp and now is often as "unbiased" as Fox News --91.32.92.220 (talk) 17:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- We use glorified blogs all the time. The issue is what its substance and relevance to the current topic is. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Her name is Nadezhda Kevorkova (Russian: Надежда Кеворкова). Her fate is unknown yet. Please add her to the list of notable people. Mekĕti (talk) 17:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Done --Nosfartu (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Video releases by israeli news sites/television
some israeli news site and channels broadcast the footage from the IDF spokesperson (which is also available at their site: http://idfspokesperson.com/ )
here are some links:
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=722138 (check the video)
http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleID=722121 (check the video)
http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3896733,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-commandos-gaza-flotilla-activists-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089 (soldiers interview about getting lynched)
the videoes show the immediate attack on commando soldiers as they get on to the ship and weapons prepared for attacks against them.
since most of the debate here is against israel, obviously someone should add details contradicting the allegations
(there was no massacre, the soldiers weren't even prepared for any violence, they first used Paintball-guns)
i'm surprised how Wikipedia is not as neutral as it has claimed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Again, who ever denied the activists attacked? We still don't know if the commandos fired shots before this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you really think that if the Israelis opened fire with assault weapons before boarding there would only be 9 fatalities? Would the "activists" have stayed around to "greet" the soldiers with the iron clubs as seen in the video? Would the soldiers have used paintguns as seen in the video once on deck if they already had permission to use live ammo? ------
- nobody knows yet, but references to the attack are being removed constantly: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 18:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- the caption for the first picture was removed, then changed while i was writing. the picture clearly shown the paintball gun, but it's not mentioned anywhere again, nor cited.
- funny how that happen, especially since there are references to paintball guns in the media...
- take another example, this image clearly shows how they threw a soldier from the deck, why not add such a picture, it was shown in major media sources (i saw it on foxnews and all major israeli news channels) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 17:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Official reaction of Russia
Russia expresses disapproval and deepest concern over the matter; considers armed attack on civilians in international waters severe violation of international law; calls for the immediate end of blockade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mekĕti (talk • contribs) 17:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- There is a similar Russian reaction in English above in the legal issues section.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Splitting the article
The reactions section is already very big and is still expanding. I am afraid it will derail the main purpose of the article. Hence either its hould be shortened or should be created into a new article. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Shortened, would be my preference. An article just for "reactions" seems a little excessive, but I do agree the section is too long. TFOWRidle vapourings of a mind diseased 17:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Move request 2
The New York Times, CNN, and Al Jazeera use the term "raid". In addition, the current title does not clarify who took part in the events. I suggest to rename the article to "2010 Israeli raid on Free Gaza Movement ships". Cs32en Talk to me 17:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- A similar request appears above. It may be best to centralize them.--Nosfartu (talk) 17:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- I hope that we can focus to a greater extent on discussing how reliable sources report on the event in this section. Cs32en Talk to me 17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, let's please keep just a single "to move or not to move" discussion, things are hard enough already. Andreas Willow (talk) 17:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
This is from Haaretz:
- Netanyahu spoke by telephone with Obama prior to his departure to explain why he had decided to cancel their meeting, The two planned to coordinate another date for their talks, and Netanyahu promised to keep the U.S. president updated as developments unfolded with regard to the Gaza flotilla incident.
It is relevant here for three reasons: One, because Haaretz is a legitimate news source, so there's no issue of bias one way or another. Two, it uses the term "Gaza flotilla incident," as I have suggested above. Three, it references Netanyahu's cancellation of his U.S. visit, with an explanation that puts it in context of dealing with the political fallout from the flotilla incident itself, and nothing else. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Activists or passengers?
I suggest that we should be cautious about identifying the casualties as "activists". There appears to have been a variety of people on board - activists, yes, but also journalists and crewmen. I've replaced the references to "activists" being killed or injured to "passengers". -- ChrisO (talk) 17:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- activists, obviously they had an agenda, there's a reason why 5 or more attack each soldier —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.152.79 (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- ^ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/middle_east/10196628.stm
- ^ Swiss News: UN rights chief shocked at Gaza aid flotilla violence
- ^ Montreal Gazette: UN human rights chief condemns Gaza aid flotilla interception
- ^ Voice of Russia: Russia: Israel’s aid flotilla interception violated international law
- ^ Xinhua: Pan-Islamic body condemns Israeli attack on Gaza aid flotilla
- ^ 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
- ^ Associated Press (2007-10-30). "Gaza sanctions: The legal argument". BBC.
- ^ Amnesty International Israel's Gaza blockade continues to suffocate daily life 18/1/2010 [24]
- ^ Berkman Center for Internet and Society: Israel: The Freedom Flotilla - PR Stunt or Humanitarian Act?
- ^ Template:Nl Eyffinger, Arthur & Bezemer, C.H. 1991. "Compendium volkenrechtsgeschiedenis", p. 176-177. T.M.C. Asser Instituut. ISBN. 9026821344.
- ^ D'Amato, Anthony A. 1995. "International Law and Political Reality: Collected Papers", p. 138. ISBN 9041100369.
- ^ http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/midtosten/artikkel.php?artid=10008007
- ^ "Law Expert Dr Robbie Sabel IDF action in international waters legal". 31 May 2010.
{{cite web}}
: Unknown parameter|access date=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (help)