Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 15

This is an archive of past discussions about Gaza flotilla raid. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Improvised vs. cold weapon

Hi Richard. I saw that you recently changed my rewording of cold weapons (a broad term I've never actually heard used before) to improvised weapons in the Gaza flotilla raid article. In your edit summary, you noted that "knives are cold weapons, but are not improvised," but in the improvised weapons article it mentions machetes, shivs, and kitchen knives. My understanding is that the majority of knives recovered from the MV Mavi Marmara were consistent with those that would be used in a kitchen, and would thus be considered improvised when used as weapons. This Israeli paper, for instance, says that "IHH members improvised weapons including metal rods and knives cut from the ship's metal rails, which they used to attack the soldiers... IHH activists also gathered all the knives from six cafeterias on the ship, as well as axes from fire extinguishers on the deck, all of which served as weapons against Israeli commandos." Thoughts? ← George^talk 10:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. My change was based on the idea that a knife requires no improvisation to be a weapon, nor for that matter does an axe. I quite agree, cutting up the railings does count as improvisation, but my suggestion is that classifying all the weapons used as purely "improvised" is a definition open to challenge, and I'd prefer to have a word that is unambiguously correct. What do other editors think? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(above copied from my talk page, here seems more appropriate) Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Improvised" means "not having been previosly envisioned as such" (it contains the prefixes "in" and "pro", as well as a derivative of "videre" = to view). That does not depend on whether any physical manipulation was necessary to transform the object into a weapon. We could also write "kitchen knives, axes from fire extinguishers, and improvised weapons such metal rods from the ship's metal rails", if there is no consensus on the specific meaning of the term "improvised". Cs32en Talk to me 11:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, have heard of the term "cold weapon" before, and it does apply here. While I agree that this term is more accurate than "improvised," the source chose "improvised," so if we are to avoid original research, we must use that term, or some synonym. We can't quote a source and simultaneously argue with it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd go for Cs32en's idea first and "cold weapon" second choice. Rewriting RS isn't original research, it's what we are supposed to do. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but if you're argument is that the source is wrong, then you've got a problem. We should quote what the source says, not what we think it ought to say. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it's a British English versus American English thing, but I had never heard the term "cold weapons" before. A Google News archive search only shows a couple hundred instances of the word being used, often in a different context (such as weapons of the cold war, or weapons to fight the common cold). Surprisingly, much of the historic usage of the term comes from Israel or the Israeli army (this 1990 AP story, for instance), so maybe it's a more direct translation of some Hebrew terminology? I really don't know.

Anyways, my primary concern with the term was how broad it is. The definition seemed so broad as to include everything from a vial of poison to a trebuchet. In defense of the the term "improvised weapon", I believe that things such as kitchen knives fall under that definition. An improvised weapon is just one that is being used as a weapon, in a way that is different than it was originally intended to be used. A kitchen knife is intended to be used when consuming food; stabbing IDF soldiers is not an intended use, so that would be an improvised usage.

I'm fine with Cs32en's suggestion, or citing the Haaretz source that mentions improvised weapons explicitly, or I'm really even okay with using the term "cold weapon" if editors feel it's appropriate. Just trying to keep the terminology specific but succinct. ← George^talk 20:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we approaching a consensus on Cs32en's suggestion? Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're already there. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of theft by individual Israeli soldiers

I've shortened the title of this section, as I think "investigation of allegations" is redundant. I've also moved the cell phones and debit cards from "Fate of passengers" to this section, which I think is more appropriate. The section as of right now reads,

Several Israeli soldiers were arrested by Israel's Military Police in August 2010 under suspicion of stealing laptop computers from the Mavi Marmara, one of the ships of the flotilla. The Israeli Military Police opened an investigation into the matter. One of the soldiers, holding the rank of First lieutenant, has been charged with looting in September 2010. He allegedly sold the computers to another soldier who in turn sold them to friends of his.

Several passengers had charges being made to their confiscated debit cards and cell phones. An Israeli spokesperson stated that any such illegal use of confiscated possessions would be investigated and that the punishment for such acts by military personnel was particularly severe. An IDF officer and three soldiers have been charged with stealing laptops and cell phones belonging to convoy members.

This is repetitive, and probably violates WP:UNDUE, but I wanted to discuss before trimming. Here's my suggested new version:

Several passengers had charges made to their confiscated debit cards and cell phones. Israel pledged to investigate the issue. An IDF officer and three soldiers have been charged with stealing laptops and cell phones of passengers.

This covers the cell phones, laptops and debit cards. It covers the allegations, investigation and charges. Am I missing something? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having seen no objections, I went ahead and made the edit. We'll see if it sticks. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No treatment for wounded

I removed the following section from the Activists' accounts section earlier today.

British activist Sarah Colborne,^[1] Turkish activist Nilüfer Ören,^[2] Al-Jazeera cameraman Issam Zaatar,^[3] and Turkish actor Sinan Albayrak^[4] also said the Israeli soldiers did not allow the critically wounded to receive medical assistance. Israel's immediate concern on was what to do about the boats and their passengers: it ferried the wounded to various hospitals in Israel by helicopter and towed the six ships to port.^[5]

My explanation was, "Zoubi is quoted above in a much more detailed and reliable account of denial of treatment to the wounded. No need to mention twice." I was reverted by ValenShephard, who explained, "you are deconsstructing alot of the activist side of events. Zoubi is a reliable and notable individual and her input is given due weight she was critical in mediating".

I fear, therefore, that I have not been clear. I was not questioning the reliability, notability, etc. of Zoubi and her comments. I was removing this section because of her comments. Her testimony (which I did not remove or edit), are in the same paragraph, and, together with additional testimony, reads, "According to Andre Abu Khalil, captive commandos were released after Israel agreed to airlift wounded. Haneen Zoubi mediated negotiation between activists and soldiers. Zoubi said that IDF soldiers refused to offer medical aid to several wounded activists at her request, who died shortly after."

Both section allege that Israel did not give proper medical attention to the wounded activists, and that some of them died as a result. Both further state that there was an "exchange" of sort of medical attention. There is nothing that I can find in the removed set of sources, which is not found in the Zoubi source. The article is twice in the same paragraph making note of all of these things, and that doesn't make it any better.

This section is, in my view, the most broken part of the article. Editors wanted to include the activists' POV, which is, in itself, a good thing. But people haphazardly added lumps of poorly edited material that doesn't flow in any way that's nearly readable. It repeats itself often, and does not amount to a solid testimony of what happened that morning. We need to make it more coherent, and in this case, that means removing redundant accounts.

As always, I'm open to suggestions from all editors as to how to accomplish the task of making the article better. I won't sick stubbornly to my own suggestion if a better one is put forth. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The claims of treatment not being offered come from two sources, those few activists including Sarah and Zoubi. They both say different things about the refusal of treatment, both sources add new information on the same topic. So they should stay. ValenShephard (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

What information do you feel that the Colborne/Ören/Zaatar/Albayrak accounts add to the Zoubi account? Perhaps we can merge them, and add just a few words, rather than construct two altogether separate accounts separated by a third, unrelated account? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge this: "Haneen Zoubi mediated negotiation between activists and soldiers. She also said that IDF soldiers refused to offer medical aid to several wounded activists at her request, who died shortly after." Don't lose track of her main unique point in this, which was that she claims some died because of lack of treatment, that is what her account offered which is unique. ValenShephard (talk) 12:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I never removed her account. I removed the other account. So we're in agreement that the non-Zoubi accounts can be removed? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, just add Zoubi's account to the others, Sarah, the cameramen and all, with her unique input being that some supposedly died because of lack of treatment. Don't delete anyone's account, just combine Zoubi to the rest. Do you get me? ValenShephard (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I get your suggestion, but I don't see how it solves the problem if repeating information. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldnt, it would just say "A, B, C, D and Zoubi claim that treatment was not offered, with Zoubi going on to say that this lead to the death of some of the wounded." Something like that. Just add Zoubi and her account of events to the other people. ValenShephard (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

How about, "Zoubi and at least four other passengers (four references here) said that IDF soldiers refused to offer medical aid to several wounded activists at her request. She says they died shortly after." Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You should keep their names because they have been judged to be notable enough to be mentioned, it also shows their credibility. They were not just some "passengers" they were notable individuals, camera people working for respected organisations etc. Keep their names. And you cant say they just "died shortly after" you have to say "Zoubi claims that some of the wounded died because they were not allowed to recieve treatment" which is what was actually in the source. ValenShephard (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC) Did you delete what I said? ValenShephard (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If I deleted what you said it would have been by accident during an edit conflict. Don't know if that happened or not, but I do know I've had like five or six edit conflicts with you in the last 15 minutes, so I'm sorry if one of them turned out badly.

As for the names of the passengers, we've got two activists, a cameraman and an actor. Notability is not high. I think the crucial question here is, if the same piece of information is noted in five different sources, do we name all five sources, or just the most notable one. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think notabilty is in question, they deserve to be named, it shows the reader what credibility they have, the reader can draw their own conclusions about whether they are good sources or not. That is not our judgement really, we just know they are notable enough to comment on this. I don't think its clutter to put down 4-5 names of people who claimed something, just as if 4-5 governments said the same thing, we wouldn't say "5 governments recently announced...", we need to be specific. ValenShephard (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's examine your argument carefully: What are the credentials you want to include in this section? They are: activist, activist, cameraman and actor. The only one of these that truly gives any credentials to the source is "cameraman," and that's not much in they way of credentials.

While discussion is ongoing, I therefore propose the following verbiage: "Zoubi(source), an Al-Jazeera cameraman (source) and at least three other passengers (three sources said that IDF soldiers refused to offer medical aid to several wounded activists at her request. She says they died shortly after." What do you think?

Moving ahead with the discussion, I don't think people and governments are comparable in the way you compare them. A country has complicated systems of information gathering/verification. A person does not. A government also has greater credibility and recognizeability. The average reader is likely to have advanced knowledge of none of these people, and the weight their testimony carries is therefore as well represented by collective quotation as by individual naming. The average reader will gain nothing by seeing those four names, and is likely to simply glaze over them. If s/he is particularly interested, s/he can go to the sources.

The question of notability is one of whether the information/source is included at all, no whether it's named inline, besides being soured. While this information belongs in the article, I maintain that only one source should be used to back it up. We could quote a bunch of different Israeli sources on issues such as the violence by activists, but ultimately, that doesn't serve a purpose. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

So in an argument you would quote "3 people said", how does the reader know the credentials of these people? We simply need to say their name, or what they do. He wasn't just any cameraman, he works for a respected news outlet. Secondly, Zoubi didn't claim "they died shortly after" she claimed "they died shortly after because they were refused treatment". I will not allow this crucial difference to be pasted over and forgotten, when it was her main point, and her unique addition to the rest of the people's testimony. ValenShephard (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Not "three people"; three passengers. I'm not excluding their credentials. Their credentials are that they were passengers.

As for the cameraman, you'll notice that the working draft I proposed involved citing him as "an Al-Jazeera cameraman," which I would hope would allay your concerns. Can we use that wording as a springboard for further discussion, and include it in the article while discussion is ongoing?

As far as whether they died as a result of not receiving medical aid, I am actually not proposing to change anything that exists in the article right now. That's an issue we can discuss. For the time being, I'm sticking to the article's wording, because I can't find where in either source Zoubi says that they died because they were refused medical treatment. I might just be overlooking it. Could you please point me to it.

In case I have provided too much text to make my proposal clear, here is my proposed working draft:

"Zoubi(source), an Al-Jazeera cameraman (source) and at least three other passengers (three sources) said that IDF soldiers refused to offer medical aid to several wounded activists at her request. She says they died shortly after."

Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are right. I looked through the source (Guardian) which says: "soldiers refused her requests for medical assistance for the injured passengers, who died shortly after". So we should say "Zoubi(source), an Al-Jazeera cameraman (source) and at least three other passengers (three sources) said that IDF soldiers refused to offer medical aid to several wounded activists who died shortly after."

I've added this wording, and it's actually growing on me. I might not seek to change it from this after all. Maybe it's best if I give it a rest for a few days, so I can see the forest instead of the trees. Then I'll come back to it, and see if I still like it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks good too. I think we should consider making other parts of the article concise. The activist side of accounts has had heavy editing recently, while the Israeli account has expanded and not been under near as much discussion. This worries me a bit. If we scrutenise this material so much, we should do the same elsewhere. ValenShephard (talk)@

I think that difference stems from the fact that the Israeli account was more concise to begin with. However, if you feel that it has not been put to enough scrutiny, please feel more than free to lead the way, and I will be glad to help you. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

One-source accounts

I'd like to appologize for opening so many discussion topics. I'm desperately trying to shrink this monster of an article, which has become completely unreadable.

One of the patters that is adding not only volume but irreputability is that the article makes many assertions on the basis of the testimony of a single person. If that single person is someone in an official capacity, such as a journalist, lawmaker, even soldier, that's one thing. And I suppose there are other extenuating circumstances. But not every person who speaks to the press becomes a reliable source, and certainly does not merit due weight. And I'm especially concerned when these are extensive claims.

Here are a few sections I suggest deleting based on this issue:

Shane Dillon, an Irish activist wounded by an electroshock weapon, refuted claims the soldiers acted in self-defence or that there were weapons on board, and said he saw soldiers attack and beat young women on the deck of the ship.^[6]
Kevin Neish, an activist from Canada aboard Mavi Marmara denied that passengers were armed or that they attacked the soldiers.^[7]
Activist Espen Goffeng said that "[t]he defense of the boat was quite well organized".^[8]
Writer Edda Manga said five of the activists died directly while the others died because they were denied medical help.^[9]
"[The Israelis] came to kill," Iara Lee said.^[10]^[11]
One IDF commando who took part in the operation summed up the clash between the activists and the naval intercept team this way; “They (İHH activists) came prepared for a battle. We came prepared to straighten things out, to talk to them, convince them to unboard the ship.”^[12]

I know that I will get a flood of accusations of WP:POV, because most of these are from the Activists' and flotilla organizers' accounts. But I hope that fellow editors will notice that I have suggested these accounts because they don't measure up to the expected standard of evidence, and most of them don't add up to much, even in the case that they are substantiated. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding WP:RS. We are looking at the article and the work to judge reliability of a source, we don't question the reliability of people interviewed in the article. If Al Jazeera says that a person said something, we can state that as fact in this article. Now as far as notability of quotes, and due weight: in an article about activists being shot by Israeli soldiers, mentioning statements made in major newspapers by the activists involved is not undue weight. And the person does not have to be notable to warrant inclusion -- it's the newspaper that matters. Obviously Al Jazeera and other sources thought that interviewing the activists might be important, so we should mention them here, even if you think it would be best to only portray Israel's view of the situation. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, I knew getting into this that I would be accused of POV. But this is not a POV issue. It's an issue of wanting a better article. Would you not rather the activists' story be told by means of collective communication, such as publications, etc., than by the odd activist speaking to a class 'd' reporter from a class 'e' newspaper? Or if no one in the higher echalons of the IHH or other involved parties has issued any demi-official statements, do you really feel comfortable including the unsupported claims of a single person, or, for that matter, their opinions? What about people who didn't see something. Does absence of evidence suddenly become evidence of absence?

Please tell me point-by-point, which of these quotes you favor removing, and which you don't. Surely you don't think all of these belong in the article? Let's try to find consensus where we can, then argue about the ones where there is no consensus. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We should make a distinction between the information that refers to single individuals that were part of the event and opinions and analyses presented by other people. Cs32en Talk to me 20:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually overlooked a quote on my first run-through:

Prof. Mattias Gardell who was on-board stated that the soldiers came on-board with loaded weapons with laser sights and at least four people were killed "execution style".^[13]

Sorry for the overlook. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean in the way of distinction. Also, I have not heard any response on whether there is already consensus for one or a few of these quotes. Again, I don't want to argue about all of them, if we can agree on at least some. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Mattias Gardell account is clearly attributed and properly supported by reliable source. However the fact that source is in Swedish language, makes it hard (at least for me) to verify. It is like figuring out what Italian traffic report notification, automatically translated to English by Google, means. And we do have some English language sources. If we choose to use axing technology I personally would not protest much. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the suggestion that a statement by one person is inherently more reliable if that one person is a journalist, lawmaker or soldier is itself a questionable claim. PatGallacher (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Having tried to ask other editors to go point-by-point on this quotes, and having failed to get them to do so, I will now create a section for each of them, so we can discuss individually. Maybe some of these quotes belong in the article, but certainly not all of them do, and I see no way to winnow out the good from the bad in the current format. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Shane Dillon

Shane Dillon, an Irish activist wounded by an electroshock weapon, refuted claims the soldiers acted in self-defence or that there were weapons on board, and said he saw soldiers attack and beat young women on the deck of the ship.

Written by a newspaper called the Morning Star (first I've heard of it), and unfindable in major newspapers. This certainly makes me question its notability and reliability It's the only claim I have seen to this effect, and is a very serious accusation. Remember that exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

The final problem I have with this quote is that it comes from a clearly POV source. No neutral, reliable newspaper would say that "up to 20 people were murdered by commandos" (emphasis added). Note that this was a few days after the raid, before the death toll was even known, and the Morning Star had already made decisions on the character of the deaths, which could not have possibly been made at that time.

Can any editor provide a reliable source that backs up this claim? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Neish

Kevin Neish, an activist from Canada aboard Mavi Marmara denied that passengers were armed or that they attacked the soldiers.

This is a very strange account in a number of ways. First, it claims that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Neish can only know whether or not the people around him were armed, not whether any activists were armed or not. This was a big ship, and he couldn't possibly know that no passengers were armed. Even making this claim makes it unreliable. Second, he's never actually quoted. AlJazeera synthesized his words, and we don't know what he actually said. This is generally not problematic for things like press conferences and official statement, but here there's no fallback, as he's an individual. Third, this is the testimony of one person. Fourth, it does not appear in any gold-standard newspapers, such as CNN or BBC. Fifth, it's a very vague claim--not armed could mean not armed with guns, not armed with knives, or not even wielding metal poles. Finally, it's a claim that runs contrary to the claim of the captain, the journalists on board, and just about everyone else involved, not to mention footage. This wouldn't be a problem if we were dealing with a reliable source, or if it was clear what Neish had actually said, and in response to what question.

Actually, I am very surprised that this random guy is who we're including to make the activists' case. Why don't we have a claim from a flotilla organizer who says the activists weren't armed? That seems far more appropriate. And, for the record, I do think a statement to that effect should be included, just not this statement. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a better source/information, this should be dropped per WP:UNDUE. Cs32en Talk to me 19:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And if there's not? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Espen Goffeng

Activist Espen Goffeng said that "[t]he defense of the boat was quite well organized".

What does this even mean? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edda Manga

Writer Edda Manga said five of the activists died directly while the others died because they were denied medical help.

We really need an English version of this article, or some reliable source referring to Edda. Most editors can't read Swedish. I had never heard of Aftonbladet before, but it's website looks flat-out neglected, and a quick scan of its Wikipedia page shows that it's a tabloid that has had its rough bumps with clearly anti-Israeli publications. It was they, evidently, who published all the nonsense about an Israeli hospital harvesting Palestinian organs in 1992.

I can't prove or disprove an anti-Israeli slant in this source. But I do think it's strange this claim appears only on this source. If we can't find a reliable, English-language news source that makes this same claim, it doesn't belong. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Foreign language sources are fine, especially as they are often necessary to avoid systematic bias. We could ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden for an assessment of the source and the translation. Usually, the people at the different projects are quite helpful. Cs32en Talk to me 19:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That certainly wouldn't hurt. But it wouldn't help much either. The fact that there are no English sources is only half the problem. The other half is that there are no reliable sources. If this were a Turkish, Arabic or Hebrew source, I might understand why an English equivalent does not exist. But if the information is reliable and noteworthy, one would think that a high-caliber English newspaper would have picked up the story. None did, as far as I can tell. Or else, I challenge you to find one. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The newspaper is a reliable source, but we may check whether the article is an opinion piece. Cs32en Talk to me 20:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You say that this newspaper is a reliable source, but I am unimpressed. It's a tabloid. Its historic POV is quite apparent, although that is something that cannot be proven. But that's mostly beside the point. Newspapers routinely republish one another's publications. It appears that no halfway credible English-language newspaper has agreed to even touch this issue, and that's a point that I haven't seen you refute. Actually, not even altogether unreliable English-language sources have republished this. This is not an obscure topic. Why are the English-language newspapers so silent on this? This is an exceptional claim. We need an exceptional source. We don't have one.

This is my challenge to you: if you want to prove that this is a reliable source, find an uncontested reliable source (like BBC, CNN, NYT, etc.) that republished this same claim. Until then, your claim that this is a reliable newspaper doesn't hold water. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read the article at Aftonbladet (swedish is my mother language). As stated above the reliablity of Aftonbladet is questionable. What is written at Aftonbladet correspond to what is written in the article. And, it is inline with what is written about the autopsies. In my opinion the statement "Zoubi said that IDF soldiers refused to offer medical aid to several wounded activists at her request, who died shortly after." (medical help refusal) and autopsies (way of dieing) covers already well and more exactly what is stated by Manga. So, dropping the Manga statement is "my vote". --Kslotte (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To the editor who wrote the above text, thank you for your contribution. Please identify yourself. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

My personal view is that there are some sources that can be used, but should be used with inline attribution, as a considerable part of their news content is being influence by an agenda-driven approach. The Jerusalem Post would be one of them, and maybe Aftonbladet may be another. But to use one of these sources regularly, and exclude the other, would be POV, in my view. Cs32en Talk to me 21:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

First, let me say that two newspaper are not of equal quality by virtue of being on opposite sides of an argument. But, more importantly, I am not opposed to including any article from Afonbladet, but here there's information that does not appear in any other publication that we're aware of. It's a serious accusation, resting on the testimony of a single person, and there's not even an English translation. It's not a fair comparison to the JP. If there were a JP article that made an extreme claim, unsupported by any other source, that didn't have an English translation, and that rested on a single person's testimony, I would probably suggest removing it. In fact, I did that for the JP article quoting Yildrim above, and it was in English.

What do you think about Kslotte's argument that Zoubi's testimony already represents this argument from a better source? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This exceptional claim needs better sourcing if its to considered notable enough to be included in the article. Kinetochore (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Iara Lee

"[The Israelis] came to kill," Iara Lee said.

This claim is nonsense and doesn't belong. Iara Lee can say what she saw. She has no credentials whatsoever to say what was in the Israeli soldiers' heads or hearts when they boarded the ship. Unless some Israeli soldier told her, "We came to kill," she is not fit to be quoted for this analysis. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

It's an assessment of a political activist. Actually, nobody can make a definitive statement about such things as intent. Irrespective of the question of whether the claim is nonsense or not, the actual information that Wikipedia provides is that Iara Lee made this assessment or claim, and the reader may then decide whether that, in his or her view, tells him more about the event, or more about the activist. As with other statements, if there are more generalized statements in reliable sources, the statement should probably be replaced by a source that allows for a more generalized assessment of the views of the activists or of a subset of them. Cs32en Talk to me 19:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Intent can never be known for sure, but things like a psychological evaluation, publication of an investigative committee, court ruling etc. can give reliable insight on what motives probably were. Lee could say anything she wanted to without any sort of fact-checking.

In the end, to include Lee's quote you would have to adopt one of two positions: (1) that Lee is a reliable source, informing the reader that the Israelis came to kill, or (2) that the claim here isn't that the Israelis came to kill, but that Lee said they did. It's obvious that the first is not true, and that the second is not notable. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The reliable source is reporting on Lee's statement, it's not referring to him to support a description of the event. Therefore, (2) is applicable, and as the reliable source reports on the activist's statement, the statement is notable. It's another question of whether the statement can be dropped when other, better sources can be found for this aspect of the topic. Cs32en Talk to me 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not everything that a reliable source publishes is notable for every article. The question of what Iara Lee thinks about the Israeli intentions is not notable. She doesn't speak for anyone but herself. And that's the essential difference between her and a more prominent figure on board. This quote fails the notability benchmark that requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," noting that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention."

It remains my position that the source should be dropped regardless of whether other sources can be found to this effect (though other sources would be better than none at all). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The notability benchmark refers to the question of whether an event, a person, or anything else is covered by a separate article on Wikipedia. It does not refer to the question of whether a particular piece of verifiable information can be included in an article on Wikipedia, or not. Therefore, I would like to ask you to reconsider your opinion with regard to the applicability of the General notability guideline. Cs32en Talk to me 09:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken on notability, but this brings us back to the question of whether Iara Lee's personal opinion on the matter is really relevant at all to the topic. Perhaps this is an issue for a noticeboard, perhaps the RS noticeboard? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS/N only deals with reliability issues. As this is a question of due weight, I would rather suggest to file a WP:Request for Comment, if we cannot find a consensus among the involved editors here. Cs32en Talk to me 11:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully support Saepe's arguments on this, Iara Lee are unable to know IDF's real intentions. This sentence should be dropped. --Kslotte (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We cannot exclude verifiable information based on original research. The statement was reported on by reliable sources, including The Guardian, and it is not relevant whether the statement was factually correct or wrong, or whether any inference about the validity of the statement could be drawn from the context or not. Cs32en Talk to me 12:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Many people can say what ever they want. But in this article we have many people that given many statements. We have to choose such statements that are clear, without thoughts of the others intentions. We have other statements that are more exact and clear. --Kslotte (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement should remain. It was the main comment of this notable individual (filmmaker who made one of the better videos of the event from the activist side) and the reader knows its an opinion, not an informed analysis of an academic, and so there is no threat of being misleading. Another poster said: "the actual information that Wikipedia provides is that Iara Lee made this assessment or claim, and the reader may then decide whether that, in his or her view, tells him more about the event, or more about the activist." Thats pretty much spot on. ValenShephard (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I've encountered this same argument on another opinion post in the article. I agree that The Guardian is a reliable source. Let us then consider this quote in this context. You must claim one of two positions:

Your reliability is derived from the credentials of The Guardian. The information you are then adding to the article is that Iara Lee thinks such and such. That Iara Lee thinks such and such is not very relevant or noteworthy. That such and such is true would be relevant and noteworthy, but the Guardian never argues that. Iara Lee argues that (see #2 below).
Your reliability is dervied from the credentials of Iara Lee. The information you are then adding to the article is Iara Lee's opinion. This would be worthy of addition, were Iara Lee a reliable source for this. Iara Lee is a great source for the films she shot. She is not a great source for information on what the Israeli intentions were. Better sources for that would be Israeli military sources, independent tribunals, psychological evaluations, etc. Lee is not even a good source on what the activists thought the Israeli intentions were, because she doesn't speak for anyone--she's not a journalist, organizer, lawmaker, etc.

Point well taken on the request for comment. I don't know how to do one, so if another editor could either tell me how, or start one him/herself, I'd be much obliged. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Saepe. Lee does not represent the activists. She is just speaking for herself, sharing her personal, non-notable opinion about the purpose of the boarding. Yes, the activist side/opinions should be represented, but with a formal IHH statement or evaluation as to the purpose or intent of the Israeli forces. Additionally, soundbites like this don't actually tell readers anything, and so they detract from the quality of the article. Does Lee actually think that the Israelis boarded the ship to kill everyone? Does she think the Israelis came armed with weapons capable of killing some of the activists? All of them? Or does she think that they came with the attitude that they would kill? Does she think that the Israelis came to kill specific people? To kill armed activists? Civilians? It is clear that this soundbite does not even clearly reveal Lee's opinion about the conflict. And, as I said earlier, even if it did, her opinion is not notable.Kinetochore (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no one has started a request for comment. I guess I might learn to do that if we don't make headway on this. Something that I hadn't thought to mention, but which I think is noteworthy, is that this is a five-word quotation with two words paraphrased. We don't know what she actually said, and the highly condense version (besides being unreliable) gives us a very non-descript meaning. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

IDF commando

One IDF commando who took part in the operation summed up the clash between the activists and the naval intercept team this way; “They (İHH activists) came prepared for a battle. We came prepared to straighten things out, to talk to them, convince them to unboard the ship.”

Same problem as Iara Lee above. The IDF commando knows what he saw. He doesn't have the credentials to analyze it in this way and to this extent. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

As with some of the information discussed about, the point here is not so much to attempt to offer the reader a "truthful" description of the event itself, but to report on the arguments put forward by both parties, which are part of the overall scope of the article. Cs32en Talk to me 19:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't actually an official Israeli position. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would not protest axing this "account". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The second half of this quote is valid (though perhaps unnecessary in the article). The commando is speaking about his mission/orders. Kinetochore (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It's valid, but what does it add to the article? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Pf. Mattias Gardell

Prof. Mattias Gardell who was on-board stated that the soldiers came on-board with loaded weapons with laser sights and at least four people were killed "execution style".

Again, there's a real language problem here. Can anyone find a reliable English version? If there's not a single reliable English source that published this, it doesn't belong. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

An English source would be better and would also be used in preference to a non-english source. Per WP:NONENG, however, the mere lack of an English source does not mean that a non-english source should be dropped. Cs32en Talk to me 19:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The policy calls for a source "of equal quality." Of course, the implication here is that the original is a reliable source, and I have seen no evidence of this. There's a very loud silence about the two Swedish newspaper claims. Why have we seen no publications of them in English-language reliable sources? You must admit this raises some red flags. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we could dig for English language source, reflecting Prof. Mattias Gardell account? Did international sources generally found it notable? BTW, what "execution style" means? AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"Execution style" means they came up them and killed them as one would in an execution--not out of the urgency of the circumstances.

I actually haven't found an English-language source quoting him to this effect (not for lack of try), and that's why I'm arguing against notability and reliability. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If we want to translate the "execution style" like it written in the news paper, it would be "... like an execution." I feel the current translation is a bit over-dramatised. --Kslotte (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, Kslotte. What are your thoughts on the rest of the discussion? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit late to the party, as this material was already removed, but "execution-style" means being shot in the back of the head at close range, which is consistent with the coroner's report. We could write "in the back of the head at close range", which is far less dramatic language. ← George^talk 01:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears the discussion is not over. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Although "back of the head at close range" is less dramatic, I'm not 100% sure it's accurate, given that we're dealing with another culture and language. As Kslotte notes, the term "execution-style" is not used, but rather "like an execution."

My bigger concern here is whether or not to remove the source altogether. I am definitely in favor. Agada, please tell us where you stand, so we might make some progress on this issue. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I copy edited this area before and did not feel any urgency to remove this sentence, though I could see a point that autopsy reports may overlap this info, so this sentence might be redundant. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 18:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should actually keep this in (as one person's account), but it may be possible to roll it in with other accounts, if other accounts describe the manner in which the activists were shot. I'd much rather see the way they were shot described as "in the back of the head at close range" than execution style, but I think other accounts probably corroborate that description better than Gardell's. ← George^talk 00:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

AgadaUrbanit has removed the passage, but I am not sure whether that leaves a gap or not. I remember seeing footage of several soldiers on board the Mavi Marmara struggling with someone, and then one of them shooting vertically down after the situation was under control. If this footage wasn't fake, then it was a relatively clear case of an execution that would have been a war crime under almost all imaginable circumstances. It also seems to be the best explanation for the autopsy reports. That footage came out rather late, at a time when most newspapers were already losing interest, but some may have covered it. Hans Adler 11:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen a reliable source that says this? If so, it would be a much better source than Gardell. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think George's suggestion is solid: why not roll Prof. Gardell's comments in with the iHH president's? We don't need everyone's account of how the activist's were shot in the back of the head, do we? Both match the Turkish forensic report mentioned later in the article An English source would be ideal but (unless my policy myopia is acting up) there's nothing wrong with using a reliable Swedish paper like Svenska Dagbladet.

I believe Herr Adler is referencing this video which shows . . .well, it shows something. It's someone being shot at close range but you can't see what and if it's not a paintball gun with a sight then it's a very peculiar rifle (the IDF had at least one rifle on board). I don't think anything conclusive has ever been said on the video and it might be best to leave it alone unless something turns up. Sol Goldstone (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Obviously we can't evaluate such videos on our own.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with using a major Swedish newspaper. In theory there is a danger of cherry-picking, but there are no clear rules against that (so we just need to apply common sense and not quote an Albanian or Nepalese paper on Obama's place of birth, for instance), and in this case there is a clear connection to Sweden anyway. Hans Adler 19:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's someone being shot at close range with a weapon that has no flash or recoil? And where can we see the "someone" who's being shot? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Just re-posting in case there was some other video Hans was thinking of. Sol Goldstone (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see anything that would prove that this is a WP:RS. It is so common for newspapers to quote one another--especially on controversial and high-interest topics like this. Why didn't a single English-language newspaper cite this? You don't think this raises a WP:Red flag?

The suggestion of merging it with the IHH president's account might not be a bad one. But which account are you talking about? I can't find it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The section on the IHH president "Yıldırım also said that photographer Cevdet Kılıçlar was shot in the head by a soldier one meter away." Which doesn't sound like execution style per se, but I have no idea what that means to the Professor and it sounds like the translation is a bit unclear.

The article doesn't really raise a red flag in my mind as the general claim that activists were shot in the head at close range has received coverage in the US and Israel. That the details from individual witnesses receive coverage only in their native countries makes sense: once the AP and other outlets have got the essence of the details, why bother covering each person who agrees? Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but for no other media outlet to have covered it? WP:Red flag specifically warns to watch out for, "Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources." And let's not forget the important policy that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Do you really think that threshold is being met here?

Yildrim's account differs from Gardell's far too much to reconcile them without mentioning Gardell. But don't you think that the autopsy reports are enough to stand in for this questionable source? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

His remarks, in various forms, have been covered in some English media and other languages, if that helps. Sol Goldstone (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

That source is indeed useful. It offers two quotes from the individual which have been translated by a professional and posted in a reliable source. I suggest they should be incorporated. This notable individual has an interesting and useful account of events. Apparently the quotes from this professor have since been removed, but now that they are in English at a reliable source, I think they should be included again. There can be no dispute over reliability, and I saw above there were forum like debates over the shootings he claimed happened at close range (which he is quoted as saying in this new source) I dont think that is a place we should be in, we shouldn't try to work out how 'right' this man is, we simply state his version of accounts to build up a narrative and provide a sense of the event for users.ValenShephard (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Goldstone for finding this source. It is a tremendous step forward in this discussion.

It's not about how "right" this man is. It's about how many accounts we're going to include. People on board the ships made hundreds of statements on the record about how they felt Israel mistreated them. Are we going to quote them all? I contend we should find a way to consolidate. Who is to say Gardell is a more reliable source than some of the Turks who protested the Israeli actions? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Iara Lee citation

Someone added the following text in-citation for Iara Lee's footage:

"To DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO : tc.indymedia.org/files/flotilla-footage/index.html On the night of Sunday, May 30, showing a terrifying disregard for human life, Israeli naval forces surrounded and boarded ships sailing to bring humanitarian aid to the blockaded Gaza Strip. On the largest ship, the Mavi Marmara, Israeli commandos opened fire on civilian passengers, killing at least 9 passengers and wounding dozens more. Others are still missing. The final death toll is yet to be determined. Cultures of Resistance director Iara Lee was aboard the besieged ship and has since returned home safely. Despite the Israeli government's thorough efforts to confiscate all footage taken during the attack, Iara Lee was able to retain some of her recordings. Above is raw footage from the moments leading up to and during the Israeli commandos' assault on the Mavi Marmara."

I don't see a need for this to be in the references section. Does anyone else? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I've seen similar links on other articles,I think there is actually some policy backing to some links. He used thd description the video gave of itself, which is also standard. ValenShephard (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this is part of {{cite video}} template, quote: relevant quotation from the source. However this field is not required, according to available documentation. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. ValenShephard (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the "quote" option. If you're citing a video, you can quote the portion of it you're citing. Here, you're not actually citing the text you're quoting. I can't actually find where in the video the quote appears, either. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Second flotilla and "See also" sections

Recently, someone has added a section on another flotilla planned to head for Gaza, titled "Second flotilla". This has also led me to notice the "See also" section. I don't find these sections particularly worthwhile, and they do take up a considerable amount of space in the article, which, as we all know, is far too long. I will open discussion below. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 06:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Having seen no objections, I went ahead and removed. We'll see if the removal sticks. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Second flotilla

Technically, this section should be titled "third flotilla" or "fourth flotilla," because I know there's been at least one (and I think two) flotillas since the raid. Actually, if we wanted to be true to reality, we'd need to name it something like "tenth flotilla," because there were many before the one this article was written about. We'd probably need to mention all (or at least the later ones) if we were to mention one, and I think we can all see why that's a bad idea. Also, I think this massages the boundaries of being relevant to the article. And to boot the flotilla is in very early planning stages, as evidence by the fact that they don't even know how many ships will take part. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Iara Lee footage

The article currently contains the following paragraph, referring to the footage shot and smuggled by Iara Lee:

On June 11 a video shot by documentary maker Iara Lee showing the events leading up to, and during the raid on the Mavi Marmara was released. At one point the captain of the boat, over the public address system, says; "Do not show resistance … They are using live ammunition … Be calm, be very calm." Gunshots are heard. A number of activists are seen receiving medical treatment for wounds, including one attempt to resuscitate a man. At the end a woman announces over the public address system: "We have no guns here, we are civilians taking care of injured people. Don't use violence, we need help." One of the activists shows the camera a waterproofed booklet allegedly taken from the Israeli commandos listing the names, with photos, of several key people among the passengers. Lee says the video was was smuggled off the ship in her underwear due to the Israeli confiscation of all photographic and film material. "[The Israelis] came to kill," Iara Lee said.

I find this paragraph problematic for several reasons:

The public address system: There were two "announcements" quoted in the source: one belonging to the captain, the other to an unidentified woman. In the source (the Guardian), the first is made on the public address system, and the second is shouted. The video corroborates this. In the article, both are made over the public address system. This difference is so clear, that I will make the necessary edits to correct this error immediately.
Do not show resistance vs. Stop your resistance: The source says that the captain announced "Do not show resistance" over the public address system, but if you listen to the video at 13:10, clear as a bell, he says, "Stop your resistance." But don't take my word for it, many other sources, including a different Guardian article agree with me. The difference is huge, and the tweaking of the wording makes me question the sources neutrality and reliability, although it's The Guardian, and therefore presumably reliable.
Treatment of the wounded: I don't see why the fact that the wounded were shown receiving treatment belongs in the article. This is not only something that is assumed by any reader, it also doesn't add any new information. It seems whoever added this paragraph wanted to construct a narrative of what the video showed, rather than what it revealed.
What's missing: The source also (correctly) reports, "The film includes footage of an Israeli inflatable boat carrying commandos, and troops can be seen rappelling from a helicopter on to the Mavi Marmara. While they do so, two men on the Marmara can be seen using catapults aimed at the soldiers, who are high above them, although the projectiles they are firing cannot be ascertained." Somehow, this didn't make it into the paragraph... Anyone care to explain why?

I invite comments from other editors. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Good find.
The Guardian article with "Stop your resistance" isn't referencing the Iara Lee footage as it's dated May 31st. He might say both phrases in the full video.
It helps establish some time line of events, showing the general time of injuries. That's useful to investigators for establishing a sequence and is true but not that interesting here.
No idea. I can't think of a reason you couldn't include it except perhaps length. Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am the one who added the information, the captain says "do not show resistance". This is how the Guardian quoted him, and how I heard it when I watched the video myself. The Guardian reports, as they do a narrative of the video: "At one stage, the captain of the boat can be heard over the public address system saying: "Do not show resistance … They are using live ammunition … Be calm, be very calm." Gunshots can be heard." They directly quote the captain as it is currently written in the article, and I verified this myself. But the Guardian's analysis is much more reliable than us. ValenShephard (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I also listened to the video, and thought it was clear as a bell: "Stop your resistance." I also read the transcripts, which disagree with the video. And then I decided to see if other people heard it the same way I did, and they clearly did, as evidenced by the abundance of sources that use the other version. If there were no such sources, I would be forced to concede your point about the Guardian's analysis, but as mentioned above, the Guardian is inconsistent in how it quotes the captain. Although we are no allowed to use our own research, we are allowed to use common sense when there are contradictions in sources. Red flag policy exists for a reason.

@Goldstone, I don't accept that the captain said the following two separate times, "Please, all the brothers, go back to your cabin and sit on your seats. ** resistance. They are using live ammunition. We can't protect ourselves." One time, he said "Stop your," and the other, he said "Don't show." That's too much of a coincidence, especially for only one such announcement to have survived. It's the same phrase quoted with two different wordings. And since there's contradiction (even internal) between the sources, it is legitimate for us to listen ourselves. What do you hear?

@Valen, thank you for adding this important video and accompanying article. May I ask why you chose not to include the catapults used against Israeli soldiers, and if you would find it improper to add them? Also, do you still feel it is necessary to include the commentary about the wounded being treated? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The guardian source I used to add the information did not mention them, and the use of catapults is mentioned elsewhere. If sources mention the catapults in relation to the video then that would be fine. I didn't choose I followed the Guardian analysis of events. If other realible sources disagree with what the captain said we can write "there is disagreement over the exact wording use with A) saying x and B) saying y". But I would like you to show the parts of the sources which content the guardian and the analysis of other editors (even if this can't be used). ValenShephard (talk) 16:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

In my original post on this subject, I linked to an earlier Guardian article, that uses the "Stop your resistance" wording. There are many other sources, but all that I've found (in either case) are quoting one of the two Guardian articles, or are mirrors of the Wikipedia page. So we're dealing with an internal contradiction of sources.

As far as mentioning the difference between the two, I think that would be giving the source weight that is far undue. It's not that crucial, and if we can't figure out for sure what it says, maybe the best thing to do is rephrase or altogether remove the quote.

I'm still curious to find out what other editors hear. Actually, I think I'll ask my friends' opinions... Saepe Fidelis (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - I forgot to ask again, would you be objected to removing the bit about medical treatment for the wounded? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Hah, just realized we only have a link to the 15 minute version and not the full hour of footage, here. I took the Guardian article at it's word as the announcements didn't capture my attention when I'd watched it. Sol Goldstone (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you remove the bit about medical treatment of the wounded?? ValenShephard (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Just listened to the hour long video Sol Goldstone linked. Starting at minute 58:30, I hear: "Salam a-Lakoum, this is important announcement, important announcement. This is from the captain. Please, all the brothers, all the brothers... (unintelligble) Mavi Marmara. Go back to your cabins, and... (unintelligble)... Go back to your cabins, and... (unintellible)... Don't show resistance, they are using live ammunition. We can... (unintellible)... Come down and take your seats. Be very calm, be very calm. Go back and take your seats. Salam a-Lakoum." And then it goes into Arabic or Turkish or Hebrew (guessing, as I can't understand it). ← George^talk 01:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

This is what I heard too, I specifically heard "do not show resistence". But this is one of those weird things, it doesn't matter what we hear, but what reliable sources say. And the Guardian source quotes the captain saying "do not show resistence". ValenShephard (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Valen, normally I'd agree with you 100% that it doesn't matter what we hear, except that the sources don't concur 100%. And we are allowed to use common sense. I think this might be an ignore all rules moment. As far as removing the information about the wounded being treated, the question isn't why I want to remove it, but why it belongs. How does it improve the article to have yet another source stating that the activists cared for their wounded?

@George, thank you for listening as well. Apparently, the phrase uttered is less clear than I thought.

@Everyone, it's clear there's a dispute between sources (and also editors) as to what is actually said on the video. What is your suggested course of action, for a fair representation of the dispute without producing undue weight? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

PS - The Guardian cycles out their articles fast, so I went ahead and archived this article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

George is very dedicated to the point of masochism to have listened through all of it :P Many thanks for that. I have no idea what the captain is saying, too much background noise. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

After much searching, I've found another video that records this same announcement. This video comes from AlJazeera. It is much clearer, and there is much less background noise. I think it is still clearer here, that the captain says, "Stop your resistance." The announcement starts at about minute 8:10. Please listen to it and add your thoughts below. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

An interview of Lee was recently added below. Per the discussion there, it reflects quite poorly on the quality of this source.

Generally, do other editors think it might be time to turn to an RfC? I don't see consensus emerging from this discussion. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Shot distance

How did another report make conclusions about distance then? The report which said distance is hard to gauge is talking about the same deaths, so it couldn't have been impossible in all cases, as another editor pointer out above. ValenShephard (talk) 19:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is a very perplexing situation. You have two conflicting claims: (1) that shooting range could not be determined, and (2) that some of the activists were shot at close range. You must include both claims per WP:Neutrality, especially given that they are mutually exclusive.

It is not permitted to wave a magic wand over the source and explain away the contradiction, by saying that the source surely intended something different. The source twice says that there was no gunpowder on the bodies, which made determining the shooting range impossible. It also uses very absolute terms. It says "No gunpowder residue was found on the bodies, therefore the shooting distance could not be determined."

It could have said, "Gunpowder residue was scarce," or "It was difficult to determine shooting distance." But the source chose very strong--in fact absolute--wording. This cannot be read as meaning that range could not be determined for "some of" the dead, as a recent edit read. That doesn't add up. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

A few possible changes: "Autopsies performed in Turkey showed that eight of the nine killed had died of 9mm gunshot wounds, with one death from an un-named atypical round. Five of them had gunshot wounds to the head and at least four were shot from both back and front. Most were shot from above at a steep angle. The autopsy report claimed the bodies had been washed before their return to Turkey, removing any possible gunpowder residue that could help determine the lethal shots' range." Putting it here first in case of objections. It has a little extra information. Thoughts? Sol Goldstone (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what Sol Goldstone has offered is very good. It offers enough context to understand the issue. If the bodies were washed before being returned, than that would indeed make acertaining certain details difficult. I think we should include the edit as Sol suggests it. ValenShephard (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

After reading the IHH's recap of the autopsies, it seems pretty clear that (a) the bodies had been washed and cleaned, (b) there was no gunpower residue found on them, and (c) the distance from which they were shot could not be established based on the gunpowder residue. I'm not sure that that means anything though, because there are methods other than gunshot residue that are used for establishing the distance someone was shot from. The source says at one point "...all nine bodies had been washed... making it impossible to reach a conclusion on the ranges of most shots" (emphasis mine) and then later says "No gunpowder residue was found on the bodies, therefore the shooting distance could not be determined", and then still later lists specific ranges people had been shot at. It seems pretty clear that this second quote is meant to imply something like "No gunpowder residue was found on the bodies, therefore the shooting distance could not be determined (based on gunpowder residue)." That's what I read it to imply, anyways. Otherwise the source just contradicts itself, at which point I don't know how useful it would be. ← George^talk 20:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. That's why I wanted to say that verification of the shot distance could not be made on some bodies, but this was reverted. Because there is other data there which clearly makes conclusions on shot distance, so it cannot be totally impossible, and like you say, there are other ways of judging shot distance. ValenShephard (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I am happy with Goldstone's suggestion. But I just can't accept the original research that would lead to the sort of statements we see regarding range. I believe the other editors that there are other ways of determining shot range, as I am no expert on the matter. But I know that the source does say that shooting distance could not be determined. It doesn't say "by gunpowder residue."

I'm going to throw an idea out there, even though its explicit inclusion in the article would also be original research. Could there be a meaningful difference between "reaching a conclusion" (first mention of gunpowder), and "determining" (second)? Perhaps the doctors can make a broad conclusion on the range of certain shots without gunpowder evidence, but can't say anything conclusive?

As far as discussing the washing, this is something that will need to be attributed to the IHH. In my crystal ball, I already see that someone is bound to ask me why I didn't suggest that for the previous statement. So I will answer that question now: Saying that there was no gunpowder residue on the bodies and that distance could not be determined is not a fact whose reliability might be compromised by IHH's POV. The washing is.

In conclusion, here is the paragraph as I suggest it be rewritten: "Autopsies performed in Turkey showed that eight of the nine killed had died of 9mm gunshot wounds, with one death from an unnamed atypical round. Five of them had gunshot wounds to the head and at least four were shot from both back and front. Most were shot from above at a steep angle. The IHH reported that the bodies had been washed before their return to Turkey, removing any gunpowder residue that could help determine shooting distance. Accordingly, the range at which the dead were shot could not be determined."

Saepe Fidelis (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I think that looks fine. Sol Goldstone (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Activists' and flotilla organizers' accounts

Here is the "Activists' and flotilla organizers' accounts" section as it now reads:

Hours before the raid, the head of the İHH declared, "We’re going to defeat the Israeli commandos-–we’re declaring it now. If you bring your soldiers here, we will throw you off :the ship and you’ll be humiliated in front of the whole world." Later, according to the crew of the ship, a group of about İHH 40 organizers took over the ship.^[14]

When Israeli boats approached the Mavi Marmara in the early morning, İHH volunteer Fatih Kavakdan said, "As the Israelis came close, they threw their hooks onto the bottom decks. Our friends down there cut them off. From above we threw chairs and anything we could find down on them, and after a while they moved away."^[14]

Mehmut Tuval, captian of the Mavi Marmara, confirmd that the activists fashioned crude weapons out of the ship's railing and chains in the hours leading up to the raid. He said that he and his first mate tried to dispose of the weapons, but succeeded only on a very limited scale.^[15] The wife of the Mavi Marmara's chief engineer, Nilüfer Ören, said that activists aboard the ship "were preparing to use violence against the Israeli soldiers." It was noticed that some activists were cutting chains and steel off of the ship using rotary saws (which were not part of the ship's equipment) roughly two hours before the IDF came aboard. ated that IDF began tracking them after 90 miles (140 km), there were about 40 ships surrounding the convoy and the announcement was made while the commandos were boarding from helicopters at 04:45 am. She also said that sound bombs and smoke bombs were used. Therefore activists and crew members used gas masks.^[16]

Robert Mackey of The New York Times suggested that the passengers on the ship may have mistaken the flash grenades and paintball guns for deadly weapons, which enraged them.^[17] Espen Goffeng, a 38-year-old activist from Norway who sailed aboard the Mavi Marmara, said the Israeli commandos "started off with some kind of paintball bullets with glass in them that left terrible soft tissue wounds. And then rubber bullets. And then live ammunition afterward."^[8]Norman Paech, a former member of the German parliament and foreign affairs spokesperson Left Party's parliamentary group, who was aboard the Marmara said he only saw three activists resisting. "They had no knives, no axes, only sticks that they used to defend themselves," he told reporters. But he said he could "not rule out" that others used weapons somewhere else on the boat.^[18] Mohamed Beltagy, an Egyptian MP who had been on the ship stated in an interview that the flotilla participants overcame three Israeli commandos and snatched their weapons from them. His admission drew heavy criticism in the Egyptian media for granting Israel a "public relations gift."^[19]

İHH president Fehmi Bülent Yıldırım said that "passengers on the ship showed civil resistance, the press was there, and that the İHH (had) called on the passengers not to allow Israeli soldiers in".^[20] Yıldırım also said that photographer Cevdet Kılıçlar was shot in the head by a soldier one meter away. British activist Kevin Ovenden confirmed that a man was shot by soldiers after pointing his camera towards them.^[21]

Arafat Shoukri, of the Free Gaza Movement, one the organizers of the flotilla convoy, said those on board one ship had called them by telephone to say that Israeli helicopters had arrived.^[22] "We heard some of them shouting We are raising the white flag, stop shooting at us" he said.^[22] He called Israeli accounts of activists having pistols and other weapons "cheap propaganda".

According to Andre Abu Khalil, captive commandos were released after Israel agreed to airlift wounded. Haneen Zoubi mediated negotiation between activists and soldiers.^[23] Zoubi^[24], an Al-Jazeera cameraman^[3] and at least three other passengers^[25]^[26]^[27] said that IDF soldiers refused to offer medical aid to several wounded activists who died shortly after. She also said that soldiers opened fire while hovering above in helicopters, before abseiling onto the deck.^[24]^[28] Dr. Hazem Farouq, a dentist and Egyptian MP from the Muslim Brotherhood said passengers could not find first aid and did not have material to treat wounds. Farouq said soldiers refused to allow men to carry the wounded and asked women to carry the wounded instead.^[3]

Kenneth O'Keefe, a former commando in the United States armed forces who renounced his American citizenship, told Turkish newspaper Hurriyet that the activists overpowered three Israeli Navy commandos were taken to the bottom of the ship after their weapons were tossed to the sea. "The lives of the three commandoes were at our mercy – we could have done with them whatever we wanted." Eventually, O'Keefe added, activists decided to release the soldiers unharmed. "They looked at us, and thought we were about to kill them, but then we let them go," he said. O'Keefe had previously helped to disarm two commandos. Kenneth O'Keefe's name was included on the terrorist list published by the Israeli Army.^[29] Turkish doctor, Dr. Hasan Huseyin Uysal, said to New York Times that he treated three Israeli commandos wounded. Dr. Uysal said that the soldiers sustained superficial wounds. "If people on board were so eager to hurt them, why would they not just shoot them to death once they had taken their guns? Why bother carting them inside for treatment? It just doesn’t add up," the doctor said.^[30]

On June 11 a video shot by documentary maker Iara Lee showing the events leading up to, and during the raid on the Mavi Marmara was released. At one point the captain of the boat, over the public address system, says, "Do not show resistance … They are using live ammunition … Be calm, be very calm." Gunshots are heard. A number of activists are seen receiving medical treatment for wounds, including one attempt to resuscitate a man. At the end a woman shouts, "We have no guns here, we are civilians taking care of injured people. Don't use violence, we need help." One of the activists shows the camera a waterproofed booklet allegedly taken from the Israeli commandos listing the names, with photos, of several key people among the passengers. Lee says the video was was smuggled off the ship in her underwear due to the Israeli confiscation of all photographic and film material. "[The Israelis] came to kill," Iara Lee said.^[10]^[31]^[32]

I've color-coded it as follows:

Red represents sequence of events narration.

Yellow represents claims that the passengers were/were not peaceful protesters (having to do with the accusations that they used violence against Israeli soldiers).

Green represents testimony regarding the style of attack by the Israeli commandos.

Magenta represents testimony regarding the treatment of the wounded.

I've left miscellaneous claims (most of which I find extraordinarily irrelevant) in black.

The problem here is obvious, and it's one that I've been discussing for a long time. But I needed to illustrate it using colors, as it seems I have to go to battle every time I want to organize this section better. Here's the crux of the issue: this section is a poorly-organized, self-repeating jumble. Unimportant claims repeat themselves, partly because they're physically separated.

In the O'Keefe paragraph, for instance, everything in yellow represents the argument that the activists could have killed the soldiers, but didn't. This claim should be mentioned, but briefly. After all, the Israelis never claimed that the activists tried to kill their soldiers, but that they wanted to create a provocation. Another for instance: the sequence of events portions should be moved together. Otherwise, you have no sequence of events.

Please, please, please. I invite comments from other editors. I want to help make this section better, but I can't do it without your help. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not dissect sections in such detail. Discuss smaller scale changes so you can coordinate with other editors more effectively. I fear that if you aim for such big scale changes useful material will be lost or taken out of context in the process. I don't think anything really needs changing urgently or on a wide scale. About the content, it is important to explain that the activists could have hurt or killed the commandos if they wanted, because the Israeli media spin has often described the intent of the activists to harm the commandos, and the accounts of some of the activits act as a second opinion to this concept. We don't need to, and we won't mention this connection, but we should leave it open for readers to interpret as they see fit. ValenShephard (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

You got all fancy with the color coding, very nice! It is an awful lot of information to sort through in one go but it brings to light one of the central issues: for an event with a massive glut of reliable and sometimes conflicting information, how do we sort out what's relevant and what's not? There are multiple conflicting narratives which consider different information very important for the purpose of advancing their claims. I'll get back into it later on tonight. Sol Goldstone (talk) 17:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Goldstone, you're spot-on. The narratives conflict pretty badly. As of right now, we haven't really organized this section into coherent narratives (except the first red blotch). It's a mosaic.

@ValenShephard, why are you afraid of analyzing sections in detail? My point is that this section needs to be overhauled. As per the question of whether the activists could/could not have killed the soldiers, I agree that it needs to be mentioned, but at the moment it is given far too much weight. Everything yellow in the next to last paragraph is dedicated to it. The "Israeli media spin," as you called it, certainly described the intent of the activists to inflict harm upon the soldiers, but never to kill them. It was clear to everyone from the getgo that the point wasn't to kill them, so these sources claim that the intent was to prove them, make them fear for their lives, and thereby create martyrs. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I will pursue changes to coalesce the colors and remove repeating information. If there are any objections, I will be glad to discuss. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes. Now tell me that doesn't flow better...

I'll wait until ongoing discussion on Iara Lee is wrapped up before moving that bit around. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1RR Editing restriction

I've made a few edits to this article, but mostly I've just been following its revision history for six weeks or so. It's my very strong impression that editors here need to carefully read WP:EDITWAR and to make sure they fully understand WP:3RR as it applies to 1RR restricted articles like this one. I doubt it's at all intentional, but some editors appear to consistently violate these rules. Please remember that reverting should be a last resort, not a tool one regularly uses as often as one can to get ones POV to stick. Please note, also, that the 1RR rule is not an entitlement to perform one reversal of a previous edit per day. You can still be blocked for doing just that under WP:EDITWAR if you do it consistently. This is in no way a threat to either faction here, and I'm not an admin anyway. Just a word to the wise. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Photographer as a source for intent

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the Iara Lee's quotation at the very end of this section. Is Lee, a photographer and human rights activist, the best source for determining the motives of the Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara? When she's quoted as saying, simply, "[The Israelis] came to kill," is enough of the original quotation preserved for it to mean anything? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

No its not worth keeping dramatic and opinionated and not correct at all, should be removed. If you remove it and keep the cites, our article looses nothing of any encyclopedic or educational value and is improved in a NPOV way. Off2riorob (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed it, there was no support for it here. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Cs32en replaced it without commenting here with the edit summary of, It's not a comment (i.e. from a third party), but a statement from an involved person. (It is not to be understood as expressing the truth.)) - I don't uderstand all his comment at all, it is a quoted comment but it is extreme and dramatic and clearly has no educational or encyclopedic value and so has no place in our article. Off2riorob (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

- If this Womans comments Iara_Lee (I notice this comment is not noteworthy enough to be in her own BLP) are so important to be included then we should include more, perhaps a small subsection about her movie and all, it is totally POV and undue to cherry pick such a controversial comment from lengthy quotes and comments. the Israelis came to kill - thats four cherry picked, opinionated,dramatic, valueless words. Off2riorob (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to remind all editors that there is a one revert per 24 hour rule in place for this article. Edit warring will be of no use to either side.

@ValenShephard, you commented in your revert that, "this issue has been heavily debated and there was some agreement that this is clearly an opinion, and not an expression of fact." Finding the path to consensus is a good thing. But I find that you are too eager to see consensus where there is none. In the discussion above, you and Cs32en were the only two editors to support the inclusion of the text. Kinetochore and I disagreed with this outright, and Kslotte seemed pretty willing to remove it (in my view), when s/he said, "We have other statements that are more exact and clear."

@ValenShephard and Cs32en, I respect you both tremendously as editors. You two have made great contributions to this article. But it's time to let this quotation go. I cannot fathom why you would so desperately cling to a half-paraphrased, brief quotation, which doesn't say much, and at any rate does not fall within the author's field of expertise.

I will now use my one revert for the 24 hours to remove this quotation once again. I hope that my edit will stand, so that we can continue to move forward on making this article better. Cheers, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You started a discussion here, but didn't actually discuss. Do you have any real policy arguments for removing that quote? It is as viable as any other quote, it is the opinion of the individual who was deemed to be notable enough to include in the article, her opinion, whatever it is, adds a nother layer to the issue. Whether we like it or not. ValenShephard (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

This talkpage is heavily frequented as is the article, thread had been here over 24hours without a single claim to keep the content. My policy comments are above, its especially badly WP:CHERRYPICKED, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV and editorial worthy of removal only. The individual may be noteworthy for a mention but to only offer this dramatic four words from her is actually misrepresenting her. Lara Lee's opinion and she is not worthy for this single dramatic quote, there is no educational or informative wikipedia excuse for adding it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether the quote from Iara Lee is factually correct or not is irrelevant for its inclusion. The viewpoints of both sides, i.e. the activists' and the Israeli government's viewpoint, are a relevant aspect of the article. Iara Lee's comment have been chosen for a headline in a reliable source, so her opinion is notable. Its informational value is not as a source for the actual event, but as a source for the viewpoint of the activist's side. Cs32en Talk to me 21:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had a look yet I will tomorrow at the cite, but the fact that the comments your insisting on including was actually chosen for its dramatic effect and excessive tabloid titillating drama that they put it in a headline makes is a clear example of the type of content that we should exclude. This in an encyclopedic article that independent people read and a middle of the road honest balanced report is what we are here to create for them and that position and inspiration and dream does not include your dramatic cherry picked POV undue four worded quote, that Lara aLee said the Israelis came to kill . I have to be honest with you, I am a neutral here, I don't care about any of the issues, I just don't care either way, I care about the reader and the wikipedia and that we write decent articles without children reading such crap in in our schools and such.Off2riorob (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Your claims that her comment is a source for the viewpoint of the activist's side - seems strange, its just a cherry picked four words out of her many many comments and quotes and she speaks for herself only not for the activists side as you call them. Off2riorob (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that there may be better sources to represent the viewpoint of those activists who share Iara Lee's view. If better sources are added to the article, we could evaluate whether that particular source can be dropped for another, better one. Per WP:DUE, the source should not be removed without adding better sources. Cs32en Talk to me 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. You need to show this viewpoint is significant before it can be included in the article at all. Per WP:DUE. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The burden of evidence has been met, as the edit is based on a reliable source. There is no particular burden on anyone in this context. Cs32en Talk to me 22:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Having a citation is no excuse to cherry pick contentious content out of it, we are here to show balanced encyclopedic editorial judgment. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

- The quote is to this one? Are there any other cites with it in or only this one? Off2riorob (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/11/gaza-flotilla-attack-new-video

- There are extended comments from Lara Lee about the raid here also - http://www.politicaltheatrics.net/2010/06/new-video-smuggled-out-from-mavi-marmara-of-israel%E2%80%99s-deadly-assault-on-gaza-aid-flotilla - There are so many comments from Lee in this cite that from hundreds of words she said to condense them and just chose these four is clearly cherrypicking and gives those four words completely undue weight, its like from hundreds of words someone jumps in and demands it is these four words, the most contentious and dramatic and of all her many many words they demand to keep - they [The Israelis] came to kill in the article. - Off2riorob (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Off2riorob. This source is a giant step up. In this interview she says, "The other boats, they used rubber bullets and tear gas; they didn’t kill people. But in our ship, they came to kill." This cannot but be the source of the quote in The Guardian, and represents an entirely different sort of meaning from the abridged quote. This is the sort of problem some of my fellow editors and I have been warning about--that a drastically reworded quotation might misrepresent the speaker. This actually ties back to the reliability of the Guardian article itself, as this shows an obvious bias on the part of whoever wrote it, which is crucial in examining the legitimacy of its interpretation of the "Stop your reistance" or "Show no resistance" verbiage (see Iara Lee footage discussion above). Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Most, if not all, reliable sources are biased in some way, including the Guardian, the Jerusalem Post and al-Jazeera. I think that this source is indeed better than the source that already is/was included in the article. In the discussion above, I have already stated that I support replacing that source with a better one. Cs32en Talk to me 18:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If and when someone finds a better source, we will all consider this discussion over. Until then, the pervailing question is whether to keep the current quote in the text or not. Given the fact that we now know that it is entirely misrepresented, would you agree that its removal is appropriate?

Also, regarding source bias, you are current in saying that all reliable sources are biased. But not all reliable sources manipulate information to meet a certain POV. I'm not Implying that The Guardian does this on a regular basis, but there is at least one proven instance of this in this article (the Iara Lee quote), and I would submit a second (Stop your resistance vs. Don't show resistance). The point I'm making reflects more upon the discussion above than this one. What I'm going for is that in a battle of the soruces, this article gets discounted a lot. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The gist of the statement is that the Israelis "came to kill". Whether they, following Iara Lee's view, did that once or several times is a secondary issue (which does not mean it would be irrelevant). So I don't see the abbreviated quote as "entirely misrepresented". The Guardian reports, in full:

Lee described the attack as terrifying. "[The Israelis] came to kill," she said. "They wanted to take over the ship."

So it's clear from the Guardians wording that Lee is talking about the attack on "the ship", i.e. the Mavi Marmara. Lee also describes her personal experience ("terrifying"), which also must refer to the specific attack on the Mavi Marmara. The Guardian did not include what Lee said about the attacks on other ships on the flotilla, but then, it also did not cover lots of other things that Lee presumably has said after the flotilla raid. Cs32en Talk to me 20:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no way this obvious false claim from lee should be included. She is not even a good witness to anything, I can't believe you are still here supporting such a biased POV inclusion, this is how reliable she is ....

IARA LEE: Our main internet person in our media room also got shot in the head. You know, this was not like a non-premeditated—

AMY GOODMAN: Was he killed?

IARA LEE: No, no. The only people killed were the Turkish people and this one US citizen, yeah. But people were getting—

AMY GOODMAN: And how was he shot in the head?

IARA LEE: I don’t have the details, but I know, since we were always with the media department, that I heard that he was the one that got shot.

JUAN GONZALEZ: The Guardian report also says that forty-eight other people suffered gunshot wounds and that six activists remain missing.

IARA LEE: Yes. And—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Have you unidentified who those missing are?

IARA LEE: Obviously, we cannot jump to conclusions, but they are not hurt, they are not injured, they are not killed. They disappeared. I don’t know. It’s something that must be investigated. I mean, some people even speculate that we had spies, so maybe some of these missing people were, you know, Mossad agents. We don’t know. We need to investigate. Were they thrown off the boat?

She appears to comment about things she does not actually know about and seems to make it up as she goes along. If she said , activists got killed we didn't deserve that , then that might be worth adding, but from an activist claiming the Israli army came deliberately to kill people is so false as to need excluding from the article. The correct answer to , shall we remove this excessive quote was, yea, it is a bit extreme, lets add something else. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

She says that she does not know the answer to some of the questions she is being asked. She is not making things up, but mentions some possibilities. Some, like the possible involvement of Mossad, are not really far fetched, given that the Mossad is widely seen as having thwarted a prior Palestinian boat mission in 1988, for example. (Does Juan Gonzales say "unidentified" or "identified" in the last question?) Off2riorob, you still seem to misunderstand why the quote is included. It's because this is a notable statement from one of the involved parties, not because there would be a presumption that it would be accurate. Cs32en Talk to me 20:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

There a many things I find problematic with quoting Lee in this context. Off2 has brought to surface another problem with her testimony here. Notice that she claims flat-out that someone who worked with her was shot in the head. When pressed, she says he didn't die, and that she doesn't have any solid information on the matter, just hearsay. Wait... he was shot in the head, and didn't die? I mean, it happens, but that's a hefty claim to base on hearsay alone, without even "having the details." Can you imagine if she hadn't been pressed? We might have taken that testimony seriously.

As far as the context of this quote, it would certainly not matter if we were on a quest to write a POV article, because the POV of "But in our ship, they came to kill" is fairly close to the POV of "[The Israelis] came to kill." But in terms of the character of the quote, and what it means as far as the progression of events, the two could not be more different. The Guardian quote clearly seeks to boil down Lee's statement from a description of what that day looked like, to a purely POV assessment. Even setting aside her own lack of credentials to make such a statement, this doesn't become the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lee is not an WP:RS, however her self published video and shocking personal story got glimpses of reflection by respectable reliable sources. Maybe we should consider WP:NOTNEWS and treat it as one person account, that might not be notable in this article context. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing of expired medicines

There has been a recent edit by Aateyya, which sources the expired medicines information to an Israeli military source. The issue of expired medicines has been discussed at length in discussion that is now archived.

@Aateyya, thank you for your efforts to improve the article. As you can see in the old discussion, the reason that this wording was chosen was because of the difficulty of integrating two pieces of information: (1) 2/3 of the medicine was expired (sourced to BBC); and (2) it was expired 6-15 months prior to raid (sourced to Israeli military). As the wording stood before your edit, both were simply cited. As the wording now stands, both are attributed to an Israeli military source, which is misleading.

Knowing this, are you now open to the old version? If not, how would you prefer that the wording read? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Autopsy reports

I've gone on a quest to find the full autopsy reports, but all I've found is articles that focus on their most sensational aspects. The only exception to this is a report on the IHH website that appears to summarize the autopsies in greater detail. Although I fear some editors may post volumes of unneeded information from this source, I highly encourage all editors to read it. One thing that immediately caught my eye, is that those who performed the autopsies acknowledged that they could not evaluate the range at which activists were shot. The write the following:

"Forensic Institute Physical Examination Board stated that all nine bodies had been washed before being brought to Turkey and their clothes were either blood-soaked or otherwise unfit for analysis, making it impossible to reach a conclusion on the ranges of most shots."

"No gunpowder residue was found on the bodies, therefore the shooting distance could not be determined."

"According to the report most of the martyrs were shot from above with a high angle."

As the article is currently written, most activists were shot at close range. But the autopsies could not have determined this, though they are cited as such. This would not so much surprise me, were it not for the fact that this information is coming from the IHH itself, not the Israeli government or media. I think the next logical step is to find the original autopsy reports, though I have not been able to do this myself. Does anyone know where to find them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That conflicts heavily with other reports which make clear statement of the distances, but this report does offer the new outlook that the people seemed to have been shot from above, as in some of the activist statements that say that shooting happened from the helicopters. I think that should be included, definitely, and maybe you should mention that there are conflicting reports over the distance the shootings happened from. If they do indeed conclude that the bullets entered the people at a high angle (meaning steep) than this would be an important piece of information to include. ValenShephard (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Might have been shot from helicopters, or might have been shot from a higher part of a ship to a lower. We don't really know. But it sure means they weren't shot at close range in the back of the head.

You're right that this contradicts a lot of our sources, and that's what's strange about this. This information isn't found in Israeli media or government sources, but on the IHH website.

This source can be mentioned, but the crucial thing here is to find the original reports. Do you know where we might find them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can't say "which shows they were shot from helicopters" or something, that would be OR, but we can mention that this report says they were shot at steep angles, which readers can make their own conclusion from. It defintely should be mentioned, especially because it conflicts, it adds another layer to the story for readers to get an understanding of the event by. I don't know how to find the reports. ValenShephard (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

About finding the original reports, I don't think that is the best way to go. The original reports will be primary sources, and its better to use sources, as the article does now, which talk about these primary sources, like newspaper articles. But we can still include some information from them if it seems important, like the steep angle of shots. ValenShephard (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Secondary sources are the bread and butter of articles, but primary sources are crucial for reviewing the secondary ones. Yes, the angles are certainly relevant information. I'm trying to figure out how to put this information into the article in a way that makes sense. Right now, the section titled "Deaths" should probably be retitled "Autopsy reports," and then we can place that information there. Much of the section needs to be cut anyways. What are your thoughts on this proposal? For certain, we need to find the original reports. It seems fishy to me that they're not available anywhere. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It is rare that autopsy reports are published online, afterall, this is very sensitive medical information, it can't usually (and many people such as family of victims) oppose it being released to the public. Nothing fishy about it. I dont think the title needs changing, the autopsy reports are 'part' of the deaths section. ValenShephard (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

They are not part of the death section, they are the entire death section. It's a mislabeled section.

As far as them being published online, I see your point. But you don't find it strange that no other source but the IHH discussed the fact that the range couldn't be determined, when so many claims were made about the range? The IHH probably got ahold of the reports from its members, and published what it wanted to. There could still be still information on those reports we haven't seen. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what we think that no other source mentioned that, its not our place to offer a judgement, just state the facts from reliable sources. The name should stay, it deals with the death of the activists, thats why its called "deaths". ValenShephard (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My point isn't that the source doesn't belong, but that we should make an effort to find the primary source, so our judgment is actually crucial.

Let me approach the name issue differently: would you oppose renaming the section "Autopsy reports," and putting the death and injury figures in the "Casualty" section? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Range couldn't be established on most shots, not all shots. Where they give a range I assume that's one of the times they could tell. Gunshot residue isn't the only way to establish range: gunpowder stippling is one possible determinant which would have been present on uncovered flesh (like heads) hit at close range so that might be where the numbers come from.

I've looked high and low for a copy of the report. It would be fantastic to find the primary source but I don't think our hands our tied without it. Second hand reports of autopsy results are pretty standard, for the reasons Valen mentions. I'm not sure I see the problem in having the autopsy results as the bulk of the "Deaths" section, what am I missing? Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You aren't missing anything, I think you are pretty spot on. I think we should include the information the user found, that alot of the shots came in at steep angles, from which readers can draw their own conclusions. Maybe the report makes a conclusion itself? If it says something like "which means...." we should include that too. ValenShephard (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

@Goldstone, making a "Deaths" section 85% of which is about the autopsies leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think it would make much more sense to call such a section "Autopsy reports." If I continue to be in the minority, this isn't something I'll push very hard, but I just think the autopsy reports are notable enough to have their own section, whereas nothing else in the "Deaths" section is.

@Anonymous (editor who made unsigned comment), the source says, ""No gunpowder residue was found on the bodies, therefore the shooting distance could not be determined." That's highly inclusive verbiage. It doesn't say "most," nor does it say "therefore the shooting distance had to be determined by other means. Within the source itself, only a single body has the shooting range named, and that's Dogan.

@Valen, I have to take a short break, but will then pursue these edits. I hope they will be to your satisfaction. Either way, please discuss so that we can make the article better. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The deaths section deals with the deaths. If it deals with the deaths through the medium of autopsy reports, that doesn't change the fact it is the section dealing with the deaths. It could be dealing with the deaths through any medium, through descriptions, video, etc, but that wouldnt change that the section is dealing with the deaths. ValenShephard (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I won't push the "death" vs. "autopsies" thing. It's not a big deal. Other than that, are we all happy with how this section is written now?

I should note that I'm not 100% happy, because I think we should get rid of the "2 to 14 cm" account, which must refer to Dogan, who is mentioned immediately thereafter. However, I know that the chances of getting consensus on this are slim. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

If the source doesn't make a direct reference to Dogan, we cannot say what must or musn't be. If we arent sure, we don't guess. We just leave it to be 'general', in line with the source. ValenShephard (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that, with the information we currently have, we can't make any conclusion about who the "one person" is. This sort of situation is a perfect illustration of why we need the original autopsies. The closest document that we have to them--the IHH summary--clearly says Dogan was the only one found to have been shot at close range. But we can't use that... sadly. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me how the determination of "high angles" was made. It seems to me that depending on the position of a person's body, i.e.:lying prone or standing up ... an entry wound could appear to be from above ... when in actuality it was a horizontal shot, and vice-versa Zuchinni one (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that a number of factors play in. Gravity, for example, would determine the trajectory of the bullet and a lot of internal damage. Also, if I'm bent over and a bullet goes through me, the path will appear bent once I am straightened. But the bottom line actually just winds up being that we're not the experts. It's the people who did the autopsies that get to make those kinds of determinations. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Only moderately on topic but the initial UN report came out today and contains some bits about the autopsy, amongst other things. So far, it's devastating. Happy reading. Sol (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Sol. Remember that this isn't the UN report, with a capital 'U'. This is the report for the UN Human Rights Council, and their mandate is not fact-finding, but investigation of wrongdoing. The UN report won't come out for a couple of more weeks. Meantime, I'm trying to look over this report, but I must admit, it's dreadfully boring. It would help if it weren't so skewed in its reporting of the events. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Doh! Good call. I plead lack of sleep! Sol (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Dispute on video verbiage

During the raid, an announcement is made over the intercom, whose content, which is quoted in the article, is being disputed by several editors (including myself). One source says "Don't show resistance." Another source says "Stop your resistance."

The video can be seen here (quote is at 13:10), and a much clearer video from another source, documenting the same announcement can be found here (quote is at 8:25).

I'd like to ask uninvolved editors to listen to both videos, then comment as to (1) what they think is said during the announcement, and (2) what they think the best resolution for the dispute is. Previous discussion can be found here.

Thanks, Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no discussion on this issue since I have linked to the Al-Jazeera video more than a week ago. As I find this video to be a "smoking gun" of sorts, I will go ahead and change the wording to "Stop your resistance." If other editors accept it, great. If this causes us to restart stalled discussion, even better. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to interpret videos, we are here to express what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that the captain said "do not show resistence". If you find reliable sources which disagree then we have something to work with. Our interpretation of a video doesn't matter, even if we are right and the source is wrong. You are off the mark. As it currently stands in the article you have made a synthesis of two sources. You have chosen the wording you prefer and ut it infront of the incomplete quote from the other source. The two sources show a dispute, one says one thing and the other shows another. We have to say "though there is disagreement over the exact wordin..." and show both examples. We can't choose which one you prefer. ValenShephard (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources saying different things, both wording should be included. We should not guess which source is more accurate by simply stating one. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. What the user has done is synthesise the more controversial wording of one source, with the ending of the other source(which he/she has removed). This is unacceptable original research and synthsis of sources. Like BritishWatcher said, we include both versions of accounts and make it clear there is disagreement. That is what representing reliable sources means. ValenShephard (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

As I stated before, after listening to the video footage linked above, it's pretty clear that the captain says "don't show resistance". It's somewhat telling that article that used the phrasing "stop your resistance" is from May 31, 2010 - the same day as the raid. I think it lends quite a bit of credence to the "don't show resistance" phrasing that the same source (the Guardian) changed the phrasing it reported to "don't show resistance" in the article published twelve days later, on June 11, 2010. I doubt that the Guardian even had access to any sort of audio recording of the event on May 31st, considering that (if I recall correctly) all footage was confiscated by the Israelis shortly after the raid. ← George^talk 23:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I am very glad that I was able to restart discussion on this subject.

@George, if The Guardian didn't have access to video when the first article was written, how did they figure out the wording spot-on, word-for-word as it was on the video? To assert that the second article constitutes a change of position on the part of The Guardian, you would have to prove that they had the first article in mind, and decided to override it. The two articles were written by two different people, so that probably played into the differences between them.

Also @George, have you listened to the AlJazeera video? It's even clearer there that the voice says, "Stop your resistance." When I had my relatives and friends listen to the first one, most of them couldn't tell what he was saying. When I had them listen to the second one, they all said unanimously, "Stop your resistance."

@ValenShephard and BritishWatcher, I am open to the suggestion of including both sources. How would you suggest incorporating them both?

@ValenShephard, your discussion here and on the subject of expired medicines leads me to seriously question your understanding of WP:SYNTHESIS. There's no synthesis here. There's a disagreement between sources on a question of fact. I'm not drawing any conclusion that's not explicitly mentioned in the source.

@Everyone, as this is a question of fact--of what the captain did or did not say--one source is, in fact, wrong, and the other is right. This fact is relatively easy to arbitrate. We just need to listen to the videos. I ask that everyone take a random friend, who doesn't know about this dispute at all, and show them the AlJazeera (second) video. Ask them simply, "What does the guy say at 8:25?" See what they answer. It's super clear. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Quite interesting. I had listened to the 60 minute long version someone had linked in the earlier discussion. In that version, it sounds like "don't show resistance" (minute 58:30). In your second version (not sure who it's from), it definitely sounds like "stop your resistance". It's even obvious why, when going back and listening to the first video after listening to the second - the captain has a fairly heavy (and somewhat unusal) accent, and is putting additional emphasis on the word stop. After listening to both versions, I would support using only the phrasing "stop your resistance", even in favor of listing what both sources said. ← George^talk 09:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

George, I've got to admire your open mindedness. It's something I know I need to work on. I'm sure the very loud yell that immediately precedes the quote in the first video might have had something to do with the obstruction of what he says... :-) But that's life.

I forgot to mention in my last post, that the edit I put in included the text, "According to certain sources, Show no resistance," in the citation. I think that's appropriate, but doesn't bulk up the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Deaths (nationality)

Can the editors change the following Death(s) 9 passengers (8 Turkish passengers and Furkan Doğan)

in to Death(s) 9 passengers (8 Turkish passengers and 1 American Turkish passenger)

To the editor who made the above suggestion, please identify yourself. There's been a lot of controversy on this suggestion, in which I have thus far not gotten involved. Some sources say that he was a dual citizen, but his father says he wasn't. Given that the US State Department, along with every major media organization and the IHH itself, has labeled him a dual citizen, I would be comfortable referring to him as such. No offense to his father, but he really had to have been a citizen, or this was a huge screwup on the part of a lot of people in a position to know. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"execution style"

2nd Paragraph in the lead: "Nine activists were killed,[22][23][24] and dozens were injured. A UNHRC fact-finding mission found that six of the nine passengers killed were shot execution style by the IDF.[25] Seven Israeli commandos were also injured in the skirmish"

- biased, and should not be included in the lead. Request reomval of " A UNHRC fact-finding mission found that six of the nine passengers killed were shot execution style by the IDF".

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.69.226.21 (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it must be immediately balanced by quotes from Israel explaining that their soldiers were defending their lives. But better to remove it from the lead, and discuss in more appropriately in the article.Kinetochore (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Also please note that the same information is repeated 3 more times in the article: in Mavi Marmara boarding section, United Nations investigations section and legal assessments section. Ctrl-F "execution" will do. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Kinetochore said above as well; I would only add one point. The phrase "execution style" in reference to guns oftentimes seems to have the connotation where a person is killed by being shot once in the back of the head. The U.N. report however is extremely vague regarding how they were killed, but it uses the phrase "summary execution" which to me brings up the image of people being lined up and shot by a firing squad. This seems more consistent with what they were claiming happened instead of the former. As such I think it would be important to use the phrase "summary execution", the same phrase used by the UN Report, instead of "execution style" when discussing their claim in the United Nations investigations section.Chhe (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: "execution style" comes from the referenced Truth-out article. I'd leave it, at least in attributed form ("described in news as execution style" or something) for the sake of article stability, but I don't really care if it stays or goes or is replaced. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. In addition, I would add that the finding is "alleged," has not been adopted by the UNSC and has not been corroborated by any other independent investigation. I would also add a qualification that the UNHRC as a body has been the most virulent critic of Israel, singling out that country for condemnation while ignoring human rights abuses and violations in Turkish occupied Northern Cyprus, Turkish Kurdistan, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chinese occupied Tibet, Syria, Darfur and practically two-thirds of the nations occupying seats on that corrupt body.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I popped in Chhe's suggestion to see how it sticks. I'm not married to the idea of it in the lead but if people want it I've no objections. Sorry, JG, I disagree on those points; we've already framed it as the finding of the UNHRC and not presented as fact in the neutral voice. And you'd be hard-pressed to work in circumstantial evidence against the panel's neutrality while observing policy. Sol (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

NP Sol. I left it but added an additional counter-balancing edit sourced to an RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Great job JG and Sol. What are we going to do about the repetitions of the execution-style in the rest of the article:

? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Huzzah cooperating! JG, I took out the addition on the UNHRC report and the EU vote abstension as it seemed to be talking about their rejection of the new measure for a lawsuit and not the report itself. I think there actually is a statement by the US criticizing the report and I'll try to dig it up. Sol (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

JG, I reinserted the US/EU opposition/abstention to the HRC resolution to the Washington Post as the original source wasn't distinguishing between UN and UNHRC resolutions and made for a weird read. It's a small detail but it might help folks doing background reading. Sol (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN fact-finding mission was lead by three independent int'l jurists. The mission was staffed by many professionals from the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights. Their findings about "summary executions" and clear evidence for prosecution of war crimes, etc. are not "allegations." While it's not a court of law in the traditional sense, they made findings of fact after interviewing hundreds of witnesses, and made legal determinations.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling the killed terrorist activists implies that they were coming with peaceful intentions, which damages the neutrality of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momeiyo7 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Calling the casualties on the marmara activists implies that they had peaceful intentions,which damages the neutrality of the article. Momeiyo7 (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Most news sources have called them "activists." That's more than good enough for us.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we get more sources to support the claims of "execution-style?" I know this was an accusation that went around the world but no evidence was ever provided other than testimony from witnesses. Execution style has a criminal connotation and implies murder. From what I understand several of the activists killed were shot at close-range, that isn't execution style. Is there any evidence aside from activist hearsay? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN fact-finding mission uses that term as does the source that reports on the findings. Read the footnotes in the article.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The UNHRC's report relied on the Turkish autopsy and the eyewitness accounts to reach their conclusion. A few of the factors seem to be powder burns around wounds, angle of shots and in one case that an unexpanded beanbag round was found in someone's skull (the idea being that you'd have to shoot someone pretty much point blank in the face for the round not to expand). In conjunction with the eye-witness accounts it looks fairly damning. I think we've got enough sources to include it unless they aren't RS. Sol (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sol, I concur with your conclusion that we have enough, but we don't have to "look behind" a report of a UN fact finding mission. It's RS and that's all we need at WP. This is particularly true here, as the mission was headed by three prominent international jurists, had a professional staff of lawyers and investigators from the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights, interviewed hundreds of witnesses, and examined other evidence.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

So the UNHRC relies on Turkish autopsy and eyewitness accounts? Even though the aid ship was owned and commanded by Turkish Islamists? Execution style has a legal connotation to it. It implies a pre-mediated act of violence, i.e - Israeli soldiers entered the boat and started offing people. Getting shot at close range is more than consistent with circumstances of confrontation. The Israeli narrative is the soldiers were defending themselves after being attacked by activists. Do we have sources that explicitly claim that Israel executed activists? This a very charged accusation and should be supported by a variety of sources. Is a questionable UNHRC and anonymous eyewitnesses enough to state the claim as fact? I say it should be attributed to the accusers and balanced with Israel POV is this is going to be in the lead. I can't find the source right now but there is an article somewhere that includes testimony from one of the Israeli soldiers on board who claimed he shot man in the face while protecting a wounded soldier from the activists. Execution is a very emotional word and based on the content of the article it is more than obvious that that is hardly the mainstream consensus. ~

Edit: The UNHRC is an RS the same way the Goldstone Report is an RS. A fact-finding mission administered by a series of Muslim states is hardly tantamount to say...a United Nations Security Council Resolution. No Western nation has even remotely inferred Israeli soldiers started executing passengers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

All the characterizations of the killings as "executions" are in the article as the findings of specific sources, not statements of fact. Sol (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is truth a reliable source? This is what the UNHRC claims:

170. The circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner

consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution. Furkan Doğan and İbrahim Bilgen were shot at near range while the victims were lying injured on the top deck. Cevdet Kiliçlar, Cengiz Akyüz, Cengiz Songür and Çetin Topçuoğlu were shot on the bridge deck while not participating in activities that represented a threat to any Israeli soldier. In these instances and possibly other killings on the Mavi Marmara, Israeli forces carried out extralegal, arbitrary and summary executions prohibited by international human rights law,

specifically article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.80

The report is explicit in that 6 of the 9 activists dead were allegedly killed in an "arbitrary and summary execution" manner. The report doesn't offer any serious proof of the claims other than "On the basis of the forensic and firearm evidence." I'm assuming Israel has a challenge to the claim that it executed passengers so perhaps that should be emphasized? It seems rather dubious to include an accusation that Israel executed innocent people when others argues the casualties were the result of the clashes and not a pre-mediated murder fest. I imagine if Israeli Navy seals wanted to execute activists they could have done so very efficiently without even boarding the ship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if truth-out.org is a reliable source, but I'm sure several could be found for the paragraph you quoted (I searched for the first sentence on Google and found a handful of source I would consider reliable for the statement). Exactly what kind of "serious proof" would you ask for beyond the "forensic and firearm evidence" identified? I'm not sure if Israel denied executing passengers, but it wouldn't surprise me, and if so it should be mentioned, though not "emphasized", any more than the UN's claims should be emphasized. They should both be stated factually and flatly in the usual "A says B. C says D." manner, lending them weight in proportion to that provided by reliable sources. Where does the UN say that the passengers are "innocent"? And where does the UN say that there was "a pre-mediated murder fest"? I think you're reading your own biases into the report. Execution does not denote guilt or innocence of the party being executed, nor does it say whether or not the act is justifiable, nor does it say whether or not the act is premeditated - it's just a description of a way of being killed (usually at relatively close range, and while the party being killed is unable to immediately defend itself). You could execute a mass murderer for a good reason, planned months in advance, or you can execute an innocent person for no reason what so ever, deciding to do so right at that very moment. They both match the meaning of the term "execution". ← George^talk 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

George, I agree with your conclusion. If you found RSs additional to the one provided, please add them to the article as additional footnotes.

If the Israeli gov't denies the UN fact-finding mission's determination about execution it should, of course, be taken with a huge grain of salt. Governments (like other large organizations) don't like to have their dirty laundry exposed by the UN, human rights activists, or anyone else. A summary denail from the expert Israeli govt PR machine is to be expected and deserves a brief mention in our article. I am reminded of the old investigative journalists' maxim: "Don't believe anything until it's been officially denied."--NYCJosh (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The UN reports only mentions the executions in passing. It simply says, "According to forensic and firearm evidence." All the other news-related RS are simply regurgitating the original UNHRC link. Execution is a very charged WORD and for now it seems to be fairly included in the article, but I do think we could improve on it. I have yet to find any world body, nation, or organization outside of Muslim-controlled UNHRC that remotely infers executed passengers. Video footage shows a confrontation occured - the activists killed were not passive victims to disproportionate violence. Is there a mention of the BBC documentary that includes footage and named testimony mostly confirming Israel's account? Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"Muslim-controlled UNHRC"? Sorry, I stopped reading your post after coming across that ignorant, discriminatory remark. ← George^talk 23:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please. The UNHRC has been condemned by numerous UN officials as well as Western governments. It is controlled by the Non-Aligned Movement headed by Muslim oil, most specifically Saudi Arabia. I don't think this it is discriminatory to point out the council condemned Israel before any investigation began. So please AGF and hold off on accusing other editors of ignorance. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I will treat your comment the exact same way I would treat the comments of an editor claiming that we can't trust the New York Times (or equivalent), because "the Jews control the media" or some such nonsense. They, like you, would no doubt cite various examples to support their racist stance. But racism has no place here, nor anywhere for that matter. If you have no policy-based arguments, and choose to instead throw out racist analysis, then you're welcome to discuss the matter with yourself. The assumption of good faith ends when reason is given to no longer assume such. ← George^talk 23:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No need to throw the racism grenade George. The UNHRC has been widely criticized both within and outside the United Nations and many Western nations have boycotted their resolutions. I don't understand the analogy to the New York Times, a respected newspaper and reliable source, to a human rights council run by some of the most oppressive and human-rights violating nations on this Earth. Am I racist for pointing this out? The UNHRC report is ambigious as far as the flotilla goes and provides absolutely zero evidence or proof that any executions took place. Outside of the criticized UNHRC report, do we have other real sources or major bodies agreeing with the claims? Say the UNSC or secretary general? How about video footage, documentaries? Something concrete and not anonymous testimony. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Citing the religion of the members of a group as a reason to not trust them is discriminatory. To put the analogy more bluntly, you don't like the UNHCR report because you think they're controlled by Muslims with ulterior motives; anti-Semitic individuals don't like American media outlet reports because they think they're controlled by Jews with ulterior motives. Both of those stances are terribly racist.

No other international investigation into the raid has yet to be completed. Israel is conducting its own investigation, which has been largely criticized for not being impartial, and the UN has setup a panel of inquiry of its own, but neither has released any findings yet. The only group I saw that criticized the UNHCR findings is Israel (unsurprisingly). We should mention that in the article. But your attempts to discredit a source you don't like because of personal biases is not inline with Wikipedia's policies or goals. ← George^talk 00:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, you are correct on both counts.

Please refrain from responding to long meandering comments that fail to state objections fully supported by WP rules. Let's save this page for WP work.--NYCJosh (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. There is nothing racist or discriminatory about pointing out the UNHRC is controlled by the non-aligned movement which is dominated by Muslim nations. This has nothing to do with religion specifically but rather a collection of Muslim nations imposing injecting Islamic philosophy into subject of human rights. The UNHRC has been widely condemned by numerous organizations, newspapers, and UN figures - including Ban Ki Moon. Recently the rights council has attempted to ban criticism of Islam, branding anyone who questions Muslim foreign policy as "racist" and "islamophobic." I'm simply citing mainstream sources, so attacking other editors for stating the obvious is dubious at best and malicious at worst. I said the UNHRC consists of some of the most oppressive nations on this Earth. Is that a racist statement? Is it racist to say that Muslim states as a whole rank the lowest in terms of human rights according to Freedom House? Is that racist? No. Now, I ask again - do we have any sources outside of an unsubstantiated UNHRC report to confirm claims that Israel executed passengers? Or is that a racist question? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, don't dare throw out the racist card with such callousness. The UNHRC is a body that is dominated by Islamic states and their allies and don't just take my word for it, see this.[1] It's predecessor, the UN Human Rights Commission was dissolved by Kofi Annan because of its extremist and biased positions[2] and unfortunately, the UNHRC exhibits the same traits and picks up where the UN Human Rights Commission left off. Unfortunately, Sol is correct and truth is not a criteria for RS. However, whenever the UNHRC is used as a source, it should come with the qualification that it is an organization that is dominated by Islamic countries and their allies. Just by way of example of how obscene this organization is, it actually congratulated Sudan for its "cooperation" on Darfur. Enough said.--

Of the 48 countries presently on the UNHRC, fewer than 9 can be called "Muslim" countries. There is not Muslim domination. Get your facts straight before making wild allegations. The UN fact finding mission was charged by the UNHRC but was led by three independent prominent international jurists and the professional staff was comprised of UN high commissioner for human rights staff. The report was compiled based on interviews with hundreds of witnesses and examination of other evidence.

Moreover, even if my preceding paragraph were not the case, we at WP look at RS. A report of a major UN body is RS and notable. Please stop wasting people's time here.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Twenty-seven of its 47 seats are Asian/African, with Arab/Muslim states accounting for the bulk of these. This not only guarantees massive anti-Israel bias, but it makes mockery of human rights. Among the council’s members are such stalwart champions of civil liberties as Saudi Arabia, Libya, Bangladesh, China, Jordan, Pakistan, Algeria, Angola, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Mauritania, Senegal, Uganda, Zambia, Malaysia and Qatar. Do you want a bigger shovel?--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Any report generated by the UNHRC needs to be accompanied by the above-stated qualification.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're attacking not just all "Muslim" countries but also most countries other than the US and the European powers. You've got strong political views. One might be tempted to call them "Western-biased" or "Euro-centric," but I won't try to tease them out and guess. Your personal political opinions are not notable. Plus they are irrelevant since the report is RS and notable. Plus your attacking the UNHRC not the fact-finding mission (see my comment above). I will no longer respond to such comments unless they are well founded on clearly referenced WP rules.--NYCJosh (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking anyone. Plenty of RS and primary sources within the United Nations support the argument that the UNHRC mandate is deeply flawed. A report by the UNHRC is reliable as a report by the UNHRC. It is an RS in the way it is used. It isn't a certifiable fact that Israel executed anyone. The UNHRC offers zero evidence to support the narrative and all available evidence paints a much different picture. So we attribute the claims to the UNHRC explicitly, and like Jiuj said maybe some information about UNHRC credibility should be mentioned somewhere. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The UNHRC report should be cited to the UNHRC explicitly. Israel's rebuttal and opinion of the HRC should follow that. Trying to paint the UNHRC a certain way outside the context of this event is clear POV-pushing, and should not be done in this article. The rest of your post was original research, so I won't address it, though I will note that the "execution style" phrasing was first brought up in the autopsy reports of the dead activists, not by the UNHRC; the autopsy report should also be mentioned. ← George^talk 06:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Which part was original research? When you summarized my contributions here as racist or when I linked reliable sources proving a shining bias within the UNHRC? I am not so concerned about the UNHRC but rather claims that Israel executed passengers. I've asked more than three times George if you can provide a mainstream RS that agrees with the UNHRC claims. Can you? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your own personal analysis of the UNHRC is original research. I'm glad you've switched to discussing the reliability of the UNHRC, and those groups which feel the "UNHRC mandate is deeply flawed", even if this isn't the article on the UNHRC - where that kind of discussion belongs - instead of just flatly condemning the group because of the religion of its members. Regarding other mainstream sources, didn't I just say that the autopsy reports also alleged that the dead activists were killed 'execution style'? I would be very surprised if anyone else claimed that the dead activists were executed at this point (aside from the passengers possibly), as the other investigations into the event have yet to be completed. The request is a pretty silly. ← George^talk 07:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Answer my question George: Any mainstream RS confirm the claims made by UNHRC? Seems clear to me most of the world has ignored the fact-finding mission administered by historic enemies of Israel, including states that actively sponsor Islamic terrorists, with some even haveing ties with the organization responsible for the flotilla! Gasp, but this must be original research. I've provided more sources than you George. When someone needs to pull the racist card in the middle of a cordial debate it makes it really hard to assume good faith. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For the third, and last time, the autopsy reports, which were reported on in mainstream reliable sources, described bullet wounds that coincide with someone being killed execution style. Eyewitnesses aboard the ships made the claim as well (such as Mattias Gardell). I don't have time for repeating myself. Search the archives for "execution" or "autopsy" - I'm sure you can find the (many) previous discussions on the issue. I think I've wasted quite enough time on this pointless discussion already.

Telling others you don't approve of racist commentary is not a "card", and I'm fairly tired of your tendentious, off-topic rambling. I honestly couldn't care less if you assume good faith on my part. You've made your own biases on the matter quite clear, and used up my good faith in the process. I'm here for Wikipedia, not for the Israelis, and not for the Palestinians (two peoples I couldn't care less about); whether you choose to believe that or not also doesn't matter in the least. ← George^talk 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, I've noticed your Knighty colors. "execution style" is an opinion and should be clearly attributed. Truth out there secondary comments on primary sources lack neutrality and imho, use/abuse primary sources to make a WP:POINT. I guess mainstream secondary sources reflections (CNN/BBC/Rueters/..) might be more appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed truth out there sources, this secondary reliable source might be more appropriate. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting WP editing style, Agada, you question the reliablity of a source without giving any reason for your challenge. You do this even though the source merely reports findings of a UN report to which it links. Had you really been concerned about the accuracy with which the source conveys the UN info, you could have followed the link or gone to the UN site. Then you mention (a few lines up on this page) a second source, which in your view is more reliable, but you then still proceed to delete the first source AND the text it supports in the article. One has to suspect that some editors around here have political agendas.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NYCJosh, nice to meet you. Thank you for your attention to this article, especially in the investigation section. Making some structure and adding facts are great idea. Regarding this edit, there is a concern of using primary source as base on phrasing, secondary source is still better according to Wikipedia principles: though it might be less factually exact, it is usually is more neutral and demonstrate notability.

So maybe instead of: The report also found, based on forensic pathology and ballistic evidence and based on passenger testimony, that six of the victims "were the victims of summary executions," inlcuding two of the victims who were shot after they were severely injured and could not defend themselves

we can use something along those lines: The U.N. Human Rights Council endorsed the report of a U.N. fact-finding mission that accused Israeli commandos of summarily executing six passengers on a Turkish aid flotilla ...

I'd preserve both primary and secondary sources as support for new phrasing. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion about UN investigations. I would not suggest calling this mission a "UN mission", to avoid confusion between the investigation under HRC mandate (this one) and under Secretary-General mandate (another one). --ElComandanteChe (talk) 13:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, this was not the UN/Ban Ki Moon mission, so maybe The U.N. Human Rights Council report accused Israeli commandos of summarily executing six passengers on a Turkish aid flotilla ... AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

George, where are the autopsy reports? No doubt mainstream sources included the claims made by the UNHRC report, but what else do we have? Any reliable, independent sources that confirm claims made by UNHRC? "Eye-witnesses" are unhelpful in this sense. Like I said before, it seems most of the world has ignored claims that Israel literally executed passengers as there is video showing soldiers clashing with activists before any shots were fired. I'm personally very interested in accusations that Israel executed innocent civilians. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having flash backs to the Obama birth certificate conspiracy frenzy (complete with implications of Muslim conspiracies!). Autopsy publication law varies from country to country and often depends on the consent of the family. You may not like the report, you may not think it was done by a neutral party (wild-eyed radical Karl Hudson-Philips and the rest of his 'cell'!) but it says what it says and its notable. Sol (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

More silly analogies. It is not outrageous to ask for the autopsy report. All we have is an ambiguous UNHRC report that includes two sentences referring to forensic evidence. Has this report been released to the public? Where did it take place? Do we have any 3rd party sources (preferably medical experts) confirming the findings? All we have is a fact-finding mission administered by a discredited human rights council dominated by some of the human-rights violating nations on this Earth. It seems many primary sources like Ban-Ki Moon agree the UNHRC has been less than stellar when it comes to credibility. But I guess some editors aren't phased by the fact that Saudi Arabia is a member of the council. I find your inference that the obama birth certificate conspiracy theorists is equal to people who suspect claims that Israel went around and executed passengers to be quite offensive. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The report in question can be found here. Of course this is a primary source and we should be sticking with secondary and tertiary sources.Woland (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we know this. This is the only evidence they provide:

On the basis of the forensic and firearm evidence, at least six
of the killings can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary and summary executions. As such, the conduct of the Israeli forces amounted to violations of the right to life and of the right to physical integrity, as stipulated in articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights.

No link to an autopsy report, no 3rd party sources confirming the findings. We have general news stories citing the UNHRC reports, but they attribute the findings to the UN. Israel already released its own investigation I think which hasn't been challenged by the UN, though I imagine they'll just say it is "insufficient" like their Gaza war probe. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's cool, man. The talk page is not for discussing the actual issue or for pushing your POV. These are the only reliable sources we have, and as such, these are the sources we can use. If you have other reliable sources that criticize the above report that aren't in the article then perhaps you could bring those up and discuss their addition. Woland (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF. UNHRC is an RS in the sense that it represents its own claims. But what the UNHRC says cannot be attributed as fact independently. I've asked over, and over, and over again if any editor here can link the original autopsy report or specific forensic evidence the UNHRC probe alludes to, and the only response I see is cries of racism, allegations of POV-pushing, and my personal favorite - original research. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn't clear. As Wikipedians we try to write about subjects, as they are, by using secondary and tertiary sources. I have no idea how accurate the UNHRC is in relation to what the reality of the situation was. If you would like to debate the validity of said finding I would encourage you to seek out different forums that are more amenable to debate and less so to facts and reliable sources. Sadly, AGF only goes so far, good Sir. I'm afraid you have wasted your precious reserves of said resource. I wish you good day and hope that you will someday be able to observe the basic policies of Wikipedia. Very very very, warm regards, Woland (talk) 07:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has said we should assert "execution style" as a point of fact. As far as I know we don't. I've mentioned that and the article hasn't changed, so what's the deal? You are arguing against something no one's advocating. And when you start talking about "Muslim-controlled" organizations you are going to get called out, even if you meant it as shorthand for more comprehensive criticism. No one needs to convince an editor that the source is correct. Sol (talk) 05:15, 16

October 2010 (UTC)

My opinion of the UNHRC is irrelevant. Claims that Israel went around and started executing passengers requires extraordinary evidence. If the UNHRC is to remain then it must be balanced with appropriate sources. I don't see the purpose of going to an internet chatroom begging for third-party sources to back up the findings. Sol, stop with the fallacies and strawmans. The UNHRC is pretty much controlled by the non-aligned movement which is controlled by *gasp* oil and guess who has the most oil? Oh yeah, Muslim nations. Case and point, Saudi Arabia - a leader in the human rights regime that is responsible for dolling out endless condemnation of progressive nations while tacitly protecting rogue states like Sudan and other countries with stellar-human rights record. Numerous editors have provided sources including UN officials backing up these claims, and the UNHRC wikipedia article contains similar criticism. So this isn't me POV-pushing. The UNHRC credibility vis-vis human rights has been recognized as tainted at an almost universal level, so attacking editors by labeling them racism for calling a spade a spade is simply intellectual dishonesty. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead problems?

As of 09:46, 12 October 2010

The Gaza flotilla raid was a military action by Israel against six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla on May 31, 2010. The flotilla, organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH), was carrying humanitarian aid,[6] medical supplies and construction materials, intent on breaking Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip.[7][8][9] Five of the ships were apprehended without loss of life or severe injuries. On the MV Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists violently resisted the Israeli forces. Nine activists were killed, and dozens of activists and seven Israeli commandos were wounded. Widespread international condemnation followed, Israel-Turkey relations were strained, and Israel subsequently eased its blockade.

Questions:

While the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid, medical supplies, and some construction material 0 should we be a little more precise? There is significant information to support the claim that the ship was also carrying bullet-proof vests, weapons, stashes of cash - things ordinarily not stowed on humanitarian vessels.

The lead sentence seems awkward. Military action implies war or conflict. A navy boarding another vessel is rarely classified as a military action. When US coast guards board drug smuggling ships it is not announced as a "military action." Has any serious RS concluded that this was a military action? Of course it was carried out by the Israeli Navy, part of the IDF, so any mention of military is somewhat redundant in that respect. Perhaps something like, "The Gaza flotilla raid was a naval interception carried out by the Israeli Navy against six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla..."

"On the MV Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists violently resisted the Israeli forces." Is this NPOV statement? Did the activists violently resist Israeli forces, or did they ambush them? Did they activists really react violently or did Israeli forces deliberately clashes with activists sparking resistence? Were the activists simply defending themselves?

The lead assumes the activists were resisting Israeli forces. Anyways, the rest of the article is very well put together IMO but I think the lead could be tighter. I don't know...Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts:

It's probably not necessary to go into much greater detail, though if you have a specific suggestion we could discuss it. The ships probably were carrying bullet-proof vests and cash, and possibly even weapons. It was probably also carrying food for the passengers, their clothes, refrigerators to store the food, oil for the engines, laptops, video cameras (since reports indicate they were confiscated), and thousands of other things, but there's not much point in itemizing even screw and bolt aboard.
A lot of the awkwardness comes from describing the "Gaza flotilla raid" as a single unit. I would actually prefer changing this to something like "The Gaza flotilla raid occurred on May 31, 2010 when Israeli naval forces boarded six ships from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla."
Is it NPOV? Yes, as that's how reliable sources described the incident. Most reliable sources describe it as some form of resistance, while very few describe it as an ambush (and almost exclusively when quoting the Israeli military's side of the story). I'm not sure what difference there is between activists "[reacting] violently" and Israeli forces "sparking resistance" and activists "defending themselves". In all three cases, the activists reacted violently, and reliable sources describe it as such. The only difference is that in the second and third cases, you're ascribing motives to the Israeli forces and the activists, respectively - motives which are much harder to cite than actions.

The lead mostly describes the activists as resisting Israeli forces because that's how most reliable sources described the situation. ← George^talk 08:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with calling it resistance. However, I am still disappointed that it doesn't mention the weapons/tools. I think consensus was to actually add this (see the archives) but it still isn't in. I'm not saying we need to detail allegations (or is it confirmed as fact?) of the guy getting dropped a deck is needed but the fact that it was not fists v guns needs to be clearer.Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would support some reference to weapons. Don't see any logical reason for its exclusion--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 02:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Should include the Israeli "execution" of six activists on the ship and the finding by the UN fact finding mission that those Israelis involved should be criminally prosecuted.--NYCJosh (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not helpful to the discussion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not?--NYCJosh (talk) 04:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I concur with what Cptnono said above.Chhe (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to mentioning the tools/weapons, but I don't see the point in mentioning the bullet-proof vests and cash. Why would those be important? Fine, the passengers were worried about being shot, and were trying to get cash to people who didn't have much. I just don't see the notability. The tools/weapons are more notable, but it needs to be clear who claimed that they were weapons, as almost everything identified by the IDF as a weapon wouldn't inherently be considered such (a kitchen knife could be a weapon, and someone might claim it is, but it's not inherently so in the way a bazooka or an AK-47 would be). ← George^talk 06:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Israelis commandos killed passengers with their fire-arm, autopsy results clearly confirmed that. I'm all for Ahimsa, still even after reading Ghandi, I fail to see how mentioning bullet-proof vests and cash is bad. Existence of the separate group Israeli claim can be cross referenced with Turkish customs officials statements. It was funny to see following boardings which Israeli sources claimed were still performed by Shayetet 13, but female soldiers were deployed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, your claim that the IHH men brought the flak jackets and cash-stuffed envelopes because they were "worried about being shot, and were trying to get cash to people who didn't have much," is WP:OR.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

there are currently five editors AgadaUrbanit, Chhe, Cptnono,Wikifan12345 and myself who wish to include IHH weapons in the lead. George has expressed qualified support. I think we've got consensus for inclusion.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the lead should be a concise overview of the article. Marokwitz (talk) 15:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George said, and I am paraphrasing, that the lead could state that the IDF DESCRIBED chairs or other equipment as "weapons." Not that WP should describe them as weapons.--NYCJosh (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Even without George, we now have six in favor of inclusion--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you missed the part where I said I support the inclusion of the weapons as long as its done inline with Wikipedia's policies on citing who made the claim? AgadaUrbanit - mentioning the bullet-proof vests and cash isn't 'bad', it's just not necessarily 'good' in the lead. The lead is currently only one paragraph long, so adding it brings up issues of undue weight - not because the information is particularly scandalous (which was my point that Jiujitsuguy misinterpreted as OR), but because it's just not that noteworthy. Is there a reason that the reader should care that they had bulletproof vests? Is there a reason that the reader should care that they had cash? If so, what is that reason? And who states it as a reason? If there's a reason that makes the bullet-proof vests and cash notable, then add it to the lead stating that reason. Just piling it on top of an (already too long) list of crap on a boat without a reason isn't a good idea. ← George^talk 16:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I object per nPOV. Describing an object such as a deck chair as a "weapon" violates this rule.

It is also an undue weight issue for the lead portion. One would expect a boat such as these to have deck chairs or railings, and when commandos land on board from helicopters in an attempt to seize control of the boat in int'l waters, it would not be particularly unexpected for some passengers to try to use those things to retain control of their vessel. Nor is it notable that a well-run, well-financed PR machine like that of the Israeli gov't would try to characterize these objects as "weapons." For the article yes but it's not that notable for the lead.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about the neutrality issue. But without any context, it's just non-notable bloat. My guess is that those pushing the bullet-proof vests and cash issue are doing so because Israel's stance is that the bullet-proof vests indicated that the passengers were planning to violently attack the IDF boarding party, and that the cash was going to fund terrorist attacks against Israel from Gaza. Fine, state that, cite the reliable source for it, and cite who makes that claim. But to add it out of context opens up a whole new can of worms that will destabilize the lead going forward (one side adds their crap, then the other side adds theirs, and back and forth until the lead is once again badly bloated). ← George^talk 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

George, why did you revert the "expired medicine"[3] portion of the edit? Was it an inadvertence? Your edit summary simply states "expanding, wikilinking, fixing poor grammar" which is somewhat misleading.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't me, that was Marokwitz. If you look at the diff you provided you'll see that the medical supplies weren't mentioned in either version. Though I probably would have removed it too, as your edit summary for that change mentioned "consensus established on Talk", when you had established no consensus for that addition. ← George^talk 17:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry George, you're right. My bad.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I removed a reference for the humanitarian aid (as I don't think it's necessary, and we like to avoid having too many references in the lead), so I can definitely see how you could have mistaken the two edits. ← George^talk 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As always, George slayer of dragons and defender of village people, is the voice of reason, reminding us all what is important and what is not. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

One thing I'd like to note is that I'm not totally happy with the way the deliverable cargo (construction materials, supposedly humanitarian stuffs) is being mixed with non-deliverable cargo (bulletproof vests and improvised weapons) in the current phrasing. The ynet article cited makes it pretty clear that this latter group were in the possession of the passengers ("Some of the suspects were found to be carrying large sums of money. Others had Kevlar vests and gas masks; and all were found to be carrying weapons such as knives, metal clubs and slingshots."). We should make that distinction clear here as well. If I have time later I'll try to tackle the issue, but others should feel free to improve it as well. Cheers. ← George^talk 20:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: this comment involves a theory for which I am not presenting a RS specific to the Gaza Freedom Flotilla. While passengers may have had some individually brought, non-deliverable items, it's not clear at all that the bulletproof vests fall into that category. Nor should they be readily lumped into some kind of "weapon" category. The vests photographed by the IDF are clearly marked with Red Crescent symbols, and also apparently unmarked by signs of combat. The Red Crescent strongly indicates the value of such materials for its ambulance drivers in Gaza here: Israel and the occupied and autonomous territories: Red Crescent ambulance driver saved by bullet-proof vest, 2002.--Carwil (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite possible. We just need to be careful about how we discuss them, to make it clear that we take neither side (that they were deliverable cargo, that they were non-deliverable items, or that they were a kind of "weapon" - unless we have sources that say one of those things, that is. The way it's worded now makes it sound like deliverable cargo, which we don't have the source for. It's pretty easy to fix that by just moving the mention to a bit later in the lead, and stating flatly that it was aboard the ship without getting into its purpose. ← George^talk 22:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have found it. The image for clarity. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alleged terrorists and Hamas members as well as Iranian politicians on board the Mavi Marmara?

Section title rephrased per BLP and for proper archiving.TMCk (talk)

Still not sourced. Collapsing thread not meant to improve the article per BLP and Not a Forum

~~Several CONVICTED terrorists were on the Mavi Marmara as well as Hamas members and Iranian politicians:~~

1) Amin Abu-Rashid, 43, chief fundraiser of Hamas in Western Europe

2) Yasser Muhammed Sabag, Syrian intel officer working with Iran and others according to Serbian news agency FOCUS (He was an active member of Abu Nidal terrorist organization)

3) Convicted terrorist hijacker Erdinç Tekir (left), IHH operative wounded aboard the Mavi Marmara, participated in the 1996 terrorist attack on the Russian ferry Avrasya to bargain for the release Chechens from Russian prisons. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, but served only 3 years.

4-Ken O'Keefe was also tied to terrorism. O'Keefe (41), who holds British citizenship, was described by the IDF as an "extreme Israel-hating, Hamas activist. His aim was to reach Gaza for training and to set up commando units for Hamas." 5- Hassan Aynsey (28), a member of a Turkish charity association, regularly transfers funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. Hussein Orush, from the Turkish IHH organization, intended to assist al-Qaeda activists into the Strip via Turkey. 6- Ahmed Omemun (51) from Morocco, who also has French citizenship, is a Hamas member.

IHH, The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. Hamas's leadership actually created the Union of Good in 2000—just after the launch of the armed campaign against Israel—as a means to transfer funds to Hamas. The Union of Good "compensated Hamas terrorists by providing payments to the families of suicide bombers. In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. (cited: U.S. Department of the Treasury) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.42.134 (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting some change to the content of the article? If not, I suggest we close this section per WP:FORUM. NickCT (talk) 20:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they made those accusations right after the raid and then promptly let the 'terrorists' go. Accusing the hardcore non-violent activist Ken O'Keefe of coming in to train commando units is hilarious. Sol (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

They let everyone go. What does that prove other than the fact Netanyahu was under a great deal of pressure? They also let people who shot, stabbed and beat Israeli soldiers go. Does that mean nobody attacked an Israeli on board? And O'Keefe is not a "hardcore non-violent activist". He is very clear that he finds violence acceptable under certain circumstances.

That said, unless there's some coverage by RS of these people and their notoriety, we can't put them in the article. Tekir is already there I think. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I too suggest collapsing/closing this threat as unsourced BS per BLP.TMCk (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What unsourced BS are you referring to? O'Keefe said himself they knew what they were getting into and people had to be dumb to think it was a ship of "passive resistance." Here is a source for Yasser Muhammad Sabag, among others. [4]--Geewhiz (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the section header which starts out: "Several CONVICTED terrorists..." and then the IP-post starts listing names of people who where on-board the vessel w/o giving any source. Big no no per BLP (and NPOV) which covers articles as well as talkpages. Also, if "convicted" they're would be more likely in some prison rather than on that vessel. Again, totally unsourced and a big no no per BLP. If "some", and I highlighted that, are seen as terrorist by someone (like Israel or/and other governments) than it should say that clearly for each individual with a source to back it up.
So here you have some good reasons why I collapsed that thread after waiting three days for sources after I made my concerns clear. If you like to keep this thread open please change the heading to comply with BLP and NPOV and also provide sources for "all" allegations made in regards to living people. I you (or someone else) doesn't do so I'll collapse or remove this thread again and should it be reopened the way it is I will post it at BLPN as well as ANI for further input.TMCk (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
BTW, as far as I've read O'Keefe's statements/interviews he new "what they were getting into" short time before the raid occured.TMCk (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
O, and wp:FORUM as pointed out above by another user does apply here too of course or do you see anything that might help improve the article?TMCk (talk) 23:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see some third party sources at least try to support and verify the claims made by the UNHRC. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

^ Booth, Robert (June 3, 2010). "British survivor of Gaza flotilla raid: 'Israelis ignored SOS calls'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ "İsrail yaralılara müdaheleye izin vermedi!". Timeturk. June 1, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ ^a ^b ^c "Passengers recount mid-sea horror". Al Jazeera. June 3, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ McGeough, Paul (June 4, 2010). "Suddenly, sound bombs and tear gas exploded". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis
^ Lizzie Cocker (2010-06-02). "Survivors say IDF troops opened fire before even landing". Morning Star. Retrieved 2010-06-12.
^ "Aussie photographer Kate Geraghty 'Kevin Neish, Al Jazeera: Israel fired before boarding'". Al Jazeera. June 3, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ ^a ^b Cite error: The named reference CNN Autopsies was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Aftonbladet: "Fasansfullt – blod överallt"". Aftonbladet.se. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ ^a ^b Siddique, Haroon (2010-06-11). "Gaza flotilla attack: activist releases new footage". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 17 June 2010.
^ by Cultures of Resistance (31 May 2010). "Israeli Attack on the Mavi Marmara, May 31st 2010 // 15 min. on Vimeo". Vimeo.com. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
^ Israelis explain and mock flotilla clash The Lede, New York Times June 4, 2010
^ Bitte Hammargren. "SvD: "Det var rena avrättningar"" (in (in Swedish)). Svd.se. Retrieved June 4, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)
^ ^a ^b "Death in the Med". August 20, 2010. Archived from the original on September 1, 2010. Retrieved September 1, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |source= ignored (help) See also possible alternate availability.
^ "Gaza flotilla captain: Activists prepared attack against IDF raid". Haaretz. 11 June 2010. Archived from the original on 29 August 2010. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Transcript of Nilüfer Oren Needs Turkish-English Translation
^ Mackey, Robert (June 4, 2010). "Israelis Explain, and Mock, Flotilla Clash". New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2010.
^ Siegel, Judy (June 1, 2010). "Red Cross visits wounded activists". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved June 4, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Nahmias, Roee (June 9, 2010). "Egyptian lawmaker slammed for speaking of beaten troops". Israel News. Archived from the original on September 8, 2010.
^ "Activists' eyewitness accounts detail Israeli raid on Gaza aid ship". Hürriyet. June 3, 2010.
^ "Eyewitness Kevin Ovenden from the Freedom Flotilla: 'I saw people shot'". Socialist Worker. June 3, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ ^a ^b "Israeli PM 'regrets' deaths as troops storm aid ships". BBC. May 31, 2010.
^ Cite error: The named reference israelima was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ ^a ^b http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10208027
^ Booth, Robert (June 3, 2010). "British survivor of Gaza flotilla raid: 'Israelis ignored SOS calls'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ "İsrail yaralılara müdaheleye izin vermedi!". Timeturk. June 1, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ McGeough, Paul (June 4, 2010). "Suddenly, sound bombs and tear gas exploded". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved June 4, 2010.
^ Rachel Shabi in Jerusalem (June 3, 2010). "Gaza flotilla activist faces death threats | World news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved June 5, 2010.
^ Soldiers thought we would kill them
^ Cite error: The named reference ynetnews1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ by Cultures of Resistance (31 May 2010). "Israeli Attack on the Mavi Marmara, May 31st 2010 // 15 min. on Vimeo". Vimeo.com. Retrieved 2010-06-26.
^ Iara Lee (June 11, 2010). Israeli Attack on the Mavi Marmara // Raw Footage (Flash Video). CulturesofResistance. {{cite AV media}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[1] Booth, Robert (June 3, 2010). "British survivor of Gaza flotilla raid: 'Israelis ignored SOS calls'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[2] "İsrail yaralılara müdaheleye izin vermedi!". Timeturk. June 1, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[aljazeera3-3] "Passengers recount mid-sea horror". Al Jazeera. June 3, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[4] McGeough, Paul (June 4, 2010). "Suddenly, sound bombs and tear gas exploded". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[Bloody_Israeli_raid_on_flotilla_sparks_crisis-5] Bloody Israeli raid on flotilla sparks crisis

[Lizzie_Cocker-6] Lizzie Cocker (2010-06-02). "Survivors say IDF troops opened fire before even landing". Morning Star. Retrieved 2010-06-12.

[live-fire-7] "Aussie photographer Kate Geraghty 'Kevin Neish, Al Jazeera: Israel fired before boarding'". Al Jazeera. June 3, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[CNN_Autopsies-8] Cite error: The named reference CNN Autopsies was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[9] "Aftonbladet: "Fasansfullt – blod överallt"". Aftonbladet.se. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[Iara_Lee-10] Siddique, Haroon (2010-06-11). "Gaza flotilla attack: activist releases new footage". London: The Guardian. Retrieved 17 June 2010.

[11] y Cultures of Resistance (31 May 2010). "Israeli Attack on the Mavi Marmara, May 31st 2010 // 15 min. on Vimeo". Vimeo.com. Retrieved 2010-06-26.

[12] Israelis explain and mock flotilla clash The Lede, New York Times June 4, 2010

[13] Bitte Hammargren. "SvD: "Det var rena avrättningar"" (in (in Swedish)). Svd.se. Retrieved June 4, 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

[DeathInTheMed-14] "Death in the Med". August 20, 2010. Archived from the original on September 1, 2010. Retrieved September 1, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |source= ignored (help) See also possible alternate availability.

[15] "Gaza flotilla captain: Activists prepared attack against IDF raid". Haaretz. 11 June 2010. Archived from the original on 29 August 2010. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[16] Transcript of Nilüfer Oren Needs Turkish-English Translation

[NYT_Mock-17] Mackey, Robert (June 4, 2010). "Israelis Explain, and Mock, Flotilla Clash". New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2010.

[red_cross-18] Siegel, Judy (June 1, 2010). "Red Cross visits wounded activists". Jerusalem Post. Retrieved June 4, 2010. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[Egyptian_lawmaker-19] Nahmias, Roee (June 9, 2010). "Egyptian lawmaker slammed for speaking of beaten troops". Israel News. Archived from the original on September 8, 2010.

[20] "Activists' eyewitness accounts detail Israeli raid on Gaza aid ship". Hürriyet. June 3, 2010.

[21] "Eyewitness Kevin Ovenden from the Freedom Flotilla: 'I saw people shot'". Socialist Worker. June 3, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[BBC_Shoukri-22] "Israeli PM 'regrets' deaths as troops storm aid ships". BBC. May 31, 2010.

[israelima-23] Cite error: The named reference israelima was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[GuardianZoubi-24] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10208027

[25] Booth, Robert (June 3, 2010). "British survivor of Gaza flotilla raid: 'Israelis ignored SOS calls'". London: The Guardian. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[26] "İsrail yaralılara müdaheleye izin vermedi!". Timeturk. June 1, 2010. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[27] McGeough, Paul (June 4, 2010). "Suddenly, sound bombs and tear gas exploded". Melbourne: The Age. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

[guardian2-28] Rachel Shabi in Jerusalem (June 3, 2010). "Gaza flotilla activist faces death threats | World news". London: The Guardian. Retrieved June 5, 2010.

[Soldiers_thought_we_would_kill_them-29] Soldiers thought we would kill them

[ynetnews1-30] Cite error: The named reference ynetnews1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[31] y Cultures of Resistance (31 May 2010). "Israeli Attack on the Mavi Marmara, May 31st 2010 // 15 min. on Vimeo". Vimeo.com. Retrieved 2010-06-26.

[32] Iara Lee (June 11, 2010). Israeli Attack on the Mavi Marmara // Raw Footage (Flash Video). CulturesofResistance. {{cite AV media}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]