Talk:Freedom Flotilla II

Who sign to participate ? more info.

Have started this by adding /Ships/ section. The story is still very fluid, and is maintaining a certain level of secrecy. There is a press conference planned for 27 June 2011. Suspect to get a lot more info at that time. Everett (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

OK yet another associated aspect: ==tourist sailing== Several yacht owners or cruise operators respond to popular demands sailing along flotilla on open sea. Just examples from quick search: "The yacht will be available for charters", "This vessel and the Seabourn Odyssey will sail the Eastern Mediterranean" "Mediterranean Cruises - Book Cheap, Discount", "12 June 2011. The ship will sail a seven-day Western Mediterranean", "Mediterranean Cruises In June 2011, Prices From $399pp", "Cruises is offering a 12-night Eastern Mediterranean", "Equinox 11 Night Eastern Mediterranean Cruise departing June 27","Norwegian Cruises 2011 ...Gaza". "another flotilla is set to arrive in the eastern Mediterranean, deliberately timed to coincide with the one year anniversary of the violent events" and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Claim of "illegal" using Wikipedia's voice

I've had to remove the word "illegal" from the lead, together with its associated refs (), on account of it being an abuse of Wikipedia's neutral voice. The sources cited do not establish a consensus that Israel's Gaza blockade is illegal; indeed, this is very much a disputed position. If someone wants to restore "illegal" to the lead, it needs to be done with in-text attribution.

References

—Biosketch (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not how WP works. The sources do indeed claim the blockade is illegal. Reliable sources are cited for these claims. These satisfy WP:V. On WP, "verifiability, not truth" applies. If you believe the blockade to be legal, and can find reputable sources also claiming this, then that too can be included and we can say that the legality of the blockade is disputed, linking to either "side's" references. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There are RS which claim the blockade is legal and illegal and every shade of gray in between. This page is not the page to rehash those lengthy and controversial debates. Instead, I've simply put in a link to the full legal assessments from all sides. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I've altered the link to point at the section debating the legality of the blockade (rather than the legality of the raid on the first flotilla) and moved the references accordingly. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's try to keep length of text on legality, and other contentious issues, as short as possible in the opening text section. Would suggest moving those issues further down into article, so they do not have negative impact on readability of top section. --Everett (talk) 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

As EC says this sentence does not belong in the opening paragraph and we need to find a better home for it. The references were biased: five references supporting one of the mentioned viewpoints and none supporting the other. Three references quoting one person gave undue weight. Recommended style is to avoid references in the lead para since it should mostly summarise content appearing with references elsewhere in the article, so five in a row is definitely too many. I have selected one strong reference to support each viewpoint and concatenated them, in the order the viewpoints are mentioned, in a single inline reference. No more is necessary in this article since the issue is thoroughly dealt with and referenced in the linked article. --Mirokado (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I previously removed the 5 one-sided references to prevent an edit war. The last thing we wanted to see was a massive stack of 10 or more references in our first paragraph -- 5 claiming the blockade is legal, and 5 claiming it's illegal. But Mirokado's change is better than mine. Two balanced refs seems like the right choice here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Again the opening section is being broadened beyond a simple description of what flotilla actually is. Latest text indicates that Israel and Egypt have offered to allow flotilla to dock. This is an event in the ongoing news story, that really does not belong in the opening section. Perhaps a few new sections are needed. e.g. Preparation (before leaving port), Embarking, Success/Interception of flotilla. It is obvious that this article has strong views on both sides. Let's try to keep the opening section concise as an overview of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EverettColdwell (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hoax?

There are numerous claims that the IDF interview with the Red Cross is a hoax. see http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/mathilde-redmatn-and-the-humanitarian-crisis-in-gaza.html , http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/CigarGod/flotilla-gaza-palestine_n_853745_85826227.html , http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/mr-myers-cites-fiction-but-gaza-crisis-is-fact-2806442.html . Here: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm is an article at ICRC website, in which a far less rosy picture of the blockade is painted. In any case, the JPost article isn't a commentary on Freedom Flotilla II, and cannot be counted as "reaction". Removing that section. --Soman (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I said... although my sentences saying there is a possible speculation on the authenticity was censored because it wasn't a reliable source...I never even said it is an outright fake!... now waiting for the e-mail from Red Cross Stationed there to confirm or debunk the myth... I will post the answer here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 (talk) 04:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be debating whether or not something reported in a RS is a hoax. Particularly using random message boards as support claims that it's a hoax. HOWEVER, it clearly was not a response to this flotilla. And so, I fully support it's deletion. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Got the E-mail reply....its...erm...strangely answered?...you decide...

"Dear XXXXX,

Thanks for your message and for your interest to get clarification on the current situation in Gaza. We agree with you that there are many media debates around this subject. Regarding the official position of the ICRC on the current humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, please kindly read the enclosed link with all the information you need: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/interview/2011/palestine-israel-interview-2011-05-19.htm

With best regards,

Cecilia " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.99.38 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

missed diplomatic response

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_Flotilla_II&oldid=436653813#Ireland was text on prompt response of Israel diplomacy. Now is missing. Such responses are quite rare in diplomacy. Also truncator cut off the f.name of Israel ambassador to Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

That has been moved to the correct section, Israel, rather than Ireland. The statement by the Israeli foreign minister does not appear to be a reply to Eamon Gilmore, but is a general statement. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Again You Bastun bas tuned down probable fallacy of Israel diplomacy. Disinformation was done by removing quote from "terror activists, seeking to create provocation and looking for blood". removing date and cutting off whole chapter :

On JulyJune 26, Israeli intelligence said that some flotilla activists may attack IDF soldiers with sulfur in attempt to kill some of Israel's troops.

Why You removed this well sourced text. Which sound quite ridiculous as sulfur is yellow nontoxic soft rock, but it smell is associated from medieval legend with devil activity, anyway is the PRtext Israel choses to chase and is casting some light on Liberman "blood seeking terrorist" thesis.

More contribution is needed to list of participants to reveal those 'blood seeking terrorist' if diplomacy of Israel is real and who they instigated to 'deal of properly' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was error in date so perhaps above may be irrelevant.

Hoax video that was linked by Israeli officials

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Should this info be included under Israeli response ?! Official accounts tweeted this video then later deleted the tweets. Several major news articles have stories on it. Unflavoured (talk) 05:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, it would probably be more appropriate to have a small subsection just like "Alleged Sabotage." Unflavoured (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A few more links: [6], [7], [8]. Unflavoured (talk) 06:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, it sounds unencyclopedic to me. The article should focus on more important stuff. Marokwitz (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Since respectable mainstream sources like Haaretz, the Telegraph, JPost and JTA covered it, it's probably worth a few lines. I'll admit that, despite having read WP:NOT many times, I've never really understood how to determine whether something is unencyclopedic in a reliable and repeatable way. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

My test is to imagine whether Encyclopaedia Britannica would include this in their article. Unlikely that they would mention such stuff unless it proves to have some long term significance, and continue to be remembered as a significant detail at least on month from now. Encyclopedic material should stand the test of time.Marokwitz (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That is the reason I added the links here instead of being bold and adding it directly to the article. The sabotage allegations were covered by several RS sources, and were added to the article. But the hoax video is still only a couple of days old, so I am unsure whether it is wiser to wait a while or to add it now. What is the typical criteria to determine "worth adding" ?! Especially since this is a sensitive issue... Unflavoured (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest waiting for more details to develop, but I can't agree that this sounds unencyclopedic. Here's what Haaretz said:

Haaretz sent the prime minister’s office a series of questions inquiring whether the office was involved in the production of the video in any way. The premier’s office in response did not deny that that the government was involved in the video’s production...

It's no small matter when the office of the chief executive of a country is questioned about whether it participated in the creation of black propaganda, and then doesn't deny doing so. In many countries this would be the kind of thing that could bring down a government, if proved.  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it brought down the government then it would be significant. If proven to be actually the work of a government agency (unlikely), maybe. At present it doesn't appear to be a significant event that would be remembered 1 month from now. We should be aware of WP:RECENTISM and avoid it. Marokwitz (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:

• Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits.
• The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus.

Marokwitz (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be interesting to apply that rigorously and remove everything from the article that comes from sources less than 1 month old and see what we have left. Sean.hoyland - talk 12:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be an interesting experiment to prevent creation of articles on topics less than 1 month old, this would help prevent Wikipedia from turning into a poorly edited news source, emphasizing controversies over substance. Articles should not be overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens. Marokwitz (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Some contributors, it would seem, apply a test before including/removing material on this and related articles. Is it favourable to Israel and/or unfavourable to flotilla participants/the population of Gaza? Include/argue for inclusion/retention. Is it unfavourable to Israel and/or favourable to flotilla participants/the population of Gaza? Don't include/argue for deletion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, when coming from someone who added to Wikipedia a list of all "the the crew of the MV Saoirse taking part in Freedom Flotilla", based on an unreliable primary source (the "Irish Ship to Gaza" website) while in fact it has been just announced that MV Saoirse will not take part in the freedom flotilla. Publishing unsubstantiated future speculations is not really helpful for the quality of Wikipedia, and those are a clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. I wonder what test you applied before including this material. Marokwitz (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Or imagine if editors had to wait for one month for their revision to become the current revision. The topic area would be transformed. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Not having a crystal ball, I didn't know the MV Saoirse would be sabotaged in exactly the same manner as one of the other ships. That information will, of course, be included later today when I have some free time. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I like your idea, Sean. I'm not going to edit the article right now because it's currently very active. But here's a much more complete source about the apparent sabotage of vessels in harbor in Greece. There's also a pretty interesting NY Times article about how an Israeli advocacy group has caused Flotilla vessels in Greece to be delayed by interfering with their insurance coverage. Page 2 of this article also documents that, and says that the Greek government appears to be complicit. I think we're probably going to need a section soon to aggregate attempts to stop the Flotilla that aren't overt, e.g. apparent sabotage attempts, attempts like this insurance thing, dubious hasbara efforts like the video that user Unflavoured documented, & etc.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In general in this topic area, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם is often a good way to save yourself time finding sources. Richard Silverstein usually cites a whole host of sources in his articles. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Sean; that's really quite a collection, and I'll bookmark the link. I was especially pleased to learn that "jumping on a mattress while wearing Puma shoes leads inexorably to lesbian sex, twosomes, threesomes and God knows what else". I'd suspected that my wing-tips might not be quite the thing for clubbing, so that's good to know.  – OhioStandard (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion went way off-track. Instead of sarcasm and bickering, we could have just checked out the earlier article on the first Gaza flotilla to compare. Israeli officials had circulated a link to a video and then changed their mind and apologized, and that was included in a small line in that article. So if the issue does not progress further, a couple of lines is all that we need to this article. Unflavoured (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What happened in another article isn't a valid policy based decision procedure so you can forget that approach. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

hoax was planed to derail this and other discussion. as proved above. patients mill for .il — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 09:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

regarding the lead material about Amin Abu Rashid

( Background: At 23:16 30 June 2011 (UTC) Jalapenos do exist added text to the lead based on a seven-sentence 30 June 2011 Jerusalem Post blurb that said it was echoing an as-yet-unidentified 28 June 2011 De Telegraaf ( Dutch ) article that itself apparently echoed allegations made by some unnamed intelligence source of unnamed nationality that claimed Amin Abu Rashid is a senior Hamas member. Jalapenos wrote that the efforts of the 22 NGOs backing the flotilla are "coordinated by senior Hamas member operative Amin Abu Rashid." The Jerusalem Post article also quoted an Israeli public information official "in response" as supporting the accusation, saying "this is not a humanitarian flotilla, but a provocation and a terror operation in disguise of a flotilla." A different user added a cite subsequently to a previous-year 2010 Telegraaf article that likewise echoed accusations made by an unnamed intelligence source. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 02:06, 2 July 2011 UTC )

This material seems a little outlandish. There are two references for this tidbit, the "Jerusalem Post" source and the "telegraaf". Problem is, the JP source points to the "telegraaf" as the source of its information, and the "telegraaf" points to a quote given by "an intelligence source" as its basis for the material. That seems pretty darned weak if you ask me. I'm removing the material. If someone wants it back it will have to be heavily qualified. NickCT (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

( At 18:43, 1 July 2011 user NickCT deleted the allegation about Rashid. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 07:44, 2 July 2011 UTC )

I object to the deletion -- in fact, it a "tidbit" that is properly referenced to an RS. We have a multitude of sentences that are completely un-referenced, in contrast, in the related participants list. Nick -- go ahead and delete all the unreferenced sentences, as well as those referenced to non-RSs. But please don't delete the few sentences referenced to RSs. We should endeavor to avoid what might be seen as POV editing.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

( One minute after posting the above, and nine minutes after NickCT's removal of the passage about Rashid, Epeefleche restored the disputed text, doing so at 18:52, 1 July 2011. - late edit by Ohiostandard, 07:44, 2 July 2011 UTC )

It's within scope of BLP so perhaps it should go to the noticeboard. What might be seen as POV editing also includes parroting anonymous partisan sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

( At 19:43, 1 July 2011 Epeefleche created an article on Amin Abu Rishid. Except for one trivial edit, he's its only contributor as I write this; here is its now-current state. − late edit by Ohiostandard, 07:44, 2 July 2011 UTC )

@Epeefleche - re " We should endeavor to avoid what might be seen as POV editing" - Out of curiosity, do you keep a straight face while you type this kind of thing or do you smirk sorta perniciously? You haven't really addressed my point, that this material is coming from an unnamed "intelligence source", which can hardly be seen as reliable.

Regardless, I doubt you'll be won over by sense or reason. Sean, if we don't get other editors weighing in here, which noticeboard would you recommend? NickCT (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It is an RS -- and we rely on RSs to be reliable. They don't always reveal the names of their sources. Furthermore, there are more articles than you indicated, and the statement by the Israeli Minister is attributed to him by name. @Sean -- that's a good idea ... the list of participants (List of participants of Freedom Flotilla II) is rife with unsourced info re BLPs, and info sourced to what are clearly non-RSs, and needs to be culled immediately to un-do the existing manifest BLP violation.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there's a fine line between writing an encyclopedia based on media sources and providing an open comms channel for propaganda and innuendo by flotilla activists and Israeli intelligence. For articles covered by the discretionary sanctions, the fine line should probably be made into a gigantic heavily mined separation berm like the ones in Western Sahara. Nick, I was thinking of WP:BLPN. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Israeli intelligence does appear to have originated the allegation that Rishid is a Hamas fundraising chief, from what I've seen so far. The earliest attempt I'm aware of to portray him so is the 2 June 2010 story in the Dutch-language De Telegraaf that relies only on "an intelligence source" with no further details given. But a story nine days later, published on 11 June 2010 in Hebrew by Yedioth Ahronoth is evidently relying on claims by Israeli intelligence. I don't read Hebrew, and thus haven't been able to find the original Yedioth Ahronoth story, but two same-day "echo" stories − one by sister publication Ynet and another in Italian by l'Occidentale − make the origin of the accusation quite clear.

The paper De Telegraaf, btw, is described in our articles and all across the web as "sensationalistic", the closest thing the Dutch have to a British-style tabloid/redtop. Nor is it encouraging re the author's or paper's impartiality that the subheading of a subsequent story in De Telegraaf, also by Bart Olmer, identifies the joint Dutch/Italian flotilla vessel as "the ship in which Dutch activists seek a confrontation with Israeli marines".

I believe we're all aware of the extent of what the Jerusalem Post ( not to mention Yedioth Ahronoth ) called "the hysteria propaganda" that's coming out of Israel to discredit the flotilla, e.g. the phony video apparently produced by a man who says he's an advisor to Netanyahu, the intelligence claims of "chemical weapons" (sulfur) on board that were first fed to Israeli papers and then ridiculed by them - and by Israeli cabinet ministers - in the following days, & etc. Given such a context, I really think we need to see much broader international media support from highly-credible sources for claims that appear to originate with Israeli intelligence, military, or political sources before we can legitimately state or imply that a living person is a "Hamas operative".

This caveat should of course apply to Epeefleche's new article on Amin Abu Rashid, as well, as I see it. It's my opinion that these accusations shouldn't be anywhere in mainspace right now; we actually belong at the "discuss" stage of WP:BRD concerning this matter, and would be if Epeefleche hadn't instead made a token "I disagree" comment here, immediately reinstated, and then unilaterally created what amounts to a POV fork about Rishid while we were all trying to sort this matter. Those actions seem very unnecessarily aggressive to me, especially where so potentially damaging an accusation is being made in such a hurry about a living person. I'm not sure that AE wouldn't be the right forum to bring this to, actually.  – OhioStandard (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

note - until it is discussed and agreed I have removed the disputed from both articles. Personally I don't support is as I saw it presented. I would be interested in reading any quotes from him about the accusation. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone supporting this flotilla?

Is anyone other than the organizers and participants supporting this flotilla? It's only a semi-serious question, but the way the article (particularly the reactions section) reads now the entire world is against the flotilla except for Hamas and Mairead Maguire.

Is that pretty much the truth of things?

Or is there somehow that we can get better, the appropriate amount, of balance in that section?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The congress of the Swedish Commercial Employees' Union in May 2011 decided unanimously to support the flotilla economically. source http://www.sydsvenskan.se/varlden/article1482357/Handels-stottar-Ship-to-Gaza.html --Soman (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Canada's boat to Gaza pages lists 650 individual and organizations supporting flotilla. http://www.tahrir.ca/endorsements. Most of the External Link websites list endorsements. --Everett (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT

The article seem to state that various governments and politician do not believe the sea travel will help [people in Gaza. Perhaps Israel grip is so overwhelming that those quite rationally thinking people honestly disbelieve flotilla may help cut that deadlock. The disbelieve may be based on the amount of people Israel may like to kill. The killing ratio is 10 times higher as applied by Nazi in WW2. Reaching 100 Palestinians killed for one from Israel (including guest workers who are killed by alleged shells or rockets). But what dose unbelievers has to do when article is about those who have the hope and believe that there are humans who "Stay Human" in Israel and they action may influence they opinion and this "only democracy " will see how is they blockade. If they change mind they can vote for other Israeli Gov or perhaps protest like in in other dictatures if they need to express they anger. So far the blockade is held by collective citizenship by people of Israel and in democracy all voting Jews and other(do other vote there?) are responsible. Other reason for disbelieve of those politicians and heads of governments portray in this article; other reason are perhaps money; when Israel getting huge sum, wash it (money laundry), and bribe back politicians. Finally quite recently appearing cause of crazinesses in Israel and around is Bromine. Sodium Bromide is in salt from Dead Sea where is in enormous highest in world concentration. If one start eating bromine on beginning will be calm but later it turn into aggression. The reach in bromine salt from the Dead Sea is frequently label kosher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Is that last piece just an epic work of original research? We need to get Edward de Bono in here. S.G.(GH) ping! 09:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 100:1 1300:13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.244 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Question: What is "100:1" & "1300:13"? 18:48 27UTC June 2011 Everett (talk)

No mention of Alice Walker in article?

I realise that there is a separate page for prospective participants in the flotilla, but surly Alice walker is such a significant figure that she warrants a mention in this article as well?

Added. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information about Irish ships

Resolved

The sentence related to the statements of Turkish authorities about an Irish ship docked in Turkey (not Greece!) should read:

Turkish authorities said that they have determined there was no act of sabotage on an Irish ship which had been docked in the Turkish port of Gocek.

I have already taken out the misleading information from the lead, but I can't deal with that piece of wrong information right now, due to general 1RR restriction on the article. Thank you for your help!  Cs32en Talk to me  12:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

This sentence is about the Irish ship MV Saoirse. The alleged sabotage occurred while Saoirse was docked in the Turkish coastal town of Göcek. Not in Greece. What's misleading here? Marokwitz (talk) 14:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I thought that the reports were all about ships anchored in Greece. A more pertinent report about the issue can be found in Haaretz.  Cs32en Talk to me  14:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I reverted an IP edit here but there was an edit in between my 2 edits so I had to self revert to avoid 1RR. The IP's edit looks wrong. The article says what the source says so I think it needs reverting... Sean.hoyland - talk 21:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Flotilla supporters in Spanish Embassy

[9]. Perhaps worth adding under either "Greek travel ban" or "Preparations." Unflavoured (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

An Unsubstantiated claim in the "name" section

Under the section "Name" we have "The flotilla is named in memory of Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian reporter and activist whose killing by suspected members of a Palestinian Salafist group…" In fact, the citation provided, dose not attribute blame for Vittorio Arrigoni's killing. It makes no mention of any "Salafist group" (or any other in this regard) it merely refers to " His recent violent death, under circumstances still in question". Somebody needs to either provide reliable citations to back up the "killing by suspected members of a Palestinian Salafist group" or remove that part of the statement. Prunesqualor billets_doux 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Page 49 of the April 30th The Economist has a great article on it. Are you debating that Salafists have been blamed or do you object to its inclusion in this article?Cptnono (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Online, I could only find a relevant economist article dated Apr 28th. This article didn't seem to me to provide any conclusive proof re who was responsible for the killing of Vittorio Arrigoni. As for "Salafists have been blamed" – Yes, but, so has Israel (by other parties). I'm not going to advocate any side in this, I would merely point out that there is some controversy re this matter. Prunesqualor billets_doux 01:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The article about Arrigoni makes it very clear that he was killed by Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin. Claiming that he was killed by Israel is an extreme fringe opinion and not supported by any reliable source. Marokwitz (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Please remove Typo

Could someone please remove the incorrectly added space in the name "Jody Williams" (Paragraph 3 in the "Non-governmental organizations" section). Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Walker v Jacobson article space

Interesting to note that Alice Walker's involvement in the flotilla currently gets less than one quarter of the article space that Howard Jacobson's criticism of her proposed actions gets. Surly Walker has a much greater international standing and notability than Jacobson. This state of affairs seems perverse to me. Prunesqualor billets_doux 03:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I don not believe that Jacobson's criticism of her has the notability to be included at all. _If_ multiple other RS refer to his criticism, then it's notable enough to be included. But, as-is, it's just an OPINION paper, and does not belong in the article at all. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

That's true of most of the opinions cited to primary sources, and not just in this article. If the opinion is truly notable, a secondary source will write about it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have restored Walker explaining that she sees her role as that of an "elder". Just saying "she's concerned for the children" is very silly indeed. This is Alive Walker, not a Miss World contestant. The Walker and Jacobson opinion pieces for CNN form a pair and are related. Jacobson's piece was a response. So, I think we should be treat them as a pair and include them both for balance. How much space each should get is debatable of course. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean, the difference as I see it is that multiple other RS have written about Alice Walker joining the flotilla. While, so far as I know, no other RS has written about Jacobson's comments. Is that correct?

Perhaps the fix here though, is to ignore Alice Walker's opinion paper completely and stick solely to what secondary sources had to say about her joining the flotilla. Would that work as a compromise? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen other RS talking about Jacobson's comments but then there are many things I haven't seen. Yes, sticking to secondary sources sounds good to me. I would rather Wikipedia had a WP:NO-OPEDS-EVER policy to be honest. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish we had a WP:NO-OPEDS-EVER policy. Marokwitz (talk) 07:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now removed Jacobson, and limited Alice Walker to what I could find in secondary RS. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

wow - a four hour tribunal with a signed and sealed verdict. anyway, i will repost it, with 3 secondary RS's. that should do the wiki trick. Soosim (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Quit complaining, we could have done it via a secret hearing behind closed doors with no disclosure of evidence on security grounds and started issuing travel bans to editors. :) If we are to include Jacobson, I don't think the ultraminimalist summary of his piece really does his argument justice. The kernel of his argument in the response to Walker for CNN was that it's divisive i.e. a "political gesture" that "worsens the situation" -> "The parties to this conflict need to be brought together not divided". Everyone seems to be ignoring that though and going for the emotional soundbites, oh well. Anyway, I removed the "opinionator" blog (facepalm) and Forward too as it was the same as the JTA article...and left JTA for now as it is a secondary source...just about. Let the discussions continue. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of article MV Saoirse into this article

Please see the discussion at Talk:MV Saoirse#Proposed merge regarding the propose merger of the article MV Saoirse (which appears to be the only separate article on a ship that is taking part or was to have taken part in the Flotilla), into the main article Freedom Flotilla II. Thank you Davshul (talk) 12:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

re this edit

User:Bob drobbs - I think my wording gave a more thorough background. Additionally, as it currently reads it sounds like Hamas forcibly seized control in the strip unprompted, which is both wrong and not supported by the reference. The current wording has issues that my proposed wording does not. I don't think an extra line of text goes to far into the debate. NickCT (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Bob on this. The alternative promoted by Nick seems to less accurately reflect the circumstances, as reported.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I just don't want to see this page getting dragged into an edit war regarding who the rightfully elected leaders of Gaza, and all of Palestine are. There are surely two sides too that story, but the full background of that, and an edit war over it, has no place in this article. We should say that there was a conflict. And, I think we should probably also say that the end result was Hamas ending up in control of the Gaza strip, but I couldn't think of the most neutral way of putting it. Does anyone have a suggestion? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm.... I was under the impression that Hamas was the fairly clear victor of the Palestinian legislative election, 2006. Is there another side to that story? If so, I'd be interested to hear it. Regardless, I'm happy with the current wording.

@Epeefleche - Yes yes Epee. We all know who you're going to agree with. WP:HOUND elsewhere please. NickCT (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos?

Does anyone have any good, public domain photos (possibly of one of the ships) which can be added to the top of this article?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I was searching a couple days ago for such pictures. No luck. Agree that photos would be good. --Everett (talk) 06:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Free Gaza has been pretty good about licensing stuff correctly on Flickr for years now. Although we shouldn't go overboard in the article, I think a couple and a Commons link would be great. We would have to watch out for POV captions. I can drag a bunch over if anyone else is not familiar with the tool.Cptnono (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Article tense and definition of "Flotilla"

It's not clear to me at this point if one or two boats continue toward Gaza. But at minimum the Dignity is still trying to reach Gaza.

So, was it wrong to change the tense of the article to past tense, as been happening recently?

And what about using the term "Flotilla"? Does one boat qualify as a flotilla?

Any suggestions?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Dignité Al Karama

There is a new four-sentence article about the Dignité Al Karama. I think it should be merged into this article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I personally believe we could atleast wait with merging until after tomorrow to see what will happen. And if nothing special happens I will accept merging it instantly.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No harm in waiting a few days. No deadline and all that. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes lets do that. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to remove it instantly. We should wait and get a few more comments. However, even if something happens tomorrow, there is no need to have a separate article for this boat. It's notable _only_ for this one event, and should be kept within the page for this event. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

All im asking is tha tthe article inst merge until after tomorrow atleast. Its not too much to ask actually. There is no rush.....--BabbaQ (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I can see no harm in waiting until tomorrow, I currently see no justification for this article not to be merged into the main article. Davshul (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that Malik's first instincts here are correct. It would allow the reader to have all the context of this article, without clicking another key. While there is no deadline, at the same time if there is consensus for a merge, there is no need to wait -- on the bare supposition that something may happen tomorrow that would make it worthy of a separate article. Its not worthy of one today. If that happens (which is far from clear), we could consider a new article at a later time -- there is no deadline for creating a new article (the flip side of the way the concept is discussed above). Not the most important issue in the world, but that is how I see it.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Today the ship was intercepted peacefully by Israel[10] and is being directed toward Ashdod. I think it's reached the end of its run. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• Given the above, I suggest we merge the article into this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• POV-fork that should be killed (merged) into this article here now. IQinn (talk) 00:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Merged as per the discussion and WP:BOLD. IQinn (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Shorten the intro?

I think the intro for the article has become much too large. Wikipedia's style guide recommends 1-3 paragraphs. Are there any objections to shortening it?

As for what can go, I think the entire 3rd paragraph really isn't necessary. It belongs in "background". And I think the 4th and 5th paragraphs can be shortened and combined. From a historical perspective all that people really need to know (in the summary) is that several boats were sabotaged, Greece imposed a blockade, several boats tried to violate that blockade but were turned back, almost everyone went home, except one boat that actually left on it's way to Gaza.

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have any comments on this? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

No one objected, so I WP:BOLD trimmed the intro down to a size more appropriate according to wikipedia's style guide. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk

WP:COPYVIO

Reenem's edits were largely copied and pasted from the sources, and the subsequent edits didn't make substantive changes in "his" contribution. I reverted the addition per WP:COPYVIO. Restoring the material may lead to a block. Also note that removing copyright violations is not considered a reversion for 1RR purposes. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove WP:COPYVIO added by user but why do you also remove material that have been added by other editors and that is clearly not "copyvio"? And of course you should identify parts that are copy violation. Some parts are clearly not, and to remove parts that are not copyvios is disruptive. IQinn (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/Malik. If Iqinn believes parts are not copyvio, he can discuss here.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The changes made after Reenem's edits were: (a) replacing "peacefully" with "with no resistance and no violence" and (b) adding "The Paris-based organisers described the boarding of the Yacht as "an act of violence and an illegal act," and as "a new act of piracy against harmless people"." and two sources.

Do you want me to go through Reenem's edits and pick out the sentences that are copied and leave the ones that are okay? That will leave you with every second or third sentence in the section. It would be completely meaningless.

I recommend you (or another editor) go to the sources and write, in your own words, an account of what happened. Then there won't be a copyright problem. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not show where the large copyright problem was that would have justified the deletion. Please do so. IQinn (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's do it step by step. You honestly want to tell me that this (the information i added) is a Copyvio?

The Paris-based organisers described the boarding of the Yacht as "an act of violence and an illegal act," and as "a new act of piracy against harmless people".

[11]

How?? I am quoting the organizers. IQinn (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Direct quotes must be sourced verbatim. The sentence structure used to deliver those quotes appears to be written by IQinn in his own words, not those of AFP. I do not see how this constitutes a copyvio. Thundermaker (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Iqinn, that one sentence isn't COPYVVIO. Do you want to restore it? Go ahead. I already told you that Reenem's edits were massive copyright violations. I'm truly sorry that your sentence got caught in the net. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I just restored the sentence in question. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but their seems to be more content that you have reverted that may not have been copy right violations. My question: You want to identify the parts you claim are violations? Or shall i post part after of the removed text that i do not think are copyright violations here onto the talk page for discussion? IQinn (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you want me to post every sentence and phrase of Reenem's to show where he copied it from? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You claim that every sentence and phrase he added are copy and paste from the sources? IQinn (talk) 00:04, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Malik, I think your changes were indeed made in good faith. Just please be careful in making major reverts, wiping out the changes of multiple editors. It would have been _far_ better to simply re-write the section, rather than doing a major revert. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

part two

Reenem changed the title of the section and he edited the first paragraph.[12]

Title: Journey of the Dignité-Al Karama

First paragraph:

On 16 July, the smallest boat of the flotilla, the French yacht Dignité-Al Karama, left the Greek island of Kastellorizo after telling Greek authorities that its destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria. However, the boat changed course towards Gaza in an attempt to breach the blockade following a debate among the passengers. The boat had 16 people on board, including three crew members and journalists from Al Jazeera and Haaretz.

[13][14]

Any copyvios in this part? I think it might be acceptable and i think there are some improvements Reenem added that we should keep. If nobody can point out copy right problems in this parts and nobody object than we should restore this part and the title as it was before the large revert. IQinn (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"including three crew members and journalists from Al Jazeera and Haaretz" appears verbatim in the second ref, definitely a copyvio. Thundermaker (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good catch! Though i think it seems to be almost borderline. Any suggestion how turn this simple statement of facts around?. IQinn (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Make a second sentence? "The boat had 16 people on board. Three were crew members, and two were reporters working for Al Jazeera and Haaretz." Thundermaker (talk) 02:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Copy and paste

Source 1: "The Dignité-Al Karama, the smallest ship of the Freedom Flotilla II, left Kastellorizo Island on Saturday night. ... The crew, which had told the Greek authorities their destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria, decided however to sail towards Gaza after a long debate."

Reenem: "the smallest boat of the flotilla, ... Dignité-Al Karama, left the Greek island of Kastellorizo after telling Greek authorities that its destination was the Egyptian port of Alexandria. However, the boat changed course towards Gaza in an attempt to breach the blockade following a debate among the passengers."

Source 2: "Around 10:30 am, Israel Navy ships intercepted the French vessel, hailed it and informed it that is was nearing the Gaza blockade lines and must head to Ashdod Port or Egypt. ... The ship refused to divert its course ... When the Dignite al Karama was about 12 nautical miles from Gaza, ... the passengers were transferred to one of the naval ships participating in the mission, where a physician made sure they were in good health and they were provided with food and water."

Reenem: "Around 10:30 am, Israeli warships confronted and hailed the boat, informing it that it was approaching the blockade line, and must turn to either Ashdod or Egypt. The boat refused to divert its course. When it was about 12 nautical miles off Gaza, ... The passengers were transferred to a warship, where a physician made sure they were in good health, and they were provided with food and water."

Not every word is copied from the source, but entire phrases and sentences are, and the rest is a close paraphrase, which is also considered a copyright violation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done ... a shame you had to waste your time on the above. I thought it was self-evident myself, from a review of the source and text.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Intro sentence sources about sabotage

One source is a dead link. The second source does not mention sabotage. The third source says the exact opposite of the sentence: That the boat was in fact sabotaged. Unflavoured (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the dead link should not be relied on for some reason? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I am pointing out a fact. A reader of this article comes across this sentence and sees three sources, and assumes it to be true... unless they actually check these "sources." One of the sources is a dead link. The other source does not back up the sentence, and the last source states the exact opposite of what the sentence claims. Unflavoured (talk) 03:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is probably a Canadian Press/AP article. The AP article is "Greece arrests captain of flotilla that tried to sail for Gaza" on Yahoo news cached by Google. It says "Selcuk Unal, a spokesman for the Turkish Foreign Ministry, said authorities had determined that there was no act of sabotage on an Irish vessel in the flotilla that docked in the Turkish port of Gocek on the Aegean Sea." Sean.hoyland - talk 06:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}} and the citation added for tidiness. --Mirokado (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

References

POV "peacefully" taken over

On revert: The ship was taken over with weaponry force what is referenced. To call this "peacefully" is clear POV and based on the Israeli military accounts of the events. The passenger do not call it peacefully having mask man pointing their weapons at them. "without violence" Seems to be a NPOV of the accounts of both sides that i tried to implement. WP:NPOV is one of our core principals. Please discuss. IQinn (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. While the word "peacefully" is probably accurate, it is a rather loaded word in this instance. "Without violence" seems NPOV but, I'd probably change that to "without any resistance or violence". -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be RS-supported, actually. As distinct from what IQinn is saying above -- which I'm not clear on -- is that what IQinn imagines, or is that an RS-supported description? --Epeefleche (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

While it may be RS supported, we need not use the same words that they do, if we have a better alternative which is more NPOV. I actually like the text as it is now, I'd just dump that one loaded word: "was conducted without any resistance from the passengers or use of force by the commandos." Though, I wouldn't object terribly to changing the word "force" to "violence" either. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The passenger dispute that there was no force. 10 war ships, 150 soldiers, and armed masked commandos that point there guns at them can not be called "without force". IQinn (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Like I said above, I'm not tied to the word "force". How about this: "was conducted without any resistance from the passengers or use of violence by the commandos." -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Some passengers actually described the taking over by a large number of armed soldiers as an act of violence. Anyway, getting better, someone has an even better idea? IQinn (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Epeefleche, Cherry picking references that support this POV does not address the issue. The passenger give a different account. As i said a large number of mask soldier pointing weapons at them so they peacefully surrendered and there was no violence. Epeefleche you claim there are no refs that these commandos were armed? IQinn (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The boarding has been described as restrained, uneventful, carefully executed, conducted without violence, calm and forceful. Some of the descriptions are those of Israeli authorities or spokespersons.  Cs32en Talk to me  00:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Should intern be explicitly named?

This change which was reverted due to collateral damage attempted to remove the tweeting intern's name from the article. Is that a good thing? It seems he's not notable, except for this one embarrassment, and WP:BLPNAME may apply. I think the article would be just as good without his name in it. However, I think "Prime Minister's office" is ambiguous. I guess it refers to Netanyahu, the current Israeli Prime Minister. Thundermaker (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Insurance issues causing problems - anyone able to verify?

From what I read, Israel took several steps to put impediments in the way of the enterprise. One f these was contacting the ships' insurers, and alerting them to the planned use of the ships, which caused the insurers to explicitly specify to the ship owners that any damage, injury or deaths caused by confrontations with the Israeli military would not be covered by insurance. This caused many ship owners to back out. (Civilian ship insurance explicitly excludes coverage for "military type" uses. Cargo ships carrying weaponry from Russia to the Syrian regime also had their insurance revoked, as soon as the insurer was alerted). The Shurat HaDin warning of "prosecution for aiding a terrorist organization" was not the issue for the insurers, as I understand it - just the use for what was deemed "quasi-military" purposes, i.e. blockade-running, and the inevitable risk of armed confrontation. This is, to my understanding, a standard clause in civilian ship insurance contracts. Can anyone verify this, find a source, and if it is correct, add it to the article? Eliyohub (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)