Jump to content

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 172: Line 172:
:::agreed about how it reads. It will take some work to change that since documentation (video, photos etc) was confiscated by israeli officials and the official israeli report (turkel report) presented the passengers as the aggressors. The UN report (Palmer report) isnt much better, as described by Norman Finkelstein: "The report itself was probably the most mendacious and debased document ever issued under the UN’s aegis."
:::agreed about how it reads. It will take some work to change that since documentation (video, photos etc) was confiscated by israeli officials and the official israeli report (turkel report) presented the passengers as the aggressors. The UN report (Palmer report) isnt much better, as described by Norman Finkelstein: "The report itself was probably the most mendacious and debased document ever issued under the UN’s aegis."
:::Ill do some reading and see if I can make this article sound more straightforward. [[User:DMH43|DMH43]] ([[User talk:DMH43|talk]]) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
:::Ill do some reading and see if I can make this article sound more straightforward. [[User:DMH43|DMH43]] ([[User talk:DMH43|talk]]) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this is relevant content that is appropriate for the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the body. The content is relevant, appropriate, and referenced. I do not understand the edit that is attempting to remove it with an edit summary of {{tpq|these details are both leading as well as undue for the lede. Find the appropriate place in the body and keep it balanced pls}}. What ''isn't'' balanced about the coverage? [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:19, 30 January 2024



Biased weight of text

Perhaps someone can tell me why, in the description of the attack, there is so much detailed information on every Israeli commando that was captured, but absolutely none on the Marmarites who were actually killed? I realize that much of the information comes from the reports made public by the IDF, but it seems to me that this causes an imbalance in reporting on the other side.

This is an endemic problem with articles on Israel-Palestine, but something that should be addressed as it is de facto bias. Mcdruid (talk) 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, some omissions in my opinion:
  • The introduction does not say WHO killed the activists
  • The article does not mention that all but 1 of the activists killed where shot multiple times, some in the back of the head
  • The introduction does not mention that many of the passengers were journalists and that all documentation was confiscated (or attempted to be confiscated) by the IDF
DMH43 (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 4 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza flotilla raid → Gaza flotilla attack – "Raid" is a euphemistic term in the context that prioritizes the Israeli POV of this event as some sort of mundane military operation, when in fact it was a highly illegal act of aggression in international waters that was tantamount to piracy. In pure numbers terms, "Gaza flotilla raid" is not a majority or even dominant term for the events, and cannot be claimed as a WP:COMMONNAME. In news results, 2010 "gaza flotilla" attack actually returns more news results, at 2,090 hits, than 2010 "gaza flotilla" raid, with 1,630 hits. The same holds true for scholarly results, for which 2010 "Gaza flotilla" attack produces 1,390 hits, as compared to 817 hits for 2010 "Gaza flotilla" raid. Furthermore the scholarly results for "raid" plummet to 243 hits if you exclude the term "attack", while the results for "attack" still remain at 744 hits when you exclude the term "raid". Other terms used include crisis and incident, but these are somewhat couched, formal and imprecise. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Input not permitted for internal discussions on WP:ARBPIA topics from users with fewer than 500 edits. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
@Iskandar323 1) where is the 500 edit policy stated, and 2) why do you believe an MR is equivalent to an RFA? Johnadams11 (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnadams11: WP:PIA general sanctions include extended confirmed restrictions. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a move request. You know how those work? You make your case. Other people make their cases. You do not need to, and nor should you, engage with and attempt to rebut every other contributor. That is called bludgeoning the process. What is clear, though, is you do not know how to use Google search properly. "Gaza flotilla raid": 22,800 hits; compared to "Gaza flotilla attack": 3,400 hits - using exact match search terms, rather than just "Gaza flotilla" as the exact search criteria. No idea why you're now trying to prove "incident" is more used than "raid". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:51, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: If editors use blatantly silly methodologies to make their case, or worse still, simply copy and paste responses from unqualified editors, then yes, I will rebut them. And as anyone who is not a complete novice in move discussions knows, raw google results are borderline worthless because they include, for one thing, Wikipedia mirrors. That is no way to poll reliable sources. At the bare minimum you should look at only news results (and specify the year for events like this). Better still you should refer to scholarly literature, which is what I have already provided links to, and which you seem to be ignoring. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude... we have an expression where I come from. "When you're in a hole - stop digging." You opened this section by quoting Ghit results (from what is a poor search). It's ok for you to do it, but not anyone else? So two of us demonstrated that when one uses correct, exact terms - "Gaza flotilla raid" and "Gaza flotilla attack", the former has more results. This is a much more relevant result than your "Gaza flotilla" one.
But sure, you're correct on one thing, Google Scholar is better than straight Google searches. Doing so: 2010 "Gaza flotilla raid": 356 results. 2010 "Gaza flotilla attack": 57 results. QED. Now - how about we shut up and let other people participate? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:54, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if Iskandar doesn't like it, the term 'raid' has been the long-standing consensus for over a decade for a reason. Moreover, according to the UN-led Palmer report, Israel's maritime blockade of hostile Hamas-ruled Gaza is legal, so the term "illegal" (as Iskandar323 said) is subjective and not unanimous at all. Also 'raid' is far more neutral than 'attack', the latter implying a premeditated aggression rather than a defensive response by soldiers who came under brutal attempt of lynching after boarding one of the ships that tried to break the blockade (passengers on the other ships didn't resist violently, so there were no violent incidents, which makes the term "attack" even more laughable). The same goes for the other buzzwords promoted by Iskandar, such as "piracy" and what not. Wikipedia's objective is to report facts on a neutral manner, not WP:right great wrongs. Dovidroth (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dovidroth: A word to the wise. It is a good idea to stay impersonal. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Phrasing modification

"A Turkish media report said that two Israeli fighter jets and a helicopter circled over a Turkish exploration ship searching for gas reservoirs off the coast of Cyprus, breaching Cypriot airspace, ignoring warnings from Turkish air controllers in Northern Cyprus, and approaching the Turkish coastline in the process and that they were only driven off when two Turkish fighter jets were scrambled to intercept them.". This seems misleading as the fact that Turkey for one, doesnt have the right to dictate what is an infringement of another countrys territory (In this case, Cyprus'), that would fall on the Cypriot authorities. "ignoring warnings from Turkish air controllers in Northern Cyprus", Turkish air controllers have no legal jurisdiction in Cyprus and the proper authority for that would be Nicosia Area Control Centre which is the legal authority for the Cypriot FIR [1] and leading on from that, "northern Cyprus" is not a recognised entity and according to the UN it is recognised as part of the Republic of Cyprus, as such I think that that whole paragraph really needs a change in phraseology seen as the Republic of Cyprus (The legal authority on the island), made no issue about Israeli jets flying in its territory. AlphaCharlieBravo206 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.mcw.gov.cy/mcw/dca/dca.nsf/DMLairtraffic_en/DMLairtraffic_en?OpenDocument

Several of the dead Mavi Marmara belligerents were convicted Islamic terrorists, others were involved in Islamic terror and two were arrested for terror acts years later,

Several of the Mavi Marmara belligerents were previously convicted Islamic terrorists, some of those who died, expressed the desire for "martyrdom". These are important points when discussing an incident in which those involved were bringing guns, knives, bulletproof vests, gas masks, sniper scopes and other banned items to a known terrorist group, Hamas.

"One of the IHH operatives aboard the Mavi Marmara participated in the terrorist attack of a Russian ferry in 1996, intended to secure hostages as bargaining chips for the release of Chechens from Russian prisons (although IHH as an organization was not involved in the attack)."

https://www.terrorism-info.org.il/Data/pdf/PDF_10_157_2.pdf

Fifty of the passengers of the Mavi Marmara were found to have connections to global, Islamic terrorist organizations. Among these passengers were men who refused to identify themselves and carried no identification. They did, however, have envelopes filled with thousands of dollars and were equipped with bullet-proof vests, night vision goggles and gas masks (Jerusalem Post, June 4, and June 5, 2010).

At least two were arrested for terror related incidents afterwards. Why were these facts missing from the article? Other articles have followups on the people involved, but this article purposely obfuscates these facts.

Ahmed Luqman Talib Was arrested for terrorism in 2020: https://aijac.org.au/featured/mavi-marmara-passenger-arrested-on-terrorist-charges/

The dead:

Çetin Topçuoglu left a letter hinting that he expected to die as a shaheed and called on others to aspire to a similar death.

Ali Haydar Bengi constantly prayed to Allah to grant him martyrdom. His friends said that he wanted to be a shaheed and that he “had an intense desire to die as a shaheed”

"It was found that 8 out of the 9 casualties belonged to IHH or affiliated groups. The affiliated groups included the Turkish Felicity Party (Saadet Partisi), an Islamic party established in 2001 that espouses cooperation between Muslim countries, war on Zionism and confrontation with the West".

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/mavi-marmara-casualties-identified-as-members-of-turkish-islamist-organizations 136.26.178.95 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any information on this from reliable sources and not political advocacy groups? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We should add a link to Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident (July 2011) in the section on the UN response DMH43 (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section already has reference callouts linking to the report itself, but I have added a more visible section link to the relevant section in the article. -- Mirokado (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Monument destruction

It looks like there was a monument to this in Gaza which was deliberately destroyed. Maybe that should be added to the article. Fanccr (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Describing the nature of the killings in the lead

User @פעמי-עליון reverted my changes adding details about the killing of the passengers in the lead. Here is there edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gaza_flotilla_raid&diff=1200092716&oldid=1198337623

Their edit summary: "Undue here, cherry picking POV pushing" but how is it cherry picking to describe the nature of the killing of the passengers? And how does that push a POV?

The rest of the lead quotes directly from Israel's report which has been described as a whitewash by human rights organizations. For example, it quotes the report's description of IHH as a "hardcore group".

I suggest we undo the user's revert. DMH43 (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This information seems relevant and due and is mentioned multiple places in the body.
Also note that the text should read "Nine activists were killed, some *shot* in the back of the head and at close range".
- IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 23:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes definitely relevant to the lead. Btw this page reads like a murder mystery. People are killed and wounded but the identity of the perpetrators is carefully hidden in the text. The lead says things like "During the struggle, nine activists were killed ... ", "consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution", "evidence of "wilful killing"", The reader will, of course, be wondering who the murderer is, but we don't provide any hints until later. In the History section we say a UN report found that six of the nine passengers' deaths were the result of "summary execution" by the Israeli commandos. There may be other hints scattered throughout the article, but do we ever reveal the full solution? Perhaps we are planning a sequel. Burrobert (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed about how it reads. It will take some work to change that since documentation (video, photos etc) was confiscated by israeli officials and the official israeli report (turkel report) presented the passengers as the aggressors. The UN report (Palmer report) isnt much better, as described by Norman Finkelstein: "The report itself was probably the most mendacious and debased document ever issued under the UN’s aegis."
Ill do some reading and see if I can make this article sound more straightforward. DMH43 (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is relevant content that is appropriate for the lede, which is supposed to be a summary of the body. The content is relevant, appropriate, and referenced. I do not understand the edit that is attempting to remove it with an edit summary of these details are both leading as well as undue for the lede. Find the appropriate place in the body and keep it balanced pls. What isn't balanced about the coverage? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=1200656985"