Talk:Gaza flotilla raid/Archive 17

Cargo of Mavi Marmara
Despite the claim that the flotillas purpose was to provide humanitarian aid to Gaza, inspection at Ashdod Port revealed that the Mavi Marmara carried weapons and supplies for making weapons in its cargo hold. Among the ones found were slingshots, large knives, clubs, gas masks, and chemicals commonly used in IED's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.149.158 (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Bulleted list item

One sided
this article takes its heading from the Hate flotilla. Why not metion it illegaly entered Israeli territory and had known terrorist on board who started the confrontatiion.MagicKirin11 (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This comment is biased and inaccurate. The bias is demonstrated by the first sentence containing an ad hominem against the flotilla. Inaccurate because it was attacked on the high seas and never entered Israeli territory until forced to do so by armed military personnel after they had killed 9 passengers and seriously injured more than 50 others.

The vague comment about a terrorist is indecipherable but the Cultures of Resistance film shows quite clearly that the commandos started firing their riot guns before they were attacked. So the IDF started the violent 'confrontation', not some imagined terrorist on board. Kombo the mzungu (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Names and crimes of the convicted terrorists and violent criminals on the Mavi Marmara
1) Erdinç Tekir – IHH operative wounded aboard the Mavi Marmara, was involved in the violent 1996 terrorist attack on the Russian ferry Avrasya to bargain for the release of Chechen terrorists from Russian prisons . He was convicted & sentenced to eight years in prison, but served only 3 years.

2) Raed Salah- Leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, previously convicted by Israeli court for raising money for Hamas

3) Hilarion Capucci -Syrian convicted by an Israeli court of smuggling arms to the Palestine Liberation Army and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

4) Hassan Aynsey (28), a member of a Turkish charity association, regularly transfers funds to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group.

5)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.

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

8) 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)

By refusing to list these convicted criminals and current terrorists, the Wikipedia page is showing a clear bias.

This list is not complete because many of the names were never released to the public.

http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/18040

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2013/10/archbishop_gets_award_for_armi.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/176279#.UtVFIPabr8A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.217.205.143 (talk) 14:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The first two sources are famously partisan and unreliable and the third contains unproven allegations. These claims appear to have malicious intent i.e. they are intended to portray the flotilla in a bad light and belittle the humanitarian aims (after all there were 10,000 tons of aid on the flotilla and much of it either did not reach Gaza or was not fit for use after Israel finally released it). Kombo the mzungu (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way was this not an act of piracy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piracy

Bultn (talk) 09:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC) Because the flotilla ignored legal instruction from Israel.64.134.64.118 (talk) 13:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It was not piracy because it does not meet the definition which specifically states "a private ship or a private aircraft". I.e. state actors are not included. http://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part7.htm Article 101 'Definition of piracy'.

It should correctly be called 'state terrorism'. There are plenty of reasons for this: The blockade was not correctly notified.

Various contraventions of Geneva Convention IV which renders the blockade illegal (see UNHRC report).

San Remo requires warning to be given prior to attack whereas the IDF just turned up and began firing their riot guns.

Ships carrying humanitarian aid must be allowed to pass (can be subjected to inspection but the Flotilla offered to accept UN inspection on the high sea and this was ignored). (N.b. the IDF admitted at Ashdod that there were no weapons on board the ships.) Not legal to attack a civilian ship in this fashion, the Flotilla was after all carrying women and non-combatants and the Mavi Marmara had an infant on board. The semi-automatic riot guns believed to firing pepper spray or even impact balls were fired indiscriminately at the ship right from the start. Stun grenades were thrown at the Mavi Marmara (an unarmed civilian vessel) within about 30 seconds of the start of the attack. These are very dangerous fireworks which caused one man on the Challenger I to lose the sight in one eye. Since the ship was being attacked by heavily armed terrorists (whose weapons included Uzi sub-machine guns, Glock pistols and even a grenade launcher on one of the inflatables circling the ship) it had a legal right to defend itself, using as it did fire hoses, chairs and iron bars. (N.b. Axes were never used, they were just removed from the fire stations by the IDF for their photo shot at Ashdod.) Hardly a match for the weapons the terrorists were using as the end result showed.Kombo the mzungu (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, the article already states that Erdoğan called to raid state terrorism. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Treatment of IDF soldiers by Turkish Doctors on board the Mavi Marmarra
There is no mention of the Turkish Doctors who treated IDF soldiers injured in the raid. I think to be fair we need this to be mentioned. Not everyone on the ship was there with ill-intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If so, find a reliable source for Turkish doctors who treated IDF soldiers and put it in yourself. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Israeli Government Apology to Turkey
There is no mention of the Israeli Government's apology to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara raid and subsequent loss of life. I think to be neutral this needs to be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a mention of the apology at the end of the section headed "Israel–Turkey diplomatic crisis": "Following a telephone apology from Netanyahu to Erdoğan on 22 March 2013,...." —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

POV description of the UN's Palmer report
The article introduction uses extremely POV (and highly inaccurate) language, to discredit the Secretary General's report. For example, using a UNHCR op-ed featuring hand-picked authors to claim that the report was "heavily criticized by United Nations independent experts" when in fact it was just a particular op-ed and particular authors. There is also no criticism of the UNHCR report, or the organization itself, despite plenty being available. The article previously falsely describes the Palmer report as being a "response to" the UNHCR report," despite the Palmer report being prepared before the UNHCR report was published. The article also recently used non-sources such as counterpunch. In addition, the most recent edit is contrary to what the Palmer report found. What was linked to was an opinion piece in a journal written by Russell Buchan, not the Palmer report. My version of the paragraph would be as follows: On On 2 August 2010, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon announced that the U.N. would conduct an investigation of the incident. The report was published on 2 September 2011 after being delayed, reportedly to allow Israel and Turkey to continue reconciliation talks. The report found the Israeli blockade to be legal, recognizing that the IDF were met with "organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers" and therefore force was necessary for self-defense,[1] but stated that "the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force by Israeli forces during the take-over of the Mavi Marmara was unacceptable".[2]

Drsmoo (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article written by Russell Buchan is NOT an opinion piece but an analysis of the report, published in a peer-reviewed academic journal and is therefore considered a RS. The quote is an analysis of the report, and it reflects the language and spirit of the report, as judged by an expert and as reviewed by peers. It is *NOT* an opinion and it will stay put. Engelo (talk) 22:30, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Wikipedia community as a whole will determine whether or not it stays put. It was also inaccurately worded to appear as if it were describing the findings of the report. "The report also found." If the opinion piece by Russel Buchan conveys the "language and spirit of the report" it would make more sense to link directly to the report itself, particularly as the analysis you posted is behind a paywall. Given that the UN report concluded that the Gaza blockade is legal, I doubt that it will align with Buchan's opinion/analysis. I agree that reliable sources should be added. I added several reliable sources regarding the UNHCR and you immediately deleted them. I'm attempting to assume good faith, but at present, your editing has not conveyed impartiality. Drsmoo (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If you wish to remove a piece of evidence, you need to give an argument why it should be removed. Until now you have not given such an argument, except by labeling a peer-reviewed paper with the words "opinion piece". Labeling a paper published in an academic journal as an "opinion piece" does not turn it into an opinion piece. In fact, labeling is not an argument, and where there's no argument, I see no possibility to give a counter-argument or to open a discussion. Furthermore, there is no contradiction between the panel's (controversial) claim that the blockade was legal and the fact that the "panel concluded that the enforcement of the blockade against the Mavi on 31 May 2010 was unlawful and that Israel’s treatment of the crew members whilst they were detained was in violation of international human rights law" (that is an exact quote from the article mentioned). Since this quote does not contradict anything else we know, since it is relevant in this context and since it comes from a reliable source, I cannot see any reason to remove this piece of evidence. Engelo (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


 * What you're saying is simply not true, that isn't what the Palmer report concluded, at all.


 * Palmer report: http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf


 * "Section 81: The Panel therefore concludes that Israel’s naval blockade was legal."


 * With regard to capturing a ship on the high seas:


 * "Section 69: In sum, there is a clear tendency in international law supporting an expansive view with respect to the applicability of human rights treaties outside the territory of States parties to the relevant conventions. What is important is the State’s exercise of effective control in a specific situation. This would include the situation of the capture of a foreign-flagged vessel on the high seas in the enforcement of a blockade."


 * "Section 82: The fundamental principle of the freedom of navigation on the high seas is subject to only certain limited exceptions under international law. Israel faces a real threat to its security from militant groups in Gaza. The naval blockade was imposed as a legitimate security measure in order to prevent weapons from entering Gaza by sea and its implementation complied with the requirements of international law."


 * Summary:


 * "Section 70: There is nothing in international customary law, or in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), that would generally prohibit the use of force on the high seas, as long as force is only used in self-defence, in line with Articles 2(4) and 51 of the U.N. Charter and Articles 88 and 301 UNCLOS (ius ad bellum)."


 * "Section 72: The blockading power is entitled to board a neutral merchant vessel if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that it is breaching a blockade. The blockading power has the right to visit and search the vessel and to capture it if found in br each of a blockade. Breach could occur outside the blockade zone, including on the high seas where there is evidence of the vessel’s intention. If there is clear resistance to the interception or capture, the blockading power may attack the vessel, after giving a prior warning. The level of force used to enforce the above- mentioned rights must be proportionate; in particular, it must be limited to the level necessary to achieve the military objective."


 * You can read the rest of the report at the link, if you think anything important was left out.


 * There's simply no reason to believe the opinion/analysis says what you claim it does. As it clearly contradicts what the report says. Feel free, however, to write out the contents in context, or provide a screenshot/pdf. However, again, it's unclear why anyone would need a journal describing a primary source when the primary source is readily available and written in clear language. Currently we have two competing sources, one, the Palmer report, which says the blockade, and its application to the Mavi Marmara was legal, and another your source, which no one can read, claiming the opposite.


 * I'll also add that, if we're going to be including reliable sources that criticize the Palmer report, we will be including reliable sources that criticize the UNHCR and it's report.Drsmoo (talk) 00:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Drsmoo for your comments. Let's first get the terminology clear. Within Wikipedia I am not familiar with the term "Dubious sources". There is something called WP:RS. Now, a question to you: is a paper published in a peer-reviewed, established academic journal considered WP:RS? To the best of my knowledge, the answer is yes. If we can at least agree that this document is an RS, we do not have to invent a new terminology and use sloppy language. SECOND. I have read the report. I have read the analysis of the report and its interpretation in the hand of experts. Let us focus on three claims:
 * The blockade is legal. This is a very controversial claim, contested by various authors, in academia and elsehwere. But that is of no interest at the moment.
 * It is ok to use force to enforce a legal blockade. I think this claim is uncontroversial, but remember that force should be used only as a last resort.
 * What Israel did in the Mavi Marmara in 31 May 2010 was unlawful for various reasons.
 * Now, I think that you are claiming that there is a contradiction between the third claim and the first two claims. If I understand you correctly, it is not possible to say that Israel's actions against the MM were unlawful if we accept that it is ok to use force to enforce a legal blockade, which the Gaza blockade was, according to the report. I will stop here and allow you to answer to make sure I understand your argument. Engelo (talk) 07:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Another thing,Drsmoo you write: "There's simply no reason to believe the opinion/analysis says what you claim it does." Basically you are saying that there is no reason to believe me, suggesting that I am not telling the truth. I should ask you to send me your email (confidentially of course) and I will send you the article. You can then check whether the article says what I claim it does. Since you are making a false accusation against my person, I shall demand an apology in this forum Engelo (talk) 07:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Finally, I intend to revert the "dubious" comment you added to the paragraph. You need to be very clear what exactly is dubious? If you claim that it is dubious that the article says what I said it does, I am happy to send you the article. If you are saying that the article is not a RS, I am happy to discuss that. If you say that what the article claims is wrong, you need to provide evidence to that effect - something that you have not done until now. Thanks Engelo (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you please point what relevant portion of the paper you used for your assertions in our article?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 11:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. Here is the entire paragraph on page 265 taken from International and Comparative Law Quarterly / Volume 61 / Issue 01 / January 2012. Numbers refer to footnotes.
 * "Israel justified its interception of theflotilla on the basis of international humanitarian law; during times of armed conflict international humanitarian law permits a State to impose and enforce a naval blockade against vessels on the high seas that have expressed an intention to run the blockade. Whether or not Israel’s interdiction of the Maviwas permissible under international law has caused considerable controversy. Indeed, three high profile reports have been published examining the legality of the incident.2 Most recently, in September 2011 the Palmer Report was published (named after the Chair of the four member Panel, Sir Geoffrey Palmer). 3 Established at the behest of the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General, the Panel responsible for compiling this report was required to‘(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and (b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future’.4 Importantly, the Panel notes that it‘is not a court'and 'was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues or to adjudicate on liability’. 5 This being said, however, the Panel explains that it reached its conclusions in relation to the facts, circumstances and context of the incident‘against the backdrop of the exposition of the principles of public international law’ 6 that were set out by the Chair and ViceChair of the Panel in Appendix I to the Report.7 Thus, the Panel inevitably sought to apply principles of international law to the facts as the Panel determined them to be. All in all, the Panelfinds that Israel’s blockade of Gaza was lawful. However, the Panel also concludes that the enforcement of the blockade against the Mavi on 31 May 2010 was unlawful and that Israel’s treatment of the crew members whilst they were detained was in violation of international human rights law.8"
 * Engelo (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That final sentence contradicts multiple reliable sources.
 * This blatant WP:copyvio and I remove it immediately.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "The release of the United Nations Palmer report into last year's flotilla incident aboard the Mavi Marmara has vindicated Israel by finding that its naval blockade of the Gaza strip is legal under international law. Moreover, Israel has the right to enforce that blockade - including in international waters." http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2875308.html


 * "The United Nations Palmer Report on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident, to be published officially Friday, found that the Israeli commandos who boarded the Mavi Marmara on route to the Gaza Strip were met with "organized and violent resistance from a group of passengers," and so were "forced to use self defense." Nine Turkish activists died aboard the ship. Nevertheless, the report – obtained and published Thursday evening by New York Times - found that the Israeli forces used "excessive and unreasonable force," and emphasized that the loss of life on board the ship is "unacceptable." Moreover, it found that the treatment of the passengers by the IDF soldiers after the interception was "abusive." http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/gaza-flotilla-report-idf-soldiers-acted-in-self-defense-but-used-excessive-force-1.382001


 * "The Palmer report takes into account the findings of the two national inquiries and concludes that while the establishment of the blockade was lawful, the Israeli boarding operation appeared to use excessive force in dealing with the passengers and crew of Mavi Marmara." https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/516f4381-639f-42cf-ba83-ac4653b2e5ba/The-Gaza-Flotilla-Incident-and-the-Modern-Law-of-B.aspx


 * "A long-awaited U.N. report on a May 2010 Israeli raid on a Gaza-bound ship that killed nine Turks says that Israel’s blockade of the Gaza Strip was legal, the New York Times reported on Thursday.http://www.france24.com/en/20110901-leaked-un-report-finds-israel-naval-blockade-gaza-strip-legal-flotilla-assault-2010/


 * "A long-awaited United Nations review of Israel’s 2010 raid on a Turkish-based flotilla in which nine passengers were killed has found that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza is both legal and appropriate. But it said that the way Israeli forces boarded the vessels trying to break that blockade 15 months ago was excessive and unreasonable." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html?pagewanted=all


 * There is a multitude of reliable sources interpreting the report as finding the raid legal but the force used excessive. Drsmoo (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo please focus. It is ONE thing to say that the Palmer concluded that the blockade is legal and that it should be enforced. It is quite another thing to say that Palmer concluded that THE WAY Israel enforced the blockade against the Mavi on 31 May 2010 was unlawful/unacceptable/unreasonable etc. These two statements DO NOT contradict one another, they can be both true at the same time. RS sources do in fact say that they are both true, and therefore we must accept them as both true at the same time. I see nothing here that is dubious. Engelo (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo "There is a multitude of reliable sources interpreting the report as finding the raid legal" - Not ONE of the quotes above said that the raid itself on that night was legal. They say that the blockade was legal, they say that it is legal to enforce it. But not one of them says that Israeli actions in that night was legal. Let me give you an example. Imagine that Israel would enforce the blockade by murdering each one of the activists. The blockade would be legal. Enforcing it would be legal, but the specific actions of murdering each one of the activists would still be illegal. Get the drift? Engelo (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * In fact, the only one I found, who claims that the raid was lawful was the Israeli rep who clearly distinguishes his position from the main body of the report, which use the words 'unreasonable', 'excessive', and 'unacceptable' - all of these are legal-talk, clearly understood by experts as synonyms for the illegality of the raid on that night. The fact that the Israeli rep distinguishes his position from the report is, in and of itself a sign that the core of the report holds a different view Engelo (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reference in the report to the enforcement of the blockade being unlawful. There are no other reliable sources that come to that conclusion either. The actual phrase used both in the report and in a consensus of reliable sources is "excessive and unreasonable." Additionally, your "please focus" quip is a personal attack, and I strongly advise you to remove it. Drsmoo (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you implying that the article published in the International and Comparative Law Quarterly is not a RS? On what basis are you saying this? Can you say which of the guidelines of WP:RS is being violated here? Engelo (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This blatant WP:copyvio and I remove it immediately.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for spotting that, Shrike I reformulated and we are back in business Engelo (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Engelo, thanks for a good series of edits. The section is essentially no longer POV. I changed "unlawful" to "excessive and unreasonable" to reflect the actual wording of the Palmer Report. "Unlawful" is not used, thus it making no sense to have it in quotes and assigned to the primary source. Drsmoo (talk) 03:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Can we remove the POV template, dated June 2013, now? —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Drsmoo said here at 03:52, 28 May 2014, "The section [emphasis by Anomalocaris] is essentially no longer POV." Then Drsmoo edited the article at 06:27, 7 June 2014‎ with comment "Restoring POV tag, the tag was placed a year ago, the recent changes were not addressing the reasons for the tag". The article has changed since the POV tag was first placed, so I suggest that supporters of the POV tag state the POV issue(s) with the article as it stands now, so the issues can be debated and addressed if necessary. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with it being removed. I'm not a long-time editor of this article. It seems fine to me. Drsmoo (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, by my edit I wasn't actually weighing in on this discussion, and I have edited this article before. I just generally remove tagcruft, without prejudice, that's more than ~a year old on sight. I've never quite gotten that idea through the uprights over at WP:PRESERVE but I still think it's a good rule of thumb. -- Kendrick7talk 00:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Consideration of Naval invasion of Israeli waters by Turkish Government
The article makes no mention of Retired Admiral of the Turkish Fleet, Nusret Guner's statement that he was awaiting orders for a Naval Invasion of Israeli waters and that the Turkish Government was considering a Military offensive. There is also no mention of the speculation at the time that Turkish officials were allegedly seeking Nuclear cover from Pakistan in the event that Israel launched a nuclear attack on Turkey in response to any Turkish Naval invasion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

"Execution style"
Neither source used says "execution style", stop adding it. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * At issue is the sentence: "some of them at point blank range or from behind, "execution style". edit. You removed the whole sentence. The source page 29:
 * Case of Furkan Dogan: "..indicates that the shot was delivered at point blank range"
 * "All of the entry wounds were on the back of his body"
 * Case of Ali Heyder Bengi: "There are several witness accounts which suggest that Israeli soldiers shot the deceased in the back"


 * It is true that "execution style" as a phrase does not appear in the source, but there are plenty of phrases saying the same thing. "Summary execution" is used 3 times: twice on page 37 and once on page 38.


 * I would be happy to hear from you, why you removed the whole sentence which includes the "point blank and behind" phrase, and why you did not simply replace "execution style" with "summary executions". Kingsindian (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * People being shot at point blank range in close quarters combat in not surprising, summary execution is not execution style, and so the question here is really why you restored that, saying the sources supported it, when they obviously did not. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, the sources do not support your assertion that people were shot from behind, just two. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The source states that people were shot in the back. GGranddad (talk) 11:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have rephrased the sentence. Please keep in mind WP:PRESERVE. Kingsindian (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the source says one person had entry wounds on the back of his body, for the second it says witnesses claimed a person was shot in the back, that is a long way from "people were shot in the back" Darkness Shines (talk) 12:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the source actually states that 3 people were shot in the back of their bodies,heads and back. I just read it. Would you like me to post it here for you to read as well? GGranddad (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please do, I am going by what KI has posted here. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, Actually it was 4 shot from the back.Necdet Yildirim

The location and circumstances of the shooting and death of Necdet Y ildirim, a 31-year-old Turkish citizen from Istanbul, remain unclear. He was shot twice in the thorax, once from the front and once from the back.Çetin Topçuo ğ lu Çetin Topçuo ğ lu, a 54-year-old Turkish citizen from Adana had been involved in helping to bring injured passengers inside the ship to be treated. He was also shot close to the door on the bridge deck. He did not die instantly and his wife, who was also on board the ship, was with him when he died. He was shot by three bullets. One bullet entered from the top the soft tissues of the right side of the back of the head, brahim Bilgen, a 60-year-old Turkish citizen, from Siirt in Turkey, was on the top deck and was one of the first passengers to be shot . He received a bullet wound to the chest, the trajectory of which was from above and not at close range. He had a further two bullet wounds to the right side of the back and right buttock, both back to front.Furkan Doğan, a 19-year-old with dual Turkish and United St ates citizenship, was on the central area of the top deck filming with a small video camera when he was first hit with live fire. It appears that he was lying on the deck in a conscious, or semi-conscious, state for some time. In total Furkan received five bullet wounds, to the face, head, back thorax,left leg and foot.GGranddad (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then the article needs to be clear on that, and should read four people received gunshot wounds to the back. It cannot say they were shot in the back, as that appears that it was deliberate, and may not have been. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * They were shot in the back, it was deliberate obviously otherwise they would have shot them in the front instead.These guns have laser dot sights on them, you shoot where you aim. GGranddad (talk) 12:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I again remind you of WP:PRESERVE. I invite you to restore the phrase as I added, while we continue this discussion. The previous lead was stable for a long time, and a crucial sentence should not be removed like this.
 * I again give the sentence, with the phrase I added in italics: According to a UN report, all activist deaths were caused by gunshots, some of them at point blank range or from behind, and in a "manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution.". It makes 3 claims: some were shot at point blank range, some were shot from the back, and that it was in a manner consistent with summary execution.
 * 's comment about whether it is deliberate or not isn't important here. The sentence simply reports what the UN report says. Any conclusions are to be drawn by the reader. Kingsindian (talk) 12:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is possible to shoot someone in the front, and to shoot them in the back as they spin from the impact of the initial round. The source does not state they were shot from behind deliberately, and we should not infer that they were. KI, we do not put our own spin on things, we need to be as accurate as is possible. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in the article does it infer that they were shot in the back deliberately? GGranddad (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Where in the article does it infer that they were shot in the back deliberately? GGranddad (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me where the sentence says they were shot deliberately in the back? It says deaths were caused by gunshots, some...from the back. First you protested about the "execution style", which I amended. Now you protest about "from the back". All the while, the whole sentence has been removed from the lead. I am exhausting my supply of WP:AGF here. Kingsindian (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you stop pinging me with every post please. As I have already pointed out, the source doe snot say they were deliberately shot from behind, the way the sentence was infers they were. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't understand the distinction being made above:('summary execution is not execution style'. The). 'Execution-style' is how Rashid Khalidi described several deaths in his essay in Midnight on the Mavi Marmara p.97 on the attack, which however is more interesting for its description of the way this was managed mediatically: total blackout of all sources of information from those present for 2 days, while Israeli and US reportage kept repeating the IDF account.Nishidani (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not call that a reliable source, it reads like an emotional outburst. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not call Jack L. Schwartzwald a reliable source but you have just use him as a source. The guy is a Professor of Medicine not an historian, he writes mainly for Jewish magazines.I think you do not like anything that shows Israel in a bad light myself but it is not up to you to decide what is and what is not a reliable source.The book in question is a scholarly work by an award winning professor which is more than can be said for your own source picking.GGranddad (talk) 14:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a purely emotional piece, not remotely scholarly. If you think the McFarland source is not RS, well we have a board for that. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * He is not a reliable source because the piece you added from his book is dubiously one sided, well the part you quoted anyway. There was humanitarian aid on those ships, it is very well documented.Yes we have aboard for RS, you can go there also,if you need to. GGranddad (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * "The Challenger 1 (small yacht), the Sfendonh (small passenger boat) and the Mavi Marmara (passenger ship) did not carry any humanitarian aid," I recommend you remove your BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Israel ministry? Very amusing.A BBC investigation found that the aid consignment consisted of "thousands of tons" of aid, including large quantities of much needed building supplies.GGranddad (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, 10,000 tons in fact, on the cargo ships. And 8000 tons were construction materials. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the lead being made by Darkness Shines
I wish to protest very strongly against the changes being made to the lead by. These two edits are particularly egregious. Please read WP:PRESERVE. Under ARBPIA, I am unable to revert these multiple changes. Inconvenient information like "executions", "shot in the back" and "broken bones" should not be removed willy-nilly. The "broken bones" part is not available in the source quoted, but it is indeed availabe in the UN report which we were discussing. If you are unsure of something, add a citation needed tag. Not every sentence in the lead even needs a citation, per WP:LEAD.

This, saying there was "no humanitarian aid on board", to the lead is unjustifiable as well. It directly contradicts the second sentence in the lead and contradicts the section Gaza_flotilla_raid confirmed by multiple sources. Adding such a bald statement in wikipedia's voice is unjustifiable.

The lead is a summary, the product of long discussions and consensus. It is illegitimate to tamper with it like this. If you have issues, add your content to the sections first, build consensus. Instead of acting like this. Kingsindian (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And which sources state that the Mavi Marmara carried aid? The section you linked to supports the edit I made. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kingsindian statement. Darkness is just editing out anything that shows Israel in a bad light and editing in at least one blatant lie about the humanitarian aid not be on the ships.GGranddad (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To DS: If you read the section I listed, there are multiple sources there stating that there was humanitarian aid there. The second sentence of the lead also gives sources. I again invite you to revert all your edits, and discuss first, instead of tampering with the lead like this. Kingsindian (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I strongly recommend you remove that personal attack, I have added no lies to this article. @KI, the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian aid. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * the article is about a flotilla which is a group of ships. The fact that some ships contain cargo and some contain passengers is irrelevant. I have opened a request on WP:AE for this. Kingsindian (talk) 16:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkness edit is trying to be smart, stating that there was no humanitarian aid on the Mavi Marmara but ignoring the fact that there was aid on other ships. The Mavi was a passenger ship, some of the other carried all the cargo because they were cargo ships.Pretty dubious editing in my opinion to show a POV while ignoring the actual cargo on the other ships.GGranddad (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Given all the violence was on the Mavi Marmara and that vessel had no humanitarian aid, and also had 50 paid mercenaries, I am not really seeing the problem. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following changes to the first two edits made. This would meet DS's objections, as far as I can see.


 * 1) According to a UN report, all activist deaths were caused by gunshots, and "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."
 * 2) The five other ships in the flotilla employed passive resistance, which was suppressed without major incident. According to the UN report, several of the passengers were injured and the leg of one was fractured. The ships were towed to Israel. Some were deported immediately, while about 600 were detained after they refused to sign deportation orders; a few of them were slated for prosecution. After international criticism, all of the detained activists were also deported.

For the first point, I have dispensed with "point blank and shooting from behind" stuff and directly quoted the UN report. For the second, I have just summarized the Gaza_flotilla_raid section for the last line.

DS can give his opinion on this version. Anyone else can bung it in if they feel it is fine. Kingsindian (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A paragraph quoting Daily Kos
I have removed one paragraph from the lead. First of all, it comes from Daily Kos blog, obviously not RS. Secondly, it is just based on the Palmer report, which the subsequent paragraph also summarizes. Third, it is misleading, stating that the Palmer report found the blockade illegal (it did not find the naval blockade illegal). However, I have added a sentence to the end of subsequent paragraph regarding the naval blockade - from the lead of the Blockade of the Gaza Strip article.

"In September 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) released its report on the Israeli boarding and seizure of the vessels. The report found that the Israeli blockade of Gaza is illegal, and therefore, the boarding and seizure of the vessels was illegal, that the detention of the passengers was illegal, that the confiscation of the passengers' possessions was illegal and there was willful killing on the part of the Israeli commandos."

Kingsindian (talk) 10:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's the same report? This BBC piece is about the Human Rights Council investigation and has similar content to what was now removed from the article. This seems to be a different report with different conclusions. --Dailycare (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct, it is not the same report. I don't know how I got confused. I will add it back soon, using the BBC text, rather than the Daily Kos text. Kingsindian (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Consolidating two paragraphs in the lead

 * I have joined two paragraphs in the lead dealing with the Israeli military operation. The "40 hardcore activists" was repeated in both of them, so I removed the duplication. (It was put a third time by DS into the lead, for reasons best known to him; thankfully that has been removed). With the removal of the other edits I have been whining about for the last couple of days dealing with summary execution etc, the paragraph is very skewed, as anyone glancing at it can see. Someone should address this by adding the two edits back into the paragraph in line with Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid. If not, I will do it tomorrow.


 * What is the NYT editorial doing there? I have kept it there, but it should be removed. Is NYT somehow special that its editorial deserves to be quoted in the lead? Kingsindian (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Paid mercenaries on Mavi Marmara?
Can someone who has access to the book by Schwartzwald, Jack L. (2012). Nine Lives of Israel: A Nation's History through the Lives of Its Foremost Leaders. McFarland. tell me who he cites for the claim that there were 50 paid mercenaries on the Mavi Marmara? page 196-7. Perhaps DS can also enlighten me on this point. Kingsindian (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * --Shrike (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That guys book is a joke. I just had a look thru it's references and he has actually used Palwatch for one of them. I believe the 50 mercs piece is sourced from a JPost article although I have not looked thru the article yet.GGranddad (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I got the actual source for that claim from his book references. It says:The defense establishment suspects the funding for the mercenaries may have come from elements within the Turkish government. Which is a bit different than what Darkness posted . Also, the Jpost just says "according to sources" but does not actually name any. GGranddad (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Darkness other claim was about the martyrs is sourced from the same book and the reference for that claim in the book is Palwatch which is not a RS.Ref number 59 (talk) 06:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is a perfectly reliable secondary source, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, the book is citing the IDF. First of all, this should not be stated in wikipedia's voice. It should be attributed per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Secondly, something like this is already mentioned in the lead: "On the Turkish ship MV Mavi Marmara, according to Israel's own report, the Israeli Navy faced resistance from about 40 of the 590 passengers, including IHH activists – described in an Israeli report as a separate "hardcore group"[2] – who were said to be armed with iron bars and knives." It does not need to be repeated. As to the Mavi Marmara not carrying humanitarian aid, that is obviously irrelevant; the article is about a flotilla -- the other ships were. I propose the whole statement be dumped from the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, there were paid mercs aboard, the only cargo that particular ship carried. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I second the whole statement being dumped from the lead as well. GGranddad (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * DS, just reiterating your opinion that it should be there is not helpful. Please address the points I made instead. Why do you think it should be present? Kingsindian (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It needs to be there as it are obvious they went there for the sole purpose of causing trouble, which they got it spades. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That statement that they were looking for trouble is already present in the lead. As to the rest, you haven't responded to any of my points, namely that half the statement is irrelevant, and the other half already present. Kingsindian (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You say half is irrelevant, I disagree and think it highly relevant that vessel had no cargo, and there are a big difference between saying in the article "hardcore activists" and what were in fact paid mercenaries. So as far as I am concerned the content can stay. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You keep bringing up that the Mavi had no cargo, not sure why because it is irrelevant as it was a passenger ship, other ships in the flotilla carried the aid cargo.The only statement that they were paid mecs comes from the Israeli government, I have not seen any evidence of it myself.GGranddad (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It is apparent (to me at least) that DS has no grounds at all to add this paragraph except that he thinks it should be there. I have already given versions of the first two edits, which might be acceptable to DS, in the previous section. The third edit should be dumped altogether. After the stuff over 1RR yesterday, I am afraid to touch anything. But someone else can put it in if they want, or give comments. Kingsindian (talk) 11:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added to that section to reflect that the Mavi and some other ships/boats were passenger vessels and also added the other ships/boats that carried the cargo.I also attributed the 50 mercs claim to the IDF as per source.GGranddad (talk) 05:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You are not supposed to reinstate your edits without discussion if it is reverted. See WP:STATUSQUO. Your edit was reverted by and you have (a) restored the edit wholesale, without any discussion (b) failed to notify Dailycare. Three people including myself have objected to your edit, yet you continue to add it into a stable lead without discussion.  has elaborated on the edit, which only adds bloat to the lead (the lead should be written in WP:SS) while adding nothing of any value. As I have said already, the fact that one particular ship in a flotilla carried passengers and the others cargo is totally irrelevant (nor have you established any relevance). I ask DS to restore the previous version, and if you want to introduce this edit, open an RfC. Kingsindian (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed DS piece until discussion here is completed being as what he says in it is already covered in the article body and some of it is irrelevant(Mavi piece). GGranddad (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

People and martyrs
Can someone tell me more about this source? "and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a 'martyr`s death'."

Who is it citing, and in what context is the "martyr's death" quote uttered? Kingsindian (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The source for that is the Meir Amit intelligence and terrorism information centre. It is bascially a pro Israel fiction factory.GGranddad (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried the link in book reference section, it does not work.GGranddad (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently GGranddad is a sock. To DS, can you please restore the lead while the RfC is going on? Also can you confirm if it is quoting Palwatch or ITIC? Kingsindian (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Change to the lead
Regarding your revert. Darkness Shines was simply reverting his own edit, while the RfC is going on. I have reverted your edit and reinstated your changes to the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 15:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Gah, I self-reverted. I misunderstood. Kingsindian (talk) 15:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment
Should the following content be kept in this article?

It was later found that the Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian supplies, and that elements within the Turkish government had paid 50 mercenaries to take part, and that seven of those who had died in the raid had expressed to their families a desire to have a "martyr`s death".


 * Yes, the fact that this vessel carried no cargo, and had 50 paid mercenaries aboard, as well as the fact that some of these "activists" wanted a martyrs death is notable and needs to be here. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No The piece about the Mavi Marmara not carrying aid is irrelevant, it is a passenger ship and carried passengers, the aid was on others ship that were obviously cargo ships.GGranddad (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * No First of all, the source simply regurgitates the IDF claim (look at the citations), so no way it should be presented in WP's voice. The statement makes 3 points. The first (Mavi Marmara carried no humanitarian aid) is totally irrelevant. It was part of a flotilla, some carrying cargo, some passengers. Second, the claim of 50 mercenaries, is from a JPost article, citing the IDF. The official and authoritative Israeli report of "40 hardcore activists" is already present in the lead. The third point is "people wanted to be martyrs". The source for the third seems to be (assuming the following is true, can someone confirm?) ITIC which is very close to IDF, which should be attributed at the very least. Palwatch. First of all, Palwatch is hardly WP:RS. Secondly, just look at the page and see for yourself whether the "martyr's death" means anything. Here is one quote "He used to help the poor and the oppressed. For years, he wanted to go to Palestine. And he constantly prayed to Allah to grant him Shahada (Martyrdom)". It looks as though it serves very little purpose in the lead, even if it's true. In what context was this line uttered? The Israeli claim that there was a provocation and doubts about IHH's motives is already present in the lead. Longer discussion here. Kingsindian (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The site for the claim about martyrs is Palwatch.GGranddad (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Assuming this is true (can confirm?), Palwatch is, of course not a WP:RS. I don't think laundering such claims through a medicine professor (first source) and a philosophy professor (second source) makes them any better. Kingsindian (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I already linked to the Palwatch source in that book in our other conversation above on the talk page. Here it is again Number 59GGranddad (talk) 15:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes. The ship was a part of a flotilla claiming to be nothing but humanitarian in nature and hence the information is relevant. Comitus (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No As per Kingsindian, a press release is not a RS, even if it is subsequently published in a reliable source (though it seems uncertain either of these sources are reliable). DocumentError (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Wikipedia is supposed to be an unbiased source, and therefore every piece of information about an event from both sides should be included. This piece of information comes from the IDF side of the story, and not including it would create bias in favor of the passenger side. Also, a press release is a reliable source. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then surely this should be reworded "it was later CLAIMED by the IDF" and not "it was later FOUND that?" (Also, a press release is not a RS except to report a statement made by the entity issuing the press release as per WP:THIRDPARTY; not objective facts.) DocumentError (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither source cited is a press release, that are both from academic publishing houses. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My understanding is each source was referencing a press release. Secondly, a Jack Schwartzwald book - regardless of what imprint published it - cannot be a NPOV source on Israel as Schwartzwald is an editorial opinion columnist for FrontPage Magazine in which he writes almost exclusively on the Israel-Palestine conflict. If this is, indeed, factual information there should be a large number of more reliable sources readily available. DocumentError (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not Firstly, the BBC investigation referred to in the cargo section specifically found that highlighting one negative aspect of the cargo carried by the flotilla was misleading since the flotilla carried a large amount of useful and needed cargo. Highlighting that one specific ship in the flotilla didn't carry cargo is clearly even more misleading. Concerning the other two points, we shouldn't present anything from one of the parties in a neutral voice. I vaguely recall the "martyr's death" aspect from when this attack was current, and the meaning in context was completely innocuous, this can be verified from the archives I believe. (edit: this source explains what muslims would understand with the "martyr" terminology: "Such descriptions would be regarded by many Muslims as evidence that they put religious duty before their lives, rather than an admission that they were heading to battle") Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Concerning the martyrdom point discussed below, sources have also seen it prudent to explain that the martyrdom comments didn't mean what Westeners would in this context understand with them, so IMO including them without that clarification would fall short of neutrality. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No as the statement is one sided and a point of view of IDF, it cannot be quoted as verbatim fact. However, it can be attributed to the IDF.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 19:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I just noticed that the question is phrased a bit imprecisely. This edit was first made to the lead, which is quite different from a question of whether "it should be kept in the article". For the lead, there are also considerations of WP:UNDUE in addition to other stuff which is mentioned in the comments above. Since many people have already given comments, I don't know how to fix this issue. Kingsindian (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Partial No as to the edit proposed by User:Darkness Shines, though I agree that the information (if either true or claimed by certain sources) is relevant (either as fact or as a view attributable to that source). We should take other sources into account. My take:
 * I see no reason why these points are in one sentence. They are from different sources and the points are not all directly related.
 * The books were published by major publishing houses though this is not an especially important argument in this discussion or in general.
 * First point (humanitarian aid): The statement does not look like it has been substantiated. Darkness Shines, what are the quotations from the books that say this, and can you find other sources that back it? (There might be more information/context that we don't have.) If not, just leave it out.
 * Second point (50 mercenaries): This point is better expressed by the Jerusalem Post, as well as Haaretz and the Jewish Chronicle. Including the information as described in those newspapers should not be problematic.
 * Third point (martyr's death): This point is attributable to an ITIC report, though there are other sources as well. The findings are better expressed by the Jerusalem Post, with similar reports made by The Daily Telegraph (thank you, Dailycare) and The Guardian (and other, similar quotations reported by Haaretz, ABC, BBC, and TVNZ).
 * Conclusion: Some of this information is encyclopedic, but the style of the proposed edit above makes the addition of these points more controversial than it should be. Including one or two sentences for points 2 and 3 (NPOV/DUE WEIGHT), citing the newspapers rather than the books (NPOV; RS), and attributing where necessary (ATTRIBUTEPOV) should not be a problem. --Precision123 (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of comments
 * About point 2. I do not understand the point about quoting newspapers. How is it any different if the JPost quotes the IDF or the book by Darkness Shines quotes the IDF? Secondly, as I mentioned, the "40 hardcore activists" claim is already present in the lead.
 * About point 3. The question is not whether "martyr" was uttered or not. The question is the context. What exactly is the quote supposed to show? "Martyr" is a very common term for being "killed". For example, the BBC source uses it in exactly this way. "We will die, become martyrs, but never let us be shown... as the ones who used guns". The quote I gave earlier was also totally innocuous. Kingsindian (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with all points made by User:Kingsindian. DocumentError (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you two may have misunderstood and I apologize for not having articulated my thoughts better. I will try here.
 * Point 2: The point about newspapers was to substantiate any of the claims currently under discussion here and to copy their style for the sake of NPOV. Basically, if the newspaper attributes a claim to a source or sources, then it is OK for it to be attributed as such. The presence of the claim in newspapers can also that it is potentially noteworthy (i.e., not obscure, not unsubstantiated, and not given undue weight). Here, the difference would be mentioning the IDF source, rather than the book. What the book then cites is irrelevant here if we are not including it in the article. If your argument is to completely disregard these RS, then we have a disagreement.
 * Point 3: I am not one to discuss what martyrdom is or is not, and I think doing so can get close to OR. I mentioned the newspapers here for the sake of relevance and weight. It appears that the issue of expressing a desire for martyrdom was an in issue in the media and in investigations. This is more than just whether the word "martyr" was uttered or not. With The Jerusalem Post, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, and the ITIC report, including merely one short sentence like "A number of the flotilla passengers who were killed had reportedly expressed a desire to die as martyrs," would be sufficient and accurate per the sources. --Precision123 (talk) 23:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid the point about newspapers still makes no sense to me. Firstly, the point about repeating the information "40 hardcore activists" according to the official Israeli report is not addressed. Secondly, the book is citing the Jerusalem Post, a newspaper. And the argument is that it is not undue...because newspapers report it, quoting the IDF? Kingsindian (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about interpreting what martyrdom means, but the relevance. The question is, what exactly is the statement supposed to show? A statement by the UN Palmer report questioning the motives of IHH is already present in the lead. Kingsindian (talk) 02:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually yes. Whether an issue has been presented and discussed by reliable sources is a factor in determining due weight, so no need to patronize.
 * Books can be difficult to evaluate at times (much time and space here was devoted to that), but newspapers are fairly easy. That is why they are important here. Do the newspapers (reliable, secondary sources) present these issues in their reports? Do they present them as fact or attribute them to another source? If you still do not understand this, I cannot help you further.
 * According to the sources, it looks like the martyrdom issue has some relevance, and it extends beyond the Palmer report. Again, a short sentence in the "Flotilla participants" section like "A number of the flotilla passengers who were killed had reportedly expressed a desire to die as martyrs," would be accurate and well sourced, and it may help quell this part of the debate. --Precision123 (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I will just respond to the first point. There was no implication of patronizing. Communication is hard enough without people doing mind reading. I said I did not understand your argument, and I meant that, and nothing more. Regarding your comment, I already said, the Jerusalem Post article quotes the IDF. And I remind you again that the claim of "40 hardcore activists" which was from an (later) official Israeli report, is already present in the article (indeed the lead of the article). The Haaretz article which you referenced is quoting Israeli intelligence about the "40 hardcore activists". Similar stuff with the Jewish Chronicle article. Leaving aside the different numbers, this is the same group being talked about. Kingsindian (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The patronizing comment was in reference to the sentence you made using an ellipsis (apparently questioning the idea that the presence of an issue in reliable sources is a factor in determining due weight).
 * To respond again, OK, so JPost quotes the IDF. What is your point? If the statement is attributed in a RS to another source, be it the IDF or Mickey Mouse, then let's attribute it. Frankly I don't see the issue. In addition, there are other newspaper reports here besides JPost.
 * Re the 40 people: "This is the same group talked about." Again, what's your point? If it's the same group talked about, then add a little comma in the body of the article and say "the IDF suspects that this group may have been paid mercenaries." Easy. Done. --Precision123 (talk) 09:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes--Per Darkness Shines, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Keep sources but open to rewording Per WP:YESPOV the project seeks to add reliably sourced points of view, not remove them. However it's perfectly fine to attribute POVs, and even to reasonable clarify (i.e. this was one ship among many) as others above have pointed out. -- Kendrick7talk 02:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand how WP:YESPOV applies. The issue about the ships is not attribution, but relevance. What is the relevance of some ships in the flotilla carrying cargo and some passengers? To take a humorous example, should we add Israeli/Arab statements about Hummus also in the article? Also, what about the other statements in the paragraph? Kingsindian (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I admit that the wording of the second part is somewhat gauche. Effectively: These people were willing to die for what they believed in; having died they have no one to blame but themselves. That implication, as currently worded, probably does indeed fail WP:NPOV. You've made a good point, and as such, I've clarified my vote as not merely outright support. But, if a reliable source has claimed that some of these people were paid agents of the Turkish government, that at the very least belongs in the article, per WP:PRESERVE, with proper explicit attribution if it happens to be a minority POV. -- Kendrick7talk 08:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No. The claim about the cargo must have come from IDF and could not be verified by a neutral party. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Emesik (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference cited is Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Gaza_flotilla_raid. For me, the issue is not whether its true or not, but that it is irrelevant. What is the relevance if three ships carried cargo and three passengers? As I said, if we want to include irrelevant claims, let's include the Arab/Israeli debates over who created Hummus. Kingsindian (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not going to take a yes or no definitive opinion on this issue. International relations (IR) can be a troublesome area -- none moreso than the Middle East conflicts. The way I would approach they issue, is this. If there are sources which state "XYZ", in this field of study one should attribute to their authors. The reason for this is IR is more often matters of opinion than matters of fact. Wikipedia should reflect this as well. I do hope it helps just a little. PNGWantok (talk) 09:39, 7 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment There are questions of reliability of the sources and due weight. These should not be ignored.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Some guy who joined ISIS
I have reverted this edit. If some guy was on the flotilla and then wrote a book and then in the future joined ISIS, what on Earth does this have to do with the flotilla? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Shows how much some wanted to be martyrs. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Martyr by time travel? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope, he did not get his martyrdom there, so sought it elsewhere. Perhaps he was one of those wishing for the "martyrs death" on the Mavi? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If he was looking for martyrdom on the flotilla, and attacked soldiers etc. please find a source that says so. Otherwise it is pure speculation. People change political affiliations all the time. Many left wingers become right wingers and vice versa. Right now, it is simply one guy who is alleged to have done something in the future after being a passenger in the flotilla in the past. This has nothing to do with flotilla at all. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It has as Mavi Marmara was explicitly mentioned by WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the point of mentioning WP:RS. Nobody is denying that the guy was on the flotilla. Does that mean everything some guy on some boat does afterwards is related to the flotilla raid? This is silly. ISIS did not even exist in 2010. This is pure guilt by association. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes if it mentioned by WP:RS then it meets WP:DIVERSE notability guideline as the WP:RS think its WD:DUE to mention it.--Shrike (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is blatant coatracking and accordingly a violation of WP:NPOV. I would remind contributors that this article is covered by ArbCom sanctions, and that they are accordingly expected to comply with policy - which includes not engaging in baseless speculation as to what motivated someone who did something in 2010 to go on to do something else entirely in 2014. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see the encyclopedic relevance of this, especially considering that the source used to support this edit seems to blame the activists for attacking the commandos, rather than the other way around. As if the commados had just been there, hanging from ropes in the Mediterranean, and out of nowhere the activists sail in ships and start beating them up. We've covered previously what the meaning of seeking martyrdom is. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ya'akov Bolinet Alniak is not some guy, he was avery prominent member of IHH and his death is mentioned by many reliable sources. He wrote the book about flotilla as a participant and I dont know why I was reverted after adding a WP:RS.--Tritomex (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * He was so prominent that he wasn't even mentioned in the article before? Please. Anyway, nobody reverted you for adding a WP:RS. Anyone can write a book on anything. What on Earth do his supposed activities in 2014 have to do with the flotilla raid in 2010? I ask to stop edit-warring, self-revert and open an RfC if he wishes to include it. Not to mention that the edit summary is not acceptable. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 07:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If the connection is noted by a reliable source it is relevant to this article. If the connection is not noted by a reliable source it is not relevant to this article. Not sure what you're all debating about. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 01:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A reliable source can be used to establish that some person X was present in the flotilla. But one does not add every piece of information which appears in newspapers into WP. If someone can tell me what relevance do some guy's actions in 2014 have to do with some event which happened in 2010, I will be happy to include it. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you don't understand. Nobody has to explain anything if the proposed content is included in a reliable source. See WP:V.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Brewcrewer: that isn't what Neutral point of view says. We don't include everything every reliable source says, we look at the balance of coverage in a range of sources, and then decide what to include on the basis of weight. Even the source cited (which is clearly partisan) isn't actually discussing the flotilla in any detail, it is discussing the reported death of an individual. Unless and until it can be shown that articles on the flotilla discuss this individual and his later links with ISIS, it seems entirely undue to include the material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed you didn't quote wp:npov when basing your argument on that policy. Rightfully so because NPOV and WP:UNDUE (both of which are policies on how to deal with opposing viewpoints) never say what you claim it does. The two listed sources are national papers and reliable. WP:RS/N will agree full throatily. The opposition appears to be nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 20:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody is arguing about the basis of WP:V. There is nothing new in any arguments given. As I said earlier, if you wish to include it, open an RfC. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Brewcrewer, you wrote that "Nobody has to explain anything if the proposed content is included in a reliable source". That is what I responded to. It is factually incorrect. As for WP:NPOV, policy is clear: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news". Though describing the later connection between Alniak and ISIS as 'about the subject' of this article is questionable (and the source cited clearly isn't 'impartial'). And for the record, the disputed edit cited one source, not two. A source which incidentally hedges its bets on whether Alniak is actually dead or not (or even whether he joined ISIS or not). The headline says he is dead, but the body of the text, qualifies the statement: "according to Turkish reports..." The edit as written isn't even supported by the source cited. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Panel of 5 legal experts
I have moved the paragraph back to after the Palmer report. This is a different report, by an independent panel of 5 experts, reporting to the UNHRC, and talking about the legality, and in response to the Palmer report. It is not useful to move it together with the earlier report, which was mostly about testimonies by the passengers involved, though it also rendered an opinion on the blockade. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 09:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To begin, you are incorrect in describing it as an independent panel. The panel was entirely composed of long-standing UNHRC appointed United Nations Special Rapporteurs. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 There are two UN organizations/commissions/reports on the legality of the raid and the blockade. Those are the Palmer Report and the reports issued by the UNHRC. It is blatantly a violation of neutral POV to begin with the UNHRC, then go to the Palmer report, and then include a latter rebuttal from the UNHRC of the Palmer report. Doing so gives preference to the UNHRC. It's questionable why a UNHRC rebuttal of the Palmer report even needs to be included in the opening paragraphs of the article. For example, in the main article, objections to the UNHRC report are expressed by the United States and European Union. Yet these objections aren't presented as a counterpoint in the opening paragraphs (only Israel's are, which creates a false impression). If every report, and rebuttal, and counter rebuttal were posted the article would never end. Hence the specific and selective use of when/where/why a rebuttal is included in this particular situation is worth keeping in mind with regard to POV. The best solution with regard to POV in the opening section of the article is to move all UNHRC conclusions to one paragraph (noting that they are separate reports) and the Palmer Report conclusions to a separate paragraph. Otherwise, the UNHRC rebuttal (and the response by Israel to the UNHRC probe) should be left in the more detailed main section of the article where other rebuttals are included. Drsmoo (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added US and EU responses to UNHRC probe to the opening paragraphs to maintain consistency between the opening paragraphs and the bulk of the article with regard to reports and responses. Drsmoo (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I am not incorrect in describing them as independent, that is how it is described in the source1, source2. UN Rapporteurs are special outside experts who report to a deliberative body, like the UNHRC. This is even mentioned in the wiki page you helpfully linked. Of course, how independent they are can be questioned: it is made clear that it was reporting to UNHRC.
 * As mentioned in the article, the Palmer report was not even set up to examine matters of law. Unlike the 5 member expert panel, it was not composed of international law specialists. Nevertheless, since it is a notable (and lone UN) report that concluded one part of the blockade was legal, it is included. There is only one data point anywhere that concludes that (part of) the blockade is legal.
 * I also do not agree with including the US or EU response, the lead is not the place for responses to the (initial) UNHRC report. I am against this practice of "giving the last word" to this or that country. The response by Israel is included, because it is directly affected. US is only one country out of many in the UN. Are we going to list the response by every other country as well? Please note that NPOV does not mean false balance. The EU statement is similarly out of place, though it says the opposite of the US. I have reverted this edit per WP:BRD, we can discuss more if you like. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 11:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You were incorrect in describing it as an independent panel. Additionally both of your sources are the same reuters article. It was a panel of long-standing UNHRC appointed Special Rapporteurs who were in no way, shape or form independent from the UNHRC. In the reuters article they are described as "independent U.N. rights experts." This is not describing the panel itself as independent, which it was not. UN Special Rapporteurs are not outside experts, and that term does not exist anywhere in the article. They are appointed by the UNHRC, and their "independent status" it to governments, not to the UNHRC. "Special Rapporteur, Special Representative of the Secretary-General and Independent Expert are titles given to individuals working on behalf of the United Nations (UN) within the scope of "Special Procedures" mechanisms, who bear a specific mandate from the United Nations Human Rights Council, either a country mandate or a thematic mandate." "Appointed by the Human Rights Council of the UN, these mandate-holders act independently of governments." So no, it is not an independent panel and they are are very much part of the UNHRC. The five members were "Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/ODSchutter.aspx); Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Anand Grover (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Health/Pages/SRRightHealthIndex.aspx); Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque (http://www.ohchr.org/en/Issues/WaterAndSanitation/SRWater/Pages/CatarinaDeAlbuquerque.aspx); Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, María Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Poverty/Pages/MSepulveda.aspx), Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights on Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, Richard Falk." (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/CountriesMandates/PS/Pages/SRPalestine.aspx) http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 All of whom were appointed by the UNHRC in 2008, three years prior to the panel in question.


 * I reject your edit attempting to sandwich the Palmer report between the UNHRC. It's curious that you're against "giving the last word to this or that country" but are comfortable giving both the first and last word to the UNHRC. If you're comfortable with a rebuttal to the Palmer Report from a non-involved player, than you should be comfortable with a similar rebuttal to the UNHRC report. Either both reports should have equal treatment, or neither one should have a rebuttal. Drsmoo (talk) 18:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I accept your point that the "independent" refers to "independent of governments", rather than "independent of the UNHRC". I apologize for my own slight confusion and unclear statement about "outside experts". However, it is already made clear in the lead that it is a UNHRC panel.
 * Your second point. I don't see any contradiction. I objected to you inserting responses by arbitrary countries to the initial UNHRC report, which is totally irrelevant to where the report of the UNHRC 5 member panel should be placed. Note that the 5 experts were specifically addressing the question of the blockade and the flotilla (the subject of the article). The edit you made was responding the UNHRC report which responded to the flotilla. That is totally undue. One cannot arbitrarily add (some) responses to responses. The article is not about UNHRC, but about the flotilla.
 * When you say that I "sandwich" the Palmer report between two UNHRC reports, that is technically correct. However, that is simply the chronological order. You may feel that it is giving undue weight to the UNHRC, but this is the way the affair played out. The Palmer report was simply a report by a panel commissioned by the Secretary General. It had no special privileges, but was meant as a political process. It is not me who "sandwiched" the report, but the UN which did it. I am quite aware the Israel considers the UNHRC biased, but that is specifically mentioned in the lead. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Chronological order doesn't dictate how introductory paragraphs on wiki pages are arranged. Maintaining a neutral point of view does. You are incorrect in your assertion that the five UNHRC Special Rapporteurs were not addressing the Palmer Report. The comments by the five UN Special Rapporteurs were directly in response to the Palmer Report. As both the official article on the subject from the Human Rights Council, and the Reuters article show.


 * The title of the report by the UNHRC is as follows: How can Israel’s blockade of Gaza be legal? – UN independent experts on the “Palmer Report” ==


 * "Commenting on the report of the Panel of Inquiry on the flotilla incident of 31 May (Palmer Report), released this month, a group of United Nations independent experts* criticized its conclusion that Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal."
 * http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363


 * The reuters article says as follows: "The so-called Palmer Report on the Israeli raid of May 2010 that killed nine Turkish activists said earlier this month that Israel had used unreasonable force in last year's raid, but its naval blockade of the Hamas-ruled strip was legal.
 * A panel of five independent U.N. rights experts reporting to the U.N. Human Rights Council rejected that conclusion, saying the blockade had subjected Gazans to collective punishment in "flagrant contravention of international human rights and humanitarian law."
 * The four-year blockade deprived 1.6 million Palestinians living in the enclave of fundamental rights, they said.
 * "In pronouncing itself on the legality of the naval blockade, the Palmer Report does not recognize the naval blockade as an integral part of Israel's closure policy toward Gaza which has a disproportionate impact on the human rights of civilians," they said in a joint statement." http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-un-gaza-rights-idUSTRE78C59R20110913


 * The state of the introductory paragraphs is a UNHRC report, than the Palmer report, than a direct rebuttal from the UNHRC of the Palmer report. This does not present a neutral point of view. Especially given that you wish to remove the responses from the US and European Union. Drsmoo (talk) 04:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Its the sources who make the connection if the sources about the commission mention the EU and US responses that its WP:DUE to include them.--Shrike (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here:
 * If you consider the order in which the lead paragraphs are presented to fail NPOV, then one can discuss and perhaps open an RfC for determining the proper order.
 * Your second edit has arbitrarily taken a data point. This fails false balance. If one wants to include responses to the first UNHRC report, then include reponses by all countries, not just the US/EU. Is there some special reason that the US/EU response deserves inclusion? The EU response does not even say anything about the report, but only that it should be submitted to the Palmer probe. The US response is a typical boilerplate response. Are we going to include the Hamas response, the Turkey response, the Arab League response, and so on? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 07:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The US and EU responses were included as that information is already presented elsewhere in the article. Personally I think all responses, including the UNHRC response, should be removed from the introductory paragraphs and should remain in the main body of the article.Drsmoo (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid there is again a false balance here. The responses by US/EU are simply the responses which every country makes towards the UNHRC report. As I have now added, the UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions. Is there some NPOV problem by only including the response of the 1 and (part of) the 15? I have tagged as undue the statements by EU and US for now, but they should be removed. We are supposed to be neutral as editors, that does not mean balancing the responses when the reality is unbalanced. As to the the 5 member panel, it was not a response in the sense of the response which you added. This was not a response by a particular country, but a panel set up to investigate the legality. It found what everyone else has found, including the Red Cross, as mentioned in the source. I have reorganized the passage for now to put both the UNHRC reports together. Though I do not agree with your reasoning, I do not wish to argue the point. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, we are also giving too much importance to the UNHRC, a body which has a bad reputation for being composed by the worst human rights violators in the world and being extremely obsessed with Israel. Why is the UNHRC response against the Palmer report included? (which was a special committee of the UN set up to investigate the naval blockade and the flotilla incident, much more important than the UNHRC "independent" report). After all, it's already explained at the beginning of the paragraph that the UNHRC considers the blockade is illegal. Explaining it twice seems undue.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * They are two separate reports. Editors are free to hold opinions, including that UNHRC is composed of the world human rights violators of the world, and that the five independent experts were all biased, and the 30-1 vote in the UNHRC was also biased, but WP:JDLI is not an argument. If you feel that the UNHRC is given too much weight, open an RfC. On an unrelated note, what happened to this? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The second one wasn't a "report" it was the UNHRC issuing a rebuttal to the Palmer report. It is undue to have the opinion of the UNHRC, then the Palmer report, and then have a rebuttal from the UNHRC of the Palmer report. The fact that it is presented misleadingly so as to appear that the rebuttal was independent of the UNHRC makes it even worse. Drsmoo (talk) 22:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have already stated, I have moved both the UNHRC reports together. I do not agree with your arguments, but I don't feel like arguing over a relatively minor point. However, I am more than willing to argue over the major point of whether the second report should be excluded from the lead. If that is your position, make arguments, and I will respond. The second UNHRC report finds what every other data point has found, about the illegality of the blockade. As the Reuters source notes, it is the same position which the Red Cross holds, among many others. It is the Palmer report which is the outlier, not the 2nd UNHRC report. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There's only one UNHRC report, if you have a link to a second please provide it. What you're referring to as a second UNHC report is rather a rebuttal of the Palmer report that was issued. I think your recent edit makes senseDrsmoo (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine, so we agree on this issue. I have now removed the extra cruft of UNHRC vote of 30-1 and US/EU responses etc. now that the overall issue of NPOV seems resolved. If you have any objections, let me know. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No we do not agree on the issue at all, having some criticism of the report in the lede is DUE and follows NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not talking to you; indeed, it is impossible to talk to a person who is not present in the discussion. Please stop edit warring. This is twice now that you have ignored WP:BRD and reinstated the edit. Your argument here simply repeats your edit summary before: there is nothing except WP:JDLI. This article is not about UNHRC: it is about the flotilla raid. The vote of the 30-1 in the UNHRC is not relevant to the lead, nor is the arbitrary selection of the views of the 1 (instead of the 30) WP:DUE in any sense of the word. If you wish to include this, open an RfC. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Its WP:DUE as sources mentioned it and its not arbitrary at all as other views were not mentioned by the sources.--Shrike (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that makes no sense at all. You can find a quote in any newspaper about anything. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS: I am not challenging WP:V. The Israeli newspaper (JPost) emphasizes the 1, the Turkish newspaper (Today's Zaman) emphasizes the 30. To add a cherry picked statement quoting the 1 instead of the 30 is silly. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 12:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I did some minor rearranging and think the section reads quite smoothly now. Drsmoo (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment II
Should the following content be added to this article?

In 2014 prominent member of IHH, Yakup Bülent Alnıak who had been aboard the Mavi Marmara and who had written a book on the incident was killed in an American airstrike in Syria. According to reports from Turkey and quoted by YNet News, Alnıak had joined the Islamic State and had taken part in combat missions, other reports claim he had joined the Al Nusra Front, and the Turkish publication World Bulletin claimed Alnıak was there to distribute food to those in need. And another report claimed he was there to research a book. He is survived by a wife and two children.

(Some discussion here). Darkness Shines (talk) 13:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No This is pure WP:COATRACK. Some guy who was on the flotilla in 2010, joined ISIS in 2014 and was killed. Leaving aside issues of time travel and the fact that this article is not about IHH, (hint: look at the title), that he is a "prominent" member of IHH is also extremely dubious ( "prominent" does not appear in the article quoted, an Israeli newspaper ). Nothing comes up on Google in 2010, only a few hits in 2014, nothing beyond a day or so. If he was so prominent, why did nobody mention it before? The fact that trash websites like "The Blaze" are being used as references is indicative of the total irrelevance of this. The Israeli claims about the motives of IHH are already present in the article. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "A leading member of the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) who participated in the 2010 Gaza flotilla incident has been killed in U.S.-led airstrikes targeting Islamic State group positions in Syria." Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have struck out that portion, because it is a trivial point. "The Blaze" is a trashy source, but there is another Israeli newspaper (Ynet) which does mention "prominent" in the headline. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No. For a start, three of the sources qualify their statements with qualifications to the effect that 'Turkish media' have reported this man's death - which accordingly doesn't make them RS for an outright assertion that he is dead. And then there is the complete lack of evidence that this man was seen as a 'prominent' anything prior to these reports. Inclusion is pure coatracking. And a final question: if we were going to cite the Blaze as a source, why would we exclude their statement that "other reports suggested [Alniak] was in Syria to research a book and distribute food aid"? Citing this source while omitting this detail would constitute a gross violation of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The suggested addition already mentions the claim that he was there to deliver food, I missed the other excuse given and will add it now. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Other excuse given"? Thank you for demonstrating once more your utter contempt for Wikipedia policy concerning neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the proposed text violates WP:CLAIM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No If other members of the raid participated in summer-stock theater, were champion cosplayers, or subsequently enlisted in the Bolivian army, would we include that? The only purpose behind such an injection seems to be to delegitimize one side in this debate, an inappropriate editorial injection. WP:COAT DocumentError (talk) 07:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 'No, per COATRACK as argued above. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No This information is about the flotilla and its legitimacy as a humanitarian effort whereas this article is about the raid itself. Discussion of the legitimacy of the flotilla as a humanitarian effort should be in the flotilla article.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note. This RfC was started by a self-confessed long-term sock of a banned user - see AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: UNHRC vote in the lead
Should the following statement be included in the lead?

The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions. The United States expressed concern about the tone, content and conclusions of the report and the European Union stated that it should be transferred to the UN Secretary-General's investigation. 15:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey
*Yes Per NPOV, some criticism of the report needs to be in the lede. I have no issue with "The UNHRC report was adopted 30-1 with 15 abstentions." line being dropped. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC) - self-confessed sock of banned user struck AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No This article is not about the UNHRC, it is about the flotilla. It is hard to see why the UNHRC vote is notable. There were a few newspaper reports mentioning it at the time, nothing else. And there is no justification at all for including the responses of the 1 vote against (US) and some of the abstentions (EU). The Turkish source (Today's Zaman) emphasized the "30" in "30-1" vote, and the Israeli newspaper (JPost) emphasized the "1", without mentioning the 30. The lead is already too long: dump this. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 15:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * No The proposed section doesn't belong in the lede per WP:UNDUE. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Per NPOV and balance, given the fact that UNHRC is mentioned twice, and the second time is to criticize the Palmer report. There must be some criticism of the highly controversial UNHRC.--Wlglunight93 (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No The details of the vote are not key elements of this article (WP:LEAD). The raid on the flotilla is the key element. --Dailycare (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Re: WP:NPOV. Is it the rule that anyone who criticizes X should automatically get a response? For example, there is a random quote by the NYT editorial board criticizing IHH in the lead, so we should include some criticism of the NYT in the lead? Also, this is a very strange way of showing "criticism": the vote was 30-1 with 15 abstentions, but only the 1 and some of the 15 are quoted, and the 30 ignored. This is a typical example of false balance. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No The lede is already too long and this level of detail is not appropriate for an introductory treatment. DocumentError (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes We should include it per WP:NPOV and WP:DUE as WP:DIVERSE sources think its relevant and make the connection--Shrike (talk) 09:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes It should be included due to notability and per WP:NPOV Drsmoo (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No This article is not about the UNHRC, and the lede is already getting bloated. It's common in articles on controversial issues but adding still more is not good. (a "randomly selected" editor who received "an invitation to participate in the request for comment") --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No - Obvious attempt to false balance. Not on the lede. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends upon the length of the introduction. NO if the length of the intro is cut down.  YES if the introduction is left at its current length.--Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


 * NoThis seems like an attempt at a false balance and an attempt detract from the value of the resolution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes Per NPOV, the statement is in requirement of balance. Noteswork (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

UN Report saying that the blockade "was legal"
This is similar to a controversy in US politics some years ago, when a US President placed importance on "the meaning of 'is'". Words should be used in a way such that they mean what people think they mean.

The ongoing blockade of Gaza is not legal. The UN report reached the difficult conclusion that it had been legal when it was first implemented, which relied on evidence like "the rate of rocket attacks had decreased some time after the blockade was implemented, which is evidence that the blockade really was for self-defense". The report did not say that the blockade is legal, because the evidence that it would still be a necessary and immediate reaction to an act of aggression, over a year after it was first implemented, would have been much harder to defend legally. This is why the report recommended that Israel immediately report its use of force, in the form of the blockade, to the United Nations Security Council as required by nations engaging in self-defense by the UN Charter.

The report mentioned the Caroline affair, and the conclusion that was reached regarding it that the "necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation". A year-long blockade is not an instant response; it is not a timescale that prevents deliberation or, most importantly, referral of the dispute to the UN Security Council.

Other relevant information:

There is a widespread misconception that the United Nations report on the 2010 Gaza Freedom Flotilla concluded that Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal. Even reputable organizations such as the New York Times have made this mistake.

The report did not say this. The report concluded that the imposition of a blockade on 3 January 2009 was legal and justified as a measure of self-defence, in direct response to rocket attacks from Gaza.

However, the terms of the United Nations charter, frequently linked in the report, only allows the use of force in self-defence until the United Nations Security Council "has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security". If a nation is not under immediate attack, acts of self-defence are not allowed. This includes the maintenance of a naval blockade.

While the Gaza Strip and Israel are currently at war, the naval blockade by Israel was illegal during the substantial periods of time in which no rockets were being fired towards Israel.

Israel considers the legal basis for its control of the territorial waters around the Gaza Strip, as well as the airspace of the Palestinian territories, to be the Oslo Accords, and specifically the Gaza-Jericho agreement.

Palestine can revoke the authority it has granted Israel to control its territorial waters and airspace, which would cause Israel to have no legal basis to infringe on the territory of Gaza unless Israel is under immediate and direct attack, with no other way to prevent these attacks from occurring.

Links: UN Report on the Freedom Flotilla http://www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/middle_east/Gaza_Flotilla_Panel_Report.pdf

U.N. Report Finds Israeli Blockade Legal but Raid Flawed http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/world/middleeast/02flotilla.html

Self-Defence clause of the United Nations charter http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml#article51

I would have edited the page myself, but it is protected. When the lede says that the UN report concluded that the blockade "was legal", this is misleading because it can easily be misinterpreted to mean "the blockade at the moment the Gaza flotilla was attacked", as this is the event that many people are interested in. It should be changed to indicate that this was probably not the intent of the authors of the report, as this would have been wrong and they clearly referenced the legal aspects of the situation (such as the use of force only being authorized for self-defense, and then only when the UN Security Council is notified so it can resolve the situation) that are the reason saying "the blockade was legal when the raid took place" would have been wrong. 2601:8:9780:1EE:7CB2:F4A5:44F7:BE5E (talk) 00:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Further misleading statements (this is the same editor as previous comment): Under #Legal assessments, it says "In September 2011, a United Nations report concluded that the Israeli naval blockade was legal, but that the Israeli action was "excessive"." As described previously, we cannot support the conclusion that the investigation found that the blockade was legal at the moment of the raid. So the "but" is not appropriate here, as the conclusion that the use of force was excessive does not in any way contradict the conclusion that the blockade was legal on ~03 Jan 2009. This needs to be rewritten to prevent the inappropriate conclusion that the investigation found that the blockade was still legal in 2010. It didn't say that it was illegal then, but it also didn't say that having a blockade for this length of time was justified by the facts (that the ongoing blockade "is" legal); it did not examine situations that were outside of its mandate, though involved parties may have mistakenly thought that it did. Note that an "illegal" characterization of the blockade, since the investigation found that it otherwise satisfied the requirements for a blockade when used in wartime, depends on the UN Charter which makes the overall action of prolonged conflict "illegal", given the definition of "customary rules used by nations" to determine whether something is illegal. If the investigation was not tasked to determine whether the conflict itself was legal, which would involve examining the period before Jan 03 2009 (just after Israel invaded Gaza, with lots of rocket attacks going on) it would likely have found that it was not, but people who knew that the UN Charter prohibits war might have felt that there was no need for an investigative committee to answer that question, and those who didn't know that may have assumed that sufficient issues were being examined to reach the conclusion they wished the investigation to reach. 2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The section #UN_Palmer_Report also makes this mistake. 'The commission determined Israel's naval blockade of the Gaza Strip to be legal,[306] but stated that the "decision to board the vessels with such substantial force[...]"'

From the report, page 7: "The Panel is not a court. It was not asked to make determinations of the legal issues". Page 5, para iii: "all aspects of (Security Council resolution 1860) should be implemented", which according to its Wikipedia article includes an "immediate and durable ceasefire". For the lazy, page 5 para vi. states "The imposition of a naval blockade as an action in self-defence should be reported to the Security Council under the procedures set out under Article 51 of the Charter. This will enable the Council to monitor any implications for international peace and security." This does sort of show a flaw in the report, because the Security Council is actually supposed to actively stop conflicts, not just "monitor" them; if one side is the aggressor, then (as long as the attacked party is part of the UN, and even if it isn't the UN's rules allow the Security Council to prevent conflicts) the UN is supposed to take action, whether through military or other means, to restore peace. If acts of self-defense are taking place, then by definition a state of international peace does not exist.

The tasks for the panel are on page 11, para 6.

(a) examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and

(b) consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future.

As the panel stated on page 7, determining whether the blockade was still legal, or legality of anything else, was not one of the tasks. The report noted a reduction in rocket attacks compared to when the blockade was implemented, and used this as evidence that the blockade, on 3 Jan 2009, was in self-defense (concluding that it supported the 'self-defense' explanation, though others might disagree on the reason for a reduction in rocket attacks); it did not examine any evidence or make the conclusion that rocket attacks at the time of the blockade were sufficient to justify a blockade in self-defense, especially considering that (though the panel does not seem to have mentioned this) the UNSC is supposed to be the one that uses force when other means fail, other than for "immediate action" etc. The mention in the UN Charter of nations ensuring that airplanes are available for enforcement actions shows the view of the timescale in which the founders of the UN hoped that future conflicts would be resolved, though of course this hasn't worked out in practice.

On page 14, the summary of the Turkish report says that it states that the blockade started in 2007 by including the land crossings (which, it must be mentioned, Egypt is also part of). If the UN investigation had used this definition, it likely would not have been able to conclude that "the blockade was legal". Page 15, the Turkish explanation for why the blockade is illegal does not mention the UN Charter, which may seem consistent given that Israel was not trying to make people think that it was acting in self-defense when it increased restrictions on land crossings in 2007.

Note that, on page 28, the Israeli report found that "the imposition of the naval blockade was lawful". Contrast with the Turkish conclusion: on page 14, "The Turkish Commission does not accept that Israel’s naval blockade is lawful", page 15, "Israel’s blockade is illegal". The fact that the Israeli report uses the past tense, as opposed to present tense for the Turkish report, is why the UN report recommended a review of the necessity of the blockade by Israel in addition to its other recommendations (which, as noted, imply that only reason to report ongoing acts of self-defense to the UNSC is so it can "monitor" the situation).

To explain how easy it is to be confused by the report, on page 38, the report states "Turkey considers that the naval blockade was illegal and that the interception of the flotilla vessels on the high seas[...]". Here, it uses "blockade was illegal" to refer to the time of the flotilla raid, but elsewhere, in both the panel's conclusions and the Israeli response to the report's conclusions, "blockade was legal" refers to its imposition on 03 Jan 2009.

On page 44, para 81, where the panel concludes "naval blockade was legal. In this regard, the Panel reaches a different conclusion to that of the Turkish investigation into the incident." This is misleading because Turkey was more concerned with the practical consequences of whether the blockade was legal on the day of the flotilla raid and at present; the conclusion that the blockade was also illegal on 03 Jan 2009, by linking it to the earlier restrictions which would not satisfy the "immediate action" test referenced in the UN report, was only incidental. The UN report differs with the Turkish one on whether the blockade was legal on 03 Jan 2009; it does not differ on whether the blockade is legal because the UN report does not make a statement on whether the blockade is legal. As another example of the limited scope of the investigation, on page 41, para 73, it states regarding a specific issue, "This conclusion goes no further than is necessary for the Panel to carry out its mandate. What other implications may or may not flow from it are not before us"; as noted before, the panel stated that determining legal issues was not one of its tasks. This is why it felt it was acceptable to offer a legal opinion, which it recognized carried no legal authority, on the blockade at one point of time but not at another, even though the panel's members may have been aware that their wording was misleading.

Again, the statements at the end differ in their use of tense. Israeli statement: 'Israel's view that the "naval blockade was legal," that it "was imposed[...]" "complied". Turkish report: "Common sense and conscience dictate that the blockade is unlawful." It then says "Also the UN Human Rights Council concluded that the blockade was unlawful.", which might just be the 'change of tense of quotation to match time period of quotation' that is common in English or might be a deliberate avoidance of "is", but either way shows how easy it is to confuse "was a year ago and still is" with "was two years ago and might no longer be", especially when the UN report itself uses the same "was" for both of these situations.

2601:8:9780:1EE:1CFE:53C:4ED0:76B2 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Unrelated, but it doesn't seem like anyone is going to respond to this or fix the article (which is blocked from editing for anonymous users). How to fix the situation which leads to conflict between Israel and Palestine: Note that it seems most likely that Adam Lanza learned of that proposal through the Wikipedia talk page for the Aurora shooting, given his research into a particular type of event. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 18:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * When you say that the Palmer report did not conclude the blockade was legal at the time of the flotilla raid, you are only relying on your own analysis and a pastebin link. Neither of this is WP:RS and you are therefore engaging in WP:OR. You need to provide a WP:SECONDARY source which makes this interpretation of the law.
 * I will note that the legal assessments section notes the various other assessments of the blockade. Reading the section as a whole, we can see that the Palmer report is an outlier for determining the legality of the blockade. But it is a notable report, and should be presented per WP:NPOV. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of statement by five member UN panel
I have reverted the edit removing the findings of the five member UN panel on the blockade. I do not accept your reasoning that the part which was removed earlier (the reaction of countries to the UNHRC report) is in any way symmetrical to the edit you made. The edit mentioning the responses by the various countries on the UNHRC report was simply a political response on the matter by the various countries. This is, by contrast, a statement by an expert panel of dedicated rapporteurs on the topic. If you wish to argue against inclusion, please do so on a separate basis, on its own merits. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 01:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * As we went over previously, it was a panel of UNHRC members reiterating their views as a rebuttal of the UN report. These were not "findings." To reiterate, the title of the report by the UNHRC is as follows: ==How can Israel’s blockade of Gaza be legal? – UN independent experts on the “Palmer Report” ==
 * "Commenting on the report of the Panel of Inquiry on the flotilla incident of 31 May (Palmer Report'), released this month, 'a group of United Nations independent experts* criticized its conclusion' that Israel’s naval blockade of the Gaza Strip is legal."
 * http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?LangID=E&NewsID=11363 There was no "report". This was a one-page rebuttal/criticism from the UNHRC of the UN (Palmer) report and nothing other than that. As the rebuttal of the UNHRC report was removed from the lead and kept in the body paragraphs, so should rebuttals of the UN (Palmer) report.


 * Additionally, the paragraph the UN (Palmer) report in the lead is a mess. For example it sloppily says that there was excessive force twice in the same sentence. Drsmoo (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, we went over this previously, but I do not recall you arguing that it should be removed. If you had, I would have given my arguments before. Secondly, the opinion of a panel of experts is notable and was made in context of the flotilla raid, this is why it is in the lead. Thirdly, as I said above, the removed line about EU/US reaction to the UNHRC report has nothing to do with this. That response was a purely political response which countries make all the time. This, in contrast, is an opinion by five special rapporteurs. It is totally improper to link it with the other statement. As to your last comment, I am not averse to rewriting the paragraph to make it less messy, as long as it is not removing content. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 07:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be removed in light of the rebuttal from the US and EU being removed. If one side's rebuttals are removed from the lead, than the other side's rebuttal should be as well. You continue to refer to the UNHRC rebuttal as a "panel of experts" or "an opinion by five special rapporteurs," Implying that this panel was in some way independent and thus uniquely notable. It was not. It is a rebuttal from the UNHRC of the UN (Palmer) report in which the UNHRC expressed it's displeasure. Nothing about it was independent of the UNHRC. It is blatantly POV to have a rebuttal of one report in the lead, and no rebuttal of the other report. Drsmoo (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you simply repeat the points made above, which I have already answered. The "panel of experts" is indeed a panel of experts, as the Reuters link states. They are "independent", as you noted, as in "independent of governments". As a concession to you earlier, I agreed to move this statement together with the UNHRC report, even though it is chronologically not in order. This is not "one side" or other other. By contrast, the inclusion of the EU and US statements (disregarding the other 30 in the 30-1 vote) was simply a political statement by some governments on the UNHRC report, and thus POV and false balance, as the RfC concluded. I have nothing further to add, except suggesting that you open an RfC or pursue other methods of WP:DR. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 20:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You have not satisfactorily addressed the points. You continue to refer to the UNHRC's one-page rebuttal as being somehow independent and thus worthy of being in the lead. It is unbalanced to have the UNHRC's opinion, the UN(Palmer) report's opinion, and then the UNHRC's opinion again as a rebuttal of the UN (Palmer) report in the lead. It is POV. Were the panel independent of the UN and UNHRC, it would be another story, but it is not. One side does not get to have it's opinion reiterated twice in the lead, particularly in the form of a one-page rebuttal. Drsmoo (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, if we are simply talking about the weight of the opinion by itself: I don't understand your point. As we discussed earlier, both the UNHRC original report and the panel opinion are kept together in the lead, and it is made clear that the panel was composed of UNHRC special rapporteurs. The Palmer report is given its own section. The UNHRC inquiry report is not the same as the panel of experts: that inquiry commission was composed of different people. The panel opinion is only about the narrow question about the legality of the blockade. These are experts on the various issues relating to the topic and I find their opinion of enough weight to include in the lead. Moreover, the opinion of the Palmer report about the legality of the (naval) blockade is very much in the minority. So I do not see any POV issue here. Indeed, if we only give two opinions, one "legal" and one "illegal", it would be false balance. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 13:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The panel opinion is only about the narrow question about the legality of the blockade." No the "panel opinion" is the UNHRC's rebuttal of the UN Secretary General's report (aka the Palmer Report). Your personal opinion that it is of enough weight to be in the lead is irrelevant. It is POV to remove one rebuttal and keep another. Every detail of the UNHRC's should not be in the lead. In fact, I can't see any other reason to keep it in the lead aside from pushing a POV, you appear to be admitting as much by giving your personal opinion about the Director General's report, which is irrelevant with regard to keeping the lead straightforward and NPOV. Drsmoo (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, we again seem to be going in circles here. Matters of weight are of course decided by consensus. There is simply no other way to decide whether to include something or not. I gave my opinion on this, which you deem to be irrelevant for reasons which elude me.
 * To repeat, the five special rapporteurs are experts on the topic, they are appointed by the UNHRC, (not all of them are related to Palestine, some are on general topics like right to food and health). Their opinion is notable, as evidenced in the Reuters report cited, and was made in context of the flotilla raid. It is clearly indicated in the lead that the special rapporteurs report to the UNHRC. I don't know what is to be gained by simply stating this again and again.
 * Perhaps we could post this to WP:3O to get some informal outside opinion? Or we could use other WP:DR like opening an WP:RfC. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 08:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has been posted to the Neutral Point of View noticeboard. The rebuttals by the US and EU were notable as well. The rebuttal from the UNHRC should not be in the lead and does not provide a neutral point of view. Drsmoo (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110618074013/http://www.pbs.org:80/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june10/gaza2_06-02.html to http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june10/gaza2_06-02.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner:Offline 04:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121105021700/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/06/14/bloomberg1376-L401DF1A74E9-5.DTL to http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/06/14/bloomberg1376-L401DF1A74E9-5.DTL#ixzz0qpd7eTWb

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8909000/8909361.stm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608063952/http://www.freegaza.org:80/en/home/press-releases/1217-idf-admits-it-doctored-the-audio-tapes to http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/press-releases/1217-idf-admits-it-doctored-the-audio-tapes
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3902389,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-navy-commandos-gaza-flotilla-activists-tried-to-lynch-us-1.293089
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ihh.org.tr/sehitlerin-otopsi-raporlari-aciklandi/en/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/31/israeli-attacks-gaza-flotilla-activists
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100902221606/http://www.adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/pr.php?file=03_06_10 to http://www.adalah.org/eng/pressreleases/pr.php?file=03_06_10
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140107122731/http://www.misagh.tv/Docs/Detail/?Doc=1 to http://www.misagh.tv/Docs/Detail/?Doc=1
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Equipment_aid_Gaza_flotilla_7-Jun-2010.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.justjournalism.com/bbc-focus/view/death-in-the-med-the-transcript
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110806062346/http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/06/21/2739697/israel-announces-plan-to-ease-gaza-blockade to http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/06/21/2739697/israel-announces-plan-to-ease-gaza-blockade
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110503103156/http://www.ihh.org.tr:80/oldurmeyeceksin/en/ to http://www.ihh.org.tr/oldurmeyeceksin/en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2017
Please change the name of the expert to the Turkel Commission 'Wolf Heintschel von Heineg' to 'Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg'. The doubled consonants 'ff' and 'gg' are part of the professor's name (cf. his german Wikipedia article). 91.16.106.100 (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100720064858/http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Maj-Gen-res_Eiland_presents_conclusions_examination_team_12-Jul-2010.htm?DisplayMode=print to http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Government/Communiques/2010/Maj-Gen-res_Eiland_presents_conclusions_examination_team_12-Jul-2010.htm?DisplayMode=print
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Israel%2Badmits%2Bmistakes%2Bboarding%2Bship/3100603/story.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100605035922/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212070-ihh-chief-tells-of-violence-chaos-on-international-aid-ship.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212070-ihh-chief-tells-of-violence-chaos-on-international-aid-ship.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0%2C7340%2CL-3902389%2C00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-flotilla-20100531%2C0%2C1839736.story
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ihh.org.tr/oldurmeyeceksin/en/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Mavi Marmara boarding
The UNHRC report does indeed find that the helicopter fired live rounds on Mavi Marmara prior to the soldiers landing on the deck, but the Palmer report, which was written after the UNHRC one, does not. I think the article should point this out. Neutral Point of View, and all. (Earlier, I was confused, due to there being two UN reports about the incident. Sorry about that!) Mspaaz (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110609003444/http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1206-54-flotilla-passengers-admitted-to-israeli-hospitals to http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1206-54-flotilla-passengers-admitted-to-israeli-hospitals
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20100605090753/http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3092125 to http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3092125
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3902389,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611105812/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51753 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51753
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101225205636/http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1206-54-flotilla-passengers-admitted-to-israeli- to http://www.freegaza.org/en/home/56-news/1206-54-flotilla-passengers-admitted-to-israeli-
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607192346/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/06/indonesian-injured-journalist-evacuated-amman.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/06/06/indonesian-injured-journalist-evacuated-amman.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100606171304/http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/dror-feiler-duger-ihh-at-fn-duger-det-at-oss-1.1116698 to http://www.dn.se/nyheter/sverige/dror-feiler-duger-ihh-at-fn-duger-det-at-oss-1.1116698
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140527183700/http://en.cihan.com.tr/news/Court-issues-arrest-warrant-for-Israeli-commanders-over-Mavi-Marmara_8531-CHMTQzODUzMS8xMDA1 to http://en.cihan.com.tr/news/Court-issues-arrest-warrant-for-Israeli-commanders-over-Mavi-Marmara_8531-CHMTQzODUzMS8xMDA1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611093118/http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/07/pms-speech-in-turkey-53869 to http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/07/pms-speech-in-turkey-53869
 * Added tag to http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?=191718
 * Added tag to http://www.eurasiareview.com/palmer-inquiry-whitewashes-blockade-oped-06092011/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100608092214/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212202-turkish-prosecutors-go-after-israeli-politicians.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-212202-turkish-prosecutors-go-after-israeli-politicians.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141107224730/http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-statement-14-05-2013.aspx to http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Pages/otp-statement-14-05-2013.aspx
 * Added tag to http://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/folkrattsprofessorn-israel-har-brutit-mot-internationell-ratt-1.1115594
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100729024450/http://www.freegaza.org/en/testimonies-from-israeli-jail/1221-in-their-own-words-survivor-testimonies-from-flotilla-31-may-2010 to http://www.freegaza.org/en/testimonies-from-israeli-jail/1221-in-their-own-words-survivor-testimonies-from-flotilla-31-may-2010
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121005120521/http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-211697-customs-officials-deny-israeli-claims-weapons-were-onboard.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-211697-customs-officials-deny-israeli-claims-weapons-were-onboard.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100604205923/http://www.tv4play.se/nyheter/nyhetskanalen?videoId=1.1664803 to http://www.tv4play.se/nyheter/nyhetskanalen?videoId=1.1664803
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111109084030/http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e162.pdf to http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/ipc_e162.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110301181951/http://www.gif.org.tr/eng/pdf/110210_Turkey_Final_Report.pdf to http://www.gif.org.tr/eng/pdf/110210_Turkey_Final_Report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928224118/http://dosyalar.hurriyet.com.tr/mavimarmara_rapor.pdf to http://dosyalar.hurriyet.com.tr/mavimarmara_rapor.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Extremely NPOV Photos and captions
The use of photographs in this article is distinctly non-NPOV. Of the 24 photos in this article, the majority are clearly intended to suggest that the flotilla was primarily an armed attack rather than a delivery of relief. Examples:
 * 2 depictions of commandos injured in the raid, but only one picture of an activist killed, despite the fact that proportionately, there were more injuries and deaths among the activists.
 * Captions of photos states "Footage taken from the Mavi Marmara security cameras shows the activists preparing to attack IDF soldiers." I could change this wording to say "preparing to defend against attacking IDF soldiers" and it would be just as true. If you are standing on your own deck and an invading force is attempting to board you, they are the attackers, and you are the defenders. It doesn't matter what race, religion or political affiliations are involved. Neutral wording should have been used, such as "Activists preparing for encounter with IDF soldiers" for example.
 * Disproportionate number of photos of weapons found on boat, almost no photos of other materials found. Clearly this is a deliberate attempt to present the boat as a hostile attacking force. Meanwhile, there are no photos of the arms carried by the Israeli commandos during the boarding, no photos of blood, corpses, or injuries, aside from one token picture of a dead activist.
 * Photo captioned "Activists throw a stun grenade into an IDF speedboat" but fails to mention that the stun grenade was originally thrown by the Israelis and was then thrown BACK. Again, clearly an attempt to present the case in the worst possible light for the activists. If you throw something at me, and I throw it back at you, I am not the aggressor. Caption is deliberately misleading.
 * "Night vision binoculars found on the deck of the Mavi Marmara, along with a scope to be mounted on a sniper rifle" and yet no photo of a sniper rifle? A scope is nothing but a telescope. It's not a weapon. Given that it's shown with binoculars, what's the reason for specifically saying SNIPER RIFLE in the caption? Clearly the only reason is to make it sound more sinister and dangerous than it actually is.
 * Multiple photos describing passengers as "hitting" or "preparing to attack" but not one photo of IDF soldiers attacking, despite the self-evident fact that the ISF forces committed multiple violent attacks against the passengers. No soldiers were killed, multiple passengers were killed, but the photos and their captions imply that the passengers were the sole aggressors.
 * A ridiculous FIVE pictures of collections of weapons, which includes things like sticks and kitchen knives, hand tools and other miscellaneous objects, only two photos of relief supplies, despite the fact that the quantity of relief supplies was enormous compared to the "arsenal" of sticks and such found aboard.
 * The only photos of relief supplies are of cloth and medicines, and in both medicine photos, the caption points out that they were expired. Clearly an attempt to imply that since the medicines were expired, the relief effort as a sham, when in fact expired medications are often used in relief efforts, because they can still be effective after expiration, sometimes for years afterwards. Add a statement that expired medicines are still valuable and useful for relief efforts, or take out the extra photo, or maybe just say medicines instead of expired medicines.
 * Photo of rolls of fabric include some camouflage pattern fabric, but also other colors, however the caption suggests that this cloth is being provided only for camouflage purposes, when it's obvious in the photo itself that non-camouflage fabric is also there. Camouflage fabric is trendy and commonplace everywhere. Mentioning the camouflage pattern is a way to imply a sinister purpose for the cloth, but it's just cloth.

There are more issues, but this really needs to be cleaned up. The bias is extreme and this article cannot be considered NPOV as long as these photos and captions remain as they are. 24.170.207.189 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which specific edits do you propose to remedy this? --Dailycare (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The stun grenade point was noticed by me a long time ago, but I forgot to fix it. Unfortunately, people add photographs and captions without sourcing all the time. This is a long-standing problem. Many of the photos come from the IDF Flickr account which should not be used in the first place; not even an attribution is given. Many of the photos were added by an editor who from what I saw, used to do little else but add photos from the IDF Flickr account. I count no less than 16 photos sourced to the IDF Flickr account on this article, which is ridiculous. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 19:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am, at the least, deleting the photos which have supporting description in the text. I expect there will be still be some of them left; one should really get photos from neutral sources, but since only the IDF photos are left, the media did use only those, IIRC. The captions should be changed as well; I'll do it later. I'll list below a few which I removed:
 * A few images about expired medicine. There is nothing in the supporting article which says anything, though I have checked that Israel did make the claim.
 * The photo of the soldier helping a woman off the ship is an obvious propaganda photo of no value whatsoever. It also has no connection to the text.
 * Fixed the caption about the stun grenade, and removed one photo of slingshots. There are enough photos of weapons.
 * Remove the photo about sniper rifle scope. Speculative and there is no mention in the text of any sniper rifle.
 * Remove the photo about knives. There's a photo further down of the same thing from a different angle, in the section about weapons.
 * Remove one photo about the security camera footage. Similar photo exists in the next section.

Right now I have removed less than half of the photos from the IDF Flickr account. It's debatable whether they should be used at all, but for now, I'm not touching them. Kingsindian &#9821; &#9818; 20:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This guy is priceless! What does NPOV stand for? Not Nazi Point of View, I hope. Mspaaz (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the photo caption of activists preparing to "attack" IDF soldiers: defend dɪˈfɛnd/Submit verb verb: defend; 3rd person present: defends; past tense: defended; past participle: defended; gerund or present participle: defending 1. resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger. "we shall defend our island, whatever the cost" synonyms:	protect, guard, safeguard, keep from harm, preserve, secure, shield, shelter, screen; More antonyms:	attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.47.146 (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July
1. In the lead, instead of “nine activists were killed on one ship during the raid...” it should say “In the battle that ensued after the activists attacked Israeli soldiers, nine activists were killed... one seriously.” 2. In the lead, instead of “extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution.” It should say “extra-legal, arbitrary and summery execution, though Israel disputes this.” 3. In the lead, instead of “A UNHRC report...” it should cut down on the length - that paragraph is needlessly longer than any other paragraph - and add a sentence saying, “the UNHRC has been plagued by Anti-Israel bias- it has resolved more resolutions condemning Israel than the rest of the world combined.” Ajackson12 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 14:27, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent events
Have anyone heard about recent flotilla of freedom? and. -- M h hossein   talk 19:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Correction: (Mis)use of UN SG's forename, should be surname
The article calls the UN Secretary-General at the time "Ki-Moon". This is his forename. His surname is "Ban". (It is normal Korean practice to place the surname first.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KindaQuantum (talk • contribs) 16:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Found single instance of "Ki-moon's" - which I modified to "Ban Ki-moon's".Icewhiz (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Turkish Law Enforcement and Legal Action, "dismissal of the case"
The section attributing, rather insinuating, that a Turkish Judge dismissed a case due to irate "Islamists" is worded to simply biased the reader in favour of the murder defendants, and must be stopped. The cited journalistic piece (not an AIPAC source) DOES NOT engage in such ditsy prose, thus the section reflects misrepresentation by the contributing wikipedian.126.3.54.112 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 June 2020
Change "activists" to "terrorists". It is mentioned that the people who were killed wanted to be "Shaheed" and attacked with knives and iron bars... Therfore they are terrorists and not plain activists. Yaking1936 (talk) 12:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. No can do, per WP:TERRORIST. El_C 12:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 September 2020
add the names of the civilians killed in the raid in international waters by Flotilla 13 of the Israeli Navy

Ibrahim Bilgen Ali Haydar Bengi Cevdet Kiliçlar Çetin Topçuoglu Necdet Yildirim Fahri Yaldiz Cengiz Songür Cengiz Akyüz Furkan Dogan Ugur Suleyman Soylemez 2601:5C1:8202:91E0:58B1:E74F:69FE:93C8 (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please get consensus for this change, and provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Massive rewriting
Can you explain the reason for these massive changes in long standing text? (also why did you warn me about 1RR when you broke the rule yourself?; not only that, you also completely disregarded WP:BRD. You should've worked on these numerous changes on your sandbox before implementing them.) -   (talk)  01:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have not done any massive rewrite of the article, I have simply changed the order of the text. The lede section was extremely long and confusing. I have moved information to appropriate parts of the article. You were the one reverting my edits as I was doing them, I simply undid your reversions to my edits and asked you to discuss on the talk page, which you refused to do. You continued to revert my edits three times within about an hour. It would not have been possible to do these edits in my sandbox as the moves were across the whole article. If I had have copied the whole article to my sandbox and worked on it there, by the time I finished there may have been other changes on the article, so how could I be expected to do that? It's not up to you to tell me that I have to work in my sandbox. BRD is optional and not mandated by Wikipedia policy.  Amirah   talk  02:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You claim that you're not doing a massive rewrite, but along the way you've deleted photos showing injured Israeli soldiers. Can you please be more specific and explain what other changes you have made to the POV of the article.  Also can you explain why you've chosen to engage in a massive reorganization and possible rewrite of this long standing article without any attempts to get any consensus about changes? Sorry... but this seems TOO BOLD on a protected page.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked through some of the changes and I saw majors shifts in the POV of the article without absolutely zero attempt at consensus. I did a MANUAL REVERT back to the point before AmirahBreen began making changes.  We need to go through all of these changes, one-by-one, and get agreement on them.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Kindly expalin what major pov shifts you can see, in total 523 characters were removed and these are the photographs which are primary source. My earlier changes were simply moving text to it's proper place, how can that change the POV of an article, it just makes it more readable. Amirah  talk  13:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I came across this article last night and found that the article had a very long and confusing lede. There was also much contentious POV text in the lede which IMO had been placed at the top of the article to draw attention to a particular POV. In a series of text moves I have moved the text from the lede (after the initial lede paragraph) and History section to it's appropriate places in the article. While I was working on the article another editor started reverting my edits saying that I should have sought consensus on the talk page before making these changes.

I had no reason to suspect that making such changes would bring about a lack of consensus, but asked the editor to discuss their problem on the talk page. Instead they continued to revert my edits, three times in less than an hour I think, before opening a discussion on the talk page.

If you compare the current version of the article to the version before I started editing,  you can see that no major changes where made regarding text removal or addition, but this morning my edits were reverted again by another editor accusing me of having made major POV changes without having first discussed before on the talk page. I have not changed the POV of the article, but have made it more readable and less confusing, so that both POV's can now be seen, through text moves to appropriate sections. Insisting that an article be left in an unreadable condition could also be seen as a POV tactic.

I also feel that there could be article ownership issues with the editor who initially objected to me working on the article for no good reason. I think it should be perfectly obvious to anybody who looks at the two versions before and after of what I am saying. I understand that in a lengthy article the lede may be a little longer, but not that POV text should be picked out and placed at the top of the article followed by a long history section which didn't speak about the history of the incident at all, but continued whith the POV tactics which had been used in the lede to push a particular POV in a confusing and unreadable manner so that most readers would never get down to reading the text below, which had been written in an orderly way with proper headings and subheadings according to WP:MOS.

Regarding the photos I removed in a short series of edits, as my reason are explained in the edit summary, they are primary sources as they are published by the Israeli army, in an article which has allegations against the Israeli army, with contentious text and the photo's themselves are not therefore credible evidence of what the text claims they are. Amirah  talk  14:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * When you move large chunks of text around, it makes it hard to follow what changes were made, and you acknowledge you made some POV changes (removing the photos from the IDF). There may be good reasons to do so, but that requires discussion which you did not do until now, and consensus, which you do not seem to have. Further, this page is subject to a 1-revert limitation, which you (and DaveOut) have broken. Finally, you massively tagged this article with half a dozen tags without any discussion. This behavior is inappropriate. Please discuss all your changes and your tags here, one by one, so we can see which have consensus. Inf-in MD (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, AmirahBreen has been given a 72 hour timeout for the 1RR violations. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've restored the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any sensible discussions here. --Mirokado (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Lede
The lede section is too long, it is also NPOV and confuses the article. What is under the first paragraph should be moved down into the article under appropriate headings and sub-headings. See: MOS:LEAD 'The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.' Amirah   talk  12:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

History
Information in the history section which is not about the history of the incident, but the incident itself, should be moved to appropriate sections. Amirah  talk  12:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Shaheeds
I have taken this text out due to NPOV, the text did not accurately reflect the sources. Amirah  talk  12:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do you believe that the text doesn't reflect the sources:
 * "Five of those who were later killed by Israeli forces had professed a desire to become shaheeds, or martyrs."
 * "Five of the activists who were killed had previously declared their desire to become shaheeds (martyrs)"
 * Can you even tell which is which? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Editorials are not reliable sources.  nableezy  - 15:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because the sources clearly say that to them it was an 'either/or' situation. Their primary desire was to bring aid to Gaza. The text selects just one side of this. It has obviously been selected by someone with NPOV issues who only wants to tell one side of the story.  Amirah   talk  15:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This particular text does that. But it only speaks about 5 of the passengers, and it's just part of a very long article.  NPOV needs to look at comprehensively, not just at one sentence, presenting one view, out of context.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, this is not reliably sourced, and I will be removing it if the editor who reinstated it refuses.  nableezy  - 18:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cherry picking from sources to alter the meaning of what was said in the sources is NPOV.  Amirah   talk  21:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Photographs
The photographs taken and published by the Israeli Defence Force should be removed from this article for NPOV reasons. Amirah  talk  12:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you suggest removing all photos taken by activists for the same reason? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 13:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The photographs by the IDF very explicitly push a POV that is rejected by RS, that the professional military was attacked when they stormed a ship in international waters.  nableezy  - 15:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The photographs by themselves, do not such thing. I would be ok with removing both the IDF photos and the ones taken by activists, but removing the photos of just one side is an obvious NPOV violation. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. I can understand what you are saying that if one should be removed then both should, but denying that they push a POV is just not logical. Amirah   talk  15:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this this surely does not push any POV, portraying armed soldiers boarding a boat but "IDF soldiers who boarded the Mavi Marmara ship in order to enforce the maritime closure on Gaza, were met with a violent mob armed with clubs, slingshots, saws, knives, and used live fire against the IDF soldiers." does not push a POV. The subsection Mavi Marmara boarding has four photos, all showing soldiers being attacked. This where ten Israeli soldiers were injured, but ten passengers killed. And you want to pretend there is not a POV being pushed in that selective presentation.  nableezy  - 15:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, of course there is a POV being pushed, that is clearly obvious. The photo's which push a POV should be removed. Amirah   talk  15:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You can edit captions to fix POV issues, if that is the problem. And I am ok with removing the photos, if it is done even handedl. Byt removing the phots of just one side is an obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Inf-in MD (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The captions are a problem and so are the photos themselves. Please supply links to the photos you feel should be removed from both sides  Amirah   talk  16:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with keeping things as they are. But if you remove the IDF-supplied photos of the raid, you will need to remove these (by the activists) too: [File:Flotilla_passenger_with_head_wound.JPG][File:Idf_soldier_treated.png]Inf-in MD (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, these two which are by the activists
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Idf_soldier_treated.png
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flotilla_passenger_with_head_wound.JPG Amirah   talk  16:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * and these are the ones which I think should be removed.
 * Gaza flotilla raid
 * Gaza flotilla raid
 * Gaza flotilla raid
 * Gaza flotilla raid
 * Gaza flotilla raid
 * Gaza flotilla raid
 * Please also add links to any others which you see as having NPOV issues. Amirah   talk  16:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Daveout, I clarified the second image was removed for NPOV issues. Not for non-free issues. Can you clarify why you restored it? Do you think the section on the boarding, which resulted in ten deaths on one side and ten injuries on the other side, should only contain propaganda images released by the IDF?  nableezy  - 15:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Palmer report
The external link to Palmer Report is showing up as '404 Not found' on the UN website. The report is also used as a cited source in Refs 2, 5, 15, 86, 215, 216, 301, 307, and 340. Can anyone provide a link to this report? Amirah  talk  05:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a link to a PDF which can be downloaded from https://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1922B40C9F4575598525790300457132
 * Amirah  talk  05:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Again there appears to be cherry picking and distortion of what is said in the source. In the second paragraph of the lede it says 'who were said to be armed with iron bars and knives', citing an entire chapter from the report. (The report is divided into numbered paragraphs and it would make it much easier to check the validity if the paragraph number instead of the chapter were cited). In paragraph 124 it says 'there is some indication that they also used knives', an indication is a clue or a suggestion, it is not proof, therefore the cited source does not say that they used knives, but it implies that they may have done. Paragraph 128 of the same chapter also states that 'No evidence has been provided to establish that any of the deceased were armed with lethal weapons.' The paragraph in the article completely neglects to mention this, preferring to imply that those who died were part of a hardcore group who were armed with knives. There is also plenty of other information in this chapter which is of more importance than the claim that they may have used knives, which has been selected for the second paragraph of the lede and this entire chapter (ref no 5) has only been used twice, both times in this lede paragraph, the other information which was selected from it being 'Ten of the commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously'. Key information such as 'It unfortunately may never be possible to fully establish precisely what occurred.' from this chapter of the report has been left out of the article. The report doesn't say that knives were used as weapons, they may have been used as tools to cut iron bars, so the words 'armed with' are not appropriate either. It does say in paragraph 124 that the group were 'armed with' iron bars, staves, chains and sling-shots. This has been recorded in the article as 'armed with iron bars and knives'. Also, the findings of this chapter of a professionally conducted report as to when live fire was first used (para 120) has been ignored, yet in the same paragraph of the article the opinion of one individual is related, who is neither professional at investigating such incidents nor impartial in the incident itself as they were involved in it as one of the organizers,  and the opinion was given in a heated Facebook row, this has been used in preference.  Amirah   talk  06:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking, I'm not even sure that these reports should be used in the article at all, as they are after all primary sources, but if they are to be used, the information which is taken from them should not be cherry picked and placed near the top of the lede in such a way that distorts the findings of them. Wikipedia editors somehow get away with doing this, and we all know that the encyclopedia has a strong influence both on and off-line, yet if a paid journalist were to do it, they and their publisher would hardly pass the credibility mark. Amirah   talk  16:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
I'd like to ask why the article does not have an infobox. The first paragraph of the lede says that the article is about a military operation and there is a template for 'Infobox military operation' but it hasn't been used.

There is statistical information repeated in the first ('Nine activists were killed on one ship during the raid and ten Israeli soldiers were wounded, one seriously.') and second ('During the struggle, nine activists were killed, including eight Turkish nationals and one Turkish American, and many were wounded. On 23 May 2014, a tenth member of the flotilla died in hospital after being in a coma for four years. Ten of the commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously.') paragraphs of the lede which would normally be placed in the infobox, as well as being found in the main text of the article.

I'd also suggest an internal Wikipedia link to the word 'Military operation' in the lede and a note at the top of the article to say 'This article is about the military operation, for 2010 flotilla see Gaza Freedom Flotilla

Amirah  talk  16:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Warning
The last sentence of the first paragraph of the lede says, 'Israel had warned the flotilla to abort their mission, describing it as a provocation.' I can't see evidence of this in the main article, particularly the last part of the sentence 'describing it as provocation'. There shouldn't be any need for references in the lede as the lede is a summary of the main article. Exactly how and when was this warning given? Was the word 'provocation' actually used? I can't read the source as I am not a subscriber so if anyone can read it then please share if it says in the source. Amirah  talk  17:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Compensation
The last paragraph of the lede starts 'Israel has offered Turkey $20 million in compensation for the raid.'

The section on Gaza flotilla raid also mentions compensation, in the first, second and last paragraphs. There is some repetition here.

Perhaps the issue of 'compensation' deserves a sub-heading in the article to make it easier to find.

https://www.haaretz.com/israel-offers-turkey-20m-recompense-1.5318246 says that Israel offered compensation to 'nine families and to those wounded', but it is not mentioned in the article as to whether the wounded were ever offered compensation.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-israel-compensation-idUSKBN19E166 mentions that compensation eventually went to ten families. I would suggest including this. Nine activist died in the raid and one four years later.

https://m.dw.com/en/israel-pays-turkey-20-million-over-flotilla-raid-official/a-35936896 says that 'Turkey waived its right to seek legal redress against the Israeli soldiers involved in the raid' in return for compensation. Is this clear in the article? Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_flotilla_raid#2016_dismissing_of_the_case it actually says that 'Turkish courts finally dismissed the cases brought before them, under extraordinary security measures due to the "angry and disappointed Islamists" involved'. The source https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2016/12/turkey-how-erdogan-wins-with-losing-hand.html actually says that 'the judge adjourned a session' due to their anger not that he dismissed the case due to that. It says that he dismissed the case due to the agreement signed between Turkey and Israel.

Amirah  talk  17:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

non-free images
File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg claims a non-free content rationale here, but it is an obvious failure of our non-free content use policy, namely that ''Please remember that the non-free content criteria require that non-free images on Wikipedia must not "[be] used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." Use of historic images from press agencies must only be of a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy).'' This image is used in the same manner as the original, to depict the events, and as such it may not be used here. This is doubly true given we have plenty of free images available.  nableezy  - 23:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Idf soldier treated.png seems to use exactly the same rationale. Will you be deleting it too, or will you express any objections if it's deleted?  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, an admin on mediawiki looked at that 2nd image put up for deletion and judged it for be fair use. I'm going to say that an admin of mediawiki is probably more knowledgeable about what's fair use than you are. If you have an objection to the use of either of these images, you should take your issues there and propose deletion.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Other non-free pictures, such as and, are also "blatant failures of WP:NFCC", whatever that means (I believe they can only be used in this specific article). Either we remove all of them or none. Selective removal based on WP:NFCC is POV and makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:73C0:601:281:0:0:98C0:507F (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that one should be removed as well. You cannot use non-free images in the same manner as the original publication here, that is to illustrate the events under discussion. And no, the deletion was declined because it is not replaceable with a free image, and that is correct. That is not the same as saying it qualifies for use under our NFCC. But we can ask User:Diannaa, is the use of File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg and File:Idf soldier treated.png acceptable in this article to illustrate the content?  nableezy  - 15:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * File:Flotilla injured israeli soldier.jpg: There's two problems with this image. (1) The article listed in the rationale template does not match the article where the image is actually in use. It therefore fails WP:NFCC #10c. (2) The image is not discussed in the prose, and does not seem to be relevant to the topic of the paragraph where the image is in use. Fails NFCC #8.
 * File:Idf soldier treated.png: While injured soldiers receiving medical care is discussed in the paragraph where the image is in use, everybody should be able to imagine what this would look like, so the image fails NFCC #8, as it does not greatly increase our understanding of the topic of the article, or even the subject matter of the paragraph where it is found. I have nominated both images for deletion as F7— Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much.  nableezy  - 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool thanks. An impartial eye to look at both photos was exactly what I was hoping for.  :-)  At some point soon, I might go back and see if any other images have been deleted from this page recently.  If they have, I'll put them through the same process.  -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Editorial
Uh User:Daveout, the news that NY Daily News prints is reliable. Editorials are the opinions of the editorial board, and are not reliable sources. Please see WP:RSEDITORIAL, particularly where it says Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. There are exceptions to this obviously, such as the work of established experts in the field they are writing in, but no, the editorial board is not a reliable source. If this material is accurate it will have been printed as factual in an actual reliable source. Please self-revert your edit.  nableezy  - 01:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. This statement has been reported elsewhere (like in the guardian). the guardian attrbutes the claim to a turkish newspaper but still... we have at least 2 well respected outlets mentioning this. Nobody contested what was reported (as far I'm aware of). so I don't think there's a convincing reason to remove the text. -  (talk)  07:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not even a little bit of a response to the issue of you restoring a source that is unreliable, claiming that it is. WP:RSEDITORIAL is very clear on this, please self-revert the restoration of the unreliable source.  nableezy  - 15:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

There having been no justification for the reinsertion of what WP:RSEDITORIAL says is very much not a reliable source, I am removing it again.  nableezy  - 23:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rarely reliable ≠ Unreliable. Do not distort what WP:RSEDITORIAL says. If you think this is an unreliable source for some reason, you must explain why. Preferably at WP:RSN. Merely not liking what the source says is not a valid reason to remove content. -  (talk)  03:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, Ive already explained why. If you would like to demonstrate why an editorial by the NY Daily News should be used for factual material feel free to do it. Just stomping your feet and saying no is not a reason however. I have not said anything about whether or not I like what a source said, and you would do well to keep in mind WP:NPA. The rare in rarely reliable would be for established experts writing in the area of their academic expertise. Not for the editorial board of a US paper writing about an act of international piracy. Finally, as always, challenged material requires a consensus to retain, per WP:ONUS, and given I have demonstrated why this source should not be used with a reference to our policies and guidelines, you will need to demonstrate that affirmative consensus for it.  nableezy  - 18:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And here we have The Telegraph mentioning that uncontested fact as well; written by a specialist in the middle east. Many, very respectable sources confirming that passage have been presented, not just one mere editorial, and not a single reason to remove it was given so far... (just a misinterpretation of WP:RSEDITORIAL). If you do not come up with a good reason to remove that well-sourced, long-standing text, I'll restore it. (and I doubt that that passage would be able to remain in this article for years without at least tacit approval from page watchers... it's almost like a "shadow consensus"... or maybe there's something written in the archives... I'll have to take a look at that later)... -   (talk)  08:36, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The good reason was it was cited to an editorial. And no, that is not a misinterpretation, your effort to include editorials for fact is in direct violation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL and WP:RSEDITORIAL. If you have an RS then uh use it. Do not however use unreliable sources. It is not that difficult a concept to grasp. And there is also WP:ONUS, which you have violated multiple times now. Maybe stop doing that? Be a lot cooler if you did. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 19:05, 6 December 2021 (UTC)