Jump to content

Talk:Gaza flotilla raid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by George (talk | contribs) at 08:54, 13 October 2010 (→‎Lead problems?: Replying.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:SplitfromBannerShell


UN-backed claims of illegality - absolutely insufficient visibility.

Given the authoritive source and the heavy weight of the statement, the UN-based statement about the illegality of the raid should be acknowledged in the opening paragraphs (e.g., "in Sept. 2010, an Independent United Commission has concluded that the Israeli raid has been executed in violation of applicable Internatational Law", after the raid description.

The illegality determined nder the UN investigation also outweighs any generic or partisan legal opinion. It should be the first opening statement of the "Legal Assessment". Burying it among opinion of random observers taken here and there months ago is absolutely inappropriate.

Sources (dozens) http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/world/middleeast/23briefs-Flotilla.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.26.82 (talk) 12:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the second statement (well, sort of), not with the first. The reason I don't agree with the first is that this isn't the UN fact-finding mission that all the buzz has been about. This is a wrongdoing-finding commission. Its mandate was too narrow and one-sided to produce results worth including in the lead, and even the least scrupulous of readings reveals a clear bias. But, most importantly, the media attention devoted to this report has been very small, especially when compared with THE UN report (with a capital 'U')--the one to be submitted to the Secretary-General, that is yet to have come out. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autopsy reports

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

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

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

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

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

That conflicts heavily with other reports which make clear statement of the distances, but this report does offer the new outlook that the people seemed to have been shot from above, as in some of the activist statements that say that shooting happened from the helicopters. I think that should be included, definitely, and maybe you should mention that there are conflicting reports over the distance the shootings happened from. If they do indeed conclude that the bullets entered the people at a high angle (meaning steep) than this would be an important piece of information to include. ValenShephard (talk) 12:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might have been shot from helicopters, or might have been shot from a higher part of a ship to a lower. We don't really know. But it sure means they weren't shot at close range in the back of the head.
You're right that this contradicts a lot of our sources, and that's what's strange about this. This information isn't found in Israeli media or government sources, but on the IHH website.
This source can be mentioned, but the crucial thing here is to find the original reports. Do you know where we might find them? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can't say "which shows they were shot from helicopters" or something, that would be OR, but we can mention that this report says they were shot at steep angles, which readers can make their own conclusion from. It defintely should be mentioned, especially because it conflicts, it adds another layer to the story for readers to get an understanding of the event by. I don't know how to find the reports. ValenShephard (talk) 13:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About finding the original reports, I don't think that is the best way to go. The original reports will be primary sources, and its better to use sources, as the article does now, which talk about these primary sources, like newspaper articles. But we can still include some information from them if it seems important, like the steep angle of shots. ValenShephard (talk) 13:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are the bread and butter of articles, but primary sources are crucial for reviewing the secondary ones. Yes, the angles are certainly relevant information. I'm trying to figure out how to put this information into the article in a way that makes sense. Right now, the section titled "Deaths" should probably be retitled "Autopsy reports," and then we can place that information there. Much of the section needs to be cut anyways. What are your thoughts on this proposal? For certain, we need to find the original reports. It seems fishy to me that they're not available anywhere. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is rare that autopsy reports are published online, afterall, this is very sensitive medical information, it can't usually (and many people such as family of victims) oppose it being released to the public. Nothing fishy about it. I dont think the title needs changing, the autopsy reports are 'part' of the deaths section. ValenShephard (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not part of the death section, they are the entire death section. It's a mislabeled section.
As far as them being published online, I see your point. But you don't find it strange that no other source but the IHH discussed the fact that the range couldn't be determined, when so many claims were made about the range? The IHH probably got ahold of the reports from its members, and published what it wanted to. There could still be still information on those reports we haven't seen. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what we think that no other source mentioned that, its not our place to offer a judgement, just state the facts from reliable sources. The name should stay, it deals with the death of the activists, thats why its called "deaths". ValenShephard (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point isn't that the source doesn't belong, but that we should make an effort to find the primary source, so our judgment is actually crucial.
Let me approach the name issue differently: would you oppose renaming the section "Autopsy reports," and putting the death and injury figures in the "Casualty" section? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 14:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Range couldn't be established on most shots, not all shots. Where they give a range I assume that's one of the times they could tell. Gunshot residue isn't the only way to establish range: gunpowder stippling is one possible determinant which would have been present on uncovered flesh (like heads) hit at close range so that might be where the numbers come from.
I've looked high and low for a copy of the report. It would be fantastic to find the primary source but I don't think our hands our tied without it. Second hand reports of autopsy results are pretty standard, for the reasons Valen mentions. I'm not sure I see the problem in having the autopsy results as the bulk of the "Deaths" section, what am I missing? Sol Goldstone (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't missing anything, I think you are pretty spot on. I think we should include the information the user found, that alot of the shots came in at steep angles, from which readers can draw their own conclusions. Maybe the report makes a conclusion itself? If it says something like "which means...." we should include that too. ValenShephard (talk) 15:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldstone, making a "Deaths" section 85% of which is about the autopsies leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I think it would make much more sense to call such a section "Autopsy reports." If I continue to be in the minority, this isn't something I'll push very hard, but I just think the autopsy reports are notable enough to have their own section, whereas nothing else in the "Deaths" section is.
@Anonymous (editor who made unsigned comment), the source says, ""No gunpowder residue was found on the bodies, therefore the shooting distance could not be determined." That's highly inclusive verbiage. It doesn't say "most," nor does it say "therefore the shooting distance had to be determined by other means. Within the source itself, only a single body has the shooting range named, and that's Dogan.
@Valen, I have to take a short break, but will then pursue these edits. I hope they will be to your satisfaction. Either way, please discuss so that we can make the article better. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deaths section deals with the deaths. If it deals with the deaths through the medium of autopsy reports, that doesn't change the fact it is the section dealing with the deaths. It could be dealing with the deaths through any medium, through descriptions, video, etc, but that wouldnt change that the section is dealing with the deaths. ValenShephard (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't push the "death" vs. "autopsies" thing. It's not a big deal. Other than that, are we all happy with how this section is written now?
I should note that I'm not 100% happy, because I think we should get rid of the "2 to 14 cm" account, which must refer to Dogan, who is mentioned immediately thereafter. However, I know that the chances of getting consensus on this are slim. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the source doesn't make a direct reference to Dogan, we cannot say what must or musn't be. If we arent sure, we don't guess. We just leave it to be 'general', in line with the source. ValenShephard (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree with you that, with the information we currently have, we can't make any conclusion about who the "one person" is. This sort of situation is a perfect illustration of why we need the original autopsies. The closest document that we have to them--the IHH summary--clearly says Dogan was the only one found to have been shot at close range. But we can't use that... sadly. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would imagine that a number of factors play in. Gravity, for example, would determine the trajectory of the bullet and a lot of internal damage. Also, if I'm bent over and a bullet goes through me, the path will appear bent once I am straightened. But the bottom line actually just winds up being that we're not the experts. It's the people who did the autopsies that get to make those kinds of determinations. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 11:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only moderately on topic but the initial UN report came out today and contains some bits about the autopsy, amongst other things. So far, it's devastating. Happy reading. Sol (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sol. Remember that this isn't the UN report, with a capital 'U'. This is the report for the UN Human Rights Council, and their mandate is not fact-finding, but investigation of wrongdoing. The UN report won't come out for a couple of more weeks. Meantime, I'm trying to look over this report, but I must admit, it's dreadfully boring. It would help if it weren't so skewed in its reporting of the events. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! Good call. I plead lack of sleep! Sol (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on video verbiage

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

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

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

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

I have seen no discussion on this issue since I have linked to the Al-Jazeera video more than a week ago. As I find this video to be a "smoking gun" of sorts, I will go ahead and change the wording to "Stop your resistance." If other editors accept it, great. If this causes us to restart stalled discussion, even better. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to interpret videos, we are here to express what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that the captain said "do not show resistence". If you find reliable sources which disagree then we have something to work with. Our interpretation of a video doesn't matter, even if we are right and the source is wrong. You are off the mark. As it currently stands in the article you have made a synthesis of two sources. You have chosen the wording you prefer and ut it infront of the incomplete quote from the other source. The two sources show a dispute, one says one thing and the other shows another. We have to say "though there is disagreement over the exact wordin..." and show both examples. We can't choose which one you prefer. ValenShephard (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources saying different things, both wording should be included. We should not guess which source is more accurate by simply stating one. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. What the user has done is synthesise the more controversial wording of one source, with the ending of the other source(which he/she has removed). This is unacceptable original research and synthsis of sources. Like BritishWatcher said, we include both versions of accounts and make it clear there is disagreement. That is what representing reliable sources means. ValenShephard (talk) 22:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated before, after listening to the video footage linked above, it's pretty clear that the captain says "don't show resistance". It's somewhat telling that article that used the phrasing "stop your resistance" is from May 31, 2010 - the same day as the raid. I think it lends quite a bit of credence to the "don't show resistance" phrasing that the same source (the Guardian) changed the phrasing it reported to "don't show resistance" in the article published twelve days later, on June 11, 2010. I doubt that the Guardian even had access to any sort of audio recording of the event on May 31st, considering that (if I recall correctly) all footage was confiscated by the Israelis shortly after the raid. ← George talk 23:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am very glad that I was able to restart discussion on this subject.
@George, if The Guardian didn't have access to video when the first article was written, how did they figure out the wording spot-on, word-for-word as it was on the video? To assert that the second article constitutes a change of position on the part of The Guardian, you would have to prove that they had the first article in mind, and decided to override it. The two articles were written by two different people, so that probably played into the differences between them.
Also @George, have you listened to the AlJazeera video? It's even clearer there that the voice says, "Stop your resistance." When I had my relatives and friends listen to the first one, most of them couldn't tell what he was saying. When I had them listen to the second one, they all said unanimously, "Stop your resistance."
@ValenShephard and BritishWatcher, I am open to the suggestion of including both sources. How would you suggest incorporating them both?
@ValenShephard, your discussion here and on the subject of expired medicines leads me to seriously question your understanding of WP:SYNTHESIS. There's no synthesis here. There's a disagreement between sources on a question of fact. I'm not drawing any conclusion that's not explicitly mentioned in the source.
@Everyone, as this is a question of fact--of what the captain did or did not say--one source is, in fact, wrong, and the other is right. This fact is relatively easy to arbitrate. We just need to listen to the videos. I ask that everyone take a random friend, who doesn't know about this dispute at all, and show them the AlJazeera (second) video. Ask them simply, "What does the guy say at 8:25?" See what they answer. It's super clear. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite interesting. I had listened to the 60 minute long version someone had linked in the earlier discussion. In that version, it sounds like "don't show resistance" (minute 58:30). In your second version (not sure who it's from), it definitely sounds like "stop your resistance". It's even obvious why, when going back and listening to the first video after listening to the second - the captain has a fairly heavy (and somewhat unusal) accent, and is putting additional emphasis on the word stop. After listening to both versions, I would support using only the phrasing "stop your resistance", even in favor of listing what both sources said. ← George talk 09:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
George, I've got to admire your open mindedness. It's something I know I need to work on. I'm sure the very loud yell that immediately precedes the quote in the first video might have had something to do with the obstruction of what he says... :-) But that's life.
I forgot to mention in my last post, that the edit I put in included the text, "According to certain sources, Show no resistance," in the citation. I think that's appropriate, but doesn't bulk up the article. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

Bayoumi, Moustafa (Editor), (2010) Midnight on the Mavi Marmara: The Attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla and How It Changed the Course of the Israeli/Palestine Conflict. Haymarket Books, ISBN 978-1608461219

82.81.29.160 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths (nationality)

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

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

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

"execution style"

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

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

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

At the very least, it must be immediately balanced by quotes from Israel explaining that their soldiers were defending their lives. But better to remove it from the lead, and discuss in more appropriately in the article.Kinetochore (talk) 20:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Also please note that the same information is repeated 3 more times in the article: in Mavi Marmara boarding section, United Nations investigations section and legal assessments section. Ctrl-F "execution" will do. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Kinetochore said above as well; I would only add one point. The phrase "execution style" in reference to guns oftentimes seems to have the connotation where a person is killed by being shot once in the back of the head. The U.N. report however is extremely vague regarding how they were killed, but it uses the phrase "summary execution" which to me brings up the image of people being lined up and shot by a firing squad. This seems more consistent with what they were claiming happened instead of the former. As such I think it would be important to use the phrase "summary execution", the same phrase used by the UN Report, instead of "execution style" when discussing their claim in the United Nations investigations section.Chhe (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: "execution style" comes from the referenced Truth-out article. I'd leave it, at least in attributed form ("described in news as execution style" or something) for the sake of article stability, but I don't really care if it stays or goes or is replaced. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. In addition, I would add that the finding is "alleged," has not been adopted by the UNSC and has not been corroborated by any other independent investigation. I would also add a qualification that the UNHRC as a body has been the most virulent critic of Israel, singling out that country for condemnation while ignoring human rights abuses and violations in Turkish occupied Northern Cyprus, Turkish Kurdistan, Myanmar, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chinese occupied Tibet, Syria, Darfur and practically two-thirds of the nations occupying seats on that corrupt body.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I popped in Chhe's suggestion to see how it sticks. I'm not married to the idea of it in the lead but if people want it I've no objections. Sorry, JG, I disagree on those points; we've already framed it as the finding of the UNHRC and not presented as fact in the neutral voice. And you'd be hard-pressed to work in circumstantial evidence against the panel's neutrality while observing policy. Sol (talk) 05:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NP Sol. I left it but added an additional counter-balancing edit sourced to an RS.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Huzzah cooperating! JG, I took out the addition on the UNHRC report and the EU vote abstension as it seemed to be talking about their rejection of the new measure for a lawsuit and not the report itself. I think there actually is a statement by the US criticizing the report and I'll try to dig it up. Sol (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JG, I reinserted the US/EU opposition/abstention to the HRC resolution to the Washington Post as the original source wasn't distinguishing between UN and UNHRC resolutions and made for a weird read. It's a small detail but it might help folks doing background reading. Sol (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UN fact-finding mission was lead by three independent int'l jurists. The mission was staffed by many professionals from the office of the UN high commissioner for human rights. Their findings about "summary executions" and clear evidence for prosecution of war crimes, etc. are not "allegations." While it's not a court of law in the traditional sense, they made findings of fact after interviewing hundreds of witnesses, and made legal determinations.--NYCJosh (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Most news sources have called them "activists." That's more than good enough for us.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get more sources to support the claims of "execution-style?" I know this was an accusation that went around the world but no evidence was ever provided other than testimony from witnesses. Execution style has a criminal connotation and implies murder. From what I understand several of the activists killed were shot at close-range, that isn't execution style. Is there any evidence aside from activist hearsay? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UN fact-finding mission uses that term as does the source that reports on the findings. Read the footnotes in the article.--NYCJosh (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The UNHRC's report relied on the Turkish autopsy and the eyewitness accounts to reach their conclusion. A few of the factors seem to be powder burns around wounds, angle of shots and in one case that an unexpanded beanbag round was found in someone's skull (the idea being that you'd have to shoot someone pretty much point blank in the face for the round not to expand). In conjunction with the eye-witness accounts it looks fairly damning. I think we've got enough sources to include it unless they aren't RS. Sol (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

So the UNHRC relies on Turkish autopsy and eyewitness accounts? Even though the aid ship was owned and commanded by Turkish Islamists? Execution style has a legal connotation to it. It implies a pre-mediated act of violence, i.e - Israeli soldiers entered the boat and started offing people. Getting shot at close range is more than consistent with circumstances of confrontation. The Israeli narrative is the soldiers were defending themselves after being attacked by activists. Do we have sources that explicitly claim that Israel executed activists? This a very charged accusation and should be supported by a variety of sources. Is a questionable UNHRC and anonymous eyewitnesses enough to state the claim as fact? I say it should be attributed to the accusers and balanced with Israel POV is this is going to be in the lead. I can't find the source right now but there is an article somewhere that includes testimony from one of the Israeli soldiers on board who claimed he shot man in the face while protecting a wounded soldier from the activists. Execution is a very emotional word and based on the content of the article it is more than obvious that that is hardly the mainstream consensus. ~
Edit: The UNHRC is an RS the same way the Goldstone Report is an RS. A fact-finding mission administered by a series of Muslim states is hardly tantamount to say...a United Nations Security Council Resolution. No Western nation has even remotely inferred Israeli soldiers started executing passengers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the characterizations of the killings as "executions" are in the article as the findings of specific sources, not statements of fact. Sol (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is truth a reliable source? This is what the UNHRC claims:

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

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

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

The report is explicit in that 6 of the 9 activists dead were allegedly killed in an "arbitrary and summary execution" manner. The report doesn't offer any serious proof of the claims other than "On the basis of the forensic and firearm evidence." I'm assuming Israel has a challenge to the claim that it executed passengers so perhaps that should be emphasized? It seems rather dubious to include an accusation that Israel executed innocent people when others argues the casualties were the result of the clashes and not a pre-mediated murder fest. I imagine if Israeli Navy seals wanted to execute activists they could have done so very efficiently without even boarding the ship. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if truth-out.org is a reliable source, but I'm sure several could be found for the paragraph you quoted (I searched for the first sentence on Google and found a handful of source I would consider reliable for the statement). Exactly what kind of "serious proof" would you ask for beyond the "forensic and firearm evidence" identified? I'm not sure if Israel denied executing passengers, but it wouldn't surprise me, and if so it should be mentioned, though not "emphasized", any more than the UN's claims should be emphasized. They should both be stated factually and flatly in the usual "A says B. C says D." manner, lending them weight in proportion to that provided by reliable sources. Where does the UN say that the passengers are "innocent"? And where does the UN say that there was "a pre-mediated murder fest"? I think you're reading your own biases into the report. Execution does not denote guilt or innocence of the party being executed, nor does it say whether or not the act is justifiable, nor does it say whether or not the act is premeditated - it's just a description of a way of being killed (usually at relatively close range, and while the party being killed is unable to immediately defend itself). You could execute a mass murderer for a good reason, planned months in advance, or you can execute an innocent person for no reason what so ever, deciding to do so right at that very moment. They both match the meaning of the term "execution". ← George talk 08:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lead problems?

As of 09:46, 12 October 2010

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

Questions:

  • While the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid, medical supplies, and some construction material 0 should we be a little more precise? There is significant information to support the claim that the ship was also carrying bullet-proof vests, weapons, stashes of cash - things ordinarily not stowed on humanitarian vessels.
  • The lead sentence seems awkward. Military action implies war or conflict. A navy boarding another vessel is rarely classified as a military action. When US coast guards board drug smuggling ships it is not announced as a "military action." Has any serious RS concluded that this was a military action? Of course it was carried out by the Israeli Navy, part of the IDF, so any mention of military is somewhat redundant in that respect. Perhaps something like, "The Gaza flotilla raid was a naval interception carried out by the Israeli Navy against six ships of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla..."
  • "On the MV Mavi Marmara, clashes broke out after activists violently resisted the Israeli forces." Is this NPOV statement? Did the activists violently resist Israeli forces, or did they ambush them? Did they activists really react violently or did Israeli forces deliberately clashes with activists sparking resistence? Were the activists simply defending themselves?

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

Some thoughts:
  • It's probably not necessary to go into much greater detail, though if you have a specific suggestion we could discuss it. The ships probably were carrying bullet-proof vests and cash, and possibly even weapons. It was probably also carrying food for the passengers, their clothes, refrigerators to store the food, oil for the engines, laptops, video cameras (since reports indicate they were confiscated), and thousands of other things, but there's not much point in itemizing even screw and bolt aboard.
  • A lot of the awkwardness comes from describing the "Gaza flotilla raid" as a single unit. I would actually prefer changing this to something like "The Gaza flotilla raid occurred on May 31, 2010 when Israeli naval forces boarded six ships from the Gaza Freedom Flotilla."
  • Is it NPOV? Yes, as that's how reliable sources described the incident. Most reliable sources describe it as some form of resistance, while very few describe it as an ambush (and almost exclusively when quoting the Israeli military's side of the story). I'm not sure what difference there is between activists "[reacting] violently" and Israeli forces "sparking resistance" and activists "defending themselves". In all three cases, the activists reacted violently, and reliable sources describe it as such. The only difference is that in the second and third cases, you're ascribing motives to the Israeli forces and the activists, respectively - motives which are much harder to cite than actions.
The lead mostly describes the activists as resisting Israeli forces because that's how most reliable sources described the situation. ← George talk 08:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=390463975"