Talk:Nineteen activists killed by Israeli commandos aboard aid convoy bound for Gaza

Ok will expand
Thanks for the quick review. Mrchris (talk) 04:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sources of sources
http://news.google.com/news/more?q=gaza&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dVI2adrH4SlY1VMrsxQq3vVq94ubM&hl=en&ei=tzwDTLWPLYL88Abn05zsDQ&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQqgIoADAA

http://news.google.com/news/more?q=gaza&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dO_Es3mVwI4tR1MnfOPeqlosiAJwM&hl=en&ei=tzwDTLWPLYL88Abn05zsDQ&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=2&ved=0CDcQqgIoADAB

--68.161.167.66 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed Up Article -- Added Image
Added a creative commons image, fixed up the article, and tagged it as breaking news since it happened a short time ago, and the death toll keeps changing.

Also Israel claims they did not carry out this attack, so I feel that its non-neutral at this early point to have it in the article's title.

How about #REDIRECT Attack on Gaza aid flotilla, many reported dead &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 05:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed it to Attack on Gaza aid flotilla, many reported dead but everyone is reporting that it was israel? no? Mrchris (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just because they report that, does not make it what happened, it is my belief that until Isreal says "yes we did it" or there is indisputable evidence shown, that it shall remain sympathetic to Israel's claim. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 05:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Somethings missing
So let me get this straight, israeli soldiers, with big scary guns, and not afraid to use them, boarded an unarmed humanitarian vessel, and somehow managed to get six of their soldiers killed? That doesn't add up. Unarmed people don't go against heavily armed soldiers and take 12 casualties, with the side with guns taking 6. That doesn't make sense. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Between Al Jazeera, the NY Times, BBC, and CNN I have found no reports that indicates any israeli soldiers that have been wounded or any resistance by the aid fleet. Al Jazeera reports that Isreali Army Radio stated they opened fire after "confronting those on board carrying sharp objects" [source ], but this is exceedingly dubious (if not idiotic) and the Free Gaza Movement says that soldiers opened fire as soon as they boarded the ships. I am removing any reference to wounded Israeli soldiers until a reasonable source is found. 159.250.64.129 (talk) 07:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See here: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/05/31/gaza.protest/index.html "Seven Israeli soldiers were also wounded, one seriously." This is indeed a quote from an Israeli official, but that does not make it false - if you give credit to subjective reports of one side ("Israeli troops of indiscriminately shooting at "unarmed civilians"."), then you have to also report on the other side's claims. 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this comment knows what he is talking about. The first number ofIsraeli soldiers that landed on the boat were half-killed! Stabbed with knives, beaten with metal rods, and smashed by chairs. One was even thrown off of the boat! The killing of activist part was Israel's defense!

INCREDIBLY NON NEUTRAL
"Violent" attack?

The quotation used + the image only shows activist favour.

This current article removed all of the facts that supported Isreal, and left the ones that made them sound like the bad-guys. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 07:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * sorry could you clarify, to improve the article. Mrchris (talk) 07:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Check out my revision (before my most recent one... its about 10-15 revisions down), and look at the current one. My version has an Israel statement matching up with every Freegaza statement. This new version has very very few Israel statements, and a lot of statements from other people. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 07:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair As Its Going To Get
&#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 08:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * lol, see the line , though it has also been reported that they were waiting until daylight for better media coverage. where does that come from?
 * Because it has been reported by the crew that was with them, that it was the reason. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 08:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * How about Israel, "Freedom Flotilla" boarding, many people killed - vs makes it sound like a game, and some reference to deaths
 * or Israeli interception of "Freedom Flotilla" leads to deaths Mrchris (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to be like "oh my way is better than yours" but honestly I think that the current title is the most neutral it can possibly get, nothing can be taken from the title in either direction. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 08:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) (and the second version is even worse than the first one you suggested)


 * Incident is inappropriate Mrchris (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how, How about "Freedom Flotilla" Situation At Sea, Many Killed Or Many Killed in Israel's "Freedom Flotilla" Sea Boarding. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 08:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would go with more like Many Killed in Israel's boarding of "Freedom Flotilla" Mrchris (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its still not the most neutral wording, the best wording is how it is... and Incident is the perfect word for it Incident definitions 1,3, and 4 all apply beautifully here. ESPECIALLY 4. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 08:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Israel and "Freedom Flotilla" have it out at high seas, because "Freedom Flotilla" is dumb enough to think that Israel will not carry out their threats, and Israel has an issue with not knowing when their force is "excessive" Maybe a little long, but states the issue accurately. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 08:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not constructive, how about Israel boards "Gaza Freedom Flotilla", many reported dead
 * I think the not neutral part is that those titles imply a direct causal relation between the deaths and israel's actions. However one could argue that israel was provoked (not saying its true, just that one could argue that). Thus this title implies the incident is israel's fault, which is why it seems un-neutral. Well it might possibly be the case that it is Israel's fault, we should present the facts and let the reader determine fault, not try to determine or imply fault. Bawolff ☺☻ 09:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Deadly incident between Israel and Freedom Flotilla off coast of Gaza maybe?  not sure. Bawolff ☺☻ 10:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ''Confrontation between Israel and "Freedom Flotilla" leave several civilians dead, dozens wounded"?
 * You realize that all of these suggestions make it sound as though the people on the civilian vessel engaged the Israeli military, and not as though the Israeli military took helicopters into international waters and boarded vessels flying foreign flags, which is what happened? It's not biased to say "Israel attacks convoy, kills 19" if Israel attacked the convoy and killed 19 people.  It's far more biased to spin this as some kind of mutually entered into combat.

--68.161.167.66 (talk) 10:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Deadly incident between Israel and Freedom Flotilla off coast of Gaza seems fine to me. is Confrontation between Israel and "Freedom Flotilla" leave several civilians dead, dozens wounded too long? Mrchris (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it still in dispute?
Isn't it ready yet? This happened all the way yesterday. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 11:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't review my own work. Just making changes as new facts emerge. Mrchris (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand that, I just never expected Wikinews to be so dead. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 11:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreviewable
This is unreviewable with that many sources.

This is not Wikipedia.

Trim the unneeded sources, ditch foreign language ones which most contributors can't read. Make it reviewable. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is embarrassing.
 * This is breaking news. What's with this bureaucracy? First it was too short, now it's too long. What's the point of all these rules? Make a decent stub with the essentials, prime it for publishing, and have an expanded version being worked on in the background which won't interrupt the approval of the first copy, because it's important to have something out there even if it's short, because that will at least inform people that there's SOMETHING GOING ON. This is an Internet website. It should NOT take longer than print to get the news out.
 * As for "go fix it yourself", I don't know your rules. Which are apparently very bloated, if too much work on it makes it HARDER to get it through, and if the apparent regulars here didn't catch that flaw in the article. I came here only to see what a collaborative project like a wiki would say about this, and I am incredibly disillusioned by the efficiency of wikis. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The point of these rules is that it isn't a blog. We have standards. As do Google, who I spent weeks working with to get all our material into their news index. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a blog would imply individual effort, or lack of fact-checking (something that some blogs actually beat Wikinews at). When the bureaucracy is bigger than the community—which is demonstrated by the fact that something so big is bogged down by not enough editors and not enough reviewers (basically, not enough traffic to get anything done)—you don't have standards, you have a problem. How many steps did it take for this to get on the front page? How many people with the power to take those steps were online and active on this site at any single moment during the first few hours after the news broke?
 * While the five points are of vital importance, the fourth point is harder and harder to enforce the longer the article is, which makes it all the more important that a short copy with several reliable sources for further reading get out there before it gets mired by edit wars. There should not be so many rules that a fairly unbiased, Google-savvy new editor can't get an article approved to the front page in half an hour to an hour, or two hours in the middle of the night, without giving up on neutrality, copyright, newsworthiness, and verifiability. This should be your base line. Again, it's fairly embarrassing that I can read a story in print before I can see it on an Internet website.
 * Oh, and newsworthiness? Why is the Indy 500 in the spotlight? What's the point of having all these rules about neutrality and reliable sources if you're just going to report on sports events, even global ones? Wikinews can be something big, where consensus is used to make neutrality, a reliable source in itself for unbiased news, and... sports events? People wasting gas on a game? Yes, it's what people care about, but is that what Wikinews wants to be? Tell people what they care about?
 * Who goes to Wikinews for stories? Have you ever asked that? What does Wikinews offer that you can't get from Twitter, from Google News, from whatever random news blog or news site? What makes it special?
 * I don't even care about the politics of this story. I just recognize that, objectively, it's important, and I'm shocked that it doesn't seem to be important to the community here. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way: 3.5 hours to publish the Indy 500 article, 9 hours to publish this one. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the story's review wait was a question of whether the community considers it "important" enough. Just look at the sources section in the main article. Would you like to be the one having to go through all of them, make sure they back up the info in the article, and also make sure the prose is phrased differently enough from each of them to avoid copyright infringing? That's going to be a massive deterrent for any potential reviewer; in fact, I'm actually rather surprised it got published this quickly. Most stories with a source section this big languish around for a day or even more before anyone can spare the one to two hours needed to review this properly. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, in regards to your comment up a ways, yes, I can understand your point about newsworthiness and sports. If I had my way, we'd be focussing on the most important, relevant, non-fluff events from around the world. The problem is that people write about topics they are interested in. We can't force people to write on certain issues; that would likely deter users from contributing altogether. If you think our coverage needs to be headed in a different direction, then by all means, jump right in and write up a nice story. That's what's so special about Wikinews - anyone can edit it and anyone can dictate, at least to some degree, what our coverage is focussed on. Tempodivalse [talk]  15:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All the more important that there be a system where a shorter version of the article with a list of Further Reading sources be put up first.
 * And as for me fixing the problem of what's noteworthy myself, this is just my obsession of the day. I don't read the news. Besides, I can't control what goes on the front page as a regular editor. --68.161.167.66 (talk) 16:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Front page
This should be on the front page ASAP. I mean, for god's sake it's on wikipedia's front page already!


 * Quit whinging and start working then. Don't ever try and publish without a proper review. If you knew to switch the templates like that then you knew it was disruptive. Blood Red Sandman  (Talk)   (Contribs) 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1033124 [Passed]

 * thanks for the review, Mrchris (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality of Headline // Non Neutral Article
This is still a bad headline.
 * 1) It defines a number, which is constantly changing from report to report
 * 2) It makes it look like Israel just slaughtered a group of people on a humanitarian mission (which if you say "well yeah thats true", then you clearly are not unbiased, and add more credibility to this argument)

Also a bunch of KEY REPORTS were removed from this article such as
 * The boats crew members admitting that they were expecting to get stopped, and said that they were going to get to Gaza and that Isreal would HAVE to use force to stop them.
 * The reporter on the boat's claim that they were waiting until morning to get picked up for better media coverage.

This page is not neutral in the slightest. I am ashamed to have my name in the edit log for this one. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 12:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So fix it. C628 (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not Wikipedia
 * The problem with the headline is it doesn't match the Style Guide.
 * Activists is a perfectly acceptable word.
 * Screaming about bias here cuts no ice; action speaks louder than words, and you have no record to stand behind your arguments and assert competence to criticise. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The edits were made already that showed an equal story. They were removed in favor of a more pro-activist article, look through the revision history. The word activist is not the issue I have, the issue I have is the titles non-neutrality. A better headline would be: "Activists Killed in an Israel boarding attempt at sea".

This article should be giving all sides to the story, and its sad that facts that are inserted into the story, are removed, and not given another fact in favor. The article should give both sides account, and show the story so that you can be sympathetic to both. This is a great situation for this considering: Yes the Israelis were overly aggressive, and used excessive force. HOWEVER. The activists knew what they were doing, and knew that they were going to be stopped, and knew they were trying to pass through a military quarantine... not only that but they had been warned off the night before. This is the stuff that should be still in the article. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 13:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure you can say that the article is pro-Activist, we haven't heard from the Activists since communication (radio and satellite) went down last night before the boarding. So we haven't heard their side of the story or from any of the international journalists that were on board, and we still officially don't know who or how many people died. But what needs to be added, so that the article can give both sides accounts, a Neutral Article Mrchris (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the articles' body is fine now, however, I do feel that we should remove the number from the title/headline (even if we are to keep the same name but change "19 activists killed" to "19 Activists suspected dead". Honestly though there are a lot of better names out there. I would suggest something that has no number at all, since we cannot confirm it. However, I am happy we got the article back to being proper. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 13:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I took a stab at fixing some of the style and bias issues with the article. I agree the article might have had the impression of being somewhat against Israel; is there another (relevant) official quote or something from them that you can chuck in there, to balance it out a bit better? A lot of the article seems to be describing international leaders blasting Israel. Then again it may not be necessary, I've not read the article very carefully, just did a cursory examination for the moment. (Also, did you really need all those sources? WN, in contrast to WP, prefers using as few sources as is needed to make verification easier; if a source isn't used or it's info is backed up by another link, best to get rid of it.) Tempodivalse [talk]  14:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My articles that I used when writing were:

http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176961 Which has "Passengers tried to grab weapons away from soldiers boarding the Gaza protest flotilla, starting the violence, Army Radio reported Tuesday morning, responding to accusations that Israeli commandos assaulted the ships guns blazing." http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=128420&sectionid=351020202 What has "Israel had earlier deployed warships and threatened to stop the flotilla from reaching the Palestinian territory where the war-ravaged residents were impatiently eying the arrival of the aid convoy." http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD9G1IV902 Which has "The flotilla was "fully prepared for the different scenarios" that might arise, and organizers were hopeful that Israeli authorities would "do what's right" and not stop the convoy, she said. "We fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation or threats of violence against us," she said. "They are going to have to forcefully stop us." " and "After nightfall Sunday, three Israeli navy missile boats left their base in Haifa, steaming out to sea to confront the activists' ships. Two hours later, Israel Radio broadcast a recording of one of the missile boats warning the flotilla not to approach Gaza. "If you ignore this order and enter the blockaded area, the Israeli navy will be forced to take all the necessary measures in order to enforce this blockade," the radio message continued." and a few others, I used the AP article for most of my sources. &#9760; Travis "TeamColtra" McCrea  &#9760; - (T)(C) 18:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Title still inaccurate
"Nineteen dead: Between nine and nineteen Free Gaza Movement activists died today..." --68.161.169.110 (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

using a video as a source
The article mentions a video of the event which includes a fight between the IDF troops and the activists. won't wikinews give its readers a good service, showing them on what video exactly this is all about? the video is informative, giving a clear look of what happened in the first moments of the takeover. it was published by the IDF spokesperson unit. what more conditions must a source fulfill, to be considered as legitimate? Hummingbird (talk) 01:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't adds anything that the sources don't have. --Diego Grez return fire 01:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * please refer to my talkpage. the sources don't mention that the soldiers landed barehanded, which followed using paintball guns while being beaten and only after long moments of being lynched used their handguns. people think the IDF had stormed the ship equipped with machineguns, or shooting from the air. this video has great importance since it gives the clearest view of the first moments of the takeover, and shows exactly that the soldiers were acting by a self defence (it is important to say that there were no significant events in the other vessels). Hummingbird (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Protect and create new article
There are too many edits to this article going on after the given 24 hours. Should we protect and just write a follow-up story? Benny the mascot (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC) Can I just revise the opening paragraph to reflect that this did not happen "today"? Bundas (talk)
 * --Diego Grez return fire 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Thanks Benny, could we/i create/add ]], for follow up stories Mrchris (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Current practice is to create the category once we have three or more articles on the topic. Benny the mascot (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. This article is meant to reflect what was known on the day of publication, May 31. "Today" is appropriate because the incident occurred on May 31. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy over gun shots
Two references about the controversy surrounding the timeline of gun shots:

"Our people on the ship reported live as the soldiers came onto the ship, and reported that soldiers were opening fire as they were coming onto the ship, and they were descending from helicopters. So, our understanding is that the Israeli soldiers opened fire first." Adam Shapiro, a board member of the Free Gaza Movement http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2010/5/31/interview_at_least_15_dead_after_israel_attacks_gaza_bound_aid_flotilla

"According tothe initial investigation, the soldiers were fired upon first and only responded in self-defense." Jonathan Peled, spokesman for the Embassy of Israel in Washington, D.C. http://live.washingtonpost.com/flotilla-attack-06-01-10.html

Mike Chelen (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * BUT SOLDIERS ENTERED SOMEBODY'S BOARD FORCEFULY!

article review-editing is needed
editprotected

At this point, it's less matter and I know that articles should be kept the way they were at the time of happening. On the other hand, looking back it's embarrassing for Wikinews to keep the article the way it is (although generally it is well balanced), so here are things to correct:
 * 1) title:It is a known fact that only nine activists were killed in the raid (and another one that passed away after few years in a coma). Instead of using a misleading title (at that time there were only unverified estimates) I would suggest next time using a title like "at least nine...were killed..." or "estimates of 19 killed..." which are more correct, for what was known at that time. Therefore, I request an edit of the title.
 * 2) fact or unsourced claim?: "the six vessels...were carrying 10,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid destined for the Gaza Strip, including water purifiers, prefabricated homes and medical equipment"-according to whom? The activists on the ship, israeli intelligence sources, aid organizations (IHH or real aid org?), media reports (western press such as BBC or CNN, or the hamas and muslim brotherhood supporter al-jazeera)?

well, according to current article in wikipedia, most of the equipment is building equipment and lots of out of date medications but a few gun optics and night visions were also smuggled, not to mention camoflage (we'll ignore the bulletproof vests, knives and gas masks and reports of firearms thrown to the sea). Hamas has revealed the real story when it refused to accept the support aid without the building equipment (and today you can tell what it was needed for and why israelis insisted to apply the closure). of course these facts were unknown at the time of report...

for this reason, it's important for the reader to know what is a fact and what is a claim. the whole article is full with claims (which some I know that are untrue, maybe other readers may think that are true, but both of us know that those are claims), but I can relate to these appropriately, when I see who is the speaker, and I can tell what is its agenda or interests. To conclude-please rephrase that paragraph and add the source of the claim. Hummingbird (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When an archived Wikinews article is incorrect, we certainly want to correct it, though we do so using correction, not by altering what the article says. (Of course, what a Wikipedia article says means nothing in itself, Wikipedia being inherently not trust-worthy.  Either Wikipedia cites trust-worthy sources, and those are of interest, or it doesn't and there's no trust-worthy basis.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for the reply. I acted as I was instructed by Archived, but I replaced the template as you suggested. On the other hand, I didn't request for changing the facts-just to write who reported about the flotilla cargo ("...according to John Doe", "...as reported by Jane Doe"), and to match the title to content ("19 killed" in the title don't match "between 9 and 19" in the content). I agree that even wikipedia should be treated with suspicion. Hummingbird (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've done a poor job of explaining this, sorry about that. You were quite correct to use editprotected here on the talk page.  I only meant to note that the edit we make to the article would not take the form of modifying what the article says, but rather of putting a correction template on the article.  The editprotected template notifies us that there's something here to be investigated; hopefully I'll have a chance to really focus in and untangle it later today (but if not, the editprotected template guarantees we won't lost track of this request).  --Pi zero (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * ✅, the title issue I have addressed. There's no evidence that the "unsourced" claim was unsourced. As the talk page history shows, it passed a detailed review by a trusted user against the sources as they appeared at the time of publication. It was also the subject of extensive discussions. I've also considered if it was nonetheless inaccurate (or unintentionally biased), but the article does make clear the Israeli position that there may be smuggled arms and other nasties lurking amongst the aid. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)