Talk:Gaza Freedom Flotilla/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Neutrality

The neutrality tag on the article is in place because this content was split from a tagged article. The main problem here seems to me to be the Motives section, which concentrates mostly on Israel's perception of the motives and needs more balance with the actual (stated or analysed) motives of the organisers and participants themselves. --Mirokado (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Since nobody has contributed to this discussion for the past couple of months and the tag was inherited from the original article in case anybody wished to do so, I will remove the tag. Any discussion can still take place here of course. --Mirokado (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Motives

The section goes straight into the Israeli POV on the motives of the flotilla without actually explaining the stated aims and goals of the participants as would be normal. Dlv999 (talk) 12:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Musical Parody

Should the song in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNVeu-Iya34 be referenced? Perhaps in a section about depictions mentioned in songs? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Oops, it seems that there is already an article about We Con the World. (Does that change the answer to the above questions?) --Mike Schwartz (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gaza Freedom Flotilla. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Israeli killings

According to sources (all sources): After resistance on one boat, they killed nine activists.
So absolutely no need for extended whitewash: Following resistance on one of the boats, nine activists were killed.. They were not killed by the plague, they were killed by the Israeli forces. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

How about "Following resistance on one of the boats, nine activists were killed by Israeli forces."--יניב הורון (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Not sure how the passive voice is a "whitewash", but the above version is fine too. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Passive voice is fine and typically preferred as a matter of fact, see wp:MoS for details. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with { {re|BrxBrx}})} 03:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree to יניב הורון proposal. Not sure that passive is preferred, but I believe BrxBrx is being truthful. Either way, as there is consensus now, there is no need to explore it further. Cheers to all. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing the point

The article seems to go to significant lengths to explain how there wasn't anything but building materials and medicines onboard, and suggests this is reason to condemn Israel for attacking a peaceful convoy, etc, etc, but that's not the point, is it? Israel couldn't have known what was onboard, since they refused to let the cargo be inspected. For all Israel knew the ships were stocked with chemical weapons and firearms, artillery and rockets. I wouldn't want to take anyone's WORD that it was just building materials either, especially if they refused my offer to allow it to pass, as long as they let me take a look at it first. The fact that there didn't turn out to be much on board after all is pretty irrelevant to whether they were justified in choosing to make the raid in the first place. I consider myself neutral on the subject, but it looks more like a direct provocation than anything else. And Israel played right into it, giving them ammunition against them in the media and hurting public opinion. It was loose-loose. If they failed to act and allowed them to land, it just looks like they are caving to pressure and encourages more attempts, even if the ships weren't landing military supplies. Once people think they can just force their way into Gaza by bluffing, maybe the next ships WILL have weapons. If they act and raid the ships in an attempt to force them to stop, they can be painted as the Bad Guys pushing around a bunch of poor helpless aid ships. It seems to me that if people really wanted to aid to REACH Gaza they'd have been content to let it go overland. They appear to be more worried about a successful public relations coup, one way or another.

64.223.120.131 (talk) 05:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)