Talk:Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateReactions to the Gaza flotilla raid is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 17, 2010Featured article candidateNot promoted

Is this cartoon suitable for inclusion?[edit]

A work by a Brasilian Cartoonist, Carlos Latuff

And edit war is currently ongoing, regarding the inclusion of this cartoon, depicting Israel as a Nazi sea-monster. Per WP:IMAGES images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. I see no reason why this cartoon is notable, it is not covered in the article itself, nor by independent reliable sources. It appears to be used as a backdoor to push a certain POV into the article foregoing the requirement for reliable sourcing. POV tag added until this dispute is resolved. Marokwitz (talk) 08:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now that the offensive coatrack text under the cartoon has been changed? :)--Severino (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
a very likely motivation for the request. Nonetheless, the cartoon does not appear to be representative of the reactions as reported by reliable sources, so I concur with the substance of the request, i.e. to remove the image.  Cs32en Talk to me  17:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position hasn't changed. Unless a bunch of reliable secondary sources care about a cartoon and talk about it being a notable reaction to the event there's no policy based reason for us to care about it and include it. I don't think the nature of the cartoon itself is relevant. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think it should be removed since it doesn't provide any useful information to the reader, and is not notable. Pictures, especially offensive ones, shouldn't be used purely for decoration (let alone for POV-pushing). Laurent (talk) 17:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; the cartoon was publuished in Arab News. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion pieces, as well as cartoons, are primary sources. Unless there are independent secondary sources reporting on the cartoon, we should not use it unless there is a specific reason to do so.  Cs32en Talk to me  19:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the cartoon per #Caption above. Now that I see that this thread has to do with the very same cartoon, I suggest the same workaround we tried to reach before: Providing the reader with links to notable works this cartoon mimics [1][2]. Merely posting this cartoon with no reference to its dehumanizing context fails to match existing Wikipedia policy, as the article will be just as informative with and without this offensive cartoon. ליאור • Lior (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cartoons often use allegorical images. This is an allusion to drawings of Kraken. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One this is not permanent because WP:Consensus can change and the NUMBER of editors doesnt mean squat. Per WP:consensus it is the QUALITY of arguement.Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been discussed extensively in Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid/Archive_1#A_work_by_a_Brasilian_Cartoonist and a consensus was not reached. I am thinking about requesting a third opinion or taking the matter to mediation or arbitration. --386-DX (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is best, i think. Post a link here when you've done that. (lets make this infinite debate finite)Lihaas (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Templates[edit]

Please do not use the {{consensus}} template inappropriately. As explained on Template:Consensus/doc, it is for indicating a discussion where a consensus is being seeked. Using it to claim that a discussion has been closed is a misuse of the template, and a violation of the policies. Unless the editor is an administrator who has made an official decision, nobody has a right to "close" any discussion on the talk pages. See WP:CCC and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY for more info. --386-DX (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media section.[edit]

I mentioned this earlier, US news covarage is too long, wall-of-texts compared to others. And Turkish media covarage is almost none. I know that I need to be WP:BOLD but, I'm too lazy to do it now. If someone starts, I guess I can continue.--Cerian (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed down the section, including removing the following (which repeats the US political section):

The Washington Post and CBS News reported that American lawmakers in both parties expressed support for Israel in the wake of growing international condemnation following the raid.[1] [2] Fox News reported United States Senator John McCain comments that pro-Palestinian activists wanted to provoke an international crisis, and that the incident was a test of President Obama's commitment to Israeli security.[3]

USA Today said "In practical terms, the argument hardly matters. By opting for an assault on the six-ship convoy trying to break a 3-year-old blockade of Gaza, Israel handed its opponents a victory they could not have achieved by other means and simultaneously left itself, the United States and the struggling Mideast peace process with a huge problem....Israel, however, remained adamant, implausibly casting the flotilla organizers as a mortal threat." They drew parallels saying "The pity is that the Israelis so lacked the same prescience, remarkable in light of their own history. No event was more important to the formation of Israel than the confrontation 63 years ago between the ship Exodus..." They believed that as a "smart solution to the current impasse...Israel should allow humanitarian aid into Gaza on the condition that cargo first be inspected for weapons. Palestinians should accept that restriction. The United States and United Nations should try to ensure its enforcement."[4]Jdkag (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sargent, Greg. "The Plum Line – Anthony Weiner strongly defends Israeli attack on flotilla". Voices.washingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  2. ^ Montopoli, Brian (1 June 2010). "Politicians from Both Parties Rally Behind Israel Following Raid – Political Hotsheet". CBS News. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  3. ^ "Will Obama Stand By Campaign Commitment to Israel's Security?". Fox News. 2 June 2010. Retrieved 2 June 2010.
  4. ^ "Our view on battle in the Middle East: Israel's assault on flotilla hands its enemies a victory". USA Today. 1 June 2010. Retrieved 12 May 2012.

Bad reference[edit]

Reference 208 spells the word "Israeli" as "Isreali". Seeing as this is the incorrect way of spelling the word, this reference may not be the best for this article, as it makes it seem as though the references aren't correct. Gaandolf (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now #209. A single typo is certainly not a valid argument for disregarding any reference. 212.10.88.41 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It is no longer possible to cover up or ignore Israel's lawlessness. It is time for the international community to say 'enough is enough'."[edit]

According to the article, Erdogan and Davutoglu BOTH used these EXACT words. Seems like quite the coincidence!--Brian Dell (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag African Union.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Flag African Union.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV[edit]

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Turkey and Israel 'close to reviving ties' [(Lihaas (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)).][reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Reactions to the 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:

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) 05:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Reactions to the 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:

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) 05:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reactions_to_the_Gaza_flotilla_raid&oldid=1209982585"