Talk:MV Rachel Corrie

links with details

links with details for infobox: [1] [2].John Z (talk) 00:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Cambodia is the flag from that. Anyone have other sources or know if those above are sufficient?Cptnono (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

History

History of the ship here, but unfortunately seems to fail WP:RS. Any ideas on how to reconcile this? Mjroots2 (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Flag?

I notice the picture shows the ship flying an Irish flag and the article says it is of Irish origin, but the infobox says it is Cambodian? Is this an error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.19.47.12 (talk) 09:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See Ship registration and the sources above. Might also be Flag of convenience. A Cambodian flag is also visible in the image.Cptnono (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It's definately the Flag of Cambodia flying at her stern (which is the one that counts). Mjroots (talk) 19:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia

The lead says Malaysia bought this ship, but the infobox doesnt mention the Malaysian company nor does the article's "history" section. The lead is supposed to summarize content from the article, not add new stuff.Lihaas (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. I didn't find a reliable source that it funded the purchase of the ship, so I replaced it with the sourced fact that it funded the mission. --Scolaire (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I had one from al jazeera. cant find it now. well keep yours till thenLihaas (talk) 07:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Israeli sabotage of Gaza flotilla ships

Various online news reports suggest that Israeli agents sabotaged several ships intending to head to Gaza.

Here is just one such report:

Gaza flotilla organizers may recall 'Rachel Corrie'

Published:06.04.10, 07:54 / Israel News

Audrey Bomse, one of the organizers of the Gaza aid flotilla told Ynet that following Israel's sabotage of the press ship meant to follow the "Rachel Corrie" en route to Gaza, her group intends on calling the vessel back, pending repairs.

Bomse noted that her group has not been able to contact the ship since late Thursday night, adding it may indicate that "Israel sabotaged the radio system." (Ynet)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3898942,00.html

I'd suggest that the various reports are worthy of investigation for the MV Rachel Corrie article and the one on the Gaza Flotilla Raid. Bernard Macdougall (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Communication were blocked from the ship by Israeli forces. Surely this is illegal, and should be described as such.90.11.188.209 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It can be described as illegal if a WP:RS describes it thus. Otherwise we should merely state that communications were jammed, per WP:NPOV. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The UN High Commission has described the blockade of Gaza as [illegal. This is not the same as saying the boarding of the ships was illegal. Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be unfair to blame Israel for interference with Radio Communication in the area. There is a well known person (or persons) who routinely sends irresponsible, obscene, and disgusting radio messages on ships radio net in that region. Female U.S. Navy Helicopter Pilots are singled out for particular profanities and abuse. The Hoaxer who goes by the Ethnically insulting name of 'Phillipino Monkey' was responsible for sending hoax threats to U.S. Navy Ships under harassment from Iranian Gunboats.Johnwrd (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

How can it possibly be the same person? Persian Gulf is about a thousand miles away from Gaza Strip. Let me guess: Are you from the states? --386-DX (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

After 2010

What happened to the ship after 2010? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on MV Rachel Corrie. 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/20100605134124/http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9G4F1M00.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9G4F1M00.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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, 5 May 2017 (UTC)