|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Middle East section
There has been quite some edit warring over a section discussing Avaaz's petition againt the Israeli-Palestine conflict (text given below):
- When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Avaaz seems to present inaccurate information about the current (Dec. 2008) Israeli attacks on Gaza. They have prepared a petition and are distributing it to be signed by thousands of people. It is unfortunate that the petition is deliberately edited so that it doesn't show the savage Israeli attacks on Gaza, instead they only mention rocket attacks into Israel (which resulted in 4 killed Israelis). The petition completely hides the savage Israeli attacks on Gaza that killed hundreds of Palestinian (400 so far) including a hundred of kids and their moms.
I have just copied the petition itself and the introduction to it from the Avaaz website:
- With over 400 Palestinians and 4 Israelis killed and the death toll mounting daily, we urgently need to demand that world leaders take strong diplomatic action to end the violence. An Israeli ground invasion is believed to be imminent and would claim many more lives -- we must act fast to demand that our leaders act now.
- Sign the petition below calling for robust international action to achieve an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and take further crucial steps to pursue a peaceful, negotiated resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
- Petition to the UN Security Council, the European Union, the Arab League and the USA: We urge you to act immediately to ensure a comprehensive ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, to protect civilians on all sides, and to address the growing humanitarian crisis. Only through robust international action and oversight can the bloodshed be stopped, the Gaza crossings safely re-opened and real progress made toward a wider peace in 2009.
Clearly, the petition itself doesn't specifically mention either Israeli or Palestinian attacks. Casualties on both sides are mentioned in the introduction. Since I don't see a cause for the worries expressed in the Middle East section, I have removed it. Markussep Talk 17:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just signed this emergency petition calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Already over 400 people have been killed and the death toll is climbing daily. Read the email below to learn more...
As we watch the Gaza bloodshed with horror, appalled at how the crisis is spiralling further out of control, one thing is clear -- this violence will only lead to further civilian suffering and an escalation of the conflict.
There must be another way. Over 370 are dead and hundreds more injured -- rockets are striking Ashdod deep inside Israel for the very first time, and the sides are mobilising for invasion. A global response has begun, but it'll take more than words -- the immediate violence won't end, nor will wider peace be secured, without firm action from the international community.
Today, we're launching an emergency campaign which will be delivered to the UN Security Council and key world powers, urging them to act to ensure an immediate ceasefire, address the growing humanitarian crisis, and take steps to build real and lasting peace.1 Follow this link now to sign the emergency petition and send it to everyone you know:
After eight or more years of ineffective US and global diplomacy -- and now Gaza's bloodiest day in recent memory -- we must issue a global outcry demanding that world leaders do more than make statements if they're to bring peace to this region. The UN, the European Union, the Arab League and the USA should now act together to ensure a ceasefire – which includes an end to rocket attacks into Israel and opening the checkpoints for fuel, food, medicine and other humanitarian aid deliveries.
With a new US President taking office in less than a month, a real opportunity exists to breathe new life into peace efforts. These latest hostilities require not only an immediate ceasefire but a commitment from Obama and other world leaders that resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the very top of their agendas. As the whole world is impacted by this ongoing conflict - we should demand nothing less.
In 2006 we mobilised for a ceasefire in Lebanon. For years we've worked to encourage a just and lasting peace, taking out billboards and ads across Israel and Palestine. Now as we head into 2009, we need to come together again to demand a peaceful and lasting resolution, instead of a further escalation of violence. Follow this link to put your name forward for peace:
All sides to the conflict will continue to act as they have in the past if they believe that the world will stand by and allow them to do so. 2009 is a year that things can be different. As we face this crisis, and the possibilities of a new year, it's time for us to demand a ceasefire and work together to finally put an end to this cycle of violence.
With hope and determination,
Brett, Ricken, Alice, Ben, Pascal, Paul, Graziela, Paula, Luis, Iain and the whole Avaaz team
- I have removed the Middle East section again, since it is not supported by facts. The text of the email referred to is given above. My problems with the section:
- the bloodshed in Gaza is clearly mentioned in petition and email, and anyone moderately interested in the subject should know that Palestinians live in Gaza, hence by far most of the victims are Palestinians
- "deliberately edited" is suggestive, and not supported by evidence
- "The petition completely hides the savage Israeli attacks...": the petition mainly asks for a ceasefire, bloodshed is mentioned, details about the attacks are mentioned in the accompanying text Markussep Talk 10:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Apart from single issues such as the Middle East conflict, what is their overall political stance? Do they have one? Judging from the website, they seem to be even less defined politically than Attac. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
They told me they dont have any political view and they call tehmself opportunist. I write an artcile about AVAAZ after beiing a voluntary for 3 onth with them in sumer 2009 in Europe. Article in french : http://avenirclimat.info/index.php?post/2010/08/13/Qui-est-AVAAZ I was not writting to talk about that, but all the external link are pointing to AVAAZ website : is that fair ? You cant describe an organisation if you only get information from themself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, it's nice to read an independent source. I almost wish their was a criticism section, so I could get the overall picture, even if it only says "XXX called them too soft". 126.96.36.199 (talk) 23:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Liberal, centrist, moderate, conservative?
Where is Avaaz.org coming from? I understand that, because they're a nonprofit, they're officially nonpartisan, but even nonpartisan nonprofits can be fairly and accurately described as left or right of center (if not centrist). 188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- It's a commie liberal socialist plot to destroy American values. Rothorpe (talk) 19:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- How about we dial the sarcasm knob down to zero. I just found it odd that there's absolutely no language on political leanings for a *political advocacy* organization. Can you point us to any sources that would fairly and accurately characterize the political leanings of Avaaz.org? They seem very mildly left-of-center to me, but I'd prefer some sort of evidence in the form of a statement from the organization or its leaders.
- Well, they're against Mugabe: that's how I got involved with them. Does that make them left, right, centre, liberal? Do we need so many adjectives here? Rothorpe (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, both conservatives and progressives in the United States, for example, seem to be bipartisan in their dislike of the Mugabe regime, but, on the other hand, an "online petition against the mythification" of Canada's health care system is an item with a decidedly leftish caste in the context of current American politics. And while I agree that political adjectives and partisan labeling can grow tiresome, I also think it's important that we take as objective and unbiased a look as possible into the motivations of a movement's organizers and followers. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
<< In a nutshell, they are extreme hard core leftist. They worked very hard to circumvent Canadian electoral laws desinged to prevent foreign influence and to limit the amount that third parties can spend in any given riding. They targeted several prominent Conservative candidates in the past election (none of who were defeated) and ran ads in their ridings attempting to influence the electorate. They then spread the money over 10 or more ridings in order to supposedly get in under the legal limit. >>
Please note this previous comment was unsigned, and provided no verifiable references; I've left the comment in place with angle-quotes around it as Avaaz has said a Sun Media-sponsored smear campaign is being waged against it. Note that Avaaz's actions described above seems like standard political special-interest activities which do not seem to be extreme left-wing. (Or, anyone who thinks that this IS extreme is likely to be looking from an equally extreme opposite point of view.) That is not say that this comment was created by someone involved in this purported smear campaign, but I would invite the previous comment's author to come back and help us understand whatever extreme hard-core leftist activity Avaaz has been involved with and to update the article accordingly so that the community can be more informed. Crashalpha (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I've also never heard of this and I'm Canadian and on the Avaaz list. I've seen Cdn-specific campaigns, but not this. I think it's vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The wrong ResPublica?
- Fixed, thanks. Res Publica (US) doesn't have an article yet though. Rd232 talk 14:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no section on criticism. What about transparancy? No search on their website. No history of all their campaigns and the results. What about democracy? Avaaz seems a beautifull organisation untill you try to suggest ideas for a campaign. Irregardless of how many of your friends think this is important.... I suggested 2 things for petitions. These were already small petitions going on elsewhere, but of very large importance (world wide) I ended up emailing one other person who is atttempting to petition and asked her about this. She made clear avaaz is not interested in several big issues that are not popular/interesting to them. What is their agenda or hidden agenda? Accountable? But what are their reasons for choosing the campaigns? What are their goals? There is a strong feeling that the motive behind some of the issues is more one of making money than one of creating awareness. For instance, why is Avaaz asking for donations to fight Rupert Murdoch, just at a time when others are already doing this? Is it so that while avaaz.org makes fast amounts of money, they can at the same time lay claim on the downfall of Murdoch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a forum. Please make concrete suggestions for changes to the encyclopedia entry Avaaz.org. Rd232 talk 13:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- Criticism sections are also bad style and troll magnets. Criticism should be integrated into relevant sections. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- There's been criticism for their lack of transparency, arrogant behaviour, encouraging slacktivism, and claims that they had a bigger role in the successful results than they actually had.
- Some links:
- I'm not sure how to integrate it into the article, but not mentioning any of this at all in it seems biased. I also have some personal criticism: once you registered an email with them, anyone that knows it (or can guess it), can sign you up for a petition, whether you agree with it or not. But this is original research, since I couldn't find an article mentioning it anywhere. How can the above be integrated in the article? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just tried to integrate it. Let me know if I have done something wrong.126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Number of members modification
Cyber attack on Avaaz
Do you think it's notible that Avaaz is currently under a large scale cyber attack? Here are some resources.
Any particular reason why this is in the related links considering there's nothing remotely referencing it within the article itself? Unless I missed it, but I was pretty sure I'd read it fairly thoroughly. Almost sounds like a bit of trolling, unless it and Activism 2.0 are meant to be "compare to" or such.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- As the article is, it seems unsourced, but there has been criticism of Avaaz for slacktivism. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/20/avaaz-activism-slactivism-clicktivism%7C 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Current events: Pirate Bay
- This weekend Avaaz sent out an eyebrow-raising email to its members which questioned whether the Sunde poll should be alowed on the site. “We’re a democratic community of more than 14 million people, and will only support petitions that our community agrees are not offensive, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable,” Alex from Avaaz wrote. He then directed Avaaz users to pick one of three options for a private poll. (1) I support Avaaz providing people the opportunity to sign this petition (2) I think Avaaz should remove this petition (3) I’m not sure. This intervention puts Avaaz on tricky territory. Just a cursory glance around their site reveals a quagmire of petitions on massively controversial issues which by their very nature polarize people according to who sets to benefit from either side of a dispute.
- A 18 July update is now on the article. It seems standard practice for every petition. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Sept 2014: intense email spam
When I saw this wiki article, I was genuinely surprised that Avaaz seems to be a legit operation. A few weeks ago, me and many other people from my university started getting emails from Avaaz, asking to sign for this or that petition that I've never heard of or cared for. On the internet it is frequently advised to NOT click the unsubscribe link in the email as this will simply add a "verified" flag to the email, resulting in even more spam. I still maintain that Avaaz is questionable in their practices to procure as many clicks as possible, this has little to do with "activism" anymore. To me, this is just spam, nothing else.18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I am removing some content from this article. Whoever put the content here has misunderstood what Wikipedia is; I am not criticizing either Avaaz or the quality of the content I removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias summarize what other sources have said on a particular topic but do not themselves publish original thought. Encyclopedias also typically do not publish primary sources, but rather publish secondary sources presenting conclusions drawn from someone's review of the primary data.
- I removed the campaign section. It was mostly backed by Avaaz's own self-published discussions of itself.
- I removed the map of members. This map was derived from self-published WP:PRIMARY data, so is outside the scope of what Wikipedia covers.