Jump to content

Talk:International reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Velanthis (talk | contribs) at 01:01, 8 August 2009 (→‎Map is EXTREMELY biased.: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Consistency on Coloring Countries

There's been a lot of recent discussion on the question of condemnation. Namely, when can a country be considered to have condemned one side or another. There are three points of disagreement:

  1. Does criticism of a country constitute condemnation?
  2. If a third-party source (such as a newspaper) says that Country A condemned Side X, does that suffice to qualify as a condemnation?
  3. If a country condemns a single action by a belligerent, does that mean the country can be regarded as having condemned that belligerent?

It is no coincidence that editors have split into two camps on this: the "Yes" camp and the "No" camp. The former answers "yes" to all three questions, and the latter answers "no" to all three questions. I myself am part of the no camp.

But whichever camp we choose, we must be consistent. There must be an all-or-nothing approach. That is why I am presenting the figures below for comparison of the two camps. Discussion on the reasons for coloring countries one way or another can be found above.

Draft A - "No" camp
Draft B - "Yes" camp

Thoughts? Saepe Fidelis (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: these figures do not include the newly-implemented five-tier system of colors. If that system sticks, I may change the figures to reflect it. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Maps to increase NPOV

I think it is wrong to put countries on an overall position based on one word, "condemn". Countries can be really pro Hamas/ Gaza, but they can still condemn Hamas for rocket attacks, so the map can give the wrong impression, by categorising based on the word "condemn". Also the same applies for Israel, the country may support Israel, but may condemn some of its actions. I think the best way to sort this is by having for different maps. I think it will work out more neutral, so that we are not giving an overall position on a county. So this will solve disputes.
  • Map 1: Countries which have endorsed the Israeli position/ supported Israel's right to defense.
  • Map 2: Countries which have showed support towards Hamas.
  • Map 3: Countries which have condemned/ criticised Hamas.
  • Map 4: Countries which have condemned/ criticised Israel.

This way we can say what each country has done and not give an overall position. We shouldn't tell the reader the overall position, we should let them figure that out themselves, but this way we can give them the facts to help the reader work out the overall position. The reader can tell from the maps, what the country has done. Also multiple maps will make the article richer in information. Hopefully my proposal is neutral and people from both camps will agree with me. Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ijanderson, your intention here is admirable, and your heart is certainly in the right place, but I'm hesitant to do this. We as editors do so much work on Wikipedia that we often forget that the average reader comes to take a few glances and move on. Four maps would be quite a hefty load, making the matter far more complicated than it needs to be.
Also, to nitpick a little, countries that support Gaza should not be lumped together with countries that support Hamas, since this conflict was between Israel and Hamas, not Israel and the people of Gaza. The government of Israel has said time and again that the people of Gaza are not its enemies, and it has supported them in word and deed. So it would really fall under the category of a country that supported Gaza. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, I was separated from Wikipedia for a day and returned to find that productive dialogue did not suffer in my absence, in fact it seems to have flourished (now what does that say about me...). I still stand by what I said that there was a consensus on the matter currently being discussed, but I fully concede that the consensus I believe to have existed is moot, given this discussion. Ijanderson, allow me to apologize for my somewhat harsh tone toward you at times. I have patience issues, especially when I feel that people are talking past each other. In the future, if I agree with Saepe Fidelis in substance and disagree with you, I'll just let Saepe speak for me, since he's obviously a more patient fellow. And on that note, I fully agree with Saepe about your suggestion: it's a noble idea, but too complicated for the reader. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Saepe Fidelis, Simple Wikipedia is for people who want a quick glance. I don't think we should let this article become degraded for that reason. And not ever reader does take a quick glance. I see no harm in having 4 maps. It would also stop disputes as it is based more on facts instead of agreements based between users. It wouldn't even be hard to create these maps either. Also I've taken in to account your point about Hamas and Gaza. I've changed it to just Hamas
@Jalapenos do exist, not need to apologise mate, this is a very sensitive article. All I want is for it to be NPOV and this 4 map system will certainly increase NPOV. Also I would like to see this consensus if you please. Ijanderson (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the benefit of four maps. This map distills information into one graphic. Besides, every country that's dark blue would also qualify as light blue, and the same for red. But no country crosses colors. The only benefit to four maps would be showing which states condemned both sides, and which condemned neither. I suppose we could do that for this map without creating additional maps. But, in all honesty, I don't see the use in distinguishing between the two. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ijanderson, that's the thing: I don't think the article is all that sensitive, which is part of the reason I felt that our bickering, or at least mine, was getting lame. About the consensus: the consensus that (a) statements and direct quotes take precedence over media syntheses of statements and (b) the main standard we're looking for is condemnation, was established on 20 January in the discussion on Ukraine (Archive 2). Saepe Fidelis and I explicitly argued for these elements, and when we did so, Avala and VR did not dispute either the argumentation or the conclusion thereof regarding Ukraine, nor have they to this day. The four of us were the only active participants in the discussions at that time, and we all agreed on those elements, two of us explicitly and two tacitly ("Silence implies consent if there is adequate exposure to the community" - from WP:CONSENSUS). Now if I understand you correctly, you still accept element b, but you do not accept element a. Interestingly, the roots of element a are deeper: it was established as our modus operandi already in mid-January. See archive 2: Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, France, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Poland and Spain. In the discussions for all these countries, direct quotes were all that were being used, and nobody expressed a problem with this. And as long as we're on the subject of consensus: consensus carries a lot of weight in Wikipedia, and so it makes sense - indeed, it is expected - that there will be legitimate arguments about whether there was consensus on various matters and about what, exactly, was included in the consensus. But since I argued that your position violated consensus at least since 25 January (Archive 2: UK), I feel that it was poor form for you to dispute the consensus five days later (Here: UK), after exhausting your arguments about OR and POV. That's all I have to say on the matter; if you want to have a last word, I will gladly read it, but I hope that we will then be able to resume actually working on the article together. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No because this way we can show criticised and why condemned, which this map does not show Ijanderson (talk) 13:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Jalapenos. It seems you're totally right. I never noticed the "silence implies consent" rule. I guess we did have consensus. Anyhow, let's hope we're making our way towards consensus again. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just split it into three categories: countries which criticized Israel only, countries which criticized Hamas only, and countries which criticized both to some extent?VR talk 14:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also. I think "States that have called for an end to hostilities, and have condemned neither/both belligerents" is a bit too general. Grouping states full of condemnation (for both sides) with those who condemned neither doesn't seem like a good idea.VR talk 15:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So ok, I'm proposing 5 categories instead of the current 6: 1. States which opposed Hamas actions only. 2. States which opposed Israeli actions only. 3. States which opposed the actions of both sides. 4. States which made other comments. 5. States which made no comments.VR talk 15:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point: Just because a country condemns Israel doesn't mean it doesn't recognize its right to self-defence. What is means is that the nation doesn't see the Israeli offensive as amounting to self-defence. Similarly, if a country condemns Hamas, it doesn't mean it doesn't recognize the Palestinians' right to resist occupation. It just means that the country doesn't see Hamas rocket attacks as an act of resistance. This means that recognizing Israeli right to self defence and condemning the Israeli offensive are not mutually exclusive positions.VR talk 16:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your last point is well taken. I'll try to think of what wording best reflects the category. Any suggestions?
Your first point has been thoroughly discussed on this page, though I am in no way opposed to discussing it again. Criticism is not tantamount to opposition. If it were, nearly the whole map would be green. Also, the question of what constitutes criticism is not very clear-cut. You may find the border to be somewhere far from where I see it. The only clear-cut language on the matter is the question of condemnation. Countries deliberately use (or avoid) the verb "condemn" to express sides. Being "deeply concerned," etc. does not necessarily indicate that a country is choosing sides. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the last point: the current wording, for examples, codes North Korea red for supporting the Palestinians' struggle to expel IDF "from their Territory" and establish the "right to self-determination". I find it extremely hard to believe that Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc, all colored light red, don't support both these struggles. It is even a bit misleading to paint North Korea a darker shade than Syria, where the latter is consistently pro-Hamas (even harboring Meshaal).
Why not just paint those countries that criticized only Israel as red, without distinguishing those that support the Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation?VR talk 06:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very few countries have explicitly stated their support for Hamas. This is not surprising, as Hamas is a terrorist organization, and few countries want to be seen as supporting a group that's in blatant, habitual and inexcusable violation of international law. But there are still a few countries that have expressed not only support for Palestinians' "right of resistance," but specifically for Hamas' operations. These include North Korea, Iran and Libya. As of yet, I have not seen a Syrian statement to this effect. But if you find one, please feel more than free to include it, and change Syria's color.
The coloring system did not, until fairly recently, distinguish between countries that condemned Israel and those that expressed support for Hamas. But the two positions are fundamentally different, and should not be combined. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 23:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again the coloring system misleads us to believe that Syria doesn't express support for Hamas. We both know this is wrong.
Also, it equates support for Hamas with Israel right to self-defense. The more appropriate equation would Palestinians' right to resistance with Israel's right to self-defense, support for Hamas with support for Operation Cast Lead.VR talk 07:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the map criteria are symmetrical; I don't know if this was done since your comment. Do you have any objection to the way it currently is? Regarding Syria, did they openly support Hamas in the context of the conflict? If there is a statement to this effect, the country should be dark orange. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malmo

i don't think, all participants of the demonstration were jews/israelis. therefore, the incident does not belong to this category.--Severino (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should change the category, because there have been a lot of violent responses not targeted at Jews or Israelis. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK--Severino (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

attacks against jews

why is a boy holding a sign reading "jews are terrorists" an attack against jews? its political speech, just as comparisons with nazis arent anti-semitic either (although i know there will be alot of disagreement on that one). think about it, though.if someone compared chavez to hitler for his seemingly "anti-intellectual" politics, no one would accuse that person of being anti-latino. true? Untwirl (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really agree with Untwirl here. We need to distinguish between mere free speech and actions that involve trespassing, vandalism, etc. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We also need to distinguish between antisemitic events, and those that were allegedly antisemitic. We shouldn't be calling any event antisemitic, unless we have a source that calls it as such.VR talk 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
on that same note, only incidents that sources say are directly related to this conflict should be here. one article states the attacks against jews have risen 300%. doesnt that mean at least 1/3 of those attacks are not related to this conflict? Untwirl (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In theory it would. I agree that only those related to the conflict, as shown by a reliable source (not speculation), should be here.VR talk 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And let's please used reliable sources.VR talk 17:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends who's speculating. Saepe Fidelis (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose police/official speculations should be taken seriously. But it is very common for non-official figures to get overly emotional and make accusations without sufficient evidence.VR talk 06:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on a previous conversation, I know the photo of the san fran protest was MBZ1's attempt to compare pro-Palestinian protesters and the pro-Israeli protesters as hatred vs peace loving, respectively. But it is well-known that there has been much anti-Islam and anti-Palestinian sentiment in pro-Israeli protests. For example there were Jewish protesters in New York holding signs like "Islam = Cult of Death"[1], I don't think it is balanced to mention the "Jews are terrorist" sign, when the mudslinging is coming from both sides.--Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This guy really doesn't like juice: [2] Chesdovi (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Seriously Fal? It seems every time there is an Israel war the whole world goes crazy against Jews. I'm not denying that there has been anti-Muslim/Arab protests by Jews turning violent, but to equate, or hell....comparing is utterly absurd. This whole situation further solidifies the growing need for a Jewish state. Remember, 15 million Jews...1.2 billion Muslims. Let's not play the victim game...we know who wins. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that the right to victimhood was a game. And when was being a victim the same as winning? BTW, I tend to believe that people on both sides should own up to what they do, while you say there can only be one side that is the victim because they are simply Jewish. This is just not ethical as in the case of the protesters from the same pro-Israeli rally in NY who called the conflict the second Holocaust, what does 1300 Palestinians dead mean to people like you!! BTW, I know Pal is an offensive shorthand for Palestinian, if you don't like to say Palestine or Palestinian, just don't say my name. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are implying that the vicious treatment of Jews around the world as a result of this war is equal to the "unfriendly" treatment of Muslims/Arabs? Give me a break Fal. Also: Stop Wiki:SOAPBOXING. I'd be more than happy to lay the smackdown and I know several buddies who'd be happy to enlighten you, but I won't take the bate. So don't make the situation combative and don't play the victim, it's truly insulting to the millions of Jews being harassed by tolerant Muslims and their mindless supporters. Really, it's sad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I would like to continue to bait you as that would bring more evidence leading to yet another noticeboard report on your uncivil behavior and personal attacks, I just don't have the time. Good luck on your next crash and burn moment, which might be soon. --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have the time to stir up falsehoods and wage Wikipedia:SOAPBOX wars against other users. Back to reality: I think this article could use a little bit more pictures? I think I found one showing the 10,000 German Muslims mob protesting in Jewish neighborhoods, not sure if it's fair use though. I have to go look up the laws on that one lol! Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protests

When mentioning the number for the protests (in the sortable column) we shoudl use the highest number (not multiple numbers). This is because, at least in theory, there is no limit at how small a protest can be (except at 0). Smaller protests also ten to be less notable. What's more notable is how large the protests were.VR talk 15:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see your point about notability, however a range of numbers seems to more accurately represent what conflicting sources say. maybe we should use the most commonly reported figure, not just the highest one.Untwirl (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that other figures should be deleted. I'm just saying that in the "size" column, we should only one number, and only a number. This is due to technical reasons. I think we should have no problem agreeing to this.
I'm also saying that the one number we use should be the largest one of them. Presumably this should also be the most repeated? Is there an example where the two are different?VR talk 16:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no, i think i'm agreeing with you, only with that condition. as long as the largest number is the most repeated it should be the one we use in the box, with an explanation of what the (less reported) sources say in the box next to it. Untwirl (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who thinks that there should be a cut-off figure for protests to be included. I mean there must have been thousands world over. This list gives the impression that each and every one is listed here. Is it important to note the protest of 40 in Minneapolis? In Sde Dov, I saw a clip in which the protestors said they would return every day. The fact that we have one source stating that one day 21 showed up is really drawing at straws, if you know what I mean. Thoughts? Also, see Sakhnin demonstration. I have since seen an estimate of 30,000. I also think one figure should be placed in the size box. In the Israel demo list, I preferred to use the figure given by the police as authoritative. Chesdovi (talk) 22:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be hard to agree upon a cut-off figure. My argument above, that we should consider the largest demonstration, was corrected by saying we use use the one that has acquired most notability in the media. This means that a 100 people demonstration in Damascus will hardly come as a surprise to anyone, but 100 people demonstration in Vatican (because the population is only 900) or Saudi Arabia (since public display of politics is banned there) will be treated as far more notable.
You don't have to worry about protesters returning every day, because we quote only one number per city in the Size column.VR talk 23:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed the 2nd Cairo protest. I know this was brought up earlier on; what the the decision? Do we just add all the numbers for each protest in each city? This is not how the Israeli demo is set up. Also, if 20 people turned up for a week at Sde Dov, do put the figure at 120? How do we verify this? I get your take on notability. I therefore think that those towns in the UK & USA which have no figure be inserted as a sentance: "Protests also took place in mnay USA & UK towns". I am still unclear what firgure to use for Sakhnin. 150,00 seems inflated to me. Chesdovi (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't add the number, we take the largest one, or the most notable one (but I think the largest is always more notable, correct me if I'm wrong). As for Sakhnin 150,000 is form a reliable source. No reliable source seems to contradict it. Therefore I see no reason for changing it.VR talk 07:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the "take the largest one" formula came from, but I highly resent it. Al-Jazeera is reliable in certain situations, but when it comes to Israel, and this isn't just a user's opinion, it is extremely prejudice. It is based and supported by the Gulf States, a region of the Middle East that has taken a particular stance against Israel in the recent war. That it in itself should pose a threat to conflict of interest. I also think it is quite ignorant to choose from an organization, while oddly championed as reliable by some editors, claim there were 150,000 protesters over the 10,000+ reported by more moderate outlets that don't have a political/financial/religious motive to embellish. Besides, the facts are clear. Two sources: Palestine News Network, which has the journalistic integrity of a blog, and Al-Jazeera, a recognized media organization that has largely become a comedic tool, are the sole soldiers of truth against the lies of the West. Ok, that was in jest...but let's be real. 2 sources that have a reason to lie against 5-6 that "officially" don't (I rather not count BBC since they too dance with Palestine News Network when it comes to Israel but what the hell LOL). Can we move on now? Please? Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the largest always the most notable? In London, the smaller pro-Israel demo at the embassy was reported in most papers due to the violence that occured there between the rival protestors. What is the decsion on the numerous US and UK towns? Chesdovi (talk) 22:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to check, but I could have sworn that the news reports showed Turkey having mutliple instances of protests of 500k to 1 million protestors.[1]146.235.66.52 (talk) 17:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is plausible considering the large population in Istanbul, but something of that scale must be government-sanctioned as I know for sure their protest laws are extremely harsh. Most protests in the Middle East are typically exaggerated since # tend to be more persuasive. Anything that isn't concrete should be avoided IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitic incidents section

The article Antisemitic incidents occuring during the 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict has been undeleted. The overlapping section in this article should either be summarized or removed completely (there is a summary in the main 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict article). Material that has not already been integrated into the "antisemitic incidents" article should be integrated. Note that some of the incidents in this section, such as the West Bank stabbing and Denmark shooting, were anti-Israeli and not antisemitic. They should remain, either in this article or in the main "Israel-Gaza conflict" article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 02:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian aid section

I'm splitting this section off into its own article. Reasons: 1. this article is too long, and thus hard both to navigate and to edit. The difficulty in editing is probably one reason the article is not in very good shape, despite lots of hard work that has been dedicated to it. 2. The content is not inherently related to the subject of the article. The article deals with what various people and bodies had to say about the conflict. Humanitarian aid on the other hand is about doing, not talking ,and it doesn't reveal anything about the giver's position on the conflict. 3. this was discussed once on the talk page, and several editors supported splitting the section off. Saepe Fidelis, an excellent editor, objected, but based on the reasoning that few would read the split-off article. I hold that in principle this should not be a consideration, and in practice the improved manageability will allow us to create two better - and thus more-likely-to-be-read - articles. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is very long, and seems like it deserves its own article. however, i disagree that actions are irrelevant to "reactions," and this section should at least be summarized in this article and linked to the new article. untwirl(talk) 19:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've titled the new article 2009 Gaza Strip aid. Contributions by editors active here would be most welcome, as would alternative title suggestions. I have no objection to the topic being summarized here, though that could be redundant, as it is already summarized in 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, and rightly so. Perhaps a "see also" would be sufficient. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there is only one sentence in the main article: "As a result of the conflict, the European Union, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and over 50 nations donated humanitarian aid to Gaza, including the United States which donated over $20 million.[224]" unless you want to try to go over there and try to get consensus to add a longer summary (and i dont - yikes!) i think we should have a decent summary here - especially considering the fact that consensus agreed to move it here to begin with. as it stands now, that one sentence above in the main article is the only mention of this long list of donors. the title should have "humanitarian" in it and be linked from both here and there - as it is related to both of these articles. untwirl(talk) 20:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom response

I'm not convinced by the classification in the map in which Britain is colored light blue described in the key as "States that condemned Hamas action only" that doesn't seem to fit with the actual response listed in the box. Britain condemned the Israeli attack on the UN, called the Israeli actions "disproportionate" and endorsed the EU statement chastising both sides. What the UK did was condemn Israel less severely than they condemned Hamas - that does not mean they "condemned Hamas action only". That being the case - Britain would seem to fall into the green-shaded "States that have called for an end to hostilities, and have condemned neither/both belligerents"

In general the map, while interesting to look at, appears to have been contructed rather abitarily - can anyone provide sources that support the categorisation of countries as such. The UK appears to be just one such example that has been shoehorned into a category it does not really fit into. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this has been debated before. Guy0307 (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian reaction

The initial reaction of Abbas as presented in the article is very lukewarm. How about this: According to Reuters News Agency, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas blamed the rival Hamas group on Sunday for triggering Israel's deadly raids on Gaza by not extending a six-month truce with the Jewish state. http://www.france24.com/en/20081228-abbas-says-he-tried-continue-truce-avoid-violence-gaza-israel Sceptic Ashdod (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic Tributes

Can we also adds songs, poems, painting tributes to the Gaza strike, since it is a public reaction.

Songs

Song For Gaza by Michael Heart over 500.000 download from main page and 1,129,051 youtube views

Poems

A new song for Gaza By the Folk poet: Ahmad Fouad Najm Translated by: Adib S. Kawar

I will create a new title. Any opinions. Kasaalan (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Heart's Gaza Song viewed near 2 million times over youtube

Michael Heart's Song for Gaza reached over 1,136,288 views on youtube [3] and a sum of over 663,954 additional views by reuploads by other users, that have been viewed more than 10.000 times [4], and over and self-claimed to be downloaded over 500.000 times as mp3 from his official site, 10,000 emails, comments and messages of support. [5]

Any comments on this addition to public reactions. Kasaalan (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not notable in the slightest. And Youtube is nowhere near a reliable source. The Squicks (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Youtube is reliable source for view count, it has over 1.2 views by official video + more than 660 k views by reuploads, 2 million is not that easy count to be reached, for a song. Kasaalan (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a reliable source.
And how many views do you think Farfur or other Israeli-Palestinian people normally get on youtube? Quite a bit, but that's isn't mentioned anywhere. The Squicks (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is reliable for how many users watched the video, so it indicated how widely known the song watched on internet. There is even a List of YouTube celebrities list with each dedicated pages.
I can count how many views it has, it is currently more than 536,779 views, and a very long wiki page devoted to the programme as you point out in Farfur, so there is a connection between youtube view count and cognoscibility. Kasaalan (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that YouTube is a reliable source for how many views a video has, a video having two hundred or two million or two hundred million views does not merit mention in any encyclopedia until and unless reliable sources note the video. Per WP:BIGNUMBER: "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." Furthermore, even if we cared about numbers 1.2 million is hardly an impressive number of views for a YouTube video. The site lists the top 100 videos and #100 is at 28 million views. There are probably 1000 videos with more views than this one, and 99% of them are rightly not mentioned on Wikipedia. Oren0 (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends, Correct category is Youtube Music and in rock category over 3 Million views, in folk song category over 1.2 million views and more category over 600 k views categorized, yet this video is only online for 5 months, 1.2-2 million view is a good hit for a rock/country-folk song, that isn't even commercially produced and advertised. Kasaalan (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Jewish MP Accuses Israel as Nazi

British MP Gerald Kaufman Accuses Israel as Nazi

"Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism Tzipi Livni's Father was a Terrorist" Astonishing claims in the House of Parliament. SIR Gerald Kaufman, the veteran Labour MP, yesterday compared the actions of Israeli troops in Gaza to the Nazis who forced his family to flee Poland. During a Commons debate on the fighting in Gaza, he urged the government to impose an arms embargo on Israel.


Sir Gerald, who was brought up as an orthodox Jew and Zionist, said: "My grandmother was ill in bed when the Nazis came to her home town a German soldier shot her dead in her bed. My grandmother did not die to provide cover for Israeli soldiers murdering Palestinian grandmothers in Gaza. The present Israeli government ruthlessly and cynically exploits the continuing guilt from gentiles over the slaughter of Jews in the Holocaust as justification for their murder of Palestinians."


He said the claim that many of the Palestinian victims were militants "was the reply of the Nazi" and added: "I suppose the Jews fighting for their lives in the Warsaw ghetto could have been dismissed as militants."


He accused the Israeli government of seeking "conquest" and added: "They are not simply war criminals, they are fools." YouTube - Israel was born out of Jewish Terrorism : UK Jewish MP SIR Gerald Kaufman
British MPs accuses Israel
BRITISH MPs yesterday lined up to give their strongest condemnation yet of Israel's actions in Gaza, branding Ehud Olmert's government "mass murderers" and calling for the country to face sanctions. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, faced cross-party demands for Israel's ambassador to be expelled from London and for Britain to recall its representative from Tel Aviv.
The strongest criticism in the one hour session, that followed a statement from the Foreign Secretary, came from Sir Gerald Kaufman, a former Labour minister, who is Jewish.
Directing his fury at the Israeli prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, he said: "Olmert, (Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak are mass murderers, war criminals and bring shame on the Jewish people whose Star of David they use as a badge in Gaza."
He suggested the British government would have taken a more strident tone if it had been Hamas who had "slaughtered 900 Israelis". Cross-party fury of MPs at Israel

I will try to find a full translation for the video, because lots of info missing in this summary. Kasaalan (talk) 00:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Around one sentence or so would be due weight in this context. Adding the entire transcript into this article is not acceptable. The Squicks (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes 1-2 sentence in wiki style, yet I put the speech because full text is better for other editors to check if I quote correctly. Kasaalan (talk) 21:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey

Turkey should have a green colour at this map . Because PM Erdogan says: "They [Hamas] have made mistakes."[6] Of course was his reaction to Israel bigger, but that is because Israeli troops killed more people in a shorter period than Hamas. -Randam (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious POV, deleting it now.

"On January 8, a counter-protest was held by terrorist sympathisers in response to the pro-Israeli demonstration"

Yea, 'terrorist sympathisers'? Give me a break. Between this and all the 'antisemitism' articles on Wiki - it's obvious that the Zionist perspective can get away with obvious POV.

Getting rid of this garbage propaganda line now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.104.139 (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map is EXTREMELY biased.

This map is quite biased and doesn't fit the positions of some countries, the most obvious being the position of UK and a few other Europeans countries. This lewd and disgusting. Please remap or something. Also the full Japanese statement I noticed, wasn't placed. I'm going to insert that there. Thank You.

  1. ^ http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/International/04-Jan-2009/Huge-protests-in-Turkey-against-Israeli-offensive-in-Gaza
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_War_(2008–2009)&oldid=306709491"