Talk:Viva Palestina

Palestine Low‑importance

	Palestine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Wikipedia. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Biased Wording

The second sentence in the first paragraph seems a tad too far to the left. C'mon, can we please at least take care of the more blatant examples of leftist propaganda on wikipedia?69.146.92.44 (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third Convoy

According to Al-Jazeera's Arabic-language satellite broadcast of just a couple of minutes ago, hundreds of people are currently in Al-Arish, where a confrontation has broken out between the convoy members and police. Egyptian authorities have refused to give authorization to 48 cars in the convoy desiring to proceed to Gaza. In protest at the decision, the convoy members, who were being held within a gated area at the port, broke through the gate, leading to clashes with police. Let's see how long it takes English-language mainstream media to pick up this story. Tiamut^talk 20:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the BBC managed to report part of the story at 04:25 GMT. Not bad, a delay of 8 hours. Londonderry Today did much better however, first reporting the story only 3 hours after Al-Jazeera and with much more detail. [1] Perhaps the reason for this is because they were in contact with locals participating in the convoy. The Sydney Morning Herald did just as well [2]. The first three English-language news reports on the clashes however came 2 hours aftr the Arabic-language report on Jazeera from the Ma'an News Agency [3], YNET news [4] and the Malaysian Star [5]. Tiamut^talk 14:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To update the article further:

Egypt allows through Gaza aid convoy after protests. Tiamut^talk 18:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, proably the best place to get infomation quickly is Press TV (Sky 515) as they travel with them. --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased language at start

In the 'Background' section it states "Viva Palestina was instigated in January 2009". Obviously the word 'instigated' has a negative connotation and should be replaced with a more neutral term. Do most people agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.58.81 (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, changed to 'formed' --Imagine Wizard (talk • contribs • count) Iway amway Imagineway Izardway. 21:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaza Flotilla

Since there is a section on the article about the Aid Flotilla. Why is there no mention of the Israeli murderous contravention of international law?

Unless someone can give a credible answer to the question I pose (Apart from the flak this would encounter from Zionists), I suggest the insertion of some lines to describe the israeli attack. Please sign if you agree, thanks :) Abu-bakrUK (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the section should be expanded as that's the most notable thing they've done. However please tone down the commentary, it isn't going to help us improve the article.--Misarxist 10:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]