Talk:International reactions to the Gaza War (2008–2009)/Archive 3

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

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)

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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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 and a sum of over 663,954 additional views by reuploads by other users, that have been viewed more than 10.000 times , 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. 

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


 * This is not notable in the slightest. And Youtube is nowhere near a reliable source. The Squicks (talk) 03:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Turkey
Turkey should have a green colour at this map. Because PM Erdogan says: "They [Hamas] have made mistakes." 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)

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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Velanthis (talk • contribs) 01:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

couple of issues
first, the photos need to be proportional. 7 pro-israel photos and 3 pro-palestine ones when there are 15 pages of pro-palestine and 3 of pro-israel demonstrations?

second, this page is 226 kb!! seriously. some trimming or creating sub-pages needs to be done. untwirl (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

picture
a "couple" of disruptive ip editors (really one editor who I am pretty sure is another registered account) have been disruptively removing a featured picture from the article, after being locked out of disruptively edit warring through semi-protection at another article and following me over here. could somebody please explain why? it cannot be because of "POV", the demonstrations around the world where overwhelmingly protesting Israeli actions and due weight dictates that be represented.  nableezy  - 23:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV colouring
I can't help but feel that the blue/light blue colours for pro-Israel countries and the red/light red colours for pro-Hamas countries is a very NPOV choice. Red is associated with violence and danger, and the suggested maps on the talk page use orange to represent the pro-Hamas side; there is no international consensus as to which party is (more) at fault. I suggest the map be changed, with orange adopted over red. 7daysahead (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * See Red. I think you are overthinking it. What's more concerning to me is that the map is original research since it's based on editors categorizing the positions of entire states based on their sampling and interpretation of sources.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)