Talk:Freedom for Palestine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles

Palestine Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-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!

POV section and copyright edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

I have tagged th reception section was POV due to this edit.

It introduced quotes at the end that were not necessary and now unbalance the section. I feel the balance was appropriate before. Furthermore, the lyrics are not exactly needed there and could easily draw the reader to make certain conclusions. It also is a misrepresentation of the source since that particular line of the song is not pointed to as the reason for controversy.

These two issues make the article read like advocacy since prominence is given to one side of the dispute the song discusses.Cptnono (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

The quotes from Beck could also lead the reader to understand the exact opposite of his intent with the quote while also making the article about poking fun at him instead of discussing the song. That is further reasoning for the tag.Cptnono (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Furthermore, linking to a copyrighted video on a site that does not hold its rights is contributory copyright infringement. Cptnono (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I considered not reading the tag but after no discussion I still thought "In response, a piece in the progressive Salem News wrote from different viewpoint that Beck was in effect "promoting the new song, Freedom for Palestine before it has even been released." and that Beck by his words had contributed to "calls for the West Bank security barrier to be toppled, it calls for human rights and justice for all." [4] FreedomOneWorld's project YouTube channel called attention to Beck's coverage by calling it a "hilarious meltdown".[5]"was inappropriate. It still reads as if it is poking fun. It would make sense to keep it if we added more info from Beck but I doubt that is needed. I do think it is better than when I fisrt place the tag, though and I appreciate the work put in to do that. And there is still a copyright issue with the link.Cptnono (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm not familiar with Beck or his shows, so I don't feel very strongly about this (but having just watched the clip of his program, I can see why some people might think it "hilarious"). We just report here what the sources say; if someone wants to add criticism from another source, that would fine by me. --NSH001 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've now re-written much of the article to use a new WP:RS, and removed material from salem-news.com, quite a different organisation than Salem News as previously (and erroneously) stated in the article. I believe this addresses all the points above. --NSH001 (talk) 15:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

opening edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The opening paragraph now has the opposite problem of POV. It reads sarcastically "The perceived injustice..." I think the entire article needs to be reworded to be neutral and objective. This shouldn't be an article for pro-palestinian or pro-israeli posters to score points. 98.110.177.20 (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I actually added that. It wasn't an attempt to belittle the concerns but I thought it was inappropriate to make a statement that validates one side of the argument. I' not completely comfortable with it and would be OK if it was adjusted. Maybe "what the artists see as injustice"? or "about what can be considered" or "what has been called injustice"? I would even be OK with "what is often considered" but see a definitive statement of Wikipedia endorsement of one side over the other as a problem.Cptnono (talk) 23:52, 5 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

I changed it to "what some see". Any other suggestions for neutrality? --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freedom for Palestine. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/60QR9xR4U?url=http://www.theofficialcharts.com/singles-chart/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/singles-chart/

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 10:12, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic