Talk:Operation Day's Work

Non-English references

I am unable to verify many of the claims of this article because the references are non-English. Has someone else looked at (and understood) these references? Pdcook (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I am from Denmark and they look like pages from either recognized organizations or newspapers, when we are talking about the pages from Denmark, Sweden and Norway. I think that they cover the article very well.
However, I cannot answer for the links to pages in the Netherlands and Italy Covergaard (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Forced labor or voluntary

I am not quite satisfied with the removal of forced labor in the text. I can provide a link to discussion on the message board of the television station DR where several students testify that they have to do forced labor regardless of the order by the Minister of Education [1]. Not only is cruel to impose the students for this torment but it is also against the law according to the link to the Department of Education in Denmark provided in the article. OscarPetterson (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Forced labor in the English-speaking world is nearly synonymous with slavery or work at prison camps. Are you asserting that this program goes to that level? I read the English-language reference here and here and it certainly seems like a voluntary operation. Pdcook (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Danish articles at some school the student can choose to pay a sum and in this way buy his or her way out of the according to Danish customs rather humiliating experience of working for free for others. Normally only the courts can order a person to work community service. You don't see voluntary work as part of the curriculum as it seen in less developed cultures. The problem in this case is that the student is left with the choice of paying a kind of fine or become humiliated. Either way it really punishments. I don't know whether participating in this activity is mandatory in other countries than Denmark, but if it is I would judge as forced labor 15:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarPetterson (talk • contribs)

Is it a charity at all?

I will like to discuss whether the categories are right. When the committee in Denmark was created it was clear for everybody that they did choose projects in countries where peaceful government had been overthrown by communists rebels. Our prime minister wrote about this fact in a peace about how the world had changed sine the fall of the Berlin wall.
Jeg er 89'er - med frihed, by Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Jyllands-Posten, November 7, 2009
The main point of criticism is that the projects was in direct violation of the Truman Doctrine because they allowed the rebels to destroy civilian property trusting that the property will be rebuilt by funds collected by the high school students participating in this event. I also want to refer to an essay written by a student at an University in Denmark (Operation Day's work - Undanish and waste of time, by Karl Johanson, student, Aarhus) OscarPetterson (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the available English references make this organization seem like a charity. You can certainly put it in Category:Organizations instead.Pdcook (talk) 14:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there is better control with the collected money in other countries. However I knowtice that there have been problems in Sweden which have caused the government to monitor what happens with the collected money~. I would be very careful to judge them as a charity. Are there information about how the authorities in other countries secure that the normal 10-15 percent to reach the people in need after staff is paid and custom together with officials are bribed? OscarPetterson (talk) 15:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A few points

It sounds like a few of the authors of this article are perhaps a little biased towards certain viewpoints. As you are editing this article, please keep Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view in mind. The goal should be to provide an encyclopedic account of this organization. It is certainly appropriate to create a section called 'Controversies and to explain the reference-supported issues folks have with this organization. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Operation Day's Work. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20091212045312/http://dropod.dk/ to http://www.dropod.dk/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I'm supporting a point brought up by User:Pdcook from 2009. It seems no action was taken on this article, despite the long period of time that has followed.

A particularly biased claim is:

The project has been criticised as having excessive administrative costs, a poor choice of collaborators, the support of controversial politicians and the support of organizations connected to terrorism.

While Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it can be appropriate to include controversies or criticism, as long as they are both notable and public expressions. But this is when neutral POV becomes particularly important. While the article previously stated that Operation Day's Work "[supports] organizations connected to terrorism", it is far more appropriate to say that "some claim that Operation Day's Work has supported organizations connected to terrorism." I make two cases for removing the content entirely:

1. Operation Day's Work simply does not provide support for "terrorist" organizations.
   1. The source cited for this claim says the following (translated from Danish): {{quote |text=One of ODs cooperation partners, International Forum... is a member of "Boycott Israel" and of all the liberation organizations in Israel [sic], the International Forum is proudly supports "PFLP". The connection between Operation Day's Work and "terrorist" organizations is tenuous at best, and leans conspiratorial.
   2. Operation Day's Work is a UN program. The alleged associations include organizations that have been identified by the UN itself as "terrorist" organizations. This lends more credence to the conspiratorial nature of the original claim.
   3. The definition of terrorism is extremely subjective and there is no international standard, often leading to biased and controversial designations of individuals and groups. See: definitions of terrorism
2. The source is extremely biased and likely subject to notability concerns
   1. The citation redirects to the home page of Young Conservatives (Denmark), the youth party of a centre-right Danish party.
   2. To this editor's knowledge, there are no other reliable sources that corroborate the claims made in this source
   3. The terrorism support claim appears in an obscure section of an archived website dedicated to opposition to Operation Day's Work. The splash page includes sensationalist imagery of communist symbols, clearly in an effort to stoke anti-communist sentiments. The accusation of terrorism support is very serious, yet it appears almost as a footnote and is never even mentioned in the summary of the campaign. This suggests that the claim is merely a rhetorical prop rather than a serious accusation.

I encourage those who want to restore this content to do so as suggested by User:Pdcook: by creating a new section for controversies, and rewriting the text with a neutral POV and providing reliable sources.

AndersLeo (talk) 12:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)