Talk:Avaaz

message: Apart from single issues such as the Middle East conflict, what is their overall political stance? Do they have one? Judging from the website, they seem to be even less defined politically than Attac.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.2.166 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Politics? 

message: The last campaign on the page is "petition against the mythification of Canada's healthcare system". Realy? Where? I see no mention of it anywhere...--Rivyolie (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian healthcare... 

message: The article says Res Publica is an American community, but the link is to something called "a British public policy think tank".93.106.166.107 (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed, thanks. Res Publica (US) doesn't have an article yet though. Rd232 talk 14:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wrong ResPublica? 

message: I think that the change is correct to reflect the current member count of Avaaz.org being of: 13,999,629 members. --Christian Costanzo (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of members modification

message: Do you think it's notible that Avaaz is currently under a large scale cyber attack?  Here are some resources.
http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/human-rights-body-avaaz-under-massive-cyber-attack-76217
http://www.information-age.com/channels/security-and-continuity/news/2101818/soca-and-avaaz-websites-under-attack.thtml
90.201.213.238 (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cyber attack on Avaaz

message: Any particular reason why this is in the related links considering there's nothing remotely referencing it within the article itself? Unless I missed it, but I was pretty sure I'd read it fairly thoroughly. Almost sounds like a bit of trolling, unless it and Activism 2.0 are meant to be "compare to" or such.--68.6.182.39 (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As the article is, it seems unsourced, but there has been criticism of Avaaz for slacktivism. See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/20/avaaz-activism-slactivism-clicktivism%7C  85.138.128.15 (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Slacktivism?

message: Quoting from http://torrentfreak.com/is-the-peter-sunde-petition-offensive-inflammatory-or-objectionable-120716/
: This weekend Avaaz sent out an eyebrow-raising email to its members which questioned whether the Sunde poll should be alowed on the site. “We’re a democratic community of more than 14 million people, and will only support petitions that our community agrees are not offensive, inflammatory or otherwise objectionable,” Alex from Avaaz wrote. He then directed Avaaz users to pick one of three options for a private poll. (1) I support Avaaz providing people the opportunity to sign this petition (2) I think Avaaz should remove this petition (3) I’m not sure. This intervention puts Avaaz on tricky territory. Just a cursory glance around their site reveals a quagmire of petitions on massively controversial issues which by their very nature polarize people according to who sets to benefit from either side of a dispute.  
What's up with that?  How best to cover it in the WP article? Arided (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A 18 July update is now on the article. It seems standard practice for every petition. 85.138.128.15 (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current events: Pirate Bay 

message: When I saw this wiki article, I was genuinely surprised that Avaaz seems to be a legit operation. A few weeks ago, me and many other people from my university started getting emails from Avaaz, asking to sign for this or that petition that I've never heard of or cared for. On the internet it is frequently advised to NOT click the unsubscribe link in the email as this will simply add a "verified" flag to the email, resulting in even more spam. I still maintain that Avaaz is questionable in their practices to procure as many clicks as possible, this has little to do with "activism" anymore. To me, this is just spam, nothing else.84.113.45.91 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sept 2014: intense email spam 

message: I am removing some content from this article. Whoever put the content here has misunderstood what Wikipedia is; I am not criticizing either Avaaz or the quality of the content I removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias summarize what other sources have said on a particular topic but do not themselves publish original thought. Encyclopedias also typically do not publish primary sources, but rather publish secondary sources presenting conclusions drawn from someone's review of the primary data.
*I removed the campaign section. It was mostly backed by Avaaz's own self-published discussions of itself.
*I removed the map of members. This map was derived from self-published WP:PRIMARY data, so is outside the scope of what Wikipedia covers.
 Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed content 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Avaaz which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.avaaz.org/en/about.php
*:Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/start_a_petition/
*:Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_The_Maui_Dolphin/
*:Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.avaaz.org/en/petition/Save_100_friends_trapped_in_Bahrain/
*:Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.avaaz.org/en/
*:Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I just cleaned this - I think it is better now.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Avaaz]] 

message: Cyberbot II has detected links on Avaaz which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global
If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.avaaz.org/en/
*:Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
*http://www.avaaz.org/en/about.php
*:Triggered by \bavaaz\.org\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on [[Avaaz]] 

message: I think it's worth pointing out that Avaaz claim anyone who is on their mailing list as a "member". While this presents a very large number of people as the membership, it is a very loose definition and implies support from persons who simply receive emails. "We have 40 million members" sounds a lot more impressive than "there are 40 million email addresses on our mailing list", doesn't it?82.71.30.178 (talk) 10:04, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing this out. I removed the text you referenced. For information to be in Wikipedia it must be backed with a citation to a reliable source.  Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition Of "Membership" 

message: According to Avaaz' "about" page (to which I cannot link because of blacklists), Google Translate and this magazine article, the word "Avaaz" means "voice" or "song" rather than "Change" or "Revolution". I will update this.
--Jonas Wagner (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have referenced this, see § Not in Wiktionary: "neo-lexicon" (and "Avaaz"!). below. PJTraill (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name: Avaaz meaning "voice"? 

message: Avaaz' action to rescue Paul Conroy is mentioned twice in the article. The first version says that 20 activists have died in the process, whereas the second version says 13 activists. Even the site cited for 20 activists actually says 13. I will edit this. --Jonas Wagner (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paul Conroy and the dead Syrian activists 

message: ... Presumably, the USA's military's Joint Chiefs of Staffs; but not all readers of English Wikipedia are Americans, so they would not particlarly subscribe to this assumption.  (I myself figure that it's reasonable for citizens of the USA to call ourselves "Americans," given that we are the only country on Earth that does not have a name only a political, historical, and geographical designation; and everybody else in North, South, and Central America, is in a country that actually has a name.  O, and also that everybody on Earth routinely calls us in the USA "Americans."
(Just sayin'.)
GcT (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  **Whose** Joint Chiefs of Staff? 

message: Their removal was clearly a mistake. I have restored them. This article in the Guardian clearly defines Avaaz as an "Advocacy" group working on human rights issues. petrarchan47คุก 01:23, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration of "Advocacy" and "Human rights organization" category tags 

message: It is pretty clear that Avaaz’s campaigns align with the interests of the North American and European ruling class and the system of global capitalism it manages. Avaaz has called for war on Libya and Syria, assisted Iranian anti-regime protests, advocated for Tibet etc. and basically acts as a propaganda network that normalizes the United States’ imperial foreign policy which, of course, brings violence, chaos and death, in the guise of “human rights”, “democracy”and “humanitarian intervention”  to only those countries that value independence more than becoming an American vassal and subservient to Washington, DC. 
We will never see Avaaz loudly calling for “no fly zones” (i.e. war) in countries allied to the west, no matter terrible their human rights record. Of course the war mongering United States itself and its European junior partners will never be the target of an Avaaz “human rights” campaign. 
But since the crimes of empire and the devious nature of NGOs like Avaaz are not written or talked about in Wikipedia approved reliable [sic] western media outlets (duh) this aspect of our societies remains invisible and makes Wikipedia an incomplete, blatantly biased, and therefore inaccurate, source of information. It also makes Wikipedia part of the problem because it limits acceptable sources to biased pro-establishment media outlets.
It’s part of how propaganda distribution and thought control works in “free” societies. Thanks Jimbo Wales! User2346 (talk) 18:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree. There are at least 6 petitions against Putin hosted on the Avaaz website, one of which is linked to in a post made by the official Avaaz Twitter account, so they’re definitely biased. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avaaz on Wikipedia 

message: I note that the article contains the following:
: The name chosen for the community is a Sanskrit transliteration meaning "voice" and it has since been incorporated in various neo-lexicons of classical Indo-Aryan lexicons. 
but the term "neo-lexicon", is neither in Wiktionary nor in my passive vocabulary, nor can I even find much in a (Duck Duck Go) web search. If the person who inserted it (or someone who is familiar with this as a technical term in some context) sees this, perhaps they can replace it with something simpler, otherwise we need to think what can be said and needs to be said here. I also think that we should have a source for this statement about the meaning of the word; perhaps I can chase it up some time, but probably not in the near future. Ideally we would give the Sanskrit term (assuming it exists) in Devanagari and it would be in Wiktionary, as would "Avaaz", but at the moment the word "Avaaz" (or "avaaz") is not even to be found with a Wiktionary search, let alone as an article. (See also #Name:_Avaaz_meaning_%22voice%22? above.) PJTraill (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just added references to Wiktionary and a lexicon and suppressed the above remark about lexica and neo-lexica, which now seems superfluous as well as obscure. I wanted to add the reference to their About us page, but that was blacklisted, so I have commented it out. PJTraill (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not in Wiktionary: "neo-lexicon" (and "Avaaz"!).