Jump to content

Talk:Magen David Adom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 1812ahill (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 25 October 2009 (→‎Criticisms (Ethiopian Jewish blood donation): Addition to criticism confusion.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconIsrael Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Project Israel To Do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Update

The ICRC and the MDA have made huge strides over the past couple of years towards achieving mutual recognition. Article should reflect this.

Also while the use of the MD was refused by the ICRC they also refused applications by India and the USSR to use different symbols.


Shouldn't the MDA page have a graphic showing the logo like the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement page has?

--Micahbrwn 02:33, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[]

Emblem added --Yoz 16:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[]


New emblem :
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1383949

some actual info about them?

While this article's fine for the emblem issue, it really doesn't tell us much about what Magen David Adom do. Are they different to other local red cross organisations in any other ways?

I'm one of (probably?) many concerned would-be donors - I know I'm probably reading too much into what is just a name and a symbol, but before I donate I want to be sure that there's absolutely no discrimination in Magen David Adom's work. Could someone in the know please confirm (or otherwise?) that Magen David Adom do work based on need and regardless of race and religion, both officially and in practice? Thanks.

Megen David Adom, in my understanding, has a much better record of treating all patients in need of help regardless or race or religion then that of the general International Red Cross/Red Crescent society (which refused to make any protest of the Holocaust during WWII.) Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[]

I volunteer in MDA. there is little discrimination if at all, any discrimination in the organazation is based on a personal basis. Infact MDA organizes camps for jewish and palestinian kids as you can see in the organizations webpage [www.http://www.mdais.com/Projects/] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piglet128 (talkcontribs) 08:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[]

conflicting articles

also this conflicts with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICRC.

what to do?

No need for romboid, jews shall use the lion.

The jewish should have re-used the shah's lion. The iranian shahdom was the favourite ally of Israel. "Levi" (meaning lion) is one of the most common jewish male names. There is no need for a new symbol, just recycle the lion!

That is an opinion only, and therefore shouldn't even be part of this article. Mattrix18 18:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I can only assume that is a joke. Luis Dantas 10:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[]
This is a total disconsideration of Jewish religious and national feelings. Levi, in hebrew does mean lion, but also means "a worker of the Grand Temple". Alos the use of animals and humans in religious emblems is strictly forbidden in the Torah (A part of the old testement which is holy to jewish people).
Lavi means lion, but it is spelled differently than the name of the tribe, son of Jacob, and the given name.
The Lion of Judah symbol is forbidden by Torah? Surprising.
But this should be discussed there, or the above opinion about the rhomboid in Talk:Star of David.
--Ikar.us 11:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[]

Israeli attack on ambulance in Lebanon

I have removed a text at the bottom of the article that said "On July 23th 2006 Isreal aircraft attaked two Red cross Ambulances in Lebanon wounding 5 volunteers and 3 patients near the city of Tyre.", as I see no relevance about this attack and the MDA. --Henrik Gammelgaard 23:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Since the rest of the article has sections showing the overall relationship between Israel and the ICRC and this was directly about Israel attacking ICRC Ambulances surely this is relevant. If we're going to show context then lets show all of it - to do motherwise is just POV. 82.14.68.109 04:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]

Wouldn't it be better to place this information in the article 2006_Israel-Lebanon_conflict? As I understand this article, it is about the MDA and the relationship it has with the ICRC and not about any attacks that the IDF has made on ambulances in Lebanon. --Henrik Gammelgaard 23:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[]
This is not a page about current events, (one that all the facts arnt even known yet) If the events lead to something signifcantly effecting the Magen David Adom then it will belong here. Otherwise its importance its based on conjecture. Removing (Madrone 04:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC))[]
The facts are known (and sourced) - if the article is going to have whole paragraphs about the involvement of Israel with the ICRC then this should be there. 82.27.227.50 19:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
The page is about MDA and MDA involvement with the ICRC; it is not about the State of Israels involvement with the ICRC, as I understand it. --Henrik Gammelgaard 23:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
I agree. Furthermore, as far as I understand it, the ambulances which were attacked were from the Lebanese Red Cross society, not the ICRC. --Uwe 23:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[]
Removed again, Not relevant to article, (Madrone 03:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC))[]
I am per Madrone Rudy Breteler (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[]

Militants vs Terrorists: caption

Could we settle this? There's been an edit war going on about what the caption on the third image should say: "Armored Mobile Intensive Care Unit from the Jerusalem district. These units play a crucial role in emergencies where responding EMS crews may be targeted by militant/terrorist forces."

I vote to change it to terrorist, since it's not saying "targeted by Hamas terrorist forces", but terrorists in general. The point of the vehicules are to help civilians in acts of terrorism, not all general militantism (sp?). 207.245.44.227 19:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[]

I vote to use the word militant in accordance with common usage throughout the rest of WP and the NPOV policy 83.245.26.27 14:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[]

An intentional attack on protected persons, which national aid is defined as in the Geneva Conventions, is uncontroversially terrorist in the same way that a suicide bombing is. We are not, as the above user points out, labelling any group as terrorist, which would indeed need more careful wording and qualification. TewfikTalk 02:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[]

No - we use "militant" throughour since "terrorist" is an NPOV term. See eg zionist terrorism 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.245.30.34 (talk)

Ethiopian Jewish blood donation

Shouldn't the controversial destruction of donated Ethiopian Jewish blood be mentioned in the article? It was a huge news item at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.171.242 (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[]

volunteer

The fact is that MDA is bassed on volunteers, i think there should be a section devoted for this because this fact is only briefly mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piglet128 (talkcontribs) 08:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[]

Criticisms (Ethiopian Jewish blood donation)

Ethiopian Jewish blood donation has been dealt with under new section: Criticisms. --BhainsRajput (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[]

This section seems woefully inadequate. At no point does it explain why the blood was destroyed, I presume the reason for this was risk of blood born diseases common to more tropical areas? A balanced look at what happened should include the reason why. --129.11.12.201 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[]
I agree. I don't have the faintest idea what the 'Criticism' section is saying. I suspected the above user's explanation might be the reason, but, what has that got to do with the rest of the section about living in France or Ireland for 10 years. Why not other countries, and why in general? Can anyone shed any light on this, as the reference is also singularly unhelpful.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the year 1977, together with the regions mentioned (Central Africa, South East Asia), relates this issue to the emergence of AIDS in the world, but then why does living in Britain for 6 months, but France for 10 years(!) make a difference. I presume the list of countries is not complete(?), and/or the dates are wrong. It also states that the donors can choose to have their blood marked - surely this must be wrong, as why would a donor donate only to choose to say 'I think my blood is dodgy'! The correct statement must surely be that the blood is legally required to be marked and a user of the blood can choose to refuse it, n'est ce pas?1812ahill (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[]

Uniform for doctors

"Doctors are often not wearing the uniform, which immediately identifies them to the Magen David Adom personnel on the field."