Nice map, very helpful. Quick correction though: I think Russia should be blue. Putin did express concerns over violence and hope for restraint, but he also backed Israel's right to defend itself. http://collive.com/show_news.rtx?id=31099&alias=president-putin-i-support-israel 2607:F470:12:A:7482:26CA:D081:61F4 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the questionable reliability of this source, who did Russia condemn? The light green color is for countries that condemned neither or both sides (see the legend). Fitzcarmalan (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite understand your reply. I agree with you that the source is not great, though it is on the main wiki page. It's hard to find much Russian-Jewish news in the mainstream Russian papers. Many sources report that the meeting happened, but not much about what was said. Anyway, if you accept the source, then doesn't "“I support Israel’s battle that is intended to keep its citizens protected,” he said about the Israel Defense Forces’ operation to restore quiet to the region and stop Hamas terrorism." match with "countries that support Israel's stance and condemned Hamas rocket attacks are shown in blue"? Definitely let me know where I'm wrong here if you disagree. 2607:F470:12:A:7482:26CA:D081:61F4 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The he said about the Israel Defense Forces’ operation to restore quiet to the region and stop Hamas terrorism part was an addition by the article's writer. The quotes are what matters and none of them mention Hamas. To say that "I support Israel’s battle that is intended to keep its citizens protected" equals "condemning Hamas" without a source is original research and should be avoided. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So just so I'm clear, your map depends primarily on condemnation rather than support? If Fredonia's president says "we support Hamas's righteous struggle in Gaza" but doesn't explicitly condemn Israel then they should be green and not red, right? I'm guessing that's also why Bosnia isn't blue despite what it says here http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikifreehand.com/en/Reactions_to_Operation_Protective_Edge ? If so, maybe we should revise colors to show condemnation or support? For example, Japan technically only "condemned" Hamas while they only expressed "deep concern" about Israeli airstrikes, but I agree that they should be green.

Also, can you please source why Libya, South Sudan, South Africa are red? The Wiki page has no information about Libya and S. Sudan. S. Africa seems to be condemning violence on both sides. Re: Chile although the headline says Chile condemned Israel, the actual quotations do not do so. 2607:F470:12:A:7482:26CA:D081:61F4 (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes. I've uncoloured Libya, S. Sudan and Yemen. International reactions are often unclear. Some countries (like Japan) condemn one side but shows concern about the actions of the other, amounting to a neutral reaction in general. I will broaden the scope of the light green color to include "Countries that condemned and/or expressed concern about the actions of neither/both sides", the red color to include "Countries that condemned and/or expressed concern about Israel's actions" and the blue color to include "Countries that support Israel's stance and/or condemned Hamas rocket attacks", otherwise we would have many colors in the legend which might confuse some of our readers. Bosnia's case is unique because there are two different official reactions: the leader of Republika Srpska supported Israel and condemned Hamas rocket attacks, while Bakir Izetbegović called for an end to hostilities but also warned that the world was "becoming used to violence perpetrated by Israel". I wanted suggestions by other Wikipedians before doing anything about this one in particular. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 19:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly wasn't criticizing making Japan green, just pointing out that just limiting to "condemned" might be too narrow. I think the change you made is a positive one.

1. I see what you mean about Bosnia. Would it be possible to make it striped blue and green? That might be the easiest thing. Otherwise can the map be colored to make RS Blue and B&H green?

2. Russia's support for Israel is also mentioned by Arutz Sheva which has a Wiki page and seems to be legit. Since there doesn't seem to be much else about Putin's stance (other than that he hopes for a ceasefire), and since the statement of Putin's support is on the wiki page, maybe you should make it blue to match and let let Cunningham's Law sort it out?

3. In light of this recent development and the ceasefire attempts Egypt should maybe be green now?

4. Question: which source were you relying on for S. Africa, BTW? I can't get a clear picture there. If I understand correctly, the ANC party did condemn Israel but the official government position has been "concern on both sides," so maybe they should be green as well? Thanks for keeping this updated! Must not be easy. 2607:F470:12:A:BD77:4B46:5D13:F57C (talk) 14:44, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I've shaded Egypt and South Africa in green and created a special color (yellow) for Bosnia and Herzegovina or any other UN member state that has more than one government with opposite reactions. The same can go for Georgia if Abkhazia and South Ossetia react differently to the conflict.

Russia requires more discussion because the Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the Israeli "use of unnecessary force against the Palestinian citizens". Putin also spoke with Hassan Rouhani by phone agreeing on the need for a swift end to the conflict in Gaza and renewed peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. I think Russia's stance is overall neutral on this. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Argentina should be red: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1711600-conflicto-en-gaza-el-gobierno-condeno-el-uso-desproporcionado-y-excesivo-de-la-fuerza-militar-por-parte-de-israel.

 Done - Your claim looks legit, but if it isn't please correct me (I don't know Spanish) and please update the article while you can. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• MEXICO: The image needs to be fixed. As shown by the sources provided, Mexico condemns the actions of both Israel and Palestine. Thank you and sorry for the inconvenience. 187.195.253.101 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, that third source seems to be pretty much against Israel.--ɱ (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Re your comment on July 20, I agree completely about Russia. And thanks for updating Egypt and S. Africa. Yellow works for Bosnia, but I would not do the same for Georgia's breakaway republics because they are not internationally recognized in the same way Bosnia's constituents are. I'm sure you wouldn't make Australia Yellow if the Principality of Hutt River took a different position :). But that can be debated if it comes up. 2607:F470:12:A:189D:1013:2F24:84CA (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if the proper benchmark for red-colour reactions should have more to do with qualifying Protective Edge as using "disproportionate force" in reaction to the rocket attacks, whether or not the rocket attacks are also condemned (basically no chancellery in the world will condone rocket attacks, but many countries, such as Egypt and South Africa, condemned the Israeli military operation much more severely—showing these in green seems like equivocation, to say the least). Or, to put it another way, if blue represents countries that "support Israel's stance," then red should simply be countries that "criticize Israel's stance" (disproportionate force probably being the most common criticism anyway). Albrecht (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's good as it is. The nuance of which way countries are leaning or which side they think is worse is probably best left for the detailed info in the main list on the reactions wiki article. For example Japan fairly strenuously condemned Hamas's use of terrorism but expressed "concerns" about Israel's actions and urged restraint. While that statement may "lean" blue (especially in light of Japan's good relations with Israel), I think the most salient factor is that they haven't picked a single side to support. The Philippines' reaction could be interpreted similarly. And in fact many of the "disproportionate response" replies could even be seen as recognizing Hamas as the aggressor. All that gets too messy for a map, so I think Fitzcarmalan has it right: show clear support for one side or show general neutrality. 2607:F470:12:A:189D:1013:2F24:84CA (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Venezuela should be in greenGuyb123321 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC) So should Uruguay Guyb123321 (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC) And Saudi Arabia, it seems quite a lot of the "red countries" are actually "green" Guyb123321 (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Ireland should be red, not green Guyb123321 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Just look above at all the editors saying "ahh, abc country should be xyz color". This should be the poster child for original research. I know folks mean well, but please do not add this to ANY article unless serious consensus says to. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

If green means condemned neither/both sides... what does grey mean? (06:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.253.144.1 (talk)