Talk:Cairo Anti-war Conference
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
|
|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] More links
More stuff I haven't had time to go through yet Isam on-line discusion of up coming conference Right wing anaysis of the conference --JK the unwise 18:42, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alternative image
This is a nicer image. It is of John Rees speaking at the conference. However I think its a bit cheaky to start an article on an egyption conference with a picture of a brit. A bit Eurocentric? should it be used instead?--JK the unwise 10:58, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Move
You certainly don't get paid by the word in page names. Can't we think of something shorter? My suggestion is Cairo Anti-war Conference. Dragons flight 16:03, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are probally correct, it is generally referd to as just plain old Cairo conference, or as Cairo anti-war conference. I think Cairo Conference (against U.S. hegemony and war on Iraq and in solidarity with Palestine) is the offical name though, does that matter?--JK the unwise 17:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- No, it doesn't matter. Wikipedia policy is to use common names as titles rather than official names (which can often be arcane). Incidentally plain old Cairo Conference is already taken by the arguably more important WWII conference. Dragons flight 17:48, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- Moved.--JK the unwise 17:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
-
[edit] Criticism - POV
"The confernece has been critised by some right-wing groups who are generally hostile to the anti-war movment."
That is how the section starts out. This seems to imply that only right-wingers are opposed to the ideas of this conference. The fact that it is against neo-liberalism in general leads me to believe the criticism is much more wide. Right-wingers may be the most vehemently opposed but can we discuss this better? If you are going to keep that sentence and remove the POV tag then please provide a very good source that states that very few Western neo-liberals who are also social liberals or whatnot have criticized the group. It may be safe to say that right-wingers offer the most vocal opposition. gren グレン ? 08:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I see what you are saying and i do not doubt that many Social Democats would also be against the conference. However, most commentators have just ignored the conference so in that sence that have not made critisms of it, they haven't said anything about it. The section pargh is supposed to clearly be critisim that is not from a right wing point of view I'm not sure this is clear enough though. I haven't read any commentators who have made the effort to critise the events anti-capitalist politics. If you know of any other sources of discusion of the conference particuly critising its anti-neo-liberalism, they would be welcome.--JK the unwise 09:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
