Talk:The Left and war

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] NPOV

The sections on the Post-September 11th anti-war movments are not writtern from a neutral point of view. They make out that the anti-war movments were made up by an unholly allianace between left-wing groups and fundementalist Muslims. This is redressed in Some paragrapths that try to tip the ballance the other way, but it generally comes across as a mess.

Spesific issules:

  • The modern US anti war movemt is carecterised as being "primarily (but not exclusively) leftist U.S. anti-war movement in the 21st century" which is POV also it contradics the stuff about Muslims also in the article.
  • The claim that the coalitions involved "Arabs and Muslims, including, but by no means limited to, Islamists"
  • The painting of ANSWER and NION as fronts for revolutionary groups.
  • The confusing and incorrect use of the Palestine issule (which has been seen as an important left for a long time) to try to show that the left has let hard line islamic extremists control the anti-war movment.

--JK the unwise 11:59, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

These sections have since been removed so these complaints are now longer live.--JK the unwise 12:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voice etc.

The entire article seemingly jumps between "the Left" and "leftists." i.e."many leftists have happily worked with Arab or Muslim groups in opposition to U.S. imperialism or the Israeli occupation of Palestine, alliances between leftists and Islamists are relatively unusual and recent, since leftist politics of civil libertarianism and secularism jar with hard-line Islamism."

Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all. This whole article is such a mess it ought to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.21.255.203 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2005.

I agree there are problems with it. I plan to sort it out when I have some time. If you feel very strongly that it can not be saved why not nominate it for delition? Alternatively to could help edit it towards nutrality--JK the unwise 20:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
It feels so horribly broken to me, as well. I don't know where to start. Perhaps I will make a run through cutting the POV stuff out deep and then we can all take a stab at fixing it. Deal? --AStanhope 07:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a plane to me. You might allso like to take a look at the ummery of this page that exists at Left-wing politics#The Left and Opposition to War--JK the unwise 12:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
I made a few small changes just to make it not so glaringly biased, but some major issues still exist. Primarily, I believe that the problems are in the introduction and the author's view of the left. Airline 23:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edits seem to be generlly constructive, though I have made a few minnor ajustments. Please bare in mind that wikipedia is a collective enterprise; there is no one author of the page rather the page has been creted by many authors each of whom has had differnt views. In fact the orgins of this article are from a long POV debate were to authors battled over what to include.

If you could be more spesific in your critisms it would help others to carry out the changes you feel are nessisary. So please state, what is it about the introduction that you feel to be baised and baised towards what point of view? Also what is it that you assume the authors view of 'the left' to be and it what way do you think that it is wrong? If you can spell out your concerns in detail it will make it much easyer for others to work with you in improving this article.--JK the unwise 11:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Viet Nam ancedote

but there was argument within the left over the nature of and the level of support to be given to the Communist Party of Vietnam. I was under the impression that there was very little debate about giving support to the Communists. Can anyone verify this? --Tydaj 20:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] copied sections

those sections were previously in the Left-wing politics article, and so were the notes in the Notes section. I propose the sections (and the notes) to be removed and new sections replacing the current ones. --Revolución (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't quite work out what you are trying to say. It is common wikipedia policy to move stuff in to decendent articles when the parent article get too big. In this case the Left-wing politics article's section on the left and opposition to war was growing too big and swamping the article so it was moved here. This is totaly legit so I find you edit comment "notes copied from other article? sorry, wikipedia's not like that" incomprehencable. At any rate I wrote most of the sectio and I wrote it from those ref's. Wikipedia is devoid of ref's enough as it is why should you want to remove some? (I note you didn't re-introduce them to left-wing politics article.) Anyway if you beleive that the material should stay here why shouldn't the referances????--JK the unwise 15:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical scope

What about the U.S. war in the Phillipines? could somebody research the opposition to that war? --Revolución (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of POV tag

Since Revolución [1] has seen fit to remove all the material on the Afganistain and Irag wars, and since the only NPOV problems that have been reported on this talk page refered to them, I have removed the POV tag. If you still feel the article does not prestent a neutral point of view please describe why bellow before you re-add the tag.--JK the unwise 15:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The introduction to this article is incredibly biased, and full of partisan statements. There is no monolithic "the left". Pro and anti-war beliefs come from all sides for many different reasons. To single out a single group as being particularly notable is meaningless. ManoaChild 11:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
The introduction now does not atribute anything to a monolithic left but rather talks of varrious groups on the Left. Also it explicitly states that anti-war movments have never been exclusivly left-wing but rather just that left wing groups have oftern been particularly invovled in them. The reason it is not meaningless to single out the lefts relationship with anti-war movments is that this page is an elaboration on a page about the left and left-wing groups have been very effected by anti-war movments, for example Bolsevicks were able to harness popular anti-war feeling in Russia (amoungst other important things) to help achive the revolution.--JK the unwise 12:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Are there any more issules? Please note them here before re-adding the tag.--JK the unwise 12:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Afd failed

Per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Left_and_Opposition_to_War. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

There indeed is no consensus either way. But there does seem to be something of a consensus to move this article to The Left and war, or a similar name. Are there any objections to this? Does this need to be taken to requested moves or not? Aecis [[User_talk:Aecis|<sup>praatpaal</sup>]] 21:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Move away, more content will be needed though.--JK the unwise 16:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I've moved it, and reworked the first few paragraphs to reflect the new title, but there is much to be done. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the section of the Left-wing politics politics article, for which this was the main article, from the left and opposition to war to the left and war and pointed the main article tag towards this article. I have changed the content a little bit, but it could do with some more editing to be a fair summary of this article.--JK the unwise 12:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left-wing conciperices

TDC removed:
Anti-war movements are often incorrectly painted as left-wing conspiracies by their pro-war opponants, for example, attempts to portray opposition to the "war on terror" as a left-wing conspiracy are largely groundless.
For NPOV, while I think that the sentece is true, as it stands I am not going to reinstate it as it is unsoursed. If we could find a way to make a similar point using other sourses that would be good.--JK the unwise 11:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Post-September 11 anti-war movement is writtern in a POV editorial orriginal reasearch fasion. I belive that this partly steams from the title which sets the article up to present an editorialised content.

To solve this problem I want to propose merging the content of the article into this page and the following pages Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War, Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, Protests against the 2003 Iraq war and Anti-war and then deleting Post-September 11 anti-war movement.--JK the unwise 13:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup tag

I removed the cleanup tag. The article is looking pretty good to me. But then, I am a lentil-munching, sandal-wearing, Guardian-reading leftie :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afghanistan and Iraq War

I removed this paragraph as being somewhat POV and just plain wrong factually:

"The old political left, hard-line socialists and communists, have no significant presence in modern Western politics (see political compass). Most current Western political parties who hold any degree of power, would be characterised as right wing by early 20th Century standards, and in any case opposition in Europe at least ran across party lines."

In fact, social-democratic and even far-left governments have been sweeping into power throughout Latin America, which last time I checked, was part of "the West". Also, social-democratic politics are far from dead in Europe - there are many politically-important social democratic and post-communist parties throughout Europe that have not gone over to Blair-ite "Third Way" politics, including ruling party of Spain and, until very recently, the ruling party of Germany. The statement that "Most current Western political parties who hold any degree of power, would be characterised as right wing by early 20th Century standards" is patently ridiculous. Peter G Werner 22:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Concur. - Jmabel | Talk 19:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed I agree. INcidentally, a recent poll in France asked people whether the "far left" (ie revolutionary left) "made a useful contribution to politics." OVER SIXTY PERCENT OF THE POPULATION SAID YES!! Naturally this does not mean they are revolutionaries, but it certainly shows that even the revolutionary left is not marginal in every country Johncmullen1960 19:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War Credits?

There are two references to "war credits" in this article, but they have no link or definition. What is a war credit? 193.6.218.9 17:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Usually, extension of the government's borrowing power to pursue a war. Judging by the context, that is exactly what it means here. - Jmabel | Talk 07:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] introduction

the introduction is not serious enough work and needs rewriting.Johncmullen1960 18:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I also changed the poece on the zimmerwald conference. There were about thirty people there I think, so it's bizarre to stay "they failed to stop the war" - they never believed for one moment that their conference could stop the war. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johncmullen1960 (talk • contribs) 11 October 2006.

[edit] Big L/little l

Article needs to be consistent in talking about the left or the Left. I prefer the former as it is not a proper noun. BobFromBrockley 16:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Left_and_war_48e8.html"