Talk:Antiwar.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics Portal
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.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-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.)
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2005-06-22. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Names

I don't want to junk the page up with a bunch of extra names, but how exactly should we determine which personnel to mention and which to omit? Are we looking for noteworthiness or for those who do the most work at the site? It seems like Scott Horton might be a noteworthy addition considering he's also the host of a comparatively popular talk radio show. - anon

Well, with regard to the staff of antiwar.com, I think we should try to get some sense of how important a role each person plays in producing the site. Obviously, Raimondo and Garris are key figures; in addition, I have the impression that Matt Barganier has an important role as editor, and, from what I remember about the newspaper profile on antiwar.com a few years ago, the executive director, Alexia Gilmore, is important, too (as is her husband). Sapienza is maybe kind of a stretch, but, what the heck, he has a Wikipedia article and he is listed third on the AWC masthead. I think adding anyone else would be too much clutter. As far as columnists are concerned, we should definitely go by how notable they are as people. I think the current list is pretty good, although Nebojsa Malic seems pretty obscure apart from his antiwar.com column. - Nat Krause 13:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So, Coolcat

This page was created almost half a year ago, and contain what I, for one, consider to be useful information. So Coolcat, if you want the page to be deleted, please add it to the vote for deletion instead. Stereotek 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat vandalized the pages that link here, in addition to his bogus VFD. I "speedy un-VFD'ed" it. Mirror Vax 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] .com

RFC 1591 says of .com that "This domain is intended for commercial entities". The proper domain under the categorization system of top level domains for noncommercial organizations is .org. This organization's use of a .com address makes no logical sense. *Dan T.* 14:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

.com is used for all purposes and is generally preferred to other domains. It hasn't really meant "commercial" since the early '90s. Mirror Vax 14:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
.com is abused for many purposes by ignorant people, and the marketroids who pander to them, and many Internet users seem to lack the ability to get an address correct if it's anything else; see, for instance, Coolcat's VfD on this article where he mistakenly refers to this site as wikipedia.com (it's actually wikipedia.org). It's part of the general dumbing down of the Internet. See my Domain Hall of Shame. *Dan T.* 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
The people who register .com domains are not ignorant. One domain is as good as another from a technical point of view, but .com is the most popular, and hence the one people are used to typing. In other words, if you make the mistake of registering a non-.com domain, a certain percentage of email and web traffic intended for you will be misdirected. dan.info is a pretty name, but do you want dan.com reading your email? .com has long ceased to mean "commercial"; it is the all-purpose generic domain. There is no benefit to registering non-.com domains, except to the people who profit from selling domain names and the trademark lawyers who police the domains (somebody registered cocacola.xxx? Call the lawyers!) Mirror Vax 17:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Tell that to Wikipedia management, which properly switched the site from a .com to a .org when it went nonprofit. *Dan T.* 19:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
wikipedia.com is still registered to Jimbo, and still goes here. Do you think Jimbo would be happy to relinquish wikipedia.com? Not a chance. Mirror Vax 01:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
A lot of the high-profile sites related to Hurricane Katrina, and often mentioned on TV and in other Web sites (and Wikipedia entries), are non-dot-coms too... there's redcross.org, fema.gov, noaa.gov... and the craigslist.org site (which uses logical subdomains for local-city editions) was a frequently-used resource by evacuees trying to locate one another. (I haven't checked whether the .com versions of all of these go to the same place.) *Dan T.* 02:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
As it happens, in 100% of the cases you cited the corresponding .com name is also registered, and except for redcross.com, active and working. I was actually a bit surprised that the two .govs you mentioned had corresponding .coms. Mirror Vax 08:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
And as an interesting aside, Slashdot, a commercial website owned by a corporation, has "slashdot.org". These aren't hard and fast rules, and a lot of people appear not to be following them anyhow, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

[edit] neoconservatives ... since the site's inception,

Is this actually true? I'm certain the site was talking about this group before others, but does it actually go back to the sites inception? I could be mistaken, but I don't remember any mention of them while the bombs were falling on Serbia... Arker 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

They weren't mentioned as much because they weren't in power at the time. Justin mentions neo-conservatives in his books years before the site's founding, so I would assume he mentioned them offhand somewhere along the line.

[edit] Protest addition labeled "POV" and request it be restored

I protest the removal of the material I added, pointing out that Antiwar.com carries a significant amount of news content as opposed to opinion. Frankly, I'm surprised someone thought this needed removing; if anything, I think what I put in is anything but "POV" and in fact shows that Antiwar.com is less POV than might be thought at first glance, since a lot of the content comes from the world press (much of it mainstream). Please look at what I put in and see what you think. --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the source for your material? It appears to be your personal opinion. If you can find a notable source which says that they this site carries more news than other news sites, then I have no objection to it. But otherwise it is just an unsourced POV and original research. -Willmcw 21:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Yes, this is "original research", and I thought it would be fairly self-evident to anyone who observes Web sites of this ilk. I do happen to read Antiwar.com regularly, so I can attest to the characterization I made in the article. As to comparisons with other sites, well, anyone can do these as well; having perused a fair number of similar sites (say, the Huffington Post, Z Magazine, Commondreams, etc.), I can attest that Antiwar.com has a much higher ratio of news to opinion. That, really, was all I was trying to convey in what I wrote. I can only say that any reasonable person reading this and other sites would probably agree; I don't think exhaustively documented research, replete with footnotes, is required here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see the applicable policy: Wikipedia:no original research. For our purposes, "self-evident" is limited to only the simplest matters, like the fact the Antiwar.com is a website. Whether it has more mainstream news links than other "news" sites is not self-evident and since "mainstream" is a debatable concept it never could be. Personal attestations by editors are not allowable sources for any facts or opinions in this project. However, if you find a quote from somebody notable then we can use that. Such as, "According to Famous Pundit, it is a better news source than Biasednews.com". -Willmcw 22:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
This still seems like something that could be repaired. The fact is that Antiwar.com runs a lot of non-opinion links, there are people on staff who work exclusively on that. if we removed a comparison to other sites, most of the deleted content could probably return without any problem. On any given day, the vast majority of the links on the Antiwar.com frontpage will ne news links from around the world.

==Here is a reliable article about Antiwar.com. The original article is as missleading as the site itself.

Antiwar.com From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Part of a series on Anti-War topics

Opposition to...

Iraq War War on Terrorism Afghanistan War Vietnam War War of 1812 American Civil War Second Boer War

Agents of opposition

Anti-war organizations Conscientious objector Draft dodger Peace movement Peace churches

Related ideologies

Antimilitarism Anti-imperialism Appeasement Pacifism

Media

Books Films Protest songs

Politics Portal This box: view • talk • edit

[edit] Here is a non partisan article about Antiwar.com

Antiwar.com is an English-language website containing news and opinion pieces related predominantly to wars in which the USA and Israel are involved from a point of view of ideological and political red-green-brown alliance of anti-democratic and anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, paleoconservative Old Right, Islamists and far Left. The site was founded in December of 1995. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation, operating under the auspices of the Randolph Bourne Institute, based in Atherton, California. The language of publications is shrill, openly demagogic; the site provides very little factual information but is a full of conspiracy theories, like accusations that'Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11. While site claims anti-war position, in fact it is openly supportive of Islamic terrorism against the USA and Israel. The site made an enormous effort to became noticeable by the mainstream left (liberal) media which opposes to so called "neo-conservative" policies of president George W. Bush. Among historical figures of the past, the main targets of the site are American presidents who fought against racism, Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan/Fascist Italy or Communist Stalin's totalitarianism; Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and American ally Winston Churchill. Antiwar.com accuses them in "conspiring" to initiate the wars against their opponents. After initial attention to the site, the left wing media began to ignore it. Because its want of credibility, Antiwar.com is not cited by the leading mainstream left and conservative blogs. At present Antiwar.com is failed into obscurity.

Personnel include self proclaimed libertarian of neo-Fascist bent Justin Raimondo (founder and editorial director), Eric Garris (founder and webmaster), Matt Barganier (editor), Jeremy Sapienza (assistant webmaster and senior editor),and Alexia Gilmore (executive director). Authors include Raimondo, Ivan Eland, Praful Bidwai, Ran HaCohen, Nebojsa Malic, Alan Bock, Charles V. Peña, Bevin Chu,Joseph Stromberg, Randall (Ismail) Royer, a former employee of the Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR now doing a 20-year federal sentence for Islamist terrorist activities, rightist has beens Paul Craig Roberts and Pat Buchanan, unreformed Stalinist Alexander Cockburn. With exception of Buchanan, no one of site authors is known outside of small circle of peculiar fringe to which any of them belonged.

OK, easily the stupidest thing I've seen.

[edit] 75.2.245.222 NPOV spammer

75.2.245.222 has continued to post the same uncited points of contention. Not only are they not cited by any kind of source, but they glaringly violate the Terms required of NPOV. Just because you do not like someone or a position held by an organization, does not mean that you can disparage them. Follow the terms, cite sources and stick to NPOV.

- User:Tejano 23:42 06 August 2006 (UTC)

(External links)

E.G. W. 4 August 2004

Fine. Just leave this here on the discussion page and everyone will be happy. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for vigilance against article corruption

Someone (specifically, an anon user who has posted under at least the following IPs: 75.2.245.222 and 75.3.51.234, and no doubt others) has been trying to corrupt the article (see the bullshit he's repeatedly attempted to add above). Please be on the lookout and get rid of this crap if you see it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay, somebody finally added my name... maybe I'll eventually get my own article :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.36.251 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 August 2006.

[edit] Relevance?

I see there was a previous vote on deletion of this article, which was high in favor of "keep". However, why hasn't any editor included NPOV, sourced and verifiable information in this article which clearly demonstrate why this website is notable enough for an article. The writing may be fabulous and provocative, but where are the traffic statistics, the outside references to it from other prominent outlets, news coverage, etc? To read this article on its own, I wonder why this website is important. Does it have a national audience? Is it more a Bay-area thing? Is anything published anywhere in a completely independent, verifiable and reliable source that covers this information?NYDCSP 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


Someone should provide those things. Wish I had the time. I know the stats are favorable to antiwar.com, though. Look here, for example: [1]. Antiwar.com beat out the Nation, Reason, the New Yorker, Mother Jones, the Heritage Foundation, etc. They are not local at all, but are apparently popular not just among paleo-conservatives or even libertarians, but even liberals, since after all, the news links are what it's all about and they are excellent and frequently revised, and their being useful wouldn't depend on one's ideology. So anyway, their traffic is huge. 68.223.6.109 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be true - but doesn't that have to be verified and sourced in the article to prove the relevance of this article's subject? Why hasn't that question by NYDCSP been addressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.69.127 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)