Talk:Campus Antiwar Network
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. See comments | |
Contents |
[edit] Historiographical Problems
To the massive editor: It is unfortunate that you dichotomize the discussion about CAN's independence into an external-critic vs. internal consensus discussion. As I know you were at the most recent conference, it is impossible that you didn't observe the fact that there is no internal consensus about such things as political independence, strategy, and action orientation.
In "Criticism of CAN" you write... "...criticized by *other* members of the antiwar movement." What of self-criticism?
"CAN activists respond, in turn, that they are striking an appropriate balance..." Which CAN activists are you talking about? Is this a quote, "appropriate balance"?? CAN does not speak with one voice.
In "Relationship with the ISO"...
You make it sound as if there aren't CAN members critical of ISO involvement. This criticism does and always has existed at all levels of the network, including among prominent elected representatives on the coordinating committee.
"CAN defenders reply..." Another ridiculous dichotomy. Where do member-critics fit in here? Clearly you are not among this group, that doesn't give you the right to distort CAN's history in your limited vision.
That's enough for today. I hope you correct these mistakes and reconsider the confidence and finality of this piece.
SamuelDS 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned in my other section on the Talk page, none of these claims are cited in either direction, positive or negative. Wikipedia policy allows no original research, and claims against CAN need to be verified by other sources. It would be within rights to remove the entire criticism section. I merely tried to tame things down so that people on either side would hopefully leave the article itself alone. I've looked around and although of course I can't claim to be perfect in my research, I couldn't find any third party sources that talk about this relationship.
Admiralthrawn 1 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Neither have I been able to. I'm not going to remove the criticism section - though it really should be removed unless someone can find some sources somewhere, by WP:CITE - but I am going to reduce it in length. Kalkin (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Massive Edit Completed
Admiralthrawn 1 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)I've finished my re-edit, so it's up to everyone else now to keep it current, clean, and up to date. Some things I altered as follows:
- moved placement of "structure section" so as to break up the sections with photos and without photos, plus it just fit better under "history" I thought. Added separate sections within it so to be better organized.
- Split apart "criticism section" into the separate criticisms of CAN, and tried to moderate the ISO one. My feelings on that is that the feelings of ISO resentment stem back to earlier in CAN's history. CAN has largely worked to accommodate these feelings more contemporarily, and therefore I believe that the dispute should now be over.
- Resized all the pictures to be uniform.
- Added the missing 2nd National Convention (with photo)
- Added the new 5th "Students Rising" conference (with photo)
- Removed "current activities section" because it changes so fast there's no point in having one, when readers can just visit the website instead.
- Put Points of Unity for each conference in block quotes.
Thanks for putting up with my work!
Admiralthrawn 1 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)I'm undertaking a massive re-editing of the Campus Antiwar Network page on behalf of my college's communication class (as an assignment) and also because I am the webmaster of campusantiwar.net. I understand that my work will be closely watched for factuality, bias, and the like, and will be making sure that my editing is truthful and not based on my own personal perspectives, but by the group as a whole, and the international community's perspective.
I would ask that people refrain from making edits for the next few days as I work. Once I am finished, I will mark it here, and then I leave my work to the online community to do as they see fit.
[edit] Non-cited criticism of CAN
I know that the critics spent some time writing their bit about why CAN is a front group and all that, but I just want to point out that there are no citations anywhere throughout that section. It is within Wikipedia policy to point out that there are no citations anywhere in this. Also, no original research is allowed, which means that I'm going to need to see news articles, reports, listing that CAN members have felt this way. No, that does not mean your blog. Admiralthrawn 1 05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Critical links
If I could find more links to criticism (from left or right) that'd be good. Free Republic is far from ideal. But that's what I turned up on Google...
- DKalkin
- Note: this means criticism of CAN. Not criticism of the ISO in 2001 or at Camp Casey or whatever - criticism of the ISO in CAN maybe. DKalkin
Half of the CAN coordinating committee were members of the ISO when it started (I was at the foundign conference), and that number is likely the same today. There is an interesting split between CAN and the rest of the progressive student activist movement. Pretty much every other major national student activist organization (over a dozen of them) got together and formed the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition (NYSPC) at the same time as CAN was forming. The ISO presence in CAN was likely a large factor in the split. CAN is more grassroots (though it gets a strong sense of direction from having many people with shared politics), whereas NYSPC is more top-down. Both organizations lack any significant funding. -Aaron Kreider-
- For what it's worth, a minority of CAN's coordinating committee is in the ISO. I agree with the assessment that CAN is more grassroots and NYSPC more top-down. I also haven't seen any evidence that NYSPC has had much base on the ground for over a year.
I don't believe the sentence that's been added a couple times here without comment in the discussion, to the effect that old documents show some activist groups in the past were supported by Communist governments, is relevant to CAN. Here are the reasons I consider it irrelevant:
- 1. I have never seen any documentation of this charge being leveled in or against CAN before. Is there a citation that anyone involved with observing, writing about or participating in the anti-war movement has ever believed this?
- 2. The only socialist group that I'm aware of with a presence of any substantial size in CAN is the International Socialist Organization. But the ISO does not identify with any government that calls itself "communist" (unlike the old Communist Party, which actively identified with Stalinist Russia, and Maoist groups that identify with China, or groups identifying with Cuba). This would thus seem a particularly strange criticism.
I believe this is actually a general anti-communist or anti-activist criticism that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about CAN. It is not a criticism of CAN I have ever encountered before. Therefore I have removed this sentence and don't think it should be put back in without citations (relevant to CAN, not just to old Communist Party involvement in past activist groups that was directed by Russian policy). Catsv 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)catsv
- Well, it appears Morton devonshire has been adding that exact same claim to all kinds of left-wing pages, along with other NPOV changes. I shouldn't have responded so seriously; it's evident this was something closer to vandalism. Catsv 01:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Many CAN activists play down their ISO affiliation. But find a local chapter and one discovers the percentage of ISO members is generally higher than 50%. It's too bad that so many activists will not work with the ISO. They're very well organized. Unfortunately the ISO models itself after the Russian Bolsheviks. And the Bolshies eventually killed most of their one-time allies on the left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.152.191.253 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Serious lack of objectivity here.
This page was apparently written by an ISO/CAN member. It reads more like an advert than an encyclopedia entry.
- How so? Feel free to make changes - though be careful not to try to correct perceived POV by adding POV statements of your own. Be bold. Kalkin 18:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I agree and challenge the NPOV
The criticism of CAN reads like a massaged ISO answer to criticisms against ISO rather than actual criticism. As someone who actually criticizes ISO and CAN, and who lives in Boston, I recognize ISO Tom Arabia in the 3rd national conference photo mugging in the front row. When ISO are not trying along with SPUSA and ANSWER to dominate the anti-war movement, they are flyering Cambridge and Boston with ISO and SPUSA flyers. Weasel words abound as do unattributed "some say this, some say that." Of supreme importance is that both non-CAN and former-CAN members both level the same criticism, which is that CAN suffers the same domination as any leftist organization with too many ISO, NEFAC, SPUSA or RCP members. This criticism wounds the image of CAN/ISO and CAN/ISO is indignant about it. They have offered the standard rebuttal (which is inappropriate to the criticism section) that they are merely one in a unity of voices and that they are the victims of red baiting. One cannot be the victim of red-baiting if the majority of one's organizations are reds. --Flipside —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.204.195 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The idea that the majority of CAN members are "reds" is rediculous, unless you're using "red" as a slang for anybody with farther left views than your own. Most members of CAN are not ISO, and many members are strongly opposed to the ISO. Just because you don't like the ISO, or ANSWER(what's ANSWER even have to do with this anyway?), doesn't mean that CAN is a front for the ISO. Yes, the ISO has some influence over CAN, and yes, the article definitely was biased in terms of trying to play down that influence, without actually really focusing on the criticism itself. But replacing a bias one way with a bias the other way isn't the way to go.
I mean seriously, the evidence presented is that a member of the ISO was seen in a CAN photo? Umm, I'd take that too mean that some people are in both organizations. Why is this even in the article? There are KKK members and Neo-nazis that show up to some republican-run counter protests, but that doesn't mean the Republican party is a front for KKK members and Neo-nazis. Saying that would be just as ridiculous as saying CAN is a front for the ISO just because some ISO members participate. It's something that's bound to happen when both groups are trying to oppose the same war.
You have lots of little, minor examples that are borderline meaningless or lacking sources. Saying the planning was dominated by such-and-such is subjective. You need a source or it's original research. The CAN support for the Socialism conference was something that was definitely present. If you want to write criticism, focus on more concrete things like that. Even if you are a part of "the people critical of CAN", you don't represent them, so focusing on specific things that may have bothered you isn't the way to go.
Also, the (even when they do) bit seems a childish way of saying, "there's controversy about this, but I'm really right". How about (whether or not they do), which implies that leftist orgs not run by communists as well as leftist orgs run by communists were BOTH accused of being communist organization (which is definitely true) while being NPOV as to whether CAN is a front group to the ISO. Also, the even when they do, doesn't make sense in the statement from a grammatic statement, but that's more of a minor problem. Shadowoftime 03:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to remove the photo reference and some of the POV slant. The traprock peace group doesn't seem to be an actual part of CAN, though they support them. I might be wrong on this, but if they aren't an actual part of CAN, their support of the ISO doesn't mean anything in terms of CAN supporting the ISO, let alone being a front.
I'm leaving the POV tag because the article definitely does need more criticism of CAN, but it should be legitimate criticism. Find something from the SDS or a right-wing think tank that is critical of CAN and then you can actually have a solid "this group opposes CAN, this is why they do" with actual evidence. Shadowoftime 03:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
While I don't agree with your belief that sources actually exist meeting any reasonable verifiability criteria on the inner workings of CAN or ISO, I can appreciate the diplomacy with which you concede the article is biased. I accept that my commentary was original research. To this point I challenge (but only here on the talk page), CAN and ISO's notability. I am satisfied that the NPOV remains challenged and look forward to a date when some more bespectacled user than I could post a link to such dubiously printed material. --Flipside
Having just read Flipsides comments, they make no sense whatsoever. I have, for example, never heard the claim that the SPUSA attempts to dominate the antiwar movement, or that the ISO puts up SPUSA flyers, in Boston, or anywhere else. Flipside, are you sure you aren't confused? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.158.66 (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm an sdser and want to add something to this discussion. I'm at a university with an CAN and an SDS chapter. sds doesn't really care that much about CAN, nationally sds dwarfs CAN as far as membership and number of chapters. This is the reason why most people outside the movement have never of CAN while sds makes it into the news almost weekly. Please see the websites for both groups to see numbers of registered chapters (CAN-32, SDS-126), if you care. So there will be little criticism from sds regarding CAN, in fact at my university we work together alot and many members work in both groups. One thing that this article is missing is the movement within CAN to more or less overthrow ISO's dominantion of CAN. I've been in contact with sdsers all over the country about the need to support this movement, which we do at our university. The problem which has been mentioned several times is the need for citations. The movement against the ISO has been underground, almost cloak and dagger. And no one is talking about it publically. I have been considering writting a piece about it to explain the situation to sdsers and why the non-ISO CAN members need our help. I do want to add that the article also glosses over these problems, though to be fair citations would be hard to find because few really pay attention to CAN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.193.36.231 (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
GOD WHY DO PEOPLE HATE THE ISO!!! I have never understood this. To some people it is seemingly more important to fight the ISO than it is to fight the war waging government which is really what we are all trying to do. The ISO does have an agenda, to build the strongest antiwar movement possible. What's yours? 71.150.251.214 (talk) 07:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism section to be removed
I'm going to remove the criticism section in a few days if no one comes up with any references for it, as per WP:NOR:
Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
To the best of my knowledge, in the history of this article no one writing in the criticism section has cited any source, let alone a reliable source. Without reliable sourcing, the information does not belong in Wikipedia.
Some editors may be concerned that this will leave the article in a biased state, violating WP:NPOV. However, the lack of a criticism section does not automatically make an article biased, if all information that is included is presented in an objective, neutral fashion. Failure to mention notable criticism may make an article biased by omission; however, criticism is certainly not notable by Wikipedia standards if it has never before been published anywhere but Wikipedia. Editors with concerns that the article is too positive need to find reliable sources for the criticism section, and/or fix specific elements elsewhere in the article that are biased.
