Talk:List of Iraq War resisters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Explanation of criteria for this category

This list is intended to include military personnel who for whatever reason resist participation in the Iraq War. It is more inclusive than Conscientious Objectors rewinn 04:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

  • "The Iraq War is notable for a number of military personnel resisting participation in it"...This make no sense. 11 people is a notable number? Why not just say "The following is a list of military personnel who have refused to serve in Iraq. Compared to other conflicts the number is miniscule.--Looper5920 09:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I changed the intro. This article is, strictly speaking, about the resisters, and not the war itself, so the notability of the war is not relevant. I suggest that whether the number is miniscule or not is also not relevant to the list itself. rewinn 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually Loopy(I know you quit, but I have to address this to someone) there are thousands more people who have refused to serve in iraq or have gone AWOL because they object to the legality of the war, those listed here are merely those who have attracted media attention. In the US alone the last count was a extremely conservative 8000 soldiers refusing to fight(about as many as the UK has in iraq in total) The GI Rights Hotline reports that it receives up to 4,000 calls per month from soldiers seeking a way out of the military due to the illegality of the war and warcrimes being commited by coalition forces. Add Britain into the equation(where unlike in the US this iraq war has always been objected to by the majority of people) and it's definatly notable. Elmo 17:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ryan johnson info links

Evidence of Ryan Johnson to justify his inclusion in piece:

http://www.resisters.ca/resisters_stories.html#Ryan

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/07/1334238

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/kyle_snyder_arrested_released.vp.html [Ryan Johnson mentioned]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/06/RESISTERS.TMP SF Chronicle!

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/4598/1/230


Not sure why he needs a separate page, but I'll create a stub if it's really needed.HG 08:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether all resisters need their own page, either. I've nothing against it, but have no opinion as to whether the fact of being a resister along justifies a separate page. I must accept responsibility for the "No Wikipedia Page" section since I didn't know how else to list those for whom there is no article. Since the section is now empty, I'll delete it. If other "no pagers" come along, perhaps the section can be re-added and they listed without a link. Whatever is best. rewinn 05:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan Johnson article deleted via AfD. Per decision, I summed up minimal info to explain (i.e. ref) his inclusion in the list. Kindly do not remove w/o discussion here or w/me. HG | Talk 15:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Griffin

I added Ben Griffin with the soldiers who refused to continue fighting over concerns of the wars illegality. But he's more vocal about it being because he refused to fight for american foriegn policy alongside american soldiers who were commiting war crimes daily. It's not a great fit though, so if anyone has any thoughts on that i'd be interested. Elmo 22:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You might put him in the "Other" category if there's any question. As noted above, there are many Iraq War resisters and perhaps its more important to note those who are notable thn to include details which may be unclear. At least, this list links those already in wikipedia and those who, while not having wikipages, are in the media.rewinn 15:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for major cleanup

Given that this article looks like it is on track to a "keep" consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion, this article has major problems which need to be corrected to bring it into accordance with Wikipedia policy. A few immediate concerns: Unreferenced entries, a gross violation of WP:BLP which should be removed immediately. Citations to sources which do not meet WP:RS, such as activist websites (and entries which cite only to those sources should also be removed immediately). Grouping by category, which seems arbitrary and somewhat POV. More generally, this list should be strictly limited to those who have a demonstrated assertion to WP:NOTABILITY, which according to Wikipedia policy means: "substantive coverage in multiple independent reliable sources (...) sources address the subject directly in detail". KleenupKrew (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a comment, not in disagreement with any of the above: I created this page (...I'm not claiming any special weight to these remarks from that, just stating a fact...) because I saw that on the wikipages of several notable Iraq war resisters (NIWR), there were "See Also" links to some other NIWR. This seemed clumsy since the addition of the Nth NIWR would require the modification of (N-1) pages. Hence, this list. If it were to include only those NIWR with their own wikipages, I wouldn't mind. I also have no opinion as to the grouping by "reason"; it was not intended to convey any POV but rather to be a convenient way to distinguish significant differences among NIWRs, which could be helpful to researchers. However, if that violates the wikipurpose of a wikilist, then it must go. rewinn (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for reverting an anonymous change

I just reverted the page (the diff can be seen here), because I think the revision disagrees with WP:NPOV. While the statement may be true, this is not the appropriate way to phrase it. It sounds accusatory and biased. It may be prudent to put that information in another article, but since this is just a list of persons, this information should not be included here. Does anyone disagree or have any thoughts? — OranL (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your logic appears sound. If anything, the non-listy text on a list page should be minimized, not increased. rewinn (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)