Talk:Veterans for Peace
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.) |
|
[edit] Funding questions
Normally, I would agree with you that conservatives questioning the use of funds by liberal organizations and vice-versa would simply be normal mud-slinging. This appears to be slightly different, especially with the inclusion of an i-Pod in the item list. I don't know much about i-Pods, so it looks like an amenity for a staffer. --Habap 02:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] VFP supporters afraid of sourced material
User Badagnani keeps removing sourced material that is not sycophantic to the Veterans for Peace postions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greyggrey G. Storey(talk • contribs) 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
- The one-sentence statement saying that other veterans' groups hate VFP wasn't sourced, and isn't particularly notable unless those groups have campaigns specifically targeting VFP. We could add statements such as this to the Wikipedia pages for any groups or public figures; there are always individuals or groups who do not like other individuals or groups. Regarding the No Gun Ri incident, VFP was simply reacting to the story as reported at the time. There is still a debate, and that debate is covered with appropriate details at the No Gun Ri article. Reducing the statment to a simple rebuttal saying "they're in error because it never happened" is an oversimplification and thus doesn't belong here. Badagnani 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I believe the edits just made here to be generally POV. This is not the place for personal opinions about the group's actions, such as for example the Arlington West display. Badagnani 03:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
VFP is a controversial group that elicits strong emotions. No other veteran group was mentioned as opposing VFP. If VFP was reporting on the Korean story of the time, they then need to update their findings, else the logical conclusion is that they are against the military and not national policy.
Local VFP groups have created so-called memorials that display the names and images of those who died in theater. My brother-in-law was so used by that group. His family did not approve, and he would not approve. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyggrey (talk • contribs)
- Following the logic of these recent POV/editorializing additions, one should then go to the Vets For Freedom article and add the following paragraph under the section describing their support for the Iraq War:
- "The crime of a war of aggression is listed in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (RSICC) as one of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and that it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was addressed earlier by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II, which called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
- The thing is, that's for the readers to decide. This article is about the group, not about one editor's opinions whether their views are any good or not. (By the way, "aggressive war" is defined as one nation attacking a country that did not attack it first, similar to what Germany did to Poland in 1939, or the U.S. did in 2003.) Badagnani 03:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Images
I've had to tag the image of Cindy Sheehan on this page for probable copyvio. It claimed to be public domain, but gave no explanation of why. Also, I'm not really convinced by the fair use argument for the bus.
I think someone could make a good fair use claim for an image of Cindy Sheehan on this page; someone should do so. The bus picture does not look notably more relevant than the "free" picture of a Veterans for Peace bus I recently uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Category:Veterans for Peace for that and other possibly useful images. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
