Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

NPOV

IMPORTANT: I just want to make it clear that the aim of an anti-war wikiproject is not to oppose war or push an anti-war POV in to wikipedia. Rather opposition to war (for varrious reasons from pacifism to Anti-imperialism) has played a large role in global politics (particularly recently with the Global protests against invasion of Iraq), the role of this project is to document anti-war movements and ideologies. I do not think there is a need for us to define explicitly the meaning of anti-war, rather let us treat it (at least for now) as a family term, some movements/ideas are definatly anti-war we can argue along the way about more prefiery cases. The only think I think is worth noting is that we should not assume that anti-war has just to do with American forien policy for example there were anti-war activities against WW1. If you wish to argue about the correctness anti-war politics do not join this project rather go to some political chat room  :-D
--JK the unwise 11:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

After existing for only 2 days this project has allready been nominated for deletion (by annon user 64.12.116.136.). While annon user 64.12.116.136's accusations were baceless and while I think the project will pass the vote and not be deleted, it shows how easily this project could be taken to be contentious.--JK the unwise 17:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Anti-war seems to have disappeared, which I guess means it survied :-) --JK the unwise 10:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Jump in

I have made a first bash at setting up this page please feel free to dig in and improve.--JK the unwise 11:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's hard for a pacifist to be objective about this topic. I've touched on social movements and the anti-war areas as I worked on WP:CBTF and found myself listing toward some POV-ness. The World Community and World community articles need to eventially merge and contain some things about activism and the peace movement but I really don't know how to approach these topics fairly. I'm with you on what you've presented so far and I'm going to shift some thought over this way.
I'm also working on media, culture and counterculture projects that have, in my view obvious ties to anti-war movements and the political spectrums involved in shaping commentary about them, whether it is subtle or extreme. I suggest a look at the Humanities article, which in my view is the grand-daddy of this line of reasoning and a good foundation to build upon. CQ 16:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm sure your capable of concributing NPOV stuff on anti-war topics just look for facts and present them. I freely admitt to having a strong anti-war POV myself, everyone has some POV or another but as long as we focus on presenting varifyable facts that shouldn't matter. I am sure that some pro-war people will come along to keep us anti's in check. One Problem I do acknowlege is the fact that the sources we will be seeking to referance will no doubt contain their own POVs, The soloution to this (as far as one exists) is for us to seek as many differnt sourses as posible.--JK the unwise 16:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I have collected a list of books on differnt anti-war movments at Anti-war/Reference material--JK the unwise 17:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Unify

I'm not sure what is meant by "unify these pages". Surely, for example, we don't want to combine articles on different organizations: for example, ANSWER, NION and UFPJ each deserve a separate article, right? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

True. I was thinking more of articles such as Post-September 11 anti-war movement and Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war whichcontain simliar infomation or go over the same events.--JK the unwise 17:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti-war movment v's Peace movment

Should this be Wikipedia:WikiProject Peace? I ask this because as I was compilling the referances page I noticed that the term "peace movement" seems to be far more prominate then "anti-war movment". Also the Peace movement page says that the peace movment encompasses the anti-war movement. On the other side, google gives 707,000 hits for peace movement and 997,000 for anti-war movement plus anti-war might be thought to be more accurate as most people want peace its just that some people think war is nessisary to acchive peace. I plump for anti-war.--JK the unwise 18:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm a member of the federation for world peace, and I find your definitions of "peace movement" and "anti-war movement" confusing at best. More like "undefined", actually. Are you planning at any point to define what anti-war means, for example?
Absent any clear definition, it looks like you're really opposed to peace - except that peace which (1) is defined solely as a lull between wars (included a brutal police states which technically is not "at war") or which (2) comes when a Communist or other dictatorship defeats its enemy either by main force or by persuading them to give up.
Not trying to be cynical, but you're either naive or up to something it seems. Uncle Ed 01:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Any naivieity that may be in question (in the context of this project) should be that of anti-war movments/leading figgers of anti-war movments/commentators on anti-war movements rather then naviety of me (I am not a notable figger in the anti-war movement). I will resist giving my own views on what a consistant anti-war position should consist in as it would distract us from the task at hand, which is to document the actual historical anti-war movement. Since this movement has been broad and not always ideologicaly consistant our use of the term 'anti-war' will have to reflect this. In the same way the WikiProject Judaism must seek to catergorise all the differnt religious practices that have called themselves Jewish and thus start with a wide definition of Judaism even though each denomination may claim that only their interpretation makes sense.
Of course this does not mean that critism of anti-war movements for being inconsistant cannot be expressed on the anti-war pages. If it is propally atributed then it should be. For example, there are issules about 'communist' currents within anti-war movments not extending their anti-war stance to say the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These are certianly things that should be delt with in the articles but the wikiproject needs to remain neutral on this issule and seek to document all strands of 'anti-war' activism.--JK the unwise 08:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I will join this project if it provides a clear definition of what "anti-war" means. Otherwise, I will remain suspicious of its members' motives. Please recall that the purpose of Wikipedia is to organize and present knowledge. This includes clarifying POV but must not entail helping POV-pushers win ideological battles on our pages.
If the only definition of "anti-war movement" is "movement which calls itself anti-war" then you're not helping here much. At least Jewish religious practices have a common root in Judaism. I fail to see the analogy with "anti-war". Please spell it out for me, indeed, for all of us. Uncle Ed 16:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the main point of my reply which is that it is not for us to set usage rather we should reflect popular usage.
The anology with Judaism is supposed to be that it is not for a wikiproject to diside which demonination is true Judaism even if the differnt denominations are deverice to the point of being incompatable/contradictory. Prehaps the analogy isn't perfect but I think it captures something of my point.
I am reluctant to give any tighter a definition then any movement or ideology that opposes war in general or opposes specific wars or opposes the involvement of its country/government in war in general or specific wars. I'm not sure u'll be happy with this but the point is that wikipedia should reflect common usage and common usage is vage in this way. Indeed 'anti-war' movements are vage in this way, if you were to go on an anti-war demo you would find people with a wide varrity of differnt interpretations of what it means to be 'anti-war' from pacifists to anti-imperialist.
For example, in england the UK the Lib-dem's claimed to be anti-war while saying they would back the war if it was backed by the UN. Others claimed that this made them 'fake anti-war'. Do you not agree that in orrder to be neutral this project should not take a set posision on debates like this.
With a defintion like this we can cover all the movments documented in, for example, the 100 odd books on the anti-war movment listed on Ref' material page. Many of these books are published by university publishers so I think its safe to say that this counts as a body of knowldge.
It seems to me that giving a narrow prescriptive definition of 'anti-war' would be to push a POV. I'm not sure how do you think keeping the definition broad would leave the project vunrble to POV pushing?
--JK the unwise 17:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm okay with any movement or ideology that opposes war in general or opposes specific wars or opposes the involvement of its country/government in war in general or specific wars. Just wanted to be clear. I'm not fishing for a definition that meets my criteria for "what will truly bring peace". (Because that would be POV-pushing on my part.) I asked for a clear definition, and you supplied one. I thank you, sir. Uncle Ed 20:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's an excellent definition. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Collaboration of the month

I thought a Collaboration of the month might help give the project some focus. I nominate Global protests against invasion of Iraq as the first article for focusing on. Any other suggestions?--JK the unwise 11:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Any suggestion for next collaboration of the mnth?--JK the unwise 17:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No one has made any suggestions here on this page but Protests against the invasion of Iraq has been the COTM for over a mnth now. SchuminWeb made varrious suggestions on my talk page. If no one has any objections i going to go with Protests against the Vietnam War for the nxt one.--JK the unwise 17:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-war Films

It may be my own bias having served in two wars as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, but I am surprised to see only Fahrenheit 9/11 and Born on the Fourth of July listed as film “pages covered by the project”.

I recommend the Project consider the following additions:

The current list of pages is just the ones found so far, feel free to add ones you think are also revelant.--JK the unwise 17:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Funny, without seeing this note I added your first two, and several others, including Johnny Got His Gun and All Quiet on the Western Front. But now I see User:Quaddell (while doing an excellent job of tidying up the page) has removed all individual books and films, replacing them with just Anti-war book and Anti-war film. Quaddell, what is the rationale for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Just that the list was getting long. Feel free to put them back - but beware: the list could grow to an unmanageable size. My hope would be that the list contains only those articles that are most important, or that we'd most like to see featured on the main page someday. Additions (or removal of subjects deemed less important) are welcome. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 16:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

POV concerns

My opinion on war itself is not relevant to the discussion, however, I think your project title may appear, to some, inherently POV. Perhaps "WikiProject: Pacifism" would be a lesser magnet for accusations of bias. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the problem, but I'm not sure "pacifism" sounds less POV than "anti-war". Maybe "Peace studies"? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Pacifism would be wrong as pacifism is total opposition to all violence, some anti-war sentiment is based on pacifism but some isn't (e.g. anti-imperialism). I am not against a name change if some one can come up with a good one.--JK the unwise 18:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm...no idea on the name, but it might be a start to remove the peace sign from the banner on articles. My first thought was what the heck is that doing on an encycolopedia? Looks very activist to me at first glance. And I'm under no illusions that it is not activist at it's core. I think there may be some value, however, in pretending on the surface to be non-biased, just to affirm that neutrality is something important for an Wikipedia. DrAlbertHofmann 06:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say? Is it that use of the "Peace symbol" on the anti-war template (banner) is POV because it implies support of the anti-war movement? While I appreciate your concern I do not beleive that this is so. Firstly, the symbol is mearly illistrative of anti-war topics its use is no more biaised to use it then to use the word "anti-war". As generaly is the case with wikipedia's use of logo's; no support is implied. Secondly, it is common practice on Wikipedia to use symbols that are associated with their topic in templates. That the Christianity template shows a Christian cross does not imply support for Christianity any more then the pictureing of a tank in the History of war template shows support for war/tanks or the use the anarchist symbol in the Anarcisism template implies support for anarchism.--JK the unwise 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Further discution about the appropreatness of the use of the peace symbol on the anti-war template can be found at Template talk:Anti-war topics#Use of the 'Peace symbol' in the template

Anti-war topics template

Template:AfricanAmerican,Template:anti-war topics (removed actual templates for space resons)

Should we put together an anti-war topics template for the anti-war articles, like this one for African american articles? I think it would be a real help to users of the encycopedia to navigate around the differnt pages.--JK the unwise 18:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. That's on the main page, not the talk page, so we'd run into POV issues. Some articles are, afterall, obviously an anti-war topic (such as ANSWER), but there is so much grey area. . . – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 23:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, but it would have to be taken very carefully, since a number of pages listed on our "List of pages covered by the project" (which I think should be sorted back into categories with the new formatting) would not exactly fit a template filled with anti-war articles. Civil disobedience in particular comes to mind. But I'm sure we can come up with something. I would like to see something that ties many of these articles together. Schuminweb 00:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I have tryed to sort the list back into catagories with the new formatting. I have kicked out some of the pages that are not exactly 'anti-war'. I think that as long as we are selective about what pages we put on there shouldn't be too much problem with having an anti-war template, its surely no more contensiuos thyen having an 'african-american topics' one. Here is my first crack at an anti war template. I have tryed out the template to see what it looks like at Stop the War Coalition--JK the unwise 16:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I made some edits at Template:Anti-war_topics. Probably discussion should continue at Template_talk:Anti-war_topics rather than here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I was invited to comment here on the placement of the anti-war template at the top of the Howard Zinn page because I reverted it. No one objects to a link to the anti-war page but to place a template that has no mention of the page topic at the top of any page moves the focus of the page topic to something other than its stated topic, in this case a bio of Zinn. This in no way denigrates the anti-war perspective. It is a request for a link, and not hijacking by template. Best wishes and in peace, skywriter 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

COTW?

How exactly is it a COTW, will there be a monthly collaboration? Falphin 23:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep hopefully. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#Collaboration of the month.--JK the unwise 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Counterculture?

The inclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Counterculture as a "related" project seems either misguided or polemical. I suppose most counterculturalists are anti-war, but Hitler was a bit of a bohemian as a young artist, and the Futurists were about as pro-war as they get. And certainly most opposition to wars does not come from counter-cultures. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... I see your point but just because the two are related dose not mean they are co-extensive.--JK the unwise 15:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Rainbow peace or rainbow 'PACE' flag?

I've just signed up to be involved in the project and noticed the Rainbow peace flag on the task says 'PACE', am I missing something here? Solar 16:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to the project. PACE is italian for peace. The use of the rainbow flag as a peace flag orriginated in Italy (see Rainbow flag#Peace movement for more info). I have to admit it might cause some confusion but I think it helps show the global scope of the project.--JK the unwise 16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Well there you go, fair enough ;-) Solar 17:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I drew this little PeaceSymbol.gif and gave it to the Public Domain as my contribution to world peace. Feel free to use it however you see fit. -- CQ 17:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's eliminate "needs opinion" articles

As of this writing, we have four articles marked as "needs opinion". These articles are:

Two of these articles are ones that I created and also had a significant hand in shaping (March 20 and Million Worker March). One of these I did significant cleanup on (Afghanistan). The other one (Brian Haw) I had no hand in.

I decline to rate the first three myself because of the significant role I played in these articles' development, and thus I feel I can't provide an unbiased opinion on them. This is actually the reason why I created the "needs opinion" rating in the first place - I decided that since I'd had such a large role in the development of the article that I was unable to provide an unbiased opinion on the article's quality. The assumption is that since I worked on it so much, that of course I think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

For the Brian Haw article, I just couldn't determine how it should be rated, since I consider myself more of an implementer than a rater.

So with that said, let's please rate these articles. If nothing else, it gives us some direction on where we need to go with these articles from someone with an unbiased (or at least less-biased) opinion on them.

Schuminweb 00:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Cindy Sheehan

Mrs. Sheehan, I am ashamed that you are dragging your son's name through the mud, by bashing our President. Your son choose to go in the military, he wasn't drafted as was so many of our fathers, and brothers were during the Vietnam War. Your son gave his life for something he believed in. I think you should respect what he believed in. You are not the only one that lost a son or love one, and you will not be the last. Our military both men and women join the military with the understanding that this is their job and their loyality is to our government. They do as they are told. Your son signed a contract just like every other member did. NO I am not military now, but my husband is a disablied Vet, my father died during the Vietnam Era. Freedom doesn't come free. And everyone deserves to be free.

Ashamed in NC

Well 147.239.118.158 AKA ashamed, you are intitled to your oppion but one wonders why you are posting it here? I an't seen Mrs. Sheehan around at all.--JK the unwise 17:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Anti-War

I think you should make an effort to list the anti-anti-war point of view. i.e. the case for deterrance, the funding of the CND etc by the Soviets, the fact that many people think that CND prolonged the cold war by making the old USSR think that there was a chance that the West would stop opposing them militarialy etc. MG 17/11/2005 12:05 (BST)

This project seeks to be neither pro or anti anti-war, rather it seeks to help bring an accurate NPOV picture the anti-war movements to wikipedia. In orrder to do that critisisms of anti-war arguments and organisations should of course be added. If you feel that the project is currently leaning to far towards a positive potrayal of certian groups then feel free to join and help us achive a neutral balance. One thing to remember is that wikipedia is not a place for orriginal reaserch so critisms should generally come from referanced sourses.--JK the unwise 15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and good luck. I wish I had the time and knowledge to assist. MG 17/11/05 16:45 BST

CND actually won a legal case against the Youth Wing of the Conservative Party for claiming that it was funded by the Soviet Union (see Bruce Kent's Autobiography), similar accusations were made by people within the Conservative Party at the time (and some still) as well as the Coalition for Peace through security. As far as I'm aware allegations of CND being funded by the Soviet Union were never substantiated, it certainly had communist members but they only made up around 4% of the membership acccording to studies. Who claimed that CND prolongued the Cold War, it seems rather odd as there were parallel movements in Germany and Holland in particular. I'll do some more work on it. Sjeraj 09:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this would be good stuff to add to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament page. I would suggest under the section heading critisms something along the line of; "CND have been critised for alegingly reciving financial support from the soviet union during the Cold war. However, these allegations have never been substantiated. CND won a legal case against the Youth Wing of the Conservative Party in ???? for claiming that it was funded by the Soviet Union". I will copy this discussion to the CND talk page.--JK the unwise 18:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Global peace flag

I have removed Global peace flag from Template:Anti-war topics and listed it for deletion for the reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global peace flag. What it boils down to is that the flag is at the moment non-notable, I wish its creators all the luck in the world in the promotion of their flag but wikipedia is not the place for that promotion.--JK the unwise 09:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. All the luck to them, but if they can demonstrate actual usage of the flag, then we've got something, and I was hoping to bring that out by listing it for cleanup and such. Ah, well... SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The Italian one with the rainbow and "PACE" has quite a bit of currency, if someone has an image of that. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
There is some stuff on that one at Rainbow flag#Peace movement.--JK the unwise 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Feb 15th, plea for photos

The February 15, 2003 global anti-war protest lists informations on many of the demonstrations accross the world on that day. However, at the moment there is only one photo (a photo of thr LOndon demo) if any one has any/knows were sutibly copyrighted ones can be found that would be good.--JK the unwise 16:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

List of anti-war organizations

I have created the List of anti-war organizations article with the intention of using it on Template:Anti-war topics. In watching groups get added to the template, my thought process led me to "Where will this end?" as I've watched our template get longer and longer. Before you know it, our template will be a mile long and will out-length even the longest articles where it appears.

What we need to do is list the "big names" on the template box itself, and then the List of anti-war organizations gets linked to the bottom as a catch-all. Makes things much neater, especially as a number of the articles are quite stubby at this point.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree in principle that the template was getting too long and needed to be trimmed down. I'm not sure that this is the best way though. For a start the what pages are on the main template seems rather arbitary, should it be disided by the quality of the article or the prominance/importance of the group? Its seems wroung to me, for example, to list Code Pink on the main template but not Anti-War Coalition. The former's wikipedia article may be better but the latter is a much more important anti-war group (in its countries context) then the later is (in its). My other issule is that I do not think that it would be clear to the casual reader they could find a more full list at List of anti-war organizations then is listed on the template, it could easly appear that that list would be just a repete of the template list, and if they failed to click on it they wouldn't find out any different.
I think that the solution would be to either have a number of differnt lists, say Anti- Affganistain war/Iraq war/Vitnam war and list them on the template or to link from the template to sections of the full list page relating to particular countries, eg. North American groups, African groups etc.--JK the unwise 08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Page deletion

The Left and Opposition to War, is up for delition (see its entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Left and Opposition to War). I think that although this artcle suffers from POV problems these can be sorted out. It would be a same to lose one of the projects articles.--JK the unwise 13:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Put a keeper vote in. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The Left and Opposition to War has been moved to The Left and war and now covers both left-wing opposition to and support for wars. It is thus no longer sutible to be part of this project. However since it does cover a anti-war issules it is worth watching.--JK the unwise 10:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

fundamental beliefs and scenarios

With regard to the 'Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee' and its analogous opinion-wielding organizations (such as Students for a Democratic Society - SDS), the time period included quite specific action taken to design and build trash compactor public works vehicles as a means of employment and as a way to tour foreign nations using earned money (i.e., without a military mindset).

Students were involved in many of the demonstrations as 'eager learners', and the trash compactors were successfully forged, despite concerns about the tensile strength of available metal-works operations. Such perspectives continue as the "anti-war movement" which stresses work not war as a way to see other continental nations, antithetical to tendencies of young people to use the armed forces as a "tour-de-force". 11/26/2005 00:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (beadtot)

Do not feed. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class and good B-class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. I was really pleased to find that you had a nice list of assessed articles! I looked at all of the suitable ones marked "good" that I thought met the criteria, and assessed these as A or B class (with comments) in this table. Please feel free to look over these and add comments below, or on the project talk page. Thanks, Walkerma 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at articles from our project. I have been concentrating on February 15, 2003 anti-war protest and I am glad to see that you have given it A-class assessment :-). Hopefully We can bumb some of the B class articles up to A class.--JK the unwise 12:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

February 15, 2003 anti-war protest Peer review

I have put February 15, 2003 anti-war protest up for peer review because it has been rated A-class by the version 1.0 editorial bord and thus is probally near to being FA satus. Hopefully with some helpfull comments it can get there.Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive2.--JK the unwise 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I will have a look and see what I can contribute. Thanks for the heads up. --Valve 18:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the article up for review -- and all the good work that's been done on this project. I've been and am still on a semi-vacation from Wiki, but I did put the article on Watch and if I see any useful contributions, I'll jump in. Calicocat 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Post-September 11 anti-war movement

I have suggested that the information from Post-September 11 anti-war movement be merged into the Anti-war, 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 The Left and war articles. This is a big job if anyone can help please do so. Alternativly if anyone beleives this to be a mistake place state so on the talk page--JK the unwise 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go so far as to break up this article. A quick read over the article again to see if I agree with your thinking didn't leave me agreeing. Except for the sections marked as needing work on the NPOV, it tells the story of the formation of the modern anti-war movement, which is a worthwhile topic in and of itself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Bring Them Home Now Tour

Since the Cindy Sheehan article is way longer than a normal Wikipedia article, I was hoping someone would consider creating an article on her bus tour and moving that part of the Sheehan chronology to that article. --Habap 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it myself. You are all encouraged to edit the Bring Them Home Now Tour, of course. --Habap 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Improvement drive

Meditation is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved and could help us bring it up to featured standard, please vote for it here! --Fenice 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Near-vandalism

Morton devonshire has been making a series of edits some of which seem to me to constitute deliberate insertion of POV against the peace movement ([1], not an entirely invalid edit, but his new wording seems to me to imply that virtually all of the financing for the nuclear freeze movement came from Moscow) and some of which seem to me to be just this side of vandalism [2], [3], [4]. I left him a note on his talk page; he simply deleted it. People on this project will probably at least want to keep an eye out for his edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored your comment and mine to his talk page, along with a message regarding blanking one's talk page. Whether that will get deleted or not, I don't know. Either way, though, he's definitely one we need to keep an eye on. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Same user, different problems

I realize that the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 is slightly off-topic for this project, but I don't see a more appropriate project to take this to. The same editor made this edit there, which I see as mostly, though not entirely, detrimental. Whoever goes into this should look for where he has made genuine improvements in the writing, and should be keen to preserve those. Still, he removed references, blurred the distinction between non-violent civil disobedience and property destruction, and dropped all mention that the arrested protesters who fought their charges were uniformly acquitted. Probably he's excised other significant facts: when I saw that much, I figured I'd seen enough. I'm currently too busy to duke it out with him, and I've had quite enough head-to-head arguments with him in various articles. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone else would take this on. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. One paragraph retained. The rest is fixed back to the way it was. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few requested articles

are listed in List of protest marches on Washington, DC; a good place to start if you want to fill in anti-Vietnam war stuff.--Carwil 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive

I have put the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest article, which is part of this wikiproject, forward for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. It is a very good article detailing a day of much importance both to the history of the anti-war movement and to general discussion of the Iraq war. With a little work from experienced editors it could become an excellent and gain FA status. Please vote for it at Make "February 15, 2003 anti-war protest" the subject of an Article Improvement Drive--JK the unwise 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

What constitutes "good"?

I see that List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq war was recently marked here as "good", but it provides almost no citations. What is the basis for considering this "good"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Good point. At the moment jugment of the articles for assesment sees rather arbitary, part of why i have held back on assessing articles. We need to set down a set of standards that an article needs to achive to have a certain grade. "stub" is obvious we should take the criteria from Wikipedia:Stub, "featured" is also easy as only articles that have been featured through the FA process should have it. "poor", "needs exp/org/NPOV" and "good" are harder. Prehaps we could base these grades on something like the scal used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.--JK the unwise 12:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Good broader point. Regarding List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq war, most of the links contain several of the slogans and chants, so most of the chants are represented under at least one. Some are not; I can personally vouch for the existence of most of those. Some of them come from a Campus Antiwar Network chant sheet of which I have only a paper copy; I couldn't find it online. Kalkin
Paper copies are perfectly citable. Get it in there as a reference, and cite what can be cited from it. - Jmabel | Talk 04:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Kalkin 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made a proposal for some guidlines for grading articles; Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war/Grading.--JK the unwise 16:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

New pages

I have just found School Students Against War and Students for Democracy and Peace. They look in poor condition, please look them over.--JK the unwise 10:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Article for deletion

An article that is part of this project has been nominated for delition. The article is Committee for International Peace (CIP) and its deletion page can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for International Peace (CIP)--JK the unwise 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was deleted.--JK the unwise 21:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Politics of Wikipedia

As I newcomer to Wikipedia I was surprised and disappointed to encounter this project, apparently sanctioned by Wikipedia. I thought the intention of Wikipedia was to present knowledge and information, unbiased and disinterested. I don't understand how Wikipedia can permit a group of articles can be promoted, organised and given a particular slant by an organised group with an agreed political agenda. 82.2.87.221 22:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Goals on the project page. The point of this project is not to push an agenda. The existence of anti-war movements is an objective fact and an important one; the point of this project is to document it. While, I would guess, the majority of regular participants probably consider themselves anti-war in some sense, those who do (including me) are by no means the only people working on these articles. We, or I at least, can make an effort to remain unbiased. And sometimes on specifics, for example with respect to organizations, more hostility comes out of people supposedly 'in the movement' than outside it. This is no different, IMO, than any Wikiproject, whose primary participants are likely to be people who are interested in or fans of the subject, except that the subject here is more politically charged. But by no means should the fact that a subject is politically charged be a reason for Wikipedia to avoid it. Kalkin 23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
A bias of Wikipedia is demostrated by the more than 2500 categories on on war-related topics with presumably many times that many artciles. There are 39 categories containing the word "peace" and most of these are actually related to war, i.e. peace treaties.
The bias of the anonymous contributor from adsl.virgin.net is evident in assuming anit-war is necessary political. For example, Amish are generally considered anti-war while being politically uninvolved. JonHarder 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The Conservative Party candidate for my city at the last election was a committed pacifist, as was the local Green Party candidate, by implication I think the user from adsl.virgin.net was saying that anti-war was left-wing. You will find a diversity of views amongst people here regarding specific wars and wars in general as well as the ethics of weapons and tactics used. I think it is irresponsible for the user from adsl.virgin.net to generally classify the anti-war project. Sjeraj 09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There are two issules here, the political nature of the anti-war movment and the political nature of this project. The first is a matter which we can and should debate prehaps the best place to do so would be on the talk page of anti-war. The second issule is the political nature of this project. On this question this project aims to be neutral and definatly does not aim to give a particulat slant to the articles (neither negitve or positive). If the accusers of this project could please point to an actual example of were this project has been used to promote a particular POV please present it. I do not accept the general argument that collecting together the articles on anti-war issules promotes anti-war POV any more then collecting articles together about facist subjects promotes fascism (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism).--JK the unwise 17:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I did not say, or even hint, that those professing an anti-war agenda are necessarily left wing, since the point has been raised I am happy to stick my neck out and say that is what I do believe. It is disingenuous to say that those involved with the project are merely people with an interest in the subject who are objectively and disinterestedly collecting information on the subject. The project may not be party political, but it is definitely political. No sane person actually wants war, with the evils and suffering it brings. But to make the smug assertion that one is 'anti-war' is to affect an attitude of moral superiority that is empty of any meaningful content. You might as well say that you are opposed to gravity, or to death. See how far that gets you.82.14.79.30 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you still criticizing the existence of the project, or just the disingenuousness of people who claim to be anti-war? If the former, it's unclear to me how your argument supports that, any more than, say, an attack on Bush would be an argument for not having an article on him. I don't think anyone's denying that describing oneself as anti-war is taking a political position; we're only denying that this is a reason not to have a Wikipedia project on it. If the latter, I'm not sure why you're making the argument here. But to address it anyway (because after all I do have an opinion), being anti-war has a great deal of content in the context of any particular war. The idea that people who are pushing for a war are really the anti-war ones because failure to act will lead to more wars is an obtuse quibble. Clearly, whose position will best promote peace in the long run is open to dispute; equally clearly, that's not what's being described by the terms "pro-war" and "anti-war." (Also, I take it you're equally opposed to the term "pro-life"?) Kalkin 23:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I admit that I was engaging in a little gratuitous abuse. However, my serious point remains that this project is different in its nature from others. If a group of like minded individuals with an interest in stamp collecting or bird watching decide to group together to collaborate on a series of articles on those subjects, that is one thing. This project is quite another in its political motivation. I would like to illustrate my point by an extreme example. Suppose a group of white supremacists or holocaust deniers (and I hasten to add I have not the slightest sympathy with either of those) decided to group together to promote articles on those subjects, would that be regarded as acceptable? Of course, there are very informative Wikipedia articles on those subjects, as there should be. But there is not (I hope!) an organised project involved in collating as many articles as possible on those and related topics. This may be a very poor parallel with the anti-war project, but I hope people can see a germ of a point in my argument.PedanticAl 21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a Wikiproject on Facism it collects together articles on facism and even has a template which goes on articles about fascism which displays a facism symbol. How does that project differ from this? Or do you think that we should get rid of that one as well? I can see that your argument has some merit but if there are no actual examples where this project actually been used to prommote anti-war POV your worry remains theorical. Be assured we are commited to presenting the anti-war movment in an NPOV way.--JK the unwise 18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Well of course your project is POV. It's self-evident. It's not like your disinformation attempts go without notice. Morton devonshire 04:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
A valuable, informative, and persuasive contribution from Morton. Almost as valuable as adding the fact that some American Communists were funded by the USSR in the Cold War to an article about a student anti-war group created in 2003! Kalkin 05:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
You are confusing the facts, which is what you do. Morton devonshire 18:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Morton you are welcome to join the project and help balance out what appears to you to be a political inballance if you are willing to work towards a producing good NPOV articles on the anti-war movment. I'm affraid that it is not "self-evident" to me that the project is POV, please point to specific actual examples of how the project is pushing a particular point of view.--JK the unwise 19:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC) P.S: Edits such as this [5] are not helpfull.

Protests against the 2003 Iraq war

I have raised a dispute about material in the lead section of Talk:Protests against the 2003 Iraq war#Disputed. Among other things, there is a claim that the major protest actions have been "demonstrations in support of 'anti-imperialist' war against the U.S." There are several other assertions I find equally wrongheaded. Because this presumably much-watched article has sat in this state for over five days, I guess there has been something of an implicit endorsement by several contributors.

I urge people from this project to take a look. I am very inclined to revert this paragraph to an earlier version. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

mess at ISO article

This is only tangentially connected to the project, but several people here seem to believe in, or have an interest in, Marxism or Trotskyism. There's a fucking mess going on at the International Socialist Organization article between anarchists and others who like to add huge criticisms in openly biased terms and ISO members who seem to think that the solution is just to eliminate the criticism section. (Disclosure: I'm a member but I don't think that having Wikipedia describe the various silly or downright idiotic things people say about the ISO is bad.) I tried to fix this by sourcing the criticism section with extensive footnotes and adding responses, but this seems instead to have sparked another source for a revert war. Very few of the people active there seem to have much experience with Wikipedia (no named accounts aside from a week-old one), and I'm hardly a veteran myself. Plus I keep second-guessing myself out of a desire to be fair, and I think I bend too far backwards which is no fun. The situation could use some experienced neutrals I think... Kalkin 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While there are editors who work on this project who are interested in Marxism/Trotskyism I would rather that this project stays concentrated on the anti-war movment. You seem to have done a good comprimise on the ISO article and I'll keep an eye on it but it would be better if annocements about articles not about the anti-war movment weren't posted here especially considering that some editors have expressed concerns over the politics of this project.--JK the unwise 19:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Protests against the Vietnam War

It has been proposed on the talk page of the Protests against the Vietnam War article (which is part of this project) that it be merged with Opposition to the Vietnam War. Please discus this there.--JK the unwise 17:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Military Base Campaigns

...are a major form of anti-war activism. One day they probably deserve their own page, but for now it would be good to fill in information on flashpoints of contention like Okinawa and the Camp Humphreys expansion. I could use some help.--Carwil 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Anti-war people up for deletion.

Category:Anti-war people is being considered for deletion. Share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Anti-war_people. JonHarder 18:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Registered a "Keep" vote on it, and some interesting discussion on the name of the category. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. The result is no consensus so the category will remain as it is. JonHarder 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)