Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war

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)

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:

• Stanley Kubrick’s 1957 film Paths of Glory,
• Jean Renoir’s 1937 film Grand Illusion,
• Bruce Beresford’s 1980 film 'Breaker' Morant,
• Peter Weir’s 1981 film Gallipoli,
• Isao Takahata’s 1988 film Grave of the Fireflies,
• Robert Wise’s 1966 film The Sand Pebbles,
• Grigori Chukhrai’s 1959 film Ballad of a Soldier,
• James B. Harris’s 1965 film The Bedford Incident. --Tony Hecht 04:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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. ~~~~ 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)

Anti-war topics template

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)

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)

Let's eliminate "needs opinion" articles

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

• March 20, 2003 anti-war protest
• Million Worker March
• Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan
• Brian Haw

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