Category talk:American anti–Iraq War activists
|This category is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Explanation of criteria for this category
What exactly are the criteria for being included in this category? Based on the title and the information proceeding the list, Harry Belafonte would be a candidate. However, a certain editor keeps removing him (and others) because Belafonte has voiced opposition to other military coups besides the US involvement in Iraq. If the intended criteria for this category states that the only people who should be included support all wars except the Iraq war, then this should be explicitly stated, and many of the people currently listed in the category should be removed. --buck 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
user:Grazon keeps on taking people off this list insisting that they are consciencious objectors rather than anti-war activist, however their article's support such claims and whethere or not they are C.O.s is irrelevant. He keeps on removing people.! HEADSUPQrc2006 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe leave a light warning on his userpage? Fethroesforia 16:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Another novel use of this category
There is a debate going on at Talk:Yaron Brook about whether Yaron Brook should be included in this category. Brook is a critic of the Iraq war because he believes the war should be waged more agressively, and that the Bush administration is too concerned about avoiding civilian casualties. --Tsunami Butler 13:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Tsunami: I finally found my way here. Now I understand. Will you allow me to add a link to this category in your initial remark on the topic in the talk section on Yaron Brook? Maybe others will be just as puzzled as me? I couldn't figure out what the phrase: "the criteria outlined above" was alluding to. If you allow I will insert a link for others?
Feels as if the conflict could/should be resolved by adding a category: Critics of the execution of the War on Terror. This would be the larger context Criticisms of the War on Terrorism Since Brook does not only criticize the execution of the war on Iraq, but more generally the execution of the War on Terror. And he did this really early. Yaron Brook, Why We Are Losing the War on Terrorism, Friday, September 6, 2002
For all I can tell, he would have preferred to take out Iran first, even in the early interview above he lists Iran first, so he may indeed have been against attacking Iraq instead of Iran FIRST! Seems he is pretty consistent [...]
But I agree with you basically, it feels like turning the category upside down. What I am not sure about is, why EndlessMike 888 insists to list him under this category and people listening to his lectures support this claim. Seem Endless does only insists on the definition used here, but is not very interested in further elaboration. Feels like nit-picking. ...? LeaNder 11:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Forgive me if I've misunderstood the point of putting a precise definition at the top of the category. I simply assumed it was there to show who does and does not belong in the category. LaszloWalrus put him in the category based on the definition, Tsunami Butler removed him and asked why he was included, and I documented his opposition to he war. I pointed to three lectures (one of which was on CSPAN, the other given to the Ford Hall Forum) in which Brook attacks the entire Bush foreign policy as immoral and impractical. Brook is a hawk, we can clearly see. But this category CLEARLY allows for anti-Iraq war hawks, as it says in the first two paragraphs of the category page.
- If you think the category should be sub-divided I will not oppose. I might even support it. But as it stands, Brooks position is compatible with the standards for this article. Simply documenting Brook's opposition to the war, and pointing out that his position is compatible with the criteria of this category, is not nit-picking, btw. It is what happens on the talk page of every controversial article. Nit-picking is looking for out of context quotes that can be used to give the appearance of a contradiction. Endlessmike 888 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
John Edwards co-sponsored the Iraq War resolution. He only regrets his vote because it didn't go according to plan. By this definition, one day when G.W. regrets the Iraq War he too will become an Anti Iraq War activist?
"For example, Ron Paul both supports the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (and the military presence still there) and opposes the Iraq War."
Is he really a supporter of the US involvement in Afghanistan? My understanding is he voted to allow the US to go after the terrorists of 11 September 2001. I have heard him on several occations mention the option of using Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Does anyone have any evidence that he supports the current US occupation of Afghanistan? --Kalmia 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Did Bush and the neocons/volcanoes need the assent of congress to go to war in Afghanistan? If so, how many would have voted against a war in Oct. 2001? I can't find any explicit pro Afghan war statements: 
I can see your point, if he was explicitly pro Afghan war, a source should be added. If it can't be shown he supported the war against Afghanistan the passage should be modified.
Below is a very early speech portraying someone quite opposite to the war-escalation-advocates 
September 25, 2001
Ron Paul speech in the House of Representatives
Last week was a bad week for all Americans. The best we can say is that the events have rallied the American spirit of shared love and generosity. Partisanship was put on hold, as it well should have been. We now, as a free people, must deal with this tragedy in the best way possible. Punishment and prevention is mandatory. We must not, however, sacrifice our liberties at the hand of an irrational urgency. Calm deliberation in our effort to restore normalcy is crucial. Cries for dropping nuclear bombs on an enemy not yet identified cannot possibly help in achieving this goal.
This was an interesting question for an outside observer of the US scene. New name, new face, interesting position. LeaNder 22:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
A) definition: illegal and/or immoral
Would the author of the definition below tell me why he choose to list both illegal and/or immoral under A)? Seems I can't quite picture the Iraq-war-is-immoral-position. Who would be a representative of this mindset? I have to admit that immoral somehow feels superfluous, but maybe I am missing something?
- A) Believe that the Iraq War was illegal and/or immoral from the beginning; or LeaNder 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
B) definition - incompetency & publicity
I think that definition B) leaves the definitorial gates wide open. Given that victory usually has many fathers and defeat none, this definition as reality shows invites an endless queue of applicants and/or their supporters.
- B) Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it.
It in fact welcomes all the cake-walk-propagandists/armchair generals that now only need to adjust to the reality around stating ("become publicly known as critics") that victory was lost only since the war was "waged incompetently". And that obviously was not their fault. See discussion on Yaron Brook as an American Anti-Iraq war activist, which shows to what absurd heights this defintion may lead.
What "real" American Anti-Iraq War activists in this category made the "waged incompetently" description necessary? Would "waged imprudently" help to keep the crowd out? Maybe it would close the door to the applicant queue above and open the door for the people that were hesitant about the motives from the very start. Imprudently is a spontaneous assocition on the term: calm deliberation in the Ron Paul speech above. Maybe there are better terms. But there is no doubt at all the defintion has to be changed. Let's talk about it. Should I post this at the authors private talk section? LeaNder 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Left a note over at: User talk:220.127.116.11# 10 Category: Iraq War activists, definition the author of the definition, inviting him back here. LeaNder 11:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm. S/he hasn't been active in nearly two months, so this person may not be back. Either way, looking at this person's edit history I'm guessing that s/he is either a vandal or has little regard the policies of Wikipedia. I don't think bringing this person back will do benefit any of us. I think it's time to finally come up with criteria for inclusion in this article that removes the ambiguity (illegal? immoral? imprudent?). I attempted to do this on 13 Sept 06 but my edits were promptly reverted before I made any real progress. Since I generally find this subject uninteresting anyway, I just gave up. --buck 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove or clarify remark
From the category page: "American anti-war activists are not to be mixed up with Critic of Iraq Policy." The link goes nowhere, and the distinction is not clarified. This should either be removed or clarified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC).
At what point is someone an activist (active), versus a public figure that puts on a trendy T-shirt (a critic)? How many acts of activism does one need to commit in order to be an activist?
Some of the entertainers in this category (Sheryl Crow) have not gone beyond their standard occupations (writing songs, making films) in their activism - they've actually profited from it. I wouldn't consider that activism - that's a themed art project. Others have no public record of activism (Paul Newman) in regard to the Iraq War, yet they get lumped into this category because of their pacifist stance.
While others in this category (Cindy Sheehan, John Edwards) have actively pursued a change in US policy in Iraq.
I strongly suggest that this category does not get diluted by mere critics or sympathizers, but remains a category of actual activists.
borislutskovsky 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think John Kerry belongs on this page. Thoughts?
MykellM 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)