Talk:Antiwar.com

Names

I don't want to junk the page up with a bunch of extra names, but how exactly should we determine which personnel to mention and which to omit? Are we looking for noteworthiness or for those who do the most work at the site? It seems like Scott Horton might be a noteworthy addition considering he's also the host of a comparatively popular talk radio show. - anon

Well, with regard to the staff of antiwar.com, I think we should try to get some sense of how important a role each person plays in producing the site. Obviously, Raimondo and Garris are key figures; in addition, I have the impression that Matt Barganier has an important role as editor, and, from what I remember about the newspaper profile on antiwar.com a few years ago, the executive director, Alexia Gilmore, is important, too (as is her husband). Sapienza is maybe kind of a stretch, but, what the heck, he has a Wikipedia article and he is listed third on the AWC masthead. I think adding anyone else would be too much clutter. As far as columnists are concerned, we should definitely go by how notable they are as people. I think the current list is pretty good, although Nebojsa Malic seems pretty obscure apart from his antiwar.com column. - Nat Krause 13:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This part of the page needs work Right now it claims that Robert Fisk and Juan Cole are "antiwar leftists"97.91.173.58 (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So, Coolcat

This page was created almost half a year ago, and contain what I, for one, consider to be useful information. So Coolcat, if you want the page to be deleted, please add it to the vote for deletion instead. Stereotek 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat vandalized the pages that link here, in addition to his bogus VFD. I "speedy un-VFD'ed" it. Mirror Vax 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

.com

RFC 1591 says of .com that "This domain is intended for commercial entities". The proper domain under the categorization system of top level domains for noncommercial organizations is .org. This organization's use of a .com address makes no logical sense. *Dan T.* 14:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

.com is used for all purposes and is generally preferred to other domains. It hasn't really meant "commercial" since the early '90s. Mirror Vax 14:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

.com is abused for many purposes by ignorant people, and the marketroids who pander to them, and many Internet users seem to lack the ability to get an address correct if it's anything else; see, for instance, Coolcat's VfD on this article where he mistakenly refers to this site as wikipedia.com (it's actually wikipedia.org). It's part of the general dumbing down of the Internet. See my Domain Hall of Shame. *Dan T.* 15:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

The people who register .com domains are not ignorant. One domain is as good as another from a technical point of view, but .com is the most popular, and hence the one people are used to typing. In other words, if you make the mistake of registering a non-.com domain, a certain percentage of email and web traffic intended for you will be misdirected. dan.info is a pretty name, but do you want dan.com reading your email? .com has long ceased to mean "commercial"; it is the all-purpose generic domain. There is no benefit to registering non-.com domains, except to the people who profit from selling domain names and the trademark lawyers who police the domains (somebody registered cocacola.xxx? Call the lawyers!) Mirror Vax 17:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to Wikipedia management, which properly switched the site from a .com to a .org when it went nonprofit. *Dan T.* 19:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia.com is still registered to Jimbo, and still goes here. Do you think Jimbo would be happy to relinquish wikipedia.com? Not a chance. Mirror Vax 01:21, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the high-profile sites related to Hurricane Katrina, and often mentioned on TV and in other Web sites (and Wikipedia entries), are non-dot-coms too... there's redcross.org, fema.gov, noaa.gov... and the craigslist.org site (which uses logical subdomains for local-city editions) was a frequently-used resource by evacuees trying to locate one another. (I haven't checked whether the .com versions of all of these go to the same place.) *Dan T.* 02:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

As it happens, in 100% of the cases you cited the corresponding .com name is also registered, and except for redcross.com, active and working. I was actually a bit surprised that the two .govs you mentioned had corresponding .coms. Mirror Vax 08:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And as an interesting aside, Slashdot, a commercial website owned by a corporation, has "slashdot.org". These aren't hard and fast rules, and a lot of people appear not to be following them anyhow, so I wouldn't lose sleep over it.

neoconservatives ... since the site's inception,

Is this actually true? I'm certain the site was talking about this group before others, but does it actually go back to the sites inception? I could be mistaken, but I don't remember any mention of them while the bombs were falling on Serbia... Arker 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

They weren't mentioned as much because they weren't in power at the time. Justin mentions neo-conservatives in his books years before the site's founding, so I would assume he mentioned them offhand somewhere along the line.

Protest addition labeled "POV" and request it be restored

I protest the removal of the material I added, pointing out that Antiwar.com carries a significant amount of news content as opposed to opinion. Frankly, I'm surprised someone thought this needed removing; if anything, I think what I put in is anything but "POV" and in fact shows that Antiwar.com is less POV than might be thought at first glance, since a lot of the content comes from the world press (much of it mainstream). Please look at what I put in and see what you think. --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the source for your material? It appears to be your personal opinion. If you can find a notable source which says that they this site carries more news than other news sites, then I have no objection to it. But otherwise it is just an unsourced POV and original research. -Willmcw 21:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Yes, this is "original research", and I thought it would be fairly self-evident to anyone who observes Web sites of this ilk. I do happen to read Antiwar.com regularly, so I can attest to the characterization I made in the article. As to comparisons with other sites, well, anyone can do these as well; having perused a fair number of similar sites (say, the Huffington Post, Z Magazine, Commondreams, etc.), I can attest that Antiwar.com has a much higher ratio of news to opinion. That, really, was all I was trying to convey in what I wrote. I can only say that any reasonable person reading this and other sites would probably agree; I don't think exhaustively documented research, replete with footnotes, is required here. --ILike2BeAnonymous 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see the applicable policy: Wikipedia:no original research. For our purposes, "self-evident" is limited to only the simplest matters, like the fact the Antiwar.com is a website. Whether it has more mainstream news links than other "news" sites is not self-evident and since "mainstream" is a debatable concept it never could be. Personal attestations by editors are not allowable sources for any facts or opinions in this project. However, if you find a quote from somebody notable then we can use that. Such as, "According to Famous Pundit, it is a better news source than Biasednews.com". -Willmcw 22:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

This still seems like something that could be repaired. The fact is that Antiwar.com runs a lot of non-opinion links, there are people on staff who work exclusively on that. if we removed a comparison to other sites, most of the deleted content could probably return without any problem. On any given day, the vast majority of the links on the Antiwar.com frontpage will ne news links from around the world.

==Here is a reliable article about Antiwar.com. The original article is as missleading as the site itself.

Antiwar.com From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Part of a series on Anti-War topics

Opposition to...

Iraq War War on Terrorism Afghanistan War Vietnam War War of 1812 American Civil War Second Boer War

---

Agents of opposition

Anti-war organizations Conscientious objector Draft dodger Peace movement Peace churches

---

Related ideologies

Antimilitarism Anti-imperialism Appeasement Pacifism

---

Media

Books Films Protest songs

Politics Portal This box: view • talk • edit

Here is a non partisan article about Antiwar.com

Antiwar.com is an English-language website containing news and opinion pieces related predominantly to wars in which the USA and Israel are involved from a point of view of ideological and political red-green-brown alliance of anti-democratic and anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, paleoconservative Old Right, Islamists and far Left. The site was founded in December of 1995. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation, operating under the auspices of the Randolph Bourne Institute, based in Atherton, California. The language of publications is shrill, openly demagogic; the site provides very little factual information but is a full of conspiracy theories, like accusations that'Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11. While site claims anti-war position, in fact it is openly supportive of Islamic terrorism against the USA and Israel. The site made an enormous effort to became noticeable by the mainstream left (liberal) media which opposes to so called "neo-conservative" policies of president George W. Bush. Among historical figures of the past, the main targets of the site are American presidents who fought against racism, Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan/Fascist Italy or Communist Stalin's totalitarianism; Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and American ally Winston Churchill. Antiwar.com accuses them in "conspiring" to initiate the wars against their opponents. After initial attention to the site, the left wing media began to ignore it. Because its want of credibility, Antiwar.com is not cited by the leading mainstream left and conservative blogs. At present Antiwar.com is failed into obscurity.

Personnel include self proclaimed libertarian of neo-Fascist bent Justin Raimondo (founder and editorial director), Eric Garris (founder and webmaster), Matt Barganier (editor), Jeremy Sapienza (assistant webmaster and senior editor),and Alexia Gilmore (executive director). Authors include Raimondo, Ivan Eland, Praful Bidwai, Ran HaCohen, Nebojsa Malic, Alan Bock, Charles V. Peña, Bevin Chu,Joseph Stromberg, Randall (Ismail) Royer, a former employee of the Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR now doing a 20-year federal sentence for Islamist terrorist activities, rightist has beens Paul Craig Roberts and Pat Buchanan, unreformed Stalinist Alexander Cockburn. With exception of Buchanan, no one of site authors is known outside of small circle of peculiar fringe to which any of them belonged.

OK, easily the stupidest thing I've seen.

ACTUALLY it quite accurate but than idealogues will ignore the truth that the website is full of fascists and idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.88.22 (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you NUTS? The warmongers are the fascists ones! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.186.102 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Obviously that bit above is biased in a big way, but as someone who has worked with Antiwar.com for years, I would like to point out that the first clause of its first sentence is more accurate than the same clause in the article. Antiwar.com is not "a libertarian web site." It's an antiwar web site operated by libertarians. There's a difference. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

75.2.245.222 NPOV spammer

75.2.245.222 has continued to post the same uncited points of contention. Not only are they not cited by any kind of source, but they glaringly violate the Terms required of NPOV. Just because you do not like someone or a position held by an organization, does not mean that you can disparage them. Follow the terms, cite sources and stick to NPOV.

- User:Tejano 23:42 06 August 2006 (UTC)

---

(External links)

• Antiwar.com
• PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer, "Voices of Dissent," May 24 1999
• San Francisco Weekly, "Intrepid Antiwarriors of the Libertarian Right," December 10 2003
• FrontPageMag.com, March 15 2005, Stephen Schwartz, "Justin Raimondo. An American Neo-Fascist"

E.G. W. 4 August 2004

Fine. Just leave this here on the discussion page and everyone will be happy. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for vigilance against article corruption

Someone (specifically, an anon user who has posted under at least the following IPs: 75.2.245.222 and 75.3.51.234, and no doubt others) has been trying to corrupt the article (see the bullshit he's repeatedly attempted to add above). Please be on the lookout and get rid of this crap if you see it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yay, somebody finally added my name... maybe I'll eventually get my own article :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.36.251 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 12 August 2006.

Relevance?

I see there was a previous vote on deletion of this article, which was high in favor of "keep". However, why hasn't any editor included NPOV, sourced and verifiable information in this article which clearly demonstrate why this website is notable enough for an article. The writing may be fabulous and provocative, but where are the traffic statistics, the outside references to it from other prominent outlets, news coverage, etc? To read this article on its own, I wonder why this website is important. Does it have a national audience? Is it more a Bay-area thing? Is anything published anywhere in a completely independent, verifiable and reliable source that covers this information?NYDCSP 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone should provide those things. Wish I had the time. I know the stats are favorable to antiwar.com, though. Look here, for example: [1]. Antiwar.com beat out the Nation, Reason, the New Yorker, Mother Jones, the Heritage Foundation, etc. They are not local at all, but are apparently popular not just among paleo-conservatives or even libertarians, but even liberals, since after all, the news links are what it's all about and they are excellent and frequently revised, and their being useful wouldn't depend on one's ideology. So anyway, their traffic is huge. 68.223.6.109 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be true - but doesn't that have to be verified and sourced in the article to prove the relevance of this article's subject? Why hasn't that question by NYDCSP been addressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.6.69.127 (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Members (in particular the founder, Justin Raimondo) have openly supported Russian interventionism."

I removed this line from the article. Now, this isn't the first time it's come up, but this time it cites three sources. However, these three sources do not back up the claim, especially if we're maintaining a NPOV.

The first source, The Real Aggressor, is critical of Georgia and of calls for the U.S. to intervene, and states that Georgia was the aggressor. Nowhere does he "openly support" military action by Russia. He only criticizes the actions by Georgia and some U.S. politicians who want to intervene. Does this constitute "support of Russian interventionism"? Not if we want to keep NPOV.

The second source, 'Poor Little Georgia' – Not! is similar. Raimondo states that the government of Georgia has been historically authoritarian and remains so. He criticizes U.S. involvement and Bill Kristol. Again, nowhere does he actually support Russian military action.

The third source, Russophobia: A Political Pathology is much the same as the last two. He criticizes fear of Russia. Much criticism of those critical toward Russia, but no actual support of Russia.

Nowhere in any of those articles does Raimondo say that the military action by Russia was "good" or "justified" or anything similar.

Even if he had, the line is still POV. Saying "Russian interventionism" implies it was Russia who did the intervention, and not Georgia. That might be disputed, particularly by the Russians, the South Ossetians, and antiwar.com, the subject of this article.

For these reasons, I do not believe the line belongs in the article. --darolew 06:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wait, when did Georgia invade Russia? I'm confused...Georgia invaded Ossetia which was disputedly part of their territory, NOT Russia. Thus, RUSSIA intervened. Regardless if you think its moral or not, RUSSIA had intervention as a THIRD party in a WAR. Futhermore, ALL sources BLAME Georgia for the war (possibly true). They defend Russian points for protecting its citizens (an interventionist SHAM-antiwar.com admits many fewer Ossetians died as a result of the invasion than Russia estimated-about 10% in fact of their estimations). There's no cynicism of Russia at all. If this was the US blasting the hell out of Mexico out of Baja California, you can bet your ass these hypocrites would be complaining. I mean, since when do people assume the Kremlin are telling the truth? Isn't this the anti-Commie right that spawned people such as Pat Buchanan? Its firmly pro-Russia. You can argue semantics, as you are, but there's no disputing looking at the record of "Blame Ukraine on the West" "Blame Georgia on the West" "Let's set up a website over Serbia" "Let's say the Russians were right in the War with Georgia and let them set up two states for punishment of Kosovo" that it is EXTREMELY pro-Russian. Not one statement they've ever made is anti-modern Russia. If you want to remove the statement, CITE stronger evidence its anti-Russian. You won't find it, thus the site MUST be pro-Russian (since a majority of the information, if not all of it, is PRO-Russian). And you're delusional if you disagree.71.247.102.31 (talk) 18:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Personal feelings about the conflict and antiwar.com aside, the line does not belong in the article and the sources you cite do not support what you are saying. I'll address some of your criticism.

I'm confused...Georgia invaded Ossetia which was disputedly part of their territory, NOT Russia. Thus, RUSSIA intervened.

The above statement admits its own flaw. That South Ossetia is Georgian territory is a disputed claim; I'm sure Russia would view the actions of Georgia as the invader, with Russia merely protecting Ossetia. I'm not saying either view is correct; what's important is that Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view, and therefore cannot call the conflict "Russian interventionism".

Futhermore, ALL sources BLAME Georgia for the war (possibly true)

Even if true, this is not relevant; and, as it happens, it's not true at all.

They defend Russian points for protecting its citizens

Where, and in what language? And, if so, does that "defense" constitute actual support for Russian policy?

There's no cynicism [criticism?] of Russia at all. ... Not one statement they've ever made is anti-modern Russia. If you want to remove the statement, CITE stronger evidence its anti-Russian. You won't find it, thus the site MUST be pro-Russian (since a majority of the information, if not all of it, is PRO-Russian).

I believe your reasoning is flawed. You assert that because: a) Don't ever say anything anti-Russian, they b) must be pro-Russian. There are two problems with this. The first is that it assumes there exists only two options—in this case, pro- and anti-Russian—when that is not the case; is it not possible one could be neutral? The second problem is that lack of anti-Russian statements does not mean the site is pro-Russian or even neutral; one cannot formulate their position based on what they have not said—not without some pretty speculative original research.

If this was the US blasting the hell out of Mexico out of Baja California, you can bet your ass these hypocrites would be complaining. I mean, since when do people assume the Kremlin are telling the truth? Isn't this the anti-Commie right that spawned people such as Pat Buchanan?

I do not see the relevance of these statements; care to clarify?

And you're delusional if you disagree.

How so?

At any rate, I stand by what I said before. I believe the line is fairly blatantly fails NPOV and the citations given do not support the claims made in the article. For that reason, I shall remove the line, as well as other recent additions to the article which are not cited. --darolew 09:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's your clarification. Russia invaded a territory that wasn't part of Russia. It intervened in what would be termed by nearly all accounts an external conflict. The point of the statement is to contrast that antiwar is only against US intervention. It does not protest foreign empires. Even if Russia is justified, what Russia did was an act of intervention. Antiwar blamed Georgia for the conflict, claimed Israel was arming them to boot, and thus, the conflict was caused by the "War Party". Now regardless of what the Neo-Conservatives think, anyone who could read a military map would be hard pressed to understand why-if this war was provoked by the "War Party" Russia would have been prepared with armored columns moved in once Medvedev took power? Russia expected and was prepared for this war-it was not a sneak attack. The reality is this shouldn't be mentioning Georgia if the site honestly wasn't concerned with Russia. Yet you, since you're so gung ho about the rhetoric, refuse to accept that this site only opposed US interventionism. America First, right? Well, that's fine. But if that were the case, the site shouldn't be opening its trap so often about Ukraine and Georgia since there are more actors in the area than the US and Israel-never mind the role Germany's played (which is suspiciously not mentioned). I mean, Russia's increasing spending, doing this, doing that, all because US policy, right? You mean Russia has absolutely no ambition for empire? And sending Fighter-Bombers to Chavez was good will, right?

Suggesting you are delusional was probably an error in an argument. But I still think you're being blind in accepting antiwar's tone, which until recently was calling Mikha a war criminal based on false allegations in line with what only the Kremlin said occurred. The fact they listed so many casualties so early which turned out to be false indicates they only have one source: Russia. No correction from Raimondo either. Mikha might be a war criminal, but most of the dramatic allegations by Raimondo proved false. And I fail to see how Raimondo criticized Russian intervention, suggesting he accepts foreign intervention as inevitable...there was no utterance of condemnation that Russian armor left Russian territory. None. Zip. Zilch. Intellectually, it matters, especially when you complain about when Georgia does it, or Israel.

Since you debunked my points, let me debunk your debunking:

Personal feelings about the conflict and antiwar.com aside, the line does not belong in the article and the sources you cite do not support what you are saying. I'll address some of your criticism.

I'm confused...Georgia invaded Ossetia which was disputedly part of their territory, NOT Russia. Thus, RUSSIA intervened.

The above statement admits its own flaw. That South Ossetia is Georgian territory is a disputed claim; I'm sure Russia would view the actions of Georgia as the invader, with Russia merely protecting Ossetia. I'm not saying either view is correct; what's important is that Wikipedia must maintain a neutral point of view, and therefore cannot call the conflict "Russian interventionism".

This is horrifically flawed logically. I said Ossetia was disputed purposefully. Even if Russia views Georgia as the invader, if Russia protects South Ossetia, which is NOT Russian territory, it is intervening in a foreign conflict. This is neutral as it is a statement of an action which can NOT be disputed by any side, unless one assumes South Ossetia (and possibly Georgia) are Russian to begin with. If South Ossetia is not Russian, then by definition, all Russian actions in South Ossetia are intervention.

Futhermore, ALL sources BLAME Georgia for the war (possibly true)

Even if true, this is not relevant; and, as it happens, it's not true at all.

This is relevant, since if the website was genuinely neutral, it should not be involved. It blames American intervention for the conflict and ignores Russian intervention in the conflict. Since Russia won, which is not condemned, it is pro-Russian by virtue of supporting the outcome, based on intervention, which Raimondo has also noted a few times in a gloating tone that Georgia was routed. There were only really two sides in this war, and Raimondo gloated that the Russian side won. Thus, logically again, it is pro-Russia.

They defend Russian points for protecting its citizens

Where, and in what language? And, if so, does that "defense" constitute actual support for Russian policy?

Considering allegations made by Russia were wrong and at the time repeated by few media sources except for some reason agreed to by antiwar, it seems that antiwar believed Russia's actions were justified. Defense based on liberal estimates of casualties that were only mentioned by the Russian side seems like support for Russia since its definitely by definition not supporting reality, let alone the Georgian line (which also was not realistic).

There's no cynicism [criticism?] of Russia at all. ... Not one statement they've ever made is anti-modern Russia. If you want to remove the statement, CITE stronger evidence its anti-Russian. You won't find it, thus the site MUST be pro-Russian (since a majority of the information, if not all of it, is PRO-Russian).

I believe your reasoning is flawed. You assert that because: a) Don't ever say anything anti-Russian, they b) must be pro-Russian. There are two problems with this. The first is that it assumes there exists only two options—in this case, pro- and anti-Russian—when that is not the case; is it not possible one could be neutral? The second problem is that lack of anti-Russian statements does not mean the site is pro-Russian or even neutral; one cannot formulate their position based on what they have not said—not without some pretty speculative original research.

Antiwar fails to condemn Russian intervention; only Georgian intervention. It mentions the conflict. It does not denounce the conflict, just one side. Thus it is pro-Russian since again, it denounces only one side. Neutral Point of View be damned here-the view isn't neutral to begin with. There are only two options here realistically, since there's absence of condemnation. This isn't a "You're with us or against us" thing. People who aren't "with us" or "against us" generally take a third option-justifying their independent actions. They point out both sides of the conflict. Antiwar failed to do this, and clearly they failed to educate their readers on what intervention is.

If this was the US blasting the hell out of Mexico out of Baja California, you can bet your ass these hypocrites would be complaining. I mean, since when do people assume the Kremlin are telling the truth? Isn't this the anti-Commie right that spawned people such as Pat Buchanan?

I do not see the relevance of these statements; care to clarify?

There was a time when people like Patrick Buchanan, whom might be considered the Godfather of Paleo-Conservatism, would openly assume the Kremlin was lying about everything. It turns out with this conflict, they were lying about a lot (so was Georgia). Yet, the antiwar right (anti-Commie as well) doesn't seem to have any problem believing the Kremlin. There's a paradigm shift here, and this is obviously off subject. The point here is that it is not consistent with opinions some in this movement would have had 20 years ago.

As far as the Baja California claim, it is a reference to their stance on immigration. I got the context horribly wrong here, but they claim Mexicans bring in crime, drugs, gangs, disease, garbage, steal our money, etc.; maybe not the site themselves but certainly those who are associated with an America First policy. So if we decided to intervene in Mexico to cut off immigration, you can bet these guys on the site would have a tough time knowing what to make of it. Once again, it has no direct point, it is original research (to an extent, since Buchanan actually mentions these things in his book Death of the West). That's not on the website. But the authors on the website certainly dabble in these attitudes.

At the end of the day, this site only condemns US policy. This is not anti-American inherently, since US policy might be wrong. What makes it anti-American is it bases it on certain ideals, and doesn't apply them to all actors, only certain ones. Even if it isn't anti-American, it certainly comes off as Pro-Russian. Combined with the fact it doesn't condemn Iran and supports Iranian positions-which may be fine-but condemns US meddling in Iraq and Israeli meddling in Gaza (The latter point is important) means its at least pro-Iran. Iran also occupies provinces which might be seen as disputed. No mention of that on the site. No, only condemnation of what the US and its allies do. Definitely no condemnation of Russia and its allies, except possibly left allies such as Hugo Chavez. But I'd have to look for that.71.247.102.31 (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Rethinking the situation, I agree it's probably not improper to call Russia's action "interventionism". However, I am afraid I still disagree with you on one thing. I do not believe, from the sources provided, the antiwar.com can fairly have been said to "openly support Russian interventionism".

A few points.

Yet you, since you're so gung ho about the rhetoric, refuse to accept that this site only opposed US interventionism.

I am not an antiwar.com partisan; I am more than willing to let criticism of the site stand. I merely am asking for clear evidence. Please provide an antiwar.com article—even better, a specific quote from an article—which clearly demonstrates support of the Russian policy. Mere criticism of Georgia and Georgia's policy won't suffice; neither will lack-of-criticism of Russia and Russian policy. Unless concrete references are provided, it's quite unlikely the article's editors will let the information remain.

But I still think you're being blind in accepting antiwar's tone, which until recently was calling Mikha a war criminal based on false allegations in line with what only the Kremlin said occurred. The fact they listed so many casualties so early which turned out to be false indicates they only have one source: Russia. No correction from Raimondo either. Mikha might be a war criminal, but most of the dramatic allegations by Raimondo proved false. [...] Considering allegations made by Russia were wrong and at the time repeated by few media sources except for some reason agreed to by antiwar, it seems that antiwar believed Russia's actions were justified. Defense based on liberal estimates of casualties that were only mentioned by the Russian side seems like support for Russia since its definitely by definition not supporting reality, let alone the Georgian line (which also was not realistic).

So, according to you: 1) antiwar.com accepted Russian sources as true; 2) the Russian sources were inaccurate/lies; and 3) antiwar.com did not print a retraction. Would this indicate pro-Russian bias? Quite likely. Or, perhaps, sloppy journalism? Even if it were pro-Russian bias, such cannot be said to conclusively prove "open support of Russian interventionism". It shows nothing more than reliance, willingly or not, on non-credible sources. Anything else is inference. Such inference may be perfectly valid—but Wikipedia is the wrong place for it.

This is relevant, since if the website was genuinely neutral, it should not be involved.

How is antiwar.com involved?—only by commentary. Does commentary preclude neutrality?

It blames American intervention for the conflict and ignores Russian intervention in the conflict. Since Russia won, which is not condemned, it is pro-Russian by virtue of supporting the outcome, based on intervention, which Raimondo has also noted a few times in a gloating tone that Georgia was routed. There were only really two sides in this war, and Raimondo gloated that the Russian side won. Thus, logically again, it is pro-Russia.

Is it logically impossible for one to prefer the Russian side without supporting their policy? Perhaps antiwar.com merely thinks of Russia, in this conflict, as the lesser of two evils. Do not similar things happen in elections all the time?—many people are against both candidates, thus are not pro either, but still prefer one as less evil than the either. If I'd prefer Khrushchev to Stalin, am I pro-Khrushchev? I think you get my point.

And I fail to see how Raimondo criticized Russian intervention, suggesting he accepts foreign intervention as inevitable...there was no utterance of condemnation that Russian armor left Russian territory. None. Zip. Zilch. Intellectually, it matters, especially when you complain about when Georgia does it, or Israel. [...] Antiwar fails to condemn Russian intervention; only Georgian intervention. It mentions the conflict. It does not denounce the conflict, just one side. Thus it is pro-Russian since again, it denounces only one side. Neutral Point of View be damned here-the view isn't neutral to begin with. There are only two options here realistically, since there's absence of condemnation. This isn't a "You're with us or against us" thing. People who aren't "with us" or "against us" generally take a third option-justifying their independent actions. They point out both sides of the conflict. Antiwar failed to do this, and clearly they failed to educate their readers on what intervention is.

"Failing to condemn" is still only an implied preference; and, as I pointed out above, even a preference does not mean they actually support either side.

There was a time when people like Patrick Buchanan, whom might be considered the Godfather of Paleo-Conservatism, would openly assume the Kremlin was lying about everything. It turns out with this conflict, they were lying about a lot (so was Georgia). Yet, the antiwar right (anti-Commie as well) doesn't seem to have any problem believing the Kremlin. There's a paradigm shift here, and this is obviously off subject. The point here is that it is not consistent with opinions some in this movement would have had 20 years ago. (Emphasis added.)

Indeed.

As far as the Baja California claim, it is a reference to their stance on immigration. I got the context horribly wrong here, but they claim Mexicans bring in crime, drugs, gangs, disease, garbage, steal our money, etc.; maybe not the site themselves but certainly those who are associated with an America First policy. So if we decided to intervene in Mexico to cut off immigration, you can bet these guys on the site would have a tough time knowing what to make of it. Once again, it has no direct point, it is original research (to an extent, since Buchanan actually mentions these things in his book Death of the West). That's not on the website. But the authors on the website certainly dabble in these attitudes.

Some of the paleoconservative writers may feel that way; I know not all of writers do. However, I feel this topic is off-tangent; consider, we're speculating about how certain antiwar.com writers would respond to a hypothetical conflict... that line of thinking, even if a valid topic of conversation, is not of any relevance to an encyclopedia.

At the end of the day, this site only condemns US policy. This is not anti-American inherently, since US policy might be wrong. What makes it anti-American is it bases it on certain ideals, and doesn't apply them to all actors, only certain ones. Even if it isn't anti-American, it certainly comes off as Pro-Russian. Combined with the fact it doesn't condemn Iran and supports Iranian positions-which may be fine-but condemns US meddling in Iraq and Israeli meddling in Gaza (The latter point is important) means its at least pro-Iran. Iran also occupies provinces which might be seen as disputed. No mention of that on the site. No, only condemnation of what the US and its allies do. Definitely no condemnation of Russia and its allies, except possibly left allies such as Hugo Chavez. But I'd have to look for that.

Is this really so remarkable? Antiwar.com is primarily a U.S.-based website. One might expect their criticism to focus on the U.S. and those whom the U.S. supports—even to the exclusion of criticizing anyone else. That may well be a fault of the website; but, if so, what do you propose should be done?—to the article, I mean.

--

To reëmphasize the key thing I meant to communicate: to assert that antiwar.com is pro-Russian requires solid evidence. An article, or better a specific quote from an article, would be the best method of delivering such evidence. It is not enough to point out all the places where antiwar.com has failed to criticize Russia, or criticized its opponent Georgia, because an inference is not solid evidence. And, even if it can be shown that antiwar.com prefers Russia to Georgia in the Ossetian conflict (which I think it can), that does not make antiwar.com pro-Russia, no more than I'm pro-Khrushchev for thinking Khrushchev would be better than Stalin. --darolew 04:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

--

Darolew's points are valid. The citations given in no way back up the statements placed in the article, e.g. that Justin Raimondo supports Russian interventionism (the cited articles show only that Raimondo opposed the initial Georgian onslaught), or that the website corrected mistakes made recently about the Georgian war of August 2008 (one cited article has Raimondo stating that the South Ossetians claim 1400 dead, and a later article states that the claim was revised---both statements about the claims themselves were true). Clearly, the edit by Rohlif was not justified by the citations given. 75.21.85.50 (talk) 04:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

911 Truther?

The opening paragraph claims that the site commonly publishes people in the 911 conspiracy/truth movement. Not only is it not common, I have never seen it at all. I am removing it until someone has a source 24.207.226.108 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

In this article Justin Raimondo claims that there's some "Israeli connection" to 9/11. That's very similar to what the 9/11 Truthers believe.--Auspx (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The article you point to does not claim Israel caused 911, as you are trying to imply but instead that after 911, several hundred Israeli's were detained and questioned over the event because it is believed the Israeli's were tracking some of the hijackers. A theory which is not only plausible but supported by evidence 97.91.173.58 (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Thats bullshit and you know it Justin is a anti semetic truther. Get off your horse Libtard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.88.22 (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Questionable edit summaries

For questionable edits. Any one who can include the following in edit summaries made Dec 8 and Dec 9, really has to step back from aggressive deletionism and give editors a chance to clean up any legitimate issues. Thus I have reverted the removed material.

• Edit summary:(removing OR about CIA agents being interviewed on the show (who is to say these people played a substantive -- or indeed any -- role in "foreign policy decisions"? I have worked for the Council on Foreign Relations, and I have contributed nothing.)

Question: The writers are listed below; it shouldn't be to hard to give examples from there, should it be done to prove the point the group makes about itself? Or even find some relevant WP:RS? Just because you didn't contribute anything in your CfR job doesn't mean others didn't in theirs. (Hope this CfR job isn't a WP:COI? You know, like DickClarkMises former job several years ago allegedly was??)

• Edit summary:(c.e. (removing note about "Randolph Bourne Institute", which doesn't even seem to exist in any substantive sense.))

Question: So it's a small Institute, and not the CfR. That's no reason to delete it. See http://randolphbourne.org/

• Edit summary:(OR, unencyclopedic to call current U.S. Wars "aggressive" (or, for that matter, defensive/just.)) This website is against war primarily and the first sentence should reflect that. Justifications for this should follow) (undo | thank)

Question: The way the group describes itself doesn't count but your definition of antiwar does?? Sorry, we can use what groups say about themselves. And there is sufficient material about them out there to beef up the article. Why don't you do some research? I'll be busy beefing up the Murphy-Krugman debate so have to put it on hold for a week. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read this post twice and I have no idea what it is trying to say. Could you please write a few short prose sentences which summarize your concern? Please use declamatory statements, with diffs as needed, but without bullets and references to unidentified diffs or unexplained external content. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

This thread is now a complete mess because OP has rewritten the initial posting after I replied to it. Please start over. It's even more unintelligible now. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You requested I fix it, so I didn't think I had to add "Added later." I think your complaints sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Carol, you continue to display an inability to focus on content, not contributors. You are accusing me of being "pro-war" on the basis of no evidence, while alleging a CoI based on a brief mention of minor (academic) work I did with the CfR. Do you really believe these remarks are necessary, and contribute to this community? Steeletrap (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Please quote where I say you are pro-war. The only thing at all relevant I say is: The way the group describes itself doesn't count but your definition of antiwar does?? Please explain. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

In an edit summary about your reversion of my edits, you stated "announcing your pro-war POV and possible WP:COI in edit summaries not a great way to start." Steeletrap (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. I momentarily got CfR mixed up with another real pro-war mongering organization. My apologies for not giving CfR it's due. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability and FBI investigations

For the record, before I get around to it, there are dozens of recent mainstream articles about Antiwar.com because the FBI investigated them for years after they complained someone was trying to hack them. A search of FBI and Antiwar.com comes up with lots, his one being on top. And of course all sorts of other material that people just haven't bothered to dig up. Just one more article on my list. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

On the face of your reasonable argument, the tag at the top of the article does not fly. I'm removing the tag. If the tagger wants to take this matter to Wikipedia:Afd that's fine, but I'd be surprised if they do. This seems a prima facie case of established notability. And I'd ask the tag not merely be restored without discussion here first. Jusdafax 06:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's still on my list to fix up, but other things are popping and I'm a bit burned out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The tag does not mean antiwar.com is not notable. It means that its notability is questionable. Please provide RS that establish its notability. Steeletrap (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The FBI investigation story may be sufficient to establish notability. The Guardian story is distinct from the other RS we currently cite in the piece in that it mentions antiwar.com extensively and substantively. Steeletrap (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Carol, if you add to the article what you say are "dozens of recent mainstream articles" on antiwar.com, the tag can be safely removed. Steeletrap (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Significant coverage of Antiwar.com includes the Guardian, ABC News, the San Francisco Chronicle and the American Civil Liberties Union. Claims of non-notability or "questionable" notability are absurd. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I've forgotten about doing this myself (too many articles, too little time); thanks for reminder. Busy next few days, but soon. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like there are plenty of sources, and yet the banner is still at the top of the article. I'll take it down. 55 Gators (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like someone is trying to smear Antiwar.com

A lot of content seems to have been added to this article with the deliberate intention of smearing Antiwar.com as a radical right-wing organization. That's plainly contradicted by Antiwar.com's posting of articles by left-leaning writers like Medea Benjamin, Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard. Opposition to war cuts across the political spectrum. Even if the site does have Libertarian writers like, say, Ron Paul, these authors do not inject Libertarian social philosophy into their articles. As there are many pro-war factions today, any of which would have a vested interest in smearing Antiwar.com. Practical321 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Neither Glenn Greenwald nor Tulsi Gabbard are left-leaning. Characterizing Antiwar.com as right-wing is accurate. — Red XIV ^(talk) 06:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)