Template talk:Anti-war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconAnti-war Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Use of the 'Peace symbol' in the template[edit]

Some debate has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war, Talk:Conscientious objector and User talk:Tomtrinity7 about the appropriateness of having the peace symbol on the anti-war template.

As I see it in summary the complaint is that doing so implies support for, or seeks to encourage support for, the anti-war movement (or peace movement as it has all so been referred to as). DrAlbertHofmann claimed that displaying the symbol is "activist at it's core"[1]. Tomtrinity7 claimed that it "is a clear political statement against current war politics in Iraq"[2] and compared displaying the peace symbol on articles as equivalent to spray painting a "Swastika on the outside of the building" (note: it is unclear to me whether Tomrinity7 thinks this is so for having the symbol on the template in general or just having it on the Conscientious objector page.) Another possible complaint might be that the symbol is not associated with anti-war topics in general but rather with CND or as Tomtrinity7 claims "it serves to represent a movement of people who have varied interests but gather under the umbrella of the peace sign, e.g. animal rights, environmentalists, etc"[3]

My argument that these criticisms are misplaced and that the symbol should be used runs roughly as follows.

  1. The symbol is merely illustrative of anti-war topics its use is no more biased to use it then to use the word "anti-war". As generally is the case with wikipedia's use of logo's; no support is implied.
  2. 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 picturing of a tank in the History of war template shows support for war/tanks or the use the anarchist symbol in the Anarcisism sidebar implies support for anarchism. Indeed while the Template:Fascism template may not have a Swastika on it but it does have the Fasces which is generally regarded as a facist symbol (see Fascist symbolism).
  3. While the peace symbol did originate with CND it has now come to be generally associated with opposition to war. Its use by other groups (animal rights, environmentalists, etc.) seems to be parasitic on this general association. Of course no symbol fits exactly the wide topic of opposition to war as we have defined it here (see anti-war for the wide definition we are using), but this is always the case with trying to find a symbol for anything. C.F. I doubt that all fascists and fascist movements associate with the "Fasces" but this does not mean it is inappropriate to use it on the fascism template.

--JK the unwise 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JK, I agree with you, and that the symbol is appropriate for the template and should remain. You can't please everyone, after all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto.– Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tryed to be fair in my presentation of others arguments but of course the best people to put their complaints are them people with the complaints themselves. If anyone belives that what I have said misrepresents the argument, that there are futher problems with the symbols use or that my replies are not adequate please say so here. I am open minded to us useing a differnt symbol if one is suggested and and a good argument made as to why it is better.--JK the unwise 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment has been copied from Talk:George Galloway#Anti-war topic template

I might be wrong but isn't that the logo for CND (campaign for nuclear disarmament) - that's actually an established organisation like greenpeace i think, whereas the anti-war movement is like having a hammer and sickle titled "communism flag" which wouldn't be right it's a communist-era russian flag! =P—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean2k2 (talkcontribs) 20 Feb 2006

I have allready commented on this in point 3 above but I'll say a few more things. The Communism template which is found on pages about communism does use the hammer sickle as an illistrative logo I would imagine this is becase even though the symbol orginated as a symbol of a particular "Communist" country it has since become generalised to be used as a general symbol representing communism. The same is true of the "CND logo", it has for a long time aso been a general peace logo used by alsorts of different groups, see Peace symbol#The CND peace symbol for more information. If you can think of a symbol that would be more appropreate we are open to suggestions.--JK the unwise 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
once you put an advocacy sign on the template it becomes a POV advocating that cause. The problem is minor for historical topics but major for issues that have a contemporary POV. This has a contemporary POV and it does more than "illustrate" the article--it is a parade banner and violates Wiki policies. Rjensen 12:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please bare in mind that Wiki is an international project not a nationalistic statement about the way the world ought to be. I would rather there were areas in which contemporary POV was taken into account, than participate in a one-sided, pseudo-scientific experiment which will ultimately fail simply because Wiki is bigger than its human creator and must therefore incorporate a metaphysical dimension into its logic. Ethnopunk 12:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the points discussed above in support of the current peace symbol. However, while, to me, it is a sort of generic symbol for antiwar/peace movements, it appears from discussion on the Conscientious objector and other pages, that for others, it represents particular segments of the antiwar/peace movements. They have a particular POV, of course, but I think it's worth considering the universality of this symbol and what it represents, and whether other symbols are equivalent. For instance, the dove with a sprig of something in its mouth is also commonly associated with peace / antiwar movements. Is the circle / line peace symbol broadly representative of the peace movement, or is it also particularly represented with some aspects of the peace movement? Are there other symbols which are broader and more representative and similarly recognizable? --LQ 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While I belive that the 'CND' peace symbol is fine I not particuly againnst changing it to the dove with olive branch symbol. However I doubt that the people who object to the current symbol would be more happy with that. The 'dove' peace symbol has religious overtones and might be considered POV because it is more indicative of hopefull peace while the 'CND' sign is more indicative merly of opposition to war. I may be wroung. If those who would like to change the symbol could please speak up.--JK the unwise 19:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't like this template and believe it is OR and POV. I can't be bothered to battle for deletion though, so I'm just removing anti-imperialism, which is only anti imperialist war, and pro anti-imperialist war. mgekelly 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appeasement tends to be against some wars but not others, those who opposed World War I didn't nessisarly oppose World War II ==> inclusion in the template does not imply that the subject is about opposition to all wars.--JK the unwise 19:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use on Conscientious objector article[edit]

There has been an ongoing disagreement about using the Anti-war template in the Conscientious objector article. Editors who think it may or may not be appropriate for that article are invited to share their thoughts. See Talk:Conscientious objector#Anti-war template. JonHarder 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Only[edit]

The template only lists opposition to wars involving the United States. This should either be retitled to reflect its focus or modified to remove this obvious bias. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although I wouldn't call it 'obvious bias' but instead a lack of information on other countries on the part of the designer. Ahudson 16:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not even that, I'd say. It's one of Wikipedia's shortcomings - since this is the English-language Wikipedia, there is kind of an anglo-centric tilt to it. We try to counter it, but it still comes out. All the wars being opposed in the template are about wars involving English-speaking countries. American wars, as well as the Second Boer War, which involved the UK. Do we need to globalize the template? Probably. It does need a more worldwide view. But we need to do A before B. Therefore, we need articles to link to it first before we can link them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this template should be renamed Anti-America. Seems the hippies and peaceniks don't give a damn about war if the U.S. ain't involved. Regards, --Jayzel 04:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it's difficult to restrain myself to replying to that politely, I will.
Yes, this should be more internationalized. And there have been plenty of anti-war movements in other countries, including opposition in the late Soviet Union to their war in Afghanistan (we seem not even to have an article on that opposition). It looks like whoever has mainly been putting this together is American (as I am) and is relatively unfamiliar with political movements in other countries. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement template[edit]

I have designed a replacement template for this page at Template:Anti-war/Bottom. This would replace this template with one that would sit at the bottom of the article, which would free up the article's top for related photos and such. I'm implementing it on a test basis on certain articles, and will let you know which ones as soon as I place them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New template added to:
Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conscientious objection to military taxation[edit]

Could "Conscientious objection to military taxation" be added to the box? (talk) 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to deleted portal removed[edit]

The Anti-war portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

local anti-war groups[edit]

Apart from Mahatma Gandhi, this template mostly seems to document Western-country based movements opposed to their governments fighting wars in other countries. But India is not the only country in the world where nonviolent resistance has or is still being used as a political tactic "against the guns". The Arab Spring 1.0 in 2011 and 2.0 now had and have many examples, and of course Solidarność in the 1980s in Poland, and similar movements in central/eastern Europe at that time, and during the 1990s and 2000s in several other places around the world. So there are quite a few missing links to existing Wikipedia articles on the present version of the template. Boud (talk) 22:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]


If there is no specific reason to have the title of this template be aligned at the right side of the text box, please move it to the center as is standard. It looks inconsistent when used with other category boxes. Thanks! Evil Baboon (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Randy Kryn, I assume you'd prefer to keep it right aligned? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! Didn't realize the formatting change was a recent one, will make sure to discuss next time. Evil Baboon (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Baboon, no worries. I saw it was a very well established user that made the change, and assumed that they had a solid reason. The verbiage in the reply is just the template from the tool I used, hope it didn't come across too harsh. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, totally understandable! I just noticed it when trying to clean up the article on Christian anarchism a bit, and it seemed somewhat unusual. Evil Baboon (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The title should be centered, that was a coding mistake on my part from moving the section titles to right-aligned and I must have included the title. I put a Band-Aid on it with center coding and that should hold it there. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate the explanation and fix. I wasn't sure if the right alignment was a preferred look for a wiki project or something, so I didn't want to change it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If "Coding" were my middle-name I'd have to change it (maybe to 'Tex' or something). Randy Kryn (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]