Talk:Stop the War Coalition/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pic I didn't use

(William M. Connolley 22:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I've uploaded a pic or two - it seems a shame not to have one. One I uploaded but didn't use is the eagle: it was a great banner and a passable pic but might perhaps be considered offensive.

Minor things

Dbiv did a good job with the "full copyedit and rewrite" but I don think that the this line is right; "this meeting also elected a Steering Committee which was dominated by members of the Socialist Workers Party" according to the GPGB article [1] article 40 people were elceted to the executive with only 4 being SWP members.--JK the unwise 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

While I can't disagree with you on the wording as it appears in the article, the role of the SWP raises questions which I think the article should address. There were (and are) many participants in the coalition deeply critical of its leadership (stemming in part from the power of a certain section of the anti-war movement). The article in its current form doesn't really address that. As one of those concerned people I think it should, however, I'm not sure as yet how to phrase it. I'll get back to you and maybe bounce some ideas around in here. Disillusioned kid 21:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe something referencing this Guardian article [2] (which is probably notable where my opinions aren't) which I agree with some, but not all of? Disillusioned kid 21:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The article appears in places to be almost deliberately ambiguous.

WHO organised public meeting of over 2,000 people in the Friend's Meeting House in London, chaired by Lindsey German? Did German organise the meeting, or become involved in the capacity of editor of the Socialist Workers Party's magazine?

"StWC sought to join the Make Poverty History coalition of groups campaining [sic] around the 31st G8 summit, held in July of that year, for an end to poverty, but was prevented from doing so."

Seems like obfuscation to me. The implication in the wording suggests that this rejection of the StWC in joining Make Poverty History was wrong, or that people pulling the strings (the UK government, perhaps?) intervened unfairly in the matter. WHY were StWC not able to join MPH? (Annon user:172.212.12.34)

Not quite sure how to make the wording more NPOV, that they were prevented from joining seems like a NPOV reporting of fact to me. The later sentence attributing reson to be that StWC to anti-gov' is correctly identified as spectulation.--JK the unwise 17:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I found this article Inside The Murky World Of The Uk's Make Poverty History Campaign from red pepper magazine which says, "The MPH Coordinating Team, which includes Oxfam, Comic Relief and the TUC, has also twice unanimously vetoed the Stop the War Coalition's (STWC) application to join MPH on the Orwellian grounds that the issues of economic justice and development are separate from that of war, and STWC's participation in Edinburgh on 2 July would confuse the message. It will be interesting, then, to see if Oxfam bans itself - it is currently leading a global campaign for an international arms treaty on the basis that "uncontrolled arms fuels poverty and suffering"--JK the unwise 19:06, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms re: Islam

• I was a steward on two of the marches organised by Stop The War and, while I support their immediate goals, I do think that it should be recognised that some coalition member organisations were extremely unpleasant. Like the fellow-steward from the Muslim Association who told me that he didn't see anything wrong with a banner covered in swastikas and the words "death to Jews", but that we had to take it down so the police wouldn't stop the march. Or the other group from the same organisation who told me that they didn't approve of "queers" being on the march.Vizjim 16:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Speculation about the future

I removed the following about the forthcoming Feb 2007 demo (from this section):

There seems to be little speculation about the size of this demo so far, however the increasing membership of CND recently, the larger local population, and efforts partly in response to a motion passed at the Socialist Workers Party (Britain) conference to expand the base of Stop the War may mean that this protest is larger than the previous one in Manchester.

It seems to me inappropriate to include speculation about the future, especially unreferenced. BobFromBrockley 09:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

During wartime?

Trying to de-POV this article and noticed that the demonstration section includes a phrase about the largest demonstration "during wartime" - I take it I'm right in thinking that there was no actual declaration of war and therefore this bit is wrong? MarkThomas 11:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Iraq War article has the war starting on 20 March the demo was on Saturday, 22 March.--JK the unwise 14:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:StWC Logo.png

Image:StWC Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Key messages section

I'm not happy with this sentence:

• The 'war' in the name of the group refers to the various wars that are claimed to be part of the ongoing war on terrorism.

This may have been the original mission but StWC also has made statements about Iran and the "Axis of Evil" states. And who claism that the wars are are part of the war on terrorism? StWC? George Bush (who isn't in office any more)? Tony Blair (ditto)? Description needs to be more up to date.--Peter cohen (talk) 11:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Stop the War Coalition/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: On hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to determine if the article should remain a Good article. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are several issues that needs to be addressed.

1. The tag at the top of the page needs to be addressed. The article has been tagged since last month.
2. All of the citation needed tags need to be addressed. The "Key messages" section is completely unsourced.
3. The article has multiple dead links that need to be fixed. The Internet Archive can help.
4. The external link in the "Criticisms" section needs to be either converted to a citation or moved to the external links section.
5. Some of the citations need be more descriptive. Include the author, title, date, publisher, accessdate, etc. The citation templates at WP:CITET can help.

This article covers the topic well and has several free images. I will review the prose of the article once the above issues are addressed. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. If no progress is made, the article may be delisted, which can then later be renominated at WP:GAN. I'll contact all of the main contributors and related WikiProjects so the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As it stands, I'd be hard pressed even to give this article a "B" rating, given its lack of citations. In addition to the problems mentioned by Nehrams:

• the lead also fails GA, as it is not a stand-alone summary of the article.
• the writing style and the flow and layout of the article need to be improved.

I've made a small start, but other commitments mean I'm unlikely to be able to fix all the problems within a week (or, probably, even longer).

--NSH001 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Delisted

Per the above comments, it appears that the issues will not be able to be addressed in the coming weeks. As a result I have delisted the article as it still has a way to go before meeting the GA criteria. Continue to improve the article, addressing the issues above. I look forward to seeing the further improvement of the article, and don't hesitate to contact me if you need assistance with any of these. I'll be happy to re-review the article or at least give it another look if you want to nominate it at GAN. If you disagree with this review, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 16:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A bit hasty, maybe? I doubt I could fix it on my own in a week or so, but if a couple of other editors were to appear? --NSH001 (talk) 16:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I was initially going to delist this from the beginning, but had figured that if it could be fixed quickly, then I'd leave it on hold. However, if it's going to take several weeks, then it should be delisted now. If the article's above issues are addressed, it can easily be re-nominated at GAN. Another thing that has to be considered is that the article's current state is still available to readers. If they saw the issues that are mentioned as well as the fact that it is labeled as a GA, this would hurt the reputation of the GA process and Wikipedia in general. If several editors do pull together and help improve the article, I will be happy to re-review the article once the changes are made. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

More a question of motivation, I think. I'm happy enough to put in some solid effort over a couple of days, in the hope that someone else might appear to help me out. Anti-war articles can be hard to work on because of the shortage of good sources; mainstream WP:RS are usually biased against the anti-war position and are often, in my experience, inaccurate. In your position, I would have given it a couple of days to see if someone else appeared, and then delisted it. As I see it, I now don't have the incentive any longer to put in the solid work necessary. --NSH001 (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that as a lack of incentive. To return the article to its former GA status should be motivational enough. I don't think you need to give up on the article solely because it is delisted. This article was passed back in 2005 and since then the standards for the criteria have changed considerably. It is inevitable that updates and new sources were needed. Even if re-attaining GA status isn't motivational, improving the article's content compared to what it is now, should be. I never delist articles just to do so, but to ensure the criteria is met. I've seen many articles improved and returned to GA status, and sometimes it does take longer than a few weeks. If there are issues with the delisting, a community consensus can be reached at WP:GAR. Keep looking for sources, as although some may be biased, there should be plenty available that are not. Look for websites, newspapers, books, journals, etc. Consider asking members of the related WikiProjects to help find the sources needed to improve the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say that I was surprised when the sweep was mentioned. I hadn't realised that this was a GA and my immediate reaction was that here was a delist coming.--Peter cohen (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Biggest demo in history?

Deleted: "The Coalition organised the biggest demonstrations in British history before and during the invasion of Iraq by U.S. and UK forces."

Not actually true as the Chartist demonstrations were certainly bigger and the number of people on the stop the war march is disputed.

Someone should actually write an article as opposed to listing objectives etc.

Alun Ephraim 12:22, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The turn out was believed to be up to 2 million. The police said 1 million. The police also underestimated the turn out of the chartist demonstrations. I believe it to be bigger than the chartist demonstrations although it would correct to say that the turn out is disputed. You should have edited the comment rather than just deleting it. Secretlondon 13:09, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)

Actually the police said 750,000. 2 million is certainly bogus, although 1 million is certainly possible. Alun Ephraim

Most crowd estimates are nonsense. The organisers tend to think of a nunumber and double it, the police use a formula based on area and density of the crowd, which I don't know has been proved to be valid.

138.253.102.141 13:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 22:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)) As I recall, the Guardian commissioned a survey after the march. The numbers are large enough that it becomes statistically reasonable as a way to count. The answer was about 1.25 M. How big were the Chartist demos?

Don't know but BBC reported 'Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000 taking part'[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm] So police must think Cartist demo=under 750,000--JK the unwise 19:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

paper sculpture of USA eagle clutching the world: on the march, February 2003

Maybe this depends on what is meant by "demonstration". For example, it is often said that 1.5m people came out to watch Winston Churchill's funeral. Similarly, several million people including at least 1 million outside Buckingham Palace gathered in central London on VE day. I am very sceptical about the "largest ever" claim as there is no objective data on historical events - how many people for example took part on the Wat Tyler rebellion? We have no way of knowing. MarkThomas 11:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Guiness Book of Records has it down as the largest ever. In all fairness the Wat Tyler rebellion cannot have had that many people taking part, not that many people lived in the same area of England that they could travel to within a couple of days to be in the same place, and of course if you're counting everyone who took part in the entire rebellion you should count all the demos across the country against the war in Iraq. Where I live, which is Lincoln, we had about 2000 people demonstrate against it here, there were demoes in every town and city. The biggest problem with estimating the size of the demo is that people were still leaving from the start point when it finished, it was so big some people didn't even get the chance to demonstrate.--Gothicform 10:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A very belated note on the numbers. I was on the march, and in Picaddily I stopped to try to make an estimate. I counted roughly the number of people across the street, and roughly the number of "rows" passing me in 10 secs. Multiply the two together to get the number passing per 10 secs, then multiply up for the 6 hour duration of the march. Answer came to about 1.8 million, but with a fairly wide margin of error. Subject to the margin of error, this method significantly underestimated the figure, because:

1. the march actually lasted longer than 6 hours (police started it early, due to pressure of numbers)
2. there were significant numbers walking through Green Park to the south, and through the parallel streets to the north
3. many people went direct to Hyde Park
4. many others got stuck, and didn't make it to Hyde Park at all

So I reckon "about 2 million" is actually quite a reasonable estimate, and it is quite possible the true figure could be higher. What was ridiculous was the organisers on the day announcing a figure of "3 million" from the stage. --NSH001 (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Benn & Galloway both wore poppies

I feel strongly that this article should make some mention of both StWC's vice-president George Galloway and president, the late Tony Benn, both having worn undeniably pro-war Royal British Legion remembrance poppies during their presidencies; plus Benn having backed The Daily Mirror's 'Medals For The Brave' campaign in 2007. Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd

Libya

Describe demonstration against bombing of Libya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.22.50 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Criticisms

@Relentlessly:: Can you explain the reason for your POV tag? What is it that triggered it?-- Clem Rutter (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi ClemRutter. Yes, I was getting started on doing so when I had a meeting start!

Possibly POV wasn't the only reasonable tag: there's also a lot of original research/synthesis going on. The whole section reads as a set of allegations followed by refutation. It is not well sourced and it is not NPOV.

For example: "Cohen, Rentoul and others have repeatedly claimed that the sole responsibility for civilian deaths in Iraq lay with terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda" is sourceless.

"However, the most comprehensive survey of mortality between 2003 and 2011 found that the occupation forces were responsible for the largest proportion of violent deaths, 35%" is a misuse of primary sources.

This is the kind of thing that goes on throughout the section. It's very POVish and needs a thorough rewrite and a good deal of research. I'd be surprised if there isn't some relevant academic literature published. Relentlessly (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

@Relentlessly: Thanks- not a quick fix, eh.-- Clem Rutter (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, ClemRutter. I'd have done it myself if so! Relentlessly (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mother Agnes

A user User talk:Solntsa90 keeps removing a reference to the allegations made against Agnes Mariam de la Croix, that she is an apologist for the Assad regime. This is necessary to explain why Jeremy Scahill and Owen Jones decided not to share a Stop the War platform with her.

According to this user, one of the sources (from an earlier incident, the article by James Bloodworth) is "so impartial and so extreme it compares this woman to" Ernst Röhm. This is false, it does not, and no online source does. I have reverted this edit, again, for the reason specified. Incidentally, multiple sources make these claims against her, and the two cited here are by no means the only such articles. Philip Cross (talk) 12:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this statement, as it comes from an editorial that not only isn't from an independent news source, but compares Agnes Mariam to Ernst Rohm, showing a lack of impartiality. This also falls under violation of WP:BLP, as calling the Mother Superior Agnes Mariam "an Assad Apologist" can fall under possible libel laws in the UK as well, seeing as it is used pejoratively and only in an attempt to discredit her reputation due to the pejorative context of usage.

Ergo, I have removed that mention. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

As for the James Bloodworth article, it is not a very worthwhile source, seeing as it compares a nun to a Nazi.

"Mother Agnes is the Syrian equivalent of one of Hitler’s brown priests."

Is a direct quote. Solntsa90 (talk) 14:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

In which reliable source is Mother Agnes taken to be credible? It is to be doubted that any mainstream source does not mention the claims that Mother Agnes is a dubious witness. I have removed the reference to James Bloodworth's article since it upsets you so much.

Incidentally I did not use the quote you have just added. Read up on Father Coughlin, among others, if you think James Bloodworth's analogy is far fetched. Philip Cross (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree with such edits at Father Coughlin's page either, but Coughlin is dead, whereas Mother Superior Agnes is not, so it falls under WP:BLP regulations to prevent Wiki getting sued for libel. I'm surprised you don't know this already. Solntsa90 (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Take it up at a higher level if you want. It would need to be an action against many publications and websites. Philip Cross (talk) 13:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Solntsa90 is now clutching at straws to protect the dubious reputation of the wretched Mother Agnes. The Raya Jalabi article in The Guardian is clear on establishing a link between Jones and Scahill's threat and Mother Agnes withdrawal. In the quote I added to the citation it is clearly implied. That Raya Jalabi in her article does not use the word "because" is true, but it is ridiculous nit picking to remove this sentence for that reason. By the way, Wikipedia obeys the libel laws of the United States which don't allow such a dodgy individual as Mother Agnes as much protection as she would be allowed in the UK (my own country). Philip Cross (talk) 16:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

"User:Solntsa90 now clutching at straws to protect the dubious reputation of the wretched Mother Agnes."

You're taking this way too personally, and probably should recuse yourself from editing anything related to these topics so long as you feel so strongly about the subject matter.

Also, implications are clear violations of WP:BLP. Solntsa90 (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

I am linking this here as it appears that this article's NPOV is contested. I hope a discussion that results in a resolution can take place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Philip Cross (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

9/11

User talk:Ricky81682, the reference to 9/11 you removed from the sumary was there because many users only read the opening section. The relative closeness of the second mention is not really an issue. It should be restored. Philip Cross (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Does it really matter if the lede is two separate sentences saying basically the same thing or a single paragraph of two sentences? I get the ADD argument but I consider all of that together the lede not just the first sentence. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Mother Agnes (2)

The refusal of Owen Jones and Jeremy Scahill to share a StWC platform with Mother Agnes has once again been seen by another user as a breach of BLP. It is true though. See this blog post by Jones himself and this open letter signed by various leftists who share the concerns of Jeremy Scahill and Owen Jones, both themselves on the left. Comments on twitter and elsewhere from individuals sympathetic to Mother Agnes and the Stop the War Coalition have also attacked Jones for his decision, rather scotching the "potentially libellous" claim for the inclusion of a reference to Owen Jones and Jeremy Scahill on this incident. Philip Cross (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the publication in Guardian [3], "journalists Jeremy Scahill and Owen Jones refused to participate in a Stop The War conference in London on 30 November unless Mother Agnes was dropped from the schedule", and so on. Hence it is reliably sourced in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Why does that matter? It feels like it's just a WP:SYNTH of various "here's facts that relate to attacking her and thus we're including that she pulled out of this conference and further the reason she pulled out is because two journalists who seemingly have no other mention on this page may or may not have wanted to go on the same stage her and thus because of those two, this person may have pulled out of the conference that this organization organized". Without something about actual coverage criticizing the actual group, it seems like a serious WP:UNDUE issue here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to tell if this info should be included. I can only tell this is reliably sourced and not a BLP violation in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

In this context of an article about this organization, doesn't that seem odd? Should this page report on every time someone has pulled out of one of their conferences? The fact that other journalists may be the reason still doesn't give me any reason why this belongs on any discussion about this organization. On her page, maybe. On the journalists' pages, maybe even less. On this page, I'm doubtful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Syria section

Further to the above, the whole section on the Syrian war as currently drafted is ridiculous, from the opening sentence on: "Since the Syrian civil war began in March 2011, Stop the War has been accused of having pro-Assad links ...". It says virtually nothing about what Stop the War's position is on Syria or what they have done in respect of it, and is instead simply a dumping ground for criticism of the organisation sourced to right-wing media outlets like the Telegraph and Spectator and to an obscure left-in-name-only blog, together with undue focus on a one-off controversy about a Syrian nun. And "you can always add some more detail then" isn't much of an answer, as this type of stuff should not be here at all. If people want to start a site that lists and summarises lots of hostile op-eds, please go ahead, but don't confuse it with writing an encyclopedia entry explaining, neutrally, what something is and what it does. N-HH talk/edits 15:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Third-party coverage has been in the negative, and neutrality is not the same thing as balance. The website may have some usable material on the crisis, but Stop the War's precise position has not been explained elsewhere in material I have seen. Some of StWC articles have gained considerable coverage, see the second section on Syria, invariably because of the "insensitivity" (Andrew Murray's word) that it demonstrated. My point is that, unfortunately, StWC is often not the best advocate of its case.

The accusation that the group backs Assad in this war is clear in the available sources, and Mother Agnes is accused as being an apologist for his government. For an organisation which asserts that it has the moral high ground in opposing war, this is all relevant. Whatever one might think of The Telegraph and The Spectator, they are considered as reliable sources, and I do not think Left Foot Forward is inadmissible either. It is not on any kind of black list of sources as far as I have been able to determine, as Harry's Place is. Philip Cross (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying media sources cannot be used for content here or elsewhere, or that they are not generally reliable in a WP sense. The issue is about context and focusing on the presentation of information rather than on commentary. Far too much shoddy, politicised and ultimately uninformative WP content is justified by people simplistically saying "it's in an RS, so I have the right to plonk it all here regardless", even if it leaves the reader as little more than a spectator to a summarised slanging match. The section as expanded is more balanced now, and more informative about their stated position (thanks for that btw), but I'd still argue that telling us for example that Andrew Gilligan, among others, has accused them of being pro-Assad tells people more about what Gilligan and those others think than it really does about Stop the War. N-HH talk/edits 18:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you about the way the use of reliable sources can be defended, but Gilligan quotes people directly connected with StWC, people who are sponsors of the organisation, not random negative comments. I am using the list of articles on the StWC relating to Syria as a means of retrieving articles which present their viewpoint. Aside from mentioning in passing that Assad is a brutal dictator, you will not find them blaming his government for anything. They evade the issue of who was responsible for the Ghouta chemical attack, for example. I know there is the Chomskyian argument about increasing the pressure for war by blaming Assad, but this is a website intended for peace activists. No doubt their defence would be that this still offers discouragement to supporters, but it can read like evasiveness with the potential for the obvious conclusion. Philip Cross (talk) 19:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Slightly off-point in terms of the article itself, the more pertinent Chomskyian argument in the broader context here is surely the one – often made AFAIK by Stop the War – that the point is to protest the actions of your own government, which you have a chance of influencing, especially in a democracy. There's not much to be gained in practical terms from expressing constant outrage at the crimes, real or alleged, of official "enemies". As for Gilligan, yes he quotes people but he has a serious axe to grind on these topics and it's not immediately clear to what extent the people he cites have influence or whether what they have said has been taken out of context. N-HH talk/edits 11:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Don't Bomb Syria by Stop the War Coalition.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Today in Guardian

Please, look at this: "Labour MPs drop backing for statement criticising Nato after Starmer warning". The article in the Guardian paper of hoday. --Cabanero01 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)