IMPORTANT: I just want to make it clear that the aim of an anti-war wikiproject is not to oppose war or push an anti-war POV in to wikipedia. Rather opposition to war (for varrious reasons from pacifism to Anti-imperialism) has played a large role in global politics (particularly recently with the Global protests against invasion of Iraq), the role of this project is to document anti-war movements and ideologies. I do not think there is a need for us to define explicitly the meaning of anti-war, rather let us treat it (at least for now) as a family term, some movements/ideas are definatly anti-war we can argue along the way about more prefiery cases. The only think I think is worth noting is that we should not assume that anti-war has just to do with American forien policy for example there were anti-war activities against WW1. If you wish to argue about the correctness anti-war politics do not join this project rather go to some political chat room :-D
--JK the unwise11:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
After existing for only 2 days this project has allready been nominated for deletion (by annon user 64.12.116.136.). While annon user 64.12.116.136's accusations were baceless and while I think the project will pass the vote and not be deleted, it shows how easily this project could be taken to be contentious.--JK the unwise17:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
It's hard for a pacifist to be objective about this topic. I've touched on social movements and the anti-war areas as I worked on WP:CBTF and found myself listing toward some POV-ness. The World Community and World community articles need to eventially merge and contain some things about activism and the peace movement but I really don't know how to approach these topics fairly. I'm with you on what you've presented so far and I'm going to shift some thought over this way.
I'm also working on media, culture and counterculture projects that have, in my view obvious ties to anti-war movements and the political spectrums involved in shaping commentary about them, whether it is subtle or extreme. I suggest a look at the Humanities article, which in my view is the grand-daddy of this line of reasoning and a good foundation to build upon. CQ16:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'm sure your capable of concributing NPOV stuff on anti-war topics just look for facts and present them. I freely admitt to having a strong anti-war POV myself, everyone has some POV or another but as long as we focus on presenting varifyable facts that shouldn't matter. I am sure that some pro-war people will come along to keep us anti's in check. One Problem I do acknowlege is the fact that the sources we will be seeking to referance will no doubt contain their own POVs, The soloution to this (as far as one exists) is for us to seek as many differnt sourses as posible.--JK the unwise16:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is meant by "unify these pages". Surely, for example, we don't want to combine articles on different organizations: for example, ANSWER, NION and UFPJ each deserve a separate article, right? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Should this be Wikipedia:WikiProject Peace? I ask this because as I was compilling the referances page I noticed that the term "peace movement" seems to be far more prominate then "anti-war movment". Also the Peace movement page says that the peace movment encompasses the anti-war movement. On the other side, google gives 707,000 hits for peace movement and 997,000 for anti-war movement plus anti-war might be thought to be more accurate as most people want peace its just that some people think war is nessisary to acchive peace. I plump for anti-war.--JK the unwise18:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm a member of the federation for world peace, and I find your definitions of "peace movement" and "anti-war movement" confusing at best. More like "undefined", actually. Are you planning at any point to define what anti-war means, for example?
Absent any clear definition, it looks like you're really opposed to peace - except that peace which (1) is defined solely as a lull between wars (included a brutal police states which technically is not "at war") or which (2) comes when a Communist or other dictatorship defeats its enemy either by main force or by persuading them to give up.
Not trying to be cynical, but you're either naive or up to something it seems. Uncle Ed 01:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Any naivieity that may be in question (in the context of this project) should be that of anti-war movments/leading figgers of anti-war movments/commentators on anti-war movements rather then naviety of me (I am not a notable figger in the anti-war movement). I will resist giving my own views on what a consistant anti-war position should consist in as it would distract us from the task at hand, which is to document the actual historical anti-war movement. Since this movement has been broad and not always ideologicaly consistant our use of the term 'anti-war' will have to reflect this. In the same way the WikiProject Judaism must seek to catergorise all the differnt religious practices that have called themselves Jewish and thus start with a wide definition of Judaism even though each denomination may claim that only their interpretation makes sense.
Of course this does not mean that critism of anti-war movements for being inconsistant cannot be expressed on the anti-war pages. If it is propally atributed then it should be. For example, there are issules about 'communist' currents within anti-war movments not extending their anti-war stance to say the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. These are certianly things that should be delt with in the articles but the wikiproject needs to remain neutral on this issule and seek to document all strands of 'anti-war' activism.--JK the unwise08:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I will join this project if it provides a clear definition of what "anti-war" means. Otherwise, I will remain suspicious of its members' motives. Please recall that the purpose of Wikipedia is to organize and present knowledge. This includes clarifying POV but must not entail helping POV-pushers win ideological battles on our pages.
If the only definition of "anti-war movement" is "movement which calls itself anti-war" then you're not helping here much. At least Jewish religious practices have a common root in Judaism. I fail to see the analogy with "anti-war". Please spell it out for me, indeed, for all of us. Uncle Ed 16:32, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the main point of my reply which is that it is not for us to set usage rather we should reflect popular usage.
The anology with Judaism is supposed to be that it is not for a wikiproject to diside which demonination is true Judaism even if the differnt denominations are deverice to the point of being incompatable/contradictory. Prehaps the analogy isn't perfect but I think it captures something of my point.
I am reluctant to give any tighter a definition then any movement or ideology that opposes war in general or opposes specific wars or opposes the involvement of its country/government in war in general or specific wars. I'm not sure u'll be happy with this but the point is that wikipedia should reflect common usage and common usage is vage in this way. Indeed 'anti-war' movements are vage in this way, if you were to go on an anti-war demo you would find people with a wide varrity of differnt interpretations of what it means to be 'anti-war' from pacifists to anti-imperialist.
For example, in england the UK the Lib-dem's claimed to be anti-war while saying they would back the war if it was backed by the UN. Others claimed that this made them 'fake anti-war'. Do you not agree that in orrder to be neutral this project should not take a set posision on debates like this.
With a defintion like this we can cover all the movments documented in, for example, the 100 odd books on the anti-war movment listed on Ref' material page. Many of these books are published by university publishers so I think its safe to say that this counts as a body of knowldge.
It seems to me that giving a narrow prescriptive definition of 'anti-war' would be to push a POV. I'm not sure how do you think keeping the definition broad would leave the project vunrble to POV pushing?
I'm okay with any movement or ideology that opposes war in general or opposes specific wars or opposes the involvement of its country/government in war in general or specific wars. Just wanted to be clear. I'm not fishing for a definition that meets my criteria for "what will truly bring peace". (Because that would be POV-pushing on my part.) I asked for a clear definition, and you supplied one. I thank you, sir. Uncle Ed 20:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think that's an excellent definition. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:53, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
It may be my own bias having served in two wars as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, but I am surprised to see only Fahrenheit 9/11 and Born on the Fourth of July listed as film “pages covered by the project”.
I recommend the Project consider the following additions:
Funny, without seeing this note I added your first two, and several others, including Johnny Got His Gun and All Quiet on the Western Front. But now I see User:Quaddell (while doing an excellent job of tidying up the page) has removed all individual books and films, replacing them with just Anti-war book and Anti-war film. Quaddell, what is the rationale for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:18, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Just that the list was getting long. Feel free to put them back - but beware: the list could grow to an unmanageable size. My hope would be that the list contains only those articles that are most important, or that we'd most like to see featured on the main page someday. Additions (or removal of subjects deemed less important) are welcome. – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 16:11, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
POV concerns
My opinion on war itself is not relevant to the discussion, however, I think your project title may appear, to some, inherently POV. Perhaps "WikiProject: Pacifism" would be a lesser magnet for accusations of bias. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
I understand the problem, but I'm not sure "pacifism" sounds less POV than "anti-war". Maybe "Peace studies"? – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 19:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm...no idea on the name, but it might be a start to remove the peace sign from the banner on articles. My first thought was what the heck is that doing on an encycolopedia? Looks very activist to me at first glance. And I'm under no illusions that it is not activist at it's core. I think there may be some value, however, in pretending on the surface to be non-biased, just to affirm that neutrality is something important for an Wikipedia. DrAlbertHofmann06:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say? Is it that use of the "Peace symbol" on the anti-war template (banner) is POV because it implies support of the anti-war movement? While I appreciate your concern I do not beleive that this is so. Firstly, the symbol is mearly illistrative of anti-war topics its use is no more biaised to use it then to use the word "anti-war". As generaly is the case with wikipedia's use of logo's; no support is implied. Secondly, 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 pictureing of a tank in the History of war template shows support for war/tanks or the use the anarchist symbol in the Anarcisism template implies support for anarchism.--JK the unwise23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Should we put together an anti-war topics template for the anti-war articles, like this one for African american articles? I think it would be a real help to users of the encycopedia to navigate around the differnt pages.--JK the unwise18:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I dunno. That's on the main page, not the talk page, so we'd run into POV issues. Some articles are, afterall, obviously an anti-war topic (such as ANSWER), but there is so much grey area. . . – Quadell(talk) (sleuth) 23:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, but it would have to be taken very carefully, since a number of pages listed on our "List of pages covered by the project" (which I think should be sorted back into categories with the new formatting) would not exactly fit a template filled with anti-war articles. Civil disobedience in particular comes to mind. But I'm sure we can come up with something. I would like to see something that ties many of these articles together. Schuminweb00:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
I have tryed to sort the list back into catagories with the new formatting. I have kicked out some of the pages that are not exactly 'anti-war'. I think that as long as we are selective about what pages we put on there shouldn't be too much problem with having an anti-war template, its surely no more contensiuos thyen having an 'african-american topics' one. Here is my first crack at an anti war template. I have tryed out the template to see what it looks like at Stop the War Coalition--JK the unwise16:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I was invited to comment here on the placement of the anti-war template at the top of the Howard Zinn page because I reverted it. No one objects to a link to the anti-war page but to place a template that has no mention of the page topic at the top of any page moves the focus of the page topic to something other than its stated topic, in this case a bio of Zinn. This in no way denigrates the anti-war perspective. It is a request for a link, and not hijacking by template.
Best wishes and in peace, skywriter22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The inclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Counterculture as a "related" project seems either misguided or polemical. I suppose most counterculturalists are anti-war, but Hitler was a bit of a bohemian as a young artist, and the Futurists were about as pro-war as they get. And certainly most opposition to wars does not come from counter-cultures. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
I've just signed up to be involved in the project and noticed the Rainbow peace flag on the task says 'PACE', am I missing something here? Solar16:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to the project. PACE is italian for peace. The use of the rainbow flag as a peace flag orriginated in Italy (see Rainbow flag#Peace movement for more info). I have to admit it might cause some confusion but I think it helps show the global scope of the project.--JK the unwise16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I drew this little PeaceSymbol.gif and gave it to the Public Domain as my contribution to world peace. Feel free to use it however you see fit. -- CQ17:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Let's eliminate "needs opinion" articles
As of this writing, we have four articles marked as "needs opinion". These articles are:
Two of these articles are ones that I created and also had a significant hand in shaping (March 20 and Million Worker March). One of these I did significant cleanup on (Afghanistan). The other one (Brian Haw) I had no hand in.
I decline to rate the first three myself because of the significant role I played in these articles' development, and thus I feel I can't provide an unbiased opinion on them. This is actually the reason why I created the "needs opinion" rating in the first place - I decided that since I'd had such a large role in the development of the article that I was unable to provide an unbiased opinion on the article's quality. The assumption is that since I worked on it so much, that of course I think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
For the Brian Haw article, I just couldn't determine how it should be rated, since I consider myself more of an implementer than a rater.
So with that said, let's please rate these articles. If nothing else, it gives us some direction on where we need to go with these articles from someone with an unbiased (or at least less-biased) opinion on them.
Mrs. Sheehan,
I am ashamed that you are dragging your son's name through the mud, by bashing our President. Your son choose to go in the military, he wasn't drafted as was so many of our fathers, and brothers were during the Vietnam War. Your son gave his life for something he believed in. I think you should respect what he believed in. You are not the only one that lost a son or love one, and you will not be the last. Our military both men and women join the military with the understanding that this is their job and their loyality is to our government. They do as they are told. Your son signed a contract just like every other member did. NO I am not military now, but my husband is a disablied Vet, my father died during the Vietnam Era. Freedom doesn't come free. And everyone deserves to be free.
Ashamed in NC
Well 147.239.118.158 AKA ashamed, you are intitled to your oppion but one wonders why you are posting it here? I an't seen Mrs. Sheehan around at all.--JK the unwise17:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Anti-Anti-War
I think you should make an effort to list the anti-anti-war point of view. i.e. the case for deterrance, the funding of the CND etc by the Soviets, the fact that many people think that CND prolonged the cold war by making the old USSR think that there was a chance that the West would stop opposing them militarialy etc. MG 17/11/2005 12:05 (BST)
This project seeks to be neither pro or anti anti-war, rather it seeks to help bring an accurate NPOV picture the anti-war movements to wikipedia. In orrder to do that critisisms of anti-war arguments and organisations should of course be added. If you feel that the project is currently leaning to far towards a positive potrayal of certian groups then feel free to join and help us achive a neutral balance. One thing to remember is that wikipedia is not a place for orriginal reaserch so critisms should generally come from referanced sourses.--JK the unwise15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, and good luck. I wish I had the time and knowledge to assist. MG 17/11/05 16:45 BST
CND actually won a legal case against the Youth Wing of the Conservative Party for claiming that it was funded by the Soviet Union (see Bruce Kent's Autobiography), similar accusations were made by people within the Conservative Party at the time (and some still) as well as the Coalition for Peace through security. As far as I'm aware allegations of CND being funded by the Soviet Union were never substantiated, it certainly had communist members but they only made up around 4% of the membership acccording to studies. Who claimed that CND prolongued the Cold War, it seems rather odd as there were parallel movements in Germany and Holland in particular. I'll do some more work on it. Sjeraj09:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this would be good stuff to add to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament page. I would suggest under the section heading critisms something along the line of; "CND have been critised for alegingly reciving financial support from the soviet union during the Cold war. However, these allegations have never been substantiated. CND won a legal case against the Youth Wing of the Conservative Party in ???? for claiming that it was funded by the Soviet Union". I will copy this discussion to the CND talk page.--JK the unwise18:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. All the luck to them, but if they can demonstrate actual usage of the flag, then we've got something, and I was hoping to bring that out by listing it for cleanup and such. Ah, well... SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
The February 15, 2003 global anti-war protest lists informations on many of the demonstrations accross the world on that day. However, at the moment there is only one photo (a photo of thr LOndon demo) if any one has any/knows were sutibly copyrighted ones can be found that would be good.--JK the unwise16:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
List of anti-war organizations
I have created the List of anti-war organizations article with the intention of using it on Template:Anti-war topics. In watching groups get added to the template, my thought process led me to "Where will this end?" as I've watched our template get longer and longer. Before you know it, our template will be a mile long and will out-length even the longest articles where it appears.
What we need to do is list the "big names" on the template box itself, and then the List of anti-war organizations gets linked to the bottom as a catch-all. Makes things much neater, especially as a number of the articles are quite stubby at this point.
I agree in principle that the template was getting too long and needed to be trimmed down. I'm not sure that this is the best way though. For a start the what pages are on the main template seems rather arbitary, should it be disided by the quality of the article or the prominance/importance of the group? Its seems wroung to me, for example, to list Code Pink on the main template but not Anti-War Coalition. The former's wikipedia article may be better but the latter is a much more important anti-war group (in its countries context) then the later is (in its). My other issule is that I do not think that it would be clear to the casual reader they could find a more full list at List of anti-war organizations then is listed on the template, it could easly appear that that list would be just a repete of the template list, and if they failed to click on it they wouldn't find out any different.
I think that the solution would be to either have a number of differnt lists, say Anti- Affganistain war/Iraq war/Vitnam war and list them on the template or to link from the template to sections of the full list page relating to particular countries, eg. North American groups, African groups etc.--JK the unwise08:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the 'Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee' and its analogous opinion-wielding organizations (such as Students for a Democratic Society - SDS), the time period included quite specific action taken to design and build trash compactor public works vehicles as a means of employment and as a way to tour foreign nations using earned money (i.e., without a military mindset).
Students were involved in many of the demonstrations as 'eager learners', and the trash compactors were successfully forged, despite concerns about the tensile strength of available metal-works operations. Such perspectives continue as the "anti-war movement" which stresses work not war as a way to see other continental nations, antithetical to tendencies of young people to use the armed forces as a "tour-de-force". 11/26/2005 00:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC) (beadtot)
Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class and good B-class articles, with no POV or copyright problems. I was really pleased to find that you had a nice list of assessed articles! I looked at all of the suitable ones marked "good" that I thought met the criteria, and assessed these as A or B class (with comments) in this table. Please feel free to look over these and add comments below, or on the project talk page. Thanks, Walkerma04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for putting the article up for review -- and all the good work that's been done on this project. I've been and am still on a semi-vacation from Wiki, but I did put the article on Watch and if I see any useful contributions, I'll jump in. Calicocat00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if I'd go so far as to break up this article. A quick read over the article again to see if I agree with your thinking didn't leave me agreeing. Except for the sections marked as needing work on the NPOV, it tells the story of the formation of the modern anti-war movement, which is a worthwhile topic in and of itself. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Bring Them Home Now Tour
Since the Cindy Sheehan article is way longer than a normal Wikipedia article, I was hoping someone would consider creating an article on her bus tour and moving that part of the Sheehan chronology to that article. --Habap19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Morton devonshire has been making a series of edits some of which seem to me to constitute deliberate insertion of POV against the peace movement ([1], not an entirely invalid edit, but his new wording seems to me to imply that virtually all of the financing for the nuclear freeze movement came from Moscow) and some of which seem to me to be just this side of vandalism [2], [3], [4]. I left him a note on his talk page; he simply deleted it. People on this project will probably at least want to keep an eye out for his edits. -- Jmabel | Talk09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I restored your comment and mine to his talk page, along with a message regarding blanking one's talk page. Whether that will get deleted or not, I don't know. Either way, though, he's definitely one we need to keep an eye on. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Same user, different problems
I realize that the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 is slightly off-topic for this project, but I don't see a more appropriate project to take this to. The same editor made this edit there, which I see as mostly, though not entirely, detrimental. Whoever goes into this should look for where he has made genuine improvements in the writing, and should be keen to preserve those. Still, he removed references, blurred the distinction between non-violent civil disobedience and property destruction, and dropped all mention that the arrested protesters who fought their charges were uniformly acquitted. Probably he's excised other significant facts: when I saw that much, I figured I'd seen enough. I'm currently too busy to duke it out with him, and I've had quite enough head-to-head arguments with him in various articles. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone else would take this on. -- Jmabel | Talk23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point. At the moment jugment of the articles for assesment sees rather arbitary, part of why i have held back on assessing articles. We need to set down a set of standards that an article needs to achive to have a certain grade. "stub" is obvious we should take the criteria from Wikipedia:Stub, "featured" is also easy as only articles that have been featured through the FA process should have it. "poor", "needs exp/org/NPOV" and "good" are harder. Prehaps we could base these grades on something like the scal used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.--JK the unwise12:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Good broader point. Regarding List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq war, most of the links contain several of the slogans and chants, so most of the chants are represented under at least one. Some are not; I can personally vouch for the existence of most of those. Some of them come from a Campus Antiwar Network chant sheet of which I have only a paper copy; I couldn't find it online. Kalkin
As I newcomer to Wikipedia I was surprised and disappointed to encounter this project, apparently sanctioned by Wikipedia. I thought the intention of Wikipedia was to present knowledge and information, unbiased and disinterested. I don't understand how Wikipedia can permit a group of articles can be promoted, organised and given a particular slant by an organised group with an agreed political agenda.
82.2.87.22122:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Goals on the project page. The point of this project is not to push an agenda. The existence of anti-war movements is an objective fact and an important one; the point of this project is to document it. While, I would guess, the majority of regular participants probably consider themselves anti-war in some sense, those who do (including me) are by no means the only people working on these articles. We, or I at least, can make an effort to remain unbiased. And sometimes on specifics, for example with respect to organizations, more hostility comes out of people supposedly 'in the movement' than outside it. This is no different, IMO, than any Wikiproject, whose primary participants are likely to be people who are interested in or fans of the subject, except that the subject here is more politically charged. But by no means should the fact that a subject is politically charged be a reason for Wikipedia to avoid it. Kalkin23:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
A bias of Wikipedia is demostrated by the more than 2500 categories on on war-related topics with presumably many times that many artciles. There are 39 categories containing the word "peace" and most of these are actually related to war, i.e. peace treaties.
The bias of the anonymous contributor from adsl.virgin.net is evident in assuming anit-war is necessary political. For example, Amish are generally considered anti-war while being politically uninvolved. JonHarder23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The Conservative Party candidate for my city at the last election was a committed pacifist, as was the local Green Party candidate, by implication I think the user from adsl.virgin.net was saying that anti-war was left-wing. You will find a diversity of views amongst people here regarding specific wars and wars in general as well as the ethics of weapons and tactics used. I think it is irresponsible for the user from adsl.virgin.net to generally classify the anti-war project. Sjeraj09:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There are two issules here, the political nature of the anti-war movment and the political nature of this project. The first is a matter which we can and should debate prehaps the best place to do so would be on the talk page of anti-war. The second issule is the political nature of this project. On this question this project aims to be neutral and definatly does not aim to give a particulat slant to the articles (neither negitve or positive). If the accusers of this project could please point to an actual example of were this project has been used to promote a particular POV please present it. I do not accept the general argument that collecting together the articles on anti-war issules promotes anti-war POV any more then collecting articles together about facist subjects promotes fascism (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism).--JK the unwise17:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Although I did not say, or even hint, that those professing an anti-war agenda are necessarily left wing, since the point has been raised I am happy to stick my neck out and say that is what I do believe. It is disingenuous to say that those involved with the project are merely people with an interest in the subject who are objectively and disinterestedly collecting information on the subject. The project may not be party political, but it is definitely political. No sane person actually wants war, with the evils and suffering it brings. But to make the smug assertion that one is 'anti-war' is to affect an attitude of moral superiority that is empty of any meaningful content. You might as well say that you are opposed to gravity, or to death. See how far that gets you.82.14.79.3022:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you still criticizing the existence of the project, or just the disingenuousness of people who claim to be anti-war? If the former, it's unclear to me how your argument supports that, any more than, say, an attack on Bush would be an argument for not having an article on him. I don't think anyone's denying that describing oneself as anti-war is taking a political position; we're only denying that this is a reason not to have a Wikipedia project on it. If the latter, I'm not sure why you're making the argument here. But to address it anyway (because after all I do have an opinion), being anti-war has a great deal of content in the context of any particular war. The idea that people who are pushing for a war are really the anti-war ones because failure to act will lead to more wars is an obtuse quibble. Clearly, whose position will best promote peace in the long run is open to dispute; equally clearly, that's not what's being described by the terms "pro-war" and "anti-war." (Also, I take it you're equally opposed to the term "pro-life"?) Kalkin23:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I admit that I was engaging in a little gratuitous abuse. However, my serious point remains that this project is different in its nature from others. If a group of like minded individuals with an interest in stamp collecting or bird watching decide to group together to collaborate on a series of articles on those subjects, that is one thing. This project is quite another in its political motivation. I would like to illustrate my point by an extreme example. Suppose a group of white supremacists or holocaust deniers (and I hasten to add I have not the slightest sympathy with either of those) decided to group together to promote articles on those subjects, would that be regarded as acceptable? Of course, there are very informative Wikipedia articles on those subjects, as there should be. But there is not (I hope!) an organised project involved in collating as many articles as possible on those and related topics. This may be a very poor parallel with the anti-war project, but I hope people can see a germ of a point in my argument.PedanticAl21:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a Wikiproject on Facism it collects together articles on facism and even has a template which goes on articles about fascism which displays a facism symbol. How does that project differ from this? Or do you think that we should get rid of that one as well? I can see that your argument has some merit but if there are no actual examples where this project actually been used to prommote anti-war POV your worry remains theorical. Be assured we are commited to presenting the anti-war movment in an NPOV way.--JK the unwise18:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
A valuable, informative, and persuasive contribution from Morton. Almost as valuable as adding the fact that some American Communists were funded by the USSR in the Cold War to an article about a student anti-war group created in 2003! Kalkin05:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Morton you are welcome to join the project and help balance out what appears to you to be a political inballance if you are willing to work towards a producing good NPOV articles on the anti-war movment. I'm affraid that it is not "self-evident" to me that the project is POV, please point to specific actual examples of how the project is pushing a particular point of view.--JK the unwise19:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC) P.S: Edits such as this [5] are not helpfull.
Protests against the 2003 Iraq war
I have raised a dispute about material in the lead section of Talk:Protests against the 2003 Iraq war#Disputed. Among other things, there is a claim that the major protest actions have been "demonstrations in support of 'anti-imperialist' war against the U.S." There are several other assertions I find equally wrongheaded. Because this presumably much-watched article has sat in this state for over five days, I guess there has been something of an implicit endorsement by several contributors.
I urge people from this project to take a look. I am very inclined to revert this paragraph to an earlier version. - Jmabel | Talk20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
mess at ISO article
This is only tangentially connected to the project, but several people here seem to believe in, or have an interest in, Marxism or Trotskyism. There's a fucking mess going on at the International Socialist Organization article between anarchists and others who like to add huge criticisms in openly biased terms and ISO members who seem to think that the solution is just to eliminate the criticism section. (Disclosure: I'm a member but I don't think that having Wikipedia describe the various silly or downright idiotic things people say about the ISO is bad.) I tried to fix this by sourcing the criticism section with extensive footnotes and adding responses, but this seems instead to have sparked another source for a revert war. Very few of the people active there seem to have much experience with Wikipedia (no named accounts aside from a week-old one), and I'm hardly a veteran myself. Plus I keep second-guessing myself out of a desire to be fair, and I think I bend too far backwards which is no fun. The situation could use some experienced neutrals I think... Kalkin05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
While there are editors who work on this project who are interested in Marxism/Trotskyism I would rather that this project stays concentrated on the anti-war movment. You seem to have done a good comprimise on the ISO article and I'll keep an eye on it but it would be better if annocements about articles not about the anti-war movment weren't posted here especially considering that some editors have expressed concerns over the politics of this project.--JK the unwise19:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
...are a major form of anti-war activism. One day they probably deserve their own page, but for now it would be good to fill in information on flashpoints of contention like Okinawa and the Camp Humphreys expansion. I could use some help.--Carwil17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Opposition to the First World War would have to be somewhat more international, there was definatley opposition in France (people like Jean Jaures opposed French entry). I think what you might call the first 'anti-war' organisations in Britain sprung up around the Napoleonic Wars. Try James Hinton, Protests and Visions for a history of 20th century peace politics. Sjeraj09:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I've also noticed a bias towards the modern. For instance the London Peace Society started in the early 1800s. I'm a novice so not sure how to add that article to this project.--Erp01:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
War of 1812
I'm sure there's very little interest in this topic here, since it's an old and obscure war, but just in case anyone gets around to it, a good article on opposition in the United States to the War of 1812 should be written. Here's a quote from Donald R. Hickey's The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (1989):
The War of 1812 was America's most unpopular war. It generated more intense opposition than any other war in the nation's history, including the war in Vietnam. (p. 255)
Historian Samuel Eliot Morrison argued the same thing in Dissent in Three American Wars (1970).
During the war, there were riots in Baltimore—not anti-war riots: the violence was directed at Federalist opponents of the war. A plan for conscription passed in the Senate, but failed in the House, thanks in part to opposition from Daniel Webster. National mythologies aside, militiamen in the United States and Canada generally wanted no part of the war. (The U.S. war effort arguably failed because many U.S. militiamen refused to invade Canada.) The Hartford Convention was organized to oppose the war, and even discussed the secession of New England from the United States. This opposition to the war paved the way for the demise of the Federalist Party (the party of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton).
U.S. domestic opposition to the wars in Vietnam and (especially) Iraq were minor compared to opposition to the War of 1812, so someone might want to write an article about it someday. A good basic source would be the entry "Antiwar Sentiment" in Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 (Heidler and Heidler, eds., 1997). --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.)13:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
It does sound interesting and more than worthy of an article. I'd like to read about it so I'll take it on sometime this week if I have time. Kalkin19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Done, mostly using the very handy if questionably ethical "Search Inside This Book" feature of Amazon.com on the Hickey book. Give it a rating if you've got a chance. Kalkin19:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Well done! Just the kind of thing that this project needs to overcome the current bias towards recent events. keep up the good work.--JK the unwise11:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I'll second that "well done!" Kalkin, if you do more work on the article, there's more to add, as well as some corrections. Opposition to the war actually generated more long-lasting peace organizations than you suggest. The New York Peace Society was formed as a result of the war; many others soon followed. There was also a huge anti-war rally in New York City in August 1812. And there's no mention of Caleb Strong in the article yet, the Governor of Massachusetts who refused to call out the militia to support the war effort, and even talked of Massachusetts making a separate peace with the British. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.)00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
I've just joined the project, and I've rated the article on A. J. Muste as needing expansion, something I hope to do something about after reading up on him a bit more. From what I understand he played a huge role in organizing the protests against the Vietnam War, and the article doesn't do that justice, as well as not explaining much about his views. I hope that's appropriate. Rafaelgr19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
We have nothing on Women Strike for Peace. Very important organization in the 1960s peace movement, an amazing oversight. I'm a bit busy with other things right now. If no one gets there first, I'll do this eventually, but I'd love to see someone else get it started sooner. -- Jmabel | Talk20:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Suppression of Angolan War opposition
Hi guys, I can't tell you if I was a paid-up member or not, but I attended meetings of the End Conscription Campaign before it was banned in 1988. I've been trying to put a page up on Opposition to the Angolan War but its already been suppressed thanks to one of your members User:SchuminWeb. What's the problem, don't you know that the US government backed a failed bid to overthrow a foreign country, and that hundreds of South African soldiers died defending liberal democracy against Cuban soldiers?
Ethnopunk12:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the articles associated with the project, I think you'll find that we haven't been suppressing negative information about the US. The dispute here isn't political. I don't know much about the Angolan War but I would love for you to write an article on it. Feel free to use sources but you can't take text straight from them.
Angola achieved independence from Portugal on 11 November 1975 and by 29 February 1976 the last of the now long dormant colonial Portuguese forces had withdrawn. Cuban forces (acting as Russia's proxies in the cold-war) began to move into Angola in April 1975 to support the communist backed MPLA (people's liberation army) and to help them to gain power in the post-colonial power vacuum created by the Portuguese agreeing to leave Angola. South Africa faced the prospect of communist state bordering SWA, then a territory administered in terms of its mandate received after the first world War.
Angola achieved independence from Portugal on 11 November 1975 and by 29 February 1976 the last of the now long dormant colonial Portuguese forces had withdrawn. Cuban forces (acting as Russia's proxies in the cold-war) began to move into Angola in April 1975 to support the communist backed MPLA (people's liberation army) and to help them to gain power in the post-colonial power vacuum created by the Portuguese agreeing to leave Angola. Suddenly South Africa faced the prospect of communist state bordering SWA.
Haven't settled on a name, but I shall possibly be starting a project arround peace and conflict resolution and want people's reactions from this project, as it is a very closely related subject. The aim of the project would not be to tread on this project's toes, but instead to develop content which can be used for Peace Education. I'm a Peace Studies student, and an anti-War campaigner, and well aware of the difference between the two areas, so I hope they can be kept separate. What do people think?
It's an interesting idea, and I'd like to see you bring it to fruition. Suggested name: WikiProject Peace (also how I'll refer to it from here on). What I'm interested in, though, is seeing more about where the line is drawn between this project and your proposed project. I see this new project as being a parallel project to this one, forked out of it. I personally am less interested in the theoretical aspects of such things as I am in actual events and such (and I have participated in some of the actions listed in the project). Others are possibly the other way around. It could certainly bring more focus on what is admittedly a very broad WikiProject.
I still imagine that there would be some gray area in between the two projects, where material could fall either way. I'm not ready to consider such a possibility at this point, but it is likely to come up.
Since this project is not all that active the idea of spliting stuff off to another project might not be the best idea as it might reduce involvement further. Also I am a little bit worried about the way you have presented the project ... it sounds like it might have NPOV problems to me. Remeber Wikipedia projects are not allowed to be used to advocate anything neither peace nor fascism.--JK the unwise 08:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)--JK the unwise08:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding NPOV, I really don't see it as having an issue there. I consider such a project on par with this project as NPOV goes. It's a fine line to walk so that you can write about anti-war (or peace) topics, and not be seen as POV-pushing. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
High-visibility pages needing expansion
I've just added a section to the article war for a discussion of prevention of an alternatives to war, since there is currently zero content of that type in the article, and it seems like relevant information. I thought perhaps people checking this page would have some knowledge on the subject which they could contribute. -- Beland21:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a debate on Template talk:Anti-warTasks about whether to have the peace flag or the CND peace symbol. The peace flag image (Image:PACE-flag.svg) seems to have been deleted, I can't find out why or were. Please join the debate.--JK the unwise09:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Peace Poles
The article on Peace Poles defines them narrowly and ignores the traditions of other countries. How could I suggest improvements to that page? Sighalot16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The best place for you to bring up problems with the article is probally on the talk page of the article but hopefully some people from this project may be able to help.
I don't know anything much about peace poles myself but what I would suggest that you look for some texts that talk about the traditions that you feel arn't covered by the article, they can be on-line (try google) or on paper (try your local library). Then be bold and add the information; adding referances to the texts that you use.--JK the unwise10:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't see any discussion about them, but I'm new and was worried I wasn't looking in the right place. I'm an expert on peace poles. I make them for a living and have web pages about them. It sounds as though there might not be an objection to my editing the page and I should try it. Thanks. Sighalot21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Though your article on "draft dodging" mentions civil disobedience, it is heavily slanted toward discussing draft "dodging." You go on at great length about those who went to Canada during Vietnam but ignore the great numbers of people who did time in federal prison to protest the draft. As a former draft resister, I am rather bothered that the subject is addressed under "draft dodger." That's like discussing feminists under "bra burners." (I added a paragraph, but more needs to be said.) cliforeman (foreman@covenant.edu) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cliforeman (talk • contribs) 11 August 2006.
Glad to see there's already been some discussion about the title of that article. But why hasn't anybody done anything about it??? It's been bothering me ever since I spotted it a couple of weeks ago. I intend to propose a name change to something neutral -- probably "Draft evasion", unless somebody can think of something better. Cgingold13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Opposition to war against Iran
i started the article Opposition to war against Iran. Whether or not there will or will not be a US+UK war against Iran is a matter of speculation, not NPOV fact, though there are several people claiming that the war has already started. In any case, it seems to me undeniable that protests against a war against Iran definitely have started, so it's a good time to start documenting them as part of NPOV knowledge. i'm not totally sure if we should have a title like "opposition to would-be war against Iran" or "opposition to threats to attack Iran", but i do feel that "opposition to Iran War" (modelled after the Iraq article) would constitute a claim that the war has already started, while in fact it's not (yet) widely accepted as having started. Boud22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
IMHO there probably is a lot of info out there in the web on actions already taken against a war on Iran - so i'm sure there's plenty missing. Boud22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Project directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T222:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Olof Palme's Christmas speech, 23rd December 1972:
"We should call things by their real names. What is going on today in Vietnam it is a form of torture. There can be no military justification for the bombing of this scale. Military spokesmen in Saigon have said that there is no charge from the North Vietnamese side. It can not reasonably depend on any obstinacy from the Vietnamese side at the negotiating table. All commentators are in agreement that the main opposition to the October agreement in Paris, in particular comes from President Thieu in Saigon.
What is being done now is a torment of people. It is a torment of a nation to humiliate it, and force it into submission with the use of dictatorial language (language of force).
Therefore, the bombings are an atrocity.
And of those, we have many examples in modern history. And those are generally associated with a name. Guernica, Oradour, Babi Yar, Katyn, Lidice, Sharpeville and Treblinka.
There, the violence has triumphed. But posterity's judgment has fallen hard over those who have borne the responsibility.
Someone should add info about the harsh protest that the bombing of Hanoi, Christmas 1972, resulted in from the prime-minister of Sweden, Olof Palme.
Not of much signifigance to the war itself, still the sharp protest did result in diplomatic relations between USA and Sweden being frozen for almost two years, and is very famous.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.233.136.20 (talk • contribs) 20 December 2006.
Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Where are the protests?
I've been working on the major war articles, and I've noticed that many of them (especially Vietnam War barely mention any protests and opposition within the U.S.... Could you guys help improve those aspects? I'm going to do as much as I can, but I am by no means an expert on the subject. Ahudson18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Naming conventions
Should we consider formally writing out some naming conventions when it comes to anti-war protests? It seems that the informal consensus on titles is "(Date) anti-war protest", as this is what we've done for F15, M20, and S24. We currently have the case with the January 27 protest where we had three articles created, that were later merged together: J27, January 27, 2007 anti-war protest, and January 27, 2007 Iraq War protest. The article currently sits on the last of the three titles. I've filed a requested move (see Talk:January 27, 2007 Iraq War protest for more information on that) to move it to the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest title to bring it in line with the others.
Seems reasonable to me. I suggest that you just add that to the project page. If nothing else, it can stand as a suggestion for people starting something. - Jmabel | Talk03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added something about naming conventions to the project page. Please help work on the section with me, so we can get it right. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Beefing up our talk templates
I'm going to do a little work on our talk page template a little bit so that our template is more WikiProject-standard. Thus when I'm finished, we'll be able to set "class" and "importance", etc. and have it visible directly on the talk page for more editors to see. That will also allow us to clean up the project page and streamline it some more. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I've completed the placement of all the structures to handle the new template's switches and such. Now we just need to convert our old ratings to the 1.0 standard. The easiest way to do it would be to determine that (old) = (new). That can then be quickly converted with AWB or the like. Thoughts? SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is the project for those of us who are Pro-Freedom? Or Pro-Getting-Rid-of-Genocidal-Dictators>? or Anti-Hippie Moonbat? I want a project where I can illustrate the bias of Wikipedia Editors. Where is that project? Or will all of these ideas get shot down because they do not advance the cut and run left wing ideology?
An encyclopedia should NOT have an agenda. This is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymous (talk • contribs)
Or not. This project is about recording anti-war social movements not about promoting them. Rather then promotion it seeks NPOV discription, as such it is not more biased then Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket is biased towards cricket.--JK the unwise07:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to suggest that applying the term “anti-war” to certain groups endorses a certain point of view, specifically that these groups have a universal, philosophical opposition to the use of armed aggression by anyone. On the contrary, people involved in the Leftist “anti-war”/“peace” movements have a verifiable record of support for acts of armed aggression by governments and groups whose agendas they support, as well as minimizations or outright denials of these acts of war. To unilaterally oppose war by the United States and its allies in a partisan manner is their right, but a “neutral” source needs to acknowledge it. - Skaraoke22:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
A) In what way is my view "very POV"? It's based on documented facts and the observations of long-time insiders such as Christopher Hitchens. For example, do you deny that A.N.S.W.E.R. is a front for the Stalinist Workers World Party, that it supports Palestinian terrorism and calls for the destruction of Israel, and that A.N.S.W.E.R. rallies have featured speakers that try to minimize or deny the genocide in Darfur? Going back further in history, do you deny that the America First movements prior to WWII were largely antisemitic and pro-fascist in nature? At what point does "neutrality" give way to "naiveté"?
B) Even if my view is "very POV," the idea is to include all significant POVs. Right now it institutionalizes one view. - Skaraoke19:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sharaoke: Yes I deny that Workers World is for the mass-destruction of Jews living in Greater Israel, which I believe you imply when using the racist and controversial Anti-Defamation League (ADL) turn of phrase "call for the destruction of Israel", which they use on most left groups in order to help raise cash.
It's observably a coordinated disinformation campaign. The phrase is intended to inspire images of extermination camps.
My understanding is that Workers World members, for all that party's faults, are merely "one-staters". (And the ANSWER they dominate is not even that.)
As I suspect you are already quite aware, the One State solution calls for a united secular state with equal rights for all residents regardless of ethnicity or religion, thus ending Israeli apartheid. They call for right of return for the 5 million people in forcibly displaced refugee families. Since most of these folks' villages are bulldozed rubble, there must be a compensation option for those who do not still want their homes back.
And it's rather the ADL, Likud and expulsionist "transfer" movement that claim that allowing refugees to return and bringing democracy and civil rights to Israel would inherently make Israel suddenly less safe for Jews. And such Racial Type theories are more than a century out of touch with science, also completely discredited in academic circles.
Some socialists do instead call for a federated socialist Middle East in some theoretical utopia. I suppose that would involve "destroying on-paper" many states including Israel. I know of zero Left parties calling for harming Jews, something your disinformation campaign strongly implies. It's rather the ultra-nationalist U.S. parties -- allies of the ADL, Likud, Bush and I assume you, Sharaoke -- those groups want to harm American Jews, Catholics and Black Americans. Not the Left.
Hello, I would like to request some help with this article, which is under the scope of this project. I fully sourced it over the past week, and I would like to help it get to GA or FA status. It would be great if any editors from this project could look it over, possibly do some copyediting, and give some feedback in the peer review. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I would not have thought this would be a reasonable venue for posting the following draft, but maybe I'm missing the point a little bit? My personal focus has been informed by WP:NPOV; and because of this fundamental stance, I wouldn't have thought this would be a likely venue to invite constructive criticism of the writing style and content below -- but maybe I've been simply wrong. I hope this becomes a step in the right direction as I learn how to better edit my writing to make it more succinct, less wordy -- more effective. If the following does not properly belong here, then where?
I hesitate to add this to the talk page at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer for fear that someone will complain that it has "too many words." In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, it becomes possible to begin to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org. An unmindful insistence on what is published in a reference book without giving due weight to consequences which flow from the Japanese context leads inexorably to mistakes in some instances.
Wikipedia's current treatment of JDS Hyūga implicates deep-rooted paradigms based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise crucial issues from the body of the article; and this becomes a defect when it affects significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality. Relying solely on English-language naval ship catalogs, the edit history reveals how otherwise credible edits and edits have thwarted, deleted or blocked, thus stunting this subject's development -- seeTalk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Article name
Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS Hyūga is named, nor do I care about the terminology used to describe this vessel -- but I'm persuaded that WP:NPOV expects us all to care very much about the "why" which informs whatever name or terminology is selected.
Although generally valued as highly credible resources, Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org promote systemic bias in at least this one instance because their congruent terminology derives from primary sources bearing the imprimatur of the Japanese government. As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology relating to Japanese naval ships is defensible, and any reasoned consensus based on such standards is also defensible; however, neither can be considered determinative. There is an inherent caveat in reliance on the imprimatur of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the newly formed Ministry of Defense (Japan). When the logical progeny of such reliance produce deleterious effects in Wikipedia, this subtle cancer mandates giving more than lip-service to WP:V and WP:NPOV.
As you may know, the Constitution of Japan prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS Hyūga with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name. In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name. As it relates to use of the term "aircraft carrier," this unique bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed during the post-war occupation by the Americans; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese.
Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries. This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Wikipedia article about the Hyūga except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting edits and citations (consistent with WP:V) which state that JDS Hyūga is an aircraft carrier with another name.
Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins, "I say it is the moon ...
In that Wikipedia article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I would hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:
In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive." It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.
Prior to this, the non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped a thorough examination. The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on that talk page confirms this unwanted hypothesis.
Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors and others, the consequences of intense, concerted resistance made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin parsing aspects of this non-NPOV cancer. Such illustrative "consensus" becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.
Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted without any efforts to incorporate plausibly useful data.
An ameliorative edit was initiated. This involved one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion. The edit encountered further resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --Tenmei (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
update: On the list's discussion page I've started a conversation about selection criteria for the list, and I welcome other's input. Skybluewater (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Lately I read some of the breaking news, and reports about Gaza invasion in Wikipedia In The News Section and in Wikinews. And I can say some of the reports are clearly off-balance one sided arguments in report style. I helped balacing some of them but not have much time for news reporting. Might there be any volunteers that can help wikinews publish more neutral articles. But being neutral as a real journalist should be the first priority, than being a sided view like IDF based sources apparently do. Kasaalan (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Leaflet for Wikiproject Anti-war at Wikimania 2014
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
