This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war
I recently completed this article, as an attempt to fill an important gap on Wikipedia; I would much appreciate any attempts to expand and improve it. Specifically, my knowledge of US sponsored activities in Sub-Saharan Africa, as well as in the middle-east, is not yet up to scratch; if an expert was willing to give them some attention, I would be very grateful. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
State sponsored terrorism is a bit extreme. I propose a name change to "United States Covert Operations" (the article for that basically includes all the examples and is very us-centric, with a subparagraph that says "US covert operations as terrorism" or something of the sort, with opinions on both sides. it's fact that the US has done some bad stuff especially during the Cold War but it's a bit of a fringe opinion/far left to dub this "terrorism" in the title. It's like having an article on the "Judiazation of Jerusalem", it's already a loaded and extreme opinion. --monochrome_monitor19:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Monochrome Monitor: My thoughts were as follows. Virtually all contemporary academic sources, as well as media sources, agree that the actions described in the article constitute terrorism. The Cuban exiles are referred to as terrorists even by the US media; a few people stop short of calling the Contras a terrorist organization, but will unequivocally call their actions terrorism. Which is why I carefully chose the name state-sponsored terrorism, and not terrorists. These are a subset of US covert operations, and there are certainly sufficient sources to justify a separate article. If a country like Iran, or Pakistan, were involved, we would not hesitate to title the article such; and indeed, the corresponding article exist, for those countries. Why should we balk at naming the US, simply because it is the US? Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration
I have restored the template and the project page. Active editors are currently working on many of its associated articles regardless of whether they are members. The project can exist to guide the improvement of this articles and the topic area. Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AWB notice
Most articles within Category:Anti-war are not tagged by this project. This means that the project does not currently have a comprehensive list of articles under its scope, many of which lack assessment and evaluation. Therefore, I have requested an AWB task involving a project tagging run on the AWB task page.[1] Anyone who uses AWB can help with this task. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good thing. By the way there is a Category:Peace. It probably would help to have a note about categories that people should investigate instead of a less than complete listing of antiwar topics doubtless put together by activists during height of activism a few years back.
And while I think change the name was extreme, I doubt anyone would have a problem with changing the first paragraph to read something like the below. (I just looked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics though there are lots more Wikiproject models to look at.):
This Wikiproject helps coordinate and organize the writing and editing of articles related to Anti-war movements and ideologies broadly construed. It thus includes articles related to peace and nonviolent conflict resolution. Editors involved in the WikiProject collaborate with suggestions for tasks and projects regarding specific articles or groups of articles.
I can see the project looks rather dated and disorganized. I'm neglecting another wikiproject I promised to help beef up, but feel free to list all the changes you think should be made to the main page, as well as any subpages that need creating, and see what people think. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)20:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your scope change proposal up above, I still don't agree with the primary focus on "anti-war movements and ideologies". As the watchlist shows, that is not the focus of the project. More important are the key concepts, ideas, people, events, and organizations. The term "ideology" fell out of fashion about 20 years ago and should not even be used. "Ideologies" are irrelevant in the 21st century. Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Support "war" is a narrow term for some of the work done here; the proposal is an improvement. That said, I'd rather engage in actual content building than haggle over the name of the project; I could live with any broadly agreeable proposal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - not sure if "Peace and conflict studies" is best name, but it is better than "Anti-war". Is the word studies seems limiting. For example, someone negotiating for peace wouldn't be included. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unsupport, it's so bland. Anti-war is anti-war, not peace, not studying a conflict, it's being anti-war and knowing what you are doing (as you can tell I was active in one of the anti-war movements, back when long hair and bad clothes meant something). How about 'Anti-war, peace, and conflict studies'? That covers the whole thing with a blanket (and the Anti-war template should definitely still be named Anti-war, I hope the results here won't change that). Thanks. Randy Kryn 13:12 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Mildly Discourage, Anti-war may be be narrow, but it's the most commonly used term and you know what it's referring to. I feel like by moving the page you are losing some of the original essence of the project rather than encompassing a broader definition. Why not just wikiproject:Peace? Is that already taken? Does this definition of anti-war refer to pacifist movements in general, or isolationism? For now I think I think anti-war is better. Conflict studies seems to cover both international and interpersonal conflicts. I haven't exactly read all the articles in the project though, so I can't call myself an expert. --monochrome_monitor19:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - "Peace and conflict studies" seems too broad, and could suggest an ideologically different starting point than "anti-war" does. As well, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Peace was deleted, partially because users suggested that the scope suggested by its title was too large. I'm very new to this project (and Wikipedia) but changing the name of this project doesn't seem like the right solution to me. However, if articles relating to these topics are expanding and being created, maybe there is a place for both projects? The anti-war project could be a sub-project of a larger peace and conflict studies project. Robincgm (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mainly because the biggest war mongers say that they are acting in the name of peace and I don't want to see any "humanitarian" wars etc. promoted as "wars for peace" here. I was tempted by the inclusion of (international and civil) conflict resolution studies, but since someone pointed out that academics might not want to be in the same category as pro-peace protesters, and thus might withdraw at some point. So it might as well stay "antiwar" to avoid Big Brothers coming in to enforce peace through militaristic police states, which is all the rage these days (and through history). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)13:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments: User:Viriditas reverted my replies to his comments which he brought to my talk page instead of here which would have been more appropriate. In any case, I would like to share a few points on problems with changing the name and focus that clarify my opinions above.
All sorts of neocons talk about war for peace and some of them edit here. Even the United States Institute of Peace supported the 2003 war on Iraq. They promote wars for peace like Israel's current Operation_Protective_Edge. Would such editors infiltrate a "peace" project? Such infiltration is a reality in the world and on Wikipedia.
User:Viriditas said he thought we needed a "more scholarly and inclusive name for the class of articles this project covers." Someone else wrote above "The academic studies and the political movements may not belong in the same place". That brings up concerns either that a) academics would abandon the project if they felt non-academics with less intellectual credentials were involved or b) they would try to discourage anyone they felt was an antiwar activist as well as an editor. Given that academics get so much money from the government they may have a bias for excusing government wars. So that is also a concern.
I agree that working on articles rather than arguing about names is more productive. However, I also think that there's a place for academics and others to start Wikiproject Nonviolent conflict resolution. Why not do that? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)23:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This project is about the people, and their organisations, who are actively doing something to oppose existing wars and prevent new ones starting, including exposing the lies that lead to war. Academic peace studies departments have, or should have, this aim too, at least in part, and can be validly included in the scope of this project, but there is no need to change the title of the WikiProject. --NSH001 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Anti-war" is fraught with diffuse and ill-defined connotations from popular media usage, political advocacy, and cultural bias. SPECIFICOtalk20:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although this RFC/requested move could run longer, I would like to move to close it pending a lack of support for the proposal. I lay the blame solely with my proposal, as the responses indicate that a mere 33 word proposal was interpreted as ambiguous and resulted in numerous misinterpretations and distortions that were not implicit in the proposal. This is my fault, and I can see no purpose in keeping this open. Thanks for all of your responses. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the alternative is to solicit the views of additional uninvolved editors by posting on various boards. As I re-read the messages of the opposing editors, I see lots of Original Research, personal opinion, and soapboxing. Concerns about future editors and edits will be resolved through the application of WP policy, not by mislabeling the name of the article. SPECIFICOtalk01:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the project is still semi-defunct, so I'm going to concentrate on reviving it and cleaning it up, regardless of the current name. Per my AWB request up above, we don't even know how many articles fall under the scope of the project! I'm very interested in taking an evidence based, data driven approach, so once we have—at the very least—all of the relevant articles tagged in the anti-war category, we may be able to get a better handle on the problem with the name and scope. Thanks for participating. Viriditas (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Users only appear in the category if they add a userbox to their user page, whereas people who appear on the member list signed up but may have not chosen to use a userbox. In other words, we should keep and maintain the membership list to notify and contact members. The category only exists to show who uses a userbox identifying themselves as a member. I've combined both the member and category lists up above. I recommend centralizing this list on the membership page. Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Users also appear if they put [[Category:WikiProject Anti-war members|{{subst:PAGENAME}}]] on their user pages. The proliferation of ways to identify (on Wikiproject page, via use box, via category) is just typical of the "anarchist" way Wikipedia organizes itself.
Anyway, I changed the User box so it reads "This user is part of the Anti-war Wikiproject." Mention of ideologies certainly doesn't belong there. Various ideologies may be anti-war or anti-some-wars but unless that is a major focus of the project, ideologies don't need to be mentioned. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)02:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I need to demote myself to semi-active here. Not sure if you want the list above edited (people don't usually edit each other's writing on a talk page) but please feel free to move me. - Jmabel | Talk16:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that "semi-active" would be a bit of an exaggeration with the amount of time I have recently invested, but there's probably no point getting into finer details like "deci-active" or "centi-active"... At least shift me to "semi-active" rather than "active". Probably nobody objects to you shifting the list to the current membership page. Boud (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are we dealing with another ambiguity problem? "Active" means, in this context, an editor who has been actively editing Wikipedia in 2014. It does not have anything to do with activity on this project. "Semi-active" means an editor who has not edited since 2013. "Inactive" means an editor who has not edited since 2012. Boud, your account does not appear to be semi-active, nor does Jmabel's. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I assumed it meant activity in the project. In WP itself, I still would consider semi-active to be quite generous to describe my en.wikipedia editing in 2014 (less than 50 edits on articles + talk pages combined!). If you're trying to revive the project, I would suggest that you add at least some numerical guidelines, e.g. "at least 20 mainspace article edits in en.wikipedia in 2014 = active". Our editing records are public :) so that shouldn't be too difficult to check. Boud (talk) 23:13, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really less than semi-active but thanks for taking the time to work on this project. It looks good. Thanks for all the efforts. It's an important topic. Please proceed as you all -- active editors and others -- think best. Calicocat (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This issue seems to me to be a very obvious violation of the Second Pillar. I am a little surprised that the prevailing Wikipedia culture isn't more politically acute and fair-minded. The matter is being appealed. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Congress of Unrepresented People - Anti Vietnam War
Congress of Unrepresented People - Anti Vietnam War[edit]
The "Committee To End the War in Vietnam" was formed at the Congress of Unrepresented People in Washington, DC. I was there and part of this small group of people - maybe 20-30. Some of the known leaders present in this group were Bayard Rustin, David Dellinger, Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman. I don't see this mentioned on the Anti-War Movement pages in Wikipedia that I just read.Judyt63 (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Pat Cherkin [1]
1.Jump up ^ personal knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judyt63 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Corbyn has always been actively involved in the dialogue of anti-war and listening to many struggling against others with greater military and political powers. Currently his page and recent off-shot (and politically unbalanced) page is under edit battle because he attended a ceremony (the was one or two its unclear) in a grave yard while at a conference in Tunis regarding Palestine situation in 2014. Have a look if you are interested. -- BOD --22:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
Join us! Become part of the Wikimedia Human Rights Interest Group. :)
Valued members of the WikiProject Anti-war!
Recognising the great work you all have been doing in regards to information related to anti-war movements, as well as articles about peace and nonviolent conflict resolution, we are reaching out on behalf of the newly formed Human Rights Team(HRT) at the Foundation. We are currently in the process of forming a Human Rights Interest Group (HRIG) that aims to listen to and address the various human rights concerns and challenges pertaining to the Movement, its members and the readers around the world interested in the content you produce. The HRIG is a cross-wiki, cross-cultural and cross-language initiative aiming to share knowledge regarding human rights ideas, movements and actors (both historical and current) from around the globe. With this in mind, we are reaching out to you to start a dialogue, present our ideas, hear your feedback and perhaps find some motivated Wikimedians to turn the HRIG into a successful initiative. Should this be of interest to you, please feel free to reply here or reach out to us at talktohumanrightswikimedia.org. We very much much look forward to hearing from you. :) -–KUrban (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Civilian Public Service has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
