Talk:Campus Antiwar Network

message: To the massive editor: It is unfortunate that you dichotomize the discussion about CAN's independence into an external-critic vs. internal consensus discussion. As I know you were at the most recent conference, it is impossible that you didn't observe the fact that there is no internal consensus about such things as political independence, strategy, and action orientation.
In "Criticism of CAN" you write...
"...criticized by *other* members of the antiwar movement."
What of self-criticism?
"CAN activists respond, in turn, that they are striking an appropriate balance..."
Which CAN activists are you talking about? Is this a quote, "appropriate balance"?? CAN does not speak with one voice.
In "Relationship with the ISO"...
You make it sound as if there aren't CAN members critical of ISO involvement. This criticism does and always has existed at all levels of the network, including among prominent elected representatives on the coordinating committee.
"CAN defenders reply..." Another ridiculous dichotomy. Where do member-critics fit in here? Clearly you are not among this group, that doesn't give you the right to distort CAN's history in your limited vision.
That's enough for today. I hope you correct these mistakes and reconsider the confidence and finality of this piece.
SamuelDS 22:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither have I been able to. I'm not going to remove the criticism section - though it really should be removed unless someone can find some sources somewhere, by WP:CITE - but I am going to reduce it in length. Kalkin (talk) 22:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historiographical Problems 

message: Admiralthrawn 1 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive Edit Completed

message: I know that the critics spent some time writing their bit about why CAN is a front group and all that, but I just want to point out that there are no citations anywhere throughout that section. It is within Wikipedia policy to point out that there are no citations anywhere in this. Also, no original research is allowed, which means that I'm going to need to see news articles, reports, listing that CAN members have felt this way. No, that does not mean your blog. Admiralthrawn 1 05:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-cited criticism of CAN 

message: If I could find more links to criticism (from left or right) that'd be good. Free Republic is far from ideal. But that's what I turned up on Google...
:DKalkin
::Note: this means criticism of CAN. Not criticism of the ISO in 2001 or at Camp Casey or whatever - criticism of the ISO in CAN maybe. DKalkin
Half of the CAN coordinating committee were members of the ISO when it started (I was at the foundign conference), and that number is likely the same today. There is an interesting split between CAN and the rest of the progressive student activist movement. Pretty much every other major national student activist organization (over a dozen of them) got together and formed the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition (NYSPC) at the same time as CAN was forming. The ISO presence in CAN was likely a large factor in the split. CAN is more grassroots (though it gets a strong sense of direction from having many people with shared politics), whereas NYSPC is more top-down. Both organizations lack any significant funding.
-Aaron Kreider-
:For what it's worth, a minority of CAN's coordinating committee is in the ISO. I agree with the assessment that CAN is more grassroots and NYSPC more top-down. I also haven't seen any evidence that NYSPC has had much base on the ground for over a year.
I don't believe the sentence that's been added a couple times here without comment in the discussion, to the effect that old documents show some activist groups in the past were supported by Communist governments, is relevant to CAN. Here are the reasons I consider it irrelevant:
:1. I have never seen any documentation of this charge being leveled in or against CAN before. Is there a citation that anyone involved with observing, writing about or participating in the anti-war movement has ever believed this?
:2. The only socialist group that I'm aware of with a presence of any substantial size in CAN is the International Socialist Organization. But the ISO does not identify with any government that calls itself "communist" (unlike the old Communist Party, which actively identified with Stalinist Russia, and Maoist groups that identify with China, or groups identifying with Cuba). This would thus seem a particularly strange criticism.
I believe this is actually a general anti-communist or anti-activist criticism that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article about CAN. It is not a criticism of CAN I have ever encountered before. Therefore I have removed this sentence and don't think it should be put back in without citations (relevant to CAN, not just to old Communist Party involvement in past activist groups that was directed by Russian policy). Catsv 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it appears Morton devonshire has been adding that exact same claim to all kinds of left-wing pages, along with other NPOV changes. I shouldn't have responded so seriously; it's evident this was something closer to vandalism. Catsv 01:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Critical links

message: This page was apparently written by an ISO/CAN member. It reads more like an advert than an encyclopedia entry.
:How so? Feel free to make changes - though be careful not to try to correct perceived POV by adding POV statements of your own. Be bold. Kalkin 18:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious lack of objectivity here. 

message: The criticism of CAN reads like a massaged ISO answer to criticisms against ISO rather than actual criticism. As someone who actually criticizes ISO and CAN, and who lives in Boston, I recognize ISO Tom Arabia in the 3rd national conference photo mugging in the front row. When ISO are not trying along with SPUSA and ANSWER to dominate the anti-war movement, they are flyering Cambridge and Boston with ISO and SPUSA flyers. Weasel words abound as do unattributed "some say this, some say that." Of supreme importance is that both non-CAN and former-CAN members both level the same criticism, which is that CAN suffers the same domination as any leftist organization with too many ISO, NEFAC, SPUSA or RCP members. This criticism wounds the image of CAN/ISO and CAN/ISO is indignant about it. They have offered the standard rebuttal (which is inappropriate to the criticism section) that they are merely one in a unity of voices and that they are the victims of red baiting. One cannot be the victim of red-baiting if the majority of one's organizations are reds. --Flipside —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.204.195 (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I agree and challenge the NPOV 

message: I'm going to remove the criticism section in a few days if no one comes up with any references for it, as per WP:NOR:
Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.
To the best of my knowledge, in the history of this article no one writing in the criticism section has cited any source, let alone a reliable source. Without reliable sourcing, the information does not belong in Wikipedia.
Some editors may be concerned that this will leave the article in a biased state, violating WP:NPOV. However, the lack of a criticism section does not automatically make an article biased, if all information that is included is presented in an objective, neutral fashion. Failure to mention notable criticism may make an article biased by omission; however, criticism is certainly not notable by Wikipedia standards if it has never before been published anywhere but Wikipedia. Editors with concerns that the article is too positive need to find reliable sources for the criticism section, and/or fix specific elements elsewhere in the article that are biased.
Kalkin (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Kalkin (talk) 21:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section to be removed 

message: I'm going to remove the last paragraph in the repression sections, which reads, "A group of Anti-war students in this organization stormed into the library of the University of North Texas. Some of the students covered themselves in fake blood and attempted to shock and horrify the students in the library with their "statement" on the Iraq war. Sadly, despite their intentions, there were a number of International students who have lived in countries who actually do suffer roadside bombs and urban violence on a frequent basis. Some of the international students were unappreciative of the bourgeoisie, American white kids trying get shock value from emulating something that to them is a much too true reality in their lives. Videos available on Youtube, although the sound has been removed because copyrighted content was used for audio. While there were no arrests made, the campus authorities were perturbed by these demonstrators." It is not cited and POV, but is also not an instance of "repression" of CAN. Perhaps whoever added this would be interested in finding somewhere else for this information (cited) to fit in the article. 131.229.150.64 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing last point under heading "Repression" 

message: Substituted at 10:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 10 external links on Campus Antiwar Network. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060712160010/http://www.traprockpeace.org/campus_antiwar_network/index.php/2005/10/28/minutes-2005-campus-antiwar-network-national-conference-oct-22-23-2005-berkeley-ca/ to http://traprockpeace.org/campus_antiwar_network/index.php/2005/10/28/minutes-2005-campus-antiwar-network-national-conference-oct-22-23-2005-berkeley-ca/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051214202332/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1205-32.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1205-32.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120726063017/http://www.nornc.org/2008/07/15/sector-6-can/ to http://www.nornc.org/2008/07/15/sector-6-can/
*Added  tag to http://media.www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2007/02/15/News/Walkout.Set.For.Today-2722194.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814190033/http://www.traprockpeace.org/campus_antiwar_network/index.php/2007/05/09/the-great-rutgers-walkout/ to http://www.traprockpeace.org/campus_antiwar_network/index.php/2007/05/09/the-great-rutgers-walkout/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081229133134/http://www.counterpunch.org/yeaw06092005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/yeaw06092005.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207204031/http://afromerica.com/avenues/channels/maneuvers/problackmoves/antiwarnetwork.php to http://www.afromerica.com/avenues/channels/maneuvers/problackmoves/antiwarnetwork.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051230232818/http://www.counterpunch.org/their03152005.html to http://www.counterpunch.org/their03152005.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050925204546/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7609 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7609
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518120325/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8104 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=8104
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051229145142/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05%2F03%2F18%2F1450222 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05%2F03%2F18%2F1450222
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:30, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified