Talk:Not in Our Name

message: NION! is an American organization, so I (European) did not know about it before I found it in the anti-war template, or, what is the same thing, before I got addicted to wikipedia ;-D 
I just read this article for the first time and it struck me: how very strange is the sequence of chapters. As a reader wanders into this article, the first thing he reads is criticism of another antiwar coalition (ANSWER) and specifics on the leadership of some group (RCP) which has so many other specialized ideas. This only widens the distance between article and the ordinary anti-war interested reader. 
It is not a problem to me that ANSWER is critized, or that leadership is discussed. I only wondered: Why put sectarian issues first? Why not put priorities first: the anti-war movement? arguments? documents? protests? ... Sure, later on you can get into issues within the anti-war movement and name the differences. Fine. But, please, now this article leaves this impression: "NION is different from ANSWER and ANSWER has degressed and NION has not and NION has done different things... oh, that reminds me, NION has done anti-war protests." Strange strange sequence. -- 145.97.204.116 22:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange strange sequence 

message: I realize that you feel that the subject of the article is communism, but I don't quite understand for what purpose you blanked a large part of the article and inserted an image of a hammer and sickle--205.188.116.132 06:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Morton devonshire? hammer and sickle?

message: I realize that the RCP played a significant role in the founding of NION, and I agree that it should be mentioned, but I'm not at all sure that it was founded "largely by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP)" (emphasis mine), and in any case their role, including their continuing role, should be cited for. Given that this edit was by User:Morton devonshire, the same person who earlier added a hammer and sickle to the page, I don't trust it. - Jmabel | Talk 18:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I largely take that back, it's well cited for later in the article (though I'm not sure it belongs in the lead unless RCPs ongoing role can be demonstrated). That's the problem with someone cries wolf: you stop believing him even when he's saying something solid. - Jmabel | Talk 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Role of RCP

message: I suggest splitting the Signatories section into a new standalone list e.g. "List of Not in Our Name endorsers" or something like that. The list would be described as: "The following is a list of noteworthy people who have signed Not in Our Name's 'Pledge of Resistance' or 'Statement of Conscience:' " or something similiar  --DieWeisseRose 02:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have listed them going across rather than down page.  I feel that it does not need to be a separate page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signatories → List 

message: NION released a statement back in March that they've disbanded:
It is with some sadness... that we inform our supporters... that we closed our national office and related infrastructure on March 31, 2008.
I'm too busy (read:lazy) to add this, but someone should, methinks.
76.66.209.194 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NION no more