Talk:White poppy

message: This article, and Remembrance Day (at least) have similar or identical sentences referring to this organization, which is not linked to its own article. Further, Google returns only 32 hits. I suggest this organization is not notable enough for a mention here or in Remembrance Day. It was added by  as can be seen here I suggest a cite, or failing that, a removal. ++Lar: t/c 14:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If PAGI are sufficiently notable, should White Poppy article be moved to Alternative Poppies article?--Darrelljon 19:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer if PAGI set up their own black poppy page and explain its relevance. The white poppy has some history and national (international?) importance --scruss 22:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As well, there's now some controversy in Alberta, Canada; pacifist groups are selling white poppies there, and it has the Legion rather upset, especially in the leadup to Remembrance Day. -- SigPig \SEND - OVER 04:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because the white poppy is an afront to those who served and those that supported them, the sheer pretention is that the white poppy represents people who do "not to support any kind of war." including that of UN peace missions and defending allies... The fact that in Canada the poppy is owned by the Canadian government and allowed to be used only by the Royal Canadian Legion.  Further that the people behind the white poppy steal the money that is used by the distribution of the scarlet poppy to support war vets who are unable to support themselves makes the entire thing even more despicable. 68.146.214.11 23:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion started May 2006

message: I have taken out a paragraph that read as follows:
Some consider the pacifist symbolism of the white poppy to be tainted due to its association to those in the leadership of the Peace Pledge Union who favoured a policy of appeasement towards Nazi Germany and  support for fascism in Britain during the 1930s and early 1940s . Lord Tavistock, founder of the anti-semitic and pro-Nazi British People's Party), won elections onto the National Council of the Peace Pledge Union up until 1943 and many other prominent members of the PPU were also members of the British People's Party. These included BPP leader John Beckett who had also previously been an ally of Oswald Mosley in the British Union of Fascists, St. John Philby  and Ben Greene.
My reasons are twofold.
1. The Peace Pledge Union has its own entry where such issues could be raised in context.  
2. This information is inaccurate.  I have consulted the PPU's archivist, Bill Hetherington, who informs me that Lord Tavistock - when he had become the Duke of Bedford - served one year on the PPU Council, Ben Greene never held office in the PPU, but had one article published in Peace news and there was no connection between St John Philby and the PPU.  
Howard Clark (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peace Pledge Union 

message: Reading this article, it seems sligtly bias to me. Firstly the Royal British Legion, and the majority of people would say that the Red Poppy does indeed represent everyone that died in war, not just British soliders. The artile also makes no mention of how contreversal it is to wear a white poppy, as it is seen by some, as an insult. --CelticCymru (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is merely opinion and is wrong.  The Royal British Legion says the red poppy is specifically for British troops only and only for the armed forces.  It does not include Commonwealth troops, Chinese front line labourers, the merchant navy, ARPs, medical staff, munitionettes or anyone else who contributed to the war effort but was not armed or who was not British.  It also represents the living, not just the dead.  https://web.archive.org/web/20141103033305/http://www.britishlegion.org.uk/get-involved/poppy-appeal   SandJ-on-WP (talk) 09:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Bias? 

message: I have reverted the article to a much shorter version, because yesterday's changes appear to have been copied verbatim from the PPU website .
This breaches policy not only on copyrights, since there is not indication that permission has been given to use this material, but also makes it hard to present a neutral point of view, since the source material will clearly be biased towards the PPU's views.
That is not to say that those pages may not provide useful source material and further reading, but this is a potentially controversial topic, so needs to be treated carefully. - IMSoP (talk) 17:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article reverted 

message: This article is about a visual subject; ergo, an image should be within the aricle.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.210.109.147 (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the image is now there. (Put there by someone other than myself) - Boyd Reimer (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needed 

message: The hill figure above Fovant doesn't appear to be a "white poppy" as such: it's an outline of a commemorative poppy and clearly the same shape as the commonly-worn red poppy badges, and is only white because the chalk beneath the turf is white. I can't find any references which support the suggestion that it has anything to do with any pacifist movements, so I've been bold and removed the paragraph about it ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fovant hill figure