Template talk:Anti-war/Archive 1

message: At the moment, this seems to focused on the U.S. and too focused on recent events.
Also, is this to be specifically opposition to wars or also to militarism? I ask because there is a lot related to the Middle East peace movement that is not so much in opposition to some particular war as pro-peace. I think some of that belongs here. Consider, for example Geneva Accord. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Work in progress

message: Our template is too "fat" - too wide side-to-side.  I'm going to see if I can make it skinnier, because I think it has too large of a horizontal footprint on the top of the articles, which is causing me considerable frustration in trying to stick images up there and format everything properly.
So we shall see what I come up with.  Trying to make it a little smaller and neater like Template:Anarchism sidebar.
Schuminweb 00:24, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Our template is too fat 

message: Fixed the old "fat" template.  What I did is I took the anarchism template and built a new template for anti-war based on that one.  It is definitely a lot more streamlined, though it is longer than before.  It's also locked to the right side now, where it used to be variable.  Provides some uniformity.  I'm going through now to fiddle with a number of the pages that this template resides on in order to make them all look right.  Schuminweb 01:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were right to but the template on a diet as it was hard to fit it in with articles with pictures. Its a shame though as it was more sexy before the diet. Ohh the pains of beuaty verses utillity.--JK the unwise 12:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed "fat" template 

message: In order to keep the template down to size, at least as far as width is concerned, let's agree that the link to "Afghanistan War Protests" will be the widest thing on the template, and that anything wider than that gets a line break to bring its width back a bit.
Hopefully this will continue to help keep our template from getting too "fat" again.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Afghanistan War Protests" widest thing on the template 

message: I've gone ahead and removed Opposition to the Second Boer War from the template for now, since at this point, it's a red link.  I'm all for having the article listed on the template, but we do need an article there first.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in the process of writting the article as you were editing. Its still a bit rough and ready at the mo as I am in a bit of a hurry. take a look at Opposition to the Second Boer War.--JK the unwise 22:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: No one's commented so I'm going to go ahead and do it and see if anyone wants to argue. Kalkin 15:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to the Second Boer War 

message: Does the thicker peace sign "work" in the template?  If you look at Template:Anarchism sidebar, which is what this template is based on, I think it was designed for a thicker image than we had.  What do you think?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thicker looks better then thiner. I made it a bit smaller though.--JK the unwise 09:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thicker peace sign... does it "work"? 

message: ...looks nicer.  I approve. Kalkin 14:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  centered text 

message: I'm a little surprised to see ANSWER Coalition removed from the template. I'm no fan of theirs, but they have been one of the three most important U.S. anti-war organizations in recent years (the others being NION and UFPJ). - Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's very strange.  One of two, actually - NION's been relatively inactive for some time.  It was taken out on April 12 by Vfp, without explanation.  I'll restore it. Kalkin 15:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Yes, if we are looking only at the present, one of two; if we are looking over the course of five years, one of three. - Jmabel | Talk 07:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q.U.E.S.T.I.O.N. 

message: First off, I have no problem with the link to the Copperheads (politics) article.  In fact, I think it's a great addition to the template.  I do, however, have issue with it being listed in two different places.  It's listed by name as an organization, and also listed at the top under opposition to the American Civil War.  My issue is that this is redundant, and makes our template unnecessary long, thus one should be removed.  Thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the Copperheads really count as an organization.  That was, after all, a label attached to a faction of Democrats and others by the Republicans.  All the other groups listed as organizations are actually formal/legal organizations.  So I think that's the Copperhead location that should be removed. Kalkin 14:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections apparent.  Done. Kalkin 17:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. And since George W Bush would like the War in Iraq to be done with soon you'd probably consider him "anti-war" too. ActiveSelective 10:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have no opinion on the question of whether a non-organization should be listed, but the analogy to G.W. Bush is totally flawed. The Copperheads were genuinely anti-war, whatever their motivations. Hoping for a quick victory is entirely another thing. - Jmabel | Talk 18:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate link re: "Copperheads" 

message: I took another cue from Template:Anarchism sidebar (which is what our template's design is based on) and added "Part of the Politics series on" to the top of the page.  Hopefully this will make our template a wee bit less controversial.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added text snippet 

message: The template needs some kind of reorganization of the categories.  I think that Stevertigo was right that the number of organizations listed was getting out of control, but the only non-arbitrary solution I can see, since we don't have a good way of comparing organizational importance and picking the best 5-7, is to just link the list.  But now we need some other way of organizing the template - it's silly to have an 'organizations' category with only one member.  And the other existing categories have problems as well - "General Anti-War" is explicitly a lump, while "Criticism of Anti-War" is badly named, because the senses in which an article on militarism and an article on appeasement contain criticisms of anti-war movements are opposite.  Any suggestions for a new set of categories?  Kalkin 00:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm inclined to remove the "Criticisms" section entirely, because I think that the articles therin a bit of a stretch in the first place, regardless of what you call it.  I'm going to wait to see what others think on that one, though.  Otherwise, I like the fact that the list of organizations is now entirely on the list and off the template.  That fixes a lot of our length problem right there.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've recombined "General Anti-War", "Organizations," and "Criticism of Anti-War" into "Sources of opposition" and "Related ideologies".  I think this is an improvement, but I'm not entirely happy with it.  Lets see what people do with it.  Kalkin 00:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to work for me.  Maybe a few minor tweaks here and there, but all seems well.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganization 

message: Originally posted on my talk page:
=== Fellow traveler ===
Schuminweb,
Why was "Fellow Traveler" not "close enough"?  90 percent of the people who are ensuring the list is biased have self-proclaimed Socialist or Commumist worldviews that are their "sources of opposition".  The term "fellow traveler" seems to be the best descriptor to capture this wide ranging source of opposition.  Thank you for your time.
Have a great 4th of July and enjoy the fireworks in D.C.
V/R
160.149.77.68 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not specifically anti-war, but seems to be much more a general thing.  I would, however, consider myself a "fellow traveler" for a number of anti-war and activist organizations in the DC area, but as it's not specifically an anti-war concept, it's not template material.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to repost the whole thing to the template talk page and put it to the group.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I get what this has to do with the template. For example, a draft-dodger (currently in the template) is not necessarily anti-war, he just doesn't want to go (look at Dick Cheney; no, on the second thought I'd rather not). "Fellow traveller" is about a political relationship to a party. In the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, I suppose that could have made some people temporarily anti-war, but a year later it would have made them pro-war. (Insofar as there is a specifically socialist opposition to war, it falls under the heading of anti-imperialism, already in the template.) If we are going to add things like that, we'd have to add every political party that ever opposed a war: there are a lot of those, but if they weren't reasonably consistently anti-war, it seems off-topic to me.
I'm perfectly open to adding to the template other less "honorable" terms (e.g. appeasement), but they should be on-topic. - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion from my talk page 

message: Schuminweb,
Why was "Fellow Traveler" not "close enough"?  90 percent of the people who are ensuring the list is biased have self-proclaimed Socialist or Commumist worldviews that are their "sources of opposition".  The term "fellow traveler" seems to be the best descriptor to capture this wide ranging source of opposition.  Thank you for your time.
Have a great 4th of July and enjoy the fireworks in D.C.
V/R
160.149.77.68 05:19, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not specifically anti-war, but seems to be much more a general thing.  I would, however, consider myself a "fellow traveler" for a number of anti-war and activist organizations in the DC area, but as it's not specifically an anti-war concept, it's not template material.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to repost the whole thing to the template talk page and put it to the group.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fellow traveler 

message: Your thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure I get what this has to do with the template. For example, a draft-dodger (currently in the template) is not necessarily anti-war, he just doesn't want to go (look at Dick Cheney; no, on the second thought I'd rather not). "Fellow traveller" is about a political relationship to a party. In the period of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, I suppose that could have made some people temporarily anti-war, but a year later it would have made them pro-war. (Insofar as there is a specifically socialist opposition to war, it falls under the heading of anti-imperialism, already in the template.) If we are going to add things like that, we'd have to add every political party that ever opposed a war: there are a lot of those, but if they weren't reasonably consistently anti-war, it seems off-topic to me.
I'm perfectly open to adding to the template other less "honorable" terms (e.g. appeasement), but they should be on-topic. - Jmabel | Talk 19:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Missing in action:
* Opposition in Russia to the Chechen War
* Opposition on various sides to the various wars in the former Yugoslavia
I'm sure there are tons of others, but these leap to mind. I don't even know if we have articles. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical bias 

message: Would anyone be averse to a redesign of the template to give it an appearance similar to that of Template:Anarchism sidebar?  I think it would make our template look quite sharp... SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template redesign