Talk:Antiwar.com

message: I don't want to junk the page up with a bunch of extra names, but how exactly should we determine which personnel to mention and which to omit? Are we looking for noteworthiness or for those who do the most work at the site? It seems like Scott Horton might be a noteworthy addition considering he's also the host of a comparatively popular talk radio show. - anon
:Well, with regard to the staff of antiwar.com, I think we should try to get some sense of how important a role each person plays in producing the site. Obviously, Raimondo and Garris are key figures; in addition, I have the impression that Matt Barganier has an important role as editor, and, from what I remember about the newspaper profile on antiwar.com a few years ago, the executive director, Alexia Gilmore, is important, too (as is her husband). Sapienza is maybe kind of a stretch, but, what the heck, he has a Wikipedia article and he is listed third on the AWC masthead. I think adding anyone else would be too much clutter. As far as columnists are concerned, we should definitely go by how notable they are as people. I think the current list is pretty good, although Nebojsa Malic seems pretty obscure apart from his antiwar.com column. - Nat Krause 13:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Names

message: This page was created almost half a year ago, and contain what I, for one, consider to be useful information. So Coolcat, if you want the page to be deleted, please add it to the vote for deletion instead. Stereotek 10:49, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Coolcat vandalized the pages that link here, in addition to his bogus VFD. I "speedy un-VFD'ed" it. Mirror Vax 14:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: So, Coolcat

message: Is this actually true? I'm certain the site was talking about this group before others, but does it actually go back to the sites inception?  I could be mistaken, but I don't remember any mention of them while the bombs were falling on Serbia... Arker 02:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  neoconservatives ... since the site's inception, 

message: Antiwar.com is an English-language website containing news and opinion pieces related predominantly to wars in which  the USA and Israel are involved  from a point of view of ideological and political red-green-brown alliance of anti-democratic and anti-Semitic neo-Nazis, paleoconservative Old Right, Islamists and far Left. The site was founded in December of 1995. It is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation, operating under the auspices of the Randolph Bourne Institute, based in Atherton, California. The language of publications is shrill, openly demagogic; the site provides very little factual information but is a full of conspiracy theories, like accusations  that'Israel had foreknowledge of 9/11.  While site claims  anti-war position, in fact it is openly supportive of Islamic terrorism against the USA and Israel. The site made an enormous effort to became noticeable by the mainstream left (liberal) media which opposes to so called "neo-conservative" policies of president George W. Bush. Among historical figures of the past, the main targets of the site are American presidents who fought against racism, Nazi Germany/Imperial Japan/Fascist Italy  or Communist Stalin's totalitarianism; Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and American ally Winston Churchill. Antiwar.com accuses them in "conspiring" to initiate the wars against their opponents.   After initial attention to the site, the left wing media began to ignore it.  Because its want of credibility, Antiwar.com is not cited by the leading mainstream left and conservative blogs. At present Antiwar.com is failed into obscurity.
Personnel include self proclaimed libertarian of neo-Fascist bent Justin Raimondo (founder and editorial director), Eric Garris (founder and webmaster), Matt Barganier (editor), Jeremy Sapienza (assistant webmaster and senior editor),and Alexia Gilmore (executive director). Authors include Raimondo, Ivan Eland, Praful Bidwai, Ran HaCohen, Nebojsa Malic, Alan Bock, Charles V. Peña, Bevin Chu,Joseph Stromberg, Randall (Ismail) Royer, a former employee of the Council on American-Islamic Relations CAIR now doing a 20-year federal sentence for Islamist terrorist activities, rightist has beens  Paul Craig Roberts and Pat Buchanan, unreformed Stalinist Alexander Cockburn. With exception of Buchanan, no one of site authors is known outside of small circle of peculiar fringe to which any of them belonged.
::OK, easily the stupidest thing I've seen.
:::ACTUALLY it quite accurate but than idealogues will ignore the truth that the website is full of fascists and idiots.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.88.22 (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you NUTS? The warmongers are the fascists ones!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.57.186.102 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously that bit above is biased in a big way, but as someone who has worked with Antiwar.com for years, I would like to point out that the first clause of its first sentence is more accurate than the same clause in the article. Antiwar.com is not "a libertarian web site." It's an antiwar web site operated by libertarians. There's a difference. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is a non partisan article about Antiwar.com

message: 75.2.245.222 has continued to post the same uncited points of contention.  Not only are they not cited by any kind of source, but they glaringly violate the Terms required of NPOV.  Just because you do not like someone or a position held by an organization, does not mean that you can disparage them.  Follow the terms, cite sources and stick to NPOV.
- User:Tejano 23:42 06 August 2006 (UTC)
----
(External links)
* Antiwar.com
* PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer, "Voices of Dissent," May 24 1999
* San Francisco Weekly, "Intrepid Antiwarriors of the Libertarian Right," December 10 2003 
* FrontPageMag.com, March 15 2005, Stephen Schwartz, "Justin Raimondo. An American Neo-Fascist"
E.G.  W. 4 August 2004
:Fine. Just leave this here on the discussion page and everyone will be happy. +ILike2BeAnonymous 21:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  75.2.245.222 NPOV spammer

message: I see there was a previous vote on deletion of this article, which was high in favor of "keep".  However, why hasn't any editor included NPOV, sourced and verifiable information in this article which clearly demonstrate why this website is notable enough for an article.  The writing may be fabulous and provocative, but where are the traffic statistics, the outside references to it from other prominent outlets, news coverage, etc?  To read this article on its own, I wonder why this website is important.  Does it have a national audience?  Is it more a Bay-area thing?  Is anything published anywhere in a completely independent, verifiable and reliable source that covers this information?NYDCSP 16:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevance?

message: The opening paragraph claims that the site commonly publishes people in the 911 conspiracy/truth movement.  Not only is it not common, I have never seen it at all.  I am removing it until someone has a source 24.207.226.108 (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In this article Justin Raimondo claims that there's some "Israeli connection" to 9/11. That's very similar to what the 9/11 Truthers believe.--Auspx (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  911 Truther? 

message: For questionable edits. Any one who can include the following in edit summaries made Dec 8 and Dec 9, really has to step back from aggressive deletionism and give editors a chance to clean up any legitimate issues. Thus I have reverted the removed material.
* Edit summary:(removing OR about CIA agents being interviewed on the show (who is to say these people played a substantive -- or indeed any -- role in "foreign policy decisions"? I have worked for the Council on Foreign Relations, and I have contributed nothing.) 
::Question: The writers are listed below; it shouldn't be to hard to give examples from there, should it be done to prove the point the group makes about itself? Or even find some relevant WP:RS? Just because you didn't contribute anything in your CfR job doesn't mean others didn't in theirs. (Hope this CfR job isn't a WP:COI? You know, like DickClarkMises former job several years ago allegedly was??)
* Edit summary:(c.e. (removing note about "Randolph Bourne Institute", which doesn't even seem to exist in any substantive sense.)) 
::Question: So it's a small Institute, and not the CfR. That's no reason to delete it.  See http://randolphbourne.org/ 
* Edit summary:(OR, unencyclopedic to call current U.S. Wars "aggressive" (or, for that matter, defensive/just.)) This website is against war primarily and the first sentence should reflect that. Justifications for this should follow) (undo | thank) 
::Question: The way the group describes itself doesn't count but your definition of antiwar does?? Sorry, we can use what groups say about themselves. And there is sufficient material about them out there to beef up the article. Why don't you do some research?  I'll be busy beefing up the Murphy-Krugman debate so have to put it on hold for a week. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 07:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You requested I fix it, so I didn't think I had to add "Added later." I think your complaints sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Carol, you continue to display an inability to focus on content, not contributors. You are accusing me of being "pro-war" on the basis of no evidence, while alleging a CoI based on a brief mention of minor (academic) work I did with the CfR. Do you really believe these remarks are necessary, and contribute to this community? Steeletrap (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please quote where I say you are pro-war. The only thing at all relevant I say is: The way the group describes itself doesn't count but your definition of antiwar does?? Please explain. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  In an edit summary about your reversion of my edits, you stated "announcing your pro-war POV and possible WP:COI in edit summaries not a great way to start." Steeletrap (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reminder. I momentarily got CfR mixed up with another real pro-war mongering organization. My apologies for not giving CfR it's due. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable edit summaries

message: For the record, before I get around to it, there are dozens of recent mainstream articles about Antiwar.com because the FBI investigated them for years after they complained someone was trying to hack them. A search of FBI and Antiwar.com comes up with lots, his one being on top. And of course all sorts of other material that people just haven't bothered to dig up. Just one more article on my list. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 18:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: On the face of your reasonable argument, the tag at the top of the article does not fly. I'm removing the tag. If the tagger wants to take this matter to Wikipedia:Afd that's fine, but I'd be surprised if they do. This seems a prima facie case of established notability. And I'd ask the tag not merely be restored without discussion here first. Jusdafax  06:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still on my list to fix up, but other things are popping and I'm a bit burned out. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The tag does not mean antiwar.com is not notable. It means that its notability is questionable. Please provide RS that establish its notability. Steeletrap (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  The FBI investigation story may be sufficient to establish notability. The Guardian story is distinct from the other RS we currently cite in the piece in that it mentions antiwar.com extensively and substantively. Steeletrap (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

text:  Carol, if you add to the article what you say are "dozens of recent mainstream articles" on antiwar.com, the tag can be safely removed. Steeletrap (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Significant coverage of Antiwar.com includes the Guardian, ABC News, the San Francisco Chronicle and the American Civil Liberties Union. Claims of non-notability or "questionable" notability are absurd. Thomas L. Knapp (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've forgotten about doing this myself (too many articles, too little time); thanks for reminder. Busy next few days, but soon. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 22:38, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there are plenty of sources, and yet the banner is still at the top of the article. I'll take it down. 55 Gators (talk) 16:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability and FBI investigations

message: A lot of content seems to have been added to this article with the deliberate intention of smearing Antiwar.com as a radical right-wing organization. That's plainly contradicted by Antiwar.com's posting of articles by left-leaning writers like Medea Benjamin, Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard. Opposition to war cuts across the political spectrum.  Even if the site does have Libertarian writers like, say, Ron Paul, these authors do not inject Libertarian social philosophy into their articles. As there are many pro-war factions today, any of which would have a vested interest in smearing Antiwar.com.  
Practical321 (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither Glenn Greenwald nor Tulsi Gabbard are left-leaning. Characterizing Antiwar.com as right-wing is accurate. — Red XIV (talk) 06:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seems like someone is trying to smear Antiwar.com