Category talk:American anti–Iraq War activists

message: What exactly are the criteria for being included in this category?  Based on the title and the information proceeding the list, Harry Belafonte would be a candidate.  However, a certain editor keeps removing him (and others) because Belafonte has voiced opposition to other military coups besides the US involvement in Iraq.  If the intended criteria for this category states that the only people who should be included support all wars except the Iraq war, then this should be explicitly stated, and many of the people currently listed in the category should be removed.  --buck 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of criteria for this category

message: user:Grazon keeps on taking people off this list insisting that they are consciencious objectors rather than anti-war activist, however their article's support such claims and whethere or not they are C.O.s is irrelevant. He keeps on removing people.! HEADSUPQrc2006 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: "For example, Ron Paul both supports the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (and the military presence still there) and opposes the Iraq War."
Is he really a supporter of the US involvement in Afghanistan?  My understanding is he voted to allow the US to go after the terrorists of 11 September 2001.  I have heard him on several occations mention the option of using Letters of Marque and Reprisal.  Does anyone have any evidence that he supports the current US occupation of Afghanistan?   --Kalmia 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ron Paul 

message: Would the author of the definition below tell me why he choose to list both illegal and/or immoral under A)? Seems I can't quite picture the Iraq-war-is-immoral-position. Who would be a representative of this mindset? I have to admit that immoral somehow feels superfluous, but maybe I am missing something?
:A) Believe that the Iraq War was illegal and/or immoral from the beginning; or  LeaNder 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A) definition: illegal and/or immoral 

message: I think that definition B) leaves the definitorial gates wide open. Given that victory usually has many fathers and defeat none, this definition as reality shows invites an endless queue of applicants and/or their supporters. 
: B) Believe that the Iraq War is being waged incompetently or immorally, and have become publicly known as critics of the war or the justifications used to launch it.
It in fact welcomes all the cake-walk-propagandists/armchair generals that now only need to adjust to the reality around stating ("become publicly known as critics") that victory was lost only since the war was "waged incompetently". And that obviously was not their fault. See discussion on Yaron Brook as an American Anti-Iraq war activist, which shows to what absurd heights this defintion may lead.
What "real" American Anti-Iraq War activists in this category made the "waged incompetently" description necessary? Would  "waged imprudently" help to keep the crowd out? Maybe it would close the door to the applicant queue above and open the door for the people that were hesitant about the motives from the very start. Imprudently is a spontaneous assocition on the term: calm deliberation in the Ron Paul speech above. Maybe there are better terms. But there is no doubt at all the defintion has to be changed. Let's talk about it. Should I post this at the authors private talk section? LeaNder 00:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.  S/he hasn't been active in nearly two months, so this person may not be back.  Either way, looking at this person's edit history I'm guessing that s/he is either a vandal or has little regard the policies of Wikipedia.  I don't think bringing this person back will do benefit any of us.  I think it's time to finally come up with criteria for inclusion in this article that removes the ambiguity (illegal? immoral? imprudent?).  I attempted to do this on 13 Sept 06 but my edits were promptly reverted before I made any real progress.  Since I generally find this subject uninteresting anyway, I just gave up. --buck 23:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: B) definition - incompetency & publicity 

message: From the category page: "American anti-war activists are not to be mixed up with Critic of Iraq Policy." The link goes nowhere, and the distinction is not clarified. This should either be removed or clarified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 18:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove or clarify remark 

message: At what point is someone an activist (active), versus a public figure that puts on a trendy T-shirt (a critic)? How many acts of activism does one need to commit in order to be an activist? 
Some of the entertainers in this category (Sheryl Crow) have not gone beyond their standard occupations (writing songs, making films) in their activism - they've actually profited from it. I wouldn't consider that activism - that's a themed art project. Others have no public record of activism (Paul Newman) in regard to the Iraq War, yet they get lumped into this category because of their pacifist stance.
While others in this category (Cindy Sheehan, John Edwards) have actively pursued a change in US policy in Iraq. 
I strongly suggest that this category does not get diluted by mere critics or sympathizers, but remains a category of actual activists.
borislutskovsky 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Define Activism 

message: I don't think John Kerry belongs on this page. Thoughts?
MykellM 20:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kerry