Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war/Archive 1

message: IMPORTANT: I just want to make it clear that the aim of an anti-war wikiproject is not to oppose war or push an anti-war POV in to wikipedia. Rather opposition to war (for varrious reasons from pacifism to Anti-imperialism) has played a large role in global politics (particularly recently with the Global protests against invasion of Iraq), the role of this project is to document anti-war movements and ideologies. I do not think there is a need for us to define explicitly the meaning of anti-war, rather let us treat it (at least for now) as a family term, some movements/ideas are definatly anti-war we can argue along the way about more prefiery cases. The only think I think is worth noting is that we should not assume that anti-war has just to do with American forien policy for example there were anti-war activities against WW1. If you wish to argue about the correctness anti-war politics do not join this project rather go to some political chat room  :-D
--JK the unwise 11:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: After existing for only 2 days this project has allready been nominated for deletion (by annon user 64.12.116.136.). While annon user 64.12.116.136's accusations were baceless and while I think the project will pass the vote and not be deleted, it shows how easily this project could be taken to be contentious.--JK the unwise 17:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Anti-war seems to have disappeared, which I guess means it survied :-)  --JK the unwise 10:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I'm not sure what is meant by "unify these pages". Surely, for example, we don't want to combine articles on different organizations: for example, ANSWER, NION and UFPJ each deserve a separate article, right? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:01, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
:True. I was thinking more of articles such as Post-September 11 anti-war movement and Popular opposition to the 2003 Iraq war whichcontain simliar infomation or go over the same events.--JK the unwise 17:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unify

message: I thought a Collaboration of the month might help give the project some focus. I nominate Global protests against invasion of Iraq as the first article for focusing on. Any other suggestions?--JK the unwise 11:43, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collaboration of the month 

message: My opinion on war itself is not relevant to the discussion, however, I think your project title may appear, to some, inherently POV.  Perhaps "WikiProject: Pacifism" would be a lesser magnet for accusations of bias. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:42, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:I understand the problem, but I'm not sure "pacifism" sounds less POV than "anti-war". Maybe "Peace studies"?Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
::Wikipedia:WikiProject Pacifism would be wrong as pacifism is total opposition to all violence, some anti-war sentiment is based on pacifism but some isn't (e.g. anti-imperialism). I am not against a name change if some one can come up with a good one.--JK the unwise 18:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...no idea on the name, but it might be a start to remove the peace sign from the banner on articles. My first thought was what the heck is that doing on an encycolopedia? Looks very activist to me at first glance. And I'm under no illusions that it is not activist at it's core. I think there may be some value, however, in pretending on the surface to be non-biased, just to affirm that neutrality is something important for an Wikipedia. DrAlbertHofmann 06:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say? Is it that use of the "Peace symbol" on the anti-war template (banner) is POV because it implies support of the anti-war movement? While I appreciate your concern I do not beleive that this is so. Firstly, the symbol is mearly illistrative of anti-war topics its use is no more biaised to use it then to use the word "anti-war". As generaly is the case with wikipedia's use of logo's; no support is implied. Secondly, it is common practice on Wikipedia to use symbols that are associated with their topic in templates. That the Christianity template shows a Christian cross does not imply support for Christianity any more then the pictureing of a tank in the History of war template shows support for war/tanks or the use the anarchist symbol in the Anarcisism template implies support for anarchism.--JK the unwise 23:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV concerns 

message: How exactly is it a COTW, will there be a monthly collaboration? Falphin 23:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep hopefully. Wikipedia:WikiProject Anti-war#Collaboration of the month.--JK the unwise 16:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: COTW?

message: The inclusion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Counterculture as a "related" project seems either misguided or polemical. I suppose most counterculturalists are anti-war, but Hitler was a bit of a bohemian as a young artist, and the Futurists were about as pro-war as they get. And certainly most opposition to wars does not come from counter-cultures. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Hmmm... I see your point but just because the two are related dose not mean they are co-extensive.--JK the unwise 15:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterculture? 

message: I've just signed up to be involved in the project and noticed the Rainbow peace flag on the task says 'PACE', am I missing something here? Solar 16:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the project. PACE is italian for peace. The use of the rainbow flag as a peace flag orriginated in Italy (see Rainbow flag#Peace movement for more info). I have to admit it might cause some confusion but I think it helps show the global scope of the project.--JK the unwise 16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well there you go, fair enough ;-) Solar 17:40, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I drew this little PeaceSymbol.gif and gave it to the Public Domain as my contribution to world peace. Feel free to use it however you see fit.  -- CQ 17:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rainbow peace or rainbow 'PACE' flag? 

message: As of this writing, we have four articles marked as "needs opinion".  These articles are:
* March 20, 2003 anti-war protest
* Million Worker March
* Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan
* Brian Haw
Two of these articles are ones that I created and also had a significant hand in shaping (March 20 and Million Worker March).  One of these I did significant cleanup on (Afghanistan).  The other one (Brian Haw) I had no hand in.
I decline to rate the first three myself because of the significant role I played in these articles' development, and thus I feel I can't provide an unbiased opinion on them.  This is actually the reason why I created the "needs opinion" rating in the first place - I decided that since I'd had such a large role in the development of the article that I was unable to provide an unbiased opinion on the article's quality.  The assumption is that since I worked on it so much, that of course I think it's the best thing since sliced bread.
For the Brian Haw article, I just couldn't determine how it should be rated, since I consider myself more of an implementer than a rater.
So with that said, let's please rate these articles.  If nothing else, it gives us some direction on where we need to go with these articles from someone with an unbiased (or at least less-biased) opinion on them.
Schuminweb 00:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's eliminate "needs opinion" articles 

message: Mrs. Sheehan,
I am ashamed that you are dragging your son's name through the mud, by bashing our President.  Your son choose to go in the military, he wasn't drafted as was so many of our fathers, and brothers were during the Vietnam War.  Your son gave his life for something he believed in.  I think you should respect what he believed in.  You are not the only one that lost a son or love one, and you will not be the last.  Our military both men and women join the military with the understanding that this is their job and their loyality is to our government.  They do as they are told.  Your son signed a contract just like every other member did. NO I am not military now, but my husband is a disablied Vet, my father died during the Vietnam Era.  Freedom doesn't come free.  And everyone deserves to be free.
Ashamed in NC
:Well 147.239.118.158 AKA ashamed, you are intitled to your oppion but one wonders why you are posting it here? I an't seen Mrs. Sheehan around at all.--JK the unwise 17:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cindy Sheehan 

message: I think you should make an effort to list the anti-anti-war point of view. i.e. the case for deterrance, the funding of the CND etc by the Soviets, the fact that many people think that CND prolonged the cold war by making the old USSR think that there was a chance that the West would stop opposing them militarialy etc. MG 17/11/2005 12:05 (BST)
:This project seeks to be neither pro or anti anti-war, rather it seeks to help bring an accurate NPOV picture the anti-war movements to wikipedia. In orrder to do that critisisms of anti-war arguments and organisations should of course be added. If you feel that the project is currently leaning to far towards a positive potrayal of certian groups then feel free to join and help us achive a neutral balance. One thing to remember is that wikipedia is not a place for orriginal reaserch so critisms should generally come from referanced sourses.--JK the unwise 15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Anti-War 

message: I have removed Global peace flag from Template:Anti-war topics and listed it for deletion for the reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global peace flag. What it boils down to is that the flag is at the moment non-notable, I wish its creators all the luck in the world in the promotion of their flag but wikipedia is not the place for that promotion.--JK the unwise 09:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  All the luck to them, but if they can demonstrate actual usage of the flag, then we've got something, and I was hoping to bring that out by listing it for cleanup and such.  Ah, well... SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Italian one with the rainbow and "PACE" has quite a bit of currency, if someone has an image of that. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some stuff on that one at Rainbow flag#Peace movement.--JK the unwise 16:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global peace flag 

message: The February 15, 2003 global anti-war protest lists informations on many of the demonstrations accross the world on that day. However, at the moment there is only one photo (a photo of thr LOndon demo) if any one has any/knows were sutibly copyrighted ones can be found that would be good.--JK the unwise 16:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feb 15th, plea for photos 

message: The Left and Opposition to War, is up for delition (see its entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Left and Opposition to War). I think that although this artcle suffers from POV problems these can be sorted out. It would be a same to lose one of the projects articles.--JK the unwise 13:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Put a keeper vote in.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page deletion

message: With regard to the 'Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee' and its analogous opinion-wielding organizations (such as Students for a Democratic Society - SDS), the time period included quite specific action taken to design and build trash compactor public works vehicles as a means of employment and as a way to tour foreign nations using earned money (i.e., without a military mindset).
Students were involved in many of the demonstrations as 'eager learners', and the trash compactors were successfully forged, despite concerns about the tensile strength of available metal-works operations.  Such perspectives continue as the "anti-war movement" which stresses work not war as a way to see other continental nations, antithetical to tendencies of young people to use the armed forces as a "tour-de-force".  11/26/2005  00:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not feed. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fundamental beliefs and scenarios 

message: Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper.  We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class and good B-class articles, with no POV or copyright problems.  I was really pleased to find that you had a nice list of assessed articles!  I looked at all of the suitable ones marked "good" that I thought met the criteria, and assessed these as A or B class (with comments) in this table.  Please feel free to look over these and add comments below, or on the project talk page. Thanks, Walkerma 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for having a look at articles from our project. I have been concentrating on February 15, 2003 anti-war protest and I am glad to see that you have given it A-class assessment :-). Hopefully We can bumb some of the B class articles up to A class.--JK the unwise 12:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project 

message: I have put February 15, 2003 anti-war protest up for peer review because it has been rated A-class by the version 1.0 editorial bord and thus is probally near to being FA satus. Hopefully with some helpfull comments it can get there.Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive2.--JK the unwise 12:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will have a look and see what I can contribute. Thanks for the heads up. --Valve 18:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for putting the article up for review -- and all the good work that's been done on this project. I've been and am still on a semi-vacation from Wiki, but I did put the article on Watch and if I see any useful contributions, I'll jump in. Calicocat 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 15, 2003 anti-war protest Peer review 

message: I have suggested that the information from Post-September 11 anti-war movement be merged into the Anti-war, Opposition to the 2001 Afghanistan War, Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, Protests against the 2003 Iraq war and The Left and war articles. This is a big job if anyone can help please do so. Alternativly if anyone beleives this to be a mistake place state so on the talk page--JK the unwise 13:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if I'd go so far as to break up this article.  A quick read over the article again to see if I agree with your thinking didn't leave me agreeing.  Except for the sections marked as needing work on the NPOV, it tells the story of the formation of the modern anti-war movement, which is a worthwhile topic in and of itself.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-September 11 anti-war movement 

message: Since the Cindy Sheehan article is way longer than a normal Wikipedia article, I was hoping someone would consider creating an article on her bus tour and moving that part of the Sheehan chronology to that article. --Habap 19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I did it myself. You are all encouraged to edit the Bring Them Home Now Tour, of course. --Habap 18:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bring Them Home Now Tour

message: Meditation is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved and could help us bring it up to featured standard, please vote for it here! --Fenice 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: Morton devonshire has been making a series of edits some of which seem to me to constitute deliberate insertion of POV against the peace movement (, not an entirely invalid edit, but his new wording seems to me to imply that virtually all of the financing for the nuclear freeze movement came from Moscow) and some of which seem to me to be just this side of vandalism , , . I left him a note on his talk page; he simply deleted it. People on this project will probably at least want to keep an eye out for his edits. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored your comment and mine to his talk page, along with a message regarding blanking one's talk page.  Whether that will get deleted or not, I don't know.  Either way, though, he's definitely one we need to keep an eye on.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Done.  One paragraph retained.  The rest is fixed back to the way it was.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Near-vandalism 

message: I realize that the WTO Ministerial Conference of 1999 is slightly off-topic for this project, but I don't see a more appropriate project to take this to. The same editor made this edit there, which I see as mostly, though not entirely, detrimental. Whoever goes into this should look for where he has made genuine improvements in the writing, and should be keen to preserve those. Still, he removed references, blurred the distinction between non-violent civil disobedience and property destruction, and dropped all mention that the arrested protesters who fought their charges were uniformly acquitted. Probably he's excised other significant facts: when I saw that much, I figured I'd seen enough. I'm currently too busy to duke it out with him, and I've had quite enough head-to-head arguments with him in various articles. I'd greatly appreciate it if someone else would take this on. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  One paragraph retained.  The rest is fixed back to the way it was.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same user, different problems

message: are listed in List of protest marches on Washington, DC; a good place to start if you want to fill in anti-Vietnam war stuff.--Carwil 23:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quite a few requested articles 

message: I have put the February 15, 2003 anti-war protest article, which is part of this wikiproject, forward for the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. It is a very good article detailing a day of much importance both to the history of the anti-war movement and to general discussion of the Iraq war. With a little work from experienced editors it could become an excellent and gain FA status. Please vote for it at Make "February 15, 2003 anti-war protest" the subject of an Article Improvement Drive--JK the unwise 12:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive]] 

message: I have just found School Students Against War and Students for Democracy and Peace. They look in poor condition, please look them over.--JK the unwise 10:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pages 

message: An article that is part of this project has been nominated for delition. The article is Committee for International Peace (CIP) and its deletion page can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee for International Peace (CIP)--JK the unwise 11:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was deleted.--JK the unwise 21:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article for deletion 

message: I have raised a dispute about material in the lead section of Talk:Protests against the 2003 Iraq war#Disputed. Among other things, there is a claim that the major protest actions have been "demonstrations in support of 'anti-imperialist' war against the U.S." There are several other assertions I find equally wrongheaded. Because this presumably much-watched article has sat in this state for over five days, I guess there has been something of an implicit endorsement by several contributors.
I urge people from this project to take a look. I am very inclined to revert this paragraph to an earlier version. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protests against the 2003 Iraq war 

message: This is only tangentially connected to the project, but several people here seem to believe in, or have an interest in, Marxism or Trotskyism.  There's a fucking mess going on at the International Socialist Organization article between anarchists and others who like to add huge criticisms in openly biased terms and ISO members who seem to think that the solution is just to eliminate the criticism section.  (Disclosure: I'm a member but I don't think that having Wikipedia describe the various silly or downright idiotic things people say about the ISO is bad.) I tried to fix this by sourcing the criticism section with extensive footnotes and adding responses, but this seems instead to have sparked another source for a revert war.  Very few of the people active there seem to have much experience with Wikipedia (no named accounts aside from a week-old one), and I'm hardly a veteran myself.  Plus I keep second-guessing myself out of a desire to be fair, and I think I bend too far backwards which is no fun.  The situation could use some experienced neutrals I think... Kalkin 05:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While there are editors who work on this project who are interested in Marxism/Trotskyism I would rather that this project stays concentrated on the anti-war movment. You seem to have done a good comprimise on the ISO article and I'll keep an eye on it but it would be better if annocements about articles not about the anti-war movment weren't posted here especially considering that some editors have expressed concerns over the politics of this project.--JK the unwise 19:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mess at ISO article 

message: It has been proposed on the talk page of the Protests against the Vietnam War article (which is part of this project) that it be merged with Opposition to the Vietnam War. Please discus this there.--JK the unwise 17:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protests against the Vietnam War 

message: ...are a major form of anti-war activism. One day they probably deserve their own page, but for now it would be good to fill in information on flashpoints of contention like Okinawa and the Camp Humphreys expansion. I could use some help.--Carwil 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Military Base Campaigns 

message: :Category:Anti-war people is being considered for deletion. Share your thoughts at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Anti-war_people. JonHarder 18:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Registered a "Keep" vote on it, and some interesting discussion on the name of the category.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion has been closed. The result is no consensus so the category will remain as it is. JonHarder 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Anti-war people up for deletion. 

message: At the moment the articles are biased quite hevely towards present or recent anti-war movments, we need to work on more historical articles to address this. As a start I have created Opposition to the Second Boer War, I also hope to create Opposition to the First World War soon. --JK the unwise 22:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical bias 

message: I'm sure there's very little interest in this topic here, since it's an old and obscure war, but just in case anyone gets around to it, a good article on opposition in the United States to the War of 1812 should be written. Here's a quote from Donald R. Hickey's The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict (1989):
:The War of 1812 was America's most unpopular war. It generated more intense opposition than any other war in the nation's history, including the war in Vietnam. (p. 255)
Historian Samuel Eliot Morrison argued the same thing in Dissent in Three American Wars (1970).
During the war, there were riots in Baltimore—not anti-war riots: the violence was directed at Federalist opponents of the war. A plan for conscription passed in the Senate, but failed in the House, thanks in part to opposition from Daniel Webster. National mythologies aside, militiamen in the United States and Canada generally wanted no part of the war. (The U.S. war effort arguably failed because many U.S. militiamen refused to invade Canada.) The Hartford Convention was organized to oppose the war, and even discussed the secession of New England from the United States. This opposition to the war paved the way for the demise of the Federalist Party (the party of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton).
U.S. domestic opposition to the wars in Vietnam and (especially) Iraq were minor compared to opposition to the War of 1812, so someone might want to write an article about it someday. A good basic source would be the entry "Antiwar Sentiment" in Encyclopedia of the War of 1812 (Heidler and Heidler, eds., 1997). --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 13:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does sound interesting and more than worthy of an article.  I'd like to read about it so I'll take it on sometime this week if I have time. Kalkin 19:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, mostly using the very handy if questionably ethical "Search Inside This Book" feature of Amazon.com on the Hickey book.  Give it a rating if you've got a chance.  Kalkin 19:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! Just the kind of thing that this project needs to overcome the current bias towards recent events. keep up the good work.--JK the unwise 11:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that "well done!" Kalkin, if you do more work on the article, there's more to add, as well as some corrections. Opposition to the war actually generated more long-lasting peace organizations than you suggest. The New York Peace Society was formed as a result of the war; many others soon followed. There was also a huge anti-war rally in New York City in August 1812. And there's no mention of Caleb Strong in the article yet, the Governor of Massachusetts who refused to call out the militia to support the war effort, and even talked of Massachusetts making a separate peace with the British. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 00:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of 1812 

message: Hi,
I've just joined the project, and I've rated the article on A. J. Muste as needing expansion, something I hope to do something about after reading up on him a bit more.  From what I understand he played a huge role in organizing the protests against the Vietnam War, and the article doesn't do that justice, as well as not explaining much about his views.  I hope that's appropriate. Rafaelgr 19:20, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[A. J. Muste]]

message: :Category:Anti Iraq war people is being considered for deletion. Share your thoughts on the Categories for deletion page.  JonHarder 02:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've weighed in, again suggesting a rename over outright deletion.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion was closed with no consensus. See the final discussion. JonHarder 20:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Anti Iraq war people up for deletion. 

message: We have nothing on Women Strike for Peace. Very important organization in the 1960s peace movement, an amazing oversight. I'm a bit busy with other things right now. If no one gets there first, I'll do this eventually, but I'd love to see someone else get it started sooner. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women Strike for Peace 

message: * I've just added a section to the article war for a discussion of prevention of an alternatives to war, since there is currently zero content of that type in the article, and it seems like relevant information.  I thought perhaps people checking this page would have some knowledge on the subject which they could contribute. -- Beland 21:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-visibility pages needing expansion 

message: Template:Anti-war topics is up for deletion.  Please weigh in on the discussion.  Thanks!  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Result was keep, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 May 20.--JK the unwise 09:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Anti-war topics]] up for deletion 

message: :Category:Anti Iraq war people is being considered for deletion. Share your thoughts on the Categories for deletion page. JonHarder 13:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Anti Iraq war people up for deletion again. 

message: Wikipedia:Peer review/February 15, 2003 anti-war protest/archive2. Please add your comments. --JK the unwise 14:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: There is a debate on Template talk:Anti-warTasks about whether to have the peace flag or the CND peace symbol. The peace flag image (Image:PACE-flag.svg) seems to have been deleted, I can't find out why or were. Please join the debate.--JK the unwise 09:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template: Anti-warTasks 

message: :Category:Anti-war films is a subcategory of :Category:War films—fine. Fahrenheit 9/11 is in Category:Anti-war films—okay. Category:War films is a subcategory of :Category:Drama films—alright. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a documentary—uh oh. Jonathan F 06:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that :Category:Anti-war films and :Category:War films and :Category:Drama films all are individually listed in :Category:Films by genre, I felt comfortable going in and removing "war films" from the "drama" category, saying in my edit description that not all war films are dramas.  So that ought to fix the Fahrenheit 9/11 problem.  If you see anything else, let me know.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Anti-war films]]

message: List of slogans and chants opposing the Iraq War is up for deletion. Kalkin 00:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chants and slogans up for deletion 

message: Though your article on "draft dodging" mentions civil disobedience, it is heavily slanted toward discussing draft "dodging."  You go on at great length about those who went to Canada during Vietnam but ignore the great numbers of people who did time in federal prison to protest the draft.  As a former draft resister, I am rather bothered that the subject is addressed under "draft dodger." That's like discussing feminists under "bra burners." (I added a paragraph, but more needs to be said.)  cliforeman (foreman@covenant.edu) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cliforeman (talk • contribs) 11 August 2006.
: I would suggest that an article draft resistance would be in order. - Jmabel | Talk 21:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree.  It seems that the two are for the most part different concepts.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I see. That is a redirect to draft dodger. I agree with Cliforeman that that is inappropriate. - Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to see there's already been some discussion about the title of that article. But why hasn't anybody done anything about it??? It's been bothering me ever since I spotted it a couple of weeks ago. I intend to propose a name change to something neutral -- probably "Draft evasion", unless somebody can think of something better. Cgingold 13:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resisters and dodgers 

message: i started the article Opposition to war against Iran. Whether or not there will or will not be a US+UK war against Iran is a matter of speculation, not NPOV fact, though there are several people claiming that the war has already started. In any case, it seems to me undeniable that protests against a war against Iran definitely have started, so it's a good time to start documenting them as part of NPOV knowledge. i'm not totally sure if we should have a title like "opposition to would-be war against Iran" or "opposition to threats to attack Iran", but i do feel that "opposition to Iran War" (modelled after the Iraq article) would constitute a claim that the war has already started, while in fact it's not (yet) widely accepted as having started. Boud 22:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to war against Iran 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.  B2T2 22:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: There has been an ongoing disagreement about using the Anti-war template in the Conscientious objector article. Editors who think it may or may not be appropriate for that article are invited to share their thoughts. See Talk:Conscientious objector#Anti-war template. JonHarder 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Use of Anti-war template on Conscientious objector article 

message: Olof Palme's Christmas speech, 23rd December 1972:
::"We should call things by their real names. What is going on today in Vietnam it is a form of torture. There can be no military justification for the bombing of this scale. Military spokesmen in Saigon have said that there is no charge from the North Vietnamese side. It can not reasonably depend on any obstinacy from the Vietnamese side at the negotiating table. All commentators are in agreement that the main opposition to the October agreement in Paris, in particular comes from President Thieu in Saigon.
::What is being done now is a torment of people. It is a torment of a nation to humiliate it, and force it into submission with the use of dictatorial language (language of force).
::Therefore, the bombings are an atrocity.
::And of those, we have many examples in modern history. And those are generally associated with a name. Guernica, Oradour, Babi Yar, Katyn, Lidice, Sharpeville and Treblinka.
::There, the violence has triumphed. But posterity's judgment has fallen hard over those who have borne the responsibility.
::Now, there is another name to add to the line.
::Hanoi, Christmas 1972."
http://www.olofpalme.org/1972/12/23/uttalande-om-usas-bombningar-av-hanoi-julen-1972/ 
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andjustice4all (talk • contribs) 19:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:   Olof Palme's Christmas speech 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 23:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I've been working on the major war articles, and I've noticed that many of them (especially Vietnam War barely mention any protests and opposition within the U.S.... Could you guys help improve those aspects? I'm going to do as much as I can, but I am by no means an expert on the subject. Ahudson 18:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where are the protests? 

message: Should we consider formally writing out some naming conventions when it comes to anti-war protests?  It seems that the informal consensus on titles is "(Date) anti-war protest", as this is what we've done for F15, M20, and S24.  We currently have the case with the January 27 protest where we had three articles created, that were later merged together: J27, January 27, 2007 anti-war protest, and January 27, 2007 Iraq War protest.  The article currently sits on the last of the three titles.  I've filed a requested move (see Talk:January 27, 2007 Iraq War protest for more information on that) to move it to the January 27, 2007 anti-war protest title to bring it in line with the others.
So should we formalize standard naming conventions?  Seems worthwhile to do so.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. I suggest that you just add that to the project page. If nothing else, it can stand as a suggestion for people starting something. - Jmabel | Talk 03:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added something about naming conventions to the project page.  Please help work on the section with me, so we can get it right.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming conventions 

message: I'm going to do a little work on our talk page template a little bit so that our template is more WikiProject-standard.  Thus when I'm finished, we'll be able to set "class" and "importance", etc. and have it visible directly on the talk page for more editors to see.  That will also allow us to clean up the project page and streamline it some more.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beefing up our talk templates 

message: Thought this would be of interest to folks: 
I've nominated the brand new :Category:Peace activists for deletion, and the discussion is getting under way here: [Categories_for_discussion: Peace activists & Anti-war activists 
Cgingold 16:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories_for_discussion: Peace activists & Anti-war activists 

message: *Found the World citizen article, added 3 references, thought someone maybe interested in helping expand it... i love this article, it just has such a nice idea behind it! (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 20:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * added another 4 references (:O) -Nima Baghaei talk · cont · email 21:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[World citizen]] 

message: This entire concept reeks of bias and ignorance.
Where is the project for those of us who are Pro-Freedom? Or Pro-Getting-Rid-of-Genocidal-Dictators>? or Anti-Hippie Moonbat? I want a project where I can illustrate the bias of Wikipedia Editors. Where is that project? Or will all of these ideas get shot down because they do not advance the cut and run left wing ideology?
An encyclopedia should NOT have an agenda. This is pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ymous (talk • contribs) 
:Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject for information on how to create a wikiproject. Lurker 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or not. This project is about recording anti-war social movements not about promoting them. Rather then promotion it seeks NPOV discription, as such it is not more biased then Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket is biased towards cricket.--JK the unwise 07:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a counterpart, which seeks to record military activities in an NPOV way, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Warofdreams talk 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is the Anti-Surrender Project? 

message: I have nominated Bertrand Russell for WP:GA/R due to inadequate referencing.  I hope the article gets the attention it deserves during this process to retain its quality rating. Please see discussions at Wikipedia:Good_article_review#Bertrand_Russell. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bertrand Russell GA/R 

message: Hello, if anyone is interested in institutional approaches to ending war, you may want to check out United Nations Parliamentary Assembly, which, by the way, is up for Featured Article Candidacy. Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United Nations Parliamentary Assembly]]

message: The March 19, 2008 anti-war protest article is currently up for deletion.  This being the project about anti-war events, you all might find it worthwhile to take a look.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active deletion discussion 

message: Hello, I would like to request some help with this article, which is under the scope of this project. I fully sourced it over the past week, and I would like to help it get to GA or FA status. It would be great if any editors from this project could look it over, possibly do some copyediting, and give some feedback in the peer review. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help request: [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]] 

message: I would not have thought this would be a reasonable venue for posting the following draft, but maybe I'm missing the point a little bit?  My personal focus has been informed by WP:NPOV; and because of this fundamental stance, I wouldn't have thought this would be a likely venue to invite constructive criticism of the writing style and content below -- but maybe I've been simply wrong. I hope this becomes a step in the right direction as I learn how to better edit my writing to make it more succinct, less wordy -- more effective. If the following does not properly belong here, then where?  
:I hesitate to add this to the talk page at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer for fear that someone will complain that it has "too many words."  In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, it becomes possible to begin to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org.  An unmindful insistence on what is published in a reference book without giving due weight to consequences which flow from the Japanese context leads inexorably to mistakes in some instances.  
:Wikipedia's current treatment of JDS Hyūga implicates deep-rooted paradigms based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise crucial issues from the body of the article; and this becomes a defect  when it affects significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality.  Relying solely on English-language naval ship catalogs, the edit history reveals how otherwise credible edits and edits have thwarted, deleted or blocked, thus stunting this subject's development -- see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Article name
:Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS Hyūga is named, nor do I care about the terminology used to describe this vessel -- but I'm persuaded that WP:NPOV expects us all to care very much about the "why" which informs whatever name or terminology is selected.  
:Although generally valued as highly credible resources, Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org promote systemic bias in at least this one instance because their congruent terminology derives from primary sources bearing the imprimatur of the Japanese government.  As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology relating to Japanese naval ships is defensible, and any reasoned consensus based on such standards is also defensible; however, neither can be considered determinative.  There is an inherent caveat in reliance on the imprimatur of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the newly formed Ministry of Defense (Japan).  When the  logical progeny of such reliance produce deleterious effects in Wikipedia, this subtle cancer mandates giving more than lip-service to WP:V and WP:NPOV.  
:As you may know, the Constitution of Japan prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS Hyūga with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name.  In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name.  As it  relates to use of the term "aircraft carrier," this unique bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed during the post-war occupation by the Americans; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese.  
:Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries.  This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Wikipedia article about the Hyūga except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting edits and citations (consistent with WP:V) which state that JDS Hyūga is an aircraft carrier with another name. 
:Sdsds construes the phenomenon in terms of a familiar line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- in that passage in which Juliet muses about     "that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet".  In my view, this specific quotation does capture the essence of a very important aspect of this somewhat complicated issue.
:Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins, "I say it is the moon ...
:In that Wikipedia article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I would hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:
  
::In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent."  It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive."  It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive. 
 
::Prior to this, the non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped a thorough examination.  The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on that talk page confirms this unwanted hypothesis.
::Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors   and others, the consequences of intense, concerted resistance made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin parsing aspects of this non-NPOV cancer. Such illustrative "consensus" becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.
::Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted without any efforts to incorporate plausibly useful data.
  
::An ameliorative edit was initiated.  This involved one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion.  The edit encountered further resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --Tenmei (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many words?

message: There doesn't appear to be a Wiki article on the Jewish Peace Fellowship .  Perhaps one could be added. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 04:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sign up for an account, and create one.  Please have your reliable sources in order.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a stub for Jewish Peace Fellowship.Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 23:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jewish Peace Fellowship  

message: For what it's worth, I am going to try to organize and add to the list of books with anti-war themes. Skybluewater (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Books With Anti-War Themes 

message: Perhaps an article regarding the organization Every Church a Peace Church  would be of interest.  Any thoughts?  66.191.19.217 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Every Church a Peace Church 

message: Lately I read some of the breaking news, and reports about Gaza invasion in Wikipedia In The News Section and in Wikinews. And I can say some of the reports are clearly off-balance one sided arguments in report style. I helped balacing some of them but not have much time for news reporting. Might there be any volunteers that can help wikinews publish more neutral articles. But being neutral as a real journalist should be the first priority, than being a sided view like IDF based sources apparently do. Kasaalan (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiNews or WeakNews on Gaza Invasion 

message: Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to: 
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaflet for Wikiproject Anti-war at Wikimania 2014 

message: Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on the WikiProject X proposal 

message: See Talk:Š-L-M#Requested_move_18_December_2014. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:16, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article move discussion 

message: Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject X is live! 

message: The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template .
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass.  Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
=== Background ===
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject collaboration notice from the [[WP:WPPORT|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace.  On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you.     — The Transhumanist    10:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:WPA. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Steel1943 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:WPA listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of peace activists may be of interest to the WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion nom for [[List of peace activists]]