This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peace movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1095 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nonviolence ( inactive) | ||||
|
Thankfully, my two friends who worked there survived too. Sorry to hear about their coworkers.
However, the description as written is still hawkish, US-centric, and simply not representative of the diversity of the modern peace movement. It's at least as diverse as the anti-globalization movement.
Think about it this way: Bush has something like 85% support for the war in Afghanistan. That suggests that something like 10-15% of Americans are probably in the peace movement. And in other countries, it's a lot higher.
The right question is "who *isn't*?"
I think what differentiates the peace *movement*, though, is willingness to get physically in the way of the process of war with your own living body - definitely the Gandhi reference is relevant.
So are the Dutch activists who invade NATO bases to nab documents relating to nuclear weapons handling, the Greenpeace campaigners who got arrested while protesting Star Wars, etc.
Then there are the professional groups like Science for Peace, Physicians for Peace, etc.
I think it's a pretty focused, disciplined, well-defined, and global movement.
Should other views of peace go under peace or peacemaking?
Should national movements go under each country?
BCorr| Брайен 02:40, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
I have made this page
Cairo Anti-war conference. I am planning to do some resursh on the egyption Anti-war movment generally at some point soon. It would be good if anyone could come and have a look at it.--
JK the unwise 10:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And given that the Ciaro conference page is about and anti-war movment in a non-democratic country I don't agree with this statement form the article Peace movements in non-democracies are difficult to separate from propaganda efforts of specific regimes. Thus they are not covered in this article.
Sure it might be difficult, life is difficult but hay lets give it are best shot... no?--
JK the unwise 20:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I corrected a few minor spelling errors and fixed some of the wiki links. -- Kross 23:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
taking the above statement for example, how is it character assassination to call members of the Revolutionary Communist party Communists? If fact most of the antiwar groups still running are in fact owned and opperated by Communist groups. Like ANSWER, which is owned by The Worker's World party and "NOt in our Name" which is owned and operated by the RCP?
much of what the groups said then is word for word what is said now. it was a large part of the isolationist movement in the us that prevented intervention at an earlier time, it was also strong in england and lead to the appeasement of hitler.
This article's use of
external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (June 2010) |
Why doesn't this article mention the first peace movements in history, the Peace of God and Truce of God between the 10th-12th centuries?
They should be added as the first part of the historical section of the article, before the 16th century peace churches.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Peace movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1095 days |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nonviolence ( inactive) | ||||
|
Thankfully, my two friends who worked there survived too. Sorry to hear about their coworkers.
However, the description as written is still hawkish, US-centric, and simply not representative of the diversity of the modern peace movement. It's at least as diverse as the anti-globalization movement.
Think about it this way: Bush has something like 85% support for the war in Afghanistan. That suggests that something like 10-15% of Americans are probably in the peace movement. And in other countries, it's a lot higher.
The right question is "who *isn't*?"
I think what differentiates the peace *movement*, though, is willingness to get physically in the way of the process of war with your own living body - definitely the Gandhi reference is relevant.
So are the Dutch activists who invade NATO bases to nab documents relating to nuclear weapons handling, the Greenpeace campaigners who got arrested while protesting Star Wars, etc.
Then there are the professional groups like Science for Peace, Physicians for Peace, etc.
I think it's a pretty focused, disciplined, well-defined, and global movement.
Should other views of peace go under peace or peacemaking?
Should national movements go under each country?
BCorr| Брайен 02:40, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
I have made this page
Cairo Anti-war conference. I am planning to do some resursh on the egyption Anti-war movment generally at some point soon. It would be good if anyone could come and have a look at it.--
JK the unwise 10:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And given that the Ciaro conference page is about and anti-war movment in a non-democratic country I don't agree with this statement form the article Peace movements in non-democracies are difficult to separate from propaganda efforts of specific regimes. Thus they are not covered in this article.
Sure it might be difficult, life is difficult but hay lets give it are best shot... no?--
JK the unwise 20:24, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I corrected a few minor spelling errors and fixed some of the wiki links. -- Kross 23:12, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
taking the above statement for example, how is it character assassination to call members of the Revolutionary Communist party Communists? If fact most of the antiwar groups still running are in fact owned and opperated by Communist groups. Like ANSWER, which is owned by The Worker's World party and "NOt in our Name" which is owned and operated by the RCP?
much of what the groups said then is word for word what is said now. it was a large part of the isolationist movement in the us that prevented intervention at an earlier time, it was also strong in england and lead to the appeasement of hitler.
This article's use of
external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. (June 2010) |
Why doesn't this article mention the first peace movements in history, the Peace of God and Truce of God between the 10th-12th centuries?
They should be added as the first part of the historical section of the article, before the 16th century peace churches.