This template was considered for deletion on 2006 May 20. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Anti-war Template‑class | |||||||
|
Some debate has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war, Talk:Conscientious objector and User talk:Tomtrinity7 about the appropriateness of having the peace symbol on the anti-war template.
As I see it in summary the complaint is that doing so implies support for, or seeks to encourage support for, the anti-war movement (or peace movement as it has all so been referred to as). DrAlbertHofmann claimed that displaying the symbol is "activist at it's core" [1]. Tomtrinity7 claimed that it "is a clear political statement against current war politics in Iraq" [2] and compared displaying the peace symbol on articles as equivalent to spray painting a "Swastika on the outside of the building" (note: it is unclear to me whether Tomrinity7 thinks this is so for having the symbol on the template in general or just having it on the Conscientious objector page.) Another possible complaint might be that the symbol is not associated with anti-war topics in general but rather with CND or as Tomtrinity7 claims "it serves to represent a movement of people who have varied interests but gather under the umbrella of the peace sign, e.g. animal rights, environmentalists, etc" [3]
My argument that these criticisms are misplaced and that the symbol should be used runs roughly as follows.
-- JK the unwise 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have tryed to be fair in my presentation of others arguments but of course the best people to put their complaints are them people with the complaints themselves. If anyone belives that what I have said misrepresents the argument, that there are futher problems with the symbols use or that my replies are not adequate please say so here. I am open minded to us useing a differnt symbol if one is suggested and and a good argument made as to why it is better.-- JK the unwise 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I might be wrong but isn't that the logo for CND (campaign for nuclear disarmament) - that's actually an established organisation like greenpeace i think, whereas the anti-war movement is like having a hammer and sickle titled "communism flag" which wouldn't be right it's a communist-era russian flag! =P—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean2k2 ( talk • contribs) 20 Feb 2006
I don't like this template and believe it is OR and POV. I can't be bothered to battle for deletion though, so I'm just removing anti-imperialism, which is only anti imperialist war, and pro anti-imperialist war. mg e kelly 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
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 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The template only lists opposition to wars involving the United States. This should either be retitled to reflect its focus or modified to remove this obvious bias. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 10:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have designed a replacement template for this page at Template:Anti-war/Bottom. This would replace this template with one that would sit at the bottom of the article, which would free up the article's top for related photos and such. I'm implementing it on a test basis on certain articles, and will let you know which ones as soon as I place them. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Could " Conscientious objection to military taxation" be added to the box? 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The Anti-war portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 08:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Apart from Mahatma Gandhi, this template mostly seems to document Western-country based movements opposed to their governments fighting wars in other countries. But India is not the only country in the world where nonviolent resistance has or is still being used as a political tactic "against the guns". The Arab Spring 1.0 in 2011 and 2.0 now had and have many examples, and of course Solidarność in the 1980s in Poland, and similar movements in central/eastern Europe at that time, and during the 1990s and 2000s in several other places around the world. So there are quite a few missing links to existing Wikipedia articles on the present version of the template. Boud ( talk) 22:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If there is no specific reason to have the title of this template be aligned at the right side of the text box, please move it to the center as is standard. It looks inconsistent when used with other category boxes. Thanks! Evil Baboon ( talk) 17:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Randy Kryn, I assume you'd prefer to keep it right aligned?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Sorry! Didn't realize the formatting change was a recent one, will make sure to discuss next time. Evil Baboon ( talk) 17:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
This template was considered for deletion on 2006 May 20. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
Anti-war Template‑class | |||||||
|
Some debate has been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war, Talk:Conscientious objector and User talk:Tomtrinity7 about the appropriateness of having the peace symbol on the anti-war template.
As I see it in summary the complaint is that doing so implies support for, or seeks to encourage support for, the anti-war movement (or peace movement as it has all so been referred to as). DrAlbertHofmann claimed that displaying the symbol is "activist at it's core" [1]. Tomtrinity7 claimed that it "is a clear political statement against current war politics in Iraq" [2] and compared displaying the peace symbol on articles as equivalent to spray painting a "Swastika on the outside of the building" (note: it is unclear to me whether Tomrinity7 thinks this is so for having the symbol on the template in general or just having it on the Conscientious objector page.) Another possible complaint might be that the symbol is not associated with anti-war topics in general but rather with CND or as Tomtrinity7 claims "it serves to represent a movement of people who have varied interests but gather under the umbrella of the peace sign, e.g. animal rights, environmentalists, etc" [3]
My argument that these criticisms are misplaced and that the symbol should be used runs roughly as follows.
-- JK the unwise 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I have tryed to be fair in my presentation of others arguments but of course the best people to put their complaints are them people with the complaints themselves. If anyone belives that what I have said misrepresents the argument, that there are futher problems with the symbols use or that my replies are not adequate please say so here. I am open minded to us useing a differnt symbol if one is suggested and and a good argument made as to why it is better.-- JK the unwise 16:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I might be wrong but isn't that the logo for CND (campaign for nuclear disarmament) - that's actually an established organisation like greenpeace i think, whereas the anti-war movement is like having a hammer and sickle titled "communism flag" which wouldn't be right it's a communist-era russian flag! =P—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean2k2 ( talk • contribs) 20 Feb 2006
I don't like this template and believe it is OR and POV. I can't be bothered to battle for deletion though, so I'm just removing anti-imperialism, which is only anti imperialist war, and pro anti-imperialist war. mg e kelly 11:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
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 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The template only lists opposition to wars involving the United States. This should either be retitled to reflect its focus or modified to remove this obvious bias. Night Gyr ( talk/ Oy) 10:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I have designed a replacement template for this page at Template:Anti-war/Bottom. This would replace this template with one that would sit at the bottom of the article, which would free up the article's top for related photos and such. I'm implementing it on a test basis on certain articles, and will let you know which ones as soon as I place them. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 03:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Could " Conscientious objection to military taxation" be added to the box? 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 02:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The Anti-war portal was recently deleted. I've removed the red link from the template. BlackcurrantTea ( talk) 08:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Apart from Mahatma Gandhi, this template mostly seems to document Western-country based movements opposed to their governments fighting wars in other countries. But India is not the only country in the world where nonviolent resistance has or is still being used as a political tactic "against the guns". The Arab Spring 1.0 in 2011 and 2.0 now had and have many examples, and of course Solidarność in the 1980s in Poland, and similar movements in central/eastern Europe at that time, and during the 1990s and 2000s in several other places around the world. So there are quite a few missing links to existing Wikipedia articles on the present version of the template. Boud ( talk) 22:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
If there is no specific reason to have the title of this template be aligned at the right side of the text box, please move it to the center as is standard. It looks inconsistent when used with other category boxes. Thanks! Evil Baboon ( talk) 17:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Randy Kryn, I assume you'd prefer to keep it right aligned?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 17:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Sorry! Didn't realize the formatting change was a recent one, will make sure to discuss next time. Evil Baboon ( talk) 17:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)