Category talk:Peace organizations

"Peace" organizations?
I have to question the inclusion of some of the listed organizations as "peace" groups. Groups like ANSWER and the so-called Christian Peacemaker Teams seem to be OK with acts of violence perpetuated against American, British or Israeli interests. How can we rework the list to properly reflect the true beliefs of all listed groups? -- Mwalcoff 03:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It could be renamed "anti-war" organizations in order to be more inclusive, but then it might be too broad. That seems to me like it would include organizations whose primary purpose isn't anti-war activism.  So, though I agree with your concern, I think the imperfect best option is to leave it the way it is. Kalkin 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of Christian Peacemaker Teams that is simply not true. They are opposed to all violence. I don't know anything about ANSWER, but I imagine your claim is a common political smear from their detractors. 84.48.194.162 05:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If the CPT is against violence, why did they get a letter of support from eight Palestinian terrorist groups -- including Hamas and the PFLP -- which called for the release of the CPT hostages? If the CPT was against violence, certainly they would be against groups like Hamas. They would have become enemies with Hamas and similar groups. Instead, Hamas and its buddies like CPT enough to come out on their side.
 * The CPT website is good for a laugh. The FAQ on "Palestine," has a question on why the US supports Israel at the UN. The answer is: "Israel must serve an important purpose for the US in the Mid East--perhaps oil accessibility." That's right -- CPT says the US supports Israel, one of the few Middle East countries without oil, over the oil-rich Arab states because it wants "oil accessibility." Makes plenty of sense, doesn't it? -- Mwalcoff 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that Hamas thinks CPT hostages should be released, because they're opposed to US invasion, means that CPT supports Hamas suicide bombings? That makes about as much sense as suggesting that Fred Phelps' antiwar views mean that all opponents of the war hate American soldiers.  But wait, some on your side don't hesitate to do that... please don't be one of them, because then I'll have to bang my head into a wall.
 * CPT's positions on why the US supports Israel are irrelevant to this article, but suffice it to say that it's extremely naive to suggest that because Israel has no oil, it can't be useful to securing oil for the US. Kalkin 00:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "my side" is supposed to be, but I think it should be obvious that if CPT was against violence on all sides, Hamas would hate them by now. After all, CPT has a long-standing presence in the Palestinian areas, doesn't it? What has the group ever done to stop Palestinian terror attacks? -- Mwalcoff 00:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your side would be, I feel pretty confident, the pro-occupation in Iraq and Palestine side. Sorry if I've guessed wrong.
 * Can't CPT be against suicide bombing but prioritize? The whole "don't equate the violence of the oppresser with the violence of the oppressed" thing?  Even if you don't believe in that position, do you recognize that it's one many hold? Kalkin 02:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't really think my political views are the issue (although if "occupation in Palestine" means the existence of Israel, I'm very much pro- that). Yes, a group can be against all violence in theory and choose to "prioritize" stopping the violence of one side. I recognize that the CPT is supposed to be based on a theory of pacifism. But every action or statement I have heard about from this group in the Middle East has been against Israel or the US/British troops. I've never seen anything from them earnestly criticizing the other sides, even though we know Iraqi insurgents and Palestinian terrorists are very violent people. And by volunteering as human shields to try to prevent the invasion of Iraq or Israeli operations in the West Bank and Gaza, the CPT has actively taken a side in armed conflict. In essence, the CPT may officially be a peace organization but in practice is an anti-Western organization. -- Mwalcoff 03:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You say "Yes, a group can be against all violence in theory and choose to "prioritize" stopping the violence of one side." So why does that mean that their focus entirely on US & Israeli violence makes them not a peace or pacifist organization?  A biased peace organization is still a peace organization. Kalkin 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * For the same reason the People's Democratic Republic of Korea shouldn't be classified as a democracy, even if it calls itself a democracy and claims to be based on democratic principles. -- Mwalcoff 22:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * But how is that parallel, if your complaint against CPT is not that they are violent, but that they are selective in their active opposition to violence? The cases aren't exactly parallel because democracy, in this instance, describes an organization's mode of operation, while peace, in this instance, describes what it advocates, but still - the reason North Korea is the opposite of democratic isn't some failure to push for freedom consistently enough worldwide, it's that it's a Stalinist police state. Kalkin 23:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the CPT is the opposite of a peace organization; I'm just saying it should be called an anti-Western organization rather than a peace organization. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. -- Mwalcoff 23:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I must disagree Mwalcoff. Your argument just doesn't make any sense. You say: "but I think it should be obvious that if CPT was against violence on all sides, Hamas would hate them by now". Why would Hamas hate them when their ideology is simply opposition to violence through non-violent means? If you oppose "western" wars of aggression and if you're not hated by Hamas, does that automatically put you in the "anti-Western organization" category? 80.202.221.102 02:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just not sure why the two categories are supposed to be mutually exclusive. I don't think 'anti-Western' is accurate, but that's not what I'm arguing - what's impossible about being both?  I guess we will agree to disagree.  Kalkin 16:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

subcategory: Anti-Iraq War groups
I think Anti-Iraq War groups should remain a subcategory of Peace organizations, for fairly obvious reasons. However, I also think that, in a special-case violation of Categorization guidelines, articles in this category can also be acceptably listed in the category Peace organizations, because many of them have been or are involved in a number of peace activities other than opposition to the Iraq War, and so it would be misleading to categorize them as solely Anti-Iraq War groups. For example, Vietnam Veterans Against the War is much better known for Vietnam-era activities, so it would be strange if the only categorization on its page were as anti-Iraq War. However, it is, in fact, now opposed to the Iraq War, so it would be equally strange to leave it off that list. I'm just explicitly justifying apparent existing practice. Kalkin 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

World Cant Wait?
I would say that at the moment, World Cant Wait is one of, if not THE most prominent anti-war organizations, why isnt there an article on Wikipedia about them yet? They sponsored one of the largest protests ever...-PropheticWaters 04:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with that assessment of their importance, but yes, there should be an article. Feel free to make one. I may get around to it in a few days otherwise, but I won't have knowledge to do more than a stub. Kalkin 05:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

PockBot (run by IP:81.174.157.135) - Category articles summary as of 18:21:33, Tue Dec 12, 2006
 List of all pages in category Peace organizations retrieved by Chris G Bot 2. '''Chris G Bot 2 is an authorised bot. '''   Edit by PockBot (on behalf of PocklingtonDan)