Talk:Anti-war movement

Revert of 2009-02-27
Might I add here, how disappointed I am with the POV of the entire article?

Anti-War doesn't have a "criticism" section and there are tremendous criticisms of the so-called peace movement: in the United States, for example:

The Loyalists: these people preferred British rule over the colonies, warts and all; there wouldn't be a United States of America if they had prevailed;

The Radical Democrats: these Northerners were prepared to completely capitulate to the odorous idea of slavery, requiring Northern states to strictly enforce property laws and return slaves to Southern slaveholders, just to end the bloody Civil War; if they had prevailed, the "Underground Railroad" would have been derailed; slavery in the United States and in the world might have continued for generations or might be commonplace today;

1960s radicals: these groups did not limit themselves to nonviolent protest, but bombed police stations, the Pentagon, the homes of private citizens, and carried out armed robberies and murders;

Vietnamization: the pullout of Americans from Vietnam sealed the doom of that nation and permitted the killing fields of Cambodia where 3 million people were murdered; 35-plus years later, Vietnam remains an impoverished second-world nation in the midst of several advancing Asian states;

Communist and Socialist front groups which organize student "peace and justice" type protests from universities across the USA: the mainstream media willingly conspires to keep Americans ignorant of pro-peace rallies that are manufactured to impede USA foreign policy.

Like many political ideas, anti-war is a valid position which is abused by many adherents. The idea of a world without war, without need for troops, ships, or bombs, seems to be a worthwhile goal. Imagine if the savings could be used to eliminate disease or end poverty. But the methods taken to secure this goal are often flawed, one-sided, and dangerous in their practice.

Anti-war activists have power in peaceful societies and no power at all in the kingdoms of despots. Therefore, the struggle becomes futile; like controlling handguns by advocating that police shouldn't carry them; but even futile struggles can go on and on if there is nothing to break them; and in a free society, ideas tend to outlive their usefulness.

Wars are horrible - people die, and things are destroyed - but wars resolve complicated disputes and frequently unseat corrupt or bloody dictators. The mere possibility of armed resistance, whether foreign or domestic, tends to temper the actions of despots; likewise, a despot who believes himself inviolate or insulated becomes corrupt and dangerous.

Jessemckay (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I add just how saddened I am with the pro-war nature of the above Talk comment. For why should this anti-war article give a platform to people out to under-mine the peace movement?


 * While neo-con front groups organize pro-war events, the US mainstream media (and internet outlets)  also help to keep people in the dark and prevent any real questioning or true understanding of USA foreign policy. As with Tony Blair's case for war, are not many of the Dodgy Documents in support of war often mis-leading, one-sided or just sexed-up?


 * If, as claimed, anti-war activists have real power in "peaceful" societies, then the millions that protested in London and around the world should have Stopped the War against Iraq. As with all armed conflict, the Iraq War was horrible, people were killed and their homes bombed - yet all this suffering has not solved any of the  long-standing and complicated issues in the Middle-East.


 * In fact, with the IS terror outrages around the would, just what did US involvement in Iraq achieve?

Edit of 29th june 07
I don't think the intro or 2usage" sections have a NPOV so I'm changing the wording a bit - Wardhog 17:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

USA
Is this article an anti-war article that only pertains to the USA? If not, why not include other countries anti-war movement? Additionally, this is posted on here "World War II seemed, for a time, to set anti-war movements at a distinct social disadvantage, it seemed, for some time, that only ardent pacificists would argue against World War Two and the results"... Now does this only pertain to the USA also? And if so, it need to be changed, since there was a large anti-war isolationist movement in the USA during WWII, until the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Even after the bombing there was some anti-war opposition to the WWII. --signed an Anon

Whoever reverted that last...
...episode of vandalism, good job.

-EnglishEfternamn

postmodern anti-war movements
I'm not sure that it is usefull to discribe the anti-war movements after the cold war as postmodern anti-war movments, postmodernism is a controvercial and complicated label, it has lots of conotations. It is POV to use this label as some people do not accept that we live in a post-modern world.--JK the unwise 17:34, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ostermarsch
The concept of this article is somewhat related to de:Ostermarsch descriptions, trying to declare that peace movement is not identical with pacifism. Guidod 12:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Anti-war or Peace movement?
Which of these should be the main article describing the anti-war movement? Revolución 23:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Information from Post-September 11 anti-war movement should also be factored in. As well as Global protests against war on Iraq. I think that there is scope for a serise of articles on the anti-war movment and its component groups but at the moment there is an uncoridantated mess with a lot of repeted info. --JK the unwise 11:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguous intro
This was the intro:


 * Anti-war is a term that is widely adopted by any social movement or person that seeks to end or oppose a future or current war. It can be considered a somewhat loaded term, as anti-war activists are not always protesting against war per se (they may support one side over another, for example), nor are their opponents necessarily aggressively "pro war.".


 * In simple terms, 'anti-war' means 'against this war', be it Vietnam, Gulf War I, Gulf War II, or any war. The protesters are not automatically pacifists, they are just against a war they believe is either unjust, unfair, or goes against their best interest. On the other hand, a pacifist believes that any war is wrong.


 * Anti-war thought became a much more dominant factor in global politics during the last half of the 20th century. Public anti-war protests have been a common outlet for anti-war feelings in recent years, often attracting hundreds of thousands of participants.


 * Many large anti-war movements have been orchestrated in opposition to wars led by the government of the United States, with Americans themselves often being the most vocal critics. Anti-war sentiment in America reached a peak during the height of the Vietnam War and was rekindled to some extent in the months leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. February 15, 2003 saw the biggest global protest movement ever against the predicted invasion of Iraq, with millions of participants worldwide.

The problem with it, is that it describes war as something which is "led" - as opposed to being a conflict between two sides. So when someone says they are "against the war" it is not immediately clear whether they:
 * oppose all war on philosophical grounds
 * simply want an immediate ceasefire (and nothing more?)
 * want one side (presumably the "aggressor") to withdraw or surrender

This sentence simplifies nothing:


 * In simple terms, 'anti-war' means 'against this war'

It does not answer the question of what it is about this war which they oppose.

We need to distinguish, for each so-called "anti-war" movement, the elements of philosophical pacifism or political side-taking. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 18:44 (UTC)

I'm confused here, Much rhetoric about America's role in the Vietnam War employed this usage. Is the author trying to say that America pulling out of Vietnam would NOT have stopped the war? Because I beg to differ, quite strongly actually. Perhaps 'rhetoric' is not the right word, because if you are calling the anti-war protesters POV 'rhetoric' you can't be unbiased. --bing (Sept. 12, 2005)


 * History says otherwise. America did indeed pull out of Vietnam with a peace treaty in 1973.  The fighting had stopped, and then restarted only when it became obvious that we wouldn't return to defend the South.  As for the word rhetoric, I read it as only saying that the protesters themselves had a POV. -- Randy2063 22:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Another cut: Anti-war versus pacifism

 * Anti-war movements are generally more specific, focusing on a particular conflict, or how it is being managed. There have been anti-war movements since then, culminating in the movement developed in response to the American involvement in Vietnam.

These 2 sentences are unclear. Was it the "management" of the US military campaign in Vietnam that the protestors in the Sixties were criticizing? I think it's pretty clear that they only wanted the US to withdraw and let the North Vietnamese conquer the South. If there were other currents within the "anti-war movement", by all means let us describe them, but undoubtedly this was the main stream. Uncle Ed July 7, 2005 19:00 (UTC)

Merge
Post-September 11 anti-war movement is writtern in a POV editorial orriginal reasearch fasion. I belive that this partly steams from the title which sets the article up to present an editorialised content.

To solve this problem I want to propose merging the content of the article into this page and the following pages 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 and then deleting Post-September 11 anti-war movement.--JK the unwise 13:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

oops
16:33, 20 January 2006 160.39.236.76 was me. Kalkin

changes to history
I've made a number of minor changes to the "brief history" section to try improve the clarity of the language, add Wikipedia links, etc. I also made one substantive change, removal of this claim: The tactics of a post-modern anti-war movement were also refined: away from demonstrations per se... which is simply false. The February 15, 2003 anti-war protests were the largest the world has ever seen.

It is frequently argued that mass demonstrations have lost their utility; I disagree. However, that dispute is neither here nor there; that they happen is undeniable. Kalkin 02:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The brief history section is still poor. The Vietnam and Gulf War paragraphs are somewhat rambling and lack a coherent structure. They need some work. I removed the final sentence, In many cultures anti-war protestors are viewed with contempt because they often cause a nation to 'loose its nerve' in defending itself. which is biased, vague, and unsupported. Many cultures? Which cultures are these? Protests "cause" nations to do something? "Defending one's nation" is one of the key concepts in debate on this page and doesn't belong in an unsupported statement like this. Both paragraphs need some work. User:Catachrestic:Catachrestic 10:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange text
I find this to be sort of strange "Use of the term can cause confusion: is an "anti-war activist" equally opposed to both side's military campaigns, or are they choosing one side in particular? likewise, does against the war indicate a pacifist objection, or a preference for the victory of one side?" If a person roots for one side in particular in a military conflict, they are not anti-war. This is self-evident. What is the purpose of this text? I would like to snip it, but maybe someone can explain to me why it is not nonsense? Similarly if someone agrees that it is nonsense, please say so. DanielM 23:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Take the example of the Vietnam anti-war movement in the United States. The common point was a call for the U.S. to withdraw from Vietnam.  Some also supported the Vietcong.  The argument, or at least one argument, was that as the U.S. intervention was unjust, the Vietnamese had a right to oppose it militarily.  There are several reasons why this position must be considered antiwar.  Its holders were integrated into the same movement and often the same organizations as pure pacifists and anti-war American nationalists, such that all considered each other, usually, as part of the same fight.  They were, undeniably, opposed to the U.S. waging of the Vietnam war - and they opposed it usually nonviolently, so that it would be silly to say that they were waging war against the U.S.  If you deny that this position is anti-war, you're denying that anti-imperialism is anti-war, when historically it has been integral to every anti-war movement, from that against World War I to that against the 2003 invasion of Iraq.  You're also denying that someone who opposes her nation's war on the grounds that the other side is in the right is anti-war.
 * The basic meaning of the term "anti-war" is, as the article says, "opposing one particular nation's decision to wage war." That says nothing about what someone who is anti-war in some context, e.g. that of the U.S., thinks of any other particular nation's decision to wage war - even the nation which is in this context the enemy, e.g. Vietnam.
 * Kalkin 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Belittling the anti-war movement
The main page was surely written by a hawk. The tone is such that the "anti war" movement is belittled. The questions asked surely have a rhetorical tone/feel. The suggestion, of the first section of the "Anti war page" is that anti-war proponents typically have one side that they support thus that they are hypocrital, when the reverse is true. Many wars that anti-war proponents oppose were started by one BULLY, thus anti-war supporters want the BULLY to stop/leave/etc. Yet the main page of Wikipedia is written to belittle the Anti-war movment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.19.43.181 (talk • contribs) 6 June 2006.
 * I think that you are right to say that the article is currently skewed towards one point of view, it is not however appropreate to try and change this by introducing bias towards the other side. Lets try to make a balanced article.--JK the unwise 14:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we get some links?
I don't want to appear to be pushing a POV, so I'm going to ask here for citations on the claims in the last paragraph about opposition to the war in the US and abroad. I'm sure such citations and links won't be hard to find, but it would be nice if they were included. --Habap 21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They're included in the article about Opposition to the Iraq War - I moved the link closer to the claims. I don't think it should be necessary to cite the sources twice - this article isn't supposed to have detailed information. Thanks for removing that crap at the top, btw - I don't know how it got there, I don't remember it being placed and I've been watching this article.  Kalkin 06:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

American skew
The article seems to be mainly focused on the American anti-war movements. It seems like discussion in broader international perspective would be helpful. --TeaDrinker 22:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. The "brief history" is really not very good.  It needs considerable work.  Kalkin 01:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would suggest changing the brief history's title to a brief history of American antiwar movements, or something like that, and then add European, etc sections. That would be easier than creating one international chronological brief history. Does that make sense? --BobFromBrockley 09:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Needs editing
I have just done a smallish edit of the history section but it needs a lot more work. The American skew identified above still needs correcting. Iraq seems to get disproportionate space, compared to, say, WWI. There seems to be a lot of detail on cultural/literary stuff, but little on political movements themselves. --BobFromBrockley 09:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

THE PEACE SIGN/LOGO
It is simply wrong to put the peace symbol on the Anti-War article. Being anti-war does not neccessarily mean that your pro-peace, especially if it is in reference to the war on terror. Anyone of an adequate level of intelligence would be able to determine that some wars being fought successfully would more likely be more likely to bring peace than say leaving the arab nations in chaos as a result of leaving Iraq too early, or allowing terrorists to do whatever they wanted. I certainly don't find the vitriolic ramblings, and blatant anti-semiitism of a moveon.org puppet like Cindy Sheehan as promoting peace just chaos, appeasment, and national self destruction. Ghandi was an example of a real peace activist. A politically biased sock puppet like Cindy Sheehan is no 'Peace Mom'! No one wanting real peace and human rights would embrace A genocidal dictator like Hugo Chavez while making anti-semetic diatribes! Big difference between peace, and being anti-war. Any peace monger would be against all wars, but those on the anti-war side are not all for peace.

---It's not a "peace logo", it's the logo for the CND. I agree with the sentiment, though. The CND and the anti-war movement are two very different groups of people.

the peace sign represents not being in war. there for if we are not in war then we must be in peace?


 * The "peace sign" pre-dates the formation of CND doesn't it? In the UK, it is very much associated with CND, but not elsewhere, so I don't think it is too inappropriate. On peace and war as opposites, I guess being against specific wars (e.g. the Iraq war) is different from being against all wars ever, but that seems slightly pedantic.BobFromBrockley 16:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Coming war with Iran
I am deleting this text:
 * ===Potential War with Iran===
 * As the United States government threatened a military strike against Iran in 2005 and 2006, even as violence continued in Iraq and Afghanistan, a growing number of Americans spoke up against military conflict with the country sitting between Iraq and Afghanistan. According to adherents of this new anti-war movement, the rationale for such an attack as put forward by the administration of George W. Bush bears a striking resemblance to that put forward prior to the Iraq invasion. The administration claims that Iran seeks a nuclear weapon without providing proof of this assertion. The Iranian government denies that it is seeking a nuclear weapon. The level of uranium enrichment U.N. nuclear inspectors say is occurring is consistent with a civilian nuclear power plant, which is allowed under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory. Even if Iran seeks such a weapon, they point out, the CIA has said it would take Iran about 10 years to produce a bomb.

This mateial may be true, but should not be in an encyclopedia article called "anti-war". If people think this material should be in the article, please edit it to make it clear why it illumintes the subject "anti-war". BobFromBrockley 16:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * i've put in a summary from the Opposition to war against Iran article - i'm not quite sure what section title we should have here. The opposition to war in Iraq article points out that protests started before the war started, and in the case of what may-or-may-not-be an attack on Iran, it's clear that protests and other forms of opposition have already started and are being organised by all sorts of individuals and organisations, even including the majority of the international community (governments)... See the article for the sources. So the question is how to name it - i don't think we can deny that protests against wars now seem to start before the wars themselves start, but i agree that what's the best name for the section is unclear... Boud 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine now as it is. BobFromBrockley 12:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of article
I think the NPOV tag should be removed from this article, as I don't think the biases that once characterised it are still there. I have removed the following text, which I think was the last remaining real POV text (from the begining of the History section):
 * Anti-war movements in the modern sense can be traced by the use of mass demonstrations, even riots, to oppose conscriptions and civilian casualties in a particular war. This separates them from anti-war parties during, for example, the War of 1812. The change comes from the different manner in which wars in industrialized societies are fought: relying on conscription and mobilization of the total resources of the society for the conflict. Popular opinion thus became more relevant. The attempt to end the political will to engage in a war from the inside increasingly used counter-mobilization to make the war effort unsustainable, when it no longer enjoyed sufficient popular support to be maintained. The tactics of an anti-war movement became directed towards creating the sense in the mass media and everyday conversations of a basic social revulsion against the conflict, or war in general. Anti-war rhetoric therefore began to focus on war profiteering as well as the dangers to soldiers.

If people think this is important, please edit it to make it more coherent rather than reverting. (Read the first sentence: it doesn't make sense.)

However, I think the article needs lots of work. In particular, the History section is essentially a history of anti-war movements in the US, which is inappropriate. I have, therefore, added a globalise tag there. BobFromBrockley 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I removed the tag. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"activist"
I'm a Wikipedian who translates English Wikipedia to Chinese Wikipedia... While translating this article to Chinese, I'm not sure whether "activist" in this article means "Radical"（激進派） or "active person"（積極行動的人）？ Hope that somebody will answer me... --Transfinite Sorcerer 06:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the first paragraph, it refers to left-leaning political activists, rather than "active people". Activists could have any political leaning, but the distinction between anti-war and peace movements is probably of little concern to right-wing activists or pro-technology activists or deaf rights activists. So, using the word for "Radical" would probably be most appropriate. --Habap 21:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Manifesto
There should be included an external link to the international "Manifesto against conscription and the military system" (with a list of all signatories between 1993 and 2007), official website: http://home.snafu.de/mkgandhi/manifest.htm. Chrbartolf 13:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

Need a Reversion Never Mind
Last sentence in first para begins with "Anti-war activists are communists...". Somebody, please remove that. Thanks. Peter Delmonte 01:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC) Never mind, I had to come back anyway. I'll just change that word, but a lot of the article seems unclear to me.

Christian pacifism
An article has been started called Christian pacifism and a new category Category:Christian pacifists. Editor inputs are welcome. nirvana2013 17:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for contribution from editors with Human rights background
I am hereby soliciting contributions from 3rd parties interested in contributing to the article on Sam Harris (author). Harris is a notable public intellectual not merely because of his criticism of religion, but especially Islam in the post 9/11 context. He has argued that Islam, among all the world religions, is the greatest threat to world peace and liberal democracy and drawn specific conclusions from this in regard ethics, law and foreign policy, taking a distinctly hawkish position re the war in Iraq and preemptive war in general.

Specifically, Harris has advocated torture and "ethnic profiling" for Muslims in the context of the "war on terror". As I began to read more of Harris' work I went to his Wikipedia page to get a bit more background on him. I found that the page made no mention of his biography or controversial views on human rights issues and his support for torture and ethnic/racial profiling, which in my opinion are extremely relevant to any assessment of his ideas given that he has argued for differential/discriminatory treatment of Muslims and other groups based on their aleged moral inferiority and violent ideology. I therefore edited the page to include more detail about the context for Harri's critical reception, his positions regarding Islam, the "war on terror", torture and racial profiling with quotes from the articles where he takes positions on these matters.

Initially this brought me into a dispute with another contributor, the self appointed editor of the page, who deleted my additions. Rather than enter into an edit war I agreed to let said contributor incorporate my contributions into the article his way, but the resulting edit was very Weasel worded, de-emphasizing Harris' position on torture and ethnic/racial profiling and removing quotes that distinguished what were allegations made by Harris from more verifiable evidence. For instance, in the subsection on Islam, Lawrence's edit to my original contribution reads as follows: “Muslims must be prepared to accept ethnic profiling as a tool in the fight against terrorism, so long as adherence to Islam remains a statistical predictor of terrorist behavior.” However, by removing the quotations I contributed from the The Huffington Post article that is the source here, his edit implies that it is a fact, independent of Harris’ unsupported assertion, that adherence to Islam remains a statistical predictor of terrorist behaviour, and this is at the very least a matter of controversy. The whole article is similarly skewed and were I to attempt a rewrite on my own I would surely provoke an edit war.

Thanks very much, --Betamod 09:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Post WWII Japan
Is there a good source for material about how after WWII the government of Japan was created with an explicitly anti-war constitution? Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution should be mentioned in the wikipedia coverage of the anti-war topic, even if only an example to show that countries can exist with constitutional prohibitions preventing their governments from engaging in wars of agression. (And, doesn't the famous "Swiss neutrality" also have a constitutional basis?) (sdsds - talk) 20:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's been an interesting fiction for years. Japan currently has the fifth largest military budget in the world (and we should be glad of it).  They've been involved in peacekeeping operations, and they're not likely to ever be truly "neutral" like neighbors of Kitty Genovese.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide View
This article seems to focus on wars that the U.S. has fought in, and on peace movements in the U.S. David Delony (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the nature of these movements. They're notoriously opposed to wars that the U.S. fights in.  You're welcome to try adding other wars if you can find any that bring out mass demonstrations like this.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-war cartoons
Just to let you know that I have loaded several cartoons onto Wikimedia Commons under Category:Anti-war cartoons. Feel free to use them on Wikipedia articles. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

See also - tax choice
I added tax choice to the see also section but it was removed because there is "no relevance". The relevance is the Opt Out of Iraq War Act. Does anybody dispute the relevance? --Xerographica (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, as to tax choice, at least two editors do. – S. Rich (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

New draft: Pacifism in the United States ‎
Please add to Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

New drafts: Pacifism in France and Germany
Please add to Draft:Pacifism in France and Draft:Pacifism in Germany. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 16:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-war movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061206011824/http://www.alba-valb.org/volpdf/vol_1941_02b.pdf to http://www.alba-valb.org/volpdf/vol_1941_02b.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070317202338/http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=7560 to http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?itemid=7560
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110928232717/http://russell.mcmaster.ca/~bertrand/ to http://russell.mcmaster.ca/~bertrand/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924035630/http://www.intlh.com/statement.html to http://www.intlh.com/statement.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

During the Cold War
Hi. I can see that there is absolutely nothing up about the massive anti-war campaigns and popular movements from the Cold War era at all. That is quite strange as this anti-war movement gathered what became the largest and most wideranging anti-war marches and protests in history. The notable June 12 1982 anti-war gathering in New York was attended by a million people as one striking example.

About the June 12 gathereing more

RhinoMind (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The links below belongs to some post above. Can someone fix this? RhinoMind (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)