Talk:Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RNER0918.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

photographs of Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp
I would like to add an external link to Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp, www.cary.welling.co.uk would provide an individual's account of being at the women's peace camp with lots of photographs showing three of the major demonstrations (in 1982 and 1983) and a record of what the camp looked like from all sides of the perimeter fence in 1984.82.23.25.217 (talk) 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the Open Spaces Society's most famous campaigns
I removed this section. It is nothing to do with the Peace Camp. It might (arguably) belong in Greenham Common, although I note that User:BoruB added more or less the same large chunk of text to that on the same day as (s)he edited this page, and that edit has been undone too. Nick Levine (talk) 10:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Greenham Common song books
There is an article, Greenham Common Peace Camps Songbooks in the Danish Peace Academy. http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/abase/sange/greenham.htm You might wish to add a link to it in the Greenham Common article. Holger Terp Editor the Danish Peace Academy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.88.116.170 (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad Old Days
In the Bad Old Days, it was commonly said in the right-wing media that the camp people were funded, controlled and perhaps infilatraited by the Soviet Union. It does seem like the sort of thing the Soviets would have wanted to do. Is there any truth in this? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Very unlikely. I know, and have known (one died last year) personally, several women who took part. None of them would dream of accepting money/help from any military power. --NSH001 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. No slander against the ladies, just you would sort of think the Soviets would have tried to do such a thing. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "money/help from any military power... " Yes, I can just see a five-star Soviet general in full dress uniform turning up at Greenham Common with bags of gold for grateful protestors!
 * No, it is never done that way(!). There are very very many other ways it could have been done, money can be filtered through like minded organisations, perhps based in other countries, Soviet or otherwise. In these places there would be no grounds for suspicion, typically they would be countries not opposed to the Soviets. Plenty of non-Soviet countries were only too happy to find ways to embarrass the US and could easily turn a blind eye, if they even knew in the first place, to activities of this kind.
 * Such scenarios are at least as credible as any other and in the apparent abscence of a set of certified accounts we can all believe what we want. But one thing is certain, the 19 year demo was not short of associated costs. --Damorbel (talk) 08:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A total fantasy. They mostly paid for themselves, or received help from sympathetic family or friends (including me). They also received non-cash help, for example they could take showers at the Friends Meeting House in Newbury, whose members also provided other forms of practical and moral support. --NSH001 (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact there was evidence given by Stanislav Lunev that various Eastern European organisations supported the Greenham camp much of this channeled through Heidi Klaus a supposed sympathiser from Berlin who was revealed to have been a Stasi agent. The — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.22.92.199 (talk) 15:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a source for this, 78...♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a read of his autobiography, he details a lot of it there, 'Through the Eyes of the Enemy: The Autobiography of Stanislav Lunev'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.97.21.150 (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Added this documentary from production company undercurrents
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKoWKF3ktXI

She came from the Welsh valleys in response to the threat of war and annihilation. Unarmed, unnamed, carrying a child, she stands as a monument to the triumph of peace.

'Greenham, the Making of a Monument' tells the story behind this sculpture. In 1981, 36 women, 4 babies and 6 men set out from Cardiff to march to RAF Greenham Common in protest against the arrival of American Cruise missiles and the horror of nuclear war. It was the seed which would blossom into a permanent camp, mass actions and front page headlines: at one point 30,000 women joined hands to 'embrace the base'. It became a focus for international activism and controversy. And, through it all, the women stayed and sang.

The documentary features interviews with the women who started Greenham, and with politicians, critics and other participants in the camp. Educative and inspirational, it examines the rationale behind, and the power of, the movement, together with the creation of the sculpture as a tribute, and a reminder.

Made by http://hamishcampbell.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.229.6 (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Could we have a section giving RS views on whether it 'worked'?
Could we have a section giving RS views on whether it 'worked'? I doubt if this can be proven either way, but I expect there must be some RS claims that it was a minor, medium or major contributary factor to the INF agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev that lead to the removal of all intermediate-range nuclear missiles from Europe, and presumably other RS claims that their effect was negligable or even counter-productive and that the Soviets only agreed to sign when they realized the women and other peace activists had 'failed' (by allegedly failing to dissuade any Nato member from agreeing to accept the missiles). This is after all arguably what ultimately really matters about the camp, and for the article to simply ignore the question is arguably both unencyclopaedic and a sexist insult to the women (seemingly roughly implying that they are self-evidently so irrelevant to the 'real world' that the question of whether they succeeded or failed is simply not worth asking). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp. 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/20110728121715/http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory?storyid=1083 to http://www.imow.org/wpp/stories/viewStory?storyid=1083

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) 15:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Terminology
Reading the article, it appears as if the words 'base' and 'camp' are sometimes used interchangeably to refer to the military base; fair enough in most contexts, but in this particular case, it would be practical to reserve 'camp' for the women's camp and 'base' for the military establishment. I would edit this myself, but not sure of each instance where 'camp' refers to the base, hence my mild confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romi56 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've changed a couple of instances. --Salix alba (talk): 19:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Dead link cited ("Window Peace" December 12, 9186-November 11, 1987 at Soho Zat, 307 Broadway, NY")
There is a dead link inside of a citation. Because the link is dead and because I do not think the citation is warranted, I am going to remove the citation. Here is what was written:
 * ""Window Peace" December 12, 9186-November 11, 1987 at Soho Zat, 307 Broadway, NY". The New Common Good. 1987. Folder: "Pacifism/Peace Movement/"Window Peace" Installation ca. 1987. Retrieved 6 March 2016.

Hemarcello (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is likely a temporary dead link. interferencearchive.org/ looks like a going concern. I've emailed them to find what the problem is. --Salix alba (talk): 04:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, but I have been checking over the past few days and the link has not worked. I have also just discovered another dead link from the same archive:
 * Constantinides, Kathy (1987). "Letter about Window Peace". Brooklyn, NY. Folder: "Pacifism/Peace Movement/"Window Peace" Installation ca. 1987. Retrieved 6 March 2016.
 * Hemarcello (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sexism
I find it both interesting and strange that you believe that a space for women only is not sexist, when the definition of sexism is "prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender" and "a belief that one sex is superior to or more valuable than another sex. It imposes limits on what men and boys can and should do and what women and girls can and should do." Would you consider a place that only accepts the membership of men to be sexist ?

Two of the sources posted, the European Institute for Gender Equality, and Britannica.com included the definition of sexism. The third from The Guardian newspaper, in an article written by Julie Bindel who is a reknowned and respected journalist, showed that the Women's Peace Camps were indeed - as the name also suggests - single sex/gender locations. Before we even enter any trans rights discussion it is obvious - and proven by the given sources, own description and name, and any media source you care to mention - that these spaces were ONLY for women.

Unless historic revision is to be part of the Wiki, I contend that you should prove that the Camps were indeed completely and fully accessible to all genders.

Kind regards, TCG. Tiredcleangate6 (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * This is original research. We need a reliable source that specifically links Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp with transmisogyny or indeed any sort of sexism. Adding "organised on sexist lines" to the lead is confusing and doesn't explain how or why it is sexist. gobonobo  + c 16:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."
 * 001 - The contemporary - and modern - press, (reliable, published sources, & directly related to the topic of the article which directly support the material being presented,) refer to the Greenham Common Peace Camps as women's camps.
 * 002 - The organisers of the camps explicitly informed people that they were only for women. See above parenthesised.
 * 003 - Indeed the Wikipedia page is called the Greenham Common Women's Peace Camp. See #001 parenthesis, possibly omitting "reliable."
 * I don't think any sentient being could in any honesty deny that these camps were exclusively female locations.
 * That a major group is not permitted the same access to and use of a location as another makes that location exclusive.
 * Should the reason for that denial be based purely on the individual's sex or gender, that makes the exclusion sexist.  There is middle ground, inclusivity is for all.  Political prejudices have no place on the Wiki.
 * The definition of sexism has been given from two independent sources, and is couched,  as is only correct and fair,  in non-sexist terms,  ie. it favours neither one nor another.
 * Your stated belief that "adding "organised on sexist lines" to the lead is confusing and doesn't explain how or why it is sexist," is interesting. I've read and written the word "sexist" on countless occasions,  and have never felt the need for it to be explained in the context of the article,  definitions do that.
 * I could elucidate the phrase if it is also your belief that readers of the English language Wiki have problems understanding the word, but in my experience the vast majority can understand what is written or are able to check sources.
 * Kind regards,
 * TCG Tiredcleangate6 (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I find it both interesting and strange that you believe
 * There is no "you" here, nor beliefs in Wiki voice. Wikipedia does not take a position on whether "a space for women only" is  "sexist" ... Wikipedia simply reports such criticisms as were made according to reliable sources. Jibal (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)