Talk:Peace movement/Archive 1

Removal
I've removed the following from the article because it seems to be more of an essay about how a non-traditional "peace" can be achieved and a critique of those active in it, rather than about the peace movement:


 * Though the horror of war drives some to join anti-war groups, much of the momentum of social movements in industrialized nations of the 20th Century has been inspired by the desire for a placid, emotionally secure life that grew among those who enjoyed the benefits of a consumer economy. Much of the wealth that funded anti-war activities and related social justice causes came from heirs of industrial fortunes.

I removed the references to Japan, France and Russia because they were blank for so long, and I think such calls should be put here in the Talk page. The one for Russia included a plea for information on the Yabloko party. A quick look there shows that they're opposed to the war in Chechnya but it didn't say enough that it could be called a peace movement. I also removed the cleanup marker. It's not yet perfect, so I left the attention one. -- Randy 01:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following:
 * Anti-war activists take part in many very public actions to bring needed attention to their cause. One example is the "2000 Too Many" candlelight vigils to be held across America when U.S. service personnel fatalities in the war on Iraq reach 2000. For more details visit www.unitedforpeace.org

It had been placed at the top of the article, and it looks more like an advertisement for an upcoming event than an article on the movement itself. It would really belong in the Protests against the invasion of Iraq article after it actually begins. --- Randy2063 21:26, 15 October 2005 (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 13:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Chrbartolf

Iraq War section is POV
The Iraq War section is hopelessly POV and one-sided. For example: "Risking imprisonment and character assassination in a bitterly repressive political environment, today's peace and justice activists stand courageously against a corporate state dominated by a military-industrial machine which has largely escaped regulatory and constitutional controls." -LtNOWIS 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I just made some grammatical edits to it, but it will remain POV without someone backing up those statistics with references, something I can't see happening since much of the data concerning protest attendance is always disputed anyway. 70.157.138.155 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Pov tags
Feel free to put them back but it looks like the tagger was a 1 contrib. wonder. Albion moonlight 08:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)tell more information guys and ladies ok

History section
I propose that a certain amount of work needs to be done on the History section. What do others think? BobFromBrockley 09:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The extremely long section in Israel needs to be merged into Israeli peace camp and the specfic Gush Shalom article, with merely a summary here, and a pointer to Israeli peace camp as the main article.
 * 2) The US section needs to be moved into its own main article, something like the Peace movement in the United States or United States peace movement, with just a short summary here.
 * 3) There should be short paragraphs about other countries' peace movements too.

I have added a few paragraphs, mainly about CND and Committee of 100 in the 1960s. I hope to do some more work on this.

I agree that the sections on Peace Now and Gush Shalom are too long. They are important, but the length of the entry is proportionate to the passion of the editor rather than their importance in a world survey. Marshall46 10:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Seperation into regions is stupid
The seperation into regions is dull. The article should give an overall overwith - the regional parts can be phrased in dedicated articles. The splitting is one reason why the origins of peace movement in the 19th century is totally lacking! Please have a look at the source I added about peace organizations. -- Nichtich (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
Unfortunately, removing an article about current controversy to replace it with a "safe" article about an issue settled 30 years ago in one country is itself revealing a lack of NPOV. I realize you're in Manhattan and you probably lost friends on 9/11 or something, but doesn't that make you the right person to write about the current peace movement?

I didn't remove anything. What happened to version before "Thursday, March 21, 2002 Peace movement (3); 11:07" ???

When I saw it, it was one line, and I recalled that when I was a lad the peace movement had only one meaning. I supplied that meaning, but surely there is much more to it than Vietnam.

Vicki, did your words get lost in the shuffle when we went to the new software? User:Ed Poor
 * I wrote only from "the relevance is..." to "'don't hit submit'" on this talk page, and nothing in the previous article. I was responding to an anonymous complainant. Who, for the record, is jumping to a conclusion that I am happy to say is incorrect: I have two friends who worked in the Trade Center, and both are alive and well (though one of them lost several coworkers).
 * Also for the record, there is probably as broad a range of views about, well, everything, including current US foreign policy, in Manhattan than among any other group of two million people from many different backgrounds. Vicki Rosenzweig

Still, A controversy, or criticism section ought to be included, for nuetrality's and the dissenting opinion's sake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.110.240 (talk) 13:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Peace movement ended Vietnam?
"The peace movement in the 1960s in the United States succeeded in bringing an end to the Vietnam War.The decision of Lyndon Johnson not to run for re election as president is the direct result of Anti War Protests. Some advocates within this movement advocated a unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam."

Is their any verification that the peace movement ended the war? This phrase should be stricken due to the victorious advertising nature of it. It can be construed as a recruiting phrase for the movement. It lacks an unbiased nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.215.2 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The U.S. removed troops from Vietnam in 1973, and withdrew financial support for South Vietnam shortly thereafter.  The so-called "peace" movement stopped its protests at that time.  None of them cared when the fighting resumed in '74.  In fact, few if any had ever asked the communists to stop killing people.
 * So, the "peace" movement didn't end the war. The best you could say is that they ended U.S. involvement, but even that's not the whole truth.  By that time the situation in Asia was changing, and protecting Vietnam was no longer as important as it was once thought to be.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Globalize tag - justification
I've added a globalize to the article. While it does cover non-US movements, the article is focused on US, and its coverage of non-US is poor. For example, neither the World Peace Council nor Soviet Peace Committee are even mentioned. Neither are most non-Anglo Saxon Western countries (France, Spain, Italy... Germany and Israel being the only exceptions), and not a single second or third world country is discussed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Polish-Soviet War and Soviet influence on western peace movements
Please see Talk:Soviet-run_peace_movements_in_the_West. There is a discussion as to whether Soviet foreign propaganda of 1920s should be discussed in that article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

First steps
I had a pretty comprehensive article on the modern global peace movement that was cut back to one line by someone, presumably for NPOV problems or something (pardon me for preferring peace to being blown up or anthraxed). Now there is a comprehensive article about something that happened 35 years ago in the USA, ignoring everything that has happened since or elsewhere...Relevance please.
 * The relevance is that this is valid historical information. Your "pretty comprehensive" article was three paragraphs, short on facts and long on advocacy. Wikipedia articles should take a neutral point of view, even--or especially--when they're about something you feel strongly about.

Also, remember the note at the bottom of every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't hit submit." .


 * Restructure?
 * I came here to find information on the "Women's Peace Movement" in Northern Ireland . There is nothing in this article relating to Northern Ireland at all.  The problem seems to me to be the assumption that the article is written from the point of view of those who conceive of a global peace movement.  I think the existence of such a thing is tenuous and that while a wide variety of organisations, causes and doctrines might be considered to have commonalities they also have at least as significant differences.  My suggestiom therefore is that this article is entirely restructure.  Overall it should refer, as now, to the concept of a global movement and set out the "fit" of this concept, its history, etc.  Secondly the article should contain links to articles on the different organisations and movements that use the term "Peace Movement" to describe their activities and themselves.  Lumping all this together into one article in my opinion devalues Wikipedia's aim to be a neutral resource and pushes it instead into making ideological judgements in the way it structures information.

LookingGlass (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Israeli peace movement
The Israel section here is extremely long, given there is a page dedicated to it, Israeli peace camp. It is also full of editorialising and unreferenced generalisations. I have removed this paragraph for that reason: "Gush Shalom is motivated by moral outrage and the feeling that it is the duty of a decent person to oppose wrongdoing in general and the wrongs perpetrated by his or her own country in particular. They are also, however, motivated by what may be called enlightened self interest – the recognition that at present Israel’s existence relies on the state’s military superiority in the Middle East, on its alliance with the United States, and on US’s hegemony in the world. None of these factors is guaranteed to last forever, and in fact history shows that no alliance and no military superiority lasts without an end. Therefore, Israel’s long-term survival depends upon being accepted by its neighbours – first and foremost, by the Palestinians – as a legitimate part of the Middle East." I think the section needs much more trimming, but first there needs to be a check that all the info is in the Israeli peace camp article. However, this is not my area of expertise at all! BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A note that the referenced page for the Israel peace movement was subsequently deleted so it's harder to verify now. While the content then may or may not have been poorly referenced and written, it must be a subject worthy of an article of its own.  On the whole, it would seem best for this "Peace movement" page to include a list of different historical or current peace movements (or have that list as a separate page), plus a talk about the concept in general which will necessarily mean highlighting some, possibly controversial, examples.--Cedderstk 11:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Category:Israeli–Palestinian peace efforts has the current articles. Some redundant articles have been removed. Others, like about NGOs supporting Palestinian rights have been removed by organized gangs who didn't want them in there. Definitely need more peaceniks on wikipedia! CarolMooreDC 17:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Carol Moore is an anti-Semite and cannot be trusted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.87.43.166 (talk) 06:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Whos peace movement?
This page, that present it self as a global page about peace movements, seem to be extremely narrow, as the focus is mostly on US, and some western European countries and on Israel. It can not present it self as an overview of a global peacemovement, but should be categorised in a much narrower title. Maybe be dividet. . Can somebody who wrote this come up whit a tighter definition? Things I miss emediatly ( I could come up whith much more by some research and thinking): What about the south african antivwar recistance both under Chief Lutuli (ANC before 1954) and by the whites for instance against the angola war? What about India nad Ghandi, the soviet peacemovement? The german antinazism movement in the thirties? What about the european labour and feminist internationalism-antiwar movement under and before first world war? the popular movements around the nobel peace-awards? Can third world countries be represented? Is this just a white thing? or is this just for some people in US to define? and then- what about the native american peacefull resitance and anti-war movements under the "Indian wars"? Please. come up whith an narower title or define this section better. This page is in its narrow scope silencing a lot of movements that is not mentioned. and that is violence. I can not just start editing either, as tha page would have explodet in size. — 84.202.228.151 (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

False attribution to Gandhi
I appreciate that variants of the aphorism "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind" have often been attributed to Gandhi, but in a recent edit to this article, an editor presented it as fact, supported by "oral tradition", that Gandhi said it. I appreciate that a source was referenced, but it is not authoritative. (It is a quartenary source, at best.)

The preponderance of evidence shows that not only was Gandhi not the first to say it, but there is no credible evidence that Gandhi ever said it, and no reference of any authority indicates a time, place or body of work in which it was said. To suggest otherwise it to spread rumor, to reduce the validity of things that Gandhi actually said and wrote and to detract from those who actually said it.

Are the many false attributions of this aphorism to Gandhi important enough to mention it in this article without proper qualification? Why not quote something that Gandhi actually said? Why not mention it accurately, as "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind," and properly attribute it to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., from Stride toward Freedom (1958)? (For more background, see Mahatma Gandhi) &mdash;Danorton (talk) 17:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the idea was attributed to Gandhi by his biographer Louis Fischer in 1947 in discussing Gandhi's philosophy: "The shreds of individuality cannot be sewed together with a bayonet; nor can democracy be restored according to the Biblical injunction of an 'eye for an eye' which, in the end, would make everybody blind." (Fischer, Gandhi and Stalin (1947) - Page 53). The Gandhi family insists that he said it (eg his great grandson Tushar Gandhi in  Let’s Kill Gandhi at first page of ch 9) The RS  coverage is in the Yale book of Quotations was cited.  Danorton does not give any of his sources so it's hard to evaluate the evidence he is using. Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Rjensen(talk): &mdash;Danorton (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) You falsely assert my failure to provide sources. Please review what I wrote above, which references them.
 * 2) You correctly quote Fischer's words here, but your edit to the current article falsely attributes those words to Gandhi.
 * No, you again falsely assert: The Gandhi family does not "insist" that Gandhi ever said or wrote it and you provide no evidence that anyone did, only a repeat of another variant of the falsely presumed quotation. In this instance, the words in this quotation are precisely those from the 1982 film, Ghandi, which were actually the words of the screenwriter who specifically said that they were not Gandhi's. Tushar A. Gandhi obviously made a simple error. Repeating what I wrote above, specifically with regard to this reference by Tushar A. Gandhi, "no reference of any authority indicates a time, place or body of work in which it was said."
 * The Yale book of quotations asserts the Gandhi family says the quote is authentic, and I cite a Gandhi gt grandson who quotes it. The dispute is that Danorton is saying that no WRITING by Gandhi contains the quote. The Wiki text says it's ORAL in informal discussions by G with his family & people who knew him well like Fischer. ML King repeated it it from a Gandhi source (probably Fischer's book)  Rjensen (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC).

In reply to Rjensen(talk): Absent any further comment from another editor, I stand down. I will continue, however, to refute additional false or fabricated statements here. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The Yale Book of Quotations is a quartenary source at best, and indicates no year or location. It is not satisfactorily authoritative by any degree for an encyclopedia. I refer you to WP:TERTIARY.
 * 2) Your reference to a book by Gandhi's grandson is to a direct quote from a movie, for which the screenwriter claims authorship, and there has never been any challenge to that claim, credible or otherwise.
 * 3) You misstate that the dispute is about whether Gandhi wrote it. I never indicated any such restriction. I assert that Gandhi never wrote it and never said it and there is no credible authoritative reference that he ever said or wrote it. There is no evidence of any nature that indicates what year he said or wrote it, no evidence of any nature of where he said or wrote it and if he did write it, no evidence of any nature in which work of Gandhi the quotation was written.
 * 4) You misstate that Fischer attributed the words to Gandhi. Your own reference is evidence of that.
 * 5) You misstate your own words: In fact, your edit to the article does not indicate any informal discussions. It indicates "oral tradition." (See Oral tradition.) For an encyclopedia, to credit oral tradition as a source is no more valuable than hearsay and rumor. Even Gandhi's great grandson doesn't go that far, he simply reproduces a quotation from a movie, without comment or annotation. You will find no one in the family attributing that quotation to Gandhi before the film Gandhi was released, because Gandhi never said it.
 * 6) Your charge of plagiarism against Martin Luther King, Jr. seems to be your own fabrication. If you have any evidence of that charge, please present it.
 * 1) Danorton has not provided a single RS that denies Gandhi said it. 2) The Yale book is a secondary source: it reveals how a prominent scholar of quotations handles the issue: he includes it under Gandhi. 3) "hearsay" in this case is family tradition and it supports he argument. Gandhi talked to his family a great deal. Gandhi's great grandson repeats it.  4) ML King certainly repeated the analogy many years later but no one (except Danorton) claims he originated it. In fact the RS say he copied it from Gandhi.  Snodgrass (Ency Literature Empire) says One of his [Gandhi's] most repeated maxims, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," found its way into the writings of the American civil rights leader Martin Luther King. another scholar says: "When asked which books have influenced his thinking very strongly, King listed five, and three of those were about Gandhi: Louis Fischer's The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi's own Autobiography..." [Weber, Gandhi as Disciple and Mentor p. 169]; 5) the best evidence comes from a professional journalist who had a series of interviews with Gandhi in 1942. In Fischer's Life of Mahatma Gandhi (1950) Chapter 11 page 77 Fischer is explaining Gandhi's meaning for Satyagraha. Fischer gives a series of statements structured as follows Gandhi said:  Satyagraha is (a)  Satyagraha is (b)  Satyagraha is (c)  In this case c = "Satyagraha is the exact opposite of the policy of an eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an- eye which ends in making everybody blind."   The straight forward way of reading that is that Gandhi told Fischer that Satyagraha is (c). That is  Gandhi said words to the effect that "an-eye-for-an-eye ends in making everybody blind."  Gandhi could have given slight variations on that analogy.  Fischer had presented the same analogy in a slight variation in an earlier book discussing Gandhi's ideas: "The shreds of individuality cannot be sewed together with a bayonet; nor can democracy be restored according to the Biblical injunction of an 'eye for an eye' which, in the end, would make everybody blind." (Fischer, "Gandhi and Stalin" (1947) - p 53).  When we have a leading biographer making the statement after interviewing Gandhi, that is called very good historical evidence, since there is ZERO evidence of any sort that Gandhi never said it. Rjensen (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

In reply to Rjensen(talk): I am saddened to see you stand behind your fabricated charge of plagiarism against such an important leader of peace. It is too tedious to refute all of your other false claims (several repeated after my simple refutations), but I refer you again to my references in my original post. It is unreasonable of you to demand proof for the negative, as additional evidence that Gandhi never said it (despite the evidence I did provide that it originated from others). I will leave it at this: provide a reliable, authoritative (see WP:RELY) and neutrally biased (see WP:NPOV) source that indicates a time, place and wording for the quotation (ideally a reference asserted before the obvious bias of the 1982 film) and I will be most satisfied. I gather that you are in the U.S., so I hope that you enjoy your holiday. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Martin Luther King himself said he relied heavily on Fischer's book -- it was one of the five books that most influenced him! the RS (Snodgrass) explictly say King took the "blind" reference from Gandhi. So Danton's nasty allegations are simply false. He has found zero support for his denial of Gandhi's role in the issue. Numerous scholars (most recently Shapiro & Snodgrass) explicitly credit Gandhi for the "blind" statement. Danton has found zero scholars who deny it. "Time/place/wording" he demands. Ok: the wording provided by the two Fischer quotes above dated 1947 and 1950 from his interviews with Gandhi in June 1942 (date) at Gandhi's compound in India (place). ("The American journalist Louis Fischer had followed Gandhi's campaigns in India for many years, and spent a week with Gandhi, seeing him every day" says Eknath Easwaran Gandhi the man (2010)). Danton has been again & again challenged but refuses to give us a single RS who agrees with his personal views on King & Gandhi on the  "blind" issue.  Rjensen (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I would urge any editor reviewing this issue to review the sources cited before commenting, avoiding even secondary sources, some of which are misquoted and misreferenced here. There is no reliable, authoritative and independent neutrally biased source that attributes any specific wording to Gandhi. The quotations most cited are unquestionably attributed to three others: Louis Fischer (1950), Martin Luther King, Jr. (1958), and John Briley (1982). Do not be misled by any confusion between what were Gandhi's principles and what were his words: at issue here is not whether Gandhi believed or practiced the underlying maxim, but whether the words in quotation marks in this article accurately reflect specific words Gandhi actually spoke or wrote (or a reasonable translation thereof, from another language), or if they actually came from someone else. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The key written source is Fischer, who interviewed Gandhi and wrote: "Gandhi said: Satyagraha ....is the exact opposite of the policy of an eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an- eye which ends in making everybody blind." Fischer was a plain spoken, straight forward journalist who did not use fancy allegories or aphorisms in his writing, as Danorton seems to believe. Rjensen (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I refer other editors to these sources, the first of which corrects and contradicts RJensen's interpretive conclusion (see my first reference in my OP for additional background): &mdash;Danorton (talk) 23:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Fred R. Shapiro, Ed., The Yale Book of Quotations (Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 269-270, "Louis Fischer, U.S. Author and Journalist, 1896-1970 / 1 An eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye ends in making everybody blind.&hellip;[N]o example of its use by [Ghandi] has ever been discovered." (Google Books preview)
 * 2) * This is the source that RJensen cites, which actually contradicts RJensen's interpretation (such interpretation being a violation of WP:NOR) and, as I have repeated, attributes the quotation to Fischer and denies that this source indicates that Gandhi ever wrote or said the words quoted.
 * 3) Charles Clay Doyle, Wolfgang Mieder, Fred R. Shapiro, Ed.,The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs (Yale University Press, 2012), p. 70-71, "[N]either of Fisher’s books on Gandhi specifically makes the attribution." (Google Books preview)
 * 4) * The editor from the previous citation of the quotation by Fischer is a co-editor of this later work (from last year), which reiterates that the quotation's words are Fischer's and not Gandhi's.
 * 5) John Briley, Gandhi: The Screenplay (Duckworth, 1982), p. 122, "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind."(Google Books preview)
 * 6) John Krampner, Michigan Today (University of Michigan. News and Information Services), March 1993, p. 12, "…John Briley put those pithy words in his mouth. ‘In all of Gandhi, there are only two sentences that come from Gandhi,’ says Briley." (web article)

I have confirmed that Rjensen falsely quoted his source above, with "Gandhi said: Satyagraha ....is the exact opposite of the policy of an eye-for-an-eye-for-an-eye-for-an- eye which ends in making everybody blind.", so I have reverted and removed the false quote from this article. See WP:RELIABLE and WP:PROVEIT. &mdash;Danorton (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Massive chunk of totally unedited text
I have just removed the following. I think editors will see why. If anyone thinks any of it should be in, then pick out the more coherent bits. ==== The Peace Movement in Politics ====

The Peace Movement has made steady progress in American culture since World War 2. This progress is best measure by the slow steady growth of congressional legislation to create the United States Department of Peace and Nonviolence, and the number of legislators becoming cosponsors.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, a Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence, along with George Washington's peer, Benjamin Banneker, envisioned a Department of Peace to balance the Department of War;

1792 Benjamin Banneker, noted American scientist, surveyor, and editor and Benjamin RUSH, doctor, educator and signer of the Declaration of Independence suggested the blue print for an Office of Peace.

• 1935, 1937, and 1939, Senator Matthew Neely of West Virginia introduced bills calling for a Department of Peace.

• 1943 Senator Alexander Wiley of Wisconsin spoke on the Senate floor calling for the United States of America to be the first government on the world to have a Secretary of Peace.

• 1945 Representative Louis Ludlow of Indiana introduced a bill that would establish a Department of Peace.

• 1946 Representative  Randolf Jennings introduced legislation to establish a Department of Peace with the goal of strengthening America's capacity to resolve and manage international conflicts by both military and nonmilitary means. In the 1970s and 1980s he joined Senators Mark Hatfield and Spark Matsunaga and Congressman Dan Glickman in efforts to create a national institution dedicated to peace. After he had announced his retirement from Congress in 1984, Randolph played a key role in the passage and enactment of the United States Institute of Peace Act. To guarantee its passage and funding, the legislation was attached to the Department of Defense Authorization Act of 1985. Approval of the legislation was in part a tribute to Randolph's long career in public service. The Jennings Randolph Program, which awards fellowships to enable outstanding scholars, policymakers, journalists, and other professionals from around the world to conduct research at the U.S. Institute of Peace, has been named in his honor.

• 1947 Representative Everett Dirkson of Illinois introduced a bill for “A Peace Division in the State Department”.

• 1955-1968 Eighty-five bills calling for a Department of Peace were introduced in the House or the Senate.

• 1969 Senator Vance Hartke of Indiana and Representative Seymour Halpern of New York introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

• 2001 and 2003 Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace.

• September 2005 Representative Dennis Kucinich of Ohio and Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota introduced legislation to create a Department of Peace and Nonviolence in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

President Dwight Eisenhower named Harold Stassen to be his Cabinet Level Advisor for Peace & Disarmament in March, 1953. Over 100 bills have been introduced into Congress since the end of WWII to create a Department of Peace in the federal government;

As with all great social movements, federal sponsorship and endorsement is a huge milestone. The peace movement hopes to gain federal sponsorship and join the ranks of other government programs such as: Pollution awareness - “Give a Hoot don’t pollute”, and The surgeon generals warning, “Smoking MAY be hazardous to your health.”

If successful, the United States Department of Peace and Nonviolence may be as significant a social change as the Emancipation proclamation {Freeing the slaves} and the Women Suffrage movement {Granting women the right to vote)

Of course, even once government sponsorship is achieved every movement still has dissenters. Many Ameircans still smoke, prefer to litter, desire slaves, wish women did not vote, and enjoy a good war.

Citing sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Banneker http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance76.html no quotes taken though plenty of info!! http://www.trumanlibrary.org/publicpapers/index.php?pid=1972&st=&st1=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennings_Randolph

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query H.R.2459 Title: To establish a Department of Peace. Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 7/11/2001)     Cosponsors (44) Latest Major Action: 9/28/2001 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness.

H.R.1673 Title: To establish a Department of Peace. Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 4/8/2003)     Cosponsors (52) Latest Major Action: 5/13/2003 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization.

H.R.3760 Title: To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence. Sponsor: Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] (introduced 9/14/2005)     Cosponsors (74) Related Bills: S.1756 Latest Major Action: 11/7/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Education Reform.

Supporting Reference: January 2007, Lucy Buchanan of the UK TV show "Shipwrecked" says she's "for slavery". View the clip http://www.ligali.org/article.php?id=607

Dear Wikipedia Editor, This section needs to be cleaned up to match formating above. Several places need line breaks, etc.. BobFromBrockley 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, is that garbage! And it looks like it's been placed back in there!  I'd like to believe that I can find the time to make a decent article here; I'll put it on my to do list (should get to it by the summer of '08).  Unschool 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a detailed summary of many Americans working on Peace for 200 years. Completely removing this information from Wikipedia illustrates that one persons point of view can rewrite history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.42.2.150 (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

New drafts: Pacifism in France, Germany + USA
Please add to Draft:Pacifism in France, Draft:Pacifism in Germany, and Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Peace 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/20110514024607/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PREcnd.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PREcnd.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616175116/http://www.icanw.org/1982 to http://www.icanw.org/1982
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110104155217/http://disarmament.nrpa.no/ to http://disarmament.nrpa.no/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512133429/http://www.ananuclear.org/Issues/GlobalNuclearEnergyPartnership/Library/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/314/Default.aspx to http://www.ananuclear.org/Issues/GlobalNuclearEnergyPartnership/Library/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/314/Default.aspx
 * Added tag to http://aje.me/HHwQcE

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) 19:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Peace 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/20100619072842/http://thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/a-rebirth-the-anti-nuclear-weapons-movement to http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/roundtables/a-rebirth-the-anti-nuclear-weapons-movement
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828050250/http://www.library.law.ua.edu/spcoll/findaids/murpaid/murpaid4.htm to http://www.library.law.ua.edu/spcoll/findaids/murpaid/murpaid4.htm

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) 23:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Did Gandhi think violence was for everyone?
The article currently reads: "Gandhi realized later that this level of nonviolence required incredible faith and courage, which he believed everyone did not possess. He therefore advised that everyone need not keep to nonviolence"

Is there widespread agreement on this claim, or should it be couched as "Joe Scholar says..., but Ellen Scholar says..."? Daask (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-conscription image inappropriate
The image which now has been reinstated at the top of the article is not representative. Anti-consription is not the same thing as peace (movement). I am removing it again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)