Talk:Pro-war Left

As the author, I disagree with the idea that no such groupING exists. Whilst I'm sure that the people I mentioned haven't all got together at a particular time to thrash out their beliefs, they nevertheless share common beleifs and attitudes and identify themselves as doing so. This is, as far as I'm concerned, enough to identify them as a groupING, if not a group. A similar thing could be said of the anti-globalisation movement, which has a Wikipedia entry.

As evidence of the above, this quote from Harry's Place: "The loose collection of individuals who get described in various ways – pro-war left, pro-liberation left, anti-fascist left and of course the mocking ‘decent left’, are no longer so marginalised in the debate." (http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/04/13/the_manifesto_a_personal_view.php)

The author clearly identifies a grouping called the pro-war left, etc., and identifies himself as a member.

Likewise, the opponents of the pro-war left identify them as a grouping. See http://www.matthewturner.co.uk/Blog/2006/04/oh-dear-big-night-in-pub-i-cant.html for just one entry.

So, there's a grouping, self identified and identified by others that has organised at least one demonstration I'm aware of and has a manifesto (albeit not uncritically acepted by all of them, but most manifestoes are compromises.) What more evidence is needed of the group's existence? Steve3742 14:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A reliable source is required to satisfy verifiability --Pak21 14:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I note that "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, but only under certain conditions; see WP:SELFPUB for the details."

You're questioning the EXISTENCE of the grouping. Might I ask what you would consider to be a reliable source?

I'm aware the article is incomplete and needs more history and suchlike, but I only put it up a few hours ago.Steve3742 14:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * From WP:SELFPUB: "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources." A reliable source would be one independent of the group itself, subject to some form of editorial oversight. An article in a national newspaper would be ideal. --Pak21 14:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what about this one http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1759572,00.html? Note the quotes "a small meeting of disillusioned leftist journalists, university lecturers and passionate bloggers in a London pub last year is proving a potentially important political event... in short, a strand on the left passionate about democracy is coming to Blair's rescue."

Good enough? Steve3742 15:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've got other things to do. If anyone wants to expand this article, add a history section, etc, do so. Pak21 wants some sources, add them too. I'll drop in in a few days. Steve3742 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That article is not really about the grouping you are claiming exists here; it's about the Euston Manifesto. It doesn't even mention the name "Pro-war Left". --Pak21 15:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what about this one: http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/johann_hari/article2793079.ece. "The pro-war left's disastrous misjudgment" Mentions the name lots. 'The pro-invasion left was always a small battallion, comprised almost entirely of journalists and intellectuals... the Euston Manifesto, an attempt by the pro-war left to hone its position into a coherent set of principles... the pro-war left argued that Islamism (as opposed to Islam) is a variant on an old enemy of the left - fascism... the pro-war left somehow managed to move from tactically siding with the US in order to defeat a greater enemy - my initial position - to reflexively defending US imperial power... the pro-war left has never engaged with the situation in Iraq since March 2003...'

Good Enough?Steve3742 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed Peter tatchell from the list of supporters. The only reason i put him there was because he was mentioned as attending the demo by the PWL, and that's not good enough - after all, Class War were also there, and they're not supporters of the PWL.

If Tatchell or anyone disagrees, they're welcome to reinstate it, with evidence.Steve3742 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of Israel
The bombastic claim that the Pro-War Left thinks the Anti-War Left hopes for the destruction of Israel should be verified immediately. Presumably such a wild accusation can be substantiated. Otherwise, I'm deleting it.Pmaclean (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)