Talk:Veterans for Peace

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Funding questions

Normally, I would agree with you that conservatives questioning the use of funds by liberal organizations and vice-versa would simply be normal mud-slinging. This appears to be slightly different, especially with the inclusion of an i-Pod in the item list. I don't know much about i-Pods, so it looks like an amenity for a staffer. --Habap 02:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VFP supporters afraid of sourced material

User Badagnani keeps removing sourced material that is not sycophantic to the Veterans for Peace postions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greyggrey G. Storey(talk • contribs) 02:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The one-sentence statement saying that other veterans' groups hate VFP wasn't sourced, and isn't particularly notable unless those groups have campaigns specifically targeting VFP. We could add statements such as this to the Wikipedia pages for any groups or public figures; there are always individuals or groups who do not like other individuals or groups. Regarding the No Gun Ri incident, VFP was simply reacting to the story as reported at the time. There is still a debate, and that debate is covered with appropriate details at the No Gun Ri article. Reducing the statment to a simple rebuttal saying "they're in error because it never happened" is an oversimplification and thus doesn't belong here. Badagnani 02:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the edits just made here to be generally POV. This is not the place for personal opinions about the group's actions, such as for example the Arlington West display. Badagnani 03:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VFP is a controversial group that elicits strong emotions. No other veteran group was mentioned as opposing VFP. If VFP was reporting on the Korean story of the time, they then need to update their findings, else the logical conclusion is that they are against the military and not national policy.

Local VFP groups have created so-called memorials that display the names and images of those who died in theater. My brother-in-law was so used by that group. His family did not approve, and he would not approve. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Greyggrey (talk • contribs)

Following the logic of these recent POV/editorializing additions, one should then go to the Vets For Freedom article and add the following paragraph under the section describing their support for the Iraq War:

"The crime of a war of aggression is listed in Article 5.1 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (RSICC) as one of the four most serious crimes of concern to the international community, and that it falls within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It was addressed earlier by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg following World War II, which called the waging of aggressive war "essentially an evil thing...to initiate a war of aggression...is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The thing is, that's for the readers to decide. This article is about the group, not about one editor's opinions whether their views are any good or not. (By the way, "aggressive war" is defined as one nation attacking a country that did not attack it first, similar to what Germany did to Poland in 1939, or the U.S. did in 2003.) Badagnani 03:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've had to tag the image of Cindy Sheehan on this page for probable copyvio. It claimed to be public domain, but gave no explanation of why. Also, I'm not really convinced by the fair use argument for the bus.

I think someone could make a good fair use claim for an image of Cindy Sheehan on this page; someone should do so. The bus picture does not look notably more relevant than the "free" picture of a Veterans for Peace bus I recently uploaded to Commons. See Commons:Category:Veterans for Peace for that and other possibly useful images. - Jmabel | Talk 23:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed

We need to find some sources for some of the statements other than VFPs own website. I'm sure it shouldn't be a problem to find them, but we need to do it.... --Habap (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Veterans for Peace. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Veterans for Peace. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any evidence of notability?

I'm finding nothing in RSes actually ... about the organisation. Literally the closest I've found is mentions of a couple of VFP protestors arrested in Ireland for property damage earlier in 2019.

Is there any actual news coverage, magazine articles, etc, in Reliable Sources? - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Ukraine War

Any information on what this group's policy towards Russia's war against Ukraine? Are they as critical of Russia as they are about Western military actions? 2A0A:EF40:1296:6B01:4981:80A7:B493:7216 (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]