Talk:United for Peace and Justice

this use to make sense

http://www.etsell.com/kvi.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grazon (talk • contribs) 2 Oct 2005

info on relationship with ANSWER

Since so much of UFPJ's recent organizing (especially its most prominent organizing on the national level) has taken place in relation to ANSWER - and whether the two coalitions were cooperating at the time or not - I think this entry could be improved by a short section on the subject. It could link to the major statements of both sides, including those surrounding the September 24 2005 demonstration (both before and after the fact). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.137.220 (talk • contribs) 29 Dec 2005

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "has taken place in relation to"; could you clarify?

I don't think there is any formal relationship between the two organizations. I don't think either has an official stance about the other. Some prominent members of UFPJ have been highly critical of ANSWER. I'm not sure if prominent members of ANSWER have been comparably critical of UFPJ.

The major differences I see offhand between the groups are:

1. The suspicion by many in UFPJ that ANSWER is to some degree a front/Trojan Horse for certain neo-Stalinist groups.
2. UFPJ's being generally more ready to say that there has been plenty of blame to go around (Al-Qaida, Saddam, etc.), vs. ANSWER focusing almost exclusively on blaming the US & UK.
3. UFPJ's being more open to draw-downs of troops, less specifically committed to demands for immediate withdrawal.
4. Closely related to that, UFPJ being far more interested in things like trying to convert the views of individual members of the US Congress, rather than focusing almost exclusively on mass protest.
5. ANSWER, possibly because it is led by a small core group, being more willing and able to quickly involve themselves in issues unrelated to the war. For example, ANSWER quickly had a statement out about the recent NYC transit strike; UFPJ would never have the means to rapidly get the level of consensus it requires to make that sort of statement.

Jmabel | Talk 09:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

reply to the above

(Sorry, I don't know how to reply within the message like you did) The differences you list seem accurate to me - I would add to the first that many in ANSWER would probably see UFPJ as being close to a front group for the Communist Party & Committees of Correspondence.

My comment was motivated in particular by UFPJ's recent release of a statement to the effect that they will not work with ANSWER again (and ANSWER's subsequent response). Since most of the biggest national U.S. anti-war protests of the last several years, including the recent Sept 24 demonstration, were joint projects of both groups, I think this position has significance for understanding UFPJ's role in relation to the wider anti-war movement. That's why I thought it might belong in the article here. Their decision not to work with ANSWER anymore will have effects on the rest of the antiwar movement in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.137.220 (talk • contribs) 30 Dec 2005

I hadn't heard about this. Yes, that would be large. Do you have some citations?

BTW, if you want to learn your way around using Wikipedia, open an account (free, no strings) so that you have a user talk page where people can address you, and we'll gladly answer your questions. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I found these via Google:

UFPJ rejects future work with ANSWER,

ANSWER responds: our position on unity in the movement -- Kenickiefan2000 01:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)Kenickiefan2000

criticism?

A lot of the other political organizations' pages seem to have a "criticism" section. I wonder if this one should too. If the criticisms are the same as the ones made for every anti-war group, then maybe it won't be helpful, but if there are specific ones lobbied at UFPJ in particular, maybe we should have a section for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.80.192 (talk • contribs) 1 Jan 2006

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 23:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I did a bunch of citation work just now; I believe that about 2/3 of the article is now cited. I've marked a few things as specifically needing citation. I would welcome others to do the same (both finding citations and noting where citations are needed). - Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How do we cite for this?

I see that there is a request to cite for "UFPJ's lengthy Unity Statement, adopted as a work in progress at the June 2003 UFPJ National Strategy Conference and occasionally receiving minor updates to reflect world events…" I'm not sure how best to cite for that. I believe the first part should be easy enough; for the second, would it be considered acceptable citation to find successive versions in the Internet Archive? I'm not sure we will find an explicit statement of this, though I think it is obvious. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United for Peace and Justice. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070509062250/http://www.unitedforpeace.org//article.php?id=3298 to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3298

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United for Peace and Justice. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070316015116/http://www.nyclu.org:80/fbi_spy_files_bios_031406.html to http://www.nyclu.org/fbi_spy_files_bios_031406.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080611083755/http://www.unitedforpeace.org//article.php?list=type&type=16 to http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?list=type&type=16
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070411045323/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/26/1329207 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/26/1329207
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928001710/http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=7433 to http://answer.pephost.org/site/News2?abbr=ANS_&page=NewsArticle&id=7433

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) 18:04, 21 July 2016 (UTC)