Talk:Stop the War Coalition
Biggest demo in history?
Deleted: "The Coalition organised the biggest demonstrations in British history before and during the invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces."
Not actually true as the Chartist demonstrations were certainly bigger and the number of people on the stop the war march is disputed.
Someone should actually write an article as opposed to listing objectives etc.
Alun Ephraim 12:22, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The turn out was believed to be up to 2 million. The police said 1 million. The police also underestimated the turn out of the chartist demonstrations. I believe it to be bigger than the chartist demonstrations although it would correct to say that the turn out is disputed. You should have edited the comment rather than just deleting it. Secretlondon 13:09, Nov 7, 2003 (UTC)
Actually the police said 750,000. 2 million is certainly bogus, although 1 million is certainly possible. Alun Ephraim
Most crowd estimates are nonsense. The organisers tend to think of a nunumber and double it, the police use a formula based on area and density of the crowd, which I don't know has been proved to be valid.
138.253.102.141 13:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- (William M. Connolley 22:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)) As I recall, the Guardian commissioned a survey after the march. The numbers are large enough that it becomes statistically reasonable as a way to count. The answer was about 1.25 M. How big were the Chartist demos?
- Don't know but BBC reported 'Police said it was the UK's biggest ever demonstration with at least 750,000 taking part'[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2765041.stm] So police must think Cartist demo=under 750,000--JK the unwise 19:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Pic I didn't use
(William M. Connolley 22:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)) I've uploaded a pic or two - it seems a shame not to have one. One I uploaded but didn't use is the eagle: it was a great banner and a passable pic but might perhaps be considered offensive.
Minnor things
Dbiv did a good job with the "full copyedit and rewrite" but I don think that the this line is right; "this meeting also elected a Steering Committee which was dominated by members of the Socialist Workers Party" according to the GPGB article [1] article 40 people were elceted to the executive with only 4 being SWP members.--JK the unwise 18:16, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
While I can't disagree with you on the wording as it appears in the article, the role of the SWP raises questions which I think the article should address. There were (and are) many participants in the coalition deeply critical of its leadership (stemming in part from the power of a certain section of the anti-war movement). The article in its current form doesn't really address that. As one of those concerned people I think it should, however, I'm not sure as yet how to phrase it. I'll get back to you and maybe bounce some ideas around in here. Disillusioned kid 21:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Maybe something referencing this Guardian article [2] (which is probably notable where my opinions aren't) which I agree with some, but not all of? Disillusioned kid 21:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)