Talk:Anti-nuclear movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-nuclear movement article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Irrelevant image

When you have a movement, it does not matter if there is one percent of the population behind you or 99 percent. In the former case you have more work to do than in the latter, but it is still a movement. The lead image for this article should be one that is representative of the anti-nuclear movement (golly gee that is the title of this article isn't it?), not a poll that is irrelevant, and erroneous by the way. 199.125.109.46 21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't completely agree with you, but I also don't completely agree with the person who deleted the image. The poll should not stand alone as it is, but if accompanied with other images that were in some way representitive of the anti-nuclear movement, then I believe it contributes to the illustrative value of the article in the same way. IMO, it would be appropriate to contain several images used as PR by organizations opposed to nuclear with clear and direct explanations accompanying them that tell who it is that use them and under what context. In terms of "opinion poll" type stuff, I think a graph over time showing opinion regarding nuclear power and whatnot would be ideal in that it does show a progression of the "anti-nuclear movement". -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see that the previous smiling sun image had been deleted. I would not particularly object to moving or deleting the poll the article stands. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why the smiling sun was deleted, but that is the most common image for the anti-nuclear movement. The second most common is the flower that says "nuclear power is not healthy for children and other living things". As Theanphibian says, charts are interesting for historical perspective, but not as a main image. And by the way, anyone can edit, that's one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. 199.125.109.58 06:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
this logo looks like it has a good bit of usage as well. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 11:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I had never seen that one (the hand in front of a nuclear radiation sign), but I see that it is used in Australia a lot, it is prominently displayed on the map of the Australian anti-nuclear movement at http://www.australianmap.net/ 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I had seen the hand on the radiation symbol many times before, and had only ever seen the smiling sun a few times outside of this article (recently, not like years ago). And then the other "poster" in the article I had never heard of, couldn't even find on the internet, and still question when it was used and what it's significance. Yet most people who've contributed here seem to think the one they know of it the MAIN one. I'm sure there are more - if you wanted to do this right, there should be a section that describes what logos are used, where, and their significance relative to one another. That's why people use Wikipedia, to get the real story, not some BS propaganda. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

how is the peace sign not here? honestly, how? peace sign = anti-nuclear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.67.209 (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Because the anti-war movement is not the same as the anti-nuclear movement. Many people are against war who favor nuclear energy. Furthermore, the original purpose of atomic weapons was to end a war and later the purpose was to prevent an invasion of Europe by the Soviet Union.--Cde3 (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I have never seen the peace symbol be used in connection with the anti-nuclear movement, but there is a book about the peace movement that extensively covers the history of the peace symbol and it does directly connect the peace symbol with the anti-nuclear movement. But I think you are reading way too much into the purpose of nuclear weapons to say why they were developed. And this is the wrong article for that anyway - that belongs in the nuclear weapons article. With the peace symbol. However, if there is a reliable source, such as that book, then a case could be made for including it, but I would be one person to say what if I saw it, and would immediately want to see the reference. The peace symbol clearly has as its primary use, peace, and not anti-nuclear. 199.125.109.127 (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

The global warming criticism needs to be put into perspective. Almost noone thinks that nuclear power needs to be included as a solution to global warming. Basically what needs to be presented is that concerns over global warming is a newly presented environmental threat, but it has not changed the viewpoint of most people toward nuclear power, including all of the leading environmental groups. Just saying that Lovelock now supports nuclear power etc. is just a weasel way to try to say that everyone now supports nuclear power, which just isn't true. The majority viewpoint is that nothing has changed and must be presented first, the minority viewpoint is that nuclear power needs to be revisited and as such must be presented second, and given less treatment. Otherwise you bring in a really biased POV again. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Shall I list the things that this IP claims that almost no one thinks? We've seen this claim before. And as a quick response, you're wrong. Plenty of people think that nuclear power needs to be included as a solution to global warming. You seem to be arguing that attributed claims and facts be removed in lieu of and opinion. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say... no. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 18:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Are any of these "plenty of people" a part of the anti-nuclear movement? No. This isn't an article about James Lovelock, it's an article about the anti-nuclear movement. Stay on topic please. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Here in the US, most people look to nuclear energy as an important means of reducing greenhouse gases, if you can believe the news media. All the Republican presidential candidates put it at the top of the list. All but one of the major Democratic contenders consider it a necessary part, and the other one's greatest handicap is credibility: people think he's all just empty promises. Among my friends, who are almost all environmentalists, there is some remorse that they didn't look more closely at the facts; now they are quite accepting of the need for nuclear energy.--Cde3 (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This isn't a discussion of global warming, it is a discussion of the article. The anti-nuclear movement and the environmental movement are steadfast opposed to nuclear power, and this needs to be emphasized in the article. It really doesn't matter what anyone in the world thinks, it only matters for the purpose of this article what the anti-nuclear movement thinks. The reference, Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy ISBN 9781571431738 which is available online[1] states "This book shows it is possible to have a secure and economic energy system without the headaches and risks of nuclear power. Why would one want to expand its role in an already insecure world?" 199.125.109.46 (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Let's put this in perspective. No, this is not an article about global warming. And no, it's not especially notable that anti-nuclear activists oppose nuclear energy as a remedy for global warming. However, it is quite notable that Brand, Lovelock and others, who were at one time acknowledged as leaders of the anti-nuclear movement, changed their minds. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Wrong movement. They were environmentalists, and not members of the anti-nuclear movement. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect; many environmentalists were once part of the anti-nuclear movement. These include Brand, Lovelock and others. We should be clear on the point that membership in the anti-nuclear movement is defined by beliefs about the usage of nuclear technology. An organization that discourages utilization of nuclear technology is part of the "Anti-nuclear movement". A person that discourages utilization of nuclear technology is part of the "Anti-nuclear movement".

As the "Anti-nuclear movement" rationalizes their beliefs on the basis of environmental concerns the effects of their purposed policies on global warming remains a valid critism of their opinions on the usage of nuclear technology. More emphasis needs be placed on the contradiction entailed by the priorities of conventional environmentalism and those of the "Anti-nuclear movement" as most persons reading the article would be misled into believing that the "Anti-nuclear movement" was a sub-movement of environmentalism, which you clearly dispute by the insistance on the irrelevence of the implications of global warming to the prioties of the "Anti-nuclear movement".

In any case it is clear that the policy position of the "Anti-nuclear movement" with respect to global warming remains a valid critism. Agalmic (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John Gofman

Can someone add some information about him? His obit says he was the reluctant father of the anti-nuclear movement, yet he isn't mentioned. See John Gofman and this article.[2] 199.125.109.47 (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC) What, no takers? I'll see if I can hodge something together, please feel free to "edit it mercilessly". 199.125.109.47 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

This needs serious re-write. I'm not qualified to do it, but this paragraph isn't accurate. It could be that someone called him Father of the Anti-nuclear Movement, but the movement goes back to the 1950s and at that time he was a willing participant in the bomb program. So the encomium doesn't make sense. Nonetheless, he and Tamplin were at ground zero in the debate over nuclear energy in the 1970s. On the other hand, he probably had less influence than Jane Fonda.--Cde3 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And an even bigger influence was TMI. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It is argumentative to claim he showed anything. He made claims about the dangers of plutonium, but analysts at the time and since have refuted his claims and no one outside the anti-nuclear movement has any respect for his crusade. As far as I know, no professionals in the field of health physics ever accepted his work. Even Tamplin acknowledged that the analysis was wrong. Here are two references: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=7346902 and http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4020019 --Cde3 (talk) 02:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Those documents were published in 1975 and 1976. I think that you need to come up with something just a bit more objective. On the other hand, Helen Caldicott says that the government now admits that what everyone was saying all along is true - that there is no safe threshold of radiation - right down to zero. Need to add in something about the anomaly of increased cancer deaths due to atmospheric testing. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Two people who have been of interest to me lately are Paul Gunter and Gregory Minor... Johnfos (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the articles about them it sounds like they came along later. Hey, I said "edit it mercilessly" not "delete it" - please come up with something else if you don't like it. And tons of people have said that if nuclear power is the answer we must be asking the wrong question. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a lot of information on Dr. Gofman. I reverted it because (1) it was way too long, making it seem as though he was the only figure in the movement, (2) because the sources were advocacy organizations, and (3) the points were contentions, not facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cde3 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Your complaints seem to be unfounded. However, I have added some explanatory text. There are enough people watching this article that surely someone will remove your oddly placed tags. You are throwing a blanket tag over the whole history section, but I think you are really only complaining about three individual items. Shall we take them one by one?
  1. John Gofman was often called the father of the anti-nuclear movement. For this I was looking for something other than the BBC[3] and the LATimes written obituary that appeared in the Boston Globe. Not that that wasn't reliable as a source, but if he was called that surely he was called that in his lifetime and not just after his death. The Plowboy interview from 1981 was sufficient to show that. A google search for "father of the anti-nuclear movement" turns up four other names, Ichiro Moritaki, Ernest J. Sternglass, Günther Anders, and Edgar Lin, in addition to Gofman. Feel free to add all of them too. I think that Randy Forsberg should be mentioned too, the founder of the Freeze. The anti-nuclear movement article alludes to opposition to nuclear weapons but doesn't have much about that part of the movement, which is more of an anti-war movement than an anti-nuclear movement. Most of this article is only about the anti-nuclear power movement, although nuclear power clearly can not be separated from nuclear weapons. (n.b. North Korea and Iran)
  2. that even very low doses can cause cancer - what the National Academy of Sciences isn't good enough for you? You want the NIH? The NRC?
  3. that John Gofman estimated that the majority of cancers in the U.S. were caused by medical radiation. Read his book, it is available online in the ref cited.
I really think you are getting out of control with your insistence that the article only be about criticisms of the movement. 199.125.109.46 (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
My objection to the "father of the anti-nuclear movement" claim is that it doesn't make sense, since he was developing bombs when the movement started. Why you want to embarrass people with such a stupid quotation is your business, but if we're going to include every dumb thing someone said about the anti-nuclear movement this article will become extremely long. I can't understand why something so inconsequential should be included in the article.
There are two objections to sourcing NIRS. First, it's an advocacy group and therefore is not a reliable source of information. I think there's a WP rule against it. Second, it mischaracterizes the NAS source's statement. Here is the relevant quotation from the NAS BEIR VII report: "At doses of 100 mSv or less, statistical limitations make it difficult to evaluate cancer risk in humans. A comprehensive review of available biological and biophysical data led the committee to conclude that the risk would continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold and that the smallest dose has the potential to cause a small increase in risk to humans."
This is very much different from the certainty NIRS attributes to the statement. The report admits the data don't support the view that the risk continues all the way down to zero exposure, but recommends using that as the rule anyway. This is the conundrum radiation safety analysts have struggled with for as long as there have been radiation safety analysts. As is often the case in committee-written reports, important contradictions have been inserted, no doubt by individuals who insist on imposing their opinions on everyone else. NIRS has altered the statement to promote its own views, which is why NIRS is an unacceptable source.
Even the NAS doesn't have the last word on this, and wouldn't if it were free of contradictions. Other, equally-respected, study groups have reached the opposite conclusion. If we start quoting from all the studies that have been done on nuclear safety we'll end up with an incoherent battle of the quotes.
As it is written, the article emphasizes Gofman over all the other people who have influenced the movement. To that extent, this extolling of his importance makes the article inaccurate.--Cde3 (talk) 23:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cde3 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So add all the others. I don't see anyone else complaining about the article. As to radiation, I think it is like the Rutherford discovery of the structure of the atom - which he likened to as if you fired cannon balls at a piece of tissue paper and some of them bounced back, because the nucleus is so much more dense. It only takes one gene being damaged to cause cancer. The body doesn't know how to reject the cancer cell and so it continues to reproduce, but the damage starts with a single quanta of radiation, which is why it makes sense that the risk would continue in a linear fashion with no threshold. I see that Linus Pauling is quoted as "always saying" this. I do not see that NIRS has "altered the statement" as you are suggesting, but primary sources are always preferred, so by all means replace it if you can. I think you will find more recent sources which say the same thing - that there is no threshold. Genetic damage and the imperfect reproduction which results also provides the mechanism for evolution, the imperfect reproduction of one species leading to the development of another, which happens so slowly that you can't see it happening. I know that Helen Caldicott embraces natural radiation as part of life. She just doesn't want any unnatural radiation. It is certainly significant to include facts like this to see what has caused people to believe one way or another. We are historians, remember? For example it is probably worth noting that the movie China Syndrome came out about two weeks before TMI. 199.125.109.135 (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This is posted at the top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-nuclear movement article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." The page is supposed to be about the article, not the a-n movement or nuclear energy or radiation safety or misinformation you've absorbed from unreliable sources.
The information you've inserted does not meet even rudimentary scholarship standards and goes directly against WP's principles. It obviously was inserted not to enhance readers' knowledge about the a-n movement but only to persuade readers to your opinions. That is precisely the reason the template at the top of the section was created.
If this sort of propaganda is allowed, then I can load the article with so much pro-nuclear information, all of it factual, you'll wonder why there ever was an anti-nuclear movement.
I don't think I'm going to take orders from someone who doesn't even have enough credibility to sign his comments with a handle.--Cde3 (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I have no intention of either expressing an opinion or attempting to persuade readers of an opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not a brochure. The intent is to be factual, and accurate. If someone is called the father of the subject of an article it is worth pursuing, to see what their role was, regardless of the subject of the article. The article appears to be both factual and accurate. I still think that your objection is that it isn't as you say only pro-nuclear information. By the way I don't think I would ever make up my mind on any subject from reading a wiki article. They are inherently too unreliable. I use them only as a starting point and rely on the underlying references for actual information. 199.125.109.127 (talk) 06:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong. It isn't factual. The "father of the a-n movement" claim was false and the NIRS redaction of BEIR VII was false. But the rule that covers this situation is that the sources have to be authentic and peer-reviewed, and NIRS definitely is neither.--Cde3 (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of notable anti-nuclear groups

We now have a list of anti-nuclear groups. If one of them changes their view of nuclear power, that is notable. Other environmental groups changing their view is not, and including them is just adding mashed potatoes to the article - all fluff and no substance. 199.125.109.45 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

FYI, I removed this statement:

Not all actions against nuclear power are taken by members of the anti-nuclear movement, some are done by provocateurs, some were undertaken by a state.[1][2]

Text: Government poses as protesters and attacks nuclear plant
Reference: Israel-based journalists reported that Israeli aircraft attacked a military institution. The U.S. later reported it to be a nuclear or missile facility.

There was something also about nonviolent action coming from MLK junior. Believe me, I looked. So far I can't even find something to authoritatively make this claim for the entire organization of Greenpeace. If you want to find a reference, be my guest [4].

Gee only 111,000 references to check. Well here is one, "This book reveals the roots of ecology and the influence on Greenpeace of legends such as Gandhi, Einstein, Rachel Carson, and Martin Luther King Jr." Greenpeace ISBN 1-59486-106-4 199.125.109.84 (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

More generally, don't put opinions in this article. I'm at a lack to find one thing in the history section beyond the events that I can clearly say is a FACT other than someone saying something. No body cares. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the sequence was Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK, and then non-violent direct action against nuclear power. One reference is a pictorial history of active non-violence in the U.S. including women's suffrage, labor movement, disarmament, civil rights, farm workers, and the peace movement. The non-violence code is:
  1. Our attitude will be one of openness, friendliness, and respect towards all people we encounter.
  2. We will use no violence, verbal or physical, toward any person.
  3. We will not damage any property.
  4. We will not bring or use any drugs or alcohol other than for medical purposes.
  5. We will not run.
  6. We will carry no weapons.

pg. 6 Diablo Canyon Blockade/Encampment Handbook

Other actions used very similar guidelines, and there is a lengthy explanation of the guidelines of the non-violence code. Someone deleted the reference to the movie about Seabrook, but it is a pretty interesting documentary of the anti-nuclear movement.[5] 199.125.109.84 (talk) 06:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Posters

If anyone is interested, there are a few representative posters from around the world at this site.[6] 199.125.109.84 (talk) 07:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wind power blows nuclear industry into the wilderness

Here is a reference to a Government White Paper in the UK which states that the country no longer requires nuclear power. "Its current economics make it an unattractive option for new, carbon-free generating capacity and there are also important issues of nuclear waste to be resolved." As FoE put it, "Goodbye nuclear, hello wind."[7] 199.125.109.84 (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely irrelevant to the article. At the risk of an unneeded tangent, no clear basis to claim this comes from the UK government is presented. Do a google search for "united kingdom nuclear power" and tell me what the first batch of results indicate. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 22:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to do your own research, thank you. This article is not about the UK and nuclear power, it is about the anti-nuclear movement. FoE is a part of the anti-nuclear movement. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not anti-nuclear

Neither the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, nor Friends of the Earth are "anti-nuclear groups". They are all environmental groups who have taken a strong anti-nuclear position. The purpose of the Sierra club is to "explore, enjoy, and protect the planet". The purpose of Greenpeace is to "protect the environment". Friends of the Earth "defends the environment and champions a healthy and just world." Of the three, and any group with a million members is inherently "mainstream" by the way, only Greenpeace has a specific policy of using non-violent direct action. Greenpeace does not restrict itself to anti-nuclear actions, although their first action was anti-nuclear. If you can find a way to describe them other than "mainstream environmental" feel free. So far the attempts have been simply to come up with pretty odd derogatory language. There are other environmental groups that to my knowledge have not taken a position on nuclear technology, who can also be called "mainstream", such as the Audobon Society, National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, and the Wilderness Society. The point is that no mainstream environmental group has changed their view towards nuclear technology because of global warming. Some have had a view, others have not, but none have changed their view. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

A group in the "Anti-nuclear movement" is a group with a policy position against the utilization of nuclear technology. Sierra Club, Greenpeace, nor Friends of the Earth are therefore "anti-nuclear groups".

We may further sub-divide the "Anti-nuclear movement" into groups which oppose the deployment of nuclear weapons, groups that deplore usage of nuclear power, etc... However membership in any of these sub-categories still entails membership in the "Anti-nuclear movement".

It should be made explicity what the specific policy of each of these groups are towards nuclear technology rather than drawing a boolean dichotomy between "Anti-Nuclear movement" groups and non-"Anti-Nuclear movement" groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agalmic (talk • contribs) 04:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The primary purpose is not anti-nuclear. They are an important part of the anti-nuclear movement, but they are not anti-nuclear organizations in the same sense as the Clamshell Alliance or the Abalone Alliance, whose only purpose was anti-nuclear. Since nuclear power is seen to represent a threat to the environment many environmental groups have taken a stand against nuclear power. Others, like the Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society, have not to my knowledge taken any position on nuclear power. You know it's funny I keep hearing about solar power taking up more room than nuclear and nuclear requiring less fuel than coal, but I suspect that if you add in the area from the uranium mine, processing plant and waste storage, the total land area for solar would be comparable or less, and I also hear that one kg of silicon puts out more energy than 500,000 kg of coal - so once again that sounds comparable or better than uranium. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The rule here is to discuss the article, not the movement and not nuclear energy. Your erroneous argument here against nuclear energy isn't based on anything but your anti-nuclear feeling. If you persist we're likely to have another verbal slugfest like the ones that have happened here before.--Cde3 (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Germany's largest demonstration

This demonstration had 100,000 peaceful, non-violent protesters and a few hundred violent protesters. To characterize it as violent ignores the facts. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 04:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The demonstration is not being "characterized as violent." It is being used as an example of instances where violence took place. There is no question about the fact that there was violence at that demonstration. The section of the article which is being discussed is a list of different sorts of tactics, with examples. Your continual insertions of the claim that the demonstration was non-violent are irrelevant to the section, and they are becoming disruptive -- if you wanted to claim that there was no violence at that demonstration, there would be reason to remove it as an example, but the sources say otherwise. --Marvin Diode (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The only place the demonstration is mentioned is under the section "violence", and yes it was partly violent, but it was predominantly non-violent, and that needs to be pointed out. Otherwise it is totally misrepresented. Notice the German version of the article, which only states that 100,000 protesters faced 10,000 police, with no mention of violence. That is a more fair way to present the demonstration. The way it is presented it makes it sound like everyone there was violent, which just isn't so. You are smart, you can figure out how to accurately report the demonstration. CDE on the other hand is a single purpose account with the sole purpose of trashing the article and the movement. That is not what an encyclopedia is for, which is to accurately provide information. I don't know if any of you have ever been to a demonstration, but there are always hotheads and often provocateurs (someone who is paid to provoke violence). Today we enlist a large number of peacekeepers to prevent violence. It is possible that the Germans had not learned that lesson in 1981. In any case it is ludicrous to report the demonstration in this ridiculous manner. What I am insisting on is that the demonstration be accurately portrayed. 199.125.109.47 (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The segment in question is about various types of tactics, and the only relevant question is whether violence was employed at that demonstration. Reliable sources say that there was, and therefore it is a suitable example of the use of violent tactics. This segment is not an appropriate place to describe or analyze that particular demonstration more generally. However, I have added a link to Anti-nuclear movement in Germany, and the material you wish to include might be appropriate in that article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The use of violence was not "a tactic" it was a result of inadequate use of peacekeepers. It is still a total misrepresentation of what actually happened. 199.125.109.127 (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
You are missing the point. Please re-read the section in question. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)