Talk:Coalition for Peace through Security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This is a controversial political topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them.
(This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

After the last reversion I have put the 'controversial' on the talk page. Obviously someone feels very strongly about the interpretation of article which I consider at the moment to be biased as the last reversion removed the (referenced) material regarding criticism of this organisation. Sjeraj 15:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well done for treating the annon users edits in good faith. Many editors just Rv and dismiss annon controbutions, but its good to start with the assumption that all editors are trying to improve articles. That said looking at the evidence of the annon users edits they do not seem to be constructive at all. When editors introduce such obvious POV as "Soviet-controlled propaganda bodies" and delete alternative views then I would think that it is okay to Rv their edits as vandalism.
If you feel that the editor does have some contructive stuff to add then the first step is to try to get them to discuss their edits on this talk page. Prehaps add "See talk page" to your edit summery and list the resons you belive that their edits are detrimental here inviting them to respond. If they will not respond you could then try to get them to respond on their talk page. For more information see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.--JK the unwise 08:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The anon. user from Demon appears to have reverted the article yet again. So in response I'm going to set out why each one of their alterations is wrong, setting aside the obvious POV aspects.

  • the phrase "supporting instead the replacement of Polaris by Trident and the deployment of NATO cruise missiles in response to the Soviet SS20s." is ambiguous as to whether they supported stationing missiles in general or specifically in reponse to the stationing of SS-20s in eastern Europe from 1977.
  • adding the word 'many' in the first sentence of the paragraph adds absolutely nothing and in such situations I would tend towards using Ockham's Razor.
  • the phase, "polls showing heavy majorities in favour of Britain continuing to possess nuclear weapons as long as the Soviet Union did so" is gramatically deficient as it implies that the commissioning of such polls was biased. It also neglects contrary polling evidence from the period which showed that people did not want to possess nuclear weapons.
  • without examples of counter-demonstrations, I would tend to leave this out. Stunts certainly occurred and evidence exists in the press for that.
  • the phrase "the publishing of numerous pro-deterrence letters in the media" seems rather excessive as a description of activities. One would automatically assume that these letters were in favour of nuclear weapon possession due to the nature of the organisation. It seems rather patronizing.
  • the same applies to the phrase "pro-NATO" when this has already been stated at the beginning of the article.
  • the part "the exposure of the left-wing affiliations of leading CND figures – including some with Soviet-controlled propaganda bodies, such as the World Peace Council, the World Federation of Scientific Workers and the Soviet Peace Committee." Doesn't even make sense gramatically. Aside from POV accusations, one does not need to be told that the Soviet Peace Committee was Soviet-controlled! The charge of left-wing affiliations was certainly made at the time but without citing examples and evidene it is speculative.
  • The removal of the paragraph about contemporary criticism is definately POV and is inexcusable.
  • The phrase, "as proposed by President Reagan originally in 1981" adds nothing to this article as it refers to the INF treaty not the CPS itself.
  • The phrase, "became MP for New Forest East and Shadow Defence Minister responsible for nuclear deterrence issues" is unnecessary biographical information.

I'm sure that they won't bother to read this before they change it again but c'est la vie. Sjeraj 11:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)