Talk:Collective security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is this really neccessary? "This in fact relates to one of the weaknesses of democracy; that it tends to lead to decisions being made depending on their popularity, rather than their correctness."

I've placed an NPOV notice on the article as it's written in an opinionated manner. The following statements, for instance, are statements of opinion:

"It can be described by a saying like "You watch my back and I'll watch yours," but without there being any witnesses to whether one really watches the other's back. In theory this idea works very well, but tends to fall short in terms of practical application."

and

"However, despite its faults it remains a useful tool for keeping international peace."

I don't necessarily disagree with the opinions expressed, but they are opinions nevertheless. The article should be rewritten in a neutral manner. The same ideas can be expressed by finding actual quotations or published criticisms of collective security (not difficult to do, look in any textbook on IR) and citing them.AndyL 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the former. Both were merged into my article from the duplicate page which was written at "Collective Security". The latter can easily be fixed by adding "many politicians believe", or similar. I'd favour the removal and rewriting of the former however. Grunners 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] NATO

It there should be a little added about modern NATO. I mean, NATO has millions of U.S. troops in Europe as part of a mutual defense and comparatively little done by other NATO members to reciprocate. I think Europe dependence (not that they don't all have a military of their own) on the U.S. counts as a form as modern 'collective security'. Contralya 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

NATO is usually referred to as a system of 'Collective Defence' which is something different. but you're right, it should be cleared up here. --Ondra2 (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article should cross-reference Treaty of London

Refer to Treaty of London (1518). This treaty has the essential elements of collective security and should be considered a historical precedent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.133.160 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

I still don't get what collective security is. The article talks about the prerequisites, notable backers, modern day analogies, etc., but it doesn't explain what it is. What exactly is collective security besides "a compromise between the concept of world government and a nation-state based balance of power system" Redguard117 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Redguard117


[edit] Bahá'í Faith

is this reference relevant? it may be useful in the future once this article makes more sense as a historical source of CS theory, but right now I would remove it.. (maybe archive it in the talk page?) --Ondra2 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)