Talk:Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

General Secretary lineage inquiry.

Who succeeded Gary Lefley as the general secretary for the CND? --Folajimi 04:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

UK employment law states that Lefley cannot be made redundant (as he was, technically) if his post remained in existence. There have been no General Secretaries since his departure. --Handelaar 01:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Why not? Have they just decided that they can do without a general secretary? --Richardrj talk email 07:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Yup. --Handelaar 20:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Critisism of CND

Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anti-war#Anti-Anti-War

I think you [the WikiProject Anti-war] should make an effort to list the anti-anti-war point of view. i.e. the case for deterrance, the funding of the CND etc by the Soviets, the fact that many people think that CND prolonged the cold war by making the old USSR think that there was a chance that the West would stop opposing them militarialy etc. MG 17/11/2005 12:05 (BST)

This project seeks to be neither pro or anti anti-war, rather it seeks to help bring an accurate NPOV picture the anti-war movements to wikipedia. In orrder to do that critisisms of anti-war arguments and organisations should of course be added. If you feel that the project is currently leaning to far towards a positive potrayal of certian groups then feel free to join and help us achive a neutral balance. One thing to remember is that wikipedia is not a place for orriginal reaserch so critisms should generally come from referanced sourses.--JK the unwise 15:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and good luck. I wish I had the time and knowledge to assist. MG 17/11/05 16:45 BST

CND actually won a legal case against the Youth Wing of the Conservative Party for claiming that it was funded by the Soviet Union (see Bruce Kent's Autobiography), similar accusations were made by people within the Conservative Party at the time (and some still) as well as the Coalition for Peace through security. As far as I'm aware allegations of CND being funded by the Soviet Union were never substantiated, it certainly had communist members but they only made up around 4% of the membership acccording to studies. Who claimed that CND prolongued the Cold War, it seems rather odd as there were parallel movements in Germany and Holland in particular. I'll do some more work on it. Sjeraj 09:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this would be good stuff to add to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament page. I would suggest under the section heading critisms something along the line of; "CND have been critised for alegingly reciving financial support from the soviet union during the Cold war. However, these allegations have never been substantiated. CND won a legal case against the Youth Wing of the Conservative Party in ???? for claiming that it was funded by the Soviet Union". I will copy this discussion to the CND talk page.--JK the unwise 18:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I think accusations and criticisms should be considered separately. Whilst one can criticise unilateral nuclear disarmament as a policy and the tactics employed by CND, reasoned criticism cannot be ascribed the same importance as defamatory allegations which are historical more than anything else. I think that CND should be expanded so as to include a greater explanation of its current structures and a more comprehensive history (including accusations). Sjeraj 11:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, CND won a case for defamation against the Federation of Conservative Students who had claimed in a leaflet that one of CND's elected officers, Dan Smith was a communist. The Federation of Conservative Students settled on the second day of the trial - they paid CND's legal costs, damages and apologised. See Kent, Bruce - Undiscovered Ends, pp. 185-6.

As regards funding from the Soviet Union, Bruce Kent publicly offered a prize of £100 to anyone who could provide evidence that CND was funded by the Soviet Union - this was never claimed. See Kent, Bruce - Op. Cited, p.180. Sjeraj 12:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether they were funded by the Soviet Union or not, there is certainly a case to be made that CND is in bed with the far left. I'm no fan of nuclear weapons, but I certainly see CND as a socialist organisation and could never support it on those grounds.Mickalos 01:16, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

These people are plainly out to lunch. They have criticized possible placement of a ballistic missile defense system in the UK warning that "the system could enable the US to attack other countries without fear of retaliation." This completely ignores the lessons learned from the Cold War, and is little more than a thin veneer for anti-Americanism and anti-Westernism. North Korea and Iran with nuclear weapons to devastate the West, I suppose that's ok with the CND, as long as the West is unable to defend its citizens from megadeaths and obliterated cities. If they were truly anti-war, they'd support systems to protect us from attacks. Instead, they're anti-war if it's for pro-Western aims, but will stand aside and let terror States have free rein over everyone else. - MSTCrow 22:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

CND Deaths

How about the mention of people who have died during CND publicity stunts eg. the guy who tried to stop a trident submarine and got pulled underwater.

Find a reference for it in the news and try and work it in maybe...?Sjeraj 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

well its true ive got family working on the base.sorry miss read what you wrote. im not a good writer so i was hoping to just provide information and positive critisism.

I've searched around the internet a bit and cannot find a reference to a death of a protestor at Faslane. Is it possible that the incident happened in the mid 90s after the launch of the first Trident Sub in 1994 (which would explain it not being on the internet)? Sjeraj 07:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

well from what i know, they went out on a boat to stop the sub and well subs dont stop for a reason and one of them got pulled under the boat most probably the subs wake affected their smaller boat.

Duncan Blinkhorn jumped into the dock during the naming ceremony for HMS Vanguard, to much press coverage (they made a big deal about Princess Diana being mere hundreds of feet away from a protestor). Duncan made it out again just fine, though if memory serves he was nicked. I suspect our anonymous questioner may have heard this third-hand? Handelaar 02:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


First Wave

I've added to the section on the First Wave and when I have time I'd like to add more. I have copies of "The Disarmers" by Christopher Driver (1964) which has a lot of detail on this period, and "The CND Story" edited by John Minnion and Philip Bolsover (1983). However, I don't think the First Wave should over-balance the Second Wave, and I'd be glad if other editors would add to that, as I'm less familiar with it.

The linked article on Committee of 100 needs to be expanded - this movement has been almost forgotten and its huge influence on the single issue campaigns of the 'sixties - e.g. against homelessness, leading to the creation of Shelter (charity) - should be recalled. The Spies for Peace of 1963 should also be mentioned, and deserrve an article to themselves. There is material on the British Library website and, after the death of Nicolas Walter, his daughter Natasha Walter revealed that he was one of the Spies for Peace, whose identities had been kept secret for almost 40 years. Marshall46 10:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added more and I've also expanded the article on the Committee of 100. This section is now longer than the sections on the Second Wave and Current CND and is therefore long enough. Please would other editors add to those sections? Marshall46 10:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Specialist Sections info removed

RE: - "During this period (1980's) CND established a number of "Specialist Sections" to add to Christian CND and Labour CND (est. 1979), including: Ex-services CND, Green CND, Liberal CND, Student CND, Trade Union CND, and Youth CND".

This is completely wrong. All these existed in the sixties. See any issue of the CND paper 'Sanity'.

I was YCND Chairman (for a short time) in the mid sixties (exact date forgotten), Chairman of Highgate YCND, Secretary of Hammersmith CND, Chairman of Hammersmith College CCND and worked full time w/Peggy Duff and Mike Kennedy (L.R.O) at 2 Carthusian Street (and contributed to Sanity), so should know what existed and what did not. I was also involved with every single major demonstration (inc. Aldermastons) from 1962 to 1967 (plus VSC, PPU and Peace News events).

REF.

Papers of the Youth Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (YCND), 1961-1970 and 1985-1989, including minutes of the Executive Committee.

http://library-2.lse.ac.uk/archives/handlists/CND/CND.html

YCND had it's own conference and leadership throughout the '60s. Aimulti (talk) 03:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Added note to membership figures.

In order to avoid the impression that CND became a force only after 1970, and put later figures in perspective, I added a note with a realistic estimate of CND support post 1962.

Aimulti (talk) 00:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Section on opposition to CND

I have moved this to the end of the article because it is not part of the narrative about CND but rather a footnote to the narrative. Marshall46 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Walter Laqueur is cited as saying that the propaganda campaign against CND seemed to have an effect, but what Martin Caedel actually says in the chapter on "Britain's Nuclear Disarmers" (p.233) is, "The effect of such anti-CND propaganda is hard to assess," in Laqueur, W., European Peace Movements and the Future of the Western Alliance. I have made appropriate changes. Marshall46 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Links with stasi

Commons Hansard Debates 21 Oct 1999 1.14 pm

Quoting from Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald)

"Although we also welcome the reference to an inquiry into the activities of the security services, will the Home Secretary now acknowledge that there was one activity that it got absolutely right--the decision to put the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament under surveillance? Among the revelations there are established links between CND and Stasi. In that context, given the links between CND and members of the Government, will he reassure the House that no currently serving Minister had any contact with any of the persons named in the Mitrokhin archive?"

Mitrokhin Archive

I think there should be something about this in the article, I read it here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/uk/docs/991021.htm

According to wikipedia article on FAS they are "Endorsed by 68 Nobel Laureates[2] in chemistry, economics, medicine", so I assume would be considered a fair source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrstooge (talkcontribs) 20:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Anne Widdicombe was referring to one man, Vic Allen. In that debate, Jack Straw said, "As for Mr. Vic Allen, I am astonished that people are now getting excited about him. I happened to be at Leeds university at the same time as Mr. Vic Allen, who was, I believe, a lecturer. It was obvious beyond a peradventure that he was an apologist for the East German regime and all its works, and we did not need the Stasi to tell us that 30 years later." The matter is therefore too trivial to mention in the article about CND.
It is surprising that this canard about CND and the communists remains alive after fifty years. In 2005, Paul Routledge claimed in a New Statesman article that Aneurin Bevan was was persuaded to abandon his unilateralist position by Nikita Khrushchev, who wanted a British nuclear deterrent as a counterweight to the American deterrent. When Bevan said in his famous speech renouncing unilateralism that Britain cannot go naked into the conference chamber he may have been thinking not of the USSR but the USA.
The Communist Party of Great Britain actually opposed CND at first, though they came to support it later. Marshall46 (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I find this logic quite bizarre - it is "trivial" to mention that a leading campaigner for CND was a Stasi spy who passed information about the group's activities back to East Berlin (and to this date he makes no apologies for it), and that's all OK because his CND friends knew it at the time? Well if they knew it why wasn't he kicked out?
The article actually sets aside a special section to suggesting CND opponents were MI5 operatives, meanwhile it deletes any mention that a senior campaigner was an admitted Stasi spy. The current chair is a member of the Communist Party of Britain yet the article is completely dismissive of any links between CND and communists - apparently it is a 'canard'. This article is clearly not written with a neutral POV Pepik70 (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The issue is whether one thinks Vic Allen, who was no more than a hilarious sideshow at CND Council meetings when he spoke once in a blue moon as one of five reps from Greater London CND, qualifies as a 'leading campaigner'. Speaking as someone who might qualify as such I'm not enormously impressed by the idea that turning up to meetings from time to time counts. And I can give you a first-hand account that every time he spoke at CND Council in the late 1980s several people at the back of the room (I was one of them) started humming the Internationale in mocking accompaniment as he got going on some yawsome topic relating to the "Socialist Countries". Handelaar (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
The article says that in the early 1980s more than a dozen of CND's Council members were Communists. Vic Allen was one of these. He stood for the CND leadership in 1985 and was defeated. You can put that in if you think it is important. I think the NPOV way of stating that is as follows: "Some of CND's opponents tried to portray it as a Communist or Russian-dominated organisation. Communists were active within it and it was revealed in 1999 [citation] that a member of its Council, Vic Allen, spied on CND for the Stasi. Allen stood against Joan Ruddock for the leadership of CND in 1985 but was defeated. Responding to the revelations about Allen, Ruddock said, "He certainly had no influence on national CND, and as a pro-Soviet could never have succeeded to the chair. CND was as opposed to Soviet nuclear weapons as Western ones."[1] The MI5 claim comes from the CND website; they give no source and are obviously partial. You can take it out if you like.
Marshall46 (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
More on the claim that MI5 spied on CND activists. On their website, MI5 say:
" It has often been alleged that, in the past, we systematically investigated trade unions and various pressure groups, such as the National Union of Mineworkers and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. We have never investigated people simply because they were members or office-holders of trade unions or campaigning organisations. But subversive groups have in the past sought to infiltrate and manipulate such organisations as a way of exerting political influence. To meet our responsibility for protecting national security, we therefore investigated individual members of bona fide organisations when there were grounds to believe that their actions were "intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial or violent means". We investigated the activities of the subversive groups, but not the organisations they sought to penetrate." [1]
From this it is reasonable to conclude that MI5 did indeed spy on CND activists if they considered them also to be also members of subversive organizations. The claim about MI5 should stay, with this rider and the MI5 website as a reference.
By the way, the article never suggested that CND's opponents were MI5 operatives, only that MI5 spied on CND activists. I think that is now established. Marshall46 (talk) 13:19, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I've changed this section to make it more NPOV. I have put in the allegations about Vic Allen and Joan Ruddock's response to them. On second thoughts, I have taken out the passage about MI5 spying on CND. MI5 say they spied on individuals within CND who were active in subversive organisations; this is not "opposition to CND", but opposition to communist influence (inter alia) in CND. However, MI5 officer Cathy Massiter, who was responsible for surveillance of CND in the 1980s, considered she was being asked to spy on CND and not just on subversives within it; so the passage may deserve to be put back some time. For a detailed statement about MI5 surveillance of CND, see the speech by Dale Campbell-Savours, MP, to the House of Commons on 24 July 1986 Marshall46 (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
New section on state surveillance. Marshall46 (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed the caption because the logo illustrated is not Holtom's original 1958 design. Marshall46 (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I have removed a WP:BLP violation, sourced to a polemical 2004 opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph, which Vapour is attempting to edit-war into this article. It is an opinion piece, which is not subject to the same degree of editorial fact-checking as a straight news item. It is completely unreliable for the assertion made about Kate Hudson's opinion of the fall of the Berlin Wall. As WP:BLP says: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material". In addition, the material is unencyclopedic and not really relevant to the subject of this article.

I have no objection to mentioning Hudson's membership of the Communist Party, but it needs a better source than this one.

--NSH001 (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Please observe Wikipedia:Assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of belligerence, especially for one single act of revert. You are correct in pointing out that it is an editorial piece. The policy does not dictate that editorial content cannot be a source. Rather it dictate that, in such case, the content must have attribution. "Kate Hudson (or CND) is a traitor" may not be kosher, however "so and so (in Daily Telegraph) accused Kate Hudson for being a traitor" is. And I'm happy to make adjustment along this line. The Daily Telegraph is the highest selling British 'quality' paper. The paper is equally liable for libellous statement made in editorial. Furthermore, CND's link to communist party is an established controversy, which are well reported in British media. Vapour (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The proper place for this debate is the Kate Hudson article, not the CND article. I support the revert by User:NHS001. Marshall46 (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The said editorial is about CND. Vapour (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

CND symbol

The truth of the matter is the symbol was commissioned by the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation (but first used by the Committe of 100) and the original was purple and green. The official colors were changed to white on black shortly afterwards. Aimulti (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is more info' on the symbol at Peace symbol#The peace symbol.--JK the unwise (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Aimulti is wrong on all counts. The CND symbol - black and white - was evident on the March to Aldermaston in 1958. The Committee of 100 was formed in 1960 and adapted the symbol by adding "100" to it. The Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation was formed in 1963. Marshall46 (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems I was wrong about some details. I have now researched the topic in great detail and updated the entry. References include first hand accounts by Hugh Brock. Editor of Peace News. Aimulti (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This statement has been tagged for a year: "There is a common misconception that Bertrand Russell designed the logo,[citation needed] stemming from his being president of the organisation at the time." As it remains uncorroborated, I have deleted it. Marshall46 (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The symbol was way earlier used by the German 3. Panzer Division (1941-1945). See for instance http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/abzeichen/pz.htm
This should be mentioned in the text! The 4. Panzer Divison used an upside down version. Cheers, Enrico (29. July 2010) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.170.141 (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the edits about the symbol by 131.220.170.141
The statement that the symbol was used earlier by 3 Panzer Division of the Wermacht is interesting but:
  • Gerald Holtom's design for CND is not "alleged", as the editor stated, but well-referenced.
  • To say, as the editor did, that it is an "unconscious transformation" of a war symbol to a peace symbol is orginal research.
  • As the similarity of the peace symbol to the 3-Divsion Panzer symbol has never been pointed out in sixty year history of the peace symbol it needs better references than the website given.
  • The edits give undue weight to the supposed coincidence.
The article on 3rd Panzer Division (Germany) might be the place to say that their symbol was later used as a peace symbol. Marshall46 (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I've now looked at the 3rd Panzer Division article, and it is pretty clear to me that there is no reliable source for the symbol that was given there, so I've removed that too. There is something rather dodgy about this. Marshall46 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Something rather dodgy about the campaign for nuclear disarmament and a nazi panzer division? lmao. I had a quick google, whilst this is not an accurate source for articles it does have images of the symbols. [2] on the current page there is a list and on the next page there are the symbols. 3D looks a bit like it, i notice the uploader of that image uploaded others which certainly fit in with symbols from there. Although 4B/C and 12 look more in the style of the symbol, 3D seems much smaller. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
This one shows one of the other symbols for the 3rd panzer division (page 110) that was shown in the model book so that model book would seem accurate. Not found a proper source for the actual symbol yet though. [3] BritishWatcher (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we would want photos of the insignia on items that can be authoritatively identified as belonging to 3 Panzer Div. Drawings in a 2001 book about Panzer modeling are not good enough.
Even if we have that, it would only demonstrate co-incidence, not copying or connection. There is a limited number of motifs that can be constructed from lines and circles and it is inevitable that different designers working independently at different times with those modules will produce similar results. However, Holtom's responsibility for the design of the CND symbol is well-established and well-authenticated and there is no evidence of any connection with Nazi insignia. I suspect the connection has been faked or mistaken and that it has spread as an internet virus. Marshall46 (talk) 08:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Its certainly people just jumping to conclusions like they often do and does not seem notewothy for a mention in the article. This movement has enough problems without being linked to the Nazis too lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Good reasoning! Let's see if someone can find some photos of a tank with that symbol - you are right that this is would be a more reliable source. Cheers, Enrico —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.170.141 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I have traced rumours about the CND symbol/peace sign back to 1970. In that year the extreme right-wing John Birch Society, famed for its wacky conspiracy theories, published a piece saying the peace sign had communist, anti-Christian and Satanist associations. (David E. Gumaer, "Peace Symbols: The Truth About Those Strange Designs", American Opinion, June 1970.) In the same year, a national Republican newsletter and an English writer, Theodor Hartmann, noted a similarity to a symbol used by the Nazis in World War II, although none of the photos in Hartmann's book showed it. (See "What's in a Symbol", Time Magazine, 2 November 1970, Stephen Heller, The Magic of the Peace Symbol and Theodor Hartmann, Panzer Divisional Signs, 1970, Almark Publishing Co., London.) Aided by the internet, these rumours have circulated as memes, picking up all sorts of additions on the way and repeated as fact, but this is where they seem to come from. Marshall46 (talk) 12:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Taylor":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 00:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Support for CND

An editor removed the sourced statement that support for CND fell after the end of the Cold War and replaced it with an unsourced statement that 46% of respondents in an IPSOS/MORI poll opposed the replacement of Trident, arguing that the former statement was misleading. Opposition to Trident is not the same as support for CND. CND advocates far more than the removal of Trident. It stands for complete nuclear disarmament by Britain and the removal of US bases from British soil. Many people oppose Trident because it is too expensive, or outmoded or for other reasons, but do not oppose all nuclear arms or Britain's strategic alliance with the USA. The IPSOS/MORI poll needs a citation. Marshall46 (talk) 16:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ancient use of the symbol, must be included

Panzer 4 Division insignia.jpg

The following was recently removed, I understand you might want to reword it, but to remove well referenced source material outright is contrary to the methods by which wikipedia can be improved.

- Prior to its repurposing to represent the CND and the peace movement, the symbol had in fact ancient roots, including just prior to the CND's adoption of it, its use as the insignia of the 3rd Panzer Division http://www.teachpeace.com/peacesymbolhistory.htm

Feel free to discuss a rewording with me on my talk page, but fundamentally this refernce must be included. Boundarylayer (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is an exceptional claim and the source you give is not good enough. Best left alone, I think. The symbol you attach is not the CND sign. Marshall46 (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
It's not the only reference that states the same thing. See -
http://www.granddistraction.com/the-peace-symbol/
&
http://www.crossroad.to/Books/symbols1.html#peace
&
http://www.vikingrune.com/2009/07/norse-runic-third-reich-symbols/
Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel
& beside the 'IN' here on a Panzer 3 nazi tank model-
http://www.panzerworld.net/pictures/00166.jpg
I have also noticed, and find it curious, that you have been doing a lot of handwaving and down right censoring of this information, all the which has been documented on this talk page all the way back to 2010.
in the 'granddistraction.com link, this book is referenced-
Life Symbols: A Brief Study Into The Origins And Significance Of Certain Symbols Which Have Been Found In All Civilizations
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-symbols-elizabeth-e-goldsmith/1008964716?ean=9780548081136
Boundarylayer (talk) 02:37, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


Most of those would fit into the Wikipedia definition of sources not adequate for an exceptional claim:
  • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  • challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
  • reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
  • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
The picture is interesting, but a) it's primary source and b) it doesn't show the CND symbol.
Many of the websites carrying the claim have copied it from the Teach Peace website. If you Google their phrase, "This same symbol was used by Hitler's 3rd Panzer Division from 1941 to 1945", you get 248 results. Teach Peace believe the peace sign is part of a New World Order conspiracy to bring forth the Anti-Christ and much of their account is taken from Peace Symbols: The Truth About Those Strange Designs by the extremist John Birch Society, so I'm afraid it's a poor source for a controversial claim about CND.
What we'd want is one or more independent mainstream sources, e.g. by historians, preferably in print, saying that the CND sign was previously used by the Wehrmacht. Until then, it's just an internet meme. Marshall46 (talk) 10:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth E. Goldsmith, who's book- 'Life Symbols' is linked above, is a highly respected author, with a related book of hers discussed in the Cambridge Journal 'The Classical Review' - http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00027670 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3625104

She definitely fits the criteria of an 'independent mainstream historian'.

I honestly do not understand your aversion to including this material?

The symbol does have an ancient use, with many references to that fact, from Viking runes to represent death*, to Nazis to the present CND use. You may argue that the Viking runes are not the CND symbol due to the fact they lack the circle. Granted, that's spliting hairs, but I can partly understand that. However it does appear that the symbol, with the circle included, was also used by the Nazis.

  • see the Death rune here - Algiz and read the 'German Mysticism' section.

& again see here- Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel

See here - http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html

& for the circle included, see here- From the University of milwaukee. http://web.archive.org/web/19991104132643/http://www.csd.uwm.edu/~jpipes/heer4p.html & 4th Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) & http://www.feldgrau.com/PzDiv.php?ID=4 Presently this article makes no mention to the fact that the CND resembles that of the Death Rune of the Vikings, nor does it make any mention to the fact the CND symbol is exactly the same as the 4th Panzer Division. This is a very strange omission.

This is no conspiracy, just a mere coincidence. it's not an 'exceptional claim' at all Marshall. Boundarylayer (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are saying two contradictory things: (1) the similarity is coincidental and (2) CND used a Nazi symbol. (1) If it's coincidental, why mention it? It's also coincidental that the CND sign looks like the Mercedes sign, but you make no mention of that. (2) If you want to say CND used a Nazi symbol, which I think is what you do want to say, that is an exceptional claim not borne out by any mainstream account of CND. It is promoted by extreme right, fundamentalist Christian and occultist websites and the proper place for it is not here but in New World Order (conspiracy theory). You are also doing a lot of WP:SYN, citing sources and linking to pages that don't even mention CND - e.g. I have followed your link to the Elizabeth Goldsmith book and all I can find is the front cover. Unless you can come up with something new from a reliable source, I'm not going to say any more about this. Marshall46 (talk) 10:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the 4th Panzer Divisions logo from WWII 4th Panzer Division logoFrom the University of milwaukee. http://web.archive.org/web/19991104132643/http://www.csd.uwm.edu/~jpipes/heer4p.html & http://www.feldgrau.com/PzDiv.php?ID=4

The CND 'peace' symbol, notice the similiarity between it and the 4th Panzer Division logo is striking

Mercedes-Benz logo, looks nothing like the 'peace' CND symbol

As you can see Marshall, the 4th Panzer Divisions insignia is identical to the CND 'peace' symbol if it is turned upside down. The Mercedes symbol does not, as you suggested, resemble the CND symbol, As it lacks the complete vertical bar/line.

Marshall, you misunderstand, I'm not saying two contradictory things: (1) The similarity between the CND symbol and the 4th Panzer Division insignia is striking, that does not however suggest the CND intended to use a Nazi symbol - it is simply an unlucky coincidence for the CND. The striking resemblance however does deserve a mention in the article due to the fact, as you have mentioned, that the resemblance has constantly been used by extremists as ammunition against the CND, and secondly to communicate to readers that the symbol has an ancient history/it was not created by Gerald Holtom. (2) The CND did use a Nazi symbol, however unwittingly,and this fact is not, in any way, an exceptional claim.

(3) Elizabeth Goldsmith's book life symbols* discusses the origins of the symbol in a balanced way. She is not a fringe author as you suggested, as her other publications have been favorably reviewed by the Cambridge Press, (4) I never even hinted that within this cambridge reference to her other works that you would find reference to the CND, I simply supplied it to demonstrate that she is a reputable author on symbolism and not 'fringe' as you suggested.- http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00027670 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3625104

Elizabeth Goldsmith's - Life Symbols: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-symbols-elizabeth-e-goldsmith/1008964716?ean=9780548081136

Your opposition to this very elementary addition is bewildering.

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Reported here from reliable secondary sources. Pelarmian (talk) 08:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't follow Pelarmian, what is reported in that section does not even once mention the ancient and chequered use of the symbol prior to the CND repurposing it for themselves.
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Teach Peace

Presently the article suggests www.teachpeace.com is a right wing opinion website. This is misleading.

The CND symbol does resemble that of the 4th Panzer Division, this is no right wing attempt to discredit the CND, but a very real coincidence. The section needs a balanced re-write.

Sure right wing groups may have tried to trump up this coincidence to be something more than what it is, but that doesn't take away from the fact that the two symbols are strikingly similar.

This is the 4th Panzer Divisions logo from WWII 4th Panzer Division logoFrom the University of milwaukee. http://web.archive.org/web/19991104132643/http://www.csd.uwm.edu/~jpipes/heer4p.html & http://www.feldgrau.com/PzDiv.php?ID=4

The CND 'peace' symbol, notice the similiarity between it and the 4th Panzer Division logo is striking

Boundarylayer (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The edit Boundarylayer refers to quotes Time magazine's statement that a national Republican newsletter "noted an ominous similarity to a symbol used by the Nazis in World War II". Time is a perfectly good source and that is a good summary of the position. It is not entirely clear what Boundarylayer means by "repurposing" the peace sign, but he seems to be saying that CND took it from the Nazis. That goes beyond what can be found in any reliable source. Teach Peace is internet junk. I did not say it is a right wing opinion website, but it does take its ideas about the peace sign from a publication by the extreme right-wing John Birch Society. I have tried to compromise on this issue by citing reliable sources who report the existence of widespread claims about the peace sign, but Boundarylayer appears to be unwilling to accept a compromise and insists on repeating these claims as if they were true.
I have followed Boundarylayer's reference to the University of Milwaukee. His link leads to www.feldgrau.com, which was developed while its owner, Jason Pipes, was a researcher at the University of Milwaukee, but www.feldgrau.com has no connection with the university now. The image that accompanies Boundarylayer's reference does not even come from Jason Pipes's website and it has no connection whatsoever with the University of Milwaukee. It is, in fact, a Wikipedia file created and uploaded by me! I have looked at Jason Pipes's website and I can find no reference to the peace sign, so I fail to see its relevance to any discussion about the origins of the sign. Pelarmian (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a long running claim, I think it is our job as custodians of this encyclopaedia to set the record straight on this matter once and for all. As no doubt you will be, I was surprised to find out, that the claim actually appears to hold some salt, and is pretty true.
Before we get out of the stables, I'll start by saying that I don't think you're being all that genuine Pelarmian. The reason why is that you wrote: It is not entirely clear what Boundarylayer means by "repurposing" the peace sign, but he seems to be saying that CND took it from the Nazis. That goes beyond what can be found in any reliable source. Teach Peace is internet junk. I did not say it is a right wing opinion website.
From reading here it is pretty clear that Boundarylayer took considerable strides to try and clearly convey the reality of affairs, that is, it is a coincidence that the same symbol was also used by the nazis. Boundarylayer did not once even hint that they believe there is a conspiracy, nor did they even hint that the CND purposefully took it from the Nazis as you attempt to suggest.
I do however agree with you that Teachpeace is a pretty questionable source, although on many points on their peace symbol page, they surprisingly do appear to present some nuggets of truth. In conveying that though, the edit you made does infer that the site www.teachpeace.com is right wing. Anyone quickly exploring the website would find out, it is fundamentally christian yes, but definitively not right wing.
As Boundarylayer corroboratively linked above - http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html the peace sign can be seen as composed of a Tyr rune, lengthened upward, or by the rune turned upside down. In Germany and Austria it is often called the Todesrune, the rune of death, or an inverted life rune. This seemed new and peculiar to me, so I learned more about this Todesrune here- Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel
This is the 3rd panzer Division's logo. It is identical to the modern peace symbol
Scroll down to the 3rd Panzer Division: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Insignia_of_the_Wehrmacht
For further evidence that the peace symbol has a very old and diverse history, including use by a Nazi Panzer Division see the following links and look at the: 3. Pz.Div. (1941-1945) here:
http://www.panzer-modell.de/referenz/abzeichen/pz.htm
& here http://www.germandressdaggers.com/Panzer%20Section%20Divisional%20markings%201%20to%203.htm
Both identical to the modern CND Peace Symbol.
Is this a coincidence? probably! As the Times article elucidated - A recent national Republican newsletter noted an ominous similarity to a symbol used by the Nazis in World War II; some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet. Any resemblance, however, is probably coincidental
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,909670,00.html#ixzz2A7lsT8mG
Should the fact that the symbol was indeed used as a nazi tank division's insignia be included in the article? Most certainly! I partially argue with the opinion of Boundarylayer on this matter, that is, it is a bizarre coincidence but worthy of addition.


To clear matters up, the fourth Panzer Divisions insignia is what has been mostly discussed above by others, is what you may indeed describe as an inverted 'peace symbol'.
Here is the symbol on the side of two 4th Division tanks - http://en.valka.cz/files/pz._iv_147.jpg
& Here is a clearer picture on a seperate tank - http://forum.axishistory.com/files/pziii_140.jpg
This is also corroborated by The University of Milwaukee which can be accessed on archive.org- /http://www.csd.uwm.edu/~jpipes/heer4p.html
As this author notes, the reason why what we now call the 'peace symbol' was also used inverted by the 4th Panzer Division is because it fed into the peculiar Nazi ideology of mysticism surrounding and attached to nordic symbols, namely the Algiz.
http://shootingparrots.co.uk/2012/09/05/h-is-for-gerald-herbert-holtom
So it is clear that the old Republican newsletter was correct(regardless of their politics), as too were the symbolism experts referenced in the Times magazine article.
This material deserves inclusion.
HafniumDrive (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
It's already been included: "A national Republican newsletter was reported to have 'noted an ominous similarity to a symbol used by the Nazis in World War II'." Pelarmian (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes but the article presently leads one to falsely believe that there is no connection, and that those who suggest that the peace symbol was once used by the nazis are all cast as right wing conspiracy nuts, when clearly the symbol does indeed have a history of being used by the Nazis. That is plain to see.
So even though conspiracy nuts latch onto the connection between the Nazis & CND, there is a grain of truth in what they have to say, so in this instance, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
If you look at this symbols website you will notice they spend considerable ink discussing the ancient use of the symbol- http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html
That has been my point all along, that the fact the symbol had once been used by the nazis should be included, and naturally, that Gerald Holtom did not independently invent the symbol, more a re-inventing of the symbol.
Do you not agree?
Should we request outside help on this matter?
Boundarylayer (talk) 05:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
This has been going on for a long time. Can we try and settle it?
Wikipedia's policy is for articles to represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." In the context of this claim about the CND symbol, we have to consider (1) how prominent the claim is and (2) what sources to use.
(1) PROMINENCE. In a history of CND, it's not important and it shouldn't take up much space. It's associated with opposition to the peace movement and it's contested. That means it's controversial. Controversial claims require exceptional sources.
(2) SOURCES. You link to 17 websites, but 13 don’t even mention the peace sign, so we can't use them. Your putting them together like this is original research and synthesis, which Wikipedia doesn't allow. The sites that compare the CND symbol to a Nazi sign aren't reliable or good enough for a controversial claim. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources and you will understand why. Time magazine is, by contrast, reliable, neutral and well-respected and I've included a quotation from it. You object to it because it doesn't endorse your point of view, but I'm afraid that's how Wikipedia works: it reports controversies but doesn't come down on one side or the other. It's not about the truth.
As you suggest, I am submitting this dispute for WP:3O. Pelarmian (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian and saw this dispute listed at the 3O Project. The fact that the claim that the symbol was once used by the Nazis has been used to attempt to discredit the organization is relevant and proper for the article. (Though the following assertion that "These ideas have recently become widespread on right-wing, fundamentalist Christian and occultist websites" is not properly sourced: an example is not a reliable source for that assertion.) However, the fact that the symbol may in fact have been used by the Nazis (or may not, I've not looked into and have no opinion about whether it was or was not used by the Nazis) is irrelevant to this article unless a reliable source can be found to indicate that the Nazis' use of it had something to do, in a significant kind of way, with its use by this organization. There is no point in reporting that coincidence in this article and, indeed some potential harm to be done by implying a connection when none, other than coincidence, has been demonstrated. Reporting coincidences which are otherwise insignificant other than as being a coincidence is inappropriate for Wikipedia. (I would strongly suspect that if one looks hard enough one can find that both this organization and any number of other organizations did the same thing coincidentally: used the same type font in their publications, issued publications written in English, had offices or agents in the same city, had red-haired persons associated with them, and so on. Why are any of those coincidences less worthy of inclusion in this article than this one? For example, the CND chose to have its first public meeting at Methodist Central Hall Westminster; and that same hall had been previously used by General Charles de Gaulle to rally the Free French Forces in the 1940's. Why shouldn't that coincidence between the CND and the Free French be mentioned in the article?) Finally, I wholly disagree with the assertion made above that "the article presently leads one to falsely believe that there is no connection." The article is, as it should be, neutral on the issue of whether or not the Nazis used the symbol. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the times article, however I would not cherry pick what it says, I would include the whole article. So extending what you wrote from - The fact that the claim that the symbol was once used by the Nazis has been used to attempt to discredit the organization is relevant and proper for the article* - to including that it is also relevant to the article that the fact experts in symbolism have also noted that the symbol had previously been used by the Norse, & by extension, used by the Nazis.
In the Times article in question it states ' some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet. ' However this factual statement, by experts, is presently in no way reflected in this wikipedia article. Instead the wikipedia article at present tries to paint anyone who points out the obvious fact that the CND symbol and the 3rd panzer Division's insignia are identical as all 'Right wing' and by extension, every expert in symbolism, as instant right wingers/Christians/occultists. That is clearly false, and pretty malicious to say the least.
This is the 3rd panzer Division's logo. It is a Todesrune encircled
Again, here on an encyclopedia which deals with symbols, it again reiterates that the circled Todesrune/CND symbol is ancient, well outdating the CND.
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html
Where I'm coming from, is the viewpoint that accurately presenting the historical usage of symbols is what must be done. Take for example a wikipedia article on a symbol that has been done right, the Swastika page. You will see that the page accurately lays out the entire history of this ancient and controversial symbol, with the first appearance of it thousands of years ago etc.
Moreover on the Swastika page you will not find any mention or even suggestion that the organization most western people associate with the symbol the Nazi's, or Hitler, invented the symbol. However when it comes to the CND here on wikipedia it is falsely stated many times that Gerald Holtom solely invented the symbol. Zero mention is given to the fact that the symbol had previously been used by the Norse and the Nazis. So imagine for a second that an organization happens to pop up now and adopts a logo identical to that of any one of the symbols used by the Nazis, and the organizations story is that they invented the symbol themselves(which may indeed be true). Are you honestly saying that not a single mention should be given to the fact that the symbol had already been used by the Nazis, even though experts in symbolism pointed out the striking similarity?
By the way,* to reply to the point of view that TransporterMan was making, it does not, in any reference, state that the John Birch society noted the similarity between the 3rd Pz Div & the CND logo in an attempt to discredit the organization. On the contrary, all it states in the times article is that the extreme society noted an ' ominous similarity '. Nothing more. I haven't read the original John Birch publication but the times article only states that they observed an ' ominous similarity '.
If one follows the reference Pelarmian supplied that alledgedly backs up the wild claim- that the John Birch society wrote about the similarity in an attempt to discredit the organization/CND- it links to http://www.peacesymbol.com/photos.php where the author writes that ' 'The Christian Century, a magazine that examined issues of politics and culture wrote, "The bumper sticker which labels the peace sign as the 'Footprint of the American Chicken' – is a sticker which has been distributed by the John Birch Society in an attempt to discredit the peace movement."
So are the references to second hand accounts presented by Pelarmian which ultimately come from the opinions of a Christian magazine deemed as good sources on wikipedia? because I certainly hope not! Even if they were, the magazine discusses the unrelated similarity between the CND logo and the footprint of the american chicken, and not the similiarity between the 3rd panzer division logo and the CND, which is being debated here. So apart from Pelarmians reference ultimately being the unreliable opinion of a christian magazine, it doesn't even discuss the Nazis, or show the insignia of the 3rd panzer division in the magazine.
So our Third Opinion Wikipedian is unfortunately wrong when he stated that the following statement is true- The fact that the claim that the symbol was once used by the Nazis has been used to attempt to discredit the organization. As I haven't read from any reliable sources that this is a fact. If you find a reliable source, I'd love to see it, it certainly isn't outside the realm of possibilty.
Boundarylayer (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Following TransporterMan's advice, I will remove the words, "These ideas have recently become widespread on right-wing, fundamentalist Christian and occultist websites". Pelarmian (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Pelarmian, great, your edit is now more encyclopedic but still not perfect as it references to http://www.peacesymbol.com/photos.php where the author writes that ' 'The Christian Century, a magazine, Christian magazines are hardly considered as reliable sources here. Furthermore, it still lacks the times article statement that- Experts in symbolism have noted that the CND logo is identical to that of the Norse Todesrune. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boundarylayer (talkcontribs) 14:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Christian Century is a well-established, mainstream newpaper. It's a bit rich your questioning its reliability when you have been depending so much on the whack-job Teach Peace website. You tendentiously misquote Time Magazine: it did not say that "experts in symbolism have noted that the CND logo is identical to that of the Norse Todesrune", it said "some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet. Any resemblance, however, is probably coincidental. The peace design was devised in Britain for the first Ban-the-Bomb Aldermaston march in 1958. The lines inside the circle stand for 'nuclear disarmament.'" It seems you read only what you want to read. And it's Time Magazine, not The Times - you can't even get the name of the journal right.
As to your absurd insistence that those who make these comparisons are not trying to discredit the the peace movement, that statement comes directly from the Des Moines Register article cited, "They See Peace Symbol as Sinister": "Those who disliked the peace marchers sought to find discreditable meanings for it." The Des Moines Register found that most of these hostile claims originated in American Opinion, the magazine of the John Birch Society. American Opinion was identified as a source by several articles on the topic in US newspapers between 1970 and 1971 (e.g. Connecticut Morning Record, 22 Oct 1970, p.29, Time Magazine, November 1970, Pittsburgh Press, 28 February 1971, p. 117). The American Opinion article in question pointed out the similarity between the peace sign and a Nazi badge (Peace Symbols: The Truth About Those Strange Designs, p.7). So there is plenty of documentary evidence that (1) these comparisons are hostile (2) they include comparisons between the peace sign and Nazi insignia, and (3) the extreme right-wing John Birch Society is an oft repeated source. Pelarmian (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

So where in your complex mentality of victimhood for the CND do you place this reference then? http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html The peace sign can be seen as composed of a Tyr rune, lengthened upward, or by the rune turned upside down. In Germany and Austria it is often called the Todesrune, the rune of death, or an inverted life rune.

Do you also see this as a hostile comparison Pelarmian, or is it in fact just further evidence that the reality of affairs is that experts in symbolism have been noting the similarity in the symbols for a long time?

In the Times article in question it states ' some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet. ' However this factual statement, by experts, is presently in no way reflected in this wikipedia article. Instead the wikipedia article at present tries to paint anyone who points out the obvious fact that the CND symbol and the 3rd panzer Division's insignia are identical as all 'Right wing' and intending to 'discredit the CND' and by extension, every expert in symbolism, must then be anti-CND. That is clearly false, and pretty malicious to say the least. Boundarylayer (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The Algiz rune and the CND symbols shared common roots should be described to readers.

Carrying on from above and Pelarmians insistence that no mention to the connection between the CND symbol and the ancient rune it derives from should be permitted on this wikipedia article. Have a read of this, from the Horses mouth- Peggy Duff, general secretary of CND between 1958 and 1967, actually repeated the interpretation that I discussed ad nauseum above, in an interview with a US newspaper, saying that the inside of the symbol was a runic symbol for death of man and the circle the symbol for the unborn child."Symbol explained", The Eugene Register- Guard, 12 February 1971

Case closed.

Boundarylayer (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have taken this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard Pelarmian (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't understand your "case closed". Why does what you've said there mean you want to connect it to German WWII insignia? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is this aspect history of the symbol notable? The symbol itself is notable (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7292252.stm )and might have a section but in general the link to WWII trivia seems irrelevant. As well as faux history there have been lots of parodies of it by students (Y-fronts prevent fall-out etc) but none of this is of any notability to the article. Incidentally the history section kind of implies CND ended in 1989 whereas the rest of the article does not... --BozMo talk 13:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
As the consensus here and on the DRN that this edit is WP:SYN and irrelevant to CND, I am removing stuff about the link to WWII trivia. It can remain in Peace symbols. Pelarmian (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

William M. Connolley I do not wish to connect it with german WWII insignia. I wish only to include what the former head of the CND said, that the origin of the CND symbol is a runic symbol for the death of man. The Runic symbol for the death of man is of course the death rune/Todesrune/Algiz. Now you might argue that because the death rune/Todesrune page also discusses the use of the todesrune by the SS nazis then I am linking the CND to the Nazis, however it is not my fault that the CND adopted a symbol also used by the SS! As both the SS and the CND symbol have the same symbolic heritage in runes. That goes without saying. - Here from the Anti-defamation league http://www.adl.org/hate_symbols/groups_national_alliance.asp The "Life Rune" symbol was also used by the Nazis on the graves of SS soldiers signifying the soldier’s date of birth (while the "death rune," an upside-down "Life Rune," was used to signify date of death). Also see, runic insignia of the SS for the life and death runes/todesrune- Runic insignia of the Schutzstaffel

& here Peggy Duff, - the inside of the CND symbol was a runic symbol for death of man and the circle the symbol for the unborn child."Symbol explained", The Eugene Register- Guard, 12 February 1971

Runic symbol for the death of man=the death rune. That's obvious, and not at all synthesis.

BozMo The true origin of the CND symbol, not as semaphores for N&D, but as a rune gleaned from Rudoph Koch's book is notable. Similarly, Gerald Holtom the designer of the symbol itself likewise stated that the inside of the CND symbol also represented the death of man. As according to Foreign Policy in Focus http://www.fpif.org/articles/a_sign_of_the_times This explanation of the symbolism comes from Rudoph Koch's The Book of Signs, which is almost certainly where Holtom got his inspiration. Where Holtom got the symbol from is also important to the CND article. Boundarylayer (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to connect it with german WWII insignia - that's nice, but its not consistent with your edits. You added: Some experts in symbolism have noted that the symbol is similar to the Algiz Tudesrune, a Nordic symbol, that was encircled and used as the insignia of the 3rd panzer Division of WWII from 1941 until the end of the war. Please resolve this discrepancy William M. Connolley (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
That edit you quote me as saying was actually written solely by Pelarmian on the dispute page and is a complete mischaracterized of what I did actually write, wholly taken out of context, as I discuss at length in the dispute page. In sum, I never wrote that. I would also not mispell Todesrune as Tudesrune[sic] and that is actually the tell tale sign that Pelarmian wrote it, and not me.
I have endeavored not to misquote or mischaracterive Pelarmian, but yet it seems that he can falsely attribute a sentence to me, and other users instantly agree with him that I did in fact write that. This is pretty unfair.
To see what I actually wrote, see my last edit of the page, and notice that in context there is nothing wrong with what I wrote, as the newsletter that Pelarmian linked to was discussing the panzer division. Leaving a section to end with a sentence such as - 'someone noticed an ominous similarity, full stop. Is not a way to end a section. As there is no explanation in that. Check the edit history yourself to see my last edit, and check out the dispute page if you think I actually wrote what you said I did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament&diff=531168110&oldid=528007482
But for the sake of argument, Some experts have indeed noted that the CND symbol is similar to the Algiz Todesrune, a Nordic symbol. The times magazine reference also supports this reference- http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html
Boundarylayer (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
the former head of the CND said, that the origin of the CND symbol is a runic symbol for the death of man." Can you produce a direct quote by Peggy Duff? The 1971 article by Cynthia Anderson does not quote Duff, but merely asserts that she said something to the same effect. And yet, we know from multiple sources the peace emblem was designed by Gerald Holtom, and runic symbolism is not what he had in mind when he created it. [4] This explanation of the symbolism comes from Rudoph Koch's The Book of Signs, which is almost certainly where Holtom got his inspiration. Is that more guesswork?
The edit I quote from you was made by you [5]. If you now entirely disown that edit, then great. But its essentially the same thing as your last edit [6]. I really don't understand what you're trying to say. Your last edit is not consistent with I do not wish to connect it with german WWII insignia because it does indeed make the connection you're claiming not to make William M. Connolley (talk) 14:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This discussion has gone over the same ground many times and is no closer to resolution. At Boundarylayers' suggestion, I asked for a Third Opinion, then I took it to the DRN. The situation now is that five editors agree that the edit Boundarylayer proposes is inadequately reasoned, trivial, irrelevant or WP:SYN, but he continues to argue in the same terms.
Boundarylayer says he welcomes discussion and collaboration but he seems to want his edit included irrespective of what other editors think. I have tried to compromise by including a reference to the controversy but Boundarylayer would not accept it. I think it's now up to Boundarylayer to demonstrate his good faith by suggesting a form of words that would be acceptable both to himself and to other editors. Pelarmian (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


Pelarmian- I believe we can compromise, despite the fact you attempted to get me banned, I have been trying to assume good faith on you, and your friends parts, but you must bear in mind, that I would be displaying a level of gullible naivety to imagine your intents are completely impartial. Not least of which because you have, up to now, attempted to denigrate all the references I have provided. For example, what specific 'controversy' are you referring to? Surely not that the CND has its origins in the death rune? As it is pretty evident at this stage that it does. In the same breath as that though, you're absolutely right that there should not be any reference to the SS/Nazis in the article, that is, only if they are not hinted at.

All I wish is for: (1)Peggy Duff's quote, (2) foreign policies paraphrasing of Gerald Holtom's lecture, (3) Liungman's insight, and (4) perhaps the times magazines - experts in symbolism and nordic alphabet included in the article. In respect to Peggy Duff's - 'runic symbol for the death of man' - a link to the death rune would also be logical. I'm not arguing that these references should supersede those stating that the symbol has its origins solely in semaphore. On the contrary, these references should serve as supporting that Gerald Holtom had both in mind. We can internally link to, and therefore allow, readers to go to the death rune page to find out about its use by other nefarious groups if they so wish. Does that not sound acceptable?

I also think its important, if you are serious about wanting to have a section about organized opposition against the CND, to include your Des Moines Register article- "They See Peace Symbol as Sinister" (not the peacesymbol.com) reference that the John Birch Society began to ridicule the CND symbol as that of the Footprint of the American Chicken. As I did not know about this until you made me aware of it.

It also wouldn't go amiss to state that the similarity between the CND symbol and that of the SS todesrune has been used in a manner to discredit the CND, but that, although both symbols can be said to ultimately having their origins in the same Nordic death rune, that is where the connection between the two groups ends. The last thing we want is this fact being continually used by conspiracy nuts, and the archives of this page being filled with arguments over if the CND are Nazis OMG! because of their shared symbolic heritage. Citing some other groups that also use very similar symbols, but which are diametrically opposed in policies, might also help put that particually presistant argument to bed. I can think of a few organizations, but before getting into it, I thought I'd first bounce the idea off you to see what you think.

I do not however see how we could move on if you continue to attack the references, the integrity of journalists, and the expertise of the authors within the references. As my references are as much - irrelevant or WP:SYN as the references supporting the solely semaphore origins of the symbol- that you and your friends have been doggedly adhering to. Either both stories about the origins of the symbol are irrelevant synthesis, or neither are, as you can't have your cake and it eat it too. All along I have been being saying that both are credible, as both are well referenced origin stories. On the other hand, you seem to be arguing that only the semaphores origins is credible and in denial over the veracity of the death rune and Koch origin, which is, need I remind you on the peace symbol page.

To respond to William M. Connolley now, You asked if this is more guesswork? Anything but, it's a direct quote from what Foreign Policy In Focus noted - He Gerald Holtom explained to the meeting that it was the semaphore for the initials ND, Nuclear Disarmament, but that the broken cross could also mean the death of man, whereas the circle symbolized the unborn child. This explanation of the symbolism comes from Rudoph Koch's The Book of Signs, which is almost certainly where Holtom got his inspiration. Foreign Policy In Focus - http://www.fpif.org/articles/a_sign_of_the_times

Similarly Peggy Duff had the same explanation, but adding that the inner part of the symbol was of runic origin and represented the death of man. - http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ratVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EeEDAAAAIBAJ&dq=peace-symbol&pg=3767%2C2358294 "Symbol explained", The Eugene Register- Guard, 12 February 1971

You have attacked this reference, but I'm not sure what you are actually claiming. Have you a direct quote from either Peggy Duff or Gerald Holtom that they were misquoted in both of the above references? I don't think so, therefore the explanation and integrity of what both said stand, and so too does the references. It is also an explanation consistent with the semiotics 'experts' mentioned in the times magazine article and the symbols.com / Carl Liungman's entry for the CND symbol.

You then go on to claim to have the supernatural ability of knowing what the original designer of the symbol had in mind, by stating - we know...runic symbolism is not what he had in mind when he created it. How can you know what he had in mind? I think I'll believe what he said, he had in mind, and what Peggy Duff expanded upon. - http://www.fpif.org/articles/a_sign_of_the_times If anything you could say Gerald Holtom had both semaphores and the death rune in mind.

Secondly, that edit of mine you brought up is from last year. You removed my following far clearer edit, that I made much more recently, here it is - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament&diff=531168110&oldid=528007482

As I've said, it is not 'essentially the same' from my previous edit, as I only brought up the 3rd Panzer division because that is what the Republican newsletter Pelarmian referenced had noted. If you wish to paraphrase and discuss that newsletter in the CND page, I think it only consistent to actually explain what ominious symbol was under discussion. Otherwise you will have readers coming away with more questions than answers. Not to mention, that specific republican newsletter. is incredibly hard to find. You wouldn't beleive what I had to do to actually find it, to see what it had to say. For confirmation that I have compromised about bringing up the Nazis in the CND page, you should note that on the 3rd of January(well before the conflict dispute). I titled this talk page section as - The Algiz rune and the CND symbols shared common roots, should be described to readers. Note that I did not mention that the Nazis should be included!

Another point I'd like to make is that I'm still bewildered by why there is such a backlash from this, and a strong shunning of accepting that this is pertinent - nordic runic origin of the CND symbol should not be included in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament page, and also in the Peace Symbol page. Furthermore I do not see anyone but the usual suspects hand waving, claiming these references are - inadequately reasoned, trivial, irrelevant or WP:SYN.

I would also like to make the observation that it has occurred to me that you all appear to be Welsh(BozMo, Marshall/Pelarmian and William M. Connolley, which is statistically improbable considering the size of the Welsh population, that each one of you happens to be of that specific nationality. I also find it intersting that you have all collaborated before in opposition, and there too, you both demonstrated an adversion for the inclusion of strong references about the origins of something, at that time specifically from the FBI.gov, and finally, that you all appear to be friends. I'm not sure on the policies around here, but I would assume that it is standard practice not to enter into disputes in which your buddies are involved, for obvious reasons, of endeavoring to remain impartial and Objective. Or would I be wrong?

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"I'm still bewildered by why there is such a backlash from this". The answer is simple. Your sources do not say what you claim they do. Firstly, nowhere is Peggy Duff and Gerald Holtom quoted directly. You instead are quoting what Cynthia Anderson and Barry Miles wrote. On the other hand, we have direct quotes from Holtom saying solid sources that say the design is based on Flag semaphore, with other interpretations of the same work coming afterward, which is not the same thing. You are basically affirming observations made after Holtom sketched his initial design in order to say the Algiz rune and the CND symbol share common roots, when it must be obvious even to a passing banana that what we are dealing with is coincidence. — ThePowerofX 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Boundarylayer: You have made your views clear but you have not convinced anyone. Surely that ought to be enough to persuade you that they are controversial? Consensus is not going to be achieved by your repeating them at length. Please suggest a form of words that you think would be acceptable to others. Due weight suggests a maximum of about 100 words. Pelarmian (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
ThePowerofX What direct quote states that Gerald Holtom based the symbol off of semaphores? There is none. Surely you're not talking about the direct quote about Goya?- I drew myself: the representative of an individual in despair, with hands palm outstretched outwards and downwards in the manner of Goya's peasant before the firing squad - Written by Westcott http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7292252.stm
There is no DIRECT quotation about a semaphore explanation there at all. Neither is there on the article page.
The entire direct quotation that the BBC cut short was taken from this - In a 1973 letter to Hugh Brock (editor of Peace News in 1958, active in the Direct Action Committee), Holtom remembered: "I was in despair. Deep despair. I drew myself: the representative of an individual in despair, with hands palm outstretched outwards and downwards in the manner of Goya's peasant before the firing squad. I formalised the drawing into a line and put a circle round it. It was ridiculous at first and such a puny thing ...". The symbol also represented the semaphore signals for the letters N and D: Nuclear Disarmament.
Note that last sentence about semaphore is not direct quotation.
So contrary to the article at present, the only origin of the symbol is the Goya explanation for the symbol, and not the semaphore origin.
Moreover, if you want to play the 'direct quotation' game, find a source that directly quotes the original designer- Gerald Holtom giving the semaphores explanation. Good look with that! When you can't find it, by your own rational therefore, you would argue, all mention to the semaphores explanation should be removed? I think you'll be forced to change your tune once you can't find a direct quote. Nice try though!
As the peace symbol article displays the Goya's peasant has their hands up, and not outwards and downwards as Holtom described. So it's a pretty inconsistent story due to the the Goya peasant evidence.
Honestly, I have to laugh at the attempts at brow beating here, as it is really humorous considering the CND themselves have actually confirmed that the 'death of man' origins explanation is worthy of addition when explaining the symbol, yet bizarrely none of you seem to think what the CND themselves write, on their own website matters? that's shocking. -
Eric Austin added his own interpretation of the design: "the gesture of despair had long been associated with the death of Man and the circle with the unborn child."
In case you didn't notice, that is a direct quotation, and in case you didn't know who Eric Austin was, he was the first to make CND badges, incidentally while he was head of the Kensington CND. By the way, did I mention that is a DIRECT QUOTE. But what would he know? I hear you say. Incredulous.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ratVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EeEDAAAAIBAJ&dq=peace-symbol&pg=3767%2C2358294
Peggy Duff former head of the CND, apparently is wrong too according to you all too when it comes to the symbols two meanings? Interesting how she echoed Eric Austin, and Barry Miles, all CND veterans might I add.(by the way she is directly quoted in that article contrary to your assumption, although not fully). But what would any of those vets know? I mean it's not like they knew Holtom or anything? oh wait they did. :::But I hear you argue, we should not include the direct quotes of former CND veterans who knew Gerald Holtom in the CND article... do you not see how crazy your position has become?
-Some experts say it was a letter in an ancient Nordic alphabet-, but that's not worthy of addition either seemingly?
the original Holtom sketches are preserved at the school of peace studies, at the bradford university. They show a symbol that stood for ‘the death of man and the unborn child’.
Hugh Brock's widow Eileen donated Holtom's drawings to Commonweal. There are four sketches, on three sheets of paper: two forms of the symbol itself, and two of it in use on placards during the March.
The originals are very fragile and can only be viewed at the discretion of the Special Collections Librarian. High quality digital surrogates, and the facsimiles mentioned, are good enough to replace sight of the originals for most purposes.
Hmm, sounds like that is worth a visit to have a look at these original drawings with the description that the symbol represented - 'the death of man and the unborn child' on Holtom's actual original!
After that, what more evidence could you need? As I'm not in the UK, if you're still not convinced just request to see the originals from the collection!
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
My source is Peace: The Biography of a Symbol by Ken Kolsbun. The author corresponded with Gerald Holtom in order to establish the facts, even sending Holtom a manuscript, which he proofread. Kolsbun says the original design depicted a crucifix. A subsequent design was based on semaphore characters. Presumably this interpretation is correct, since Holtom, the designer of the peace emblem, was his source. One of your own references, Barry Miles, when discussing the prototype, writes:
"Toward the end of February 1958, Gerald Holtom arrived at the offices of Peace News... It was Randle, Brock, and Arrowsmith who met Gerald Holtom to review his sketches. Under his arms Holtom carried two large rolls of heavy brown paper. One roll contained drawings of designs for banners for the march: checkered flags, semaphore code flags, and Christian flags with crosses as well as a curious symbol that no one had seen before that he was proposing to represent the antinuclear campaign."
Concurrent to this, author Rex Weyler writes:
"His first sketches used the Christian cross within a circle, but priests in the group objected. Holtom, a conscientious objector during World War II, created variations on the cross design and hit upon the idea of incorporating the naval semaphore code letters "N" and "D" for Nuclear Disarmament. ... The idea reminded him of Goya's famous painting of a peasant with his hands held out before a firing squad, the image of the simple citizen resisting violence."
There is no contradiction here whatsoever. The CND website actually says Eric Austen added his own interpretation of the design: "the gesture of despair had long been associated with the death of Man and the circle with the unborn child." Eric Austen didn't design the symbol. Nor did Peggy Duff. Both individuals are free to re-interpret the design as they wish, but unless you have a better source than the two authors listed above (particulary Kolsbun), I suggest you drop the matter. — ThePowerofX 22:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The Eric Austen reference to the "death of man" comes from The Disarmers by Christopher Driver (p.58), an account of CND written in 1964. This is often repeated and Driver is the earliest source. Austen did not design the symbol and whatever he said gives no indication of what was in Holtom's mind. Holtom wrote in a 1961 article in Peace News that "The meaning ... was more than Nuclear Disarmament ... the symbol was associated from the onset with the words Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament." (Cited by Kolsbun, p.36.) Driver says, "The first mark on paper, according to Mr Holtom, was a white circle within a black square, followed by various versions of the Christian cross within the circle." (p.58) (The quotation is continued in the Gerald Holtom article.) There is also Holtom's statement about his being in "deep despair" in a 1973 letter to Hugh Brock. The first reference I can find to semaphore is in an 1963 article by Herb Greer for The Spectator. (Cited by Kolsbun, p.35.)
In none of these early quotes is there any reference whatever to runes (algiz, tyr, death or otherwise), the Todenrune, the SS, Wehrmacht insignia or the 3rd Panzer Division. All that was started in 1968 by the John Birch Society, as described in detail here. Linking the Austen reference to Nazi runes is WP:SYN, something I would expect a science graduate to be aware of.
The Peggy Duff reference dates from thirteen years after Holtom designed the symbol and is a response to the spread of the JBS mythology in the USA. She may have got her ideas about the "death of man" symbolism either directly from Austen or from Driver's book, and they may have been current in the peace movement by then, but they tell us nothing about Holtom's inspiration. I have not found a quotation from Holtom about the semaphore connection but it is established in mainstream secondary sources and Wikipedia does not require research into primary sources in the Bradford Peace Museum. Boundarylayer, however, has been engaged on a long spree of original research, entirely dependent on the internet, to establish a connection with Nazi death runes.
I say this for the information of disinterested parties and not in the expectation that it will persuade Boundarylayer, who seems to have a real bee in his bonnet. Despite two requests, he has still not put forward a compromise edit. He appears to be arguing for the sake of arguing (with a great deal of shouting) and not in order to reach a consensus. Pelarmian (talk) 10:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to make the observation that it has occurred to me that you all appear to be Welsh

This has descended into farce. Are you deliberately taking the piss out of yourself? For the record, I'm not Welsh William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you not Welsh? this leads/led me to assume you were.
Regardless, it is pretty irrevelant if you're not, you have not dealt with the other more serious question, the fact that it is curious that Marshall/Pelarmian and William M. Connolley have collaborated before in opposition, and there too, you both demonstrated an adversion for the inclusion of strong references about the origins of something, at that time specifically you argued against a source from the FBI.gov no less. Finally, do you also deny that you are friends with Marshall/Pelarmian? I'm not sure on the policies around here.
As I said, I would have assumed that it is standard practice not to enter into disputes in which your buddies are involved, for obvious reasons, of endeavoring to remain impartial and Objective. Or would I be wrong?
Quite frankly, I think the only thing that is a farce is that I've been assuming good faith and allowing this chirade to go on for as long as it has. The sources meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, for heavens sake, the sources even include the CND themselves. Honestly fellows, who are the authority on the CND if not themselves, like Peggy Duffs quote and Eric Austin? There is no solid rational argument for preventing the 'runic symbol for the death of man'/death rune explanation from being included. I think you all have recognized this at this stage, and William has even descended into name calling in an effort to goad me into derailing the argument into retaliatory mud slinging. I see your ruse and I'm not falling for it!
William fits into the last category - beginning name calling.
The Semaphores explanation is as least as notable as that of the death rune. Both are logically consistent, with substantial amounts of(unbiased) secondary sources to back them up.
As I have shown, there is no direct quote from Holtom the designer, in regards to supporting the semaphores explanation, however I do not argue that if one were to be found, it is beyond the realm of possibilities. Yet all of you do not agree that the death rune explanation is worthy simply because of what? You do not like the fact?
Honestly I think the fact that the death rune and therefore SS comparison has been used in the past by those attempting to discredit the CND, is really coloring how you all are seeing this. At this stage, I now seriously lament the fact that the death rune symbol was also adopted by the SS, because if it hadn't, I do not think we would be having this dispute, nor would so much time have been wasted on arguing this. As sad a fact that is, and as much as you probably see any inclusion of reference to the death rune in the article as a vindication for all these crazy conspiracy theories. There is, irrefutably, a truth to the death rune explanation of the CND symbol. As I've said before, there is no evidence that I have seen that suggests there was some link between Gerald Holtom and the SS other than the circumstantial evidence that he was a conscientious objector in WWII Britain.
As I wrote earlier, The original Holtom sketches are said in one source to actually state that the symbol represented the death of man! With a trip to the UK being necessary to confirm this, I think I'll pass, however Pelarmian is in the neighbourhood right? The single source may be wrong of course, but interesting to check out nonetheless, right?
Moreover, in the hierarchy of importance therefore, Number 1 is the Goya explanation, as that is the only one directly quoted. Tied for 2nd place in the hierarchy is the death rune and semaphores explanations-both of these secondary explanations are logically consistent(unlike the Goya explanation as the peasant has their hands in the opposite position that Holtom said they were in)-see peace symbol.Which follows that both explanations should henceforth have equal weight in the article, and have equal footing.
Is that not obvious to everyone at this stage?
Pelarmian, if you agree with this hierarchy and reasoning, may we now co-write the article and finally put this behind us?
Boundarylayer (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
You have six editors against you and you show no desire to compromise, so co-writing is out of the question. Pelarmian (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
it is pretty irrevelant - well done. Yes, its utterly irrelevant. So it was a total waste of time for you to bring it up. So, how about you stop wasting our time with this nonsense? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Compromise edit, is essentially that which is already in the peace symbol article, why is that so hard to accept?

Bear in mind, the one crucial difference is that I recently added an internal link to the following sentence of that article- Some time later, Peggy Duff, general secretary of CND between 1958 and 1967, repeated this interpretation in an interview with a US newspaper, saying that the inside of the symbol was a runic symbol for death of man and the circle the symbol for the unborn child.[2]

That's it. Readers can go to the Algiz page and learn about it there.

To respond to some of the points you made, such as-

  • The Peggy Duff reference dates from thirteen years after Holtom designed the symbol and is a response to the spread of the JBS mythology in the USA. She may have got her ideas about the "death of man" symbolism either directly from Austen or from Driver's book.

How is the Peggy duff reference evidence that she was responding to the JBS? She(according to your story about where the runes claims begin) reiterated one of the things they claimed. A response is a refuting of the claims made by others, not an agreement with them, and an acceptance of their interpretation! Besides that obvious Non sequitur, what evidence do you have that Peggy Duff was responding to the JBS myth? specificallly, what made you think that?

As I've explained- would she not have tried to distance herself completely from what that society had written? Instead of actively confirming one part of what they had written was true? I don't think your reasoning there is all that water tight. She may indeed have read Driver's book, but she would not have learned that there was a runic symbol for the death of man, as Driver's book doesn't mention runes as far as I'm aware.

You said that yourself in relation to Driver's book-

  • In none of these early quotes is there any reference whatever to runes

Yet you claim Peggy Duff former head of the CND got the runic symbol origin from them? How? If she didn't get it from Driver's book, how would she know about the rune origin? Where did she get that piece of information from? Surely to god you're not suggesting that she got it from the JBS, and then adopted their explanation of the symbol?! Why on earth would she do that, if what JBS wrote was all fiction as you are claiming? She wouldn't!

  • The Eric Austen reference to the "death of man" comes from The Disarmers by Christopher Driver (p.58), an account of CND written in 1964....
  • The first reference I can find to semaphore is in an 1963 article by Herb Greer for The Spectator. (Cited by Kolsbun, p.35.)

So by your own account, both the death of man explanation and the semaphore explanation are approximately as old as each other. Neither have direct quotations from Gerald Holtom himself either confirming or denying the Algiz or semaphore explanations. Isn't that consistent with both explanations therefore being of approximately equal weight, being tied for 2nd place in hierarchy after the Goya explanation?

  • Linking the Austen reference to Nazi runes is WP:SYN, something I would expect a science graduate to be aware of.

I have not linked the Austen reference with Nazi runes, you mischaracterize me. The Austen reference is linked with,and supports the [[Peggy Duff] reference. It is this former head of the CND who links the CND symbol with the 'runic symbol for the death of man' i.e the death rune/Algiz.As that is obviously what she was talking about, and obviously what Austen was talking about. The shoe fits. The peace symbol article correctly details the multiple explanations of the symbol, yet readers here on the CND page are deprived of the explanation of the symbol endorsed by it's former members! That's bizarre. The fact that the same death rune symbol was also used by the SS to represent the death of their fallen is not WP:SYN if I don't actually wish to say that in the CND page. The Algiz page is the correct place for that, where readers can find out all about the use of the symbol from nordic times, to its nefarious appropriation by the Nazis, and finally to the usage by the CND.

  • Boundarylayer, however, has been engaged on a long spree of original research, entirely dependent on the internet, to establish a connection with Nazi death runes.

Actually I read former member of the CND- Barry Miles' book who was a former chairman of the Youth Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (YCND) and his pro-CND book Peace: 50 years of protest, but I've forgotten, Miles is apparently wrong according to you on the co-origin of the symbol? http://www.amazon.com/Peace-Years-Protest-Barry-Miles/dp/1606521101 Personally, his arguments as to the origin of the CND symbol are the most logical and balanced I've encountered. You can read and excerpt from it here- http://www.fpif.org/articles/a_sign_of_the_times

Secondly, I have not tried to connect with 'Nazi death runes'. I have instead only connected Peggy Duff's quote about the CND symbol having its origins in the runic symbol for the death of man... with the Algiz and not the death rune, although they are essentially one and the same, and it is hardly a stretch or original research to do so. I do however think that linking to the Algiz is the more balanced thing to do, as death rune just links to the Nazi section of the Algiz page, and Austen and Peggy duff knew the Algiz was in use long before that particular insane organization came along. So it's only fair to link to Algiz instead. Now, that's me compromising! http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ratVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EeEDAAAAIBAJ&dq=peace-symbol&pg=3767%2C2358294 Boundarylayer (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Eric Austen, who adapted the symbol from Holtom's waterproof 'lollipops' on sticks to ceramic lapel badges, discovered that the 'gesture of despair' motif had long been associated with the 'death of man', and the circle with 'the unborn child'." Driver, p.59. No mention of runes, no mention of "the Algiz", which are your interpretation.
"According to Peggy Duff, the peace symbol was created in 1958 by a pacifist British designer, Gerald Holtom and it has two meanings. The symbol was created for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) which organised the annual Aldermaston March, Miss Duff says. First, the peace symbol represents the letters N (for nuclear) and D (for disarmament) in the semaphore alphabet. In addition, Miss Duff says, the inside of the symbol is a runic symbol for death of man and the circle is the symbol for the unborn child." Eugene Register-Guard, 12 February 1971. No mention of of "the Algiz", which is your own interpretation. And no mention of the Nazis, the SS or the Third Panzer Division. Pelarmian (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Boundarylayer asks on my Talk page, "What is wrong with compromising with me and including essentially that which is contained in the peace symbol article on the explanation of the CND symbol?"
What does Boundarylayer want to add to this article? He says, "I have not tried to connect it with 'Nazi death runes'," and "I do not wish to connect it with german WWII insignia." When it was pointed out to him that he did just that, he tried to pretend that those edits were written by me and falsely attributed to him! But his own edits are there for anyone who cares to read them:
  • … the symbol had in fact ancient roots, including just prior to the CND's adoption of it, its use as the insignia of the 3rd Panzer Division
  • The symbol does have an ancient use, with many references to that fact, from Viking runes to represent death, to Nazis to the present CND use
  • … the 4th Panzer Divisions insignia is identical to the CND 'peace' symbol if it is turned upside down.
  • The CND symbol does resemble that of the 4th Panzer Division,
  • … the peace symbol has a very old and diverse history, including use by a Nazi Panzer Division
  • Should the fact that the symbol was indeed used as a nazi tank division's insignia be included in the article? Most certainly!
  • … the reason why what we now call the 'peace symbol' was also used inverted by the 4th Panzer Division is because it fed into the peculiar Nazi ideology of mysticism surrounding and attached to nordic symbols, namely the Algiz.
  • … the symbol does indeed have a history of being used by the Nazis
  • … the symbol had previously been used by the Norse, & by extension, used by the Nazis.
  • … the CND symbol and the 3rd panzer Division's insignia are identical
  • … here on wikipedia it is falsely stated many times that Gerald Holtom solely invented the symbol. Zero mention is given to the fact that the symbol had previously been used by the Norse and the Nazis.
  • … the CND logo is identical to that of the Norse Todesrune.
  • … the CND symbol and the 3rd panzer Division's insignia are identical
He has now fallen back on saying that the CND symbol is "the Algiz", which he wants to link to the section in the Wikipedia article on Algiz about how the Nazis used it. That's just a way of sneaking his personal theory into the article when every other editor has said it's unsupported by any reliable source. Pelarmian (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
It is not, as you keep on writing, my personal theory. It is the expert view of- Steven Heller (design writer) of the School of Visual Arts who has been described as the ubiquitous, tireless chronicler of our design times, he is the author, co-author, or editor of more than sixty books on design-related topics and not to mention was the recipient of the 1999 Aiga Medal - http://www.aiga.org/medalist-stevenheller/
http://observatory.designobserver.com/feature/the-magic-of-the-peace-symbol/6707/

its basic form also derives from an ancient runic symbol which casts some doubt on whether the ND/semaphore rationale might have been an afterthought

Rightside up I represents “man,” while upside down it is the fallen-man. Referred to in Rudolf Koch’s Book of Signs as “the Crow’s foot” or “witch’s foot”...The Nazis routinely adopted runic forms for their official iconography, such as the SS runes, the insignia of Hitler’s personal bodyguard. Indeed the Nazi iconography calls the “crow’s foot” the todesrune or death rune.

And it is also what Carl Liungman has written about the CND symbol.
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html
Here is a favorable review of one of Liungman's books titled Dictionary of Symbols. Stanley P. Hodge, Ball State Univ. Lib., Muncie, Ind.-
”This is an authoritative four-part history, dictionary, and index of non-iconic symbols...” http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Symbols-Norton-Paperback-Liungman/dp/0393312364/ref=la_B001JXK2I2_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358410972&sr=1-1
Yet another favorable review by the American Library Association - ”This book will certainly become one of the key sources for tracing symbols and their meanings.”
And even further favorable reviews for Liungman's updated works - There is nothing else quite like this well researched work. -- Library Journal, 1991.
Symbols -- Encyclopedia of Western Signs and Ideograms.
http://www.amazon.com/Symbols-Encyclopedia-Western-Signs-Ideograms/dp/9197270504/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358414394&sr=1-
Here is the CND section directly out of his book mirrored here:
http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/24/247.html
Page 209 of Symbols - Encyclopedia of western signs and ideograms. http://books.google.com/books?id=06ALKxX225IC&pg=PA209&lpg=PA209&dq=Carl+liungman+todesrune&source=bl&ots=onomM3uf0I&sig=kRUUcpnTngxa9h295gZb0Cfmauc&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Carl%20liungman%20todesrune&f=falsee
Both of these references meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Therefore if Pelarmian wishes to use my attempt at offering an olive branch, and endeavoring to reach a compromise with him, as evidence that I am falling back or retreating, then I think it demonstrates pretty acurately the type of belligerent manner in which they approach compromises, as merely a sign of weakness.
There is however nothing they can do about either of these references.
So in an effort to hand wave these away, they have devolved into trying to exploit compromises as an opportunity to launch ad hominem attacks.
Boundarylayer (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I proposed a compromise edit. Boundarylayer rejected it. It's now up to him to write one. For the fourth time of asking, what does he propose? Pelarmian (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)