Talk:Coalition for Peace through Security

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

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

"Allegations"[edit]

The article says that the CPS attracted criticism for alleging that "as well as the Communist Party of Great Britain, the World Peace Council and other organisations involved with the anti-nuclear movement were funded by the Soviet Union." Did Bruce Kent (the source for this statement) really criticize the CPS for this? It was never a secret that the CPGB and the WPC were funded by the Soviet Union, so these are hardly allegations. Marshall46 (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coalition for Peace through Security. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Coalition_for_Peace_through_Security&oldid=1200991936"