Talk:Disarmament

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

POV[edit]

The article seems a personal essay, favouring a definition of "real disarmament" that does not seem consensual. --84.20.17.84 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the following section which appeared after the Japan example, which is clearly not even close to being appropriate.

"That is funny that you say that, it shows how niave you are. Japan is site of a large Fabrique Nationale Factory that produces arms for civilian and military use. The civilian arms they produce are highly prized in the U.S. There are, in fact, several arms factories in Japan. They are highly productive and produce high quality arms. Get your facts straight before you begin an anti-gun tirade. Then think about it and stop blaming inanimate objects for the actions of evil people." Endos (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This idea that the truth is based on "consensual" knowledge has no foundation. At one point, many people thought the earth was flat. Does that make the earth flat?

You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that "truth" is what Wikipedia about. It may be the goal, but the process for getting there is very strictly delineated. For starters, Wikipedia is not a Primary source, or even a Secondary source, but a Tertiary source. This means that it is intended as a summary of what *Other Sources* say about a particular subject, while very specifically avoiding Coming to new conclusions. Sources often conflict, in details if not in the gross structures, particularly when it comes to the particular Points of View of the Authors, which often leads to Bias. Biased articles, written with a particular point of view, are against Wikipedia's Policy.
Realistically, this means that what goes in the article is decided by consensus among the editors, more or less. It's far from perfect, and has all too many instances where simply too few people care about a particular topic to police it. To the point that gangs of people can go around getting obscure or semi-obscure articles on subjects they don't like or don't feel belong deleted simply because nobody else really notices or cares. This article, on the other hand, is an example of a different problem. One where so few editors care about the topic that either one editor or a small group of them has been able to write a very obviously heavily biased article.
The problem here is that the entire tone of the article is very very non-neutral. The person(s) who wrote it very obviously think that everyone should disarm, that all the reasons for not doing so are little more than excuses, and that all or most of the arguments against it are fallacious because their proponents 'haven't looked at the history'. It sounds very much like it was written by someone with an agenda, and is so far from NPOV it's laughable. In fact, the only thing I noticed while reading it that ran at all counter to the overall tone was a statement about Unilateral disarmament, which strongly implied that Unilateral disarmament was foolish because it didn't guarantee reciprocation.
In short, this thing is so loaded with Bias and weaselly nonsense it's not even funny. It reads more like a persuasive essay promoting universal disarmament than anything. There's not one single presented counter-argument, other than a passing reference to "realists", who are suggested to be anything but by the way they are referenced. It repeatedly uses pejoratives (IE: 'Militaristic') to refer to opponents of disarmament, and even includes an entire section attempting to rebut 'misconceptions' about disarming.
It's pretty endemic, to the point I'd seriously consider tearing the whole thing down and starting over. -Graptor 66.42.163.229 (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A strong indictment, but completely lacking in specifics. I find the article weak and incomplete, with some unrepresentative sections at the end. Probably fixable, in other words. NPguy (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disarmament prior to the 1940s[edit]

The article suffers from Wikipedia:Recentism; as of this writing, the only reference that predates the nuclear era is a brief mention of the Tokugawa shogunate. The Washington Naval Conference is one example of an omission. 68.167.253.27 03:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think that the writer of the article aims to argue that arms control is different to disarmament...although he does so quite inefectivly.

Nevertheless, the Tokugawa Shogunate remains to be a better example as it (contrary to the Washington/London Naval Treaties) was successfully in its aims. However there are some clear mistakes in the the article such as the part talking about nuclear disarmament; where the author divides it into three types which, if read, obviously have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. I don't think any nations police force uses those to preserve order:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.33.212 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REBUTTAL

In contrast to what this author claims, there is plenty of evidence that arms control is not disarmament. We are not talking about opinions here, we are talking about history. I suggest that the author look at a few key citations before going off into abstract references that hardly anyone would compare to the contemporary situation, the Shogunate. Read Melman's classic essay on the topic in The Nation.

Nuclear Obsessed?[edit]

Is it my imagination or is this article somewhat myopically focused on nuclear disarmament? Even if it's not going to address previous disarmament campaigns - such as the various misadventures post WW1, surely it should at least reference them. But if the Wikipedia hive mind has decided that this page should be about nucelear disarmament, perhaps a change of title is in order? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a separate article on nuclear disarmament. So, this article should have a lot more coverage of other disarmament. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Disarmament. 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) 19:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Disarmament. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indian disarmament proposals[edit]

In 1948, India had proposed limiting the use of atomic energy to peaceful purposes and elimination of nuclear weapons from national arsenals. In 1950, India suggested the formation of a UN Peace Fund created through peaceful reduction of arms and directing the amount thus released towards development purposes. 117.230.32.199 (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disarmament&oldid=1194821829"