Talk:Cluster Munition Coalition

[Untitled]

Seems fine to me. Is it really non-NPOV to talk about blowing people to bits as "dreadful"? Even the miltary accept it is a prospect that inspires dread... --86.144.234.192 08:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)DanBri[reply]

Yes, I believe it is non-NPOV. Cluster munitions are not unique in blowing people to bits. If anything, cluster munitions might be more feared since they are more likely to wound than, say, a 2000 pound bomb that could bring down a building. Bluntly, modern militaries tend not to focus on dread unless it is coupled with psychological warfare. They focus on explosives that are most efficient at destroying or disabling a population. In fact, in the 1991 Gulf War, a combination of leaflets and large bombs, the latter delivered from B-52 heavy bombers, were used instead of cluster munitions, to increase dread and reduce casualties. Hcberkowitz 23:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just cleaned up this page to ensure it is written from the NPOV. Certain elements of the page and the way it was written did pose some problems in terms of the NPOV previously. The issue of whether one agrees with the cause of the organisation described in this page is separate from whether the page should exist. Some may disagree with the work of the Red Cross, but it is hard to argue that there should be no entry on the page for this reason. Thomasnash 13:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Let me express a concern about the effects of non-NPOV here and in the main cluster munition article. I'm personally opposed to the use of antipersonnel or dual-purpose cluster munitions in urban areas, but that does not equate to "all cluster munitions are horrible" because there are other types that, variously, are meant to be nonlethal (e.g., propaganda leaflet, electronic jammers, and carbon fiber to short out electricity), or are reasonably unlikely to be a threat to civilians (e.g., antitank). A position that all cluster munitions must be banned may have the unintended consequence of causing the less dangerous forms not to be used, and more lethal unitary munitions substituted. Another unintended effect might be the reduction of research in making antipersonnel munitions less dangerous to civilians (e.g., self-disarming).

I agree that the Cluster Munition Coalition exists; I would simply like NPOV discussion of its goals and generally about cluster munitions on the main subject page. At this point, I can't tell if the CMC wants to ban all cluster munitions, or only the forms most dangerous to civilians.

I have edited the cluster bomb article with some clarifications about what the CMC is calling for. The CMC call is quite clear: an international treaty banning cluster munitions by 2008. What types of weapons this ends up banning of course depends on what the definition of cluster munitions will be in the treaty. To make it clear, the CMC's basic document, the treaty principles, calls for "a prohibition on cluster munitions, as defined." Some kinds of sensor-fuzed weapons for example (and clearly the non-explosive versions like propaganda dispensers) may well be excluded from a treaty definition since they do not spread large numbers of explosive submunitions over wide areas and does not leave large numbers of unexploded ordnance post conflict. These are the key characteristics or effects of cluster munitions that should inform the development of the treaty definition.

I agree the cluster bomb main page has suffered from a lack of NPOV and I am doing my best to maintain a standard of NPOV on it with clear references.

Does that clear up the NPOV question for this article?Thomasnash 13:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This does help. While adding adjectives (and, for the grammar police, adjectival forms), I wonder if the article might become less ambiguous, and as a result, more useful, if contributors made an effort to speak of the type of munition being discussed in a particular context. It's very hard to speak for or against a ban "as to be defined". My initial thought may be that a neutral taxonomy of cluster submunitions might be appropriate, not to preclude cluster munitions. By the latter, a guided cluster bomb or warhead generally has less collateral damage liability than an unguided one. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cluster Munition Coalition. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602063409/http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/clusterbomb_ban_us_opposes_pas.html to http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/clusterbomb_ban_us_opposes_pas.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 20:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]