Talk:Trident Ploughshares

Untitled
I have made a small addition to the article to reflect the fact that the three women members who were acquitted in 2001 of criminal damage ought, in point of law, to have been convicted. In my opinion this article does not overall present a NPOV. PedanticAl 22:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll need to reference that. I also think it's more than a little disingenuous to describe the Maytime as merely 'a research vessel' and to the equipment destroyed as 'scientific'. FrFintonStack 18:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Trident Plough Shares' own website lists the damage they did to the Maytime. Most of which was to laboratory equipment and models. They also destroyed a lot of neutral equipment (keyboards, monitors, phones etc) and also stated an intent to cripple barge itself.  The Maytime was engaged in research into sonar behaviour.  This is not in itself a weapon, nor are it's applications limited to nuclear warfare.Scruffy brit 09:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have made a few more amendments to this article in an effort to achieve a NPOV. It was a thinly veiled publicity piece. PedanticAl 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV section
I've labeled the section on the debate around the legality of the deterrent as NPOV, given that it starts from the explicit assumption of illegality then it can't be considered otherwise.ALR 10:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

At the very least under the Geneva Conventions Nuclear WMD are *clearly* illegal as they are indiscriminate weapons that by definition cannot discriminate between combatants and civillians- and thus far have only been used against civillians.

NPOV tag is at best misguided, if not just maliciously obtuse. 90.196.108.46 (talk)
 * It's not our place to say whether they are or aren't. In any case, bullets are indiscriminate weapons that by definition cannot discriminate between combatants and civilians - the point is moot. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)