This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anti-war High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations C‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment C‑class Top‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment C This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

I deleted a bunch of stuff about Silent Echo. Just factually incorrect (such as stating that George H.W. Bush was President in July 1993... Clinton was inaugerated in January of 93. CP Guy

There seems to be a lot of sweeping statements in the history section. In particular:

• Campaign growing in strength, then fading (how do we know? what's the measure?)
• Dissidence in the USSR (how do we know there were no public voices?) How do we know Sakharov had little effect?

Maybe somewhat unavoidable in making a sweep of history, but some basis would be good. Kingsindian 18:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the paragraph in the introduction about the USSR. It reads like a slightly nationalistic American high school history paper. No sources, and sweeping POV generalizations. Andre Sakharov had little effect? Mikhail Gorbachev had little effect?--Nbauman (talk) 12:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made some grammatical fixes in this section, but someone more knowledgeable than I needs to flesh it out. I'm all for disarmament, but it's not obvious that figuring out strategic uses for the existing nuclear arsenal contradicts a policy of decreasing the total number of weapons. I think it's an important part of the story, but there needs to be much more evidence. Also, someone should add something about Bush's recent announcement that the U.S. would be cutting the arsenal significantly -- not only as an important fact, but to show that the Bush line on nuclear weapons is a little more complicated than it's presented to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albnelson (talk • contribs) 01:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the statements in the U.S. nuclear policy section on a personal, ideological level; however, they're really POV...I've tagged them as such. These need to be revised so as to be compatible with WP:NPOV.Katana0182 (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole US Policy section may need to be scrapped, until and unless someone is willing to rewrite it. As it stands, it reads much more like a stump speech than an encyclopedia entry. I'll wait a week or so, and then edit it down to bare essentials if no one else is capable of doing a more thorough job in the meantime. CelestialRender (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section is useless. It would be useful to have section on nuclear disarmament steps and policies of each of the five recognized nuclear weapon states, the four additional states declared or believed to have nuclear weapons, and two relevant alliances (NATO and the CIS). Something on nuclear weapon free zones (at least a cross-reference) would be useful too. NPguy (talk) 02:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence near the beginning of this article is absurd: "deterrence, which, through the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons, has kept the world free of nuclear war since 1945."

This is totally confused. You can't say that nuclear weapons had a part to play in keeping the world free of nuclear war - don't you see this is absurd? You may say that nuclear weapons had a place in keeping the world free of MAJOR war, but not nuclear war, for without the nuclear weapons the world would have been free of nuclear war because there wouldn't have been any weapons to fight it with anyway. You are effectively saying that the very existence of nuclear weapons saved us from the perils presented by the existence of nuclear weapons. What you must say instead is that the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons, due to their highly destructive nature, prevented the outbreak of major war on the scale of WWI or WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.148.165 (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this article has neither arguments for nuclear disarmement, nor aginst nuclear disarmements; also 1 particular argument isn't described anywhere: that nuclear weapons stockpile allot of nuclear energy that could otherwise be put to good use

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.95.46 (talk) 14:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with unsigned user above. This page needs a section on the Megatons to Megawatts program and note per that page the practical impact of this program:

"The Megatons to Megawatts program was initiated in 1993 and successfully completed in December 2013. A total of 500 tonnes of Russian warhead grade HEU (high enriched uranium, equivalent to 20,008 nuclear warheads) were converted in Russia to nearly 15,000 tonnes tons of LEU (low enriched uranium) and sold to the US for use as fuel in American nuclear power plants. During the 20-year Megatons to Megawatts program, as much as 10 percent of the electricity produced in the United States was generated by fuel fabricated using LEU from Russian HEU."

Rezinator (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for this information? Most of it looks familiar, except the 20,008 (presumably 20,000) and 15,000 metric tons (i haven't seen that one). NPguy (talk) 23:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that LOGIC can now be employed ... to show without a doubt that nuclear arms are now not needed anymore. It can be shown logically. This is the first step to put down the argument. Likely, the argument has been written somewhere as there are many people who now know ... by LOGIC, we mean that arguments can be formed that comply with the rules of logic. Symbolic logic spells it out for us very specifically. We can follow the logic with symbolic logic. This logic trail even dispels the deterrence argument.MissouriRick (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Waltz and the references provided should not have been deleted from the article page.

Remember, you do not censor the views of experts on wikipedia simply because you do not agree with them.

Thank you. -- Boundarylayer, 2012

The views of Kenneth Waltz are relevant to this article. Waltz believes that nuclear proliferation is good because deterrence promotes stability. This position should be labeled as contrarian - a seriously argued viewpoint that is not widely shared. The reason for my deletion was that the cited article was on the narrow issue of Iran's nuclear program and did not support the broader description of Waltz's views. Find a better source and paraphrase it properly and it should be OK. The stability-instability paradox, by contrast, appears to be a fairly minor viewpoint. The wikipedia article is a stub with a single citation. NPguy (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with 'npguy' as almost always. So now, all of a sudden, npguy deletes stuff because the source was misconstrued. Go ahead, npguy, and do that all across your contribs. WP will be much more succint after that. --175.194.138.57 (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How it can be done technically? What are the results and outcomes of the possible technical process[es]? I think, this would be an important subtopic for such an encyclopaedia article, more important than guesswork about people's opinions. - 91.122.13.129 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The request was not specific enough. You may consider leaving your comments on the Talk page or escalating significant issues to the conflict of interest noticeboard.

i am requesting the creation of a page or article or what you call it. i am a credible source. i was a participant . also many other witness accounts will confirm my text as true. i also have linked some media sources that i have found on the internet. i do not have the skill. the article is well verified . please create it for me and others who walked. the world peace march sources for world peace march 1981-82

https://archive.org/details/KxprArchive-SacramentoSpectrumWorldPeaceMarch http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/WPM82DC1.html http://wagingnonviolence.org/2009/06/remembering-the-1982-rally-against-nuclear-arms/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBQjYLQHhVY https://www.facebook.com/notes/marty-smith/disarament-has-been-a-movement-since-arms/637988282940624 http://books.google.ca/books?id=CbFmB0wRaacC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=%27%27the+world+peace+march+1981,San+Francisco+%22&source=bl&ots=tjlS7Vlhwe&sig=92D5M3Mva9GgzLsv2Rpg2KTrXx0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=GdctU9LbDMGRqgH48YDQDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%27%27the%20world%20peace%20march%201981%2CSan%20Francisco%20%22&f=false

http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/SBstupa82.html \

http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/431418/The-World-Peace-March/overview Nichidatsu Fujii's message at the beginning of a peace walk, http://www.angelfire.com/on/GEAR2000/Fujii2.pdf page 49 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/sun-reach/conversations/topics/60

in 1981,Nichidatsu Fujii, dispatched his followers to march and chant around the globe in support of the U.N. 2nd. special session for disarmament. In the U.S.A. marchers began in New Orleans, San Diego, and San Francisco, in Canada marchers began in Montreal and Toronto. The San Fransisco March began on Oct. 21, 1981 with a ceremony on Alcatraz. 13 marchers, being Buddhist followers of Nipponzan-Myōhōji, Native Americans, U.S. and German citizens, began the S.F. march. marching about 20 mile per day they were hosted each night by community groups in every town and on Native reservations. many mayors and town councils made proclamations and such honoring the the peace and disarmament marchers. over the course of the march citizens were moved to join. By the time they arrived in Chicago the S.F. marchers numbered about 30. in may of '82 the group of about 40 marchers from Toronto Ont. joined the S.F. group in Buffalo N.Y. at the International Peace Bridge doubling the size of the group. thru the state of N.Y. 10 to 20 people joined the march daily.when the S.F. group walked across the George Washington Bridge they numbered about 300. the groups on other march routs also grew over the 7 months. on June 12, 1982, In Central Park Nipponzan-Myōhōji marchers from the U.S.A., Europe, Africa, and Asia, joined with mobilization for survival organizers and religious and peace groups from around the world in a peaceful demonstration for disarmament of many million people.

Nichidatsu Fujii (藤井 日達 Fujii Nichidatsu?, 1885–1985) was a Japanese Buddhist monk, and founder of the Nipponzan-Myōhōji order of Buddhism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nichidatsu_Fujii

i supplied credible references for the additions i requested concerning Nipponsan myohoji, and the world peace march in 1982 yesterday. what is with you people martin smith Marchers for World Peace come to Iowa City By Nancy Lonergan Staff Writer

http://dailyiowan.lib.uiowa.edu/DI/1982/di1982-02-26.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.156.200 (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who reverted this addition. It was not a question of lacking reliable sources. Rather, I reverted on grounds of undue weight on a seemingly minor set of events. Another objection would be that these events were not particularly notewrothy. If you think these events were noteworthy, I might change my view if you presented evidence of their impact. NPguy (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPguy it may be noteworthy to the hundreds of people who organized the WORLD PEACE MARCH. also it is a noteworthy project in that it was initiated by Nichidatsu Fujii (藤井 日達 Fujii Nichidatsu?, 1885–1985) was a Japanese Buddhist monk, and founder of the Nipponzan-Myōhōji order of Buddhism.

i would be pleased to write and rewrite the text according to your suggestions.. however others would consider the events noteworthy.

events in April of 1981 at the end of the Worldwide Assembly of Religious Peaceworkers for General and Nuclear Disarmament Nichidatsu Fujii initiated the WORLD PEACE MARCH to support the U.N.second special session for disarmament. the WORLD PEACE MARCH circled the globe. in N.America Marches began in San Francisco, L.A. New Orleans, Bangor Main, Montreal, and Toronto . all the peace marches convened on June 7 1982 in N. Y. C., and participated in the great demonstration in Central Park

marty smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.156.200 (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the WP guidelines again and found that notability does not apply to the content of an article, only to the article as a whole. So this peace march may not deserve an article of its own (unless you can find additional sources that attest to its significance) but is fair game for including in this article. The other WP guideline on not giving undue weight refers to opinions, not events. So it appears that neither one argues against including this event in this article.

At the same time, the small numbers of participants cited (from 13 to 300) leads me to question the significance of this event. A reader could conclude that the disarmament movement was extremely weak and insignificant at that time, as it attracted so few people. This is far fewer than during the "ban the bomb" movement of the 1950s and early 1960s or the U.S. "nuclear freeze" and the parallel European campaign for nuclear disarmament movement of the 1980s. My question would be: Does this march deserve mention on a par with a demonstration that attracted an estimated 1 million people in Central Park at around the same time? NPguy (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

for NPguy by MHS perhaps the facts about how Nichidatsu Fujii addressed the religious conference in April 81 and sent his monks to lead marches around the globe to generate global support for the U.N. II SS for disarmament. . Nipponzan-Myōhōji monks began marches in many European cities and in N. America.The marchers garnered support for the UN Talks from ordinary citizens in every town and village they visited.

there are details about how the demonstration in Central Parks became the largest demonstration in history that need to be brought into this article. there were demonstrations of tens of thousands of people in many cities (world wide) preceding the disarmament session.

it is not only 300 marchers. that is the story of the SF group (of which I was a member.) every march in Europe and N.A. grew likewise. if you are able to add some of these details the picture of the events in central park carry more significance. thank you marty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.91.156.200 (talk) 12:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you write a concise description of these events? Perhaps a sentence on the origin/purpose, and a sentence on the scope and outcome. Also bear in mind the main article History of the anti-nuclear movement, where you can add further detail. NPguy (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NPguy,

i have a signature now and i will request some additions on a new section, (if i figured that part out yet). is it ok to use text from a book or a newspaper ?

Marty h smith (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why is this text disappearing?

on April 22 1981,Nichidatsu Fujii, addressed the Opening Plenary Session of The World Assembly of Religious Workers in Tokyo. There he announced The World Peace March to march and chant around the globe in support of the U.N. 2nd. special session for disarmament.The Buddhists and their American supporters, walked to New York from California, Louisiana, Canada and Maine.

On June 12, 1982, Nipponzan-Myōhōji marchers from the U.S.A., Europe, Africa, and Asia, joined with mobilization for survival organizers and religious and peace groups from around the world in Central Park Marty h smith (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i suggest this text be included in the section named Nuclear disarmament movement, just before the entry

On June 12, 1982,

on April 22 1981,Nichidatsu Fujii, addressed the Opening Plenary Session^[1] of The World Assembly of Religious Workers in Tokyo^[2] , where he announced the world peace march to march and chant around the globe in support of the U.N. 2nd. special session for disarmament. The Buddhists and their American supporters, walked to New York from California, Louisiana, Canada and Maine. on June 12, 1982, Nipponzan-Myōhōji marchers from the U.S.A., Europe, Africa, and Asia, joined with mobilization for survival organizers and religious and peace groups from around the world in Central Park. Marty h smith (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i can't see some of the text. i may not be placing the references correctly???

on April 22 1981,Nichidatsu Fujii, addressed the Opening Plenary Session of The World Assembly of Religious Workers in Tokyo. There he announced The World Peace March to march and chant around the globe in support of the U.N. 2nd. special session for disarmament.The Buddhists and their American supporters, walked to New York from California, Louisiana, Canada and Maine.

On June 12, 1982, Nipponzan-Myōhōji marchers from the U.S.A., Europe, Africa, and Asia, joined with mobilization for survival organizers and religious and peace groups from around the world in Central Park

Gravuritas has questioned whether the World Peace Council can be legitimately described as a peace organisation and he tags the description with ^{[citation needed]}. To avert a looming edit war, I am bringing the question here before going to dispute resolution. My view is that an organisation that calls itself "World Peace Council" is ispo facto a peace organisation. I presume that Gravuritas's objection to identifying it as such is that it was directed by the Soviet Communist Party and was selective in its campaigns, but as far as I know it has always been regarded as a peace organisation and there is no need for a citation to that effect. I am not sure how else it might be desribed. Gravuritas's edits and tagging appear to be insertions of his own POV and his personal dislike of the World Peace Council. Opinions of other editors on this matter, please. Pelarmian (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the Ministry of Truth in '1984' to determine whether the inclusion of the word 'Peace' in an organization's title automatically makes it a peace organization. Your assertion that 'there is no need for a citation' runs contrary to WP:verifiability, and for the avoidance of doubt, your statement that as far as you know, 'it has always been regarded as a peace organisation', is insufficient for the retention of that as a description. You on my talk page claimed that the WPC 'is regarded in reliable sources as a peace organization'. So put up or shut up- cite these sources. You can find 'how else it might be described' in my original edit: that changed very little but just avoided the description of the WPC as a peace organization. Of course, if you or somebody else finds the relevant cites in reliable, non-partisan sources then I have no problem with the description of the WPC as a peace organisation remaining. My like or dislike of the WPC has not been expressed and is, of course, irrelevant.

Gravuritas (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear disarmament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110728150929/http://www.uspw.org/index.php to http://www.uspw.org/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Many view the pursuit of nuclear weapons by these states as a threat to nonproliferation and world peace, and therefore seek policies to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons to these states, a few of which are often described by the US as "rogue states"."

Many others see the US as a major threat to world peace, and consider the US a "rogue state". A more balanced sort of propaganda, if at all, would work against the reputation of Wikipedia to be very unfair and biased. Also, why is the US nuke pursuit no threat to non-proliferation in the first place? Everyone shies away from honest answers here. worm (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

fixed that. --175.194.138.57 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US is the greatest ROGUE of them all. --5.15.84.70 (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was long overdue. All across WP you find pro US, pro jew propaganda stuff. abominable! --175.194.138.57 (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion well worth discussing !

Israel is an illegal occupier - and given their critique of Imperial Germany they really should lead the way and compensate the Arabs whom they mass-murdered ! See Nakba for reference ! --193.238.111.66 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But now many mainstream politicians, academic analysts, and retired military leaders also advocate nuclear disarmament. Sam Nunn, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz have called upon governments to embrace the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons [...]

Putting Kissinger in the middle of there is the height of hypocrisy. Remember the documentary proof that Kissinger wanted to nuke Vietnam. This guy cannot be allowed to be portayed as a "quasi-peacenik". --175.194.138.57 (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This line kind of struck me. What does it even mean? Did Israel adopt nukes "widely" on the opposite?

But then, no one actually reads the article or talk page. --112.204.24.173 (talk) 03:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro paragraph of this article it states "The term denuclearization is also used to describe the process leading to complete nuclear disarmament."

As far as I am aware that isn't entirely true. Lately it has been synonymous with complete verifiable irreversible disarmament however as Jeffery Lewis, a scholar at MIIS, points out [1] denuclearizarion is native to the Korean Peninsula and is not limited to disarmament but also the removal of US nuclear weapons from Korea among other things.[2] [3] For that reason I think it should be best if that line is removed as it could be too misleading. Nuke enthusiast (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with denuclearization in North Korea is that the term has different meanings to different people. This is one of those meanings. So in that sense it's not misleading and seems OK. But maybe it is an oversimplification to suggest that it's the only meaning of the term. NPguy (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It might be better spin it off into a new page that explains the history of the phrase and link it to this page. Nuke enthusiast (talk) 16:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to edit the map, but there's a problem. The map has several categories of countries, but some of them don't make sense. On is states known to have nuclear weapons, which lists India and Pakistan, but not North Korea. The last one is particularly stupid: "States that possess nuclear weapons, but have not widely adopted them (North Korea)," though the color appears to apply to Israel as well. Israel belongs in a separate category of states believed to possess nuclear weapons that have not acknowledged that they possess nuclear weapons. Could someone correct the map accordingly?

Does not seem to fit a neutral POV. SamualLB (talk) 16:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did my fix do the trick? Can we drop toe POV flag? NPguy (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no further comments I plan to remove the POV flag. NPguy (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article to learn about global nuclear disarmament and didn't find the information I was looking for. I was hoping to learn about the inherent instability of full global denuclearization. A rogue nation could break the denuclearization treaty and secretly build nuclear weapons; other countries would suddenly find themselves at a significant military disadvantage. Surely this matter has been studied with some rigour? This article does not cover the basics. 89.241.81.159 (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look up a couple of initiatives launched by the United States over the last ten years: the International Partnership for Nuclear Disarmament launched in 2015 and the working group on Creating an Environment for Nuclear Disarmament launched in 2019. Both have dealt with the potential problems of small numbers of nuclear weapons or going to zero. NPguy (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely confused by this wording, it's politicizing a movement that is not unique to just the United States. Wikipedia's already in muddy waters about what constitutes "left" and "right", so I suggest an edit. 152.208.55.114 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What edit do you suggest? NPguy (talk) 16:38, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was a while ago, I really don't care anymore, do what you want

152.208.55.114 (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]