Talk:Collective security

message: :Is this really neccessary?  "This in fact relates to one of the weaknesses of democracy; that it tends to lead to decisions being made depending on their popularity, rather than their correctness."
I've placed an NPOV notice on the article as it's written in an opinionated manner. The following statements, for instance, are statements of opinion:
"It can be described by a saying like "You watch my back and I'll watch yours," but without there being any witnesses to whether one really watches the other's back. In theory this idea works very well, but tends to fall short in terms of practical application."
and
"However, despite its faults it remains a useful tool for keeping international peace."
I don't necessarily disagree with the opinions expressed, but they are opinions nevertheless. The article should be rewritten in a neutral manner. The same ideas can be expressed by finding actual quotations or published criticisms of collective security (not difficult to do, look in any textbook on IR) and citing them.AndyL 00:03, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, especially with the former. Both were merged into my article from the duplicate page which was written at "Collective Security". The latter can easily be fixed by adding "many politicians believe", or similar. I'd favour the removal and rewriting of the former however. Grunners 00:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV statements 

message: It there should be a little added about modern NATO. I mean, NATO has millions of U.S. troops in Europe as part of a mutual defense and comparatively little done by other NATO members to reciprocate. I think Europe dependence (not that they don't all have a military of their own) on the U.S. counts as a form as modern 'collective security'. Contralya 07:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NATO 

message: Refer to Treaty of London (1518).  This treaty has the essential elements of collective security and should be considered a historical precedent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.133.160 (talk) 04:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article should cross-reference Treaty of London 

message: I still don't get what collective security is. The article talks about the prerequisites, notable backers, modern day analogies, etc., but it doesn't explain what it is. What exactly is collective security besides "a compromise between the concept of world government and a nation-state based balance of power system" 
Redguard117 (talk) 18:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on this. Is there no more clear definition available? Wiki-uk (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This is better, according to my opinion. Can you put it? Wiki-uk (talk) 12:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Is this reference relevant? It may be useful in the future once this article makes more sense as a historical source of CS theory, but right now I would remove it.. (maybe archive it in the talk page?) --Ondra2 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bahá'í Faith 

message: The following is written: "Second: no one state can block the decision making process. This was a major issue with the League of Nations, as it gave every state veto power, as well as with the UN, which gives it to 5 powerful nations. Should vetoes be allowed, the collective security arrangement will be greatly weakened as one country can subvert a democratic decision. "
It is simply not true that the League of Nations allowed a state to veto. The irony is that the League failed, partly, because of this lack of realism (i.e. not reflecting the power of the state). Powerful states did not want to work with a system that did what was so against their interests. Recognising this, the UN included veto powers. The comment above also implies resolutions were binding at the League's Council: they were not; states could (in an international law sense)legally ignore them.
Please take a look at the charter documents of the League.  I look forward to hearing some comments on this. Thanks(Gaccha (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted the much clearer explanation from the "League of Nations" article to avoid this issue. Feel free to improve my horrible English :). 78.53.214.73 (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual and theoretical error 

message: In this section it is mentioned that their was controversy with regards to the U.S. during the Falklands War due to their obligations as a Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance member.  However, this is a defensive pact requiring members to come to the aid of another if one is attacked and Argentina was not attacked, but was the aggressorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-American_Treaty_of_Reciprocal_Assistance.  Also the U.S. would have had commitments toward the UK as NATO members as Argentina is an “external body”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO.--Ajnewma (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent events 

message: I think this article would look better with the English spelling. This is primarily about European history and to use American spelling may imply it is an American viewpoint. The Wiki advice seems to point to the English spelling being the preferred option https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Spelling 80.44.155.162 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defence or Defense