Talk:Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty

Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty

The Moscow Treaty diverges from START in two ways: First, it limits actual warheads, whereas START I limits warheads only through declared attribution to their means of delivery (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers). Second, the Bush and Putin administration wrote the Moscow Treaty under a framework of greater "trust".

This is not an analysis of the treaty at all and instead is a show of support for the treaty passed off as fact.

--65.102.177.69 07:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Whereas, your edit made it a condemnation of the treaty! I have removed the paragraph entirely now Morwen - Talk 07:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Many updates need to be made to this article.

First, the quotation provided in the article does not list its source. It is linked to a footnote referencing "Letter of Transmittal: The Moscow Treaty 2002", however the link provided does not link to the source of the quoted text, but back to the top of this article.

Second, the statement "The Moscow Treaty is different from START in that it limits actual warheads, whereas START I limits warheads only through declared attribution to their means of delivery (ICBMs, SLBMs, and Heavy Bombers)" is inaccurate. The START I treaty limits BOTH warheads and means of delivery, the former to no more than 6000 warheads, and 1600 vehicles of delivery (ICBMs, SLBMs, heavy bombers).

Third, statements such as "the Moscow Treaty is apparently George W. Bush's contribution to the process" should be omitted. Either it is or isn't. The word "apparent" has several definitions on dictionary.com, one of which is "according to appearances, initial evidence, incomplete results, etc.; ostensible rather than actual". At worst, the above statement should be rephrased.

And fourth, most importantly. THERE ARE NO CITATIONS! Not even for the statement regarding the leaked classified document.

Nblankenburg 05:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

SORT

Can someone please add a disambiguation to SORT search results?

Please add a page that refers to the medical term "Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT"

Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT)

Strength of Recommendation Definition A • Recommendation based on consistent and good-quality patient-oriented evidence.* B • Recommendation based on inconsistent or limited-quality patient-oriented evidence.* C • Recommendation based on consensus, usual practice, opinion, disease-oriented evidence,* or case series for studies of diagnosis, treatment, prevention, or screening.

• -Patient-oriented evidence measures outcomes that matter to patients: morbidity, mortality, symptom improvement, cost reduction, and quality of life. Disease-oriented evidence measures intermediate, physiologic, or surrogate end points that may or may not reflect improvement in patient outcomes (eg, blood pressure, blood chemistry, physiologic function, pathologic findings).

(From Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy [SORT]: a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69:548-556.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.35.133.11 (talk) 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Should this SORT be at SORT or should it be a disambiguation page, and the treaty be at Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty? 65.95.13.158 (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

mirv limits?

maybe some additional info could be found here - according to various other articles, this agreement limits not only the total number of deployed warheads, but also the number of warheads per missile to 4 or 5 (eg. UGM-133 Trident II) So what exactly are the provisions of this agreement? Aryah (talk) 14:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved by Buckshot06. Jafeluv (talk) 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

---

SORT → Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty — expand the acronym, making it clear this is about the treaty, similar to how SALT is at Strategic Arms Limitation Talks 65.95.13.158 (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. Makes sense; see no drawbacks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); December 21, 2010; 14:56 (UTC)

• Support. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations)#Acronyms and initialisms in page titles reads in part Acronyms should be used in page naming if the subject is almost exclusively known only by its acronym and is widely known and used in that form (e.g. NASA and radar). This clearly is not such a case, and although the guideline does not read only if I believe that is the intention and our normal practice, and what should be followed here. Andrewa (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support Buckshot06 (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.