Talk:Cox Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Alleged theft[edit]

I reverted the edits because this page is for what the cox report said. Writing alleged is extremely POV, amatuer, and unencyclopedic. If you leave alleged we should just delete this article because it would be pointless to have. Secondly when I removed alleged that is not sayting that they actually stole the documents. That is only saying that according to the cox report they stole the documents.

Did the report not say that they stole the documents? This alleged is ridiculous. Secondly I left this:

Final report conclusions summarized While several groups, including the People's Republic of China, contend that the Report is overstated or inaccurate, its authors and supporters maintain that its gist is undeniable. The report's basic findings were as follows, quoted from the above document's opening summary:

The People's Republic of China (PRC) has stolen design information on the United States' most advanced thermonuclear weapons. The Select Committee judges that the PRC's next generation of thermonuclear weapons, currently under development, will exploit elements of stolen U.S. design information. PRC penetration of our national nuclear weapons laboratories spans at least the past several decades and almost certainly continues today.

The PRC has stolen or otherwise illegally obtained U.S. missile and space technology that improves PRC military and intelligence capabilities.

Then I didn't remove the part of the article that went over Chinas response:

China's response In response, the PRC has maintained that its nuclear technology was indigenously developed and was not the result of espionage.

CONCLUSION:[edit]

The cox report says that China stole the documents and China denies it. = Reader draws their own conclusions. What you reverted makes the article:

  1. -confusing
  2. -innaccurate
  3. -And makes it sound like it was written by a teenager.

Again my changes didn't say that China stole the documents they only said that the Cox report said they stole the documents. 71.131.229.32 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments would carry more weight if you registered. I believe deletions by anonymous users can be summarily reverted. -- Petri Krohn 15:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sloppy references.[edit]

Reference number 3 merely reiterates what is said in reference 4: i.e. Hughes's fine. Loral is not mentioned, even though the reference clearly pertains to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.222.128 (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Timeline[edit]

Instead of using a jpg image that cannot be further edited, it should be changed into regular wiki paragraph formatting or a table at least. Yay or Nay?--Hypo 06:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Nay. You can edit it. Go to Template:GovernmentNotification‎. --Jayzel 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Good job Derex[edit]

Nice clean-up job, Derex.--Jayzel 19:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"July 1995, CIA director, Energy Secretary, and chief of staff learn of nuclear espionage for first time"[edit]

Was this an actual assertion that can be found in the report? There are those who would dispute this because, the threat of foreign spying was always there way before 1995 and all of these men knew about it. Recommend rephrasing this sentence because in making the statement that these men (before the creation of Homeland Security) learned of "nuclear espionage for the first time" is just so not true. Cheers. Ronewirl (talk) 03:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

An overview of the actual (declassified) report found here http://www.house.gov/coxreport/pdf/overv.pdf -- Ronewirl (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC).

Damage Assessment[edit]

The paragraph "Damage Assessment" under Criticism supports the report - why is it under criticism? It should be moved somewhere esle. Nada (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche criticism[edit]

From what I understand, LaRouche receives more credibility and respect in some ways in China than his movement does in the US, thus, the coverage of his views by Xinhua news agency. So, including the coverage of his views by Xinhua helps give China's side on the issue. I'll rewrite the section to reflect that. Cla68 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

External links that should be used as references[edit]

Removed these from the article - they should be used as references...

Nikthestoned 06:52, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cox Report. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 20:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cox Report. 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:

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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 00:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced text[edit]

The following texts have been removed as per the citation needed tags until they can be properly sourced:

In response, the PRC has maintained that its nuclear technology was indigenously developed and was not the result of espionage.[citation needed]

The report inflated the SLBM JL-2's range, classifying it 12,000 km rather than the conventional 8,000 km figure used within the intelligence community. Using this inflated figure, the report went on to speculate on how the PLA could change its basic nuclear policy and doctrine.[citation needed]

Jonathan D. Pollack, an expert on Chinese technological and military development, criticized the report for failing to disclose the context in which U.S.-Sino relations dating back to the 1970s had fostered the enhancement of Chinese power as a counterbalance to the Soviet Union. Thus the environment in which these illegal transfers of technology took place may have been taking place in a relaxed or even complicit environment.[citation needed]

Wingwraith (talk) 20:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cox_Report&oldid=945843360"