PCR and CCC My ions are reversions to start to change I did not, changes are either not referenced or argued, much less are objective. If this turns into an war, I began not. If you want to discuss, to page the article to argue why a word just seems more convenient than another (which issues are on a single word). Now I wonder why do you get the information you get out of the CCC article, which references you bothered to find and add to get information without even clarify why you think that this information is not intended to be in the article (or references I ask a argument is nothing more), or what is your reason to support a vandalism which labels “supposed” to the line of the CCC. So do not ask me to do what neither you nor did the vandal that started this. Regards, – (talk) 21:17 April 2, 2010 (UTC) Well, finally something concrete. That search for something.- The above comment is the work of (talk Vs. Locked.), Who forgot to sign it. – R ge (Talk) 21:22 April 2, 2010 (UTC) You do what you want. I have understood that when there is an war, to protect an item must be returned before the first issue that started this war. – (talk) 21:27 April 2, 2010 (UTC) I found an interview with a leader of the CCC (http://www.icarodigital.com.ar/numero9/eldamero/protesta.htm) where he says “If it is true that the CCC is a front organization, a place where colleagues from different political and religious ideas.” I think it should achieve.In another interview I found on the Internet (http://www.uce.es/DEVERDAD/ARCHIVO 2004/01 04/DV01 04 16hispanos.html) to the question What is the political composition of the CCC and its relation to the PCR a leader of two answers: “The CCC is a united front, we understand that to a large and powerful movement has to be. Partisanship not we in the movement, we know who we are, but all converge here. There are fellow Peronist radicals, evangelists, pastors, evangelists and the relationship with the PCR is very good. ” I’ll tell you one thing: that the CCC is a front does not mean necessarily good. It implies only that belong to the CCC is not required for membership of any party and can be composed of people of different ideologies. Something as simple as that. Bone that such information is not intended to replace the article says something favorable to the CCC, is objective, some will like it others do not (I do not care).If you disagree with the assertion that the CCC is a front, you should find references to prove that the CCC all belong to the same party, for example, or that there is inside the CCC Peronist with Communists. But that seems pointless deleted information that had not even noticed (hence the reinstatement in a second ion, not the first). The first ion was to eliminate the word “alleged” when talking about the class independence of the CCC, where C is the middle class. If class has a line of class independence, and put the little word “alleged” denies that. That word is biased, that issue was vandalism. It’s like writing in the article of the Movement of Landless Rural Workers allegedly consists of people who have no land.In conclusion, I repeat that according to the link you sent me on the wars, to protect an article must first leave it as it was before the war began, then continue the discussion in the article’s talk page. Neither one nor the other have done. – (talk) 21:59 April 2, 2010 (UTC) You do not want to work in the article, wanted to get that word “alleged” that, I believe, was a vandalism. After I said that information that is objective and not biased, tendentious would say that all members of the CCC are affiliated with the PCR toshow a larger PCR than it actually is. But right now I do not care if it recovers or not that objective, if it qualifies to respect the neutral point of view or if it is stated that the CCC is, in fact, the PCR. At this point, that is remove the little word “claimed” I am satisfied, or at least explaining it is certainly something that is from the same name.Even, if necessary, has to take off everything in the class independence, because that is alleged is biased. His silence, as we get information … – (talk) 22:11 April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comments are closed.