This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 24, 2011 and September 24, 2016. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
India and Pakistan *were not* and *are not nuclear weapons states*. A nuclear weapons state is defined in the context of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty as only the 5 permanent member of the security council, Russia, USA, UK, France, China. This is a common misconception for people not familiar with this subject. Nuclear weapons state is not equal to a state having nuclear weapons.
This article erroneously reported that India and Pakistan were not nuclear weapons states at the time of the 1996 signing of the CTBT. In fact, India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 ( GlobalSecurity.org) and Pakistan reached the ability to produce a nuclear weapon in 1987 according to FAS ( FAS). -- Subversive 15:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This page has clearly been ripped from
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hictbt/ctbt-docs.html
That page is copyrighted - even if it does ask people to reproduce the material. How can we release copyrighted work under the GFDL?
Tompagenet 17:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It also pays no mention to the fact that it hasn't been ratified, nor is likely to be anytime soon, since many of the 44 required ratifications are not going to happen.
That sounds like a political statement from a neocon to me.
---I don't think this article should make political statements - keep in factual. I suggest that the text speak for itself - it shows the countries that have ratified and those who have yet to ratify.
TheodoreB 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)TheodoreB
I don't think the introduction to this article is very clear. It says that it needs to be ratified by 11 more countries, and then in the sidebar it says it needs to be ratified by 44 more countries. Which is correct? Atinoda 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The correct full name of the treaty appears to be "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty" [1]. In the article the name is given as "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". But neither of these are the article name, or indeed redirect here.
I propose the article be moved to "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". Any objections? Rwendland 13:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoever was responsible for the bold (typeface) editorial questions in the main text, knock it off. That discussion goes on this page, not the article. Moonsword 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is this treaty not being enforced? Even if the US doesn't sign, surely there's value in enforcing it? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]comment added by 62.31.33.21 ( talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A map would be useful here to show which states are signatories and which states have ratified this treaty. Basically, a wikified version of this map. Thanks to anyone who can help. -- Allstar86 ( talk) 10:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As you can see here, the correct name is "comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty", with online one hyphen between "test" an "ban". I don't know why, but the organization uses two hyphens (like in the article's title). -- 79.238.114.45 ( talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What is Annex 2? The article is not clear.
Should there be a section including the United States Six Safeguards? Cmlmcmillan ( talk) 06:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The health concerns that scientists and media were raising at the time of the ban?-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 06:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/18/203804.phpWhen 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep. 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:604C:4B49:D0CC:82FE ( talk) 16:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on September 24, 2011 and September 24, 2016. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
India and Pakistan *were not* and *are not nuclear weapons states*. A nuclear weapons state is defined in the context of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty as only the 5 permanent member of the security council, Russia, USA, UK, France, China. This is a common misconception for people not familiar with this subject. Nuclear weapons state is not equal to a state having nuclear weapons.
This article erroneously reported that India and Pakistan were not nuclear weapons states at the time of the 1996 signing of the CTBT. In fact, India conducted its first nuclear test in 1974 ( GlobalSecurity.org) and Pakistan reached the ability to produce a nuclear weapon in 1987 according to FAS ( FAS). -- Subversive 15:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
This page has clearly been ripped from
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/hictbt/ctbt-docs.html
That page is copyrighted - even if it does ask people to reproduce the material. How can we release copyrighted work under the GFDL?
Tompagenet 17:05, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
It also pays no mention to the fact that it hasn't been ratified, nor is likely to be anytime soon, since many of the 44 required ratifications are not going to happen.
That sounds like a political statement from a neocon to me.
---I don't think this article should make political statements - keep in factual. I suggest that the text speak for itself - it shows the countries that have ratified and those who have yet to ratify.
TheodoreB 01:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)TheodoreB
I don't think the introduction to this article is very clear. It says that it needs to be ratified by 11 more countries, and then in the sidebar it says it needs to be ratified by 44 more countries. Which is correct? Atinoda 04:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The correct full name of the treaty appears to be "Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty" [1]. In the article the name is given as "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". But neither of these are the article name, or indeed redirect here.
I propose the article be moved to "Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty". Any objections? Rwendland 13:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Whoever was responsible for the bold (typeface) editorial questions in the main text, knock it off. That discussion goes on this page, not the article. Moonsword 14:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Why is this treaty not being enforced? Even if the US doesn't sign, surely there's value in enforcing it? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]comment added by 62.31.33.21 ( talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
A map would be useful here to show which states are signatories and which states have ratified this treaty. Basically, a wikified version of this map. Thanks to anyone who can help. -- Allstar86 ( talk) 10:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
As you can see here, the correct name is "comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty", with online one hyphen between "test" an "ban". I don't know why, but the organization uses two hyphens (like in the article's title). -- 79.238.114.45 ( talk) 10:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
What is Annex 2? The article is not clear.
Should there be a section including the United States Six Safeguards? Cmlmcmillan ( talk) 06:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The health concerns that scientists and media were raising at the time of the ban?-- Senor Freebie ( talk) 06:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/07/18/203804.phpWhen 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 {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Yep. 2A00:1370:8184:1CE9:604C:4B49:D0CC:82FE ( talk) 16:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)