This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 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 news item involving Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 July 2017. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reading through this article, as I have reason to believe at least 13 experienced editors have done in the past 18 hours, I can't help but escape the view that the "Positions" section is unbalanced. There appears to be what I can only describe as selective addition of the most anti-nuclear opinion polls – an appropriate remedy would be to balance opinion polls from those who have signed up (apart from Germany the countries here have), with nonaligned countries and with nuclear powers. The "Civil society" and "Parliamentarians" lead the reader very heavily in the direction that to support this is normal and good and to oppose this is unusual and bad; a very clear violation of NPOV unless there is sufficient justification for such an editorial line from the weight of reliable sources. Finally, the paragraph under the main header focusses heavily on those regions which supported the treaty but does not sufficiently highting those regions and grouping from which there was least or no support.
On balance I've decided to place {{ POV section}}. I've done this after careful consideration, because it would be very easy to be accused of placing the orange tag on for inappropriate reasons. However, while I'm confident that the issues can be rectified, they don't strike me as a five minute, one edit job, and they do strike me as serious enough to highlight. Therefore putting the tag on seems proportionate. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 16:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
But the civil society, parliamentary and opinion poll sections are clearly imbalanced. Public opinion in the nuclear states is of course relevant and will of course be at variance with the smattering of results present. The mutually assured destruction doctrine and reasons behind support for NPT in preference to this treaty are clearly relevant to the parliamentary section &ndash given that such positions are actually held by the Governments in question, it should not be difficult to find a balance of parliamentary opinion. And for all the bad things about nuclear weapons, there are significant scientific and commercial interests in them. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 02:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Under States: all 10 nations of Southeast Asia -- I've just flagged that as needing a citation; can someone oblige? The reference to "all ten" makes me think we're talking about ASEAN: correct? (even though I'm suspicious of such arbitrary global subdivisions, our Southeast Asia article speaks of 11 sovereign states there, PNG being the odd-man out.) Moscow Mule ( talk) 04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Finally I wrote a large part of the most important section after adoption of the treaty: the provisions. Who could help to finish it soon? It's quite straightforward, but perhaps slightly different aspects could be emphasized based on secondary sources (I had the sources for the treaty's history in mind).
At first sight, not much from the history section seems to be obsolete. But feel free to delete or rearrange, with the purpose of better readability and shortness. Also, some discussions or impact remarks like nuclear sharing might be moved from "History, .." to "Positions". -- Jwollbold ( talk) 23:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The ICAN comment (by Xanthe Hall, Germany) is general, but overall the focus of the section is on NATO states and their old-fashioned deterrence politics. (Whom they want to scare? In June 2017, our German state secretary still repeated the 1953 concept of a boundless aggressive enemy Russia!). Who could add other perspectives? I found articles from India and Japan - don't know when I will have time to summarize the positions.
The most important subject is North Korea. According to our article, the US, Great Britain and France have turned the conflict into a main argument against the treaty (but 20 warheads worldwide would be sufficient to deter NK!). I would be interested much more in positive visions: Why not offer to North Korea massive nuclear disarmament and security guarantees like renouncing a nuclear first strike in exchange for nuclear and missile disarmament? Do you know alternative positions to nuclear deterrence against NK, by preference related to the ban treaty? -- Jwollbold ( talk) 00:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"Offered for your consideration," as Rod Serling might say. . . .
Last month, CounterPunch magazine's Website published a four-part critique of the then-draft Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty by N. D. Jayaprakash -- joint secretary of the Delhi Science Forum and co-convenor of the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (Coalition for Supporting the Cause of the Bhopal Gas Victims). His view at that time, at least, was that "in its present form, the Draft Convention is totally disappointing since it is in no way designed to achieve the purported objective of prohibiting nuclear weapons worldwide." Rather, his analysis suggests, the Draft Convention as written would protect the interests of the nuclear-weapon states . . . as its predecessors have done.
I have contacted the author, and last weekend I asked if he had seen anything significantly different in the final version of the treaty. He kindly replied that he was busy trying to deal with some Bhopal-related court matters, but would respond to me when he was able. In the meantime, I have links to all four parts of the original analysis in my Facebook post here:
https://www.facebook.com/jalp4thePeople/posts/1509884835729871
Or, if the editors of this page would prefer to visit the parts directly, here they are:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/13/no-more-con-games-abolish-nuclear-weapons-now/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/14/no-more-con-games-abolish-nuclear-weapons-now-part-two/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15/no-more-con-games-abolish-nuclear-weapons-now-part-three/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/21/no-more-con-games-abolish-nuclear-weapons-now-part-four/
2602:306:8B98:2270:2942:10A5:22C2:BD32 ( talk) 16:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC) jalp
According to the introductory section, 69 nations did not participate in the negotiations. However, this appears to be incorrect.
On the final day of negotiations, the chair of the credentials committee submitted a report stating that the UN had received credentials from 129 states (he orally amended it to include an additional 6 states, bringing the total to 135). This includes two non-UN members: Holy See and Palestine. Thus, 60 UN member states did not submit credentials.
According to UN sources, Nicaragua, Saziland, Sirya, Zambia, Monaco, Lybia and Cameroon participated in the negotiations, so the map should be updated to include them. The above countries did not express a vote at the end on the treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.196.228 ( talk) 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
However, several of these states did participate informally in the negotiations e.g. Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mali, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.
Given the lack of clarity and the lack of an adequate citation, I suggest changing this sentence simply to note that none of the nuclear-armed states participated in the negotiations and only one NATO member (the Netherlands) participated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.69.206 ( talk) 05:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is the report of the Credentials Committee: http://undocs.org/A/CONF.229/2017/7 The Chair, upon presenting it to the Conference, orally amended it to reflect the fact that Chad, Eritrea, Grenada, Equatorial Guinea, Timor-Leste and Sierra Leone had also submitted their credentials, at the last minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICAN-Australia ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (please sign your comments with four tildes)
@ ICAN-Australia: I just saw these comments now. I had already reverted your change(s) to the article. Unless and until the report of the committee is edited or there is some other record of the amended lists, I think the status quo or that suggested by 124.168.69.206 is most accurate. Tomásdearg92 ( talk) 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The article begins: "The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons." But does it? "Comprehensively" means everywhere. But the prohibitions in this treaty will apply only to countries that join the treaty, and there is no indication that any country that actually has nuclear weapons will join the treaty. In fact, the only countries that are likely to join are ones that have already undertaken the obligation not to acquire nuclear weapons by joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The ban treaty contains a few additional prohibitions (assistance, basing, testing) beyond the NPT, so it is more comprehensive in that sense, but it can hardly be described as comprehensive in its geographic scope.
I don't think it's even accurate to say that the ban treaty is the first legally binding international agreement that seeks to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, since Article VI (and the preamble) of the NPT express this same goal.
Any suggestions for how to change the lede to make it more accurate but still reflect the importance and ambitions of this new treaty? NPguy ( talk) 17:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
An editor has repeatedly tried to add two sentences to the article saying "Only three countries voted yes in both the First Committee and the General Assembly, namely Argentina, Iran and Sweden. All three countries emphasized the need for breaking the current status quo on global nuclear disarmament." The citation given to support the statements is this article: "Voting on UN resolution for nuclear ban treaty". ICAN. 23 December 2016. Retrieved 8 September 2017.. I do not see any statement saying that (or anything similar to that) in that cited source. The sentences have been added three times by the same editor and removed three times (by two different editors). I suggest that these sentences are " original research" or self-produced " synthesis", or possibly false, and should not be included in the article. I also notice that the cited source is an advocacy organization that has a particular point of view that it promotes, rather than being a neutral "third-party" source. — BarrelProof ( talk) 05:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
North Korea however, was a lone supporter of initiating ban negotiations. [1] [2]And this sentence, ditto:
North Korea was the only country possessing nuclear weapons that voted for this resolution, though it did not take part in negotiations. [1] [3]Both claims were originally sourced to GlobalResearch.ca, which is a conspiracy theory website that has repeatedly been ruled not WP:RS. I replaced that with the Ramesh Thakur source, but as the editor, RhinoMind, rightly pointed out, that is an opinion piece, so not great, and it doesn't really say what the article text says. If we delete the GlobalResarch and opinion piece sources, as we ought to, we are left with the ICAN voting lists again (which show that N Korea backed the resolution in the first but not second vote), but sourcing to these lists would mean that the claims would constitute original research. Can we delete both sentences please? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hi. It was I who inserted that sentence about the three countries. Having thought about it, it must be wrong. From a purely logical point of view, a "yes" vote from a large number of countries in First Committee (FC) would probably have been required to even start negotiations and proceed to General Assembly (GA). With just three "yes" votes from the group of countries that later voted "yes" in GA, would not suffice to make a majority. Also, and more importantly, looking at the ref, it does not specifically state how the votes were cast in FC, it only attaches an "explanation" to the GA vote. To include information about FC voting, we would probably need the original UN voting source. I don't have it right now, but I feel quite sure that it cannot support the statement I wrote.
I think the sentence should be removed and I am willing to self-revert. If the original UN voting source from FC can be found and shows anything remarkable, it can perhaps be included, but I doubt there is anything remarkable at all. RhinoMind ( talk) 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Should the table under the Parties and signatories section list " Holy See" instead of " Vatican City"? According to its October 10, 2017 statement: "The Holy See signed and ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons during the 20 September signing ceremony...." [Source: Bernardito Auza (October 10, 2017). Statement of H.E. Archbishop Bernardito Auza (PDF) (Speech). General Debate of the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. New York. Retrieved November 16, 2017.] And the Foreign relations section of the Vatican City article begins with (but has no citation for): "Vatican City State is a recognized national territory under international law, but it is the Holy See that conducts diplomatic relations on its behalf, in addition to the Holy See's own diplomacy, entering into international agreements in its regard. Vatican City thus has no diplomatic service of its own." Litjade ( talk) 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
On 2019-02-16 User:98.232.66.208 inserted the following:
User:98.232.66.208 did this noting, "Added note about Israel's vote and ambiguous nuclear status."
I'm reverting this, because (a) Israel is NOT identified as a "signatory" by ICAN, and (b) no documentation is provided to support this claim.
If you have documentation to the contrary, please contact ICAN and ask them to explain the discrepancy.
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
1. That section actually refers to votes on the UN resolution, not to treaty signatories. There are only 70 signatories to date, but there were 122 Yes votes on the resolution in support. Therefore 52 nations voted for the resolution but are, correctly, not listed as signatories by ICAN. The first example alphabetically would be Afghanistan. (Documentation: treaty signatories and voting record. Both as referenced in the article, as sources 1 and 40 respectively.)
2. However, I misread the voting record and Israel wasn't a yes vote. Egg on my face! So, uh, thanks for reverting my mistaken edit for a mistaken reason, since it worked out right in the end. Glad somebody was watching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.66.208 ( talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact, there are two votes referred to in the introduction. The first (chronologically) was the vote by the negotiating committee to adopt the treaty text as final and recommend it to the UN General Assembly. Israel did not take part in those negotiations, and did not vote. The second vote was by the UN General Assembly to approve the treaty text and open it for signature. Israel participated in that vote, and voted no. NPguy ( talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, neither of the votes you're referring to is actually mentioned in the introduction (though they do appear later in the article, of course). The only vote referenced there, and also the vote in question in the section we're discussing, is the July 2017 vote. As stated in the article, only one country voted No there, and it was the Netherlands. Israel (contrary to my initial misreading) did not vote. My understanding is that the votes you're describing are votes on the treaty text, while the July 2017 vote is on the treaty itself (i.e. "is this a good way to write this treaty" versus "should everyone sign this treaty.")-- 98.232.66.208 ( talk) 22:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
On 2019-04-28 User:180.190.174.95 modified the article to reflect 85 signatories and 24 ratifiers -- without giving a citation to justify those changes.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to find documentation for that. The reference in the article I find is <ref name=treatiesun> "Chapter XXVI: Disarmament – No. 9 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2017-09-20. Retrieved 2017-09-21., and that lists only 70 signatories and 23 parties.
Therefore, I'm reverting these changes. I would support them if a credible citation and appropriate verbiage were provided. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 11:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Itsidora: On 2019-07-07T06:49:26 I made essentially the same change you made on 2019-07-09T18:07:00, though citing a different source. It was reverted by User:Danlaycock, saying, "this is only one step to the completion of ratification. process not complete until UN receives notification, which as per linked source has not yet occurred."
My response to that reversion was to mention this "ratification in progress" in the intro to this section. I've added your source to mine for that statement. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something, but is there really something inconsistent here? We have had loads of countries over the past few years where the time between finalising the domestic ratification process and depositing the instrument of ratification was several months (up to six). The European Union is a notorious example, which often only ratifies after all EU states did. And the Hague Choice of Court convention was approved for 2 provinces last year; but they seem to be waiting to deposit on behalf of those provinces. In my experience this depositary is generally correct. Or do we have sources specifying the deposit itself with the UN? L.tak ( talk) 21:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@ NPguy: What's the official source on this?
I believe it's "Chapter XXVI: Disarmament – No. 9 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2019-07-06. Retrieved 2019-09-02., and as of this minute, 2019-09-03T01:47 (UTC), that source says that 26 have ratified it, with Kazakhstan ratifying it 2019-08-29.
You mentioned ICAN and UNODA. However, ICAN is a lobbying organization, not an official part of the UN. The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) is clearly a UN agency devoted to monitoring issues like this. I see where they claim only 25 parties so far, not including Kazakhstan.
However, this article does not include one reference to UNODA. It perhaps should, but it doesn't. And to date, the UN Treaty Collection has been the primary reference used in this article for the status of the treaty.
If you think we should use UNODA over UNTC, please make a case for that.
Until then, I will assume that UNTC is the primary reference for that, and UNODA's official web site will soon enough catch up to UNTC. Alternatively, the addition of Kazakhstan to the UNTC list could be reverted. In that case, we should rewrite this article slightly to refer primarily to UNODA rather than UNTC.
However, I believe it is more likely that UNODA's information will soon be updated to match UNTC than to see the recent change in the UNTC list to be reverted. I am therefore reverting your reversion. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 04:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Might someone take the lead in writing a section on "Comparison with the NPT" discussing the practical implications of this treaty including how it relates to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)?
I'm only aware of one practical implication: It raises the profile of the concerns about nuclear weapons, after this issue has seemed to have languished since the NPT took effect in 1970.
Sadly, I don't know enough to write such a section. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It grieves me to revert the edits by User:158.222.231.12 and User:2001:240:2975:3c00:619b:5ce7:f868:902e adding Saint Kitts and Nevis to the list of countries that have ratified the TPNW: The official web page for this treaty does not indicate that Saint Kitts and Nevis has officially deposited its instruments of "Acceptance(A), Approval(AA), Ratification, Accession(a)". Without that, this addition must be reverted. I hope that Saint Kitts and Nevis will deposit such instruments soon, but we cannot list them here until they do. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 05:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Johncdraper: Thanks for your recent contribution to this article. May I ask why you assigned "importance=Mid"?
It is my view that this is even more important than climate change, second in importance only to freedom of the press. My views are summarized in the following research reports:
I estimate a roughly 50 percent chance that the life of a child born today will be shortened as a direct or indirect result of a nuclear war, and Daniel Ellsberg claims that when a nuclear war comes, the almost certain result will be a nuclear winter during which 98 percent of humanity will starve to death if they do not die of something else sooner. Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, was a nuclear war planner for US Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was inside the Pentagon writing briefing papers for Secretary of Defense McNamara, President Kennedy, and the rest of the key decision makers in the US government.
I don't agree with Ellsberg that a nuclear winter is that certain, but it is a clear possibility. A nuclear war will likely kill billions of people.
Climate change, on the other hand, is certain to kill millions and cause substantial other problems. However, I don't see how it will likely lead to an end to civilization without triggering a nuclear war.
After reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment, I believe this should be "importance=Top", because "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field."
As noted in Wikiversity:Forecasting the effective date of the TPNW, the time between ratifications (or acceptances, approvals or accessions) has so far been just over 25 days. Each day that passes without another ratification (or acceptance, etc.) adds just over one day to the forecasted date of the 50th ratification. Each new ratification (or acceptance, etc.) subtracts just over 25 days from that forecasted date. This treaty could be instrumental in reducing the probability of a nuclear war and winter AND in building relationships among international leaders that might help them take more effective action on climate change.
If you disagree with this assessment, let's discuss. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 11:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
User:NPguy refuses to display the official name of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the "See also" section, insisting on displaying instead as:
I think it would be better to give the official name with the shorter, "more common name", as:
As of 2020-10-09 that article has attracted 2,796 edits from 1,368 editors since it was created 2002-01-11 and has attracted 2,956,031 views since 2015-07-01. Articles are sometimes renamed. The current name would seem to reflect a reasonable consensus of those 1,368 editors. I think we should respect that consensus, and not claim that somehow we know better. I think my version does that.
If you don't like the name of that article, the proper place to raise that question is on Talk:Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Comments? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 05:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
User:DavidMCEddy I've put a reference from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Organization on the lead which should settle the issue of RS. It doesn't need a primary source. Whether one needs a reference to add 90 days to today's date is moot. But the ratification date should not be reverted. Chris55 ( talk) 20:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
References
User:2001:4454:252:bb00:8903:79c5:22e9:68f2 insists that "Portuguese Alongside Arabic Chinese English French Russian and Spanish are Languages of the TPNW." What documentation of that is there? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
There are now 88 signatories in the list on https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-9&chapter=26&clang=_en . – Gebu ( talk) 14:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I added a section--which I updated with an additional footnote here--on US statesmen supporting the abolition of nuclear weapons. It was deleted, footnotes and all, with the remark that the section is irrelevant or misleading. The abolition of nuclear weapons is the central aim of the Treaty. The US is the world's sole remaining superpower and the country with the greatest nuclear weapons capability. For this reason, the position on abolition taken by senior former American officials (well-known secretaries of defense and state, including Henry Kissinger) seem quite pertinent to the article. NYCJosh ( talk) 21:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Several senior American foreign policy officials, including former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former chairperson of US Senate Committee on Armed Services Sam Nunn, founded the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), which works to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction including the abolition of nuclear weapons. [1] Perry has explicitly endorsed the TPNW. [2]
As I said earlier, the one part of what is proposed has already been included -- namely that Bill Perry has endorsed the TPNW. There are lots of people who support disarmament who don't support the TPNW. Listing them in this article implies that they do support the TPNW. There is no indication that the other three "statesmen" do (or -- in George Shultz's case -- did) support the TPNW. In my view, opinions about disarmament are not relevant to this article unless they are specifically opinions about the TPNW. NPguy ( talk) 20:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Citing Nunn, Shultz, and Kissinger would be misleading. It would imply that they support(ed) this treaty. They don't/didn't. Lots of people support nuclear disarmament but don't support this treaty. The discussion above (about the NPT) is legally incorrect and highly biased. The TPNW is controversial, so adding more analysis and opinion could lead to a lot of editing and counter-editing. NPguy ( talk) 23:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
"[these] US statesmen [support] the abolition of nuclear weapons"with
"The abolition of nuclear weapons is the central aim of the [Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)]"seems to imply that the
"statesmen"in question are (or should be) advocates for the TPNW. However, no source stating such a thing has been presented, to my knowledge. Therefore, regardless of your intent, the proposed edit contravenes WP:SYNTH:
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. ... "TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 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 news item involving Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 July 2017. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons at the Reference desk. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Reading through this article, as I have reason to believe at least 13 experienced editors have done in the past 18 hours, I can't help but escape the view that the "Positions" section is unbalanced. There appears to be what I can only describe as selective addition of the most anti-nuclear opinion polls – an appropriate remedy would be to balance opinion polls from those who have signed up (apart from Germany the countries here have), with nonaligned countries and with nuclear powers. The "Civil society" and "Parliamentarians" lead the reader very heavily in the direction that to support this is normal and good and to oppose this is unusual and bad; a very clear violation of NPOV unless there is sufficient justification for such an editorial line from the weight of reliable sources. Finally, the paragraph under the main header focusses heavily on those regions which supported the treaty but does not sufficiently highting those regions and grouping from which there was least or no support.
On balance I've decided to place {{ POV section}}. I've done this after careful consideration, because it would be very easy to be accused of placing the orange tag on for inappropriate reasons. However, while I'm confident that the issues can be rectified, they don't strike me as a five minute, one edit job, and they do strike me as serious enough to highlight. Therefore putting the tag on seems proportionate. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 16:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
But the civil society, parliamentary and opinion poll sections are clearly imbalanced. Public opinion in the nuclear states is of course relevant and will of course be at variance with the smattering of results present. The mutually assured destruction doctrine and reasons behind support for NPT in preference to this treaty are clearly relevant to the parliamentary section &ndash given that such positions are actually held by the Governments in question, it should not be difficult to find a balance of parliamentary opinion. And for all the bad things about nuclear weapons, there are significant scientific and commercial interests in them. StillWaitingForConnection ( talk) 02:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Under States: all 10 nations of Southeast Asia -- I've just flagged that as needing a citation; can someone oblige? The reference to "all ten" makes me think we're talking about ASEAN: correct? (even though I'm suspicious of such arbitrary global subdivisions, our Southeast Asia article speaks of 11 sovereign states there, PNG being the odd-man out.) Moscow Mule ( talk) 04:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Finally I wrote a large part of the most important section after adoption of the treaty: the provisions. Who could help to finish it soon? It's quite straightforward, but perhaps slightly different aspects could be emphasized based on secondary sources (I had the sources for the treaty's history in mind).
At first sight, not much from the history section seems to be obsolete. But feel free to delete or rearrange, with the purpose of better readability and shortness. Also, some discussions or impact remarks like nuclear sharing might be moved from "History, .." to "Positions". -- Jwollbold ( talk) 23:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The ICAN comment (by Xanthe Hall, Germany) is general, but overall the focus of the section is on NATO states and their old-fashioned deterrence politics. (Whom they want to scare? In June 2017, our German state secretary still repeated the 1953 concept of a boundless aggressive enemy Russia!). Who could add other perspectives? I found articles from India and Japan - don't know when I will have time to summarize the positions.
The most important subject is North Korea. According to our article, the US, Great Britain and France have turned the conflict into a main argument against the treaty (but 20 warheads worldwide would be sufficient to deter NK!). I would be interested much more in positive visions: Why not offer to North Korea massive nuclear disarmament and security guarantees like renouncing a nuclear first strike in exchange for nuclear and missile disarmament? Do you know alternative positions to nuclear deterrence against NK, by preference related to the ban treaty? -- Jwollbold ( talk) 00:17, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
"Offered for your consideration," as Rod Serling might say. . . .
Last month, CounterPunch magazine's Website published a four-part critique of the then-draft Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty by N. D. Jayaprakash -- joint secretary of the Delhi Science Forum and co-convenor of the Bhopal Gas Peedith Sangharsh Sahayog Samiti (Coalition for Supporting the Cause of the Bhopal Gas Victims). His view at that time, at least, was that "in its present form, the Draft Convention is totally disappointing since it is in no way designed to achieve the purported objective of prohibiting nuclear weapons worldwide." Rather, his analysis suggests, the Draft Convention as written would protect the interests of the nuclear-weapon states . . . as its predecessors have done.
I have contacted the author, and last weekend I asked if he had seen anything significantly different in the final version of the treaty. He kindly replied that he was busy trying to deal with some Bhopal-related court matters, but would respond to me when he was able. In the meantime, I have links to all four parts of the original analysis in my Facebook post here:
https://www.facebook.com/jalp4thePeople/posts/1509884835729871
Or, if the editors of this page would prefer to visit the parts directly, here they are:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/13/no-more-con-games-abolish-nuclear-weapons-now/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/14/no-more-con-games-abolish-nuclear-weapons-now-part-two/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/15/no-more-con-games-abolish-nuclear-weapons-now-part-three/
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/21/no-more-con-games-abolish-nuclear-weapons-now-part-four/
2602:306:8B98:2270:2942:10A5:22C2:BD32 ( talk) 16:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC) jalp
According to the introductory section, 69 nations did not participate in the negotiations. However, this appears to be incorrect.
On the final day of negotiations, the chair of the credentials committee submitted a report stating that the UN had received credentials from 129 states (he orally amended it to include an additional 6 states, bringing the total to 135). This includes two non-UN members: Holy See and Palestine. Thus, 60 UN member states did not submit credentials.
According to UN sources, Nicaragua, Saziland, Sirya, Zambia, Monaco, Lybia and Cameroon participated in the negotiations, so the map should be updated to include them. The above countries did not express a vote at the end on the treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.159.196.228 ( talk) 12:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
However, several of these states did participate informally in the negotiations e.g. Central African Republic, Comoros, Dominica, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Japan, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Mali, Niger, Somalia, South Sudan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.
Given the lack of clarity and the lack of an adequate citation, I suggest changing this sentence simply to note that none of the nuclear-armed states participated in the negotiations and only one NATO member (the Netherlands) participated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.69.206 ( talk) 05:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Here is the report of the Credentials Committee: http://undocs.org/A/CONF.229/2017/7 The Chair, upon presenting it to the Conference, orally amended it to reflect the fact that Chad, Eritrea, Grenada, Equatorial Guinea, Timor-Leste and Sierra Leone had also submitted their credentials, at the last minute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ICAN-Australia ( talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC) (please sign your comments with four tildes)
@ ICAN-Australia: I just saw these comments now. I had already reverted your change(s) to the article. Unless and until the report of the committee is edited or there is some other record of the amended lists, I think the status quo or that suggested by 124.168.69.206 is most accurate. Tomásdearg92 ( talk) 17:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The article begins: "The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty, is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons." But does it? "Comprehensively" means everywhere. But the prohibitions in this treaty will apply only to countries that join the treaty, and there is no indication that any country that actually has nuclear weapons will join the treaty. In fact, the only countries that are likely to join are ones that have already undertaken the obligation not to acquire nuclear weapons by joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The ban treaty contains a few additional prohibitions (assistance, basing, testing) beyond the NPT, so it is more comprehensive in that sense, but it can hardly be described as comprehensive in its geographic scope.
I don't think it's even accurate to say that the ban treaty is the first legally binding international agreement that seeks to comprehensively prohibit nuclear weapons, since Article VI (and the preamble) of the NPT express this same goal.
Any suggestions for how to change the lede to make it more accurate but still reflect the importance and ambitions of this new treaty? NPguy ( talk) 17:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
An editor has repeatedly tried to add two sentences to the article saying "Only three countries voted yes in both the First Committee and the General Assembly, namely Argentina, Iran and Sweden. All three countries emphasized the need for breaking the current status quo on global nuclear disarmament." The citation given to support the statements is this article: "Voting on UN resolution for nuclear ban treaty". ICAN. 23 December 2016. Retrieved 8 September 2017.. I do not see any statement saying that (or anything similar to that) in that cited source. The sentences have been added three times by the same editor and removed three times (by two different editors). I suggest that these sentences are " original research" or self-produced " synthesis", or possibly false, and should not be included in the article. I also notice that the cited source is an advocacy organization that has a particular point of view that it promotes, rather than being a neutral "third-party" source. — BarrelProof ( talk) 05:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
North Korea however, was a lone supporter of initiating ban negotiations. [1] [2]And this sentence, ditto:
North Korea was the only country possessing nuclear weapons that voted for this resolution, though it did not take part in negotiations. [1] [3]Both claims were originally sourced to GlobalResearch.ca, which is a conspiracy theory website that has repeatedly been ruled not WP:RS. I replaced that with the Ramesh Thakur source, but as the editor, RhinoMind, rightly pointed out, that is an opinion piece, so not great, and it doesn't really say what the article text says. If we delete the GlobalResarch and opinion piece sources, as we ought to, we are left with the ICAN voting lists again (which show that N Korea backed the resolution in the first but not second vote), but sourcing to these lists would mean that the claims would constitute original research. Can we delete both sentences please? BobFromBrockley ( talk) 10:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
References
Hi. It was I who inserted that sentence about the three countries. Having thought about it, it must be wrong. From a purely logical point of view, a "yes" vote from a large number of countries in First Committee (FC) would probably have been required to even start negotiations and proceed to General Assembly (GA). With just three "yes" votes from the group of countries that later voted "yes" in GA, would not suffice to make a majority. Also, and more importantly, looking at the ref, it does not specifically state how the votes were cast in FC, it only attaches an "explanation" to the GA vote. To include information about FC voting, we would probably need the original UN voting source. I don't have it right now, but I feel quite sure that it cannot support the statement I wrote.
I think the sentence should be removed and I am willing to self-revert. If the original UN voting source from FC can be found and shows anything remarkable, it can perhaps be included, but I doubt there is anything remarkable at all. RhinoMind ( talk) 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Should the table under the Parties and signatories section list " Holy See" instead of " Vatican City"? According to its October 10, 2017 statement: "The Holy See signed and ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons during the 20 September signing ceremony...." [Source: Bernardito Auza (October 10, 2017). Statement of H.E. Archbishop Bernardito Auza (PDF) (Speech). General Debate of the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. New York. Retrieved November 16, 2017.] And the Foreign relations section of the Vatican City article begins with (but has no citation for): "Vatican City State is a recognized national territory under international law, but it is the Holy See that conducts diplomatic relations on its behalf, in addition to the Holy See's own diplomacy, entering into international agreements in its regard. Vatican City thus has no diplomatic service of its own." Litjade ( talk) 21:05, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
On 2019-02-16 User:98.232.66.208 inserted the following:
User:98.232.66.208 did this noting, "Added note about Israel's vote and ambiguous nuclear status."
I'm reverting this, because (a) Israel is NOT identified as a "signatory" by ICAN, and (b) no documentation is provided to support this claim.
If you have documentation to the contrary, please contact ICAN and ask them to explain the discrepancy.
DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
1. That section actually refers to votes on the UN resolution, not to treaty signatories. There are only 70 signatories to date, but there were 122 Yes votes on the resolution in support. Therefore 52 nations voted for the resolution but are, correctly, not listed as signatories by ICAN. The first example alphabetically would be Afghanistan. (Documentation: treaty signatories and voting record. Both as referenced in the article, as sources 1 and 40 respectively.)
2. However, I misread the voting record and Israel wasn't a yes vote. Egg on my face! So, uh, thanks for reverting my mistaken edit for a mistaken reason, since it worked out right in the end. Glad somebody was watching. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.66.208 ( talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
In fact, there are two votes referred to in the introduction. The first (chronologically) was the vote by the negotiating committee to adopt the treaty text as final and recommend it to the UN General Assembly. Israel did not take part in those negotiations, and did not vote. The second vote was by the UN General Assembly to approve the treaty text and open it for signature. Israel participated in that vote, and voted no. NPguy ( talk) 21:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
No, neither of the votes you're referring to is actually mentioned in the introduction (though they do appear later in the article, of course). The only vote referenced there, and also the vote in question in the section we're discussing, is the July 2017 vote. As stated in the article, only one country voted No there, and it was the Netherlands. Israel (contrary to my initial misreading) did not vote. My understanding is that the votes you're describing are votes on the treaty text, while the July 2017 vote is on the treaty itself (i.e. "is this a good way to write this treaty" versus "should everyone sign this treaty.")-- 98.232.66.208 ( talk) 22:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
On 2019-04-28 User:180.190.174.95 modified the article to reflect 85 signatories and 24 ratifiers -- without giving a citation to justify those changes.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to find documentation for that. The reference in the article I find is <ref name=treatiesun> "Chapter XXVI: Disarmament – No. 9 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2017-09-20. Retrieved 2017-09-21., and that lists only 70 signatories and 23 parties.
Therefore, I'm reverting these changes. I would support them if a credible citation and appropriate verbiage were provided. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 11:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
@ Itsidora: On 2019-07-07T06:49:26 I made essentially the same change you made on 2019-07-09T18:07:00, though citing a different source. It was reverted by User:Danlaycock, saying, "this is only one step to the completion of ratification. process not complete until UN receives notification, which as per linked source has not yet occurred."
My response to that reversion was to mention this "ratification in progress" in the intro to this section. I've added your source to mine for that statement. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 18:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something, but is there really something inconsistent here? We have had loads of countries over the past few years where the time between finalising the domestic ratification process and depositing the instrument of ratification was several months (up to six). The European Union is a notorious example, which often only ratifies after all EU states did. And the Hague Choice of Court convention was approved for 2 provinces last year; but they seem to be waiting to deposit on behalf of those provinces. In my experience this depositary is generally correct. Or do we have sources specifying the deposit itself with the UN? L.tak ( talk) 21:59, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@ NPguy: What's the official source on this?
I believe it's "Chapter XXVI: Disarmament – No. 9 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons". United Nations Treaty Collection. 2019-07-06. Retrieved 2019-09-02., and as of this minute, 2019-09-03T01:47 (UTC), that source says that 26 have ratified it, with Kazakhstan ratifying it 2019-08-29.
You mentioned ICAN and UNODA. However, ICAN is a lobbying organization, not an official part of the UN. The United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) is clearly a UN agency devoted to monitoring issues like this. I see where they claim only 25 parties so far, not including Kazakhstan.
However, this article does not include one reference to UNODA. It perhaps should, but it doesn't. And to date, the UN Treaty Collection has been the primary reference used in this article for the status of the treaty.
If you think we should use UNODA over UNTC, please make a case for that.
Until then, I will assume that UNTC is the primary reference for that, and UNODA's official web site will soon enough catch up to UNTC. Alternatively, the addition of Kazakhstan to the UNTC list could be reverted. In that case, we should rewrite this article slightly to refer primarily to UNODA rather than UNTC.
However, I believe it is more likely that UNODA's information will soon be updated to match UNTC than to see the recent change in the UNTC list to be reverted. I am therefore reverting your reversion. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 04:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Might someone take the lead in writing a section on "Comparison with the NPT" discussing the practical implications of this treaty including how it relates to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)?
I'm only aware of one practical implication: It raises the profile of the concerns about nuclear weapons, after this issue has seemed to have languished since the NPT took effect in 1970.
Sadly, I don't know enough to write such a section. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
It grieves me to revert the edits by User:158.222.231.12 and User:2001:240:2975:3c00:619b:5ce7:f868:902e adding Saint Kitts and Nevis to the list of countries that have ratified the TPNW: The official web page for this treaty does not indicate that Saint Kitts and Nevis has officially deposited its instruments of "Acceptance(A), Approval(AA), Ratification, Accession(a)". Without that, this addition must be reverted. I hope that Saint Kitts and Nevis will deposit such instruments soon, but we cannot list them here until they do. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 05:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Johncdraper: Thanks for your recent contribution to this article. May I ask why you assigned "importance=Mid"?
It is my view that this is even more important than climate change, second in importance only to freedom of the press. My views are summarized in the following research reports:
I estimate a roughly 50 percent chance that the life of a child born today will be shortened as a direct or indirect result of a nuclear war, and Daniel Ellsberg claims that when a nuclear war comes, the almost certain result will be a nuclear winter during which 98 percent of humanity will starve to death if they do not die of something else sooner. Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, was a nuclear war planner for US Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard M. Nixon. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, he was inside the Pentagon writing briefing papers for Secretary of Defense McNamara, President Kennedy, and the rest of the key decision makers in the US government.
I don't agree with Ellsberg that a nuclear winter is that certain, but it is a clear possibility. A nuclear war will likely kill billions of people.
Climate change, on the other hand, is certain to kill millions and cause substantial other problems. However, I don't see how it will likely lead to an end to civilization without triggering a nuclear war.
After reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment, I believe this should be "importance=Top", because "Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field."
As noted in Wikiversity:Forecasting the effective date of the TPNW, the time between ratifications (or acceptances, approvals or accessions) has so far been just over 25 days. Each day that passes without another ratification (or acceptance, etc.) adds just over one day to the forecasted date of the 50th ratification. Each new ratification (or acceptance, etc.) subtracts just over 25 days from that forecasted date. This treaty could be instrumental in reducing the probability of a nuclear war and winter AND in building relationships among international leaders that might help them take more effective action on climate change.
If you disagree with this assessment, let's discuss. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 11:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
User:NPguy refuses to display the official name of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the "See also" section, insisting on displaying instead as:
I think it would be better to give the official name with the shorter, "more common name", as:
As of 2020-10-09 that article has attracted 2,796 edits from 1,368 editors since it was created 2002-01-11 and has attracted 2,956,031 views since 2015-07-01. Articles are sometimes renamed. The current name would seem to reflect a reasonable consensus of those 1,368 editors. I think we should respect that consensus, and not claim that somehow we know better. I think my version does that.
If you don't like the name of that article, the proper place to raise that question is on Talk:Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Comments? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 05:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
User:DavidMCEddy I've put a reference from the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Organization on the lead which should settle the issue of RS. It doesn't need a primary source. Whether one needs a reference to add 90 days to today's date is moot. But the ratification date should not be reverted. Chris55 ( talk) 20:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
References
User:2001:4454:252:bb00:8903:79c5:22e9:68f2 insists that "Portuguese Alongside Arabic Chinese English French Russian and Spanish are Languages of the TPNW." What documentation of that is there? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 15:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
There are now 88 signatories in the list on https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-9&chapter=26&clang=_en . – Gebu ( talk) 14:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I added a section--which I updated with an additional footnote here--on US statesmen supporting the abolition of nuclear weapons. It was deleted, footnotes and all, with the remark that the section is irrelevant or misleading. The abolition of nuclear weapons is the central aim of the Treaty. The US is the world's sole remaining superpower and the country with the greatest nuclear weapons capability. For this reason, the position on abolition taken by senior former American officials (well-known secretaries of defense and state, including Henry Kissinger) seem quite pertinent to the article. NYCJosh ( talk) 21:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Several senior American foreign policy officials, including former Secretaries of State George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, former US Secretary of Defense William Perry, and former chairperson of US Senate Committee on Armed Services Sam Nunn, founded the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), which works to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction including the abolition of nuclear weapons. [1] Perry has explicitly endorsed the TPNW. [2]
As I said earlier, the one part of what is proposed has already been included -- namely that Bill Perry has endorsed the TPNW. There are lots of people who support disarmament who don't support the TPNW. Listing them in this article implies that they do support the TPNW. There is no indication that the other three "statesmen" do (or -- in George Shultz's case -- did) support the TPNW. In my view, opinions about disarmament are not relevant to this article unless they are specifically opinions about the TPNW. NPguy ( talk) 20:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
References
Citing Nunn, Shultz, and Kissinger would be misleading. It would imply that they support(ed) this treaty. They don't/didn't. Lots of people support nuclear disarmament but don't support this treaty. The discussion above (about the NPT) is legally incorrect and highly biased. The TPNW is controversial, so adding more analysis and opinion could lead to a lot of editing and counter-editing. NPguy ( talk) 23:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
"[these] US statesmen [support] the abolition of nuclear weapons"with
"The abolition of nuclear weapons is the central aim of the [Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)]"seems to imply that the
"statesmen"in question are (or should be) advocates for the TPNW. However, no source stating such a thing has been presented, to my knowledge. Therefore, regardless of your intent, the proposed edit contravenes WP:SYNTH:
"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ... If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. ... "TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 20:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)