Talk:Artemis Accords

Undue weight and statements about regulation of mining
I've just removed the statement, "The Artemis Accords are to include rights to commercial space mining subject only to national rather than multinational regulation." This was not supported by the source, which actually said multinational regulations would not be required for mining. That's very different from implying that the Accords say mining would not be subject to multinational regulations, should such regulations eventually exist. The text of the Accords simply allow mining to occur in the absence of any multinational regulations (which is also a common interpretation of the Outer Space Treaty.)

In addition, I think the Accords section gives undue weight to one single source, by two people in Science magazine's Policy Forum (essentially an opinion piece or long letter to the editors.) Essentially every thing in the Accords section is from that one source. It is also clear from that the authors of this source are advocating against the Accords, so exclusive use of that source a problem when it comes to a neutral point of view. Since the full text of the Accords is available, we ought to include an impartial summary of then. Fcrary (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I just added a summary of the Accords' terms. Fcrary (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Bilateral not multilateral
I've just reverted an edit which removed the description of the Artemis Accords being bilateral. Technically, they are a series of bilateral agreements, i.e. one between the US and Australia, another (identical) one between the US and Canada, another between the US and the UK, etc. That sounds odd, but apparently it was considered the most expedient way to let countries join the Accords one at a time. This issue has come up before, so we probably need to add some explanatory text to the article. I'm not sure where to put it. The word "bilateral" is in the lead, so that might be the first place someone sees it and is confused. But it also seems like too much detail for the lead. Fcrary (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Re-inserted language about the Accords being multilateral. They are one document, signed by multiple countries. Although originally envisioned as bilateral texts, that is not what ultimately occurred. (Anonymous, but with direct knowledge of this subject) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.71.60 (talk) 13:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this change (again). There are no sources cited for this claim. Wikipedia article content can not be based an "Anonymous, but with direct knowledge of this subject" claim. Fcrary (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

header image is outdated
some countries that have signed the treaty do not show up in red in the header image Ultrajante (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

French Guiana
French Guiana is part of France and should be considered as part of the Accords so red on the map; this is not anecdotical since it is hosting a major launch center in South America.Hektor (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * French Guiana had been added. Now with the new updated map, it is gone again. Why ? Hektor (talk) 11:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Isle of Man
I am wondering if it is correct that the Isle of Man is mentioned as a separate party or signatory in the accords. Is the participation of the Isle of Man not simply an extension of the participation of the United Kingdom? The source that is given does not actually state that the Isle of Man has signed the accords in its own right. Grioghair (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The Crown Dependencies are not part of the United Kingdom but are self-governing dependencies of the Crown.
 * This means they have their own directly elected legislative assemblies, administrative, fiscal and legal systems and courts of law. They are not represented in the United Kingdom Parliament.
 * The constitutional relationship of the Islands with the United Kingdom is through the Crown and is not enshrined in a formal constitutional document. His Majesty's Government is responsible for the defence and international relations of the Islands. The Crown, acting through the Privy Council, is ultimately responsible for ensuring their good government.
 * Aspects of the Islands government not subject to Crown Prerogative may be claimed by the Islands or deferred to The Crown. In terms of the Artemis Accords, the Isle of Man Government, through the Office of the Chief Minister has explicitly claimed its prerogative in this matter. 82.19.242.2 (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

https://www.gov.im/news/2021/jul/27/artemis-accords-to-be-extended-to-the-isle-of-man/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.242.2 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)


 * In recognition of the concerns here raised, I have written to the Cabinet Office of the Isle of Man Government asking for further clarification, which I will post here upon receipt. 82.19.242.2 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Response from the Isle of Man Cabinet Office on 13th March 2024:
 * Thank you for your enquiry.
 * I can confirm that the United Kingdom’s signature of the Artemis Accords was extended to the Isle of Man rather than the Island becoming a signatory to the Accords in its own right. This is in line with normal practice in respect of international instruments as, although the Isle of Man is internally self-governing, the United Kingdom is constitutionally responsible for the Island’s international relations.
 * Kind regards
 * Anne
 * Anne Shimmin
 * External Relations Manager – Policy and Legislation
 * Cabinet Office, Isle of Man Government, Government Office, Bucks Road, Douglas, ISLE OF MAN IM1 3PN 82.19.242.2 (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So this would mean that the Isle of Man is itself not a party in the Artemis Accords. It should not be reflected as such in the List of parties. Maybe a comment could be added the the UK row which states that Artemis Accords is also extended to the Isle of Man. Also, in the text the sentence ".. the Isle of Man have signed the accords.." is clearly wrong.
 * Btw, the map currently shows that every dependency of the signatory states is part of the Artemis Accord. Also for Guernsey and Jersey, for example. Is this correct? If so, why do we make a distinction for Isle of Man? Grioghair (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Cabinet Office, Isle of Man Government, Government Office, Bucks Road, Douglas, ISLE OF MAN IM1 3PN 82.19.242.2 (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So this would mean that the Isle of Man is itself not a party in the Artemis Accords. It should not be reflected as such in the List of parties. Maybe a comment could be added the the UK row which states that Artemis Accords is also extended to the Isle of Man. Also, in the text the sentence ".. the Isle of Man have signed the accords.." is clearly wrong.
 * Btw, the map currently shows that every dependency of the signatory states is part of the Artemis Accord. Also for Guernsey and Jersey, for example. Is this correct? If so, why do we make a distinction for Isle of Man? Grioghair (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, the map currently shows that every dependency of the signatory states is part of the Artemis Accord. Also for Guernsey and Jersey, for example. Is this correct? If so, why do we make a distinction for Isle of Man? Grioghair (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Btw, the map currently shows that every dependency of the signatory states is part of the Artemis Accord. Also for Guernsey and Jersey, for example. Is this correct? If so, why do we make a distinction for Isle of Man? Grioghair (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Angola be colored in
Since Angola signed the Accords shouldnt it be colored in on the map? I don’t know how to do it Kypickle (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Use a NASA image?
The image at https://twitter.com/NASAArtemis/status/1756071218430562391/photo/1 should be in the public domain as it is a work of NASA. Adding it to the article would be a visual improvement. (— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 — - talk) 02:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

List of Parties
Does anyone have any thoughts/opposition to cleaning up the History section and adding this list of parties as an additional section? This would also help clean up the Infobox parties string of countries, which could instead just list the total number of countries signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosswi88 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Would be an improvement. I'm not sure if the Official signing column with all the names is really necessary, though. Grioghair (talk) 20:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)