Talk:Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Neutrality
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)


 * I agree. The treaty is quite controversial, both among governments and non-governmental experts. NPguy (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * At least several main controversial arguments are assembled in the whole section, hence it is basically balanced. It should be clear that representatives of the civil society, scientists and parliamentarians also support, e.g., the position of NATO governments. We can only give examples of diverging statements. May be the section should be ordered differently - feel free, also to add supplementary points of view. I didn't add the opinion poll section and don't know polls from other countries. I trust that the editor did not make an arbitrary choice, if other polls were available at all. --Jwollbold (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I accept your point with regard to "positions", and on reflection I've removed the sub-header as a way of bringing the top together. Most of the article expands on the aims and arguments in favour of the treaty (as is of course appropriate – this article is about it after all), therefore the focus on the opposition (be that explicit, or implicit) does not seem to go over the line. 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)
 * I agree that the opinion polls section is pushing a POV: maybe we could replace it with a general link to Anti-nuclear movement under the Civ.Soc. heading? (even tho' that article covers both n. weapons and n. power -- is there a better option out there?) And I'm going to take a look at just who the 'parliamentarians' we're quoting are: that section also gives the idea of snowball support from across the globe, which might not be the case. Moscow Mule (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I tried to formulate a more general perspective on the examples of the international discussion. Far from being complete, it now does not give the impression of an almost general support for the ban. Selected arguments pro and contra were already in the article - time to remove the neutrality template? In any case, I will try to substantiate this section during the next weeks. --Jwollbold (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there was no objection (short time, I agree), I provisionally removed the neutrality template. In my opinion, the POV issue is resolved. We don't need the template to continue our discussions and edits in order to make the positions even more clear. Furthermore, I hope that a consensus for posting the article in the news section of the main page can be reached. In this context, the template disconcerts - everybody should find his/her opinion regarding quality and significance of the article without a striking banner provoking purely formal questions. In the case we should not find consensus about neutrality, you can set the template again, StillWaitingForConnection. --Jwollbold (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

All 10 nations of Southeast Asia
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)


 * In fact, the 10 ASEAN states participated. Singapore is much committed to strengthening nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and the nuclear-free zone: "Singapore was also the first country in Southeast Asia to put in place a stringent export controls system to regulate the flow of strategic goods and safeguard against the illicit movement of goods and technology that relate to the development, production and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, missiles capable of delivering such weapons, as well as conventional arms and military equipment." Therefore, it seems to have some reserves concerning the Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty: "In this regard, we urge the NWS [nuclear weapon states] to sign and ratify the relevant protocols to treaties that establish nuclear weapon free zones without reservations or unilateral interpretative declarations, and to withdraw them where they exist." The protocol commits those states not to contribute to any violation of the treaty and not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons within the zone. I suppose thar the reasons for abstaining the vote of 7 July are similar - it would be interesting to find and cite a Singapore statement related to the ban treaty.


 * For now, I restored the position of the ASEAN states, purely mentioning participation in the conference and the nuclear-weapon-free zone. Can someone find a source for the "common regional position supporting a ban treaty"? This would restore the parallelism to other regions.--Jwollbold (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Content section
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)

NATO-centrism of the Positions section
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)
 * I agree this is helpful, especially because many of our sources on opinions come from ICAN (which is reliable, but not neutral), so I am looking forward to your additions. As for North Korea, this is an interesting option but probably not sufficiently widely held to be notable here.... But who knows, if it something like that would come from a good source it certainly would make for a balancing statement... L.tak (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Does This Treaty Do Enough? -- Another Viewpoint
"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


 * Thanks for the contribution. We should consider it, and you can also write a very short summary into the "positions" section of the present article, if you think it is a relevant and noted statement.


 * At first sight, the arguments of the first part don't seem very convincing to me, but rather exaggerated. "... there are no provisions in it that actually seek to eliminate the existing stockpile of nuclear weapons in a time-bound manner" does not apply fully to the final ban treaty version any more. --Jwollbold (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the treaty does not actually do what it purports to do: prohibit nuclear weapons. The basic undertaking is an obligation only for states that join the treaty.  It does not impose any prohibition on the states that do not join the treaty.  Since none of the states that possess nuclear weapons are likely to join the treaty, it's hard to see what actual effect the treaty will have. NPguy (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

States not participating in the negotiations
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)
 * Yeah, we have too easily assumed that those that did not vote, did not take part in the negotiations. Only the final documents will tell who the negotiators were. Until taht we only know who voted in committee,and who voted on the treaty... I changed the image to reflect that. Good catch! L.tak (talk) 13:01, 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)

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)
 * Again, we are talking 2 different things here. Not participating (i.e. not showing credentials) and not voting. Apparently some of those that presented credentials did not vote and we conflated them in the article. I corrected in the image; and now also in the text. Based on ICAN's statement (if we can verify the late amendments to the report) we can also indicate the negotiators.... but that will be alter...L.tak (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Is the lede correct?
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)
 * As for the last point (other conventions may also try to establish this), that may be true and must be addressed. However the NPT does not require disarmament (only the very soft "negotiations in good faith), and indeed there the language here is a clear.
 * As for the point that this treaty probably does not establish its goal, this is a problem we have with every treaty that only works completely if it is universally ratified. The caveat then probably is solved by similarities with the Chemical Weapons Convention where we say that it outlaws chemical weapons, and it "comprehensively prohibits" use etc of those weapons. That's very strong language which still has a bit stronger the suggestion that this only applies to those territories where it applies... L.tak (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Here are two important differences between the nuclear weapons ban treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention:
 * First, the CWC was negotiated in a consensus-based process where it was reasonable to expect universal adherence by all states that had chemical weapons. The ban treaty deliberately eschewed consensus, so it has a much weaker a priori claim to expect universal adherence.
 * Second, early CWC adherents included the countries with the largest chemical weapons stocks, which they undertook to eliminate. Early adherents to the ban treaty will all be countries that have already forsworn nuclear weapons and accepted international verification, so they have nothing to eliminate.  It is unclear whether any country possessing nuclear weapons will ever join the ban treaty. NPguy (talk) 01:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * But also the CWC has no universal working, particularly trough problems in Syria, and suspected chemical weapons in Israel. I think we should a treaty open to all treat as any treaty open to all. Except that in the lead we include the view that others stated they wanted to negotiate only in the NPT-framework and indicated they wouldn't join... L.tak (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I substantiated the lead and resolved redundancies, see edit comments.
 * By the way, there is some probability that at least states of nuclear sharing will join the treaty, optimistically triggering a cascade of nuclear disarmament. The Netherlands are mentioned in the article. In Germany, it is almost certain that after the elections of 24 september, Angela Merkel will be the next chancelor again - and you know her surprising decisions accepting new developments or a new majority opinion, like after the Fukushima accident or during the 2015 "refugee crisis" in Europe. (For the majority opinion in Germany, see "UN member states", as well as my little test on a semi-official discussion platform - I apologize for my links only for German speakers.) Among her probable coalition partners, Alliance 90/The Greens are strongly in favour of the treaty and of nuclear disarmament in Germany. In 2010, the liberals had the initiative for the majority Bundestag vote to detract nuclear weapons from Germany. Now at least they claim a new diplomatic initiative for nuclear disarmament (Program p. 104f.). Similarly the SPD - but they don't like Angela Merkel any more, by tactical reasons... --Jwollbold (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding your edit that removed certain information from the lead section, something is wrong here. The lead was only restating what was said in the body of the article. You said the information is wrong, but the article still says it's true, and cites a source to support the statement. Please see the first paragraph of the "Concept" section. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:58, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The concept section states: "... it was not intended to contain all of the legal and technical measures required to reach the point of elimination" and mentions subsequent negotiations. The final treaty texts goes one step further and defines a quite precise procedure for the elimination negotiations. The old text was not false, but now it is much more precise - I only summarized the provisions. --Jwollbold (talk) 16:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

"Only three countries" addition
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:. 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)
 * I'm not too worried about the source POV issue, as the source is not any kind of opinion piece but simply a list copied by a quite professional NGO (albeit one with a partisan position) from a hard-to-wade-through UN document, which would be a primary source. The claim is obviously original research though. To check it, you'd need to do your own original research, i.e. look at the list next to the First Committee voting record. I started to do that, but I only had to read as far as Algeria and Angola to see they had voted yes both times, making the statement untrue.
 * I am also a bit concerned about the following sentence, using the same source, I think from the same editor: North Korea however, was a lone supporter of initiating ban negotiations. 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. 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)


 * I removed the citation to "GlobalResearch". If that is a conspiracy theory site, it would presumably tend to distort the importance of particular events in a way that fits its fringe POV, so we should not rely on such a site for determining whether some particular fact is noteworthy. I am personally much less concerned about the Thakur article. Although it is an opinion piece, it is only being used to support a simple statement of fact that is readily verifiable by reviewing the vote records, and it was published in a publication that is reasonably well regarded (as far as I know). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have replied about the original subject of this thread ""Only three countries" addition" issue elsewhere. So let me address the other issue about GlobalResearch and the North Korea info here, although that might require its own thread?
 * First of all, the info is correct, remarkable and has been brought up in a number of debates and is therefore qualified to be included in the wiki-article. Secondly, the sourcing however could be better, I agree. You found the L.41 voting data and thanks for that! The ref I included - as discussed in my later posts on this issue - did not truly reflect the FC voting, only in a number of cases. It would of course be best to point to the original UN voting data, but I have not been able to find them and I think the ican ref you point to does the job alright in this case. The GlobalResearch ref is ok to include, not because it is considered a neutral source by all parties, but because it shows how the NK voting issue has sparked debate around the world. And yes, I first deleted your Ramesh Thakur ref, but later inserted it because it show how the issue pops up in debates around the world, AND because I learned who Ramesh Thakur is and he is a notable figure in relation to this whole nuclear issue.


 * So, to sum things up, we should:
 * Replace the current ican vote ref with the correct ican vote ref and even better with the original UN L.41 ref.
 * Keep the GlobalResearch ref AND the Ramesh Takur ref
 * Perhaps find more solid refs on how the NK voting has been mentioned in debates.
 * RhinoMind (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * Regarding your POV remarks specifically, they don't make any sense in this case, I am sorry. Because the issue does not have a POV of any kind. Regarding OR, no it is not OR either, it was a misreading of the ref. RhinoMind (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes! Thanks for the L.41 ref. Here it is to see for all. The ref I used doesn't show all the FC votes apparently, only in some selected cases. The reason why Argentina, Iran and Sweden stood out was because they were the only countries among the FC "yes" voters that also attached documents, further describing their concerns. However, I don't think that is so remarkable so it should be mentioned in the wiki-article though? RhinoMind (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks . These statements seem to me remarkable enough to include. My only worry is on the sourcing. If they are getting discussion, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a better source than GlobalResearch. I couldn't apart from the Takur article, but it is hard to search because of the multiple votes and the cumbersome UN names, so I am assuming there is something there. My strong view is we should never cite GlobalResearch without making it clear it is a discredited conspiracy theory website, as confirmed in numerous discussions at the Reliable Source noticeboard. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Vatican City or Holy See
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: ] 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)
 * A December 10, 2017 article from the BBC also referred to "the Holy See" ratifying the treaty. Since there have been no comments to the contrary, I'll go ahead and make the change. Litjade (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Israel
On 2019-02-16 User:98.232.66.208 inserted the following:


 * Israel, which maintains a policy of official ambiguity but is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, voted in favor.

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)


 * Sorry, I copied the same link twice. I've inserted the correct first link above. NPguy (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The Wikipedia article on the United Nations says that the UN has 193 member states and two observer states.  (The two observers are the Holy See and State of Palestine.)
 * That means that 69 states did not vote at all = 193 - (1+1+122).
 * Where can I find a list of all 193 UN member states with their positions on this? The section in this article on Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons names some but not all member states, and names some by implication, e.g., members of NATO, but I don't find a list of all 193.  A list with dates "signed" and "ratified" is available from ICAN, but that does not say who voted yes vs. no vs. official abstention vs. not voting at all.  (The latter sounds to me like an abstention but without saying so, which I find confusing.)  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The voting record is cited in the article, and in my (corrected) post above, but I'll repeat it here. The vote was not actually a vote of the General Assembly but of the negotiating committee.  The other 69 countries did not take part in the negotiations. NPguy (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

reference for signatories and ratifiers?
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, 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)


 * On 2019-04-29T00:22:10‎ UTC user:180.190.171.248 (different from the above) made more changes similar to the ones a few hours earlier, also without citing sources.


 * Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.  (Mark 9:24)


 * In additional to the official UN source cited above, the first match in a web search for "current status of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons" was a page maintained by ICAN, which gave the same numbers as the officially cited UN source.


 * I'm reverting this edit also. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * On 2019-04-29T01:09:04 UTC user:180.190.171.248 (same as #2 above) made further edits without citations.
 * User:NPguy reverted some of these previous edits, noting, "This appears to be made up".
 * I'm reverting these as well. DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


 * On 2019-05-01 user:180.190.175.6 made more unsubstantiated edits, which I''ve reverted. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I just requested semi-protection for this article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Ratification not complete until recognized by the UN
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)


 * Please see the above: Per the official United Nations list of the status of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Kazakhstan is not yet listed as having ratified it.
 * St. Vincent & Grenadines officially ratified it 31 July 2019, but Kazakhstan is still not on the official list of ratifiers.
 * It may be worth writing both the UN and the government of Kazakhstan asking why Kazakhstan is not yet listed as having ratified it, given the news reports that they have.
 * If it's an administrative error on one end or the other, a letter like this should be enough to get Kazakhstan listed. If there is some other bottleneck, letters like this may not resolve the problem but should get us closer.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Just saw, my bad. ICAN doesn't list it either on its website despite promoting it on their social media. Thanks for the correction. Pilaz (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's time someone looked more deeply into this. I've already drafted a letter to the UN, but I haven't sent it yet.  I want to find contact information for Kazakhstan to ask them as well, but it could be a few days before I find time for that.  If letter(s) to the UN and the government of Kazakhstan do not produce the desired results quickly, letters to ICAN might be in order.
 * If you can do this, it would be great. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:18, 29 August 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)


 * You provided information I was missing. Thanks.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * : Kazakhstan deposited its instruments of ratification today anyway. I think it's safe to add it now. Kazakh Mission Twitter.


 * Done. Thanks.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Kazakhstan ratified it 2019-08-29 per UN Treaty Collection
What's the official source on this?

I believe it's, 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)
 * David, you are correct. All treaties with the UN Secretary General as depositary are reported through this website, and not on specialized websites that have the closest content-reletated link (such as ONADA). The introduction page also makes that clear. L.tak (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The UN's depositary (treaty status) web page should be authoritative. It's a bit surprising that the programmatic (UNODA) web page (which I rely on) is out of synch.  ICAN is generally reliable because they follow the UNODA site, but in this case both are wrong. NPguy (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Practical implications and relation to NPT?
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)
 * Really good idea. Don't have a lot of time right now either, but I'll be able to contribute during the holidays. --Pilaz (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Saint Kitts and Nevis ratification NOT 9 August
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)
 * David, you are splitting hairs with your useless reverts. "Malaysia has become the 46th nation to ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Its minister of foreign affairs, Hishammuddin Hussein, signed the instrument of ratification for the landmark disarmament treaty at a ceremony in the nation’s capital, Kuala Lumpur, on 30 September 2020. It was deposited with the United Nations later that day." https://www.icanw.org/malaysia_ratification Otto (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * In 2019-07-07 my addition of Kazakhstan to this article was reverted for the same reason I just reverted your edit: An announcement by ICAN is NOT official.  It only counts when it is listed with the United Nations Treaty Collection.
 * I'm a huge supporter of this treaty. See, e.g.:
 * Forecasting the effective date of the TPNW
 * Forecasting nuclear Armageddon
 * and other articles under Wikiversity:Category:Freedom and abundance.
 * There's a famous song, de:Wishing (Will Make It So). I think there's plenty of evidence that wishing will make it so only if accompanied by work that produces results, which have not yet been filed with the UN Treaty Collection.  :-)  DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The source I gave emphasizes that "[the instrument of ratification] was deposited with the United Nations later that day.". That the website of the UN Treaty Collection doesn't show it doesn't change that. Perhaps the webmaster of UNTC has a day off. The website says "STATUS AS AT : 30-09-2020 05:00:49 EDT". If User:Danlaycock doesn't agree with that let him explain that here. Otto (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * This article has been using https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-9&chapter=26&clang=_en as the official reference on which nations have ratified and on what dates. If ICAN says, "It was deposited with the United Nations later that day", that's great news.  If that's true, and the UN Treaty Collection doesn't show it yet, and doesn't show it tomorrow, then I think it would be wise to email ICAN and ask them to explain the discrepancy.  Their report could be in error.  Or the documents filed may not have used acceptable verbiage.  Or, as you suggested, the webmaster at UNTC may have a day off.  Whatever the obstacle, ICAN should know whom to contact to fix the problem if it's easily fixable.
 * Thanks for your work on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I just checked and UNTC mentions now 46 parties and Malaysia is listed in the second column with ratification date 30 September 2020. The STATUS timestamp hasn't changed. Still STATUS AS AT : 30-09-2020 05:00:49 EDT. Otto (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Wonderful. I hope you don't mind that I made the appropriate changes, per WP:BOLD:  If you had made the change, I would have confirmed that it was now official.  Thanks.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should wait for the UN to announce that the state has officially become a party to the treaty before listing them here. They are ultimately the autority on this, and the source above does not actually explicitly support the claim.  (It merely says that they submitted an instrument of ratification, not that they became a party to the treaty.  For example, there have been cases in internal law in the past that that a depositary has not accepted an instruemnt of ratification for various reasons, so we need to wait for their confirmation that they have accepted it.)
 * Also, often times it takes some time for the state to officially complete the deposition process. For example, with Kazakhstan they were added with the date "3 July 2019", though they didn't ultimately complete the ratification process and become a party until 29 August 2019..
 * The UN website is updated daily, so waiting a day for confirmation hardly seems like a major issue. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. TDL (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

importance=Top not Mid?
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:


 * Time to extinction of civilization
 * Time to nuclear Armageddon
 * Forecasting nuclear proliferation
 * Forecasting the effective date of the TPNW

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 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 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)
 * DavidMCEddy Fantastic to actually get some feedback on one of my ratings. I am actually, inter alia, a research affiliate on a committee of the Center for Global Nonkilling and obviously share your concerns. In fact, I am up-to-date on the Trump administration's dismantling of the relevant treaties and I am aware of ambitions to restart the logic and the technology for battlefield nuclear weapons. I have rated the Nuclear disarmament subject page High. However, I am applying the concept of 'nesting', i.e., I see the Treaty as falling within that subject, at a lower level, thus Mid. One reason it is Mid is because the US, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and Russia are not paying it any attention. While writing this, I just went to Nuclear warfare (which did not have a WPIR rating) and rated that Top. The basic problem is that WPIR is huge, and I am going through 8,000+ pages by alphabetical order to tidy up a backlog, not by subject. What would help both of us would be if you could, on your User page or my Talk page, do a family tree/nesting/table of all the relevant nuclear weapon-related Wikipedia pages that in your view get above Low, with a recommended rating. Then, we could discuss that, and I could apply it systematically. Then, we could put it on the WPIR page as a model for how to assess a WPIR subject category. How does that sound? Johncdraper (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I'm not able to accept another commitment like that at this time.
 * My top concern is the media, because they create the stage upon which politicians read their lines; see Confirmation bias and conflict
 * Yesterday I committed to producing a virtual forum October 3 for members of the US House and political candidates to representing parts of the Kansas City metropolitan area in the US Congress on the Local Journalism Sustainability Act. I anticipate posting a video of that with a transcript to Wikiversity while also getting it broadcasted over a local community radio station, similar to Electoral integrity in the United States.
 * That's perhaps more than you wanted to know, but I believe if we can break the stranglehold of the mainstream media on the mainstream political discourse in the US, we can make more rapid progress on all the major issues facing humanity today, including questions of Effective defense, which would seem relevant to your Center for Global Nonkilling.
 * Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * DavidMCEddy I see. But, ask a knowledgeable friend to construct that table, possibly? Also, you should join WPIR, or I will have to revert your assessment of the page as Top on a technicality (rating project pages usually requires project membership). If you accept the concept of nesting the Treaty within the higher category of Nuclear disarmament, you may want to downgrade it yourself. Johncdraper (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * . I just officially joined WikiProject International relations, per your suggestion.
 * I hope that doesn't commit me to do a lot of extra work.
 * I may have special expertise that might allow me to do a few things of high value to others with a relatively modest effort on my part:
 * Anything statistical, as illustrated in the Wikiversity articles cited above. This would NOT include producing maps and specialized charts and diagrams using facilities that already exist within Wikimedia Foundation projects, but I've contributed and continue to maintain Free and open-source software written in R (programming language).  I'm currently posting daily updates to File:Date of 50th ratification of the TPNW.svg, which is used in Forecasting the effective date of the TPNW.  I'm planning to notify International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and similar organizations of the existence of this plot and article, in case they might find it useful.  If your Center for Global Nonkilling might like this and might think it's worth telling others about, that would be great, I think.  (I'd be happy to do videoconferences for you on material in Wikiversity:Category:Freedom and abundance.  Most of that is material I've researched and written, and a substantial portion of it might be interesting to your organization.  I presented Time to nuclear Armageddon at the 2019 Joint Statistical Meetings and Forecasting nuclear proliferation at this year's Military Operations Research Society Symposium.
 * Wikidata: I currently use Template:Cite Q for most citations.  This is a simple citation template for a reference that is created in detail once.  Then I can easily reference that via, e.g., . .  That bit of code displays as: .  It's more work to create the citation if it doesn't already exist than to use Template:Citation, but Template:Cite Q is far easier if something is cited more than once within Wikimedia Foundation project(s).  Moreover, citations like  are more easily maintained, e.g., against link rot.  AND it's possible to extract data from Wikidata for use in data analysis.  I haven't done this yet, but I've discussed it.  I think it could be very powerful for crowdsourcing data collection and analysis, e.g., regarding human rights abuses and violations of treaties.
 * DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * DavidMCEddy We should take this to your or my Talk page. How about my place? BTW, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists might be interested. Johncdraper (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I think the "mid" importance rating is somewhat generous. I don't dispute that the issue of nuclear war and disarmament overall deserves "top" rating, but the TPNW is unlikely to have any meaningful impact.  At best its impact is unproven. NPguy (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)t
 * I agree. Wikipedia reflects what is important; it should not magnify it. Unfortunately, this planet lost its chance to be nuclear weapons free in 1946, as I made clear in a recent edit to the nuclear disarmament page. In IR, the unfortunate truth is no-one is paying the Treaty much attention. Wikiversity, on the other hand, can. Even WikiProject Anti-war does not rate Nuclear disarmament Top. Still, I just promoted it to Top because it is a top-level page incorporating Arms reduction and US policies including it becoming a political and international football. I would like consensus before altering importance on this page, though. Johncdraper (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Use of an alleged "more common name" in place of the current name of a Wikipedia article
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:


 * Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)"
 * Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)"

I think it would be better to give the official name with the shorter, "more common name", as:


 * Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT)
 * Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (Non-Proliferation Treaty, NPT)

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)


 * Many treaties have a long official name and a shorter common name. The Chemical Weapons Convention.  The Biological Weapons Convention.  The New START Treaty.  The fact that the treaty is abbreviated NPT is an indication that it is known by its common name: the Non-Proliferation Treaty.  I do think it would be better to rename the article by the common name of the treaty.  Use of the formal name is pedantic.


 * I welcome the views of others. NPguy (talk) 02:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * While I find this issue to be very minor in the overall article, I agree more with NPguy here. While I understand DavidMCEddy's argument about the original name, the see also section shouldn't necessarily overburden the reader with formalities (the CWC and BWC examples are telling).


 * A middle ground could be to use "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)" as listed in the CWC's "See also" section. The use of "Nuclear" (capitalized most of the time) before "Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)" is well-established. Pilaz (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The letters N P and T stand for Non Proliferation and Treaty respectively. Nuclear is sometimes used these days, as if to distinguish from another nonproliferation treaty, but no such distinction is needed.  The more common term over history is Non-Proliferation Treaty.  I'm not sure which is more common today, but it's telling that if you want to match the abbreviation there's only one choice: Non-Proliferation Treaty. NPguy (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Honduras has signed
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)


 * The reference given to Honduras having signed the CNTB treaty (in 2003!) is improper; that is not the TPNW, which remains unratified by the required number of states as of October 25th 2020. Administrators should give some thought to protect this page against such nonsense. 122.57.29.159 (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Chris55 There are some things that I can observe from this recent impasse. You have edited the introduction of this article, breaking with the precedent and custom in which signatures and ratifications have been added and counted, which is an official update of the count at the UNTC website. You have added a reference to back the mentioned edit, without realizing that the said reference mentions a completely different treaty to the one matter of this article which, notwithstanding the presumption of good faith that entails, shows an apparent lack of familiarity with the subject and the article, added to the fact that your only contribution to this article has been the said edit and its ramifications. Combined with your undoing of an edit from a user (User:DavidMCEddy) with an older and longer history of contributions to this article, I believe that there are reasons to undo your edit, as I have done. --Mescaicedo (talk) 22:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mesalcedo - There appears to be some confusion. To be clear, it was Chris55's edit which you reverted, or so says the history page. I am not Chris55. Likewise DavidMCEddy is not me. I merely added "not" and made clear there were only 49 ratifications so far, not the 50 which the nonsensical Honduras reference attempted to establish. Thank you for removing it. 122.57.29.159 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was aware of the difference between Chris55 and yourself, but looks like we both replied to the first post of this section, so it may have seemed that I was blaming you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Mescaicedo (talk) 23:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, and thank you again. 122.57.29.159 (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Mescaicedo, I acknowledge that my reference was in error. Sorry for a late-night gaff. I got my information from ICAN which I consider a reliable source, but since it's a campaigning body it may not be considered enough for a very important treaty. Of course it is now being reported by many media including VOA but some may doubt that too. Chris55 (talk) 09:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to reopen the discussion on this. I appreciate the reverts done so far to maintain compliance with WP:VERIFY. However, the UN Secretary-General's spokesperson has announced 4 hours ago that Honduras has completed deposit of its ratification instrument, which means that Honduras has fully completed the ratification procedure. Consensus here has been that a country is to be marked as a ratifier if and only if it has deposited its instrument of ratification.
 * However, this has not been reflected on the UNTC website yet. Because the UNTC website probably won't be updated until Monday (possibly by UN interns), I recommend that we just leave Honduras as a ratifier and use an exceptional footnote where the the ratification date is to justify the change. Once UNTC updates with the ratification of Honduras, we can delete the footnote.
 * (Pinging the two good wardens of the revert, User:DavidMCEddy & Mescaicedo) Appreciate your feedback. Thanks. Pilaz (talk) 05:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I 100% concur. That link looks authentic to me.
 * I will create a Wikidata entry for that reference. Wikidata is not very popular on the English language Wikipedia, but I think it's wonderful:  For citations like this, it provides a central place for documenting references like this.  It's more work to create the entry than the more traditional template.  However, by the time it's used twice, I think we are saving labor.  And it's more easily maintained, e.g., from link rot.
 * Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's multiple reliable sourcing now that indicates that Honduras has ratified the treaty; article updated accordingly.--Goldsztajn (talk) 05:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't trust anything that did not come directly from the UN. Seemingly reliable sources announced that Kazakhstan had ratified it on 2019-07-07.  However, their instruments of ratification were not officially deposited with the UN Treaty Collection until 2020-08-29.  In this case, we have a statement from the office of the UN Secretary General.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with your comment. I also saw a few newspapers announce entry into force before the UN confirmed reception of the instruments of ratification, which shows a poor understanding of how UN Treaties work in my opinion. Pilaz (talk) 06:12, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback DavidMCEddy, I have implemented the changes. Thanks. Pilaz (talk) 06:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And thank you for taking the lead on the refernece, I couldn't make it work in the infobox with the visual editor so I did it manually (and botched it) :( Pilaz (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * − did you have a chance to create the wikidata entry? ... as far as I can see it hasn't been done, am happy to go ahead and do it myself, but don't want to double up or interrupt another's work flow.--Goldsztajn (talk) 06:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I created a Wikidata entry for the press release:
 * I routinely cite Wikidata items in English-language Wikipedia and Wikiversity with syntax like the following:
 * The " ? is the actual citation.  For documentation, see Template:Cite Q. )
 * The rest is a comment, because the citation is too terse for anyone reading the Mediawiki markup to parse.
 * By the time I created this Wikidata entry and inserted in a place in the article, I had an edit conflict. I quit and went to bed ;-)
 * Thanks for asking. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And now that the dust has settled thanks to all above for working so hard to clean up the situation. It has been many years since I edited Wiki references on a regular basis and I've quite forgotten how, at least in detail. I don't even have a wiki handle any more to log in with. 122.57.29.159 (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * And now that the dust has settled thanks to all above for working so hard to clean up the situation. It has been many years since I edited Wiki references on a regular basis and I've quite forgotten how, at least in detail. I don't even have a wiki handle any more to log in with. 122.57.29.159 (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Official languages of the TPNW
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)
 * [Partial restoration of a partially deleted comment] DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Signatories
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'm confused: Near the top it says, "Status: Signatories : 86. Parties : 54".


 * If it says 88 someplace else, we need to report it to someone at the UN Treaty Collection and ask them to clarify. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It is not as mysterious as it looks. We have 86 countries that signed (52 that signed and ratified, so the treaty obligations apply; and 86-52=34 that "only" sigend, so the treaty obligations do not apply). In addition 2 acceded (rather than becoming a party through signature+ratifying). The total number in the list is thus 86 +2=88... L.tak (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I modified the "Parties and signatories" section consistent with what you just said.  Please modify it further if you perceive an opportunity to improve it.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Statesmen
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)


 * I think the paragraph you deleted should be reinstated with two changes:
 * We should combine this with deleting the earlier comment that, "Former US Secretary of Defense William Perry has endorsed the TPNW.[75]"
 * Delete the heading "Statesmen", so it appears as a second paragraph in the "Elsewhere" section.
 * Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it really that relevant? We are talking about former politicians (some really not in the day to day work anymore) from a non-party that did not even take part in the negotiations. With over 190 states in the world I am afraid that's a bit too much weight. Adding 1 sentence somewhere could be a solution however. L.tak (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The addition was one (rather long) sentence. I suggest we NOT make it a separate section, but delete the separate mention of Perry and add the following abbreviation of User:NYCJosh's addition as a separate sentence in the "Elsewhere" section:


 * "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. Perry has explicitly endorsed the TPNW."


 * DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * Are you kidding? Their stance on nuclear abolition is very important. Henry Kissinger is one of the most well-known foreign policy figures of the past 100 years. He and the rest of this bunch had a large role in shaping the nuclear and geopolitical posture of the world's sole superpower for decades.-NYCJosh (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I can argue both sides of this question. However, this article is about the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).  "Nuclear disarmament" is a more general question and has its own article.  As far as I know, Kissinger, Shultz and Nunn have not explicitly endorsed the TPNW.  That means that they do not deserve mention in this article.  They are mentioned in the article on "Nuclear disarmament", as they should be.


 * The central feature of the TPNW is the abolition of nuclear weapons, which is what these American former leaders have advocated. By contrast, nuclear disarmament is a more general and flexible term that in recent decades has meant agreements between the two superpowers to put caps on their nuclear stockpiles, max. number of warheads per missile, etc. In a way, nuclear disarmament as currently implemented is the opposite of nuclear abolition because the former ratifies, at least for the short and medium terms, the notion that states will have vast supplies of nuclear weapons.NYCJosh (talk) 15:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * It's worse than that: The signatories to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970, all agreed to work towards nuclear disarmament.  That included the US.  Instead, it's clear that the current US and Russia nuclear modernization programs violate their commitments under the NPT.  Worse, there are reports that I find credible that indicate that the US has supported nuclear proliferation, including providing nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan and Iraq.  Pakistan got enough to become a nuclear weapon state and reportedly sold some of that technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.  I've seen published claims that North Korea would not have nuclear weapons today if the US had not provided nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan.  [See Forecasting nuclear proliferation and Richard Barlow (intelligence analyst).]
 * However, this article is already long enough. This article already has a discussion of the failure of parties to the NPT to pursue their commitments under that treaty to work towards nuclear disarmament.  I just added links to the article on "nuclear disarmament" where it was mentioned in three different section.
 * Sometimes we can communicate more by saying less. Expanding the discussion of nuclear disarmament could degrade and defocus the quality of the present article.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure whether DavidMCEddy's last comment was intended to respond to mine. While this article is not that long, and certainly much shorter than what might be considered too long, I wasn't suggesting expanding this article to include an in-depth discussion of nuclear disarmament. FWIW, I agree with much of his point about subsequent actions of signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That point amplifies my point about the need to include the American statesmen: the statesmen's call for abolition stands in sharp relief to the nuclear policy they had helped set all those decades for their superpower. So their call for abolition in more recent years is all the more noteworthy. NYCJosh (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

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)


 * NPguyYou write "Lots of people support nuclear disarmament but don't support this treaty." I responded to this a few paragraphs above. The central feature of the TPNW is ABOLITION--getting rid of nuclear weapons entirely, which these statesmen explicitly support. Abolition is quite different from "nuclear disarmament," which in practice for nearly the past half century has meant that the superpowers (with by far the mightiest nuclear arsenals) KEEP a large stockpile of nuclear armaments on a range of weapons platforms (air, land and sea) but with reductions in some areas. So it's fair to say that in practice "nuclear disarmament" has been the opposite of abolition, which is the principle aim of the TPNW. These statesmen endorsed abolition and founded an organization to advocate it, not merely nuclear disarmament as has been practiced by the superpowers.NYCJosh (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NYCJosh, please review WP:SYNTH. It is clear that your proposed addition is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging Please be specific. I don't see it.NYCJosh (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NYCJosh, combining "[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)
 * TheTimesAreAChanging The first source (the Christian Science Monitor source) fully supports the first sentence of my contribution and the The Bulletin source fully supports the second sentence (about former Sec of Def William Perry). Nowhere in my contribution does it state or suggest that these statesmen are all "advocates of the TPNW." In fact, the second sentence states that Perry goes further than the rest of the statesmen because Perry supports the TPNW. So there is no Synth--no conclusion I conjured up. No OR either, since I am citing a reliable source for each statement.NYCJosh (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * but I don't see any reasonable way to mention them in this article without giving the reader the impression that they do support the TPNW, when only one has clearly indicated his support. One is dead, and can't unless he did in some document we have yet to find.
 * In Time to nuclear Armageddon I cite sources that claim (a) at least a 10 percent that a child born today would die prematurely from a nuclear war, and (b) a 40 percent chance of a nuclear war sometime in the next 70 years. It's possible that such a war would end with a few demonstration shots from each side with at most a few million dead.  I think it's more likely that enough cities will be incinerated that will loft enough smoke into the stratosphere that will produce at least a nuclear autumn causing the deaths of a few billion, most from starvation if they don't die of something else sooner and quite possible the end of civilization -- or at least suspending it for 5-10 years during which 98 percent of humanity dies.  If humanity is lucky, civilization may gradually be restored after a decade or two of nuclear winter.
 * However, that work, and the sources I cite there, are not sufficiently close to the TPNW to merit mention in this article. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * DavidMCEddy Agree that the risk is quite substantial.
 * To answer your concern with respect to this article, it should be quite straightforward to state that three of the four statesmen have not endorsed the TPNW but have endorsed abolition, a key aim of the treaty. There, I just wrote it in what I think is a clear way I but would be open to other wordings, if that is the only remaining issue.NYCJosh (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That proposal fails two tests. First, notability.  In the context of this article, how is it notable to list people who do not support the TPNW?  Second, clarity.  Listing these people would imply that they do support or have some known opinion on the TPNW.  That would either mislead or cause confusion. NPguy (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What is notable is the fact that these senior statesmen, who over decades led the national security of the state (the US) with the mightiest nuclear arsenal in the world, have publicly endorsed the central aim of the TPNW, the abolition of nuclear weapons from the face of the planet. That is quite remarkable, actually, way more than merely notable. As far as clarity, we should clearly state what their position is and that the three of them have not actually endorsed the TPNW.NYCJosh (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * NYCJosh, while we all understand that the above is your view, it seems clear that your position has failed to achieve consensus here on the talk page. If we stop responding that will not mean you have "won" the discussion, merely that debating the same points over and over is not fruitful from the perspective of article improvement. In the absence of a clear consensus for inclusion, this disputed material will continue to be omitted from the article. You are welcome to start an RfC if you believe that page watchers have failed to adequately appreciate the merits of your proposed edit. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)


 * NYCJosh: I agree with TheTimesAreAChanging.
 * You can make very valuable contributions to making the sum of all human knowledge more accessible to the rest of humanity. I think you will have a bigger impact if you try to improve Wikipedia in other ways.
 * We all have to pick our battles: It's not easy to decide how best to allocate our time.  On 2014-02-09, I created an article on "Haifa International Conference for a WMD-Free Middle East".  By the end of the next day it had 11 references, all of which seemed to me to be respectable.  Over the next 3 years, other editors deleted all but one of the references.  I don't remember having received notices of any changes until 2021-03-11 I received a notice that the article was to be deleted.  In reviewing the history, I concluded that if I had been watching that article more carefully, I might have been able to successfully contest some and perhaps all of the deletions of references as they occurred.  However, after 2021-03-11 I concluded that I might not be able to save that article from deletion no matter what I tried, and I would probably accomplish more by focusing on other things.  DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)