Wikipedia

Talk:Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons/Archive 3

< Talk:Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Latest comment: 4 years ago by DavidMCEddy in topic the quotation mark was placed correctly
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Criticism by Benjamin Sovacool

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

The section on criticism of the NPT seems to rely heavily on a single source - a book on nuclear energy by Benjamin Sovacool. As far as I can tell he is basically an advocate of renewable energy over nuclear power - an opinion for which I do not fault him - but not (as far as I can tell) particularly knowledgeable about nuclear proliferation issues except as a basis for criticizing nuclear power. Assuming he's being cited correctly, he makes some rather silly claims about terrorist use of uranium mines. I think the section (if it is needed at all) needs better, more representative sources and more balance.

There is also an undue focus on disarmament - the third and least developed element of the NPT - compared to the central provisions on nonproliferation. Peaceful uses of nuclear energy are ignored. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This article spends much time saying how good the NPT is. But there has been a lot of criticism of the NPT, from many different authors, in many different reliable sources, and this article must reflect that to be neutral. Putting up a POV tag after a few short paragraphs of criticism have been added is not appropriate, and so I am removing it. Removing a sourced claim that you personally don’t agree with (see [1]) is also not appropriate, so I am adding it back. Also, trimming the lead so that just one sentence of criticism is left at the end, is not appropriate, so I am restoring the last paragraph. Johnfos (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly correct. Just look at this excerpt:

"Criticism and responses[edit] This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject. Please integrate the section's contents into the article as a whole, or rewrite the material. (February 2012)

Over the years the NPT has come to be seen by many Third World states as “a conspiracy of the nuclear 'haves' to keep the nuclear ‘have-nots’ in their place”.[105]"

The mere statement of what is in fact the "elephant in the room" elicits a complaint from "on high" that what the "authorities" regard as NPOV may be thereby compromised.

Let's get real with articles like this and tell it as it is. ---Dagme (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a lot in the article that talks about how good the treaty is. I see a dry factual description. NPguy (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Before I started editing here, this article left me with the impression that the NPT consisted of Pillars and Articles which were part of some grand design. But there are other competing perspectives which are presented in the literature, and I have introduced two of these: the NPT as a “bargain”, and a “conspiracy of ‘haves’ over the ‘have nots’.” Including all of these competing perspectives, and not just the one that makes the NPT look good, makes the article neutral. But my efforts have been thwarted at every turn by an editor who is simply removing or tagging reliably sourced material, from several authors, that he personally doesn’t agree with or approve of. So I am restoring my changes. Johnfos (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Articles and pillars is a neural presentation. The "bargain" concept is an interpretation - usually oversimplified as nonproliferation in exchange for disarmament (NWS vs. NNWS) or nonproliferation in exchange for the right to peaceful use (haves vs. have nots). I have no problem with presenting the concept as long as it is presented in a more complete way - including the idea of bargain (between NNWS) of nonproliferation for nonproliferation, or all of the above. The conspiracy of "haves" against "have nots" is at best a caricature, based more on misunderstanding of what the treaty could accomplish.
But none of this discussion addresses the edits that were recently reverted. The clause "the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads between them and have shown a reluctance to disarm further" is wrong in several ways - both the numbers and the supposed reluctance. The sentence "Several high-ranking officials within the United Nations have said that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons" also seems off. It seems like either an oversimplification or a misunderstanding of what these former officials said. This is why I asked the question about the author, who does not seem to be an expert on this topic.
How about an explanation for deleting the reference to the NSG and the Additional Protocol? NPguy (talk) 01:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Emphasis on the pillars, articles, and review conferences is a narrow bureaucratic perspective on the NPT. But academics and some other commentators have other perspectives to offer and it is these that need to be incorporated into the article to make it neutral.
As to whether any particular author is an expert or not, that is not for us to judge. As long as the source is reliable, as World Scientific is, then we can use that information. If the information somehow seems questionable, then there should be other sources that provide clarification, and these can be referenced in the usual way. It is not up to us to censor or remove sourced information that we don’t personally agree with. Johnfos (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason for my latest revert is that I didn't see any response here to the substance of my questions. I don't have the book in question and couldn't validate the claims attributed to the author. It might help to provide excerpts upon which the cited claims were based. This might help to rephrase them in a more accurate way or to assess the reliability of the source. If the claims are accurate renditions of the author's claims, it casts doubt on his reliability on this topic. NPguy (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

NPGuy, please be careful not to remove content supported by WP:reliable sources. It seems to me your interpretations might be considered WP:original research.We are supposed to keep a NPOV regardless of our opinions. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I question whether this is indeed a "reliable" source. At a minimum, I think proponents of this source should produce excerpts that provide context for the cited claims to enable an assessment of whether they (1) accurately reflect the author's statements and (2) appear reliable in context. I will mark these claims as dubious for now. NPguy (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Having read this page, and having had the displeasure of coming across Benjamin Sovacool gaining a soap box on wiki before, which has apparently not only resulted in me, but clearly other editors too, spending a considerable amount of time balancing his published opinions and wild claims. I think it is about time we, at the very least, have a discussion on Sovacool in the Reliable Sources board, as he is pretty WP:FRINGE on every single nuclear related topic.
Boundarylayer (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Great! I am very pleased to hear you interested in trying DR and encourage you to try the noticeboard route. However, if you try to talk "fringe" at the RS board you probably won't get far and your suggesting that venue make me wonder if you still haven't really studied WP:RS very carefully. Instead, to talk "fringe" try the board that focuses on FRINGE claims, WP:FTN. You should leave a link or diff to that discussion on the talk pages for all the articles where the same material has been included/debated/discussed so that all interested parties are aware regardless of their viewpoint. Doing that is encouraged and is explicitly not canvassing. Bear in mind the result doesn't always go the way you want.... but consensus and DR mean someone who is disappointed has to live with the resulting consensus, whatever it turns out to be. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
NPguy, let me know which sections of the book you think are making silly arguments, and I can both check the book to see if it's being cited properly and also go back to the original sources and tell you what they are. Boundarylayer I don't think anybody has ever called me wild before, but, yes, as someone who has been studying energy security for almost a decade with multiple research grants, I do believe I am a credible source, probably more so than the authors you usually read (most websites are not peer-reviewed). I wouldn't consider publishing 200+ peer-reviewed articles on energy topics and 14 books a "fringe" source. Also, almost every single one of my publications on nuclear energy has been peer-reviewed, and the book you keep slamming has had unanimously positive reviews by academics writing in yet more peer-reviewed journals. That said, I am still happy to share the original data for any and all of the claims made in my book. Let me know if you have any specific questions, and let's engage this matter constructively.Bksovacool (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The claims that appear to be based on Benjamin Sovakool's book are:

  • Critics argue that the NPT cannot stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons or the motivation to acquire them. They express disappointment with the limited progress on nuclear disarmament, where the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads in their combined stockpile and have shown a reluctance to disarm further. Comment: note the reference to unnamed "critics."
  • Several high-ranking officials within the United Nations have said that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons. Comment: again cites unnamed sources. The claim as written (to focus on nuclear reactors rather than the nuclear fuel cycle) seems dubious.
  • There has been disappointment with the limited progress on nuclear disarmament, where the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads between them and have shown a reluctance to disarm further. Comment: The figure 22,000 is inflated/outdated.
  • A "number of high-ranking officials, even within the United Nations, have argued that they can do little to stop states using nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons". Comment: needless repetition.
  • A 2009 United Nations report said that: The revival of interest in nuclear power could result in the worldwide dissemination of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies, which present obvious risks of proliferation as these technologies can produce fissile materials that are directly usable in nuclear weapons. Comment: This is somewhat more plausible, but I suspect it is a selective and unrepresentative quote. It would be better to have a citation for the actual report. Also, was it the UN or the IAEA? They are independent organizations.
  • Moreover, the NPT says nothing about aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle “such as uranium mines and mills, from which terrorists could easily acquire fissile material”. Comment: fissile material cannot be obtained from uranium mines or mills.
  • Dozens of nations remain potential "weak links" in the global defense against nuclear terrorism and tacitly ignore UN mandates on controls over fissile material at uranium mines. Niger, a major uranium exporter, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the source of uranium for the first atomic bomb, are "among the states falling short in complying with UN Security Council Resolution 1540". Comment: raw or concentrated uranium ore are not the highest priority concerns for nuclear terrorism. They are a concern, but near the bottom of the list.
  • According to critics, those states which possess nuclear weapons, but are not authorized to do so under the NPT, have not paid a significant price for their pursuit of weapons capabilities. Also, the NPT has been explicitly weakened by a number of bilateral deals made by NPT signatories, notably the United States. Comment: Again a reference to unnamed critics. It would be better to quote articulate critics than a vague generalization. Note also the non-specific reference to "a number of bilateral deals," with none explicitly named.

In summary, this appears to be a litany of vague, general, and even careless criticisms. NPguy (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Diverting nuclear energy"

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to the article history, the phrase "diverting nuclear energy" has been changed and reverted multiple times. The reason is probably obvious: people with partial knowledge about the topic realize that it's not nuclear "energy" (i.e. the electricity and heat), but nuclear materials like uranium, and some dual-use technology like maraging steel, that must not be diverted. However, people who have done more research know that "energy" is the wording that actually appears in the English text of the treaty.

Since "energy" is verbatim but unintuitive, I'm going to add a [sic] behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.186.150 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't work. The insertion [sic] implies that there is some error in the terminology or the concept. Perhaps a better solution would be to add a comment at that part of the text <--"Nuclear energy" is correct here. Do not change to "nuclear material."-->. There is a meaningful difference: nuclear energy may be diverted, for example, if neutrons from a reactor are used to produce tritium or polonium for use in a nuclear weapon. This would have been in line with the IAEA's safeguards mandate at the time. As it turns out, the safeguards system adopted for the NPT does not include these other possibilities (considered a form of "misuse" of peaceful nuclear facilities in the older (INFCIRC/66) IAEA safeguards system. NPguy (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 45 external links on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-signers beyond India, Israel, and Pakistan

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

One of the things that I think most discussions of the NPT today obscure is that the current state of things — where there are three total non-signatories — is a fairly recent one. France and China did not sign until 1992 (and each have extremely problematic histories of proliferation, France with Israel, China with Pakistan). Many other countries also did not sign until after the Cold War ended.

I feel this article (like many) somewhat obscures this. You have to read between the lines to get that the NPT did not in fact have all five nuclear weapon states acceding to it until really quite recently. This focus on the three current non-signatories makes it seem (to me, anyway), like the NPT is an obvious thing every state would want to sign unless they happened to be known to have unaccepted nuclear programs. It makes it implicitly look like the current state of things fell into place rapidly in the 1960s, which is not the case.

It would be great if the history section could discuss, for example, why France and China refused to sign until really recently (and why they changed their minds). Other late signatories include Argentina, Brazil, and South Africa.

I write this not as a partisan one way or the other (I admit: I think the NPT was a good idea, even if implementation hasn't been perfect), but as someone who is pretty well versed in nuclear history but was surprised to find how late the above states joined the NPT, because the standard narrative is "only three states never signed," which, while technically true, should be better stated as "three states never signed, but a lot of other states didn't sign until after the Cold War ended". Which has a very different feel to it. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I added text on the chronology of accessions in the 1990s and 2000s. I don't have references handy on the late signers' reasons for not signing earlier; please add what you have. --JWB (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
For researching purposes France and India, possibly China refused to sign due to the unfair arbitrary haves-before-1967=haves in the treaty which coincided with the UNSC perm-5 in fact France applauded both China's and India's first tests. Argentina and Brazil had competing weapons programs, probably for national prestige as well as one or both cooperating on an IRBM with Iraq in the 80s, S Africa made 7 very crude Little Boy bombs and then internationalized the uranium before ending Apartheid and recycling it as reactor fuel. Even the Swiss and Swedes had active bomb programs but balked at the cost of weapons and bombers. Italy went as far as testing a domestic SLBM before being encouraged to sign and again the high costs. I recall Korea and ROC both being encouraged to quit by the US despite the PRC tests making China a 'have' while the US still recognized Taiwan/ROC as the government of all of China. Much of this is already on the respective WMD project's individual country pages with good cites so easy to find. Solomon(for now)79.179.149.134 (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Intro improvement for 5 weapons states

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The intro mentions the five recognized nuclear weapons states under the NPT are also permanent members of the UNSC. 

  "The treaty effectively recognizes five states as nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (these are also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council)."

This is all very nice but even if we suspect the intro of being bloated this interesting coincidental trivia is misleading and could cause casual readers to assume the NPT text recognizes the UNSC permanent 5 as nuke powers without mentioning the criteria in the text of the treaty of having built and tested before 1 January 1967. I suggest instead this text to remove any mention of UNSC permanent members and rather state the critera for a permitted nuclear state per the text of NPT, article IX paragraph 3 

  "The treaty sets the criteria for nuclear-weapon states as those who have built and tested a nuclear explosive device before 1 January 1967, these are the United States, USSR-Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China"

This actually has a smaller footprint, removes interesting but easy to take out of context historical coincidence, and makes clear in simple language why the five nuclear states (who are not mentioned in the text of the treaty) are granted that status. Solomon(for now)79.179.149.134 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

As an addendum, a bit of web search results shows that most Quora type web board answers about the NPT assume that being of the UNSC perm-5 has something or everything to do with being a 'have' state(other than being the among the largest unoccupied or unhindered by peace-treaty obligation national economies post WW-II through the 60s, also are the victorious WW-II Allies or from 1942 the Declaration by United Nations who would form the UN so indirectly becomes true) rather then the arbitrary text in the treaty, building and testing before 1-1-67. So the current wording contributes to the widespread misperception problem which wikipedia should, by using clear text properly researched cited statements, be helping to solve since it is the first-go for many people from overworked journalists(who loop to become our citations) to students seeking fast info to start their research. If anything in the body paragraphs there should possibly be mention that UNSC p5 membership does not have any bearing on being a nuclear weapons state per the NPT. This one is easy, the criteria for the clear text reading correct statement is lifted directly from the text of the treaty hosted on the UN website vs an uncited 'effectively recognizes' sentence of nebulous meaning which fails to inform what or why a group identified in the same sentence as the UNSC permanent-5 are also permitted to retain their nuclear weapons under the treaty. We see the clear text correct answer in the body, why not in the intro too? I have attempted these edits with cite but had them rolled back as too long for a bloated intro. Solomon(for now)79.179.149.134 (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like you're on the right track, then. Write it up more concisely and edit it in, and let the fun begin. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That version is OK. There already is a reference in the body of the article to the five recognized nuclear-weapon states also being the P5 (permanent 5 members of the UN Security Council). This is important to keep, as that is how they are most commonly referred to in the NPT context. It is not because of any confusion about why they are recognized as NWS. That is generally understood to be coincidental. In fact, when the NPT was concluded the UNSC seat was occupied by the Republic of China, which ratified the NPT as a non-nuclear-weapon State before the People's Republic of China was recognized and took over the UNSC seat. NPguy (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

"Ratified", NOT "adhered to"

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

On 2020-04-02 the second paragraph included, "As of August 2016, 191 states have adhered to the treaty, though North Korea, which acceded in 1985 but never came into compliance, announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, following detonation of nuclear devices in violation of core obligations.[1]"

"Adhered to" is NOT correct. I changed it to "ratified". DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually, "adhered" is not so bad, and "ratified" is not correct. Only a state that is an original signatory (i.e. a state that signed a treaty before it entered into force) can ratify. Other states may "accede." I will fix this. NPguy (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@NPguy: "Wiktionary::adhere" says "To be attached or devoted by personal union, in belief, on principle, etc., (intransitive, figuratively) To be consistent or coherent; to be in accordance; to agree." There is substantial documentation that the US violated that treaty. They officially "agreed" to that treaty, but "adhered to" implies that they did not violate it. "Ratified" is the term that is used in the article in "Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons". That's accurate in this case, and does not carry the additional implication that they actually complied with their treaty obligations.
On what basis do you claim that the section I added was "poorly sourced, dubious, and POV"?
Are you claiming that what I said misrepresented the documentation, or the sources I cited are not credible?
I cited articles in The Washington Post, The New Yorker, Newsweek, The Guardian, Hindustani Times, and Expatica. We can legitimately ask if the Hindustani Times is POV, but that reference was only included in a note with the observation that, "these allegations should not be taken at face value without independent verification, coming in this case from Pakistan's bitterest enemy, India."
What I said I think was consistent with the sources. If you disagree, let's please discuss.
One of the sources was Robert Gallucci. Are you saying he was misquoted? Or not credible?
Please restore what you deleted or provide a more complete explanation of your concerns here.
Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed (partly) with both of you: adhered has to do with the actions involved, ratified can only be done when a country first signs. Accession is indeed the correct term to be used. L.tak (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
The website for the United Nations Treaty Collection on the "Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons" says, "This Treaty shall enter into force 90 days after the fiftieth instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession has been deposited", and it says today that there are 81 "Signatories" and 36 "Parties". I could not find a similar page for the NPT, but on this basis, I just changed "More countries have adhered to the NPT" to "More countries are parties to the NPT" ... . DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
That's ok and pretty uncontroversial. The treaty you quote is a treaty where the UN Secretary General is the depositary, but here there are three: the governments of the US, UK and Russia (as successor of USSR). I added the UK-depositary page to cite the number of parties, which also indicates the number of accessions/ratifications, territorial application etc... L.tak (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Why did you replace the link to Wikidata[2] rather than fix any problems with the Wikidata entry?

It would seem to me that the primary source for any UN document should be the United Nations, which that Wikidata item provided. (It also provided a broken link to a page in "www.auswaertiges-amt.de", the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs. However, if you don't like that, I think it would be a greater service to humanity to fix that Wikidata item than replace it here. I perceive multiple deficiencies with that Wikidata item and don't know how to fix them. If I had more time, I think I would ask other people on Wikidata how to fix that treaty.)

You replaced the Wikidata reference to a page on the UN web site with one to the UK. I'm not going to worry about that more than to post this question, because I have other things I worry about more. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Because (as i said in the edit summary), wikidata is not much used and not a source in itself. It requires me to click several times before I have the original link. I am ok if someone needs to add wikidata, but then preferrably on top of the real information (link to the source etc)... L.tak (talk) 18:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)" (PDF). Defense Treaty Inspection Readiness Program - United States Department of Defense. Defense Treaty Inspection Readiness Program. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 March 2013. Retrieved 19 June 2013.
  2. ^ Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (in English, Russian, French, Spanish, Literary Chinese, and Chinese), Wikidata Q186444

US non adherence section

Latest comment: 4 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I just removed a non-compliance section which focussed on a single state party (US) and which touched upon information partly already in the article. If I see it correctly there are three issues that are suggested to be added. I want to discuss those separately in order to have a proper discussion. Please discuss separately in the differents sections where the info should be and if it should be in. I am open to change, but would prefer to discuss this, rather than have big lumps of text coming in in one go... L.tak (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's much worth keeping in that highly POV addition. NPguy (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Weapons deliveries from the US to Pakistan

I think we need clear sources saying this has definitely happened and is in non-compliance. What did for example the review conferences say about this issue? Or university-professors active in this field? L.tak (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a bizarre fringe accusation without any basis in fact. NPguy (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Failure to negotiate weapon reductions/stockpile removals

This issue is already address above and this looks like a duplication. L.tak (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This is also a fringe view and a misreading of what Article VI requires. NPguy (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Threatening the use of nuclear weapons

I think this was not in before and is relevant. But: do we have a source other than an activist and linguistics professor, or is this not a widely held view? L.tak (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear what is being alleged, since deterrence isn't an NPT violation. NPguy (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

the quotation mark was placed correctly

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@XciT: Did you check the source before changing the placement of the quotation mark? I just checked:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141024165530/http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/india-wants-join-non-proliferation-treaty https://web.archive.org/web/20141024165530/http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/india-wants-join-non-proliferation-treaty]: The date that you excluded was in the quote.

I'm therefore reverting your edit.

Thanks for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:27, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons/Archive_3&oldid=1103783577"