Talk:Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

List of countries

Is there any way to better organize that list of participating nations? Sherwelthlangley 06:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So the Soviet Union is still on that? Shouldn't it mention that they got on, and which of the countries since its split are on it now?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.148.20.29 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first text this needs to be more orginized —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawiai94 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I organized the list into a new, fully updated table at separate page - List of Partial Test Ban Treaty signatories. --Allstar86 (talk) 06:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism and Opposition

The reasons for the treaty are pretty well known but the article doesnt state whether the treaty met with much opposition in Western Countries (Edward Teller was one opponent) or what the arguments against the treaty were. 82.132.136.179 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

An excellent reference on this is Richard Rhodes' book The Arsenals of Folly. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Boeing NC-135?

The significance of this airplane to this topic is notclear either here or on its page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.92.126 (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Health effects of atmospheric testing

be good to see much more on this. I understand that was the driving force for the ban. 74.60.161.158 (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 31 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus — JFG ^talk 23:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty → Partial Test Ban Treaty
• List of parties to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty → List of parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty

– I am proposing simply to remove the word "Nuclear" from these titles.

The name "Partial 'Nuclear' Test Ban Treaty" is used just once in the main article, while "Partial Test Ban Treaty" is used in both the lead, infobox, and multiple times throughout the article. Similarly, on the "List of parties to the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty", the lead refers to the "List of parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty" and "Partial Test Ban Treaty." Wikisource also uses "Partial Test Ban Treaty."

Outside Wikipedia, "Partial Test Ban Treaty" appears to be more common than "Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty." Searching for the former on Google yields 81,500 results (28,000 on Google Books), while the latter yields 13,500 (8,170 on Google Books). Expert organizations also tend to use "Partial Test Ban Treaty": see the relevant pages at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, UN Office of Disarmament Affairs, CTBTO Preparatory Commission, Atomic Heritage Foundation, and SIPRI. I am curious for others' thoughts, but this seems like a pretty clear opportunity to standardize things.  GRKO³  17:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. — JFG ^talk 15:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME evidence above. Looks like this was moved without discussion from the proposed title to current title with this edit. TDL (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISE and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. Otherwise, readers may no know whether this has something to do with drug tests, or scholastic aptitude tests, or what. WP:COMMONNAME is not one of the naming criteria, it's a the first-try option for finding a name that complies with them. When the most common name does not comply with them (this fails two of them) then we pick another option, and this one is also attested in sources.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:00, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The commonly recognizable name (aka WP:COMMONNAME or WP:RECOGNIZABLE) is a policy discussion on how to evaluate the criteria, especially point 1 (recognizability). More common names are far more likely to be recognizable then less common names. The evidence presented shows that the proposed title is more common, which is very strong evidence that it would be recognizible to readers. Do you have any evidence that the current title is more recognizable?

PRECISE does not say that any conceivable hypothetical ambiguity must be avoided, only that the title must "unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects". Otherwise we could play the hypothetical ambiguity game ad infinitum (how do we know that this treaty is not about nuclear weapons and not Nuclear family?) Can you provide any evidence that that the phrase "Partial Test Ban Treaty" has ever been used to describe other subjects such as "drug tests, or scholastic aptitude tests"? If not, then the proposed title is not ambiguous. TDL (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with TDL. I appreciate the interest in making the title recognizable. As I indicated above, "Partial Test Ban Treaty" is far more commonly used than "Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty," and as WP:RECOGNIZABLE states, "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used." Regarding the WP:PRECISE argument, I would agree with keeping the current title if there were some other topic with a similar name. I ran Google and Google Books searches for documents mentioning "partial test ban" but not "nuclear," and as far as I could tell, there were virtually no substantive results (at least, nothing that clearly was discussing something other than this treaty). Accordingly, "Partial Test Ban Treaty" is appropriately precise. Going beyond that (i.e., keeping the current title) would make the title too precise, which PRECISE warns against.  GRKO³  (talk) 22:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose per SMcCandlish. Removing the word 'nuclear', which I've usually heard it referred to, removes the full and important meaning of the term and the page title. In this case 'too precise', if that's what it is, is perfect. This treaty is a major historical step forward in the very long attempt to curtail, as much as possible, nuclear weapons, which were tested above-ground for almost two decades, and the name meets Wikipedia usage as an encyclopedia by being factual, precise, and immediately recognizable. Randy Kryn 16:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• An additional piece of evidence in support of the proposed move. If Google Trends is to be believed, "Partial Test Ban Treaty" is searched for far more frequently than "Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty" (which doesn't even register).  GRKO³  (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

"Partial" is likely not in the commonest name. "1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty" might cover it (1963 isn't in the lead paragraph, will edit it in). Randy Kryn 22:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Icebob99 (talk · contribs) 15:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be reviewing this article for GA status. Icebob99 (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This artice did not meet any of the immediate failure criteria. The copyvio detector did have a high chance of copyvio (56%), but I checked the top 10 likelihoods and none of them contained anything more than formal names or quoted text from people such as Kennedy. There are a few cleanup tags, including four citation needed tags, but that is hardly a large number and will not fail this article.

Going through the criteria one by one:

1. Well-written: The prose is good and I couldn't find any grammar errors. Lead section follows MoS, layout correct, no fiction or list incorporation (only possible list is in a "main article" note to the list of signatories. I looked closely at words to watch: there's no peacockery or weasel words, and instances like "key factor" are close to the edge, but all those instances are supported by inline citations, so I'll assume that the sources support the idea of a "key factor".

2. Verifiable: List of references in concordance with layout, all sources reliable (even the "better citation needed" tag is next to a source of adequate reliability), all quotes are referenced inline (I added an extra citation to a quote for which I didn't see any inline citation), no original research found since I'm assuming that the book references that I can't access contain all the information that they cited, no copyvios as described above.

3. Broad: at 80 kB readable prose, this article covers the topic and its progression throughout history thoroughly, and I could not find any unnecessary detail.

4. Neutrality: good. Addresses concerns of both Washington and the Kremlin, as well as other parties.

5. Stability: good, no edit war, only major changes are improvements.

6. Images: Images spread out fairly evenly, all use good licensing, relevant, good captions.

Since this article meets all of the GA criteria, I hereby pass this as a good article. Congratulations to the nominator. Icebob99 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.stanford.edu/news/2003/september24/tellerobit-924.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305075241/https://fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/ike/index.html to https://fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/ike/index.html

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) 15:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

My changes

First off, I should preface that I have seen this kind of prose and contradictory information before in articles on this subject, so I'm going to ask, very clearly that I'd like any revisions of my edits to be discussed thoroughly, and calmly on the talk page first.

I'll cover the mention of the televised debate first. The article stated "While Teller would largely win the contemporary televised debates of 1958", and refers to page 3 and 4 of the source, where the debate is summarised and it quotes Teller as saying; "This question of freedom is the most important question in my mind, I don’t want to kill anybody. I am passionately opposed to killing, but I’m even more passionately fond of freedom.", when pressed on the issue of fallout killing people. It then says that Teller promoted the idea that he had won the debate unilaterally. The very next section describes Teller's efforts as the State using a broad array of tactics to fight the anti-nuclear actions of elite US Scientists, implying that this had been a PR campaign on behalf of the state. Yet this article, as I found it, appeared more like an opinion piece, claiming that the scientists, from Teller, to Sagan, to Einstein had been discredited, in 'debates that they'd lost' (I'm paraphrasing). This is clearly the direct opposite of what pages 3 & 4 of the source material are saying, and it is concerning to see this kind of inaccuracy.

Next, the prose claims that "Many health scientists that were asked to sign were critical of Pauling's 'thoroughly unscientific' fallout assumptions, despite most wishing for a test-ban for other reasons, they could not bring themselves to sign a document that promoted such exaggerations of the dangers". Page 93 of the reference does not make that link at all. It cites three different scientists, who offered conditional support to Pauling, but it misattributes and mixes up those statements. For example; one of them predicts that "exaggeration of the dangers would cause the public to lose confidence in scientists in general." It does not, in any way state that he believed that it WAS an exaggeration. The author of this sentence also claims to have represented the views of most of these scientists, while only presenting a handful of different views and criticisms such as "Franck (who) made up his mind not to sign because he feared that the petition might weaken the U.S. government in its negotiations with the Soviets."--Senor Freebie (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Senor Freebie:

I have made a few changes with supporting sources and removed one of the Dubious tags you added.

Regarding the other Dubious tags - is it the factual nature of the statements you disagree with or that Edward Teller held these opinions(accurate or otherwise)? Edward Teller(AKA "the real Dr. Strangelove") is well documented to have made these statements.

Regarding the text you deleted in your edit - the question of who won the debate and the scientific/unscientific claims of Teller and Pauling are well covered in this source link.

--94.142.77.80 (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

quick question how do you know this is true and how can I believe this is true@Senor Freebie The ranboo (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article may not meet the good article criteria anymore becuase of the article's length. At over 13,000 characters WP:TOOBIG recommends that the article be shortened and spun-out. I also think the article has large sections that make it difficult to read; if they are still long after the article is trimmed, I suggest using additional level 3 of 4 headings. Is anyone interested in trimming the article, or should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. charlotte ^👸♥ 01:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This article has over 13,000 words: WP:TOOBIG says that it should probably be trimmed and WP:SPINOUT. There's also some sections that are very long: if after the trim they are still long, I recommend additional headings. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• The biggest culprit in my opinion is the extensive discussion of negotiations before the treaty was signed, including somewhere in the realm of 40,000 characters dedicated to efforts before Kennedy took office. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.