Talk:Nuclear-free zone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Politics Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Anti-war, a collective approach to organizing and unifying articles related to the anti-war movement. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Flag Nuclear-free zone is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
This page has been Transwikied to Wiktionary. The transwiki process is complete.

The symbolic use of the term by some left-wing local authorities is worth a mention, and does not seem appropriate for Wiktionary. I've made a start on that, perhaps it can be elaborated. User:Flagboy

Are you suggesting that the notion of peace and disarmament is solely one for the lefty, by this inference you are saying that the right are a bunch on mindless warmongers? Mombas 01:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I might point out that Enoch Powell (not known for left-wing or liberal views) opposed nuclear weapons. However, in the UK NFZs tended to be Labour/Liberal Authorities, there may be some exceptions to this though. Sjeraj 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The poster User:Rejs needs to demonstrate why he-she removed the the link atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the claimed basis of bias, other wise stand accused of nothing more than vandalism! The editors who contributed to the wiki article atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki disagree with your conclusions, as do I! Mombas 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV issues

"The passing of the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act in 1987 was a milestone in New Zealand's development as a nation that can create its own destiny, think for itself, and support the principles of peace and safety for all peoples." If this sentence is not POV, I don't know what is. If this act of New Zealand's parliament is truly such a milestone, then it would not be necessary to point it out. When I have the time I will ferret out and rectify this and other POV issues in the article. Jason Jones 17:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I must presume that you are a New Zealand resident to be able to justify your unfounded claim that the passing of the New Zealand Disarmament and Arms Control Act was NOT a significant development or milestone for NZ as a nation, given that Governments there have been ELECTED on the basis of maintaining New Zealand’s nuclear free status. And this nuclear free zone issue continues to have parliamentary bipartisan support because the nation refuses to accept America’s heavy handed Foreign policy arrangements on the question of nuclear technology. Or are we simply dealing here with the personal opinions of a northern hemisphere person who finds offence that Kiwis vote election after election not to cuddle up to Americas defense strategists! The neutrality of this article is NOT under dispute until you firstly demonstrate in the talk pages proof to support your personal assertions. Other wise you stand accused of a hatchet job and vandalism. In the meantime I am removing the banner “The neutrality of this article is disputed” until you demonstrate otherwise. Mombas 23:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Where to start? First of all, your attempt to threaten me with accusations of "a hatchet job" and "vandalism" are laughable. I have every right to challenge the neutrality of this article, and it is something any good Wikipedian does when he comes across bias of this magnitude. Second, the passage I cited initially is probably the tamest example of POV in the article, although even it is severely biased. Connecting "peace and safety" with a complete repudiation of nuclear technology is a blatent opinion and a philosophical conjecture that has no place in this article. I don't have to be a New Zealand resident to detect POV in an article. I am in fact from the US, but that does not mean I have no right to intervene in an article which in its current state contains more spin than a Soviet propaganda piece. The New Zealand section is the most obviously biased. It is clear from looking at the page history that this particular page is your pet project. You have no right to unilaterally remove a NPOV tag before the issues involved have been thoroughly discussed and a consensus formed. The talk page for this article is small enough that it appears that few people have even stumbled across this article in the first place. I'm sure if they had this debate would already have taken place (also, someone might have copyedited the author's horrible grammar and nonsensical statements). I hope that those who have found this page do not include easily impressionable minds. I dispute the neutrality of this article, which is sufficient cause to leave the tag in place until the issue has been debated and resolved. I am reinstating the NPOV tag, and if you dare remove it, you are betraying your own bias and fear of a thoughtful debate, as well as attempting to thwart the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. When this article is brought to the attention of the community and the Wikipedia authorities, you will regret such an action.

The article's claim that New Zealand's status as a nuclear-free zone protects it from nuclear attack by the United States is ludicrous. Why would the US nuke a country that was harboring its own warships? But this is all nonsense because you have no evidence that the Bush administration harbors ill-will toward your country. Who is this "Larry Ross" you quote? Are you him? You certainly share his paranoia.

I could go on for paragraphs. The description of the French attack on the Greenpeace vessel as and "unnecessary act of stupendous revenge" reads like a KCNA "news" dispatch. This is hardly neutral wording. The mention of New Zealand's refusal to participate in the US-led invasion of Iraq is gratuitous in the context of this article, as the invasion of Iraq had no connection whatsoever to nuclear weapons (aside from what we now know was an apparantly misguided fear that Saddam was trying to acquire them, among other weapons of mass destruction). Consider this sentence: "New Zealand has long maintained an independent foreign policy initiative with various Labour Governments refusing to pay lip service to American and other countries policy demands on its allies." Using a phrase such as "refusing to pay lip service" is not only ridiculously unencyclopedic, but also wretchedly POV. Also, the sentence as a whole doesn't make any sense. Are the policy demands being made on New Zealand or on its allies?

I would like to add my personal opinion that although the US has officially nullified its defense obligations to New Zealand under the ANZUS treaty in response to your anti-nuclear policy, I have little doubt that we would rush to your defense should a foreign foe (such as nuclear-armed China) attempt to attack you. Our defense of your small country would be a defense of worldwide democracy, for although democracy sometimes leads to absurd policy decisions, such as the creation of "nuclear-free zones," governance by the will of the people is the best type of governance and the best hope for humanity in the long term. I am clearly stating that this is a personal opinion, something for which, if you are the author of this article, you have no capacity. Respectfully in dissent, -- Jason Jones 02:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Goodness me what a mouthful, and you have the audacity to suggest that I’m biased, given your own long winded assertions clearly suggest one of excessive paranoid right winged belligerence. I can now understand why the vast majority of your edits surround fictional topics.

You appear to have misunderstood the basis for or what this Wikipedia article is actually about. It is NOT a debate concerning the rights and wrongs of nuclear technology but an article about “nuclear free zones”, a subject matter in itself which is totally biased against American Foreign policy on the question of nuclear technology anyway, be it for peaceful or other means. The question of the terrorist attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the Iraq war, are simply supporting facts which helped determine New Zealand’s democratic right not to join with Americas Nuclear madness. You don’t get the point do you....New Zealanders do NOT want to be defended under the US Nuclear umbrella- end of story? And your ridiculous paranoia about an attack from China demonstrates that you’re still afraid of the “reds” your insecurities assume are still hiding under your bed. Recent history provides that it is not China which is to be feared but an out of control and murderous nuclear armed USA who seem only too prepared to attack anyone who does not buy into its wanting capitalist-democratic systems, where power is contained at the barrel of a gun and leadership by the amount of money one may conjure.

I reiterate, that the content by which this article is presented if fair and factual, based upon the actual subject matter “nuclear free zone”. While it is your right to edit and reword any contributions made here, (to this I would be personally grateful), you contravene Wikipedia on vandalism if you attempt to make a hatchet job of this article. The objections you are referring to are contained in the New Zealand segment to which it would appear that you have sour grapes at dealing with the fact that not all western democracies agree with the American methods...and even less after the Iraq debacle.

To quote Jones: “Connecting "peace and safety" with a complete repudiation of nuclear technology is a blatent opinion and a philosophical conjecture that has no place in this article.” Response.: Goodness me, on the question of safety- does not American history teach you people what happened at Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Are you unaware as to the events at Chenoble? Have you not wondered WHY the likes of Iran and Korea are viggoriously pursuing Nuclear technology?

To quote Jones: “The article's claim that New Zealand's status as a nuclear-free zone protects it from nuclear attack by the United States is ludicrous.” Now you are even attempting to twist the facts to justify your illfounded nationalism. Consider: If there was a nuclear war and American Nuclear war ship were stationed in Auckland city as part of the original Anzus agreement, naturally they would become targets.

Your assumptions as to whom I might be are right off the mark fella...try again? Mombas 05:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry but this is clearly a biased article, that is based on asumption and POV. I hope this gets rectified soon.

It looks basically factual and spot on to me. It just needs a bit of rearrangement and perhaps a better choice of some of the words and phrases to level it off so that it does not so offend. Sweetas 08:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


The New Zealand section of the article couldn't be more in violation of NPOV. There is limited citation and it basically consists of a rant against nuclear weapons and American foreign policy. I would be happy with quotes from the people passing the legislation (There is one quote ending with " but without a corresponding set to show where the quote starts). And surveys, even newspaper articles on NZ opinion which are cited would be fine. But at the moment it is ridiculous Yank-bashing. Jameskeates 11:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Given the clean up by User:Matches10 is there now consensus that the POV issues have been resolved? 203.45.145.238 12:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the text is still a little flowery for my taste but I ran out of steam. If we're not there yet, I think we're close. Matches10 15:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits, Matches10. You have managed to clean up a lot of a source text which I felt would have to be entirely rewritten. I would have done the work myself, but I have been so busy at college.
I'd like to say a couple more words to Mombas. First, I'd love to debate the more political points you make, but this is not the appropriate forum. I'd like to focus on the Wikipedia policy issues at stake here. You point out that a lot of my edits surround fictional topics. But given your atrocious understanding of Wikipedia policy, I suspect that my edits to articles about fictional subjects have more value than all of your edits regarding non-fictional subjects combined.
I guess that all of us are biased insofar as all of us have an opinion. However, Wikipedia has a policy against stating such opinions as fact. I agree with you that the concept of a "nuclear-free zone" is inherently biased against American nuclear policy. But the article about the concept need not be biased, and this is a crucial distinction that you seem to have missed.
I'm sorry that I misinterpreted one of the numerous poorly-formed sentences in the article. I now understand that the sentence was trying to say something like, "Proponents of a nuclear-free zone believe that US nuclear-powered or armed vessels harbored in New Zealand would invite a nuclear attack on those vessels or even upon New Zealand itself by a hostile third power, should the US become involved in a nuclear exchange." I think Matches10 has removed the sentence altogether, without doing much harm to the article.
There's still work to be done. But with a couple more edits we should be able to remove the NPOV tag very soon now. -- Jason Jones 20:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Jones, you are quite right that Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum to debate political preferences. Having said this though it’s abundantly clear you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever on the nuclear free zone issue, this supported by the fact that you have not contributed one iota to this article other than to sit back and whine! Again I reiterate and would suggest that your editing skills may be better served on subjects that have no basis in reality or history. Good Luck. Mombas 07:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, good work Matches10. Mombas 07:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely an improvement on when I read it before, although it'd still be better with some citations. And sentences about it being a major development in New Zealand becoming a country that thinks for itself ect sound like a political broadcast. Even adding in an 'it was seen as' would make it better though again I'd prefer a quote.Jameskeates 07:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought it sufficient that NO politician IN NZ would EVER go to an election on a pro-nuclear agenda; otherwise it would be absolute political suicide. However you should make the changes that you are asserting if you think it will work. Mombas 09:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)