Jump to content

Talk:Arms Trade Treaty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much Controversy, political ads, etc

[edit]

I added the paragraph in the lede about Much Controversy, political ads, etc, since I'm betting that's how most people are aware of this treaty. I personally became aware of the myth yesterday, seeing an ad while checking the Fresno weather. The 288x248 pixle banner showed H Clinton wearing yellow, with a caption; "Hillary welcomes global gun ban." "...the U.N. Small Arms Treaty," "click here to sign our petition" Google: hillary "small arms treaty" petition

"The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." see: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section)

--68.127.84.159 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford[reply]

I came here because of an email from a friend with the title: Message From Texas Attorney General --- Also the snopes article is relevant as much of the ATT in email and social media is being skewed as to be undermining the U.S. 2nd Amendment. RyanNerd (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

[edit]

The 2nd reference doesn't seem to work, maybe it's supposed to point at: http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/9255782.9618454.html Lionfish0 (talk) 07:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no as that ref doesn't have the voting result either... Lionfish0 (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found it, ANNEX XXXVIII, on page: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/ga10547.doc.htm Lionfish0 (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting a conspiracy theory? Why?

[edit]
"The U.S. NGO Second Amendment Foundation has voiced concern that a multinational treaty limiting the firearms trade might infringe on the constitutional privilege of private firearm ownership for self-defense in some countries such as the U.S."

According to Snopes, this is a conspiracy theory. http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp Should we remove it? -- Yekrats (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because Snopes is NOT a legitimate source at all. It is a mom-and-pop site sun by a couple with no investigative credentials and questionable use of objectivity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.74.35.128 (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To the poster above me, please quit repeating right-wing talking points. If you do actual research, you will find out much of what the right-wing says about Snopes is nothing more than a lie. Then again, the right-wing never has met a fact it liked. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the poster above me, please quit repeating left-wing anti-right-wing talking points. Especially if what you are saying doesnt really add to the discussion at all and is more a political attack than anything else. Completly unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.47.179 (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To the poster above me, if you're going to call what I said "left-wing anti-right-wing talking points" and then say that what I am saying doesn't really add to the discussion & is more of a political attack than anything else, then you've just done EXACTLY what you are criticizing me of doing. So, please, from now on, follow your own advice/suggestion. Otherwise, you come off looking no better than me. If anything, it is YOUR comment that has come off as completely unnecessary. 76.235.248.47 (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does have the ability to infringe on private rights. The treaty does not protect a persons right to self defense, it protects a states right to self defense. This omission could be interpreted later to specifically exclude that right. The wiki is wrong in regards to content. It does not matter if snopes wrote about it or a blogger, the information is verifiable. In this case the person who updated the wiki section "content" changed the text and it is incorrect without the word "States". David chamberlain (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This omission could be interpreted later to specifically exclude that right. No, that's not really how treaty interpretation works in international law. By default, international law addresses the rights of states and organizations, not individual rights. Individual rights are only affected if the treaty explicitly addresses them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a whole revision

[edit]

After the adoption of the treaty, all the history of the making is not relavent anymore. what's relevent is its content and its effectiveness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.226.170 (talk) 18:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


If this was inforced what actions would be taken? Adding more information on the scope of the treaty would help prevent missinformation. Also How owuld this effect Non-UN members or Members that are only "part time in the UN".

I'm not right wing or any sort of strong political position but if inforced how could this not hurt profits of legit gun manufacturers? I think the whole concept of trying to control trade is a terrible idea. The issue isn't selling a shotgun to another country where it could be used inappropriately. The issue is the country it gets imported into isn't policing the criminals who would use it inappropriately.

The UN needs to get their stuff together, there are far more important issues to address such as North Korea, and lingering middle east issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.169.141 (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of arms trafficking

[edit]

I believe that Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules prevent me from editing the article, but I'll make a comment here.

Regarding the following paragraph from the article:

The arms trade treaty, like the PoA, is predicated upon a hypothesis that the illicit trade in small arms is a large and serious problem requiring global action through the UN. According to a well regarded 2012 Routledge Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution publication, "the relative importance of diversion or misuse of officially authorised transfers, compared to international entirely illegal black market trafficking has been thoroughly confirmed."[6] The authors go on to elaborate that "For most developing or fragile states, a combination of weak domestic regulation of authorised firearms possession with theft, loss or corrupt sale from official holdings tends to be a bigger source of weapons concern than illicit trafficking across borders."[7]

As one of the authors of the quoted text (and editors of the book: Owen Greene and Nicholas Marsh eds 2012 Small Arms, Crime and Conflict: Global Governance and the Threat of Armed Violence. London and New York: Routledge) we certainly did not state that the illicit trade in conventional arms is unimportant and by extension that either the ATT or PoA is unnecessary. To say that domestic sources are more important in some cases does not mean that internationally trafficked weapons are irrelevant. Moreover, the PoA addresses the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons "in all its aspects". That includes transfers which take place within a State (eg by corrupt sale from official holdings).

Owen Greene and I did write (page 164) that:

Moreover, SALW production and flows have major cross-border, regional and international dimensions; requiring regional and international governance mechanisms to enable information exchange, lesson-learning, coordination, risk management, aid, and cooperative controls.

We then go on to describe those international governance mechanisms and point out how they could be strengthened (pages 169-182).

Moreover the focus of the ATT is the authorised trade in arms, so comments about the nature of the illicit trade seem to wide of the mark.

I agree that the article should be re-written in the light of the positive vote on the treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas Marsh (talk • contribs) 12:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan?

[edit]

The map at te start of the article claims Uzbekistan is not a member, contradicting the country's own page. It's about UNO membership, right? -- StevenDH (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is about the vote in the UN on the Arms trade Treaty last month, but you are right that Uzbekistan is colored incorrectly; I will correct that… L.tak (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I wanted to ask if the erroneous gray colour indicated UNO membership, but no matter. Thanks! StevenDH (talk) 09:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why include the French name?

[edit]

In the lede, why do we include the French name of the treaty? Official versions of the treaty are in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. So why do we include the French name but not the Arabic, Chinese, Russian, and Spanish names? It seems to me that the English name is enough, at least in the lede. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections or comments, I will remove the French name from the lede. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not move it into the infobox? TDL (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could do (though I'm not sure which entry in the infobox it would go under). Do we also include the name in the other four official languages? Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put them all in a collapsible list at the top of the infobox. TDL (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; it looks nice. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria and Turkey signature

[edit]

Both countries have signed the ATT on July 2nd and not June 2nd. The opening for signatures was on June 3rd anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.108.79 (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up! TDL (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland not on the map it should be in green

[edit]
That is correct, Iceland signed AND ratified on July 2nd. Also, Mexico ratified on 25 Sept (should be green). Others that have signed but have not been marked on the map : Bangladesh (26 Sept) Malaysia (26 Sept), and United Arab Emirates (9 July). Arguably, Greenland should be marked as signed up too, since foreign policy is decided by Denmark. The Ukraine has NOT signed and should therefore not be marked, which is currently the case. Final question: Should Iran, the DPRK and Syria be given a separate colour as countries who voted no to the ATT in the UNGA ? Tip for whoever updates this map (I regrettably don't have the software). Use the UN Treaty Collection ATT page as the definitive source of info on which countries have signed and/or ratified (link: http://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-8&chapter=26&lang=en) This page is the source for the changes suggested above. PaulBeijer (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's updated now. The two pre-september actions were errors in coding (I used ic for iceland instead of is; and I used ua (ukraine) for UAE instead of ae…). Although it might seem very complicated, it is not very time consuming to update the map. Here's what you need to do:
  • click the map; then click on the link to the image on commons
  • right-click and save image as (make sure you download the .svg file)
  • now (and this is the trick) "open with" and open it with a text editor like "text edit"
  • scroll down in the file until after ca 50 lines you'll see:

/* List of states which have ratified or acceded (green) */

.ag, .cr, .gy, .is, .tt, .ng, .mx

{ fill: #005500; }

/* List of states which have signed (orange) */ .al, .ao, .ar, .au, .at, .bb, .bd, .bs, .be, .bz, .bj, .ba, .br, .bg, .bf, .bi, .td, .cl, .co, .cg, .ci, .hr, .cy, .cz, .dk, .dj, .do, .sv, .ee, .fi, .fr, .ga, .de, .gh, .gr, .gd, .gt, .gn, .hn, .hu, .ie, .it, .jm, .jp, .ki, .lv, .ls, .lr, .ly, .li, .lt, .lu, .mg, .ml, .mt, .mr, .mn, .me, .my, .mz, .nu, .nl, .nz, .no, .pw, .pa, .py, .pe, .ph, .pl, .pt, .kr, .md, .ro, .rw, .ws, .sn, .rs, .sc, .sl, .sk, .si, .za, .es, .kn, .lc, .vc, .sr, .sz, .se, .ch, .mk, .tg, .tr, .ae, .gb, .tz, .us, .uy, .vu, .zm

{ fill: #DD7700; opacity: 1; } </nowiki>

  • If a country signed: add it to the list below (note the "." and the ","!); according to the abbreviation of ISO 3166-1 alpha-2
  • If a country ratified: remove it from the list below, and add it to the list above (for your info: the fill:#DD7700 is an indicator of the color)

As for Denmark: both stands are defendable I guess… I prefer not to color it as it is the Danish (continental) country that decides about the signature; and only upon ratification the other 2 entities seem to be involved… L.tak (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mali

[edit]

Mali is a ratifier since Dec 3rd 2013. http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/att — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.108.79 (talk) 11:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arms Trade Treaty. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arms Trade Treaty. 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}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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 22:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arms_Trade_Treaty&oldid=1205345981"