Jump to content

Talk:Nuclear-free zone

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

South Asia - "Surprise Use"?

[edit]

Isn't it interesting that the only source for a loaded statement that relates to India like the one under "South Asia" is a statement by Pakistan? It seems like it should definitely get removed or justified with a neutral source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.221.14 (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

symbolic use of the term

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.110.55 (talk) 22:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues

[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

clean up

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Hi everybody; long time listener, first time caller. I was a nuclear mechanic on US submarines for six years, but I think the article is only slightly biased... the main thing that is biased about the article is that there is no equivalent to a "controversy" section. When there is a big bad wolf like nuclear power, there will always be a controversy section, and that is fine... this is how we remain skeptical of our (actually, in the US, remarkably clean and safe) atomic energy system, and avoid the kind of "worst case scenario" disaster we saw in Japan (If that had been our plant, the sea wall would have been a reinforced dome that completely enclosed any component that could have possibly been affected by a tidal wave). What bothers me isn't when things I believe in are criticized on Wikipedia, but when pages describing the cause of actively shutting down something I believe in have no equivalent to a "controversy section." The article is perfectly informative... now tell the other side. -Ryan Callahan 68.175.3.89 (talk) 17:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And when I say that "this is how we avoid" these kinds of disaster, what I mean is a general attitude of skepticism that prevails on the issue among relevant regulatory bodies, elected officials, and the general public... not Wikipedia specifically. I am merely saying that a healthy dose of concern from anti-nuclear demogogues keeps the industry honest, and that's a good thing, though it would be terrible if they every succeeded in banning clean and safe American nuclear energy. Also, I don't think that it's unfair to say that not wanting to be involved in a nuclear exchange is a logical reason to keep nuclear missile subs out of a country. I would disagree when it comes to the fast attack subs(nuclear powered, but with conventional weapons) I was on, but maybe I'm biased; a port call in New Zealand sounds awesome! -Ryan 68.175.3.89 (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why in the world is this a part of "Wiki project anti-war?!" Most nuclear applications are peaceful. On a side note, my opinion is that nuclear weapons are a pretty reasonable thing to abhor, but you guys have it all wrong when it comes to nuclear power. Nuclear power, and particularly civilian nuclear power (though nuclear propulsion for military applications is hardly an exception to this statement) should not be lumped in with those genocide machines, because they just simply aren't the same type of thing. 68.175.3.89 (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esquimalt By-law

[edit]

The quote about ships needing to dock outside Esquimalt because of a by-law is silly. First of all, Esquimalt, like all BC cities, doesn't have jurisdiction past the water line. Second, there is no source cited. Will be removed unless source cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.123.131 (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jones, you are quite right

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Dmoz2

[edit]

Template:Dmoz2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Qazin (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specificity of Definition

[edit]

The lede specifies that a nuclear-free zone is where "nuclear weapons and nuclear power are banned" (emp. added) However some of the examples listed don't specifically refer to the banning of nuclear weapons/power, but simply of their non-use. For example, Austria is said to have become nuclear free when construction of a nuclear plant was stopped, as opposed to any mention of passage of a law banning nuclear plants. The section for Australia lists a great number of things, but an explicit legislative ban on nuclear power is not one of them (indeed, the section makes it sounds like there isn't one). The section for South Asia doesn't even mention bans, prohibitions or conventions at all. -- 174.24.206.145 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Another thing that should be pointed out is many of these "nuclear-free zones", which in some cases absolutely prohibit the use and transportation of nuclear materials, continue to use medical isotopes for cancer treatment and imaging that can only be made with a nuclear reactor. This article seems to deem anything with the slightest bit of anti-nuclear activity as a nuclear free zone (two billboards? really?), when in reality, there are no nuclear free zones, as no one will give up the use of medical isotopes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.29.144 (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that the definition is incorrect. Nuclear-free zones can come in many forms. The description of New Zealand's zone is also incorrect. There was no direct association between nuclear ship (as it realy was) free status and "renouncing the nuclear deterrent". Furthermore NZ had ceased to be "Western-allied", effectively withdrawing from Anzus as a result of adopting the policy - which is contrary to what the article implies.124.197.15.138 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nambassa 1978 Workshop, Nuclear Free Pacific Information. Photographer unknown.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Nambassa 1978 Workshop, Nuclear Free Pacific Information. Photographer unknown.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

[edit]

Ireland should be added to the list as there are no nuclear power stations on the island and the Republic has no nuclear weapons and is not a full member of NATO. Northern Ireland while part of the United Kingdom has never had any nuclear installations or (as far as is publicly known) weapons based there. A plan to build a nuclear power station at Carnsore Point back in the 1970's was abandoned and current legislation in the Republic makes the construction of suck plant illegal. 2.123.243.182 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Nuclear-free zone. 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 08:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nuclear-free zone. 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 08:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear-free zone. 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 05:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nuclear-free zone. 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) 15:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needed disambiguation of no fly zone abbreviation

[edit]

Ok, so let`s disambiguate the NFZ redirect page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.29.238 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Nuclear-free zone. 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) 08:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuclear-free zone. 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) 23:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems somewhat unfocused

[edit]

It is not clear whether all of those nuclear free zones amalgamate WMDs and electricity generation.

Likewise, the inclusion of Italy and Austria is dubious. While they currently have no active atomic power station, those countries are part of the Synchronous grid of Continental Europe and therefore do use atomic electricity. Besides, Italy is a full member of NATO.

Similar concerns would apply to nordic countries and Australia and New-Zeland.

It would seem that this article still require significant efforts before reaching WP:NPOV. Noliscient (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear-free_zone&oldid=1208428488"