Talk:Moon Treaty

Map

In the article, Lebanon is mentioned as having ratified the treaty, but this fact isn't reflected in the map. Could someone correct it? Eklipse (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Only 3 states (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Turkey) still missing on the map Aldwoni (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

The map is tendentious by marking non-parties in red, where it is standard practice to just have them in normal grey. This is done as to drive a narrative of "widespread rejection" of the treaty, which is far from the truth as it is still being actively discussed and scheduled for implementation in the UN. Non-signatory doesn't mean "rejection". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:2502:122:DD87:61C1:7AF2:D57A:255 (talk) 09:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

"Needs update" tag no longer necessary?

The first sentence of the second paragraph includes an in-line "Needs update" tag, with the explanation that the date near the tag has passed - but there is no date near the tag. Since the tag was put there in September 2020, can I just remove it? --JDspeeder1 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll take it out, but I'll also rewrite the whole sentence. India has signed the Moon Treaty and they have plan for human spaceflight. Fcrary (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Tendentious treatment

The article treats the treaty as a "failure" even as there are ongoing discussions to its implementation and it was steadily growing from 5 to 17 participants. This lends undue credence to US commercial interests in space mining, which are the only party which is referred to as openly oppossing the treaty. Seeing as India and France have signed the treaty and they have self-launched space capabilities, the part about only "independently launched manned spaceflight" is arbitrary cherry-picking as well: The point of the treaty is not to specifically regulate manned space missions, but activities and legal status of space and heavenly bodies in general. Therefore, current operators of manned missions (to low Earth orbit) are of limited to null importance. 2800:2502:122:DD87:61C1:7AF2:D57A:255 (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Historical correction

"The opposition, led by Leigh Ratiner of the L-5 Society,"

That should read "for the L5 Society." I don't think Leigh was ever a member of L5.

Leigh was a hired gun for the Society. https://nss.org/l5-news-bulletin-from-the-moon-treaty-front/

I as Chairperson Fundraising Committee Moon Treaty Fight paid his law firm around $60,000. I also located him sometime before that through a derogative article in Science magazine about his involvement with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

No question, Leigh was remarkably effective at what he did in the L5 Society Moon Treaty Fight.

Unfortunately, pancreatic cancer got him a few years ago.Keith Henson (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

More History

https://www.nasa.gov/history/governing-the-moon/

/governing-the-moon-sp-2024-4559-ebook.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/history/governing-the-moon/

Where I had personal involvement,it seems to be historically accurate. If someone wants to work it into the article, that would be good. I can't get the URL to work right, please fix.

Keith Henson (talk) 06:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/governing-the-moon-sp-2024-4559-ebook.pdf?emrc=69aeb3aba9e73 Philosopher Spock (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2026 (UTC)