text:
List of states with nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons states 2023.svg states of the world

{{legend|#5B92E5|NPT-designated nuclear weapon states (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States)}} {{legend|#ff0000|Other states with nuclear weapons (India, North Korea, Pakistan)}} {{legend|#d4aa00|Other states presumed to have nuclear weapons (Israel)}} {{legend|#1034A6|NATO or CSTO member nuclear weapons sharing states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Belarus)}} {{legend|#007C59|States formerly possessing nuclear weapons (Kazakhstan, South Africa, Ukraine)}}]]

Eight sovereign states have publicly announced successful detonation of nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be nuclear-weapon states (NWS) under the terms of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons, these are the United States, Russia (the successor of the former Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France, and China. Of these, the three NATO members, the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, are sometimes termed the P3.

Other states that possess nuclear weapons are India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Since the NPT entered into force in 1970, these three states were not parties to the Treaty and have conducted overt nuclear tests. North Korea had been a party to the NPT but withdrew in 2003.

Israel is also generally understood to have nuclear weapons,  but does not acknowledge it, maintaining a policy of deliberate ambiguity. Israel is estimated to possess somewhere between 75 and 400 nuclear warheads. One possible motivation for nuclear ambiguity is deterrence with minimum political friction.

States that formerly possessed nuclear weapons are South Africa (developed nuclear weapons but then disassembled its arsenal before joining the NPT) and the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, whose weapons were transferred to Russia.

According to the Federation of American Scientists there are approximately 3,880 active nuclear warheads and 12,119 total nuclear warheads in the world as of 2024. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimated in 2023 that the total number of nuclear warheads acquired by nuclear states reached 12,512. Approximately 9,576 are kept with military stockpiles. About 3,844 warheads are deployed with missiles. 2000 warheads, which are primarily from Russia and the United States, are maintained for high operational alerts.

Statistics and force configuration
The following is a list of states that have acknowledged the possession of nuclear weapons or are presumed to possess them, the approximate number of warheads under their control, and the year they tested their first weapon and their force configuration. This list is informally known in global politics as the "Nuclear Club". With the exception of Russia and the United States (which have subjected their nuclear forces to independent verification under various treaties) these figures are estimates, in some cases quite unreliable estimates. In particular, under the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty thousands of Russian and U.S. nuclear warheads are inactive in stockpiles awaiting processing. The fissile material contained in the warheads can then be recycled for use in nuclear reactors.

From a high of 70,300 active weapons in 1986, there are approximately 3,880 active nuclear warheads and 12,119 total nuclear warheads in the world. Many of the decommissioned weapons were simply stored or partially dismantled, not destroyed.

It is also noteworthy that since the dawn of the Atomic Age, the delivery methods of most states with nuclear weapons have evolved—with some achieving a nuclear triad, while others have consolidated away from land and air deterrents to submarine-based forces.

Recognized nuclear-weapon states
These five states are known to have detonated a nuclear explosive before 1 January 1967 and are thus nuclear weapons states under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. They also happen to be the UN Security Council's (UNSC) permanent members with veto power on UNSC resolutions.

United States
The United States developed the first nuclear weapons during World War II in cooperation with the United Kingdom and Canada as part of the Manhattan Project, out of the fear that Nazi Germany would develop them first. It tested the first nuclear weapon on 16 July 1945 ("Trinity") at 5:30 am, and remains the only country to have used nuclear weapons in war, devastating the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The project expenditure through 1 October 1945 was reportedly $1.845–$2billion, in nominal terms, roughly 0.8 percent of the US GDP in 1945 and equivalent to about $29 billion in 2020 money.

It was the first nation to develop the hydrogen bomb, testing an experimental prototype in 1952 ("Ivy Mike") and a deployable weapon in 1954 ("Castle Bravo"). Throughout the Cold War it continued to modernize and enlarge its nuclear arsenal, but from 1992 on has been involved primarily in a program of stockpile stewardship. The U.S. nuclear arsenal contained 31,175 warheads at its Cold War height (in 1966). During the Cold War, the United States built approximately 70,000 nuclear warheads, more than all other nuclear-weapon states combined.

Russia (successor to the Soviet Union)
The Soviet Union tested its first nuclear weapon ("RDS-1") in 1949. This crash project was developed partially with information obtained via espionage during and after World War II. The Soviet Union was the second nation to have developed and tested a nuclear weapon. The direct motivation for Soviet weapons development was to achieve a balance of power during the Cold War. It tested its first megaton-range hydrogen bomb ("RDS-37") in 1955. The Soviet Union also tested the most powerful explosive ever detonated by humans, ("Tsar Bomba"), with a theoretical yield of 100 megatons, intentionally reduced to 50 when detonated. After its dissolution in 1991, the Soviet weapons entered officially into the possession of the Russian Federation. The Soviet nuclear arsenal contained some 45,000 warheads at its peak (in 1986); the Soviet Union built about 55,000 nuclear warheads since 1949.

United Kingdom
The United Kingdom tested its first nuclear weapon ("Hurricane") in 1952. The UK had provided considerable impetus and initial research for the early conception of the atomic bomb, aided by Austrian, German and Polish physicists working at British universities who had either fled or decided not to return to Nazi Germany or Nazi-controlled territories. The UK collaborated closely with the United States and Canada during the Manhattan Project, but had to develop its own method for manufacturing and detonating a bomb as U.S. secrecy grew after 1945. The United Kingdom was the third country in the world, after the United States and the Soviet Union, to develop and test a nuclear weapon. Its programme was motivated to have an independent deterrent against the Soviet Union, while also maintaining its status as a great power. It tested its first hydrogen bomb in 1957 (Operation Grapple), making it the third country to do so after the United States and Soviet Union.

The British Armed Forces maintained a fleet of V bomber strategic bombers and ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) equipped with nuclear weapons during the Cold War. The Royal Navy currently maintains a fleet of four Vanguard-class submarine ballistic missile submarines equipped with Trident II missiles. In 2016, the UK House of Commons voted to renew the British nuclear weapons system with the Dreadnought-class submarine, without setting a date for the commencement of service of a replacement to the current system.

France
France tested its first nuclear weapon in 1960 ("Gerboise Bleue"), based mostly on its own research. It was motivated by the Suez Crisis diplomatic tension in relation to both the Soviet Union and its allies, the United States and United Kingdom. It was also relevant to retain great power status, alongside the United Kingdom, during the post-colonial Cold War (see: Force de frappe). France tested its first hydrogen bomb in 1968 ("Opération Canopus"). After the Cold War, France has disarmed 175 warheads with the reduction and modernization of its arsenal that has now evolved to a dual system based on submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and medium-range air-to-surface missiles (Rafale fighter-bombers). However, new nuclear weapons are in development and reformed nuclear squadrons were trained during Enduring Freedom operations in Afghanistan.

France acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1992. In January 2006, President Jacques Chirac stated a terrorist act or the use of weapons of mass destruction against France would result in a nuclear counterattack. In February 2015, President François Hollande stressed the need for a nuclear deterrent in "a dangerous world". He also detailed the French deterrent as "fewer than 300" nuclear warheads, three sets of 16 submarine-launched ballistic missiles and 54 medium-range air-to-surface missiles and urged other states to show similar transparency.

China
China tested its first nuclear weapon device ("596") in 1964 at the Lop Nur test site. The weapon was developed as a deterrent against both the United States and the Soviet Union. Two years later, China had a fission bomb capable of being put onto a nuclear missile. It tested its first hydrogen bomb ("Test No. 6") in 1967, 32 months after testing its first nuclear weapon (the shortest fission-to-fusion development known in history). China is the only NPT nuclear-weapon state to give an unqualified negative security assurance with its "no first use" policy. China acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1992. As of 2016, China fielded SLBMs onboard its JL-2 submarines. As of February 2024, China had an estimated total inventory of approximately 500 warheads.

According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), China is in the middle of a significant modernization and expansion of its nuclear arsenal. Its nuclear stockpile is expected to continue growing over the coming decade and some projections suggest that it will deploy at least as many intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as either Russia or the US in that period. However, China's overall nuclear warhead stockpile is still expected to remain smaller than that of either of those states. The Yearbook published by SIPRI in 2023 revealed that China's nuclear warheads stockpile increased by 17% in 2022, reaching 410 warheads.

U.S. Department of Defense officials estimate that the Chinese had more than 500 operational nuclear warheads as of May 2023, and it was on track to posess 1,000 nuclear weapons by the year 2030.

India
India is not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Indian officials rejected the NPT in the 1960s on the grounds that it created a world of nuclear "haves" and "have-nots", arguing that it unnecessarily restricted "peaceful activity" (including "peaceful nuclear explosives"), and that India would not accede to international control of their nuclear facilities unless all other countries engaged in unilateral disarmament of their own nuclear weapons. The Indian position has also asserted that the NPT is in many ways a neo-colonial regime designed to deny security to post-colonial powers.

The country tested what is called a "peaceful nuclear explosive" in 1974 (which became known as "Smiling Buddha"). The test was the first test developed after the creation of the NPT, and created new questions about how civilian nuclear technology could be diverted secretly to weapons purposes (dual-use technology). India's secret development caused great concern and anger particularly from nations that had supplied its nuclear reactors for peaceful and power generating needs, such as Canada. After its 1974 test, India maintained that its nuclear capability was primarily "peaceful", but between 1988 and 1990 it apparently weaponized two dozen nuclear weapons for delivery by air. In 1998 India tested weaponized nuclear warheads ("Operation Shakti"), including a thermonuclear device. India adopted a "no first use" policy in 1998.

In July 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh announced a civil nuclear cooperation initiative that included plans to conclude an Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement. This initiative came to fruition through a series of steps that included India's announced plan to separate its civil and military nuclear programs in March 2006, the passage of the India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement by the U.S. Congress in December 2006, the conclusion of a U.S.–India nuclear cooperation agreement in July 2007, approval by the IAEA of an India-specific safeguards agreement, agreement by the Nuclear Suppliers Group to a waiver of export restrictions for India, approval by the U.S. Congress and culminating in the signature of U.S.–India agreement for civil nuclear cooperation in October 2008. The U.S. State Department said it made it "very clear that we will not recognize India as a nuclear-weapon state". The United States is bound by the Hyde Act with India and may cease all cooperation with India if India detonates a nuclear explosive device. The US had further said it is not its intention to assist India in the design, construction or operation of sensitive nuclear technologies through the transfer of dual-use items. In establishing an exemption for India, the Nuclear Suppliers Group reserved the right to consult on any future issues which might trouble it. As of June 2024, India was estimated to have a stockpile of 172 warheads.

Pakistan
Pakistan is also not a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Pakistan covertly developed nuclear weapons over decades, beginning in the late 1970s. Pakistan first delved into nuclear power after the establishment of its first nuclear power plant near Karachi with equipment and materials supplied mainly by western nations in the early 1970s. Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto promised in 1971 that if India could build nuclear weapons then Pakistan would too, according to him: "We will develop Nuclear stockpiles, even if we have to eat grass."

It is believed that Pakistan has possessed nuclear weapons since the mid-1980s. The United States continued to certify that Pakistan did not possess such weapons until 1990, when sanctions were imposed under the Pressler Amendment, requiring a cutoff of U.S. economic and military assistance to Pakistan. In 1998, Pakistan conducted its first six nuclear tests at the Ras Koh Hills in response to the five tests conducted by India a few weeks before.

In 2004, the Pakistani metallurgist Abdul Qadeer Khan, a key figure in Pakistan's nuclear weapons program, confessed to heading an international black market ring involved in selling nuclear weapons technology. In particular, Khan had been selling gas centrifuge technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. Khan denied complicity by the Pakistani government or Army, but this has been called into question by journalists and IAEA officials, and was later contradicted by statements from Khan himself.

As of early 2013, Pakistan was estimated to have had a stockpile of around 140 warheads, and in November 2014 it was projected that by 2020 Pakistan would have enough fissile material for 200 warheads. As of 2024, SIPRI estimated that Pakistan had a stockpile of around 170 warheads.

North Korea
North Korea was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but announced a withdrawal on 10 January 2003, after the United States accused it of having a secret uranium enrichment program and cut off energy assistance under the 1994 Agreed Framework. In February 2005, North Korea claimed to possess functional nuclear weapons, though their lack of a test at the time led many experts to doubt the claim. In October 2006, North Korea stated that, in response to growing intimidation by the United States, it would conduct a nuclear test to confirm its nuclear status. North Korea reported a successful nuclear test on 9 October 2006 (see 2006 North Korean nuclear test). Most U.S. intelligence officials believed that the test was probably only partially successful with a yield of less than a kiloton. North Korea conducted a second, higher-yield test on 25 May 2009 (see 2009 North Korean nuclear test) and a third test with still-higher yield on 12 February 2013 (see 2013 North Korean nuclear test).

North Korea claimed to have conducted its first hydrogen-bomb test on 5 January 2016, though measurements of seismic disturbances indicate that the detonation was not consistent with a hydrogen bomb. On 3 September 2017, North Korea detonated a device, which caused a magnitude 6.1 tremor, consistent with a low-powered thermonuclear detonation; NORSAR estimates the yield at 250 kilotons of TNT. In 2018, North Korea announced a halt in nuclear weapons tests and made a conditional commitment to denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula; however, in December 2019, it indicated it no longer considered itself bound by the moratorium.

Kim Jong Un officially declared North Korea a nuclear weapons state during a speech on 9 September 2022, the country's foundation day.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), North Korea's military nuclear programme remains central to its national security strategy and it may have assembled up to 30 nuclear weapons and could produce more. North Korea conducted more than 90 ballistic missile tests during 2022–the highest number it has ever undertaken in a single year.

Israel
Israel is widely believed to have been the sixth country in the world to develop nuclear weapons, but it has not acknowledged its nuclear forces. It had "rudimentary, but deliverable," nuclear weapons available as early as 1966. Israel is not a party to the NPT. Israel engages in strategic ambiguity, saying it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons into the region, but refusing to otherwise confirm or deny a nuclear weapons program or arsenal. This policy of "nuclear opacity" has been interpreted as an attempt to get the benefits of deterrence with a minimal political cost. Due to a US ban on funding countries that have weapons of mass destruction, Israel would lose around $2 billion a year in military and other aid from the US if it admitted to possessing nuclear weapons.

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Federation of American Scientists, Israel likely possesses around 80–400 nuclear weapons. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimates that Israel has approximately 80 intact nuclear weapons, of which 50 are for delivery by Jericho II medium-range ballistic missiles and 30 are gravity bombs for delivery by aircraft. SIPRI also reports that there was renewed speculation in 2012 that Israel may also have developed nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missiles.

On 7 November 2023, Heritage Minister Amihai Eliyahu said during a radio interview that the nuclear option would be "one way" to deal with Gaza. His remarks were criticized by the United States and Russia, and Eliyahu was subsequently suspended from the Israeli cabinet.

Launch authority
The decision to use nuclear weapons is always restricted to a single person or small group of people. The United States and France require their respective presidents to approve the use of nuclear weapons. In the US, the Presidential Emergency Satchel is always handled by a nearby aide unless the President is near a command center. The decision rests with the Prime Minister in the United Kingdom. Information from China is unclear, but "the launch of nuclear weapons is commonly believed to rest with the Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party." Russia grants such power to the President but may also require approval from the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the General Staff. The Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces has authority in North Korea. India, Pakistan and Israel have committees for such a decision.

Some countries are known to have delegated launch authority to military personnel in the event that the usual launch authority is incapacitated; whether or not the 'pre-delegated' authority exists at any particular time is kept secret. In the United States, some military commanders have been delegated authority to launch nuclear weapons "when the urgency of time and circumstances clearly does not permit a specific decision by the President." Russia has a semi automated Dead Hand system which may allow military commanders to act based on certain pre-defined criteria. British nuclear-armed submarine commanders are issued with "Letters of last resort" written by the Prime Minister containing secret instructions which may or may not give them delegated launch authority.

Nuclear weapons shared by the United States
Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store. This involves pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practicing, handling, and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and adapting non-U.S. warplanes to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs. However, since all U.S. nuclear weapons are protected with Permissive Action Links, the host states cannot easily arm the bombs without authorization codes from the U.S. Department of Defense. Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga acknowledged the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons in Italy. U.S. nuclear weapons were also deployed in Canada as well as Greece from 1963. However, the United States withdrew three of the four nuclear-capable weapons systems from Canada by 1972, the fourth by 1984, and all nuclear-capable weapons systems from Greece by 2001. , the United States maintained around 100 nuclear weapons in Europe, as reflected in the accompanying table.

Nuclear weapons shared by Russia
, the leaders of Russia and Belarus have claimed that a "number of" nuclear weapons are located on Belarusian territory while remaining in Russian possession. Sources hostile to these countries have confirmed that nuclear warheads have been delivered to Belarus, but claim that the first transfers were instead made in August 2023. Russia's stated intention is to provide Belarus with two delivery systems: dual-capable Iskander-M missile systems and necessary training and modifications for Belarusian Su-25 aircraft to carry nuclear weapons.

The deployment of Russian weapons to Belarus was framed by Russian President Vladimir Putin as being equivalent to the deployments of American nuclear weapons to NATO Allies in Europe under international law.

Criticism of nuclear weapons sharing
Members of the Non-Aligned Movement have called on all countries to "refrain from nuclear sharing for military purposes under any kind of security arrangements." The Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) has criticized the arrangement for allegedly violating Articles I and II of the NPT, arguing that "these Articles do not permit the NWS to delegate the control of their nuclear weapons directly or indirectly to others." NATO has argued that the weapons' sharing is compliant with the NPT because "the U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe are in the sole possession and under constant and complete custody and control of the United States."

States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
Nuclear weapons have been present in many nations, often as staging grounds under control of other powers. However, in only one instance has a nation given up nuclear weapons after being in full control of them. The fall of the Soviet Union left several former Soviet republics in physical possession of nuclear weapons, although not operational control which was dependent on Russian-controlled electronic Permissive Action Links and the Russian command and control system. Of these, Kazakhstan and Ukraine continue to have neither their own nuclear weapons nor another state's nuclear weapons stationed in their territory whereas Belarus does again claim to have Russian-owned nuclear weapons stationed on its territory since 2023.

South Africa

South Africa produced six nuclear weapons in the 1980s, but dismantled them in the early 1990s.

In 1979, there was a detection of a putative covert nuclear test in the Indian Ocean, called the Vela incident. It has long been speculated that it was a test by Israel, in collaboration with and with the support of South Africa, though this has never been confirmed. South Africa could not have constructed such a nuclear bomb by itself until November 1979, two months after the "double flash" incident.

South Africa acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1991.

Former Soviet republics

 * Kazakhstan had 1,400 Soviet-era nuclear weapons on its territory and transferred them all to Russia by 1995, after Kazakhstan acceded to the NPT.
 * Ukraine had as many as 3,000 nuclear weapons deployed on its territory when it became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, equivalent to the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. At the time Ukraine acceded to the NPT in December 1994, Ukraine had agreed to dispose of all nuclear weapons within its territory. The warheads were removed from Ukraine by 1996 and disassembled in Russia. Despite Russia's subsequent and internationally disputed annexation of Crimea in 2014, Ukraine reaffirmed its 1994 decision to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state.
 * Belarus, which since 2023 has resumed hosting Russian nuclear weapons, also had single warhead missiles stationed on its territory into the 1990s while a constituent of the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, 81 single warhead missiles were stationed on newly Belarusian territory, but were all transferred to Russia by 1996. Belarus was a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) from May 1992 through February 2022, when it held a constitutional referendum resulting in the cessation of its non-nuclear status.

In connection with their accession to the NPT, all three countries received assurances that their sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity would be respected, as stated in the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances. This agreement has been violated by Russia since the Russo-Ukrainian War began in 2014, during which Russia annexed Crimea, occupied Eastern Ukraine, and in 2022, invaded the remainder of the country with no direct response.

Stationed countries
Up until the 1990s the U.S. had stationed nuclear weapons outside of its territories and sharing countries.

Philippines
During the Cold War, specifically during the presidency of Ferdinand Marcos from 1965 to 1986, American nuclear warheads were secretly stockpiled in the Philippines.

Taiwan
Taiwan was developing capacities to construct nuclear weapons up until the 1970s. During that time the United States stationed some of its arsenal in Taiwan.

Japan
After World War II the U.S. had nuclear weapons stationed in Japan until the 1970s.

Canada
The U.S. stationed nuclear weapons at CFB Goose Bay in Labrador between 1964 and 1984.

Greece

The U.S. stationed nuclear weapons in Greece until they were removed in 2001.

title: List of states with nuclear weapons


text:
Talk:Domhnall Ua Buachalla

Name
"...also known as Daniel Richard - or Donal - Buckley." -- This is kinda unreadable. Is it a matching thing? So he was aka Daniel Richard, Donal Richard, Donal Buckley, and Daniel Buckley? Or was his name Daniel Richard Buckley and Daniel Donal Buckley? --Menchi (Talk)ü| â 04:43, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's Daniel Richard Buckley and Donal Buckley. --Wik 05:00, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)

 * Ok, clarified the punctuations. --Menchi (Talk)ü| â 05:05, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Donal is the Irish language version of Daniel. Daniel Richard Buckley was his name fully in english. Donal Buckley was the name many english speakers used, as he was never called Daniel except on his birth certificate. (It was also what he was called in proclamations he issued as Governor-General. He however always called himself by his entirely Irish version, Donal Ua Buachalla. FearÉIREANN 05:28, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * So, Ua Buachalla is the equivalent of Buckley? --Menchi (Talk)ü| â 05:30, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yup. I suppose the page could be at either Donal Buckley or Domhnall Ua Buachalla, as he is referred to as both in history books. But I had just finished reading correspondence between him and Eamon de Valera in the National Archives when I wrote the page here. As 98% said DUaB, I put the page in as that. The only mention of DB was in Dáil debates, proclamations he issued and his correspondence with King George V. I've set up a redirect page tonight to avoid any problems. BTW to complicate matters further, he was sometimes written as O'Buachalla and Ó Buachalla, but he belongs in the gaelic form under Ua Buachalla. Confusing, eh! FearÉIREANN 05:40, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Just to add to the debate, even though it died down months ago...
 * His hardware store is to this day named Ua Buachalla. Its run by his son now, so I guess he'd know the accurate spelling...

 * However Kildare County Council gave him his street name as "Buckleys Lane", and Texaco called the petrol station that used to be at his hardware shop "Buckleys Texaco"

 * Some stuff thats clearly not suitable for noting in this article is that his house in Maynooth is now a heroin den.... Its right behind the Garda station and all...

 * Kiand 01:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pity to hear that the store closed - I went there occasionally for hardware. Anyone have a picture of it to add to the article? The windows were of an unusual design. Autarch 19:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article references a "The Cynics guide to Irish History", however I can find no evidence such a thing exists, at least by googling the title - the only links that come up are all links to this article. Does this really exist then? (86.42.85.71 (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC))

 * I also have to admit that I don't get the joke reported from this possibly nonexistant book. What did he mishear for "You're abolished"?  Something to do with "bollocks?" --Jfruh (talk) 04:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "You're abolished / You're a bollix..." geddit! Anyway, no reference is provided so I have removed it. Snappy (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've found his birth, marriage, census, and death records: HLE (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * his birth was registered as Daniel Buckley (birth date recorded 3 February 1866).
 * his marriage records him as Daniel Richard Buckley to Jane Walsh in 1897.
 * the 1901 census recorded him as Daniel R Buckley, and in the 1911 census as Domhnall Ua Buachalla.
 * his death was registered as Domhnall Ua Buachalla..

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Domhnall Ua Buachalla


text:
Talk:List of states with nuclear weapons

Should this list be featured?
This article was a featured list for a year about 15 years ago. Seems like most or all of the issues in the demotion thread are obsolete or resolved. I propose that we put it back up for promotion LbPirate (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Israel should be moved out of the presumed Category
Israeli Minister of Heritage Amihai Eliyahu said that "dropping an atomic weapon on Gaza is [a] the possible opt I think this qualifies them for admitting they have Nuclear Weapons.ions."

https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/1721070704806989884 AddInfinty (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

 * He was rebuked and suspended from his job for saying it, so it cannot be read to constitute official Israeli policy. NPguy (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Should Iran join Israel in the presumed category
I haven't done any proper research but according to the Wikipedia page for Iran's nuclear policy talks about Iran Having an amount of enrichment uranium that would not be needed for any civilian purposes. BUSHMAN1024 (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Here is an article in fox news about Iranian lawmaker declaring them having nuclear weapons. Given the fact that they making the bomb is not that complicated, but enrichment is (which they already seem to have done), may be worth including.
 * https://www.foxnews.com/world/iranian-lawmaker-declares-tehran-obtained-nuclear-bombs.amp ShaunRex (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

No. Iranian hardliners say lots of things that don't necessarily correspond to the facts. I won't comment on the reliability of Fox News on this sort of thing. NPguy (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

French Guiana Nukes
Unless the tiny state of French Guiana has some of its parent countries nukes, this map is wrong. 72.33.0.176 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's French, that is why. Slatersteven (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


text:
Talk:Stroke volume

Relationship between heart rate, stroke volume and strain on heart
I'm not sure that slower rate -> larger stroke volume -> decreased strain on heart. I'm not a doctor, but AFAIK, slower rate is a result of a stronger muscle with somewhat larger chambers that beats slower when at rest, and is capable of much higher performance than the untrained heart. Strain is further reduced by a decrease in the viscosity of blood. Anyone, anyone?... Wake 04:54, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I realize this question is more than two years old, but I thought I'd quickly address a simple point here. A slower heart rate allows more time for diastole (ventricular relaxation), giving the ventricles more time to fill with blood, thereby increasing stroke volume. This allows cardiac output to remain high without straining the heart (eg, by making it beat more rapidly). I'm not aware of any changes that exercise has on blood viscosity, though. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know where to write this, but in response to the above, we were told by a Hubs (Human Body Systems) Lecturer that      the time spent in diastole doesn't really affect the amount flowed into the heart, as this speeds up to compensate when heart rate increases, vica versa. Summary: SV independant of time in diastole --Africantearoa (talk) 09:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Well as you said endurance trained athletes have higher max stroke volume et lower max heart rate which allows higher max cardiac output at severe exercise. Thus their blood velocity is heigher, which may cause oxygen diffusion impairement in human lungs. Blood transit time through capillaries in the lungs is reduced which does not allow oxygen to diffuse totally from the alveoli to the capillary. This phenomenon is called Exercise Induced Hypoxemia and may result in a slight decrease in arterial oxygen saturation. This desaturation may be dramatically increased if your are exercising at altitude, where inspired oxygen pressure (PiO2) is reduced. The_FD Paris 08 March 2007

 * Oh yes, and as for blood viscosity, endurance training is known to increase plasma volume and thus decrease blood viscosity. This improves blood outflow in the smallest muscle blood capillaries and may reduce oxygen diffusion distance. However if training takes place at altitude blood viscosity may be increased since it brings erythrocytes production up.

what happens to haemoglobin after several weeks of excersice?
Re:What happens to haemoglobin after several weeks of exercise? --210.54.53.12 01:06, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know there are three different effects

-  The most well known and the one endurance athletes are looking for is an up regulation of EPO hormone inducing a higher production of haemoglobin (which means your blood can carry more oxygen to your muscles). Though that does not mean your hematocrit will be higher because endurance training also involves a higher plasma volume and hematocrit is defined as the percentage "haemoglobin/plasma volume"

-  The second effect is as follows: during exercise you maintain a high cardiac output which means a higher blood pressure in vessels and a higher speed of circulation. This breaks some haemoglobin molecules. However this is not significant compared to the increase of red cells number obtained thanks to several weeks of training. -  The third effect is a short time effect which is a higher blood haemoglobin concentration at the end of a given exercise compared to the beginning. This is because of a decrease of plasma volume due to sudation.

Stroke volume describes half the work of the myocardium and is readily extrapolated to ejection fraction (EF), end systolic volume (ESV) and minimum Volume (minV). Seen as multiple variables seeking the same answer, they all readily elaborate systole. Systole is the sum of many parts, first and foremost being electrical and mechanical components. The inverse half of myocardial work happens in diastole. Diastole readily implies ESV plus EDV or injection fraction (blood pumped into each heart chamber in one cycle), end diastolic volume (EDV)and maximum Volume (maxV). Inexpensive. noninvasive echocardiography readily renders these variables today. One might argue a compendium is required to keep track of the determinants of myocardial work as they are technologically revealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.109.44 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Right ventricle or no?
The article reads: "Stroke volume (SV) is the volume of blood pumped by the right/left ventricle of the heart in one contraction.

The stroke volume is not all of the blood contained in the left ventricle. The heart does not pump all the blood out of the ventricle.".  So does it include the right ventricle output or not?  I believe not, but this is unclear.  Thanks --Irrevenant [ talk ] 04:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Stroke volumes and approximately 70 mL in a healthy 70-kg man
I did a rvt on an edit by CrafterNova, where they changed "The stroke volumes for each ventricle are generally equal, both being approximately 70 mL in a healthy 70-kg man." to "The stroke volumes for each ventricle are generally equal, both being approximately 70 mL in a healthy 70-kg person." They cited WP:NPOV and MOS:NB. But for sex differences, we are supposed to have accurate reporting on this.

CrafterNova, with resources, will you explain why you made the edit? You want us to say that "70 mL in a healthy 70-kg" applies to anyone else? Including children? I usually find that anatomy and biology books give these numbers for adult males. But I went ahead and looked at some resources to assess varied descriptions. On page 144 for "Exercise Physiology: Integrating Theory and Application", it says, "Typical values for heart rate and stroke volumes at rest for a normal-sized untrained male (70 kg) and female (50 kg) are approximately 72 beats min and 70 mL, and 75 beats min and 60 mL, respectively." On pages 133-134 of "Introduction to Anatomy and Physiology for Healthcare Students", it says, "For example, the stroke volume (SV) for an average 70 kg man is about 70 ml and the (left ventricular) end-diastolic volume (EDV) is about 120 ml."

Maybe you mean what "Cardiovascular Physiology: A Clinical Approach" says? On page 94, it says, "Stroke volume at rest is 70 mL/beat in the average size person and the resting HR is around 70 beats/min; using the equation above, we get a CO of 4,900 mL/min (or close to 5 L/min).". GBFEE (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 * Right now, as I'm quite busy, I don't have sources for the changes I want to be made, but I will surely try to provide reliable sources for these changes.
 * "Typical values for heart rate and stroke volumes at rest for a normal-sized untrained male (70 kg) and female (50 kg) are approximately 72 beats min and 70 mL, and 75 beats min and 60 mL, respectively."
 * "Stroke volume at rest is 70 mL/beat in the average size person and the resting HR is around 70 beats/min; using the equation above, we get a CO of 4,900 mL/min (or close to 5 L/min)."
 * These sentences should be mentioned in the article.
 * "I usually find that anatomy and biology books give these numbers for adult males"
 * Firstly, there are more than 2 genders (and there are 3 sexes; male, female and intersex), that is, gender and sex are not binary but are wide-ranging biological spectrums.
 * Secondly, this article (and many other articles) don't mention these numbers for adult females. And if there really are a lot of sex differences then why don't these sources include intersex people, non-binary people and other gender-diverse people?
 * Thirdly, to shatter unethical popular misconceptions, gender variance is not limited to only humans; it has also been found in animals. That's right. Animals can also be transgender and/or non-binary. Gender diversity from LGBTQ+ communities is historical but also evolutionary, since genders began appearing in microorganisms called protists.  This should clear up some things about the differences between gender and sex.
 * That being said, this article is missing a lot of scientific literature about sex differences. LGBTQ content does not have to be included in this article, but it should conform to gender neutrality as WP:NPOV and MOS:NB. — CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 17:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

 * CrafterNova, MOS:NB has no relevance at this article. Our sex differences articles, such as sex differences in human physiology, are about sex differences in males and females. If you have resources that support the idea that people of third gender and non-binary gender identities have different anatomy/physiology than those that fall under the male and female categories, you should provide them in this discussion. And if you want our sex differences articles to include multiple genders, one place you can propose this is at WT:ANAT. I'll leave a message there about this discussion for more comments. But you will definitely need to provide resources that people of third gender and non-binary gender identities have different anatomy/physiology than those that fall under the male and female categories and that mentioning people of these varied gender identities is due in sex differences articles or physiology ones such as this one. You said it yourself: there are differences between sex and gender. You've also made unsupported and unscientific claims in this discussion, but I won't address those. GBFEE (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "MOS:NB has no relevance at this article."
 * "MOS:NB has no relevance at this article."

Like I said, LGBTQ content does not need to be necessarily included in this article. It just has to be gender neutral, a neutrality criteria that is mentioned at WP:NPOV. As far as I have searched Wikipedia's policies, MOS:NB is the most relevant policy I could find for LGBTQ content.
 * "Our sex differences articles, such as sex differences in human physiology, are about sex differences in males and females."

That is unethical to say so. Intersex people and non-binary people are also humans, and sex differences in occur in all 3 sexes.
 * "You've also made unsupported and unscientific claims in this discussion, but I won't address those."

What "unscientific claims" did I make? I have provided sources for all claims I made.
 * "If you have resources that support the idea that people of third gender and non-binary gender identities have different anatomy/physiology than those that fall under the male and female categories, you should provide them in this discussion."

Accurate reliable sources are hard to find, and cannot be found by one or few editors alone. The sources I have mentioned prove that LGBTQ people are real, so that must become an initiative for teamwork.
 * "if you want our sex differences articles to include multiple genders, one place you can propose this is at WT:ANAT."

I will try proposing this initiative.

Also, the problem is not just about Wikipedia. The problem is many centuries old societal oppression against intersex people, non-binary people and other gender diverse people. They are not "seen as normative" even when they are actually normal. This article fails to explain that fact to readers. Articles should not mislead readers. Readers and editors who are intersex have the right to objection here. Looking forward for consensus — CrafterNova [ TALK ]  [ CONT ] 03:21, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are bringing up stuff like "LGBTQ people are real" (which literally no one here disputes and is completely off-topic), gender diversity in animals (again, off-topic), and this stuff about "normal" tells me you need to read WP:NOTADVOCACY. We do not alter text away from the due weight of reliable sources to WP:Right great wrongs.
 * No, there are not 3 sexes, there are 2. Sex is distinct from gender. Intersex conditions are also known as disorders of sex development; they are not distinct sexes. I can say this with directness because peer-reviewed biological and medical sources all agree that there are two sexes. All the sources on "sex differences" are about differences between males and females.
 * Of the two sources you cited claiming otherwise, one is a blog post, and the other is a non-peer-reviewed article. The way that one frames intersex conditions is not in accord with the peer-reviewed biology literature, and its author clarified that she did not mean to imply there are more than two sexes. This 2021 Endocrine Society review article, which discusses transgender matters and intersex conditions, still notes that The terms sex and gender should not be used interchangeably. Sex is dichotomous, with sex determination in the fertilized zygote stemming from unequal expression of sex chromosomal genes. By contrast, gender includes perception of the individual as male, female, or other, both by the individual and by society; both humans and animals have sex, but only humans have gender. Both sexes produce estrogens, androgens, and progestins;...Sex is a biological concept. Asexual reproduction (cloning) is routine in microorganisms and some plants, but most vertebrates and all mammals have 2 distinct sexes. Etc. (Emphasis added.) All the biological peer-reviewed literature agrees on this point. Variation in certain traits, such as from developmental conditions, is a distinct matter from how many sexes there are.
 * We are not going to make content on sex differences gender neutral, as that is against how the sources treat the topic, and would be obfuscation in service of a personal agenda. Based on your comments here and at Talk:Endosex, you need to put sociopolitical goals aside and focus on following the reliable medical sources. You also should not be accusing editors of being "unethical" for stating facts about the reliable sources. Crossroads -talk- 00:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm going to agree with what has already been said here: this must clearly follow sourcing, for several policy and practical reasons relating to effective and transparent (that is to say, consistent with the wording of the sourcing) prose on a MEDRS topic. But perhaps the most notably these considerations is the very policy Crafter has cited: WP:NPOV.  The other policy they reference: WP:NB is clearly not even remotely relevant here: that piece of policy provides guidance on how to reference the socially presented gender chosen and expressed by particular subjects of biographical articles.  It has absolutely nothing to do with this novel proposal that any time any article references sex, it must be within the a semantic construction that expressly notes the existence of intersex persons.  I'm sorry, I'm as pro recognition as the next person, but that's clearly an unworkable, frankly silly suggestion. Now, as to...
 * "Also, the problem is not just about Wikipedia. The problem is many centuries old societal oppression against intersex people, non-binary people and other gender diverse people."
 * You really will want to read WP:RGW. We are not here to raise a banner to the topic of gender assignment politics or intersex erasure at every opportunity in every article.  This is an article about a clinical, empirical topic in the field of cardiac physiology: clearly we are going to use language which shoes fidelity to the sources and respect and consideration for our reader's needs.  The suggestion that we eliminate or alter the identifying terminology employed in sources to pay lip service to the topic social gender normatization is not just ill-considered, it is actually the proposition that in truth threatens to erase the truth of intersex persons.  Because intersex persons, being in part the product of the functioning of their gonads and of their epigenetics (just as with all persons), may not in fact in general have exactly the same stroke volume as those identified by the research in question as "male".  So clouding that fact or generating inaccurate or speculative factual implications not found in the sources, out of a ham-fisted rush to appear inclusive would not just be a bad idea: it would be arguably quite unethical.
 * "They are not "seen as normative" even when they are actually normal. This article fails to explain that fact to readers."
 * Why would this article be expected to explain that fact? I don't see any way in which the wording being discussed implies that intersex person are not "normal".  They just don't happen to easily fall into one of the broad categories of people that happened to be referenced in the sources being used for this article...and that's ok.  They are empiricists using reasonable data categories to improve the general understanding of human health.
 * "Accurate reliable sources are hard to find, and cannot be found by one or few editors alone."
 * Yeah...that's not how this project works. If you want to make a principled argument for rejection (or alteration/nuancing) of sourced content, the WP:ONUS is upon you to provide the WP:reliable sourcing for WP:verification.
 * "The sources I have mentioned prove that LGBTQ people are real
 * I don't see where anyone you have been speaking with here has said anything that even remotely questions that assertion... Also, not all intersex persons consider themselves LGBTQ, so I'm not sure why you are using the terms interchangeably here.
 * In short, I think this one has got to be realistically classed as a WP:SNOW call. SnowRise let's rap 07:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, CrafterNova, could you please follow WP:THREAD and a more typical response structure for responding to other editors, rather than outdenting to the first level for every single response. It kind of makes an undreadable mess out of the discussion. Thank you in advance. SnowRise let's rap 08:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Stroke volume


text:
Talk:Contract

Starting sentence
The article starts with the statement that 'A contract is a legally binding document between at least two parties that defines and governs the rights and duties of the parties to an agreement.' The Contract (disambiguation) notes, as far as I think correctly, 'A contract is a promise, or agreement made of a set of promises, that is recognized by the law.' A contract is not the document which may be used to prove its existence. The first sentence supports the typical confusion of commoners, not differentiating between the contract document and the contract itself. The contract document is often referred to as 'contract' but it isn't the contract. The contract is the promise. Autograf (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are an editor now, so go ahead and fix it. (But what about "A verbal contract ain't worth the paper it's written on!", which I suspect is false de jure but true de facto.)
 * PS when you add a new topic to a talk page, please put it at the end. I have moved your edit here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The note above is correct. With due respect for quips about the difficulties that can arise when trying to enforce oral contracts, the opening sentence is incorrect in suggesting that contracts must be documents. Arllaw (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This has since been changed. -- Beland (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Implied contracts are contracts
"A contract which is implied in law is also called a quasi-contract, because it is not in fact a contract" This seems wrong to me: if there is no contract, there is no remedy. But there is a contract here because there is offer ("come and treat me, and everyone knows a doctor needs to be paid") and acceptance ("Good evening Mr Smith, what seems to be the trouble?"). The price is not of the essence, but will be determined by what the reasonable person would have expected. The fact that the contract is implied by conduct doesn't mean it's not a contract. (It may make it harder to enforce, but that's a different matter.) Eteb3 (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This has since been changed. -- Beland (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Definition of a contract
The opening sentence has been more or less stable for some time, with same citation –  (Free to read via The Wikipedia Library.) A year ago (and probably earlier, I don't see a need to check), it read
 * A contract is a legally binding agreement that defines and governs the rights and duties between or among its parties. (28 December 2021)

On 24 November 2022, I changed it a little to read Today, changed to read KD's wording reads to me (not a lawyer) as less intelligible to the lay reader, excessively legalistic and thus violates MOS:JARGON. More importantly, I believe that it strays too far from the source and that is a new definition. I have tagged it as failed verification for now.
 * A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them., giving as a reason in my edit note: wording that is closer to the source and doesn't leave open the interpretation that the "more parties" might include non-contracting third parties
 * A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between or among two or more parties that mutually ratify a stated range of presumptively understood rights and promised obligations in a manner pertinent to the respective parties., giving as reason Emending edit 1123543432 (by John Maynard Friedman to remedy (1) the misplaced "that" modifying phrase applicable to "agreement" instead of "parties"; (2) the misplaced (and awkwardly redundant) second instance of "between" as it pertains to "parties" instead of "rights and obligations"; 3 clarifying that the parties rather than the rights and obligations are mutual (i.e., some contractual rights and obligations adhere to some parties but exclude others.

So let's go back to the citation. Morawetz begins with this caution [so we are already in trouble]: "DEFINITION of 'Contract.' The word 'contract' is used to express various different conceptions and it is impossible to define them all in a single definition. A verbal formula applicable to all of these conceptions would not explain or define any of them and would serve no useful purpose." But sort of breaks his own rule, and it is this section that we are trying to summarise (note in passing how clearly written it is): "A contract has been defined as 'a promise or set of promises to which the law attaches legal obligation'.2 According to my conception of a contract, this definition is not strictly accurate. In case of reciprocal promises between two parties both promises must be assented to by both parties and the agreement thus formed is the 'contract.' In case of a promise by only one of two parties it is not legally binding until assented to or accepted by the other party, nor, subject to certain exceptions, unless a consideration stipulated for by the promisor is furnished. The 'contract' in this case consists not merely of the promise, but of the promise together with the promisee's assent or acceptance, forming an agreement between the parties. In case of an agreement between more than two parties the 'contract' consists of the entire agreement embracing the promises therein and the assent or acceptance of all the parties."
 * (Footnote 2 is See Williston on Contracts, §1.)

I am content to revert to the version that has stood for a long time: it is after all just the lead sentence of a long article on contracts and doesn't need to be watertight. I am not content to let KD's wording stand, for reasons already given.

Pinging recent editors to invite comment:. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 * Current one is too complicated. Agree with you that the best option now would be to revert. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I urge against any reversion that repeats the misplaced "that" and "between" modifying phrases. Otherwise, the meaning is grammatically muddled. Suggested redactions:
 * "A contract is a legally enforceable agreement regarding two or more parties that mutually ratify certain rights and obligations pertaining to the respective parties".
 * "A contract is a legally enforceable compact involving parties that mutually agree to certain rights and obligations affecting the parties' respective interests".
 * The Victor Morawetz cite relates to a pretty convoluted dissertation. Black's Law Dictionary is more concise: "An agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law " but needs more meat. Kent Dominic·(talk) 17:35, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure the longstanding version is unclear, but given the complaints about that, a smoother way to fix it is to put related words closer together: "A contract defines and governs mutual rights and obligations between two or more parties, in the form of a verbal or written agreement." -- Beland (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Mmm, that actually might have the same problem. Maybe: "In a contract, two or more parties verbally or in writing agree to meet specific obligations or to grant specific rights." This should make it clear that it's the contracting parties that have obligations and grant rights, and a third party is not expected to do either of those things. But it also leaves open the possibility of contracts with benefits that are not mutual, per se. For example: you agree to go to the gym and I agree to take my son to the library, and we each agree to give $50 to a charity we hate if we fail to do so. It's a contract not to benefit from the actions of the other, but for individual motivation. -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Legally enforceable" has to be part of whatever comes of this in order to make it clear that agreements regarding (e.g.) human trafficking or murder for hire aren't recognized as legitimate contracts. Another alternative: "A contract specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more mutually agreeing parties." That broad-brush iteration applies to commercial contracts, social contracts, constitutions, etc. Kent Dominic·(talk) 23:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would modify your alternative to "A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more mutually agreeing parties."
 * As it is not clear what a contract is in that definition, for it simply describes the function of a contract as 'specifying'. A photo of a contract also specifies legally enforceable obligations, for example. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your alternative looks reasonable. The legal commentary re contracts is rife with observations that a copy of a contract isn't a contract; that the conceptual agreement is the contract. Such observations ignore how no singular definition suffices for every context where the word "contract" applies. "I signed the contract" is a perfectly cromulent sentence. It doesn't matter that such a sentence fails to comport with your suggested alternative - one that is defensible re this article's lede. Remember: Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Kent Dominic·(talk) 20:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A photo of a contract is not a contract by that definition because it's a photo and not an agreement. Alternatively, you can argue that any written manifestation of a contract that correctly conveys the agreement itself actually is a contract, meaning a photo of a contract is indeed a contract. I don't think that alternative would make the proposed definition wrong, though it could be clarified that the word is used both to refer to the abstract idea and physical manifestations. -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, I was looking at the wrong text. Yes, that, exactly. I'll update the intro. -- Beland (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

 * Agree 's version should be reverted, for reasons you give.

 * Agree the long-standing version could be improved a little, but also agree that it could just as well be reverted to, given it's so very introductory.

 * A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations between them.

 * To your version I've just quoted:

 * I would prefer "binding" for "enforceable". Many contracts are unenforceable for extrinsic reasons (lack of evidence, statutory intervention, public policy, etc), but they are contracts nonetheless. Then it's not even "binding", I heard someone say? Ok, but sometimes it's more complicated still - statute may make the obligations of one party unenforceable but not those of the other, or make A's obligations unenforceable against A while leaving A free to enforce its rights against B. Maybe the "valid" of the source would be better still?

 * I can't see that your "defines, and governs" adds anything to "creates": given the introductory nature of the sentence, I think we can take those as implied (and imho you there drift towards what you dislike in 's edit ;)

 * HTH. Eteb3 (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

 * PS: Strictly the contract needn't "define" the obligation: it can create an obligation to pay, without defining how much. Eteb3 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Petty changes
seems to believe that he (I think we may safely assume it is "he") WP:OWNS this article, persisting in making pedantic wp:righting great wrongs edits to assert his strange view of English grammar. Perhaps WP:ENVAR explains it, but I doubt it. The latest case is his change of "agreement between parties" to "agreement by parties". The number of instances found by Google for "agreement between" "contract" is nearly eight times the number found for "agreement by" "contract" (and most cases of the latter involve an agreement by the parties to a consensus). I reverted his edit whereupon he immediately counter-reverted with some block capitals rant. I invite him to read WP:bold, revert, discuss and wp:edit warring. Self-revert would be wise. I don't intend to pursue this nonsense further, I'd rather not enter the WP:Lamest edit wars hall of infamy. But, KD, if you continue in this vein, it is only a matter of time before you end up with a WP:ANI referral. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

 * It's beneath me to reply further than to say this talk page thread is aptly titled and indeed makes assumptions, includes a fair amount of nonsense, casts nonrelevant personal aspersions tantamount to incivility against a certain editor (including the temerity to address the editor by unfamiliar yet disapproved initials), and smacks of an unawareness that WP:ANI is there "for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems" rather than to pursue an editing dispute about phraesology, semantics, grammar, usage, etc. I'm nonethless thankful this thread expresses an interest in not preciptating a pretty lame edit war. Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with your comment to a certain extent as I feel that many of the edits made have been either idiosyncratic in its syntactical reasoning or confusing as a whole. I don't really understand the kinds of explanations that are given for some of the edits, and I think that if the grammar changes can't be explained without reference to some arcane terminology that they should be assumed to be plainly false unless some real explanation can be made with regard to basic principles of language. At the same time, I think the edits have largely been at the expense of clarity in favour of more verbose language that I don't believe to be particularly more accurate in either substance or form. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:53, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * For example, an edit was made with regard to changing 'mixed-law' (as in, jurisdiction) to 'plenary'. This edit seemed to have had been justified on plainly a matter of opinion as to what the 'right' terminology is, when in actuality 'mixed-law' as a description of systems that combine both civil and common law traditions is a perfectly valid label. Googling 'mixed-law' yields results pertaining to those systems; googling 'plenary legal system' does not yield any valid results. As a matter of using the more common and understandable terminology, I have reverted the edits accordingly. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Kill Fee
Came to find out what a "Kill Fee" is, as it redirects here, but the term isn't mentioned in the article. Not very helpful. The information either needs to be added to the article or the redirect should be removed.81.140.176.205 (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Added sentence on procurement
I have added a sentence on how contracting relates to procurement, as procurement wasn't mentioned before in this article but is probably a parent article for contract, right? I've made it: Contracting is a specific phase within procurement. It includes creating, negotiating, and managing contracts.. I wonder if contracting should redirect to procurement maybe, and not to here? EMsmile (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Contract


text:
Wavel

Wavel (وافل) is a Palestinian refugee camp near the city of Baalbeck in Lebanon. It was originally a French army barrack, but in 1948 refugees from the 1948 Arab-Israeli war found shelter there. In 1952, UNRWA took over responsibility for providing services in the camp.

Wavel today
As of 2013, there were 8806 registered refugees in the camp. In 2009 there were approximately 3000 refugees within the camp and a similar number living outside the camp. There are also two UNRWA schools, including a secondary school and one health centre. Major issues affecting the camp are harsh living conditions, high school drop-out rate and limited employment opportunities

title: Wavel


text:
Anthony Boucher

William Anthony Parker White (August 21, 1911 – April 29, 1968), better known by his pen name Anthony Boucher, was an American author, critic, and editor who wrote several classic mystery novels, short stories, science fiction, and radio dramas. Between 1942 and 1947, he acted as reviewer of mostly mystery fiction for the San Francisco Chronicle. In addition to "Anthony Boucher", White also employed the pseudonym "H. H. Holmes", which was the pseudonym of a late-19th-century American serial killer; Boucher would also write light verse and sign it "Herman W. Mudgett" (the murderer's real name).

In a 1981 poll of 17 detective story writers and reviewers, his novel Nine Times Nine was voted as the ninth best locked room mystery of all time.

Background
White was born in Oakland, California, and went to college at the University of Southern California. He later received a master's degree from the University of California, Berkeley.

After a friend told him that "William White" was too common a name, he used "H. H. Holmes" to write and review mysteries and "Anthony Boucher" for science fiction and fantasy. He pronounced Boucher phonetically, "to rhyme with voucher".

Fiction writing and editing
Boucher (as he was more commonly known) wrote mystery, science fiction, and horror. He was also an editor, including science fiction anthologies, and wrote mystery reviews for many years in The New York Times. He was one of the first English translators of Jorge Luis Borges, translating "The Garden of Forking Paths" for Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine. He helped found the Mystery Writers of America in 1946 and, in the same year, was one of the first winners of the MWA's Edgar Award for his mystery reviews in the San Francisco Chronicle. He was a founding editor (with J. Francis McComas) of The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction from 1949 to 1958, and attempted to make literary quality an important aspect of science fiction. He won the Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine in 1957 and 1958. Boucher also edited the long-running Best from Fantasy and Science Fiction anthology series, from 1952 to 1959.

Among Boucher's critical writing was also contributing annual summaries of the state of speculative fiction for Judith Merril's The Year's Best SF series; as editor, he published the volumes in E. P. Dutton's The Best Detective Stories of the Year annual volumes published in 1963–1968, succeeding Brett Halliday and followed, after his death, by Allen J. Hubin in that task.

Boucher's first short story saw print when he was fifteen years old in the January 1927 issue of Weird Tales. Titled "Ye Goode Olde Ghoste Storie," it was the only story to appear under his real name, William A. P. White. Boucher went on to write short stories for many pulp fiction magazines in America, including Adventure, Astounding, Black Mask, Ed McBain's Mystery Book, Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine, Galaxy Science Fiction, The Master Detective, Unknown Worlds and Weird Tales.

His short story "The Quest for Saint Aquin" was among the stories selected in 1970 by the Science Fiction Writers of America as one of the best science fiction short stories of all time. As such, it was published in The Science Fiction Hall of Fame, Volume One, 1929–1964.

Boucher was the friend and mentor of science-fiction writer Philip K. Dick and others. His 1942 novel Rocket to the Morgue, in addition to being a classic locked room mystery, is also something of a roman à clef about the Southern California science fiction culture of the time, featuring thinly veiled versions of personalities such as Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard and rocket scientist/occultist/fan Jack Parsons.

Radio
Boucher also scripted for radio and was involved in many other activities, as described by William F. Nolan in his essay "Who Was Anthony Boucher?":

With respect to his scripting of the Sherlock Holmes radio dramas, Nigel Bruce, who played Dr. Watson, said that Boucher "had a sound knowledge of Conan Doyle and a great affection for the two characters of Holmes and Watson."

Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction years
Boucher left dramatic radio in 1948, "mainly because I was putting in a lot of hours working with J. Francis McComas in creating what soon became The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. We got it off the ground in 1949 and saw it take hold solidly by 1950. This was a major creative challenge and although I was involved in a lot of other projects, I stayed with F&SF into 1958."

Throughout his years with the magazine, Boucher was involved in many other projects. He wrote fiction for the SF and mystery markets (primarily short stories). He taught an informal writing class from his home in Berkeley. He continued his Sunday mystery columns for the New York Times Book Review, while also writing crime-fiction reviews for The New York Herald Tribune as Holmes (he also reviewed SF and fantasy (as H. H. Holmes) for the Herald Tribune) and functioning as chief critic for Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine. He edited True Crime Detective, supervised the Mercury Mystery Line and (later) the Dell Great Mystery Library; hosted Golden Voices, his series of historical opera recordings for Pacifica Radio, and served (in 1951) as president of Mystery Writers of America.

As part of his reviews of mystery novels, he published a list of Best Crime Fiction of the Year from 1949 to 1967, listing from 12 to 15 titles each year. He published his list as Anthony Boucher.

Boucher was a devoted poker player, a political activist, a rabid sport fan (football, basketball, track, gymnastics and rugby), an active Sherlockian in The Baker Street Irregulars and a spirited chef. He was also an expert collector of recordings of early operatic singers.

Television
In 1964-1965 Boucher worked as a story consultant for the Kraft Suspense Theatre.

Death
Boucher died of lung cancer on April 29, 1968, at the Kaiser Foundation Hospital in Oakland.

Bouchercon
Bouchercon, the "Anthony Boucher Memorial World Mystery Convention", was named in his honor, as are their annual Anthony Awards. Descriptions of those conventions from the first, in 1970, until that in 2004, appear in Marvin Lachman's The Heirs of Anthony Boucher.

Short stories

 * "The Compleat Werewolf" (1942)
 * "The Quest for Saint Aquin" (1951)

Mystery novels

 * The Case of the Seven of Calvary (1937)
 * The Case of the Baker Street Irregulars (1940)

Fergus O'Breen series

 * The Case of the Crumpled Knave (1939)
 * The Case of the Solid Key (1941)
 * The Case of the Seven Sneezes (1942)

Sister Ursula

 * 1) Nine Times Nine (as H. H. Holmes) (1940)
 * 2) Rocket to the Morgue (as H. H. Holmes) (1942)

Collections of short fiction and scripts of radio plays

 * Far and Away: Eleven Fantasy and SF Stories (1955)
 * The Compleat Werewolf and Other Stories of Fantasy and SF (1969)
 * Exeunt Murderers: The Best Mystery Stories of Anthony Boucher, edited by Francis M. Nevins Jr., and Martin H. Greenberg (1983)
 * The Compleat Boucher: The Complete Short Science Fiction and Fantasy of Anthony Boucher, edited by James A. Mann (1999)
 * The Casebook of Gregory Hood: Radio Plays by Anthony Boucher and Denis Green, edited by Joe R. Christopher (Crippen & Landru, 2009)

Collections of reviews
[These three volumes were later published in one volume.]
 * The Anthony Boucher Chronicles: Reviews and Commentary 1942-1947: Volume I: As Crime Goes By, edited by Francis M. Nevins (2001) (reviews from San Francisco Chronicle)
 * The Anthony Boucher Chronicles: Reviews and Commentary 1942-1947: Volume II: The Week in Murder, edited by Francis M. Nevins (2001)
 * The Anthony Boucher Chronicles: Reviews and Commentary 1942-1947: Volume III: A Bookman's Buffet, edited by Francis M. Nevins (2001)
 * Multiplying Villainies: Selected Mystery Criticism 1942-1968, edited by Francis M. Nevins and Robert Briney (1983) (reviews from the New York Times)

Other

 * The Lost Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: based on the original radio plays by Dennis Green and Anthony Boucher, Written by Ken Greenwald (1989)
 * The Forgotten Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: Based on the Original Radio Plays by Anthony Boucher and Denis Green, by H. Paul Jeffers (2005)

title: Anthony Boucher