Jump to content

Talk:Nuclear program of Iran

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

[edit]

Hey all, I just found that the first two paragraphs of section 2.5.2 is a copy/paste of page 171-172 of the book How Iran Plans to Fight America and Dominate the Middle East by Gabriel G. Tabarani. Either that or that author did a copy/paste from this wikipedia page, though I doubt that. See this link for the book from which it was stolen.

I don't edit wikipedia often, so I don't know what the procedures are for reporting this. Hopefully this is okay, what I'm doing. 71.85.213.146 (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. It seems that the author in question copied from wikipedia. See this edit by NPguy on 2 April 2007. It looks like that paragraph developed organically. The book was first published more than a year later, on 16 October 2008. Uglemat (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Akbar Etemad - Father of Iran's nuclear program

[edit]

This article should mention Akbar Etemad .

Iran's nuclear program began in 1959 with a small reactor given by the United States to Tehran University as part of the "Atoms for Peace" program announced by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in December 1953. But that only whetted the Iranian monarch's appetite: With his increased oil revenues, and with his new vision of Iran as the hegemonic force in the region, a nuclear program became for Shah Pahlavi the symbol of progress and power. He summoned Akbar Etemad, a trained nuclear physicist, to the royal court in 1973, told him of his desire to launch a nuclear program, and asked Etemad to develop a master plan.

Two weeks later, the shah met with Etemad again. He quickly read the 13-page draft document Etemad had prepared, then turned to the prime minister and ordered him to fund what turned out be one of the most expensive projects undertaken by his regime. There was no prior discussion in the Majlis, where the constitutional power of the purse lay, or in any other governmental body or council. Like every major policy decision in those days, it was a one-man act. Thus was launched Iran's nuclear program.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/12/29/the_shahs_atomic_dreams

Cherry picking the Asia times article ?!

[edit]

Why an article is used to prove Iranian role in Argentina bombing in one occasion , but it can not be mentioned for balancing the POW and giving the alternative explanation ? ( my edit is reverted ) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim I reverted seemed to be sheer speculation. NPguy (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whole story of Iranian role is still a claim . No international court has sentenced Iran yet . I think if we are going to show the claims , it is reasonable to show both sides view . Isn't it against WP:NPOV to use an article in one occasion and dismiss it as "only a claim " in other occasion ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right that the entire article is speculative and should not be cited here either way. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other article from Asia Times , "Argentina's Iranian nuke connection" is also expressing the opposite point of view from the sentence that is been cited in this wikipedia article: "Some have linked attacks such as the 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the AMIA bombing as part of an Iranian campaign to pressure Argentina into honoring the agreements" . The Asia times says :"... Argentina was continuing to provide Iran with low-grade enriched uranium and the two countries were in serious negotiations on broader nuclear cooperation when the bombing occurred. " and " undermine the official argument that Iran's top leaders were motivated to order the bombing by Argentina's decision in 1992 to cut off its supply of nuclear materials to Iran." More than that , Some in the beginning of first sentence seems to be a WP:WEASEL .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Nuclear program of Iran. 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) 12:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nuclear program of Iran. 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) 16:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this article include the allegations made by Netanyahu today?

[edit]

I'm not an expert on this topic, and wouldn't know where to begin in terms of populating this article with the allegations, but I feel like it should be here as it is relevant to the article and has various reliable sources (ie. BBC News). -ThatJosh (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. For four main points:
  1. On May 1st, 2018 the United Nation's nuclear watchdog IAEA stated that they found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran after 2009. Source at https://www.voanews.com/a/iaea-no-credible-indications-of-iran-nuclear-weapons-activity-after-2009/4372080.html Archived source at https://archive.fo/Tn7Jj
  2. Netanyahu's made allegations and speculations. Not to confuse with independently verified evidence.
  3. According to WikiLeaks, the White House made a suspicious typo in their recent statement related to this. Which involved Netanyahu/Israel. The White House retracted their statement. Source at https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/991142741257129987 Archived source at https://archive.fo/dUoeB
  4. Netanyahu has a weak track record of being able to support his pasts claims with independently verified evidence. This is one of many related article at https://theintercept.com/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/
Francewhoa (talk) 06:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Project Amad (the Iranian effort from the mid-90s to 2003) is clear part of the past Nuclear program of Iran. Whether Iran was in violation or not of the 2015 agreement by retaining documents and not disclosing in 2015 (per JCPA) the past activities is contested - but should be mentioned as it has received SIGCOV (it may be DUE to include criticism of said claim).Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (kind of) - Regardless of how much of Netanyahu's presentation was actually new (not much) or current (none that I have seen), the fact that he made this presentation at a time when President Trump was considering the U.S. position on certification of the JCPOA is important. But by the same token any reference to this presentation should include notes of skepticism from experts about Netanyahu's credibility and motivations, as well as the fact that most of the information he presented was already well-known. NPguy (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UN’s IAEA Statement May 1st, 2018

[edit]

The United Nation watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) made a recent statement on May 1st, 2018. Which might be of interest with the present events. How about adding this draft for the article introduction/lead? With sources.

On May 1st, 2018 the United Nation's nuclear watchdog IAEA stated that they found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons program in Iran after 2009.[1][2][3]
Sources

  1. ^ "IAEA: 'No Credible Indications' of Iran Nuclear Weapons Activity After 2009". VOA. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2018-05-03.
  2. ^ "Iran nuclear row: Tehran says Israel's Netanyahu lied". BBC News. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2018-05-03.
  3. ^ "Statement on Iran by the IAEA Spokesperson". IAEA. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2018-05-03. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

Francewhoa (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop calling the IAEA the "UN nuclear watchdog"? It's a shorthand used by reporters that has no place in Wikipedia. Just call it the IAEA. The IAEA is not part of the UN and is not a "watchdog." NPguy (talk) 09:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with that - IAEA without UN or watchdog. Furthermore - the IAEA didn't say anything new in 2018 - they reiterated their prior report from 2015 and concluded by saying In line with standard IAEA practice, the IAEA evaluates all safeguards-relevant information available to it. However, it is not the practice of the IAEA to publicly discuss issues related to any such information. - basically saying that if they received information, they do not discuss it until they issue a report - so the 1 May stmt actually added very little from their 2015 report other than saying they haven't released a newer report .[1]Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So maybe change the text to say that on 1 May 2018 the IAEA reiterated its 2015 conclusion. That change should also be made in Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction. NPguy (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @NPguy: Thanks for your reply and contributions :) Sounds great. Done. How about this draft below?
On 1 May 2018 the United Nations' nuclear watchdog IAEA reiterated its 2015 report, saying it had found no credible evidence of nuclear weapons activity in Iran after 2009.[1][2][3]
Sources

  1. ^ "IAEA: 'No Credible Indications' of Iran Nuclear Weapons Activity After 2009". VOA. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2018-05-03.
  2. ^ "Iran nuclear row: Tehran says Israel's Netanyahu lied". BBC News. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2018-05-03.
  3. ^ "Statement on Iran by the IAEA Spokesperson". IAEA. 2018-05-01. Retrieved 2018-05-03. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
Francewhoa (talk) 21:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hi @Icewhiz and NPguy: Thanks for your reply and contributions :) About the suggestion to remove the "watchdog" word. I disagree. This term seems appropriate within the context of this article. I mean in this article context "watchdog" means government watchdog, focused on government public oversight, usually an organization, such as IAEA. Source of this meaning is Wikipedia, under "Public oversight" section at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchdog
About the other suggestion to remove the word "United Nation"/"UN". I also disagree. I'm assuming that most readers often know what the UN is, it's pretty well known, notable, and reputable, but most readers seldom know what IAEA is. Adding UN facilitate the article reading and puts things into their context. According to both Wikipedia & IAEA, the IAEA does report to UN. Source at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency
With infinite Wikipedia love ♥. Francewhoa (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care whether you agree. The IAEA is not part of the UN and it is not a "watchdog." Those characterizations are not accurate. NPguy (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

[edit]

This article was mentioned in the press. Normally, that would be a compliment. Unfortunately, this recognition was not for content, but excessive length. At 270,000 characters, the article is not useful to a lay WP reader. To start, the lede is too long to give a compact and cogent overview.

Four hundred twenty-one references demonstrate that a lot of work went into creating this article. It would be a shame to lose it. Therefore chopping out some detail and relegating it to subsidiary articles makes sense. Most of these subsidiary articles already exist. A couple of new ones would cover the U.S. positions 2006- present and Iran positions.

What other ideas? Rhadow (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. The article should be cut by 80% down to 50 kb. --Ita140188 (talk) 11:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have tried today to reduce much of the lede and summarize, but needs work. I will continue on this in my sandbox. I hope my contributions are useful. Chavmen (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expelling Inspectors?

[edit]

@NPguy: about your edit, there are more sources about this: [2] [3] [4]

I think this needs to be in the article. What do you think? Barca (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@BarcrMac: Sorry for the delay in responding. I haven't been on for a few days.
The problem with the statement and the Reuters article is that they both get the facts wrong about Iran's nuclear law. The law calls for Iran to suspend implementation of the Additional Protocol, which provides additional transparency beyond Iran's safeguards agreement under the NPT. Iran is not threatening to block inspectors under its safeguards agreement. An Iranian legislator misstated the requirements of the law, but other Iranian officials later corrected him. The distinction is made in this article. NPguy (talk) 18:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_program_of_Iran&oldid=1233693490"