Wikipedia

Talk:Iran and weapons of mass destruction/Archive 2

< Talk:Iran and weapons of mass destruction
Latest comment: 4 years ago by NPguy in topic What is the purpose of this article?
Archive 1 Archive 2

Wrong Claims issues

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

wrong claim such Iran producing nuclear weapon must be deleted as IAEA saidHERE and HERE and p5+1 and IAEA announcement HERE +Iran's nuclear program is no longer a treat as IAEA and p5+1 announced in Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isu.v90 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is impossible to respond to such a general complaint. You need to articulate a specific concern. NPguy (talk) 03:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Iran and weapons of mass destruction. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Iran and weapons of mass destruction. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Iran and weapons of mass destruction. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Iran and weapons of mass destruction. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

UN’s IAEA Statement May 1st, 2018

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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) 05:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Just call it the IAEA, not the UN nuclear watchdog. It is neither part of the UN not a "watchdog." NPguy (talk) 10:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Latest comment: 5 years ago19 comments10 people in discussion
I don't see any consensus. Status-quo prevails.∯WBGconverse 12:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Project Amad is not deeply covered by the sources and there are just some trivial mentions. In other words, there are not sources addressing the topic "directly and in detail", the quality WP:SIGCOV demands. Also, Wikipedia is "not a paper source". The article can easily be explained in the context of 'Iran and weapons of mass destruction' and I'm suggesting to merge the mentioned article here. Regards. --Mhhossein talk 19:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Support as the nominator. --Mhhossein talk 19:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose What about separate chapters "The Launch of the AMAD Plan", "Halt the AMAD Plan", etc. in [Gaietta, 2016] as well as in other sources? --Balabinrm (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Coverage goes back a bit (at least to 2015), and we are discussing a major scientific project - 1999-2003 in which billions of dollars and countless man hours were spent. If we can have a Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists for 5 individuals, surely we can and should have this stand alone. It also seems likely Amad will get quite a bit of coverage in the coming weeks making evaluation here possiblt premature.Icewhiz (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
To let you know about our guidelines, there should be "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Although it's a weird comparison, the very tiny details of the assassination of those 5 individuals were covered in depth by numerous sources. What about this article? Can you provide enough reliable sources covering the details of the subject? Do they address the the topic "directly and in detail"? --Mhhossein talk 04:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Coverage is most certainly independent and in detail - beyond the newly revealed documents from the project (2018 - of which there is copious coverage), the project has been covered in depth in the following - The Gulf Military Balance: The Missile and Nuclear Dimensions (2014), Iran’s Nuclear Program: A Study in Proliferation and Rollback (2017), The Trajectory of Iran's Nuclear Program (2016), and Routledge Handbook of Nuclear Proliferation and Policy (2015) - and it took me all of two minutes to find these.Icewhiz (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
My edit is called 'Appropriate notification'. Don't make such accusations again. --Mhhossein talk 12:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Notifying the one editor who nominated and supported deletion (while not notifying 7 editors who supporting keeping the article) would fail WP:APPNOTE as it is WP:VOTESTACKing. An appropriate notification would've been to notify all participants of the AfD - not just a very small and selected subset.Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Not that you'll believe it, but I checked on that ridiculous stub article (Project Amad) after the nom at WP:ITN/C was closed, and saw the merger note. I don't check my "messages" and only saw it there AFTER I'd commented. Whatever though right? --LaserLegs (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both articles are valuable. For now I suggest to keep them independent, but maybe link them. How does this sound?
Francewhoa (talk) 06:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is the purpose of this article?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This entry currently consists largely of supposition about a possible Iranian nuclear weapons plan, but has little or no evidence to back that. Its sources are generally anti-Iranian, including US government, while the IAEA has never said that Iran had any nuclear weapons program.

The article is long on inference and short on facts supporting any Iranian development of nuclear weapons. It appears to assume that Iran must be (or have been) intending to develop nuclear weapons because 'we would' - an idiotic argument on its face. The article is longer than a comparative article about a country known to have a huge nuclear, biological and chemical arsenal: (United States and weapons of mass destruction). Even [Wikipedia entry on the subject] is shorter.

At the same time, benign agency is assumed on the part of the United States and Israel, while Iran is assumed in the tone of this entry to have malign intent. Citations are very definitely needed, or this page needs some editing to ensure a neutral tone. 124.171.129.20 (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. Majority are out of date POV predictions 

A 2007 annual review the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London stated that "If and when Iran does have 3,000 centrifuges operating smoothly, the IISS estimates it would take an additional 9-11 months...

Le us remove it.

Zezen (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. The article was highly contentious years ago and has been largely overlooked since then. As a result it is out of date and a bit anachronistic (focusing on debates from ten years ago), but largely accurate and balanced as far as it goes. Iran never had nuclear weapons, but the United States issued an official National Intelligence Estimate that Iran was trying to acquire them (until 2003) and the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2011 described a systematic Iranian program, mostly before 2003, to develop nuclear weapons capabilities. There is much that could be updated, and some old material that could be pruned, but the gist should be preserved. NPguy (talk) 18:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction/Archive_2&oldid=1226093504"