Talk:Iran and weapons of mass destruction

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

Merger proposal[edit]

I don't see any consensus. Status-quo prevails.∯WBGconverse 12:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Support as the nominator. --Mhhossein talk 19:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My edit is called 'Appropriate notification'. Don't make such accusations again. --Mhhossein talk 12:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NY Times Article regarding fissile material[edit]

Reverting an edit and leaving a comment that says, "Stupid headline," doesn't help explain why one should revert a reference to Iran's amount of material for a nuclear bomb. I want to avoid an edit war, and value contributions from an expert with 10 years, but am curious about NPguy's rationale. As an expert, the onus is on you to prove your point of a verifiable source being stupid in its headline. Otherwise, I just see a specialization bias, or a professional myopia, that ignores that this is an online encyclopedia, and not a wiki of expert peers. If you wish to create your own NP expert wiki, the source is free and open, and I'm sure many NP people would join you.

Low-enriched uranium is not bomb fuel. There's no such thing as enough LEU to make a bomb. The article itself adds the qualifier that the material would need to be further enriched. NPguy (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Israel's position[edit]

The section on Israel's position is misleading because it states only the official position of the ruling Likud officials and ignores the intelligence agency and IDF positions. See Reuters, New IDF Strategy Dismisses Iran Nuclear Threat, Al Monitor (17 August 2015), https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/08/israel-new-strategy-eizenkot-terror-hezbollah-hamas-is-iran.html (;) Amos Harel and Reuters, Barak: Israel 'Very Far Off' From Decision on Iran Attack, Haaretz (18 January 2012), https://www.haaretz.com/1.5167293 (;) Mossad, CIA Agree Iran Has Yet to Decide to Build Nuclear Weapon, Haaretz (18 March 2012), https://www.haaretz.com/1.5206174 (;) Will Jordan, Rahul Radhakrishnan, Mossad Contradicted Netanyahu on Iran Nuclear Programme, Al Jazeera (23 February 2015), https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/02/23/mossad-contradicted-netanyahu-on-iran-nuclear-programme/ (;) Seumas Milne, Ewen MacAskill and Clayton Swisher, Leaked Cables Show Netanyahu’S Iran Bomb Claim Contradicted by Mossad, The Guardian (23 February 2015), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cables-netanyahu-iran-bomb-mossad (includes entirety of leaked Mossad cable). Marbux (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly reasonable to include other views that may differ from the official position. Feel free to edit the article or, if you prefer, to propose edits here. NPguy (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move dubious tag to before James Woolsey[edit]

James Woolsey is not a dubious source. The dubious tag should be placed either over the entire section, or after a dubious source. It is confusing and potentially purposefully misleading to place it after his quote. 108.35.95.14 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction&oldid=1211870865"