Talk:AMAD Project

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

I request that the removed sourced information from the article be restored: Project Amad (or AMAD Plan) is a covert and allegedly ongoing Iranian scientific project intended to develop a functioning nuclear warhead. On 30 April 2018, the project was claimed to have been revealed by Israel. The project and its details were however previously known (as far back as 2005) by the IAEA as is shown in the IAEA's 2015 Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme. RedSparrow1 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:drg2010 I note the Wikipedia article AMAD Project has no Edit tab. Why is this? Some of the English is appalling like "went on" instead of continued! —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

POV issues

The POV tag was removed by Icewhiz. He's also restored my other edit. No wonder! Anyway, as for the tag and the use of "alleged" :

• "Netanyahu alleged that Iran for years operated a secret project known as Amad..." CNN
• "... Iranian documents relating to something called Protect Amad" The Independent.
• "...relating to Project Amad. The project, he said, had had the explicit... " BBC.

That's why the article should be tagged, unless the issues are resolved. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• The existence of project Amad is confirmed by non-Israeli sources - e.g. [1] dating back to 2015. The alleged contents of the project (pending evaluation of the documents) is possibly still a "said" situation.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  We have a policy of WP:CLAIM also there are plenty of other sources--Shrike (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

That's not a policy, but a guideline (check the difference). The 'guideline' allows using the word. "...alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined." Btw, I've provided random sources for the "allegation". --Mhhossein ^talk 18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I think I have neutralized all this and I suggest the removal of the 'pov tag'. Of course, feel free to modify or improve my text. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Allegedly

There is some dispute over whether the claims about "AMAD" should be qualified as "alleged". The proof that "alleged" is required is that the only source is a 2011 IAEA report that attributes the information to unnamed "Member States" and calls it "alleged" 28 times. If the IAEA is careful enough to called it "alleged", we should be too. Zero^talk 11:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Zero: Thanks for the source, I've already provided some more sources in the above section. I used "alleged" but they kept on reverting me.--Mhhossein ^talk 12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The source that I used and other sourses doesn't use this word--Shrike (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It's interesting that you ignore those numerous sources saying alleged. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed in the current version.

The former version generated problems because it was written as if all this was "new" whereas this programme was stopped 15 years ago, according to IAEA. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Tag as stub

Why is this three line article mega protected? Anyway, please tag it {{stub}} as this article meets the definition. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

International reactions

Should we add a section with international reactions?

RedSparrow1 (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

No per WP:NOTNEWS this article is about the project not Israeli PM speech.--Shrike (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Given the topic is only relevant because Netanyahou exhumed this, I think that a moderate number of reactions can be relevant too. Pluto2012 (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Could you please clarify what you mean by "coatracky material ? If Trump's reaction is worth mentioning, the ones of the other Presidents deserve the same treatment. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Pluto2012. To get familiar with coatracky materials you may see wp:coatrack. As for the materials removed; Trump's comment were a reaction to the recent Israel allegations and hence is directly related, while the others' were not related to AMAD Project. You can take those removed sentences to JCPOA article. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

You write that Trump's reaction is acceptable because "Trump's comment were a reaction to the recent Israel allegations". It is cleary written in the source that they also reaction to these allegations : Iran nuclear deal: UK backs deal despite US and Israel accusations.

(And by the way: wp:coatrack is (just) an essay and in the current case it does not comply with WP:NPoV.)

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose a "reactions" section except from official Iranian sources. Leave Trump's comment, if he chooses to end the "Iran Deal" based on Netanyahu's unsubstantiated accusations about a 15 year old terminated program, it's a big deal. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV tag redux

Now that the article is fleshed out with legitimate sources, and Netanyahu's claims relegated to an "accusations" section, I'd say it's safe to remove the orange NPOV tag. --LaserLegs (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done – wbm1058 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Wrong person linked

The link to Jeffrey Lewis is wrong, it goes to a comic book artist instead of the academic nuclear scientist, but the page is protected so I can't edit it 24.183.4.235 (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Done NPguy (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)