This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to
Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please
join the project where you can contribute to the
discussions and help with our
open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
I request that the removed sourced information from the article be restored:
Project Amad (or AMAD Plan) is a
covert and allegedly ongoing[1] Iranian scientific project intended to develop a functioning
nuclear warhead. On 30 April 2018, the project was claimed to have been revealed by
Israel.[2][3] The project and its details were however previously known (as far back as 2005[4]) by the
IAEA as is shown in the IAEA's 2015 Final Assessment on Past and Present Outstanding Issues regarding Iran’s Nuclear Programme.[5][6][7]RedSparrow1 (
talk)
14:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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.
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)reply
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". --
Mhhosseintalk18:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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.
Zerotalk11:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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.--
Mhhosseintalk12:24, 3 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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. --
Mhhosseintalk11:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)reply
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.)
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)reply
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)reply