Talk:Nuclear weapon: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 04:34, 4 September 2015 editMhhossein (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,833 edits →RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 23:35, 19 December 2024 edit undoMcSly (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers32,231 editsm Reverted edit by 82.40.97.197 (talk) to last version by HexTag: Rollback
(220 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{ArticleHistory		{{ArticleHistory
	\|action1=RBP		\|action1=RBP
	\|action1date=12:29, 19 January 2004		\|action1date=12:29, 19 January 2004
	\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:~~Archive~~/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science		\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Historical archive/Brilliant prose/Refreshing brilliant prose - Science
	\|action1result=kept		\|action1result=kept
	\|action1oldid=2207128		\|action1oldid=2207128
Line 26:		Line 27:
	\|action5=GAN		\|action5=GAN
	\|action5date=15 July 2007		\|action5date=15 July 2007
	\|action5link=Talk:Nuclear weapon#GA Failed		\|action5link=Talk:Nuclear weapon/Archive 3#GA Failed
	\|action5result=failed		\|action5result=failed
	\|action5oldid=142526335		\|action5oldid=142526335

			\|action6=PR
			\|action6date=13 June 2017
			\|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Nuclear weapon/archive1
			\|action6result=reviewed
			\|action6oldid=785336338

	\|maindate=March 13, 2004		\|maindate=March 13, 2004
	\|currentstatus=FFA		\|currentstatus=FFA
	}}		}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=C\|vital=yes\|1=
	{{Vital article\|level=3\|topic=Technology\|class=B}}
		⚫	{{WikiProject Military history \|class=C \|B-Class-1=no \|B-Class-2=yes \|B-Class-3=yes \|B-Class-4=yes \|B-Class-5=yes \|Weaponry-task-force=yes}}
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|1=
			{{WikiProject Physics \|importance=High}}
⚫	{{WikiProject Military history \|class=B \|B-Class-1=no \|B-Class-2=yes \|B-Class-3=yes \|B-Class-4=yes \|B-Class-5=yes \|Weaponry-task-force=yes}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Physics \|class=B~~ \|importance=High}}		{{WikiProject Engineering \|importance=High }}
	{{WikiProject ~~Engineering \|class=B~~ \|importance=~~High \|past-selected-article=July 2006~~}}		{{WikiProject Environment\|importance=high}}
			{{WikiProject Science Policy\|importance=High}}
	{{WP1.0 \|v0.5=pass \|class=B \|importance=high \|category=Engtech \|coresup=yes \|VA=yes}}
	}}
	{{Archive box\|search=yes \|bot=MiszaBot I \|age=3 \|units=months \|index=/Archive index\|
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	}}		}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
Line 58:		Line 59:
	}}		}}

			==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis==
	== nation =/= state ==
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/UCSD/Introduction_to_Policy_Analysis_(Spring) \| assignments = ] \| start_date = 2022-03-28 \| end_date = 2022-05-30 }}

	haven't checked the whole article, and wouldn't be surprised if it crops up more, but it's certainly in the opening at least.

	"only a few nations...", linking to a list of states with nuclear weapons. obviously, this should read "only a few states". nations is not an appropriate word to use in this case, it's usage relying on the common misunderstanding of the term. article is protected, somebody else will have to change it. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:] has several definitions, including a synonym of "state." ] (]) 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
	::You are welcome to start a pointless debate about the difference between the two, if you like. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	Actually, I'd like to support the user proposing we distinguish nation and state more carefully - and think this would be useful throughout Misplaced Pages. It's true that "nation" has several definitions, including as a synonym for state, but I think that's recent (dictionaries are too inclined to follow common usage these days I think), and imprecise ( the "nation-state" does not refer to the "nation-nation" or the "state-state" i.e. the words are not strictly synonymous). Especially, the matter is not trivial: here in Canada we've had constitutional issues over the confusion between the two terms in everyday use, and the distinction mattered a lot in the age of Empires - something we all may be drifting back towards.] (]) 09:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

	== Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015 ==

	{{edit semi-protected\|Nuclear weapon\|answered=y}}
	<!-- Begin request -->

	<!-- End request -->
	] (]) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
	pakistan has also tested thermo-nuclear tests

	:] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> - it already states this in the lead section, in the Nuclear weapons infobox and twice in the Governance, control, and law section. - ] (]) 13:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

	== Nukemap3d ==

	Is it worth mentioning this Google Earth add-on http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap3d/ ? It's certainly worth a look. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 09:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	== External links modified ==

	Hello fellow Wikipedians,

			==Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture==
	I have just added archive links to {{plural:4\|one external link\|4 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If necessary, add {{tlx\|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx\|nobots\|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
			{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment \| course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Purdue/Technology_and_Culture_(Fall_2023) \| assignments = ] \| reviewers = ], ] \| start_date = 2023-08-21 \| end_date = 2023-12-15 }}
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120716191419/http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/figure1.htm to http://www.brook.edu/fp/projects/nucwcost/figure1.htm
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100131082633/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/news/articles/060106/6kirsch.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060106/6kirsch.htm
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101113041501/http://www.theartnewspaper.com:80/article.asp?id=8529 to http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=8529
	*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131106070000/http://www.freewebs.com/atomicforum/tsar3.html to http://www.freewebs.com/atomicforum/tsar3.html

			<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)</span>
	When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' to let others know.

			== Creation ==
	{{sourcecheck\|checked=false}}

			Add more relevance in the role that several other scientists had in the creation for example, Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc. ] (]) 15:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
	Cheers. —]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 07:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

	== ~~RfC:~~ ~~Section~~ ~~about~~ ~~Ali~~ ~~Khamenei's~~ ~~views~~ ==		== Louise Tayhlor's role in Nuclear Science ==

			Louise Tayhlor (DE) was the creator of the first Theoretical nuclear weapon, as stated in a book found under a library dated to further than 1923. Later on, His influence brought J.R. Oppenheimer to create the first Nuclear weapon in a physical form with assistance if Einstein and other scientists ] (]) 09:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	{{rfc\|pol\|soc\|hist\|rfcid=19AE9CE}}
	Should the article include a section devoted to ]'s views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"?--] (]) 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

			== Inaccuracies map nuclear testing section ==
	*'''Support''': There's no reason not to mention such a relevant heavily supported material here. Secondly, the section is not going to include only the view of an individual, whether khamenei or other scholars. The section is rather devised to include "Islamic view", i.e. the view of Islam toward this issue, and khamenei's view is one part of it. By the way, the nominator seems to have no valid reason for opening this RFC, at least the way he opened it suggests that. ] (]) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
	::How does it "suggest that"?--] (]) 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
	::: Could you please say why should it not be here in your view? ] (]) 17:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::: For the reasons outlined by VQuakr below.--] (]) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Oh! Thanks God he helped you! ] (]) 04:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::Yeah, apparently God likes me more than he likes you. Why do you think that is the case?--] (]) 07:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::: Nice to hear that! You seemed as having nothing to say when opening the RFC, rather an inner oppose feeling with no motivation (It's only my view). One could easily add view points of other scholars to have a de facto "Islamic view" section. To me, the section would develop by other users to show another aspect of nuclear weapons. ] (]) 10:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: I don't even need to have anything to say - the onus is on you to form consensus for including the lopsided section you added, not on me.--] (]) 16:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Pinging''' some of involved editors: {{ping\|Boundarylayer\|Stevietheman\|Arado\|Kyteto\|VQuakr}}. ] (]) 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

			Hey,
	* '''How about one sentence''', part of a single paragraph on Islamic views. A key policy here is ]. The gave way too much weight to Khamenei's statement. ] (]) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
	::]: In my view, we'd better have the fatwa beside other fatwas or viewpoints. I don't have any idea about how many lines or sentences there should be covering the issue. ] (]) 11:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::This is a high-level article with a lot of ground to cover. Very little space should be devoted to religious viewpoints, with a portion of that being Islamic views, a portion of that Shia views, and a portion of that potentially the views of Khamenei. It might be more helpful to draft a full version of the section and get an RfC for input on that rather than badgering everyone who posts here. ] (]) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::]: Thanks for your clarification, I agree with you. This RFC is opened in a misleading manner and suggests that the section was meant to be devoted to an individual's view, while this is not the case. Any way, the idea of making a draft is reasonable and fair. ] (]) 18:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::It is not misleading in any way. It is a simple yes/no question. What is misleading is the section you added, in that it gives undue weight to a minority view on a minor aspect of the subject. The day you or anyone else has balanced material to add to the article, this RfC is no hindrance to it.--] (]) 18:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Comment''': I would think it to be a good step to draft and develop a section on ''Religious views'' on nuclear arms. I would be concerned however, if one individual were to be used to represent a whole religion's views; it is certainly a Due Weight issue in that case. There have been some interesting ethical arguments against the bomb - religion should be a fair perspective for reflections as well. I've heard that Iran considers the development of a nuclear weapon to be incompatible with the state religion; I find ''that'' point of view noteworthy for instance. I'm sure there are many others, if serious work was made to look into this. ] (]) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
	::]: ''Religous views'' is even better, to me. I'll be concerned with developing it and I think I took the first step of reflecting a shia scholar and the leader of Iran viewpoint. But remember that, one individual were not to be used to represent a whole religions's view, rather he is a part of a whole and other scholars view are expected to be reflected here. ] deals with the Iran view toward nuclear weapons. ] (]) 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	*'''Oppose''': Undue weight to a relatively minor and controversial claim. ] (]) 02:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	::]: 1- It's not a claim, it's an issued fatwa. 2- I agree that it's controversial, i.e. some analysts questioned aspects of it while others tried to defend it. But consider that the section expected to include it is labeled "Controversy". 3- What's your criteria for calling it a 'minor'? ] (]) 04:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::It is controversial in that there are skeptics who question whether there is a fatwa and whether it actually forbids nuclear weapons. Including a reference will invite a lengthy dispute over its validity. But more important, the views of an Iranian religious leader are at best marginally relevant to a general article on nuclear weapons. ] (]) 02:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::]: The fatwa is recognized by US administration and issued orally in several official occasions. The long article on validity of the fatwa is written by those who know little from shia jurisprudence so their view is of the least importance. As I said many times, the section is not devised to contain the view of only an Iranian individual. There are of course some other Muslim countries. ] (]) 05:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''': Is he the King of Islam? No, but maybe the Iranian government view? ] (]) 04:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
	::]: How did you get to that conclusion. That section is meant to include the view of Islamic scholars not only an individual. Is it sensible to you? ] (]) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

			I noticed that in the "Nuclear testing and fallout" section of this page there is a map with nuclear explosion locations (Rael Nuclear use locations world map.png). The description of this map in this article refers to nuclear tests ("Over 2,000 nuclear '''tests''' have been conducted"), however the map includes the locations of the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This makes it seem like the nuclear attacks on Japan are referred to as tests, which outside of being inaccurate, can also be seen as disrespectful to the major historic events that happened there.
	* '''Comment''' Khamenei's view can be here, but it shouldn't be termed as Islamic View because the Muslim country that has the second largest population of Muslims, and is predicted by Pew Research Center to soon become country with largest Muslim population--], has Nuclear weapons. Pakistan also has the second largest Shia population in the world after Iran. Shia Muslims are only 10–20% of all Muslims+ many Shia scholars disagree with Khamenei inside Iran and are often jailed/executed (e.g. ]). Also there are many Shia scholars in Iraq and elsewhere who disagree with Khamenei.-- (]) 05:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	::]: Of course Of course there are other scholars and Muslims countries. That's why I tried to open such a section. It was devised to contain those different viewpoints and not merely the view of an individual. ] (]) 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	::]: If there are reliable sources which shows other shia scholars allow nuclear weapons, please add them to the article. ] (]) 06:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

			I'm not sure what the best way of resolving this is. A map that only includes tests would be nice but I don't know of any that is available to use on Misplaced Pages. So probably an edit of the description would be best. An ] exists on Wikimedia. The first part of its summary might be preferred over the first part of the current description: "Map of locations of Nuclear tests and use of nuclear weapons in the twentieth century. The only use of nuclear weapons in war is at Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan. Locations of nuclear tests or weapons as dots. Major test sites with more than 100 tests marked as large dots". I like this description, but I don't know if this is to long?
	:::If you want to include Khamenei's justification (from Quran and Hadiths) about how nuclear weapons are anti-Islamic, then do so. It can't be anti-Islamic or Islamic just because Khamenei, who happens to be a Muslim cleric, says so. He or no one else is dictator of Islam.--] (]) 06:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::]: "Khamenei's justification" can be added only if there are reliable sources covering it. We don't have to prove what he says but we can reflect it. By the way, who said Khamenei is determining what is or not Islamic for the world? I said that he, as a Muslim cleric, has a fatwa regarding nuclear weapons, and others may have different viewpoints and there should be a section to include them. I doubt whether you really read my previous comment or not! ] (]) 11:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::{{ping\|Mhhossein}} I would support adding the info, if you write it in ways such as "khamenei, who is a Muslim cleric, issued a fatwa, claiming that nuke production is haram" etc--] (]) 01:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

			Alternatively the description could be changed to be in line with the current description of the picture in it's ]: "Over 2,000 nuclear '''explosions''' have been conducted". This would be better in my opinion, but since the map is still associated with the testing section of the article, it might still leave room for wrong interpretations.
	I think we've settled that a section on Khamenei's views is unwarranted. It would give undue weight to one person's view and is out of place in this general article. It might make sense to have a section on religious views on nuclear weapons, though that section would have to acknowledge that a Muslim country has nuclear weapons. Better would be to embed that into the section on controversy and ethics, and better still would be have a separate article on religious views on nuclear weapons. ] (]) 02:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

	:I ~~agree~~ ~~with~~ ~~{{ping\|NPguy}}~~.--] (]) 02:33, 4 ~~September~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		I'm not able to edit this Misplaced Pages article myself and I feel this isn't a minor edit, so I thought bring it up here. ] (]) 20:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
	:~~:Agree~~ ~~with~~ ] & ]. ] (]) 04:33, 4 ~~September~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		: I agree and I've edited the picture caption. Thanks for your vigilance. ] (]) 21:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 23:35, 19 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nuclear weapon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Nuclear weapon is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 13, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Kept
May 26, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
April 29, 2006	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
May 2, 2007	Featured article review	Demoted
July 15, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 13, 2017	Peer review	Reviewed
Current status: Former featured article

This

level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology / Weaponry

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

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Engineering High‑importance

	Engineering portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Science Policy High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lesotelo1218 (article contribs).

Wiki Education assignment: Technology and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 August 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MatthieuFoucu (article contribs). Peer reviewers: VAV1210, TheEditor0702.

— Assignment last updated by Thecanyon (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Creation

Add more relevance in the role that several other scientists had in the creation for example, Oppenheimer, Einstein, etc. QSpangenburg6 (talk) 15:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Louise Tayhlor's role in Nuclear Science

Louise Tayhlor (DE) was the creator of the first Theoretical nuclear weapon, as stated in a book found under a library dated to further than 1923. Later on, His influence brought J.R. Oppenheimer to create the first Nuclear weapon in a physical form with assistance if Einstein and other scientists TSARcism (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Inaccuracies map nuclear testing section

Hey,

I noticed that in the "Nuclear testing and fallout" section of this page there is a map with nuclear explosion locations (Rael Nuclear use locations world map.png). The description of this map in this article refers to nuclear tests ("Over 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted"), however the map includes the locations of the nuclear explosions in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This makes it seem like the nuclear attacks on Japan are referred to as tests, which outside of being inaccurate, can also be seen as disrespectful to the major historic events that happened there.

I'm not sure what the best way of resolving this is. A map that only includes tests would be nice but I don't know of any that is available to use on Misplaced Pages. So probably an edit of the description would be best. An older version of the picture exists on Wikimedia. The first part of its summary might be preferred over the first part of the current description: "Map of locations of Nuclear tests and use of nuclear weapons in the twentieth century. The only use of nuclear weapons in war is at Nagasaki and Hiroshima in Japan. Locations of nuclear tests or weapons as dots. Major test sites with more than 100 tests marked as large dots". I like this description, but I don't know if this is to long?

Alternatively the description could be changed to be in line with the current description of the picture in it's summary: "Over 2,000 nuclear explosions have been conducted". This would be better in my opinion, but since the map is still associated with the testing section of the article, it might still leave room for wrong interpretations.

I'm not able to edit this Misplaced Pages article myself and I feel this isn't a minor edit, so I thought bring it up here. APainInTheAss (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree and I've edited the picture caption. Thanks for your vigilance. John (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories: