Talk:Nuclear weapon - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anders Feder (talk | contribs) at 04:50, 4 September 2015 (→RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views: Seems uncontroversial close). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:50, 4 September 2015 by Anders Feder (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views: Seems uncontroversial close)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated 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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

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.

Template:WP1.0

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

nation =/= state

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.195.37 (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Nation" has several definitions, including a synonym of "state." VQuakr (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to start a pointless debate about the difference between the two, if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThalesMontana (talk • contribs) 11:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

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.alacarte (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Abduhukhan (talk) 12:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC) pakistan has also tested thermo-nuclear tests

Note: - it already states this in the lead section, in the Nuclear weapons infobox and twice in the Governance, control, and law section. - Arjayay (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.56.145 (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Nuclear weapon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Section about Ali Khamenei's views

Closed per User:NPguy's final comment.--Anders Feder (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2015 (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.

Should the article include a section devoted to Ali Khamenei's views on nuclear weapons, and if so, should it be titled "Islamic views"?--Anders Feder (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

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. Mhhossein (talk) 16:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How does it "suggest that"?--Anders Feder (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you please say why should it not be here in your view? Mhhossein (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

For the reasons outlined by VQuakr below.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks God he helped you! Mhhossein (talk) 04:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently God likes me more than he likes you. Why do you think that is the case?--Anders Feder (talk) 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. Mhhossein (talk) 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.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging some of involved editors: @Boundarylayer, Stevietheman, Arado, Kyteto, and VQuakr:. Mhhossein (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How about one sentence, part of a single paragraph on Islamic views. A key policy here is WP:WEIGHT. The previous version gave way too much weight to Khamenei's statement. VQuakr (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr: 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. Mhhossein (talk) 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. VQuakr (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

VQuakr: 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. Mhhossein (talk) 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.--Anders Feder (talk) 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. Kyteto (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Kyteto: 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. This article deals with the Iran view toward nuclear weapons. Mhhossein (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: Undue weight to a relatively minor and controversial claim. NPguy (talk) 02:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

NPguy: 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'? Mhhossein (talk) 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. NPguy (talk) 02:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

NPguy: 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. Mhhossein (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Is he the King of Islam? No, but maybe the Iranian government view? Tough sailor ouch (talk) 04:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Tough sailor ouch: 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? Mhhossein (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

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--Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 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. Hossein Kazemeyni Boroujerdi). Also there are many Shia scholars in Iraq and elsewhere who disagree with Khamenei.-- (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ankhsoprah2: 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. Mhhossein (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ankhsoprah2: If there are reliable sources which shows other shia scholars allow nuclear weapons, please add them to the article. Mhhossein (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

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.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Ankhsoprah2: "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! Mhhossein (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@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--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 01:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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. NPguy (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @NPguy:.--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Ankhsoprah2 & NPguy. Mhhossein (talk) 04:33, 4 September 2015 (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. Categories: