Talk:International Atomic Energy Agency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An event mentioned in this article is a July 29 selected anniversary
Contents |
[edit] Reporting Iran
Iran was "reported", not "referred" to the Security Concil. IAEA still has the Iran issue on its hands. In March 2006 it will vote about weather to refer Iran to the SC or not. 80.71.114.32 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article is nearly worthless
I am new to Wikipedia, so I decided to look at the article on a subject I am familiar with. This article presents a few random facts related to the IAEA, but conveys no real sense of what the organization does. Readers would be far better advised simply to go to the IAEA's own web site. It's not the easiest site to navigate, but with a little patience you will do far better than trying to learn from this article.
Lol, I agree with you, but maybe you could expand it a little? Genjix 14:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree as well. I wanted to find out if the IAEA is a UN organization, where its eta comes from, how people get appointed/employed, who has a say in the organization, if it is independent...drew a blanc. --84.159.178.138 16:00, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it necessary to follow Bush's condemnation of the IAEA for accepting representatives of countries breaching the Non-Proliferation treaty with a remark regarding the irony of this very statement? It is rather obvious that the largest producer of nuclear weapons, possessing the largest nuclear stockpiles and conducting the most expensive programs of weapons development, is by far the US. Bush's statement is fair. If neutrality is to be pursued, it should be noted that the US' presence in the IAEA is contradictory to its Executive chief's remarcks.
Peace. Kobaincito 05/30/06
I am interested about warfair aND OTHER THINGS ( THOUGH I AM A PEACE LOVER) AND I AGREE I GAUGHT REALLY MIXED UP WHEN I READ THIS ARTICLE UNTILL I WENT TO THEIR WEBSITE!! I AGREE THAT YOU SHOULD JUST GO TO THEIR WEBSITE!!
[edit] Language template poll
A poll as to whether or not the language template should be included in this article is being conducted at Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Poll Raul654 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Structure and Function
I added the Structure and Function section from a paper I recently wrote. It's not perfect, but its better than nothing. This is my first Wiki contribution so I was unsure as to citations, I used in text citations with Turabian style references at the bottom of the page simply because that's what I'm used to in Poly Sci. Please put my references in Wiki style if they need to be changed. Also, do you think this is enough to remove the 'expand' tag, or does this article still need more?Diglow
[edit] Wikified
I had written earlier:
There are, I think, two main issues with this article, i.e. 1) there is a discussion of specific current events (Iran) the choice of which seems arbitrary and 2) it discusses the 49th General Conference while, I believe, a more general mention of GC's would be warranted. Perhaps I'll edit that. And I notice that while safeguards are mentioned, there is no article on IAEA safeguards per se.--Nicsilo 04:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Now thanks to some recent contributions, the article's much better I think. I have just made a couple of changes to this article, mainly adding links to the most recent additions (sorry, forgot to write an edit summary, which is an habit of mine...). I have also corrected a few typos. It's getting there... --Nicsilo 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Clean Up
Specifically, what clean up needs to be done on the Works Cited section? I know the links and the info are good, I cut and pasted directly from a paper I wrote. Is it a question of format (currently the links are basically Turabian style, a standard Poly Sci style)?
It's helpful to be as specific as possible when making a request, posting specifics in the discussion page is also encouraged.
The person wrote the above please identify yourself after your inserts. I've done the cleanup of the Work Cited section it is now in simple readable format. --Caddix 08:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
