Talk:2010 Nuclear Security Summit

Title

There is a planned summit in South Korea in 2 years. Would 2010 Nuclear Security Summit be a better title for this article? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The article for the 2012 summit has been created as well at: Nuclear Security Summit (2012). To me, it's "six of one, half a dozen of another" to have the year at the beginning. Plus, 2010 Nuclear Security Summit is a redirect to this article so it will get people here.

So, to summarize, we currently have:

Nuclear Security Summit (2010)

Nuclear Security Summit (2012)

My vote is Keep as is. —Diiscool (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral. On second thought, looking at what has been done with Commons:Category:2010 Nuclear Security Summit and a number of other conferences and summits, I don't mind if someone moves this article—well, switches this article—with "2010 Nuclear Security Summit" (but don't forget to do 2012 Nuclear Security Summit too). —Diiscool (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Schedule Info

Why is the Schedule Section completely devoted to only detailing the US president's schedule? Wouldn't it be better if some other countries schedules were included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackRendar (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A table could be added if anyone were to provide a schedule with such information. If you have one, feel more than happy to add it.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I added most of the schedule information as I could find it. I was aware as I added it that it seemed to be very Obama-centered but I could not find further information easily. It was definitely not my intention for it to be US-centric. Please do add more schedule information if you find it. —Diiscool (talk) 15:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. Nuclear Security Summit → 2010 Nuclear Security Summit — More specific as to time and to distinguish between this summit and the planned summit in 2012. BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 18:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support: I support the addition of 2010 to the title. This will distinguish the Summit from the planned Nuclear Security Summit (2012). —Diiscool (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support: 2010 Nuclear Security Summit is a common name found in many sources: [1] ("..international organizations for the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit held here through tomorrow."), [2] ("..Obama said yesterday at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit"), etc.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This was originally named "Nuclear Security Summit (2010)" for that reason. Simesa (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Seems straight forward. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Iran and NPT Violations

"Iran's failure to comply with all the transparency demands of the International Atomic Energy Agency have resulted in Security Council resolutions, backed by sanctions, demanding that it suspend uranium enrichment."[3] Simesa (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The goal here is not to be nitpicky. Nonetheless, it may be good to clear a few things up.

• In reference to the wording which was previously appearing in the article, many states are not meeting all of the transparency demands which the IAEA would like. For example, 22 states don't have Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements in force, and even more states do not have Additional Protocols in force. Nonetheless, these numbers have been on an encouraging decline. Further, North Korea was not mentioned anywhere in the cited Time article, so there would be nothing to attribute this to.
• In reference to the title of this section, "NPT violations" are not the same as "safeguards violations".
  • IAEA safeguards agreements are independent, self-contained treaties concluded between states and the IAEA, through the exercise of its international legal personality. Safeguards agreements, and the IAEA's administration of the verification and monitoring provisions contained in them, are not a subsumed part of the NPT's provisions. The IAEA as an organization, and its role in administering safeguards arrangements individually negotiated with states, pre-dates the conclusion of the NPT by 11 years. Safeguards agreements are related to NPT obligations only through the obligation undertaken by states parties to the NPT in Article III to conclude a safeguards agreement with the IAEA.
  • Other states have had safeguards violations as well. For example, Egypt has refused to sign treaties prohibiting biological and chemical weapons[4], and has previously used biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Egypt at least previously had a bomb program[5], has had traces of uranium suitable for a weapons found in their country[6], has had "repeated failures .. to report nuclear material and facilities to the Agency (IAEA) in a timely manner", has refused to implement the IAEA Additional Protocol, has access to bomb quantities of fissile material[7], and has recently had open debate about the pragmatism of developing nuclear weapons [8]. There was also secret enrichment in South Korea which resulted in reporting by the IAEA Secretariat, but I won't go in to detail for space sake..

A few simplied explanations of what differentiate Iran/North Korea from other states include the following:

• The IAEA Board of Governors has found them in non-compliance with their IAEA Safeguards Agreements
• The UN Security Council has passed resolutions concerning them
• North Korea has a weaponization program. Iran was alleged to have an a weaponization program by the U.S. until 2003 (Russia and the IAEA Director General head have at one point or another said they have seen no evidence to directly substantiate the allegations). The IAEA Board of Governors has yet to determine that the IAEA has resolved possible military dimensions to the Iranian nuclear program.
• The US says they both have "violated non-proliferation obligations, defied directives of the United Nations Security Council, pursued missile delivery capabilities, and resisted international efforts to resolve through diplomatic means the crises they have created. Their provocative behavior has increased instability in their regions and could generate pressures in neighboring countries for considering nuclear deterrent options of their own. Continued non-compliance with non-proliferation norms by these and other countries would seriously weaken the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), with adverse security implications for the United States and the international community."[9]

The best thing to do would be to just quote the source as directly as possible to avoid any possible minor discrepancies.--149.166.32.179 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2010 Nuclear Security Summit. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100415192034/http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51015 to http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100417164223/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_an/nuclear_reset_analysis to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100414/ap_on_an/nuclear_reset_analysis
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8619015.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/13/popular-destination-worlds-unwanted-nuclear-supply/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/world/14summit.html?hp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100427222126/http://kyl.senate.gov:80/record.cfm?id=323782 to http://kyl.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=323782
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100506025417/http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=323781&& to http://lugar.senate.gov/press/record.cfm?id=323781&&
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100416025634/http://kerry.senate.gov:80/cfm/record.cfm?id=323766 to http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=323766
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.almanar.com.lb/newsSite/NewsDetails.aspx?id=133216&language=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116220702/http://www.iaea.org:80/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/ to http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110313153149/http://www.iaea.org:80/newscenter/focus/iaeadprk/ to http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeadprk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)