Talk:India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Background

The first section in the background seems to repeat itself.

India[...] have not signed the NPT, arguing that instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, who alone are free to possess and multiply their nuclear stockpiles. India eventually refused to sign the NPT [...]instead of addressing the central objective of universal and comprehensive non-proliferation, the treaty only legitimized the continuing possession and multiplication of nuclear stockpiles by those few states possessing them.

Seems a bit redundant to have basically the same information twice. AndySnow (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Please re-read to see its good now. should be though. Lihaas (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Operationalization difficulties

I added a section on the opposition from Left parties and their threat to withdraw support to the government unless operationalisation of the deal is halted. Will add sources soon. Amit@Talk 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

reference check

can someone please check the following claim:

Finally, in a detailed column dated July 31st in the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens detailed how the Indian government has been helping Iran's military and energy sector and how former Indian officials had been sanctioned by the U.S. Department of State for assisting Iran's nuclear and rocket programs. He also noted that increasing base-load generation with Coal or nuclear would only increase India's appetite for peak-load generation systems that are generally fired with gas or oil from the Persian Gulf and Iran.

thanks --Jeroje 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be removed unless sourced. 125.21.164.251 08:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC) (Amit)
I'm going to remove it for now until a reference is obtained Amit@Talk 06:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Indo-US nuclear deal

Someone had suggested a merge from the "Indo-US nuclear deal" article. I have done that (it was just a single line) and added a redirect there to this article. Amit@Talk 06:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It was me. Thanks. SDas 00:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Blog

Campaign Against the Agreement

A campaign has been started by the "Campaign for Sovereignty and Democracy". They have set up a websitewww.strugglesonline.org[24] for this purpose which is claimed to be a place for critical examination of the deal. The articles contained in it by and large expose the dangers with in the Agreement.


this looks trivial, there are many blogs which are doing the same, should there be a section for this ? Isnt it automatic that an issue of national importance will be picked up by many bloggers and open forums ? I already reverted an attempt to advertise the same website once. Jeroje 01:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this shouldn't be there int the article. Amit@Talk 09:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed it Amit@Talk 09:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

15th March

There is a crucial meeting coming up on 15th march, where I guess the stance of the left parties will be officially clear on 123 deal. Jeroje (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No major break throughs were achieved in the meeting,(unfortunately) == Hotsshot (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC) ==


Link added

Hi. I just added a link I found recently covering the latest view on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. They're video interviews taken by students during the Non-Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 2008 (ended yesterday - Fri-09 May). Jossejonathan (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfounded allegations against CPI(M)

The CPI(M) is described as far-left. Indian Maoists better deserve this as they are engaged in an armed struggle. CPI(M) is also described as west-phobic too. Any references please?? The claim that CPI(M) is Trotskyist is also unfounded. And finally attributing CIA documents to claim that CPI(M) supports China is really lopsided. It should be noted that the Chinese Communist Party was bitterly opposed to CPI(M) policies and even supported the armed Naxalite movement.

Overall, the paragraph seems to be really biased and based on no valid references. I'm doing a cleanup.

Please add some worthy references if you want to put back these. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.113 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm retaining most of the links though so that anyone can judge the worthiness of the material provided. Also I'd like to remove the word Anti-American, as Indian Left has never shown hostility towards the American people or a society, but rather to policies of American government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.224.113 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Opposition in the US

This section seems very awkward and out of place. I'm sure there are more criticisms from the United States that deserve more coverage than this one thing listed there. The 'easy' dismissal that rests soley on one person's book seems to have too much weight there too

64.8.68.116 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The text in this section is presenting the views of Ashley Tellis, a leading proponent of the nuclear deal. It reads as a rebuttal of criticism, but the criticism itself is missing. The recent statement by the head of the Arms Control Association and the former UN Under Secretary General for Disarmament labeling the deal "A Nonproliferation Disaster" [1] should be featured, as should an earlier statement by many leading nonproliferation experts [2]. The section heading should be changed to reflect that the criticism is not limited to the United States [3].

The rebuttal by Tellis should be removed an perhaps put into a section on support for the agreement. But allowing Tellis to rebut a strawman violates Wikipedia standards for neutrality. NPguy (talk) 02:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

When you see completely unformatted unencyclopedic text like this, it's usually a hint that it could be a copyvio. In this case, the text was copied from this page. I removed it. Dreaded Walrus t c 11:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

language?

de-hyphenization? what the hell does that mean? what the hell is hyphenization? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.201.234 (talk) 18:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be better to say "de-hyphenation." The reference is to previous U.S. regional security and nonproliferation policy that treated India and Pakistan as inseparable policy issues. One could not address an issue related to India without also addressing the same issue as it related to Pakistan. This constant balancing of India-Pakistan policy was sometimes called a "hyphenated" policy. NPguy (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Title should be Indo-US nuclear deal

This article hardly talks about the Hyde Act, a US legislation, and is mainly centered on the details of the Indo-US agreement, its rational etc. Shouldn't the article title be the Indo-US nuclear deal or words to that effect. Hyde Act can redirect here.--Shahab (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I saw that a few days ago and thought the same thing. It might also be better to change the article title to treaty rather then act. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the name after waiting an appropriate amount of time for a negative comment.--Shahab (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but i think it should be treaty rather then deal. What do you think? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I think "deal" is better. It captures the fact that that it is a package of inter-related elements, some of which are legally binding international instruments - "treaties" (the 123 agreement and the safeguards agreement) and some of which are non-binding political commitments (e.g., changes to NSG policy). NPguy (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I just feel that deal is too casual a word to be used for this. How about agreement? --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreement is OK too. However the word deal is being extensively used by the Indian media.--Shahab (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick search on nexis using India and nuclear as my based words and adding in either agreement or deal and the results are basically the same. Deal has about 20 more articles over the last month. Another word I noticed used today in an article is pact. --PatrickFlaherty (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's wait for sometime before making the move to agreement for any other opinion.--Shahab (talk) 06:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, i see no reason why not. --Patrick (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
On another note: shouldn't the title be Indo–US civilian nuclear agreement or Indo – US civilian nuclear agreement instead of Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement, the difference being an en dash in the former? Exmamples: the India–United States relations page, the Canada – United States relations page and the United States–Vietnam relations page? --Yvesnimmo (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Critical Analysis

I had a chance to go through this editorial by a Science advisor to Indira Gandhi. I dont know much of the person's credentials, but I had a feeling that he raises some important concerns. Any one of you think that any of his analysis is credible to be included here? Docku (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia's rules (WP:Bold) go ahead and add it where you thinks its fine (expecially after 2 months w/o a reply) and cite it accordingly, of course. Lihaas (talk) 23:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The Respect Developmental economic advising firm of Dalberg?

Could not find any reference to this firm or study :-( what is the source for this piece of information? Tellkarthik (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


Dr. A P J Abdulkalam - a nuclear scientist?

He is NOT a nuclear scientist by profession --203.199.213.67 (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Jayanthi Natarajan Article

Congress MP Jayanthi Natarajan's article from Gulfnews.com is quoted in the lead section. As I understand, she has written an editorial column in a news website (Is it just website?). It is wrong to take her opinion out from the editorial and make it sound like that is the Government policy. DockHi 23:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If you put it in a kind of warning like we did in the text it's okay. Because she's a congress MP, especially when her words are published its not going against party order (unless there is disciplinary action, which in this case has not followed). It seems to be okay the way its phrased as in "congress's MP ... said."
ps- saw your commentary in the edit history. Didn't quite understand, we were both saying + supporting the same thing. Lihaas (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, mentioning that she is Congress MP is sufficient. It is presumptuous to misstate her opinion as Government's position(because she is Congress MP). It may very well be the case, but the reference doesnt support it. So, let us leave it the way it is. DockHi 00:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

India's aspiration to be NPT Nuclear Weapon State

The article asserts that India aspires to be recognized as a NWS under the NPT. To supporrt this claim, it cites an article by Selig Harrison, but that article doesn't support the stated claim. I'm not questioning the claim, but it needs a citation that is (1) reliable and (2) supports the claim. That's why I've put in the notation [citation needed.] NPguy (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to maintain some grammatical/POV equality between the original and the new edit. If you think its best to remove it or to get a new edit go ahead. Lihaas (talk) 04:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article split proposal

This article is becoming longer with numerous details that I am starting to believe that it is deviating far from the crux of the issue which is the agreement itself. I propose to split the article into two.

Article 1: Dealing with the agreement itself including the background, explanation of agreement details and passage in various international bodies including Indian parliament, IAEA, NSG and US Congress.

Article 2: Political passage which involves the support and opposition in India, US and other countries. DockHi 01:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's long enough just yet. I imagine more information will come out when it goes to the NSG, but till then it's not long enough. However, in anticipation of a lot more criticism/support (one can also include academic criticism, and their certainly is enough) I guess it makes sense. We can always undo it later if need be (I doubt it).
btw- you can ask the india politics workgroup, should be more people giving their 2 cents there. Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
could u pls provide me the link. I tried searching? DockHi 05:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't really think it's long enough for a split. Maybe later if more content is added. --Patrick (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the comments. It is not so much about the length. It is more of a concern of how the nitty-gritty of the agreement details is pushed to the background due to large details of the political process. DockHi 05:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
The abundant details which describe the political process in India is quite distractive, which by itself could qualify to be a separate article. DockHi 05:30, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I think people want the whole picture including the agreement details and the politcal process. Considering, I think this article does a fair job of representing both. I do think the opposition in India section could be trimmed a bit but Issues in the Indian parliament section is quite on target. --Patrick (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well, if you put it like that (Docku) then that's a valid point. Evn PatrickFlaherty thinks the details are necessary. But the worry is that once its split someone will ask for a merger of the two article, no?

btw- Was the link request for my article? I could go looking, but I don't have login access (I read it offline in class). Ill try and pull some up. Lihaas (talk) 06:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like status quo for now..could consider it later Cityvalyu (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As a passerby, giving the article a cursory examination, it does look like it's dominated by the politics and history of India and the NSG, so yeah I'd say that should be in a separate article. -Fredgoat (talk) 06:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

cityvalyu edits

govt. view

if a finance minister and a defence minister's view can't be taken as "official" / "govt. view" , then what else is? the most important point being missed is that these were not private opinions and were infact made on behalf of a govt. facing a trust vote on the floor of the parliament.Cityvalyu (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ambiguity

if anyone finds a citation stating "ambiguity" on india's soverign decision making status being harmed, please feel free to quote..but inserting this personal PoV as a general observation without citation smacks of obsession with certain lies! (please see references to the contrary in the article and adequate explanations in edit history also) Cityvalyu (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

pariah

which classification system classifies "pariah" and "non pariah" status? is it official / UN mandated/ IAEA's view/ NSG view/ NPT signatories' view?? why cant some (i am desisting from naming the obvious editor) stop using derogatory comments unworthy of being mentioned in wiki? (do wikipedians and wiki project admin. favour violating sc/st atrocities act (in india) that prohibits the use of the word 'pariah' in a derogatory fashion?)..even if editors insist on reinserting, please enlighten us in talk page before using such "english" (copy paste plagiarism violation of someone's article available on net? or is it considered good "engish" by proponents of the same? )..Cityvalyu (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

hyde act --india's sovereign status and 123 agreement..(npguy's edit-discuss/revert)

np guy's edit in the present version(see time Cityvalyu (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)) incorporates "..except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement"..

but, as far as the "123 agreement" draft that was released by both countries, there was no mention of iran or nuclear testing ban / prevention clauses (-the contentious provisions of hyde act) anywhere in it! so , it means that the contentious provisions that overreached its mandate and scope (and those that infringed on india's sovereignity) were CONSCIOUSLY OMITTED in the 123 agreement draft. so, not "all" of the hyde act's "requirements were incorporated"- only those that matched the 2005 joint statement were incorporated..please check the fine print to know what i am writing..

further the act per se has no mandate to prescribe USA / India on any preventive action on any issue icluding iran relations and nuclear testing..nevertheless its clauses can be construed as prescriptive for further "'reactions' from the US side" AND NOT ANYTHING MORE !

further, a domestic hyde act plays no role in "interpreting the provisions" of an international treaty..the act is an enabling guide for USA to drafting the treaty AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT can be inferred (esp. on interpreting)!

i feel that the phrase lacks citation and does not represent the truth / clarity ..so, i am intending to either remove the quoted phrase or restore the previous version - after considering responses on this issue....Cityvalyu (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


since neither np guy nor others have opposed my arguments, i am hereby removing the non factual text and restoring earlier version that reflected the references quoted on hyde act and bush's statements on its contentious provisions..Cityvalyu (talk) 02:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been on vacation. I don't understand what the objection is to my clarifications on the relation between the Hyde Act and the 123 agreement:

" . . . except insofar as its requirements have been incorporated into the 123 agreement or provide the basis for interpreting the provisions of the 123 agreement . . .."

The first part says that if provisions of the Hyde Act have been incorporated into the 123 agreement, they are binding on India as well as the United States. That should be obvious and uncontroversial. It applies whether the provisions have been written into the 123 agreement directly or incorporated by reference, i.e. by a mention in the 123 agreement of the Hyde Act. The second is a standard principle of legal interpretation. Where the wording is unambiguous, interpretation is not an issue. However, most where the wording allows more than one interpretation, a new legal instrument should be interpreted in the context of other relevant legal instruments in place at the time. For example, the provisions in Article 14 of the 123 agreement for termination of the agreement and cessation of cooperation have to be understood in the light of relevant U.S. legal requirements. Similarly, the safeguards provisions of Article 10.4 of the 123 agreement should be read in light of the U.S. legal requirement for fallback safeguards regardless of whether the IAEA is applying those safeguards. NPguy (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

DOES NOT address the objections to the words used..please go through my previous arguments regarding applicability, interpretations and ambiguity so that you can counter my objections point by point..Cityvalyu (talk) 20:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand the objection to what should be uncontroversial statements about international law and treaty interpretation. I did not say that the Hyde Act's provisions were incorporated into the 123 agreement. I said the provisions of the Hyde Act were binding under the 123 only to the extent that ("insofar as") they were incorporated into the 123 agreement.
Furthermore, nothing in the Hyde Act prohibits India from further nuclear tests. The Act aims to discourage India from testing by establishing consequences - a cutoff of cooperation. The 123 agreement allows the United States to cut off nuclear cooperation if India tests and therefore meets U.S. legal requirements.
As for your complaint that I did not wait for consensus before reverting, neither did you. You (Cityvalyu) seem to be the only editor who has objected to my edits, and the objections seem to be a misunderstanding. NPguy (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As long it is not uncited analysis. You can say so verbatim by either citing another source or the text of the document you find relevant. That should be good, and fair. Lihaas (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

restating facts:
but, as far as the "123 agreement" draft that was released by both countries, there was no mention of iran or nuclear testing ban / prevention clauses (-the contentious provisions of hyde act) anywhere in it! so , it means that the contentious provisions that overreached its mandate and scope (and those that infringed on india's sovereignity) were CONSCIOUSLY OMITTED in the 123 agreement draft. so, not "all" of the hyde act's "requirements were incorporated"- only those that matched the 2005 joint statement were incorporated..please check the fine print to know what i am writing..
further the act per se has no mandate to prescribe USA / India on any preventive action on any issue icluding iran relations and nuclear testing..nevertheless its clauses can be construed as prescriptive for further "'reactions' from the US side" AND NOT ANYTHING MORE !
further, a domestic hyde act plays no role in "interpreting the provisions" of an international treaty..the act is an enabling guide for USA to drafting the treaty AND NOTHING MORE THAN THAT can be inferred (esp. on interpreting)!
i feel that the phrase lacks citation and does not represent the truth / clarity ..so revert to verifiably correct version..regarding "only editor", wiki does not care abt majority if material added is a fact as stated in the numerous references dotting the article..dont reinsert fiction that does not tally with the references in this article..Cityvalyu (talk) 02:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Read article 14 on termination of the agreement and compare it to the requirements of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act (as amended by the Hyde Act). The Hyde act requires standard termination conditions - including the U.S. right to demand return of supplied materials and equipment and materials produced from those if the recipient country conducts a nuclear explosion (Section 123.a.(4)) and requires a cutoff of exports (Section 129.(1)a). While other 123 agreements make this an explicit basis for termination, the India agreement does not. However, Article 14.1 provides a very open-ended basis for termination and Article 14.4 incorporates this "right of return." Thus, the 123 agreement permits the United States to meet its domestic legal requirements.
In short, the 123 agreement does not bind India not to conduct a nuclear test, but it permits the United States to impose the sanctions required by U.S. law if India were to test. [NOTE: this is based on a rather quick reading of a very complicated set of legal documents. I think I've captured the key points, but I could have missed something. NPguy (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
so you too agreed tocan be construed as prescriptive for further "'reactions' from the US side by writing the 123 agreement does not bind India not to conduct a nuclear test, but it permits the United States to impose the sanctions required by U.S. law if India were to test...that still leaves out the iran relation clauses in hyde out of the picture..more agreement needed on that aspect..117.193.38.201 (talk) 07:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race" :
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/indias-ndeal-hurdle-pak-warns-of-arms-race/69471-2.html?xml|title=India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race|date=07/24/2008|publisher=CNN IBN|accessdate=2008-07-24}}
    • {{cite news|url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/indias-ndeal-hurdle-pak-warns-of-arms-race/69471-2-p1.html|title=India's N-deal hurdle: Pak warns of arms race|date=07/24/2008|publisher=[[CNN IBN]]|accessdate=2008-07-24}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

which section?

The following is currently under the NSG waiver section, but i think it goes beyond this. I's analysis that is more suited to a 'controversy' section, if you must. Where would it be more appropriate?

"The wording of the US draft for carving out an exemption for India from the to the Nuclear Suppliers' Group's rules (called "guidelines") seeks to irrevocably tether New Delhi to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. India would be brought under a wider non-proliferation net, with the US draft tying it to compliance with the entire set of NSG rules. India is acquiescing to its unilateral test moratorium being turned into a multilateral legality. Instead of the "full" civil nuclear cooperation that the original July 18, 2005, deal promised, India's access to civil nuclear enrichment and reprocessing technologies will be restricted through the proposed NSG waiver." Lihaas (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

external links

The ASA links are not external links appropriate. They can be cited as analysis if the article is credible, but as an external links as per the rule #1 in Wikipedia's what to avoid link. The whitehouse link (much to my surprise too) is an analysis of the US exec's reading (and pushing) of the deal. It is not a an outside reference beyond citable material (as in official texts) the rest as good though. Lihaas (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I just saw this here or I wouldn't have reinsterted the links right away again. I believe you are referring to

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article

as the reason for removing the links. The full text of Howard Berman's letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and a recent draft of the NSG proposal both aren't being completely covered in the article and are from reliable sources. Multiple outside analyses from different perspectives would be appropriate for the external links section..
If I misunderstood you or you have more reasoning, it would be wonderful if you could elaborate more..--68.251.191.149 (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Rules $8 and #17 can also come in, but the real issue with this is that these could be used in the article and cited as references instead of external links. Granted the text is there, but considering the title "Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement" a letter doesn't quite follow as text in this regard. Am I making sense here? Im trying to put it into words. Even the draft, I don't think is equates with this, but as per other WP rules i can still see it fitting in. The letter is more ambigous as a link, though fair as a source. Lihaas (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I could see rule #8 applying towards the PDF. I still think outside analysis links from a few places would be useful, but the article looks complete as it is so I don't think the links are really that necessary anyways.--68.251.191.149 (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Outside analysis is always good no doubt, but more as sources to the article than 'external links.' anyway's we seems to have reached a conclusion. But there are a whole host of websites with lines of advertisements in this section ;) Lihaas (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the letter which is hosted by the U.S. House and the current U.S. draft waiver from the Carnegie Endowment because they both seem to be pertinent primary sources. It doesn't seem appropriate for the article to try and summarize the entire contents of both, and this is why a link to them would be useful. I'd politely request we seek the input of other editors if there is a disagreement.--68.251.191.149 (talk) 05:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
What about this edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement&diff=233874411&oldid=233872482) these edits could be included in the main text. Furthermore, there are other rules to cut down on external links at WP: External Links Lihaas (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Richard Stratford description

John Rood is described as "the head of the US delegation" and "Undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security" here. I'm not sure whether there are two separate positions, another official is filling in for this negotation, etc. but it would be good to use the most recent and clear description for Stratford as possible.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to note, it is being reported here the U.S. delegation in this process will now be led by William Burns. One wonders why the regular non-proliferation officials are not leading the process, but this is probably just an effort to allay concerns about U.S. intentions and efforts in the negotiation process.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 08:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

International reaction section

A fair amount of this appears to be redundant with the NSG waiver section, so it may make sense to move all of this under the NSG waiver section.--134.68.77.116 (talk) 18:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

To remove redundancy and improve the article it certainly does seem best. As long, of course, as good sources aren't removed. I say go ahead. Lihaas (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I completed the merger. It looks like the NSG waiver section may need minor portions to be rewritten for readability. I'd encourage anyone to look at this.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NSG waiver section

I have read the text of draft waiver and the NSG waiver section of this article, and I find it hard to see how the article section relates to the waiver text. Rather, it appears to reflect Indian fears about the subtext of the waiver. To my eye, they seem to be misinterpretations. Perhaps the section could be split into a very short description of the waiver, followed by a section of Indian reactions. NPguy (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. I think a general description of the waiver and summarized reactions from each group could be given at the top, while more in-depth reaction could be given in each subsection. We would also note that a new waiver is in the works.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
A subsection for the reaction sounds great. Lihaas (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
To my mind the current summary completely misses the point. The core of the draft exemption - the actual policy decision - is paragraph 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are just background. I'm going to let others take a hand at fixing this before trying to edit - it seems like such a moving target right now. NPguy (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that it is hardly worth trying to summarize these in a complete manner when the policy is moving and when there is likely to be a dispute about anything which isn't directly and explicitly stated in the document(s). Links have been added, and you may have a go of it if you wish. It is also worth noting the major concern seem to be over what is not in the draft, but there are indeed other sections for this.--99.1.99.177 (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Would it better to put an underconstruction or current event banner on the section? Lihaas (talk) 11:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

citations vs. analysis

Just saw the following edit: "The draft did not require India to sign the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty, leaving India with no obligations not to conduct another nuclear test.[1]"

I think it would be better to cite the part of the document that makes this case instead of rehashing open words that are likely to opinion based on who supports what case. I mean this may very well be true, but different sources often interpret differently. If this is case, there certainly has to be some part of the draft does say at the very least something to that effect. the draft does have a link here. Lihaas (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this edit is out of place. I think it belongs in the section on proposals to strengrhen the waiver. NPguy (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Did you move it or just remove it? I don't quite disagree with you (double negative, i know ;)). But wouldnt it better to cite the text? Lihaas (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I started to move it, but I ended up deleting it because the substance was already in the other section (though not the specific citation). NPguy (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

question on edits

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement&diff=236119776&oldid=236119702 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement&diff=236119702&oldid=236073348

Where's the removed info from these 2 edits gone?

Was there something missing here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-US_civilian_nuclear_agreement&diff=236049073&oldid=236047853 Lihaas (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to merge this:

On 03 september 2008, Congressman Howard Berman released the US State Department responses to questions which the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked about the US-India Nuclear Agreement in October 2007. The correspondence concerned 45 highly technical questions that members of Congress enquired about the deal with India. The answers were considered so sensitive, particularly because debate over the agreement in India could have toppled the government of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, that the State Department requested they remain secret even though they were not classified. Berman, said he made the answers public because, if NSG approval is granted, the U.S-India deal soon would be submitted to Congress for final approval and he wanted to assure that the US Congress has the relevant information.[2]

in to the upper paragraph by summarizing, and some of the other material got lost. If you catch anything else, be sure to point it out or add it in yourself. Thanks!--99.130.168.83 (talk) 00:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

News

Hey guys. Shouldn't the NSG waiver be featured on the latest news on the front page? 122.162.56.230 (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Discuss it on the first page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page) Lihaas (talk) 17:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Suggest ideas at WP:ITN/C, but now it's already up. SpencerT♦C 20:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Why delete details of IAEA and NSG deliberations

Some editor or editors recently deleted much of the discussion and essentially all of the substance of the IAEA and NSG deliberations, with the argument that they were out of date. While this is a newsworthy page, it is not just for the latest news. I think a large part much of that text should be restored as important historical background. NPguy (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I could restore it, I was just worried the article was long enough as it is..--99.130.168.83 (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe someone can break the article up into a diff section then. Lihaas (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That'd be good I just don't know I have the time..--99.130.168.83 (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Put up a tag so someone can. doesn't take too long. Lihaas (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Done!--99.130.168.83 (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean to restore everything. I think the substance of the initial "clean" draft and the substantive differences of the final one would be sufficient. This doesn't need to be a separate article. NPguy (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

De-hyphenization

"Since the end of the Cold War, The Pentagon, along with certain U.S. ambassadors such as Robert Blackwill, have requested increased strategic ties with India and a de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India." What hyphen? Google shows several references confirming the U.S. supports de-hyphenization of Pakistan with India, but neither this article nor a dictionary anything I Googled explains what hyphen is to be removed. The word has remained in the article unchallenged since this edit in 2006. Art LaPella (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

page move

whats with the page move? no discussion for it? what is it COMMONLY known as? Lihaas (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It is now back to the previous name for two reasons:
I could not find any such "official name" for the agreement. If one exists and I missed it, please let me and other people know by providing a direct link.
Secondly, if the issue was over a more descriptive title, then how about achieving a consensus over it or at least discussing about it? --Enigma Blues (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead citation

The 66 citation about Canada is currently dead. NerdyNSK (talk) 12:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's uh-fixed.--99.130.168.83 (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

US or U.S.?

The title of the article uses US but the article text uses U.S. and I am sure this to a reader would seem like an article written by a schizophrenic :P Is there one usage that should be preferred both for the title and the text? I think the best choice is US, what do you think? NerdyNSK (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically it ought to be U.S. as conventional grammar says an acronym should be with the '.' Lihaas (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not that way for other abbreviations. United Kingdom is "UK" and United Nations is "UN." But "U.S." is used only with periods and only as an adjective. As a noun, "United States" should be spelled out. NPguy (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Technically, grammatically, it should be used for UN and UK too. Lihaas (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How Many Reactors?

There has been some back and forth on how many nuclear power plants India has. The current number is 17, but India has 5 more under construction and two more planned. I haven't been able to find one source that pulls all this together. Perhaps someone else can do some research and find one. NPguy (talk) 01:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

A fairly good source is here. It says India has six under construction and nine proposed though..--70.236.79.188 (talk) 03:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

India's "aspirations"?

"While India still harbours aspirations of being recognised as a nuclear power before considering signing the NPT[citation needed] as a nuclear weapons state (which would be possible if the current 1967 cutoff in the definition of a "nuclear weapon state" were pushed to 1975)"

This is not true and is purely original research. No politician or official of India has ever made such an attitude known. Successive governments of India have been against the NPT for its discrimination and have never wanted to join the treaty as part of the "nuclear haves".

India wants and has always wanted the NPT to be replaced by an agrreement with a time-frame for destruction of all stockpiles of nuclear weapons by all countries including US and Russia. Please build consensus on this and remove the above statement.59.96.30.153 (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Should never have been there concerning it's uncited POV statement, where the link doesn't work. Lihaas (talk) 12:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-starter?

UK colloquialism, I was there 7 years and I can only barely remember what it means. Certainly isn't clear from the context. Was going to put [not specific enough to verify] on it, but that isn't quite right. If someone knows what the correct WP tag is, I would appreciate learning that too. Anarchangel (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rationale behind agreement: competition for conventional energy

I think this section should be removed. It creates the impression that the report was written for the Bush administration in order to give them a fact base for the agreement. However in fact the report was written for the Non Proliferation Policy Education Centre based in Washington. There is no way we can know if the Bush administration used or did not use the report for their decision (there is also no reference for this statement). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Otheruser82 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I will delete it now, I just read the report and it actually argues the opposite, so this paragraph is factually completely wrong. Following a part of the conclusion of the report: "In sum, the economic and resource arguments for the U.S.-India Civil Cooperation Initiative are overstated. Nuclear energy will not significantly reduce India’s reliance on foreign fossil fuels, is not vital to sustain India’s economic growth through 2032, and does not necessarily provide the best option for environmental improvements and energy independence." Otheruser82 (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

negative point of nuculear deal in india.

my first point is- with the aggrement of this deal this is calrify that india was not used the nuclear product which will purchased from america to making a nuclear wepons. my second point is the power genarate with the help of nuclear product is so costly,i think it per unit coast is RS14. if we genarate the power from renewable source of energy like water .the coast of per unit is nearly about RS 1.their are so many dams in india which not worked properly if we repairs the dams it is more useful. thirds point is those countries whose releation of america is not good then india have not allowed to make their releationship of that country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.227.36.250 (talk) 04:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Page move

articles abotu particular laws are to be named after the official name of the law, not per the synthesis of media or editors. Redirects are fine, but the actualy page should be the law.Lihaas (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong statement

The Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Cooperation Act of 2006,[3][4] also known as the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal,[citation needed] refers to a bilateral accord on civil nuclear cooperation between the United States of America and the Republic of India.

This is a wrong statement... replaced it with appropriate statement and citation. Too many changes were made to the Hyde act while writing the 123 agreement. Do you think the communist party in India would agree otherwise?

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I also made the following changes for the bellow mentioned reasons:

1) The nuclear deal was widely seen[by whom?] as a legacy-building effort by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh.[citation needed] --> Replaced with a better statement.

2) But while the deal had to pass muster with the U.S. Congress twice (once when the Hyde Act was passed in late 2006 to amend U.S. domestic law and then when the final deal-related package was approved in October 2008), Singh blocked the Indian Parliament from scrutinizing the deal. The deal proved very contentious in India and threatened at one time to topple Singh's government, which survived a confidence vote in Parliament in July 2008 by roping in a regional party as a coalition partner in place of the leftist bloc that had bolted.

a) This appears to be a politically motivated statement
b) We can accept such statements only when they are backed up with references and citations...
c) Don't see how these statements can find place in an article of this nature.

3) In response to a growing Chinese nuclear arsenal, India conducted a nuclear test in 1974 (called "peaceful nuclear explosion" and explicitly not for "offensive" first strike military purposes but which could be used for "peaceful deterrence").[citation needed]

a) why was this statment important in the paragraph? Moreover, the author could not rovide any citation to substanciate his claim!
b) If you want to make hair-raising and controversial statements please back them up with proof! Can't let wikipedia to be used as a forum for personal opinion! I did try to find citations for these lines, btw...

4) Although India achieved its strategic objectives from the Pokhran nuclear weapons tests in 1998,[5][verification needed] it continued to find its civil nuclear program isolated internationally.

a) Removed Verify source ... wiley.com is a respected enough journal.
b) Please be specific before tagging lines this way! what verification do you need on this?

However, members of the IAEA safeguards staff have made it clear that Indian demands that New Delhi be allowed to determine when Indian reactors might be inspected could undermine the IAEA safeguards system.[citation needed] The reason for this is to restrict development of nuclear weapons and to negotiate with India indirectly to ratify the NPT using another mechanism.[citation needed]

a) Please quote citations citations before making such statements. This appears to be some kind of a hearsay information which can't be easily substantiated with citations from credible sources. I assumed good faith and tried my best to justify these statments and failed. The same is true for all the above statments as well!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Mostly good edits, though you will see that I have changed some of them. The reason for the "verify source" tag is that the article is not freely available on the web. I was asking for someone to look at the text of the source and verify that it supports the claim.

References

  1. ^ Federation of American Scientists: The Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty
  2. ^ Full text of response from the US State Department to questions which the House Foreign Affairs Committee asked about the US-India Nuclear Agreement
  3. ^ http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5682enr.txt.pdf
  4. ^ http://hirc.house.gov/archives/109/news120806a.pdf
  5. ^ {http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118726909/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0}

Why was this article renamed???

The Hyde Act is only one part of the deal. The article deals with other parts as well. Naming the article for only one part is misleading at best. Was any poll ever taken? I strongly recommend changing the name back to a more accurate one. NPguy (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Lihaas has replied on my discussion page that

articles on laws (which was the basis for, other info is perfectly fine to add to it) are generally names after the official title. (ive worked on a couple of us laws thats why i though so for this) but i wont object to your revert anyhoo.Lihaas (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is based on the mistaken assertion that the article is about a single law. In fact, it is about a series of actions beginning with a Bush-Singh joint statement in 2005 and followed by the Hyde Act, the agreement for cooperation, the NSG exception, and the IAEA safeguards agreement. So I plan to revert the renaming, once I remind myself how. NPguy (talk) 11:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too sure if the word Initiative is appropriate any longer because the deal has been signed and the entire process completed. I suggest Indo-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation. Indo-US and not US-Indo or US-India because of their alphabetical order (in case you are thinking).

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point, but at least until the liability issue is resolved, key international partners are refraining from engaging in nuclear cooperation with India. So I think "initiative" still applies. NPguy (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement. 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 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A Pretty Useless Deal for India and Probably not worth the paper its written on

Unless I am mistaken, NO nuclear hardware has been transferred from the US to India. If it has been, the article should state this somewhere to provide an indication of what nuclear technology has been provided to India. It does seem as if there is a LOT of hulabaloo about India getting access to nuclear technology, but no bottom line (ie: it is April 2016 now, and Google searches reveal that India has been given NOTHING). Surely the Indians (& Americans) can do better than blowing steam for *10* years for an agreement which is yielding nothing. Afterall, what's the point in writing an agreement, and publicising it without providing anything substantial? I suppose we should all do ourselves a favour and realise that this agreement is not worth s**t. The Indians might be better off directing their political energies towards enhancing the technology and infrastructures that they already have for a better nuclear industry. I imagine that intelligent Indians would strongly question the economic and other investments which have already been made in placing many of India's nuclear reactors under IAEA safeguards. It would benefit India's defence, and the sanity of scientists/managers/other skilled tradesmen, if administrative hurdles which lead nowhere were removed. A smart onlooker might deduce that material progress on the nuclear deal is being deliberately stalled to stall India's own indigenous development. True, India MIGHT benefit from US technology **IF** the US provided India with any, but India would also benefit from not placing its reactors under IAEA safeguards, which certainly must limit India's freedom to use its nuclear industry for its national interest. After 10 years (or longer) this does not seem to be the case, unless someone out there can show a link which indicates that US reactors or reactor technology has been sold to India. Please do correct me if I am wrong - but I suspect I am not. ASavantDude (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Archives link doesn't work

I have tried accessing the archives link, but it seems as if this doesn't work. ASavantDude (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India–United_States_Civil_Nuclear_Agreement/Archive_1&oldid=1092050619"