Talk:International Atomic Energy Agency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This page needs a "Controversy" section![edit]

This page needs a "Controversy" section! I went here looking to see if there was information to give me an idea of weather I can trust the IAEA, or if they are an incompetent and corrupt as the UN themselves. I wish I could help with a contribution, but as I said, I went here looking for answers! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Definately agreed!! ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(Ταλκ) 21:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reporting Iran[edit]

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. 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is nearly worthless[edit]

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. -- 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 came here trying to find out who is funding the IAEA. When El Baradei spoke at the UN General Assembly one of his issues was that the IAEA is not getting enough funding and the donations that are made come with a list of demands. I can't find information anywhere (not even that gives any indication as to where the IAEA's funding is coming from. Knowing that would tell us all a great deal about the intentions and credibility of the IAEA. ( (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

For information on the IAEA budget look here ( and ). For information on who pays for the regular budget look here ( And for gory details that include voluntary contributions and how it is all spent, look here ( NPguy (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Language template poll[edit]

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)

Structure and Function[edit]

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


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)

Clean Up[edit]

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)

Switzerland missing from map[edit]

Someone recently changed the map, which prompted me to take a look. I couldn't see what had been changed, but I noticed one error: Switzerland is color coded as if it were not a member of the IAEA. I don't know how to fix this, so I'm flagging it for someone who does. NPguy (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Misstake on my part missread Swaziland for Switzerland. Map has been updated, thanks for spotting it. /Lokal_Profil 15:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Functions of IAEA still missing[edit]

I'm putting an Expert tag on this article because there is zero explanation of what the IAEA does. All that is mentioned, once and briefly, is that a nation has to sign onto the IAEA Statute - no mention whatsoever of the world-wide reactor inspections to prevent nuclear proliferation. The NNPT wasn't even in the article until I just now put it into the See Also. Simesa (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

This page has been added to the Barack Obama WikiProject. I'm not sure why or what that entails, but it appears that the purpose of the project designation is to provide explanatory context in the IAEA article for the Obama Administration's position. The explanatory comment says "This measure is specifically mentioned in the Obama agenda, which apparently refers to the position in the transition web site (which has now been transferred to the whitehouse site

  • Strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): Seek to ensure that the Agency gets the authority, information, people, and technology it needs to do its job.

This it is a shortened version of a position from Obama's campaign site

  • Strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA): The IAEA is understaffed and underresourced at a time when demand for its expertise are growing. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will seek to ensure that the Agency gets the authority, information, people, and technology it needs to do its job. They will work to double the IAEA budget in the next four years (increasing the U.S. annual share to about $225 million). They will press countries to adopt the “Additional Protocol,” -- which grants the IAEA the right to conduct more intrusive inspections, including at undeclared facilities — and seek agreement among members of the Nuclear Suppliers Group not to transfer nuclear technology to NPT countries that have not adopted the Additional Protocol. They will work to gain agreement on effective global standards for nuclear safety and security. And they will call for establishing IAEA verification procedures that go beyond the Additional Protocol to strengthen the agency’s ability to detect clandestine facilities and activities.

There are also several other statements of position relevant to the IAEA on both sites. But there are also Obama campaign and administration positions that are equally relevant to other pages (for example the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and Nuclear disarmament). This leads me to ask several questions:

  • Should the project look at both the campaign and whitehouse web sites?
  • From the perspective of the Barack Obama WikiProject, what information is missing from this article?
  • Given the incomplete nature of the selection of relevant articles so far, how should relevant articles be selected?

-- NPguy (talk) 02:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


This is such a spotless, hygienic, bureaucratic page. You'd have a hard time telling that the IAEA is known as a pooh-pooher about Chernobyl, endlessly denying that serious numbers of deaths were involved, ignoring inconvenient papers. See for example:,1518,411684,00.html, especially the 3rd part:

The IAEA's nuclear experts say that Chernobyl has claimed 56 lives to date -- 47 workers at the disaster site and nine children who have since died of thyroid cancer.

And you have a hard time telling that the IAEA saves thousands of lives a year by running safe irradiation plants. It's a hygienic, bureaucratic page for a hygienic, bureaucratic organization. But, hey, if you want to write a NPOV addition to the article about the IAEA response to Chernobyl, it would be useful, instead of whining here that the article doesn't follow your POV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Cambodia withdrawl[edit]

Some links with reports about it? I do not question that it is made, but in contrast to DPRK's withdrawl that is described in multiple articles I can't find such for Cambodia. Alinor (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Cambodia just applied to rejoin the IAEA [1]. NPguy (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


There has been some edit warring on whether to include a description of the IAEA's Program of Action on Cancer Therapy on this page. My view is that it would be better to create a new article and add only a brief description and a {{main}} template to link to it from this page. NPguy (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Membership" section: where's Israel?[edit]

in fact, searching the page for the term "Israel" yields no results anywhere. that seems like a deficiency.

Israel's position vis-à-vis the IAEA is arguably among the most important aspects of this topic.

thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbowler (talkcontribs) 22:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The "membership" section lists countries that are not IAEA members, so it is entirely appropriate that Israel not be mentioned there. The basis for mentioning Israel is the "Israel Nuclear Capabilities" resolution approved at last year's IAEA General Conference and under consideration at this year's. NPguy (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Baradeis acceptance speech of the nobel peace prize... In Stockholm?[edit]

I find this a bit puzzling, because the Nobel Peace Prize Comitee is located in Oslo, Norway, and to the best of my knowledge, this is also where the ceremonies are held. Primarily in the City Hall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate criticism section[edit]

An editor recently added a "criticism" section at the end of this article. I think it is inappropriate for two reasons. First, a criticism section is often a cop out - a way to sneak in bias avoid addressing a legitimate issue in a balanced way. Second, the specific content of this section is based on a misunderstanding of the IAEA's role in the area of nuclear safety. The IAEA's mandate is to develop standards and guidance, and to help states to implement them. The responsibility to implement nuclear safety properly lies with operators and the state regulators. It is an unfair criticism to say that the IAEA does not do what it is not authorized to do and not capable of doing.

But this criticism section points out something that is lacking in this article: any detailed discussion of what the IAEA does. There ought to be a long section about the three pillars of the IAEA: promoting peaceful use; safeguards against proliferation; safety and security. Then a proper discussion of the IAEA's role in nuclear safety could raise questions such as these and provide meaningful context.

In the meantime I'm going to add the NPOV tag to this section. NPguy (talk) 01:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article could do with some work. But I would have thought that the addition of criticism actually helps to balance the article as it read like an advertisement and promotional brochure before that. Johnfos (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Other than the criticism section, the article seems factual if incomplete. The criticism section gives undue emphasis to what is both a misunderstanding and ephemeral. NPguy (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
NPguy, what would you prefer in a criticism section? Lack of criticism?! What nuclear agency do you have shares in? The whole point of having various sections and headings in an article is to organise the information for better readability. Therefore it should be obvious that a "criticism" section is going to criticise the otherwise dominant POV of the remainder of the article. Inappropriately labelling criticism "POV" is borderline vandalism, regardless of the merits or lack thereof below the heading. If you have specific concerns about citations or grammar, you should use those tags instead.--Guid123 (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't detect a heavy POV in the article, except in the criticism section. I would prefer an article that says more about what the IAEA does (as opposed to how it functions), which would allow for some integration of criticism into those programs. That would include a section on nuclear safety, which would explain that the IAEA role is focused on setting standards, exchanging information, and assisting member states. Responsibility for meeting safety standards lies with member states. It could then add that after Fukushima some have questioned whether the current approach is adequate. Criticizing what the IAEA does on nuclear safety without first describing its role is biased and unrepresentative. NPguy (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Have added more well-sourced info to this section, and changed the name to Post-Fukushima; looks more comprehensive and neutral now, and I have removed the tag. Johnfos (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Adding more criticism does not make the section less biased. The way to incorporate this material is in the context of a description of IAEA programs/functions. I see this as a major new section with three subsections: one on promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy, one on safeguards and nonproliferation, and one on safety and security. These are the "three pillars" of the IAEA. Presenting this criticism out of context is unbalanced. NPguy (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
It's an obvious fact that the IAEA has been criticised, that the criticism does not fit witin the IAEA's own self-image as represented by the "three pillars", and that the critics have been published by WP:RS reliable sources. It's silly to suggest that reporting this fact violates WP:NPOV. It's not up to us to assess whether the criticisms are well-founded. JQ (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not asserting that it is inappropriate to include criticism of the IAEA. I am asserting that a section that is devoted primarily to criticism of the IAEA is inappropriate and unbalanced. The criticism needs to be placed into the context of what the IAEA does and the limits on its authority. For example, the IAEA has the authority to develop safety standards and guidance, but not to enforce those standards except on its own projects. States see safety as a sovereign responsibility and have been unwilling to give more authority to the IAEA. Those facts need should be presented in a section on nuclear safety and security, where this criticism would then fit in. NPguy (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Much time has passed. But without WP:Reliable sources that back up what you say, your comments are largely speculation. Please provide the best and most reputable authoritative sources available to support your concerns. And make some effort to integrate them into, and improve, the article. Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
My concern is that the point-counterpoint structure of the section in question is that it repeatedly presents a claim by the IAEA and then rebuts it. It give the impression that the IAEA is misleading or making excuses. The section should begin by acknowledging that the IAEA does not have the authority to oversee nuclear safety, except in connection with its own activities. Safety is generally recognized as the responsibility of national governments. It is simply unfair to criticize the organization for things that are beyond its authority. By the way, the figures on the budget for safety overlook the substantial part of the IAEA's assistance activities that are devoted to safety. The first place I would look for information is the IAEA's own web site. In addition, Trevor Findlay did a good recent review of the IAEA across the Board, which includes a section on nuclear safety. NPguy (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Findlay did a good review, and I felt these couple of paragraphs (from page 21) captured the situation quite nicely:
Nuclear safety is one of the three “Ss” — safety, security and safeguards — that the IAEA sees as its critical missions. The Agency declares it has a “central role with respect to nuclear safety and security” as “set out in its Statute and enshrined in decisions and resolutions of its policymaking organs.” Its role is “to provide a strong, sustainable and visible global nuclear safety and security framework” (UN, 2011c: 15-16).
The Agency’s slow initial public response to Fukushima led many observers to question its effectiveness as the global “hub” of nuclear safety. Although the Agency did subsequently ramp up its involvement impressively, the disaster clearly revealed inadequacies in the international framework for responding to such events, including the role of the IAEA, and has provided some impetus for reform of various elements of the Agency’s emergency preparedness and response capabilities. It also led to widespread calls for the Agency to: review its safety standards and guides; strengthen its role in ensuring member states consider seismic dangers in designing, siting and operating nuclear facilities; assist states in immediately conducting safety reviews (so-called “stress tests”) of existing facilities; ramp up and reinforce the peer review system; and enhance the Agency’s advice and assistance to states in the nuclear safety realm.
I'd like to see this sort of material in the article. -- Johnfos (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

File:24 Acts of Non-compliance by Iran.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:24 Acts of Non-compliance by Iran.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:24 Acts of Non-compliance by Iran.PNG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know/care about the copyright issues, but this "image" appears to be largely a propaganda sheet, inappropriate for reasons of bias. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson[edit]

Dr. Ari Brynjolfsson has been referenced as the Director of IFFIT of the Joint FAO/IAEA, United Nations, 1988-1992, with focus on international training and applications of radiation on a new wikipedia page. Any assistance on improving this new page with additional details would be appreciated. Orrerysky (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Languages and infobox[edit]

An editor has repeatedly added to the initial infobox the names of the IAEA in French and then in all six official languages. This is just unnecessary clutter on this English language article. I would propose to add a line to the infobox listing official languages and linking to the corresponding articles in those languages. I'm not adept and infoboxes so it would take me some time to figure out how to do this.

A related problem is that this page uses the United Nations infobox template. This is inaccurate because the IAEA is not a UN organization. It was established independently through the IAEA Statute in 1957. Although the Statute does establish some ties to the UN, and the IAEA has an association agreement with the UN, the IAEA remains an independent international organization. Is there another infobox template that will eliminate the UN logo without dropping the other fields? NPguy (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Atomic Energy Agency. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Atomic Energy Agency. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)