Talk:India–United States Civil Nuclear Agreement

I added the criticism section to this entry. I'm currently taking a class at the University of Washington wherein Thomas Graham Jr. is a part time instructor. I wasn't quite sure how to cite his argument from 11/16/06.

This does not contain how the nuclear fuel would be tranferred to India

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?