Talk:Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Pronunciation?

[edit]

What is the correct pronunciation of "Fordow"? --GDK (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

فردو approx. = fordo The "w" in "Fordow" confuses journalists and politicians (Similar mistake with "Moscow"). It phonetically denotes lip-rounding.
Rhymes with "crow", "low", "flow", "blow".
Edit: The following youTube interview with an Iranian official will clarify matters.
"Amanpour asks Iranian official how they will respond if US strikes nuclear facilities"
--CNN, youTube, timestamp: 5:06
It's hard to be certain if his pitch on the first syllable is prosodic phrase-stress or the word's itself, or if there is also amplitude-stress on the ultima, ie:Fórdo. Farsi typically stresses the final syllable of nouns. Amanpour herself, who grew up in Tehran until the age of 11 most emphatically stresses the ultima: For-do , timestamp 4:16 , ibid.
JohndanR (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Location

[edit]

The Haaretz article does say 20mi NE of Qom however the village of Fordo is NOT NE but almost due South a little over 20mi (~35km). I'll note it here, maybe others can find another source. There is an AP image of the site so perhaps someone could match the location from imaging one way or another and cite that? This location which does match the image in the Haaretz article [1] is NE of Qom at 34.8849395,50.9954145 Fordo is South at 34.26, 50.903611 Phil (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

correction of my earlier edit: after comparison of media imagery with remote sensing of Google Earth) it is in fact 25 km NNE of Qom IanBowie (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

[edit]

Is “demolished” technically accurate? 77.99.210.120 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Was...," "Demolished..." It's way too early for such words, IMO. 2001:569:51DF:E400:581B:F401:6D04:9618 (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 22 June 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

IanBowie (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Google Earth shows this clearly (in comparison of infrastructure with media imagery) as 25 km NNE of Qom [as 'Qom uranium enrichment plant']

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2025

[edit]

Change verb tenses from 'is' to 'was'. The plant doesn't exist anymore. MAGA2016 (talk) 12:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done You might think the U.S. President's statement that the site was "completely obliterated" is sufficient, but it is not so for Wikipedia. We would need multiple reliable sources, some time after analysis had been complete, confirming this. For a good skeptical take on the current state of (public) knowledge, see Nick Paton Walsh's post-strike piece in CNN which says in the lead paragraph "the most important question is at least a 'known unknown' – that is, what remains" of this site and the others in Iran. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very true after all it is an entire mountain. Its hard to generate the Joules needed to destroy.
“To destroy a mountain, it would take approximately 10^17 to 10^18 joules, which is equivalent to 24-240 megatons of TNT.”
-Gemini Ai 2601:3C5:8180:31D0:B89D:C65C:25D5:8FD5 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't believe everything an AI tells you. The mountain need not be vaporized. Have a look at tired mountain syndrome; much less than that is required to "destroy" it geologically. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ai is not 100% factual but neither is most militaries. you forgot a lot of information on how powerful our weapons come from Action movies and Anime. Our weapons are not like what you see on Dragonball Z. I hope you know that. Also, even the Pentagon says only a tactical nuke can fully destroy ithttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jun/19/trump-caution-on-iran-strike-linked-to-doubts-over-bunker-buster-bomb-officials-say.2601:3C5:8180:31D0:D915:16F:245C:1E2F (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuxnet

[edit]

Uranium enrichment infrastructure at Fordow was attacked by Stuxnet. This should be noted. Plenty of sources, e.g. https://www.darkreading.com/perimeter/stuxnet-part-of-widespread-cyber-intrusion-of-iranian-infrastructure-new-film-claims RememberOrwell (talk) 03:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 23 June 2025

[edit]

Description of suggested change:

The Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant is not related to the village of Fordo, as it is 100 km away.

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

159.242.105.141 (talk) 14:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Referentis (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I do understand what you mean, but there is nothing we can do here, as the quoted text says "Fordo" and not Fordow. Also other sources sometimes use Fordo instead of Fordow. To make matters worse, in Fordo it says: "Also romanized as Fordow". So it seems that there is a village and a plant with the same name that are not related. I checked and as far as I can see, we do not wikilink to the village in this article. Friendly, Lova Falk (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS I have fixed the explanation at Fordo.Lova Falk (talk) 06:17, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 June 2025

[edit]

Change is to was when speaking of the building. Ex. "Was an Iranian Fuel Enrichment..." 2600:1009:B004:71E6:154:C98:32D:6472 (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The extent of the damage to the plant is not yet clear; it is much too soon to begin referring to it in the past tense. Day Creature (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump fairy tales

[edit]

Why are there Trump fairy tales in the article and nothing about the Defence Intelligence Agency report? Falkmart (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added reference to leaked DIA preliminary assessment of more modest result.NPguy (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
we don't normally consider anonymous leaks valid information. This came up recently with that women boxing champion and the leaked medical reports. The official information is that there was a strike, it was successful, the site was badly damaged. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/iaea-chief-expects-very-significant-damage-irans-fordow-site-2025-06-23/ Liger404 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would like balance added to the leaked report.

[edit]

Right now we have, and a lot of media have reporting on a supposedly leaked anonymous report that the strikes had limited success. This doesn't actually meet the standard to be included in this article at all, we also ignored leaked medical reports on the controversial boxer Imane khelif recently. Wide reporting of low quality sources does not make them high quality.

Ideally I would like the allegedly "leaked report", which franky may or may not exist removed entirely. However, if this is not possible, lets update the article with confirmed official sources. Multiple Senators have now finished their classified debriefs and have made official statements.

"Sen. Tom Cotton, who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, was more definitive. He said the strikes would “protect the world from the risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon for years.” “I believe that this mission was a tremendous success and that we have effectively destroyed Iran’s nuclear program,” Cotton said, criticizing the focus on the early assessment produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency.".

This should replace the leaked report, or a tthe very least be placed after it. It is more up to date, it is also more reliable, far more reliable.

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/06/26/politics/congress-iran-briefing-strikes Liger404 (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you think "reliable" means, but Wikipedia treats the New York Times, CNN, and Reuters as reliable sources. The fact that this preliminary assessment was leaked is relevant to the article. To my mind, the chronological narrative makes sense. First present the President's extravagant claim. Then a skeptical leaked initial assessment. Then subsequent statements that are more in the middle. I don't think we really know who's right yet. NPguy (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as simple as that, NYT is reliable, but when they add caveats like "anonymous, leaked, preliminary, low confidence" the NYT times is telling even they don't feel the information is reliable. And yet here it is, in an encyclopaedia. And with no mention of the more up to date official position of the US military.
I feel this Wiki rules applies in this instance.
"The reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors."
I would also suggest the "Breaking News" rules apply, in which more recent content should replace older content. Liger404 (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except there is no definitive resolution of the question of which reporting is more reliable. The intelligence reporting is biased both by attempts to claim victory and its opposite. We don't know that the initial reporting is debunked. NPguy (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hierarchy between anonymous unofficial leaks and official statements from the US military and government. Currently we only have the anonymous unofficial leak, like that somehow takes primacy despite being older, unofficial and its existence being unverifiable. Liger404 (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add new information about the strike.To be added immediately below the information from 24th June.

[edit]


Add this section below "On 25 June, Trump stated that people sent by Israel confirmed the destruction of the site.[30]"

Following a classified Senate briefing on June 26th Senator Tom Cotton, who leads the Senate Intelligence Committee, was more definitive. He said the strikes would “protect the world from the risk of an Iranian nuclear weapon for years.".

“I believe that this mission was a tremendous success and that we have effectively destroyed Iran’s nuclear program,” Cotton said, criticizing the focus on the early assessment produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm.[1]

In a separate statement U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency chief Rafael Grossi said it was highly likely the sensitive centrifuges used to enrich uranium inside Fordow were badly damaged. It's far less clear whether Iran's 9 tonnes of enriched uranium - more than 400 kg of it enriched to close to weapons grade - were destroyed..: [2]


Liger404 (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "What senators are saying after being briefed on the US strikes on Iran | CNN Politics".
  2. ^ Murphy, Francois; Irish, John. "U.S. Strikes on Iran's nuclear sites set up "cat-and-mouse" hunt for missing uranium". Reuters.
 Not done Because "classified press briefing" is a contradiction. If you rewrite the request, I will re-examine it. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only change you think it needs it to "Classified Briefing"? Liger404 (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dahawk04 (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did this? I am not changing anything, its adding in in the section below 24th June. Its events subsequent to that. And there are two reliable sources attached? I used the wiki wizard to make the edit request. Liger404 (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bulleted, bold text is yours, is it not? It contains the contradiction "classified press briefing". Please try again and explain what you want to add to the article section, without using that phrase. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think you would need to include other politicians statements to maintain WP:NPOV Dahawk04 (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Bold text came from the wiki Wizard that the page recommended I used to make this edit. It seems that this is ultimately a mistake as you have twice been unhappy with the format.
I have removed "classified press briefing" some days ago did I not? It says "Classified Senate briefing" which is what it was.
As for wiki voice NPOV, I don't agree for three reasons. One, I have basically copy and pasted from CNN and Reuters, which are not considered biased, two the placement in the article is directly after comments about the strike being less effective and so there is already innate balance in the article (Actual its bias right not) and 3 I did immediately underneath include the UN opinion which was also less sure about the ultimate effect. I felt this was a much better inclusions that other senators.
This is because one, Tom Cotton heads the Intelligence committee and so is basically the official government opinion, and two because senators would argue over how long a 30cm ruler is, so I went with a reliable 3rd party instead, the IAEA for a non partisan statement.
I will point out that it has been deemed acceptable for others to add the comments from Trump and the comments that strike was unsuccessful WITHOUT any balancing statements, and yet with mine this is now contested. Liger404 (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Partly done See Special:Diff/1298522948, "the focus on the early assessment" needed paraphrasing. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bri, I do understand the importance of limiting editing on continuous topics but this was a bit arduous to just add an update, this did not seem to match the Wikipedia "edit request" templates at all. Not your fault but a pretty rough barrier for us newer people. I've had less trouble getting aircraft cleared for duty after engine replacement! Liger404 (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liger, the mechanisms of Wikipedia aren't exactly user friendly, but I'm glad I could finally get to a place where you felt heard.
@AlexBobCharles: I had to re-do my changes; something got garbled when I edited, and I tried to restore the meat of your two edits that happened right after. I left out the "focus on early assessment" wording which was too much an exact copy of what the CNN writer had, in my opinion. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 1 August 2025

[edit]

Updates from Irans foreign minister: Add this below "That being said, what we know so far is that the facilities have been seriously and heavily damaged"". I think we are possibly getting to the point where we may want to trim away some of the early reporting as the dust seems to have settled and the situation is becoming more clear. Diff: On 22nd July Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said in an interview "that the U.S.’s strikes last month “destroyed” Tehran’s nuclear facilities" and with regards to Uranium enrichment and manufacture "It is stopped because, yes, damages are serious and severe." and that the "“facilities have been destroyed.” ". However he insisted that Iran would continue to pursue uranium enrichment and manufacture, stating it had become a matter of national pride and that Iran will be able to rebuild the facilities. [1]

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

Liger404 (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done with some modifications. Day Creature (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Timotija, Filip (07/22/25). "Iran's foreign minister: US strikes 'destroyed' nuclear facilities". The Hill. Retrieved 1 August 2025. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)