Talk:Crimes involving radioactive substances

Neologism

I've never heard the term "nuclear crime", at least that I recall, and I'm tempted to think that the original author probably made it up. The assertion that it's the "best term" for these phenomena is dubious.

My original impulse was to put the article on AfD as a violation of WP:NEO, but there is a lot of good work here, and it would be a pity to waste it. On the other hand I don't think the article can stay at this title. My suggestion would be to refactor it into list format, and move it to list of crimes involving radioactive substances. Any other ideas? --Trovatore 21:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that nuclear crime is not a neogism, as the term has appeared elsewhere on the web

• http://www.bu.edu/globalbeat/nuclear/csis031198.html
• http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/cohens/20040216.htm
• http://www.tridentploughshares.org/IMG/pdf/pledgpnc.pdf
• http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/1994/08/23/001.html

For the ultimate use of the term see the work of the UN, the IAEA has used this term.

• http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geusRoOHtFvEEBJlNXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2djlsdjQ4BGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDOARzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANGODUzXzk0/SIG=12iq7fs84/EXP=1165789672/**http%3a//www.radiochemistry.org/2005_conference/abstracts/03.htm

So as the IAEA have used the term, so I think we should stick with the term nuclear crime to label all criminal acts which involve the misuse of radioactive/nuclear materials and technology where the radioactive/nuclear aspects of the material are important.Cadmium

No one who has played googlewhack will be surprised that two common words, nuclear and crime, appear together on the Web. I think these sources are simply using the words in their natural meaning, not creating a new category. For the term not to be a neologism, it would have to have established currency as a distinct concept, not simply a combination of two common words according to the rules of English.

Look, there's nothing wrong with making up terms. I love to do it myself. What you're not allowed to do is to try to use WP as a tool to gain currency for them. It's too powerful a tool; it makes it too easy.

I have no quarrel with the content of the article itself. It just needs to be moved to a non-neologistic title, and drop the OR-ish claims as to the meaning of the term "nuclear crime". --Trovatore 22:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I should say, I have no quarrel with the content of the article provided it is refactored as a list. As far as I know there is no standard criminological category that puts together Klaus Fuchs, whoever poisoned Litvinenko, and those whose carelessness led to the Goiânia accident -- these are just utterly different sorts of things, and creating a commonality out of them is original research, prohibited on Wikipedia. But as a list I think it would be OK -- we have lists of lots of things that no one necessarily thought to list before, and while some see them as "cruft", I don't recall that anyone's raised an OR problem about them. --Trovatore 08:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

About the idea of creating a list, much of the article is in the form of a list, it is a series of examples of different criminal acts which involve nuclear and radioactive materials (or technology) so it would not be too much to change it into a list. I would say that the list is not a definative list as many more radiological misdeeds exist which are not included in the article. I think that the article should be more than just a list, as the majority of encyclopedias do have some editorial comment to explain the meaning of the facts which they present.Cadmium

No list is ever definitive; that's not a problem. Nor does a list have to be just a succession of bullet points. There's room for some explanation.

What there's not room for is any remote implication (stated or unstated) that this is a standard way of categorizing crime, which as far as I know it's just not. I admit it's not my field, but then it doesn't seem to be yours either, unless you have a second life as a criminologist. --Trovatore 17:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Japan

Does the detonation by the United States of nuclear devices over Japan not count as a crime because of its perpetration by a state actor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaconway88 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting nuts. =)) I was *JUST* looking into this discussion section whether anyone would deem the Hiroshima/Nagasaki attacks in 1945 a "crime" as well. Me too, but most of the Americans wouldn't. And since English Wikipedia seems a bit dominated by the U. S., you won't find that in here. :) But I agree, you've got a perfectly valid point here. -andy 77.7.117.26 (talk) 15:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Quackery / Radithor

I've deleted the entirely spurious reference to "isothiouronium" in the material on Radithor (I've also cleaned it from that page.) See Talk:Radithor for my explanation. Kay Dekker (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Begun cleanup as recommended by recent AfD discussion

I've started cleaning up the article in the ways recommended in the recent AfD discussion. Any help is welcome! Catavar (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Exclude accidents?

The inclusion of accidents that were also crimes seems redundant and not in the spirit of the article. We already have Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents, the benefit of this article is separating out cases in which radioactive substances were intentionally used to cause harm. If necessary, we can rename to "Intentional crimes involving radioactive substances" or "Non-accidental crimes involving radioactive substances" but I think that's needless pedantry. Catavar (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this, because there was so much duplication and poor sourcing. Gradually adding crimes in which radiation was intentionally used. Catavar (talk) 02:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Crimes involving radioactive substances. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050105035029/http://www.ean.cepn.asso.fr/pdf/program7/Session%20C/C2_HOEFE.pdf to http://ean.cepn.asso.fr/pdf/program7/Session%20C/C2_HOEFE.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060918073336/http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/cancercastro123097.html to http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/cancercastro123097.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061205111134/http://www.firmaspress.com:80/726.htm to http://www.firmaspress.com/726.htm

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspected Crime

Yasser Arafat's death is highly speculated (see Death of Yasser Arafat) to be a case of polonium poisoning. shouldn't this be added here as a speculated crime? SammyMajed (talk) 07:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Debunked conspiracy theories have no place here. Kolbasz (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)