ITER was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the
good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This statement "ITERs goals are: to achieve enough fusion to produce 10 times as much output power as input" is false. I have attempted to correct it but two other editors, for what seem to be to be arbitrary reasons, insist on keeping the sentence in, and as is.
I have run out of time. For now, this Wikipedia page will mislead readers who either fail to read the third paragraph or get confused at the apparent inconsistency. This is likely to cause non-experts, students, and journalists to think, citing Wikipedia, that is okay to say that one of "ITER's goals is to achieve enough fusion to produce 10 times as much output power as input." That phrase, as is, if published by people who are informed on the subject, is a lie and is an abuse of the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia. StevenBKrivit (
talk) 02:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
1) The source you cite is YOUR OWN website.
WP:SPS
2) Wikipedia is NOT a Reliable Source. From
WP:CIRC: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources since Wikipedia is considered as a user-generated source. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.[10]"
3) You still have not provided ANY Reliable Sources
WP:RS to support your CLAIM that anyone will misunderstand this (other than you). ---Avatar317(talk) 03:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
If you think everyone apart from you is driving on the wrong side of the road... you might re-evaluate who is misunderstanding things. --
mfb (
talk) 08:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
StevenBKrivit:@
Avatar317:@
Mfb: Incidentally,
Sabine Hossenfelder talks about this very issue in
her latest Youtube video. That video itself is not a reliable source, of course (the author is a physicist though). But maybe it can help to locate better sources and improve the neutrality of the Wikipedia article. Some reliable sources are linked in the video description. It seems like the issue raised above is actually a very real one, but most
WP:RS get it wrong.
Renerpho (
talk) 18:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Mfb: "If you think everyone apart from you is driving on the wrong side of the road... you might re-evaluate who is misunderstanding things." You could be right. It's also possible that the Emperor doesn't have any clothes. History will show who was helpful to other people on this matter and who was not.
You assert that most "WP:RS" sources got it wrong – even if we take this as granted (and you have not provided a compelling reason why we should), the fact remains that all WP can do is echo to its readers what the reliable secondary sources say. There is an essay somewhere (I can't be bothered digging it out) which says something to the effect of "If Wikipedia were around in 1500 it would report the consensus that the Sun orbits the Earth, and that would be A Good Thing". For WP to take any side, even the one that posterity judges to be the correct one, in an ongoing scientific dispute, would be to violate its policy on
neutrality – to violate it egregiously, in fact. I would also note that the sources you refer to would typically be considered reliable, and any attempt to put your own personal website on the same level as them is likely to constitute a
conflict of interest (in addition to having serious likely problems re
undue weight and promoting
marginal views). Per mfb above, it might be time to drop this particular
WP:STICK.
Archon 2488 (
talk) 17:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Archon 2488: I guess you are referring to
Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"But_I_know_the_truth!". There is a difference here, in that the scientific literature on ITER most certainly has it right; it's just what's reported by the media, in statements made by politicians, and in statements by scientists directed at media/politicians, where the error frequently pops up. So it shouldn't be too hard to find the correct meanings of the reported Q values, hidden in the scientific literature. One just has to be careful taking secondary sources (news reports etc.) as reliable at face value.
Renerpho (
talk) 16:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)reply
I have been attempting to address this issue myself in the last couple of edits. I found a good source for the misleading Q-value problem and added the following sentence to clarify this section: "The European STOA Fusion Project cautions that this figure refers only to the energy of the plasma itself, and that practical capture of this energy for electricity production would introduce significant inefficiencies which ITER is not designed to overcome." It was partially removed by an anonymous editor, but I hope the clarifications are to their satisfaction.
Ddevault (
talk) 15:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)reply
"ITER's thermonuclear fusion reactor will use over 300MW of electrical power to cause the plasma to absorb 50 MW of thermal power, creating 500 MW of heat from fusion "
So, it will create 500MW, but consume 300MW. That's not a ten fold gain, that's a barely 50% gain. Using the 500 MW / 50 MW == 10X is the most dishonest creative accounting. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2001:8003:E41C:1C01:6D77:3D5A:30C:42ED (
talk) 10:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply
New map needed
This map is inaccurate the UK and Switzerland should not be dark blue I suggest make a new map and make these countries along with Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and Thailand light blue to differentiate between them and the dark blue countries
Black roses124 (
talk) 03:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)reply
The UK and Switzerland are not non-members though. They operate through the EU signatory (Fusion For Energy) which is a member. Therefore I don't think the map needs changing- and if it is changed, the UK and Switzerland should not be put in the same category as non-members.Mark63424 (
talk) 17:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)reply
The UK and Switzerland are in a unique position where they operate through the EU signatory. This is very different from the non-members.
Mark63424 (
talk) 19:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)reply
ITER do not list the UK as a non-member on their
about page and instead reference it in a separate paragraph saying "The United Kingdom will continue to participate in ITER post-Brexit through its membership in Fusion for Energy, the European Domestic Agency for ITER.".
Since the UK is operating through the Fusion for Energy signatory it is in the same position as an EU member state (despite no longer being in the EU).
Mark63424 (
talk) 15:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)reply
sorry for asking, i just wonder iter and tesla almost the same, just like old time energy using sun and heat. sorry afaik
QuaMbear (
talk) 09:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Empathy for readers with poor internet connections
However, a major impetus behind my edits today was empathy for Wikipedia users with slow internet connections — which I myself suffer sometimes, even as a resident of Cambridge, Massachusetts. Merely having internal links without an informative description of what the reader will get if they hit on a link can be frustrating for those with poor interconnectivity, as this ties-up one’s computer unnecessarily to access an inadequately described Wikipedia page that’s ultimately not useful. Thus I added links with brief but informative descriptions, as well as expanded existing links, to better describe what they offer a reader.
Theophilus Reed (
talk) 23:28, 12 December 2022 (UTC) Theophilus Reedreply
The informative descriptions are GREAT and useful, Thanks! It is quicker to read an inline description than to click to read the article, no matter how fast your internet. ---Avatar317(talk) 22:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Remove false claim from the first paragraph
The claim ITER is "...aimed at creating energy by replicating, on Earth, the fusion processes of the Sun" should be removed from the first paragraph because it is false. The Sun relies on fusion of "standard" hydrogen (sometimes called protium in context) - a fuel that really is cheap and limitless. No contemplated fusion facility on Earth, and certainly not ITER, relies on this physical process. All tokamak-type reactors rely on deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion, a significantly different physical process. This change is important because the "fusion processes of the Sun" falsehood helps propagate the more significant "cheap and limitless fuel" myth. I say "myth" because tritium is expensive and severely constrained, not cheap and limitless. As the concerned community confronts the reality of the worldwide tritium shortfall later in the 2020s and 2030s, it will become increasingly important to correctly describe the physical processes involved in order to reset understanding of the issue after decades of such falsehoods. This proposed change is a first step in that direction. For a less technical discussion of the issue, see
https://www.science.org/content/article/fusion-power-may-run-fuel-even-gets-started; for a more technical discussion, see
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/abbf35/pdf. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.240.194.99 (
talk) 03:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I apologize for not creating an account until now - I am "73.240.194.99", the creator of this paragraph.
Pdxjjb (
talk) 03:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)reply
I see your point, (and that Science.org source could be used for a statement in the article) but as in any summary or teaching of a subject, we start with generalities which may not be exactly accurate and then progress to the exceptions. I've changed that to a hopefully more accurate statement. Thanks for pointing this out. ---Avatar317(talk) 23:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)reply
Article seemed to ignore the 2022 construction problems and effect on timescales
Article seemed to ignore the 2022 construction problems and effect on timescales - eg
[1]. -
Rod57 (
talk) 23:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
There was a brief mention in Manufacturing (using an older ref) - now also noted in Introduction and Timelines and status. -
Rod57 (
talk) 23:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Article needs updating, many sections have "as of 2023", and claims about "by the end of the year"; a time that has already passed.
I wrote the whole comment in the title
InterGraphenic (
talk) 19:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Eric Lerner in criticism section
Lerner is a well-known crackpot with a personal financial interest in dismissing ITER. I don't see a reason to give him a platform as primary source (!) in this article. Any objections to removing it? --
mfb (
talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
I support removing it, and also the following sentence, ("Other critics, such as Daniel Jassby, ...")sourced to an advocacy organization. ---Avatar317(talk) 01:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)reply