This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ITER article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	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.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 23, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physics High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Energy Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. European Union Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Technology & engineering / Science & education Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force. This article is supported by the science and education in Russia task force. Science Policy Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 - 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]

I wrote the whole comment in the title InterGraphenic (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

My attempt to remove a sentence has been reverted, so I open this discussion. The sentence was obviously added before the start of JT-60SA and the end of the Joint European Torus:

ITER will be the largest of more than 100 fusion reactors built since the 1950s, with ten times the plasma volume of any other tokamak operating today.

Here are the numbers for plasma volumes in m³: ITER 840, JT-60SA 140, JET 100 (reference). I decided against changing to "six times" because of Wikipedia:No original research. Kallichore (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with changing that statement to "since the 1950's, with six times the plasma volume as JT-60SA." with the new reference, just please don't remove the old reference, it is informative to the reader to state that we've build more than 100 fusion reactors to date. ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a doubling of "largest reactor" in the first paragraph, which makes it possible to remove one sentence:

ITER (initially the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, iter meaning "the way" or "the path" in Latin) is an international nuclear fusion research and engineering megaproject aimed at creating energy through a fusion process similar to that of the Sun. It is being built next to the Cadarache facility in southern France. Upon completion of construction of the main reactor and first plasma, planned for 2033–2034, ITER will be the largest of more than 100 fusion reactors built since the 1950s, with six times the plasma volume of JT-60SA, the largest tokamak operating today.

Are there objections to this change? I also prefer "creating energy through nuclear fusion" instead of "creating energy through a fusion process similar to that of the Sun", but this is another point. --Kallichore (talk) 14:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the first paragraph. For this I had to move the wikilink for Magnetic confinement fusion.--Kallichore (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per the lead both The United Kingdom and Switzerland who are currently highlited shouldn't be. I unfortunately can't make the changes myself so hopefully somebody sees this and does so. Also there should probably be some sort of highlighting done for the four partner countries. Brandon Downes (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Performances of the ITER Pressure Suppression System during unstable steam condensation regimes

The fact comes from the following source:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1741-4326/ad7b59

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference:

 {{Citation |title=User:DErenrich-WMF/Add A Fact Experiment |url=https://teknopedia.ac.id/wiki/User:DErenrich-WMF/Add_A_Fact_Experiment |work=Wikipedia |date=2024-09-30 |access-date=2024-09-30 |language=en |quote=and if we can support making it possible to contribute productively to Wikipedia from outside of Wikipedia, and if guidance to the contributor from a large language model (LLM) could be useful in this process. The idea was developed and workshopped with Wikipedians at}} 

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Chemipanda (talk) 12:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a "fact"? It's a sentence fragment without context Ita140188 (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chemipanda: was this post entirely machine-generated? It is nonsense. VQuakr (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ita140188 and VQuakr: See the "How it works" section of the https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Future_Audiences/Experiment:Add_a_Fact - Yes, it is all machine generated; I got an invitation to use this tool but I didn't think it would be good at paraphrasing text so I haven't tried it. ---Avatar317^(talk) 18:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: seems like it needs more work in a sandbox before it gets used in article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing this post, I agree. ---Avatar317^(talk) 19:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add at what beta ITER will run to the Technical specifications section of the infobox. Usually for experimental tokamaks, the beta parameter is 0.01 or 1%. 2A02:1811:B7B4:E800:55B6:D28C:9EE4:D673 (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Currently Template:Infobox fusion device does not support a beta parameter, but you can propose the inclusion on its talk page. --mfb (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]