Talk:Nuclear program of Iran

Need disclaimer on the top?

So at this point, this article covers both the nuclear program of Iran and the allegations of nuclear weapon development, and all related legal issues. Do we need a disclaimer at the top of the article directing readers to another article? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I find the Iran nuclear article to not be neutral. It omits many facts that are negative regarding Iran's efforts.66.169.39.255 (talk) 14:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I find that pretty unlikely considering the length of the article and the number of editors contributing to it. Did you have something specific in mind that is supposedly missing from the article? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article has a pro-Iran bias. The problem is not predominantly the omission of facts (although recent developments such as the latest tough IAEA report are omitted). The problem is that every factual statement about Iran comes with a rebuttal excusing Iranian actions. A secondary problem is the incoherent organization of the article, with many points addressed multiple times. This article is incurably bad. NPguy (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone can add the latest IAEA report. Since no specifics have been cited, the article in general is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view, so it is only natural that differing opinions will be given if and where they exist. In discussing the latest push for sanctions, for example, it would be natural not only to cite the push for sanctions but also the opposition by Turkey (due to the Israeli nuclear program), China or Sweden (diplomatic route not being exhausted), etc. The information, where ever it comes from, just needs to be attributable.--70.225.141.35 (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Why did the United States cut off fuel supply in 1979

Briefly, because Iran committed an act of war against the United States, violating international diplomatic norms by occupying the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and holding U.S. diplomats hostage. To overlook this fact and simply state that the United States abruptly cancelled nuclear fuel supply contracts is misleading and biased. NPguy (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your version has swung from one bias to the other. You guys should try and find some middle ground here, keeping WP:PRESERVE and WP:NPOV in mind. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 03:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It could just as easily be argued that the United States violated "international diplomatic norms" or "committed an act of war" by overthrowing a democrartically-elected government and upholding an autocratic ruler against the will of the Iranian people. One wonders what the reaction would be at the Qatari embassy in the United States if they installed an unpopular dictator and secret police to harass the populace.

Anyways, it would be much better if you could work to integrate the sources which are being provided instead of instantly removing them. I have worked to integrate your edits in to the article. Thanks,--99.162.55.0 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The rewrite seems much better to me.--69.219.234.33 (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There's been an ongoing dispute over why the US cut off nuclear fuel supply to Iran in 1979. There's been a lot of reverting and no real discusson. Some additional input from uninvolved parties on this highly controversial issue would be appreciated. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's generally accepted that the U.S. cut off nuclear fuel supply and assitance (and actively encouraged many other parties to do so as well) in response to the Iranian Revolution/the Iran Hostage Crisis.

I've had a hard time collecting what the particular issue here is, but I haven't understood why cited and attributed Iranian perceptions aren't deemed suitable for inclusion (anywhere in the article) when this is an article about the Iranian nuclear program. I think it would make perfect sense to find additional sources or reword in conformance with cited sources, but I haven't understood the major push for removal.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that it's the particular sources that aren't suitable. I think NPguys feels the article in general tends toward the Iranian viewpoint by always providing a rationale for its actions. Whether or not this is true, I think we have a version that everyone can live with, my RFC was created a little hastily, it seems. I've deleted it. In the future, it'd be nice if you guys could discuss things on the talk page after the first couple reverts rather than debate in the edit summaries. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Article lead POV

Coming to this article for the first time, I am shocked at the content of this article's lead. No mention of allegations of nuclear weapons development? No mentions of IAEA investigations, proposed sanctions, etc? The lead as written seems to implicitly endorse the Iranian POV that their nuclear program is purely peaceful, which does not seem to be the majority POV. Some mention of these allegations, which are of course easily sourced, needs to be in the lead as they are critical to an understanding of the topic. Oren0 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead was written the way it is because originally this article was supposed to be about the nuclear program as opposed to the nuclear controversy. Now it covers both. Probably couldn't hurt to rewrite the lead. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I would still suggest that the Iran and weapons of mass destruction article would be the main article about allegations of WMD development. There could be some summary style from here which would link to the main article.--69.219.234.33 (talk) 15:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Article should be split

I propose this long un-readable and biased against Iran article should be split into three articles which should be inclusive. I have noted that very few Iranian sources (persian language or other wise) have been used compared with western origin sources which of course would make the article highly biased and politicized, killing the facts. Infact right now it reads more like a report on Iraq weapons of mass destruction written by American newspapers in the run up to Iraq war. As I said earlier article should be split into three distinct ones, namely: 1-Nuclear program of Iran, which shall discuss the progress and happenings and history of Iranian nuclear program, 2- Iranian nuclear weapon program, which shall discuss the history and current status of Iran's weaponization of its nuclear knowledge and finally another article for Confrontation of west and Iran over nuclear porgram which should discuss all these IAEA and UN and Western point view regarding Iran's program. It should further be noted that wikipedia has separate such articles for other countries and it is amazing that only Iran's article has been kept at a such low standard of un-readablity so that public access to facts in article is almost impossible. --119.153.10.203 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You've demonstrated your own bias by alleging that all western sources are biased against Iran. 'Nuff said. It's pretty easy to come to a wiki article and start throwing around propositions and accusations of bias, but I don't think anyone has the time or motivation to split this article up. I certainly wouldn't trust you to do it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This article is biased against Iran??? One reason it's such a terrible article is that every negative fact about Iran's record has had to be "balanced" by a something excusing Iran's behavior. Iran's apologists have felt the need to insert editorial commentaries throughout the text. NPguy (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That English Wikipedia uses predominantly English sources shouldn't be any more suprising than the Farsi version using predominantly Farsi sources.

Of course, countering systemic bias, representing a worldwide view, and summarizing the article are all important. Any editor can make changes and making blanket statments isn't very constructive though. So perhaps it would be best to enumerate a specific plan, elaborate on the details of said plan, and gain a mutually acceptable WP:CONSENSUS.

-69.219.234.33 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Iran NPT violation claims

I'm not going to be initiating a lot of work on this article, but I noticed there is still a reference to the 2005 State Department document in the article. Since 2007-2008, the accusations seem to have fallen out of usage in US government documents. (For instance, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review says Iran has exhibited "continued defiance of international norms and agreement" and specifically has "violated non-proliferation obligations, defied directives of the United Nations Security Council, pursued missile delivery capabilities, and resisted international efforts to resolve" its crisis.) There appears to be somewhat of a debate, with the U.S. possibly pushing for stronger international recognition and enforcement at the next NPT Review Conference.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no change in the U.S. view that Iran violated the NPT, as well as its IAEA safeguards agreement and the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have any sources for this it would be wonderful if you added it to the article. As far as I am aware, the U.S. hasn't yet convinced the IAEA Board of Governors or the UN Security Council to include this in any of the relevant resolutions which would make it a formal finding.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 05:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

The US doesn't really answer to the UN. You seem to think the US has to prove something to the UN before it can take action, which is demonstrably false. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 07:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really understand what hypothetical U.S. action is being discussed if you could clarify, and I think this is getting off-topic.

The issue here is the U.S. asserting something in a State Department report five years ago (and then allowing it to fall out of its own vernacular) doesn't make it an undisputed fact or an internationally legally binding judgement. The U.S. opinion is just given as any other opinion and if there is a debate about an assertion then it should be provided regardless of who is doing the asserting. Anyways the current version seems fine and if there are any relevant sources renewing the U.S.'s assertions or discussing hypthetical U.S. actions I think they would be more than appropriate to add.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no formal international mechanism for determining violations of the NPT. It is left to individual parties to decide on their own. The IAEA has a related, but distinct authority to make findings of non-compliance with safeguards agreements. It found Iran in non-compliance in September 2005. While this is not logically identical to a violation of the NPT, it is reasonable to consider a violation of an NPT safeguards agreement as tantamount to a violation of the NPT itself. In particular, the NPT requires non-nuclear-weapon states such as Iran to accept IAEA safeguards on all nuclear materials. Iran's safeguards violations involved deliberate concealment of nuclear material, facilities and activities from the IAEA for a period of nearly two decades. It is hard to draw any conclusion other than that Iran violated its NPT obligation to accept safeguards.

The UN Security Council has the related authority for the maintenance of international peace and security. In Resolution 1887, the Council "Emphasizes that a situation of non-compliance with non-proliferation obligations shall be brought to the attention of the Security Council, which will determine if that situation constitutes a threat to international peace and security, and emphasizes the Security Council’s primary responsibility in addressing such threats." While not addressing Iran explicitly, it is directly relevant to the case of Iran, since Iran's safeguards agreement is a non-proliferation obligation. NPguy (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"There is no formal international mechanism for determining violations of the NPT. It is left to individual parties to decide on their own." Exactly. The U.S. can make one conclusion on whatever rationale it would like (some of which I believe you explain), and the rest of the world can make a completely separate decision on absolutely whatever rationale it would like. The UN Security Council has the authority to become involved, but usually does not have a responsibility to adjudicate treaty violations. Egypt, South Korea, and other nations have had similar safeguards violations, each of which is resolved somewhat differently, so a debate begins to form with cries of special treatment or a history of discrimination.

I think it would be best for the article to present some of the current procedures (the UNSEC mention), some of the views for and against NPT violation by Iran in particular, and then mention some efforts towards a more comprehensive approach to the problem (such as that proposed by Acton). For reference, Pierre Goldschmidt, a former Deputy Director General and Head of the Department of Safeguards at the International Atomic Energy Agency, has also made similar proposals for strenghtening the nonproliferation regime and procedures through an automatic and more comprehensive approach which is nation neutral.--76.213.221.152 (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I just did a major revision of this section. I deleted several paragraphs that were not directly relevant and rearranged the remaining text into a more logical order. Some of the deleted text may fit well in some other section, but because the article is already much too long and repetitive I did not try to find another home for any of it. I hope others will agree that the section is clearer, more concise and coherent. I would welcome comments, corrections and constructive copy-edits. But I hope others will set aside at least temporarily the temptation to engage in edit wars. If there are disagreements with the approach I've taken, let's discuss here first. NPguy (talk) 18:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw this here after I made some recent edits to the article. The section seems clearer, more concise and coherent. I am fairly happy with this current version.

The one thing that there appears to have been some back and forth on is the use of conclude with respect to the 2005 U.S. State Report. That this set this as as the 2005 U.S. policy is not questioned, but the use of the word "conclude" would imply that it is either appearing at the end of the report or that it is formally bringing something to a decision or settlement. The report itself places the relevant text in "analysis" or "findings" sections, so I think it would be appropriate to describe this as a U.S. interpretation, reasoning, or finding.--76.251.247.83 (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I think "found" implies a statement of fact, while "conclusion" reflects a judgment and is therefore more appropriate.

I also think the final part of this section, which deals with Article IV, is deficient. While it refers to "rights" to peaceful use of nuclear energy, which are recognized by NPT Article IV, it does not cite arguments directly related to the NPT. For example, there is also the point that Article IV rights are to be implemented "in conformity with Articles I and II," to which the 2000 NPT Review Conference also added (as a matter of policy - not law or legal interpretation) Article III. This directly relates Iran's safeguards violations to its peaceful use rights.

The Article IV is actually more controversial than whether Iran violated Article III, which most observers agree that it did. The argument by Michael Spies is defective, because it misses the fact that "diversion" includes failure to declare material that a country is required to place under safeguards, something Iran clearly did. Alexei Arbatov doesn't even address the Article III question. NPguy (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have much interest in evaluating or debating the differing interpretations of Article III compliance in the article, but to me it would seem the process determining compliance is somewhat subjective and ambiguous, and this is why there have been various proposals for how to strengthen the process.

I'm glad you acknowledge there is a discussion about the Article IV issues as well. I think the NPT section might be the best place in the article for such a discussion. I think the best thing to do would be to just document and describe the different positions. So the section might contain Iranian assertions about Article IV rights, some discussion about necessary conformance with Articles I and II (and III), and some brief reactions.--76.251.247.83 (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

External links

There are far too many here, as the hidden message says there is already enough and no need for more. But some links are already far too much. Some are news articles which can be cited in the text, some (youtube) have no source on who the videos are from. Only links that further reading should be there. One on the history is good (no need for several), one quick timeline, some analysis, etc.Lihaas (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

So be bold and fix it. This problem with external links has been going on for awhile now, but I'm not about to start edit warring over it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've cut a bit but its still too long, i dont want to get into an edit war about what goes and stays so i though we discuss it further first.Lihaas (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just have the page watchlisted, I don't pay attention to the external links. They're mostly added via driveby's. I don't think you'll run into any problems if you decide to hack away at it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

^232-234: presstv.ir This source should be clarified to show an Iranian State Company makes the statements. Links number is still too much. Iran's efforts with Brazil and Turkey could be one sub. 98.207.179.14 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)cAnight

im sorry, i dont understand this statement. if its just the citation number then be WP:Bold to alter it more suitably. what about the iran and brazil/turkey thing though?Lihaas (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Disputed sources/edit warring

There seems to be an edit war going on with these edits: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and the requisite reverts.

According to this editor [6] the previous edits were POV too.

I have already asked the editor responsible on his talk page why he believes the sources are unreliable for that text and he gave no reason so i'm asking this again (even though he has already gone about WP:3RR). The same editor removed text from the Iran section without citing any reason whatsoever which is POV and vandalism. Then he removed sourced info to add his own source and called the readdition of the sourced info redundant. If he would like to explain why he did this and what he thinks is controversial he can work on getting consensus here through discussion first instead of continuing with the POV edits.Lihaas (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've already answered that those sources are unreliable for that purpose and redirected you to discussing the issue in the RS noticeboard. Please don't readd questionable content until you get consensus about it and try to keep Wikipedia:Recentism out of this article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now another user keep readding the same problematic text without discussion. Al Jazeera is not a reliable source for that purpose, neither the Libyan website (Al Manar), most of the text is interpretation made by a single biased editor, this is an ongoing issue where opinions and facts are still being discussed and not very clear, the text is unbalanced towards Iranian POV (saying how Iran is collaborating and other countries not), excludes many countries positions (like China and Russia) and is redundant when it repeats a paragraph that was already rewritten. So stop readding that very same problematic edit. Get consensus about it in the talk page before!--Nutriveg (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The RS noticeboard said the sources were OK (for the purpose they are currently used) and about 4 people have restored the info. (I removed the few sentences which were using the questionable sources in an improper way.) You are the only one removing it, which means it is up to you to argue the content is bad here. You can't just keep unilaterally removing it because you think you are right and everyone else is wrong. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are just blind reverting, removing text that is not the least bit questionable (such as that sourced to PBS) instead of working on fixing the problem, whereas others have at least attempted to work toward a mutually acceptable solution. I'm sorry, but you actions are clearly in the wrong here. --ThaddeusB-public (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on the RS noticeboard reached a consensus they're not, only one editor said Al Jazeera was, but he was silent after other opposing views were presented.

Until now, no consensus was reached on the talk page about the changes added by this edit, so the previous version remains] until that change is agreed.

That citation of a PBS interview is WP:SYNTH and WP:Recentism. It's an interview transcript, so not editorial reviewed, unreliable as well. It's also redundant since there is already a similar analysis of the facts.

This issue is mostly ongoing news by now and doesn't deserve further attention until there's something more concrete about it, like Iran (not) submitting it to the IAEA until the deadline (Monday) or some important country making their final statement about it.

You're the one just reverting instead of addressing the points already mentioned here. I'm not the one proposing a change to the article.---Nutriveg (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean Nutriveg? At the RS board, there was only 2 person who replied to you (at the time of your edit) and only one person saying it's best if Al Jazeera is double checked. How did you take out of it that "The discussion on the RS noticeboard reached a consensus they're not, only one editor said Al Jazeera was, but he was silent after other opposing views were presented"? The third person who said anything replied that (in paraphrase): there is no reason to doubt that Al Jazeera is an unreliable sources.130.126.15.44 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, mine is the other said a better news source should be used, so improve it using other sources instead of just reverting to the same questionable sources!--Nutriveg (talk) 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

After the latest comments I reviewed my interpretation of the RS discussion: You can use Al Jazeera but only if attributed like "According to Al Jazeera ...", so it's better to still find another source instead of mess the text with unnecessary attributions.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

No such thing was said, what was actually said was "The Iranian media is subject to strict censorship. Can be used in order to show the position of the Iranian regime but always attribute. Al Jazeera is as a general rule to be regarded as reliable and doesn't need attributing." (bold added). The stuff originally sourced to the Iranian media has largely been removed, yet you continue to blind revert away Al Jazeera and other reliable sources. As you, yourself admit, the information is available elsewhere so if Al Jazeera bothers you so much, change it (don't delete it), but such a change is not actually required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quoting just one user opinion

Metropolitan asked for other sources "one should be able to refer to other media sources to confirm whether Al Jazeera got the story right"

Wehwalt said it "was best to attribute inline".

Dlabtot had COI.

That change in the text has many other problems beyond using Al Jazeera, as pointed above, but you ignored that refusing to address those problems, repeatedly making that same change, with the same problems without getting consensus over it.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, if you take quotes out of context and ignore opinions you don't like, you can reach any conclusion. Saying it wouldn't hurt to add another source is hardly the same as saying the source is unreliable. Furthermore, it is you, not me, who is blind reverting (or as you call it "ignoring"). I have made several attempts (as did previous editors) to meet your concerns, yet you blind revert back to the version with no information every time. I'm sorry, but that is not how we do things. You don't to unilaterally decide what is acceptable and revert back to your preferred reason over and over again. You must at least attempt to reach a mutually acceptable version by making incremental changes, not just removing (somewhat) different text over and over again to get back to the version you like. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't even say the same about you when you made that interpretation based solely in one quote.

Improvements should be made from a stable version, the last one which there was consensus over it. You only made minor edits after a major change made by a single editor that had many problems that were mentioned here (WP:SYNTH, WP:Recentism, unreliable sources, WP:NPOV, redundancy) while you tried to make like it was only one problem (unreliable source) with only one source (iranian). While you also misrepresented a discussion in the RS noticeboard.

Your edits so far were useless as possible. I may edit this article again from that stable version, but as I pointed above this issue is ongoing news that can completely change in 3 days so I'll better wait while the Wikipedia article is protected in this WP:recentism trashy version.

Hope to see you here on Monday the deadline for Iran to submit the deal.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to play semantic games, or actually discuss things? Your statement implied strongly that you were referring to that quote, so I reproduced it here since you seemed to me mistaken about its content. That is all.

So, what you have on the RS message board is two people who explicitly state Al Jazeera is OK and one that says other sources could be used. How you twist that into a consensus that it isn't OK, I have no idea.

My edit was not minor - I removed every sentence which was sourced to the Iranian media that wasn't explicitly Iran. Those were the only ones where there was a legitimate dispute over the reliability of the source. As to the alledged "many other issues": SYNTH doesn't even remotely apply - I don't know where you got that idea from. Recentism is a somewhat legitimate complaint, but since the material is notable, the correct way to deal with it is to split the article into subarticles. Just removing the text does nothing to help Wikipedia. The attribution concern has been addressed. And I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the material is redundant. To what exactly? The two sentences you left behind?

Finally, as has been explained to you at least 5 times, consensus exists already. Everyone who has touched the article or commented on the situation has disagreed with your position that none of the material belongs (minus the few sentences removed b/c of poor sourcing). That IS consensus for inclusion. We don't mandate votes before content can be added, but rather work through a process of implicit consensus. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not my problem if you can read only what you want.

My expressed problems were detailed above you didn't address them but only focused on the obvious Iranian media stupid thing, deleting a couple phrases, unable to find better sources or rewrite the article in a more balanced less interpretative version.

Reverting and going away is not a consensus process that can only be defined by a discussion on the talk page were people reach an agreement, consensus is not a number of people.

"the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change". You are the one supporting the change to the previous version.

I won't discuss ongoing news or keep explaining how bad is your interpretation. See you on Monday.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it should have been pretty clear to you that your words weren't the least bit clear and that you needed to explain what you meant, but as usual it looks like you are just going to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong. I focused on the sourcing, because you focused on the sourcing - if it wasn't your main concern, why did you open a thread on the RS message board and revert with a comment about bad sources (multiple times)? You most certainly do need to "keep explaining things" since you have yet to state why you think it is redundant, synthesis, unbalanced, or even why it is recentism (merely being recent doesn't disqualify it). You do realize that simple stating something doesn't make it true, right?

In regards to your "on Monday" comment, if that means you plan to resume the edit war as soon as the protection expires, I strongly urge you to reconsider your threat. Such behavior will almost certainly result it a rapid block. You may have bullied away the last two people who disagreed with you, but your immature and aggressive behavior isn't going to work on me. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't read I said Monday because that's when Iran is expected to submit (or not) the deal to the IEAE so other countries can finally make some concrete statements about it, so I won't discuss ongoing news.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is too big to follow the edit war, since it is so slow to load each revision. The current text needs a copy edit at a minimum. As currently drafted there's no reason for the "reactions" subsection, and there's an obvious redundancy in what analysts are cited as saying. NPguy (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the obviously redundant sentence (hopefully that was non-controversial enough to warrant editing through full protection). Apparently, it got accidentally duplicated at some point of the EW. As to the other part, if you are saying there is no need for the word "reactions" settign apart the text, then I agree with that. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That change is controverse because you're further editing (making minimal changes to) exactly the same paragraph discussed above and completely removed as redundant (there's already analysis on the text), WP:synth, unreliable source (an interview transcript not editorial reviewed) and undue (doesn't reflect general analysis of the issue). Please don't violate the article protection again, you have already made too much damage to this article, including forcing it's protection, so now wait and settle your WP:Recentism.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your post makes no sense. All I did was remove the duplication that you yourself complained about. Do you really want me to revert back to re-include the duplication that YOU complained about? I suspect not, which means you are just playing games, not trying to improve the article.

Also, please refrain from accusing people of "damaging" the article just because they disagree with your POV. No one is right all the time, including you, and the sooner you realize that sooner we can actually do something productive here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You edited exactly the text under dispute between you and me. Your edit minor changed that phrase keeping the same problems. It's not the same edit I made (and you reverted) you edited it by yourself. Unfortunately you see yourself above the protection of that page and don't understand what article protection means, so I just ask you to don't violate the article protection again to avoid further problems.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I "changed" it by removing the duplicate sentence that YOU objected to! Are just playing semantic games here or do you honestly want me to revert the duplicate sentence back in? --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph because of the problems with that paragraph (explained above) that should belong anywhere in the article! You slighly changed that text, just before the article protection and later moved it to section head. This is the last stable version of the article we can work from, not the one you changed before the article protection.-Nutriveg (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take your answer to mean you want to play games. If you object to the material once, you obviously don't want it twice! Thus, you are obviously just wikilawyering when you say I shouldn't have removed one of the two instances because it was under dispute. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Another copy edit needed. In this sentence "The deal came despite US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying there like chance for success without sanction," the word "like" should be "was." NPguy (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Try to find a source that says that first, and not making interpretations based other interpretations based on añ out of context phrase that has no reference of its actual context.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

One the protection expires, I will be happy to copy edit the whole section. Nutriveg already went ballistic about my first non-controversial edit, so I won't "provoke" him by making further non-controversial edits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, why is Al jazeera biased? that is your opinion. it is used across wikipedia and on the news pages. Secondly, i dont know if you have another al manar at hand but this is not Libyan. If jpost and ynet have any credence here these certainly do.

At any rate, if "the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change". then the status quo is the edit to include it until we get a consensus. You have violeted 3RR already

So as per the ascertation that the status quo prevails till consensus the original will stand before your removal. and these are your words

Furthermore, so far the talk page at the RS noticeboard on Al Jazeera is 5-1 in favour. Press TV is at a neutral point saying it can be used with other affirmation. and Al Manar (the most controversial) has only 1 response which doesnt say much. So all you claims that the WP:RS said it was unreliable have held no water. Lihaas (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I looked at the State Department web site and for other english language press sources for Clinton saying what Al Jazeera attributes to her, and didn't find anything. I believe the views attributed to Clinton are plausible - so I see no reason to delete the text in question - but my preference would be to cite a press source that is geopolitically connected to the speaker (Western) rather than a Middle Eastern press source that might filter Clinton's views through a regional perspective. Rather than edit warring the text, or taking abstract positions on the talk page, why not keep the text and look for additional sources? NPguy (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, brilliant. I agree. Its a good agreement. no harm in adding a fact tag and if nothing comes in due course remove it, better than taking it all out on a whim. Has the page opened up yet?

I must see NPguy we had a differences but here and in the Tehran article we're working along now.v Lihaas (talk) 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This article desperately needs split

A 260+K the article will take several minutes to load on a slow connection, and may not even load properly at all on older computers. (See WP:PAGESIZE.) Even on my fast cable connection, it takes a full minute to load. Please split some material off into more narrowly focused articles rather than trying to cram everything into one mega article.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll do this in a while. By largest sections first i guess till we scale it to less than 100k? (perhaps the controversial section above can be split off.

(well, when it opens up)Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking of moving the whole history section to "History of nuclear program of Iran", which would go along way toward fixing the problem by itself. Having a separate "history of" article is quite common. What do you think? --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. Half the page should go.

Although the uranium exchange may not be history exactly. Maybe a politican aspect of it? I see the political section is long too, maybe we can move that away because while it concerns the programme it is beyond just the programme and would be fitting from 2 angles thus more appropriate a split off. "Nuclear power as a political issue"/"views on Iran's nuclear power program"/"Uranium exchange" could alternatively go on to a "Politics of Iranian nuclear programme" page?Lihaas (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this is the best solution. The problem is not that the article contains too much good information; it's that it contains too much repetitive argumentation. It's incoherent, and its parts are no more coherent than the whole. But if anything the history is the more coherent piece, despite its selectiveness and recentism. Perhaps a better approach would be to keep the history part under the current title, and put the various debates and positions into a separate article, something like "Controversy over the nuclear program of Iran." I know "controversy" is a wikipedia cop-out, but given how bad those parts of the article are maybe that's the best we can do without wholesale editing. NPguy (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so 3 people with 3 different splits. History, controversy, and politics. All good options. But who's picking straws?Lihaas (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All may be appropriate, especially for an article of this length. We should just keep in mind preserving appropriate content (whether in another article) and using an appropriate summary style. I think it might make sense to start with the History since it is the longest and appears first in the article, but any of them would seem fine.--70.236.71.25 (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so we stand at History 2, Politics 1, controversy 1. I think i'll cut off history then before this goes on longer.Lihaas (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If you split it the wrong way you will end up needing multiple cross references. I can see pulling out a number of smaller articles from this one. One could be on Iran and the IAEA; another on Iran and the UN Security Council; another on the Tehran Research Reactor; another on Iran and the NPT. This article is about five times as long as an easily readible one, so a two-way split will not be enough. NPguy (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Uranium exchange" sub-section seems accurate and NPOV now

and I'll remove tag soon unless someone offers good reason(s) not to.Haberstr (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

well, since the RS noticeboard debate was inconclusive im going to back the sources and some more. But what do you think is NPOV about it? lets discuss so we can withdrawLihaas (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is always a subjective matter, but in controversial matters, in my humble opinion, NPOV means good faith provision of the various major perspectives, with 'major' determined by international and not just Western mainstream press coverage of the matter. There are now a diversity of international views. The sub-section's not "U.S/'the West'"-centric in how the exchange is being characterized and narrated, but that perspective is given a chance to provide its perspective. The U.S. & Russian 'Brazil will fail' predictions -- which were unimportant, incorrect, confusing to readers and seemed to be piling on -- were deleted.Haberstr (talk) 18:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the first paragraph has been reformed back to its unnecessarily-difficult-to-understand old self. Here is my version:

On 17 May 2010, Iran, Brazil and Turkey announced an agreement that would move about half of Iran's low-enriched uranium abroad for further processing into fuel rods which would then be returned to Iran for use in the Tehran Research Reactor.[224] The proposal was welcomed by Arab leaders,[225][226][227] China and, cautiously, by Russia.[228][229] In addition, French Prime Minister called the agreement a "positive step" toward resolving the Iran nuclear program dispute, if Iran were to cease uranium enrichment altogether.[230] EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton played down the agreement, saying it was a step in the right direction but did not go far enough and left questions unanswered.[231]

And here is the current version:

On 17 May 2010 the Foreign Ministers of Iran, Brazil and Turkey issued a declaration on the exchange of 1200 kgs of Iran's low-enriched uranium - which would be held in Turkey - for fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor.[224] A week later, Iran conveyed its support for the proposed fuel exchange to the IAEA and asked the IAEA to inform the United States, Russia and France in order to begin negotiation of a formal agreement.[225] The proposal was welcomed by Arab leaders,[226][227][228] China and, cautiously, by Russia.[229][230] France's Prime Minister called the agreement a "positive step" toward resolving the Iran nuclear program dispute, if Iran were to cease uranium enrichment altogether.[231] EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton played down the agreement, saying it was a step in the right direction but did not go far enough and left questions unanswered.[232] U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the proposal had "a number of deficiencies," including Iran's intention to continue enriching uranium to high levels.[233]

Is "issued a declaration" really necessary? That may be technically accurate diplomatic language, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public, and the term in the media is "announced an agreement." The second sentence is unnecessary; it concerns a technical, red-tape matter, and is not 'news'. Oh well; the specificity about Turkey is fine, and the final three paragraphs (as I revised them) have not been changed.Haberstr (talk) 19:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally recommends using the most common English-language terminology which is found in reliable sources. In this case, Google news gives the following feedback:

News query	Results
iran turkey brazil deal	5020
iran turkey brazil agreement	2950
iran turkey brazil declaration	706
iran turkey brazil announcement	417
iran turkey brazil accord	380
iran turkey brazil pact	221
iran turkey brazil pledge	25

--70.236.71.25 (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I reverted to "issued a declaration" for accuracy. There is no deal yet, only Iran's announcement of its willingness to accept one. But the key parties to a "deal" (the IAEA, Russia, France and the United States) have not yet agreed to anything.

I also restored the NPOV tag, because of the large number of added commentaries supposedly supporting the proposal. This gives undue weight to those welcoming it, compared to those who are skeptical. I think we could do with a fraction of the positive commentaries and one or two skeptical ones, or dispense with the commentaries altogether.NPguy (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

On the first issue, the common perception in the sources is that there was a "deal" reached between Brazil, Turkey, and Iran. I don't think this insinuates that the "deal" is binding on those who are not party to the "deal". I don't really see why it matters if it is called a deal, agreement, declaration, etc. but it is our goal to the reader to present the most common name which appears. If we would also like to include the formal name (which I believe is "Joint Declaration by Iran, Turkey and Brazil") we could source it in for completeness from one of the places where the text appears [7].

On the other issue, the tag should stay until all the editors are happy. I think some commentaries are appropriate to gaining an understanding of the opinion surrounding the proposal, and I think specifically that the letter mishap provides an insight in to the mindset and complexity of diplomacy. I could see slightly pruning the other commentary and/or replacing a few commentators if others perceive a problem, but some roles (such as IAEA Director General or UN Secretary General are notable positions can't be swapped very interchangably).--70.236.71.25 (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)