Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
| Most discussions were cut and then pasted to Talk:Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as related to the subtopic. See talk page history. |
| A news item involving Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 15 July 2015. |
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents
- 1 WP:BOLD move to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
- 2 JCPOA violation through non-termination of sanctions
- 3 JCPOA contradictions
- 4 Analysis
- 5 Requires Senate Approval and 98-1 is not just Republicans
- 6 vandalism by user 'sky harbor'
- 7 Checks and balances or Republicans vs. Democrats?
- 8 Side deals article
- 9 Nuclear impacts section
- 10 This article lacks perspective
- 11 Will the U.S. help Iran to protect its nuclear facilities from sabotage?
- 12 Lead
- 13 "Summary of nuclear provisions" table
- 14 NYT piece
- 15 RfC: Should the lead explicitly state that the P5+1 have accepted that uranium enrichment will take place in Iran?
- 16 Useless non-quote from Ernst / Dempsey colloquy (Dempsey's testimony)
- 17 Start of section on Republican congressional review
- 18 Belfer chart
- 19 Background on enrichment and proliferation
- 20 Max Fisher piece
- 21 Polling
- 22 Khamenei quotes
- 23 "Moderate" Rouhani?
- 24 Black propaganda
- 25 Great job
- 26 US Sanctions
- 27 Views on JCPOA
- 28 Article TOOOOO long - Needs to be divided into a few articles.
- 29 Legal aspects of Iran’s threat of genocide - is it a random fringe?
WP:BOLD move to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action[edit]
The article was just WP:BOLDly moved to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I suggest that it seems undesirably vague to have a title that does not include either of the words "Iran" and "nuclear". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- I get the concern, but using the official name is desirable here because there have been multiple Iran nuclear deals - there was the Geneva interim agreement (the Joint Plan of Action), the April 2014 framework deal (the Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), and this agreement (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action); if we use the official name, we minimize confusion among them. We have the proper redirects in place, and it'll be easily accessible from search engines. Neutralitytalk 20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would prefer to keep the title "Negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran" for the current article, "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" can be a redirect, and to use the title "Implementation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran" for future developments. Yagasi (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- But this article is on the agreement itself, not just the negotiations leading up to it. Neutralitytalk 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- The agreement itself exists less than 24 hours. The negotiations took about 2 years. The implementation will probably take more than 20 years. Too much content for a single article and even for 2 articles. "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" may be a separate article and include most of the updates (new sections) made today. Yagasi (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- After looking over the article, I do agree with you that there's a morass here, and that two articles are called for. I'm especially concerned that readers were having trouble distinguishing between the negotiations (and all the rapid changes over time, etc.) and the final agreement. Accordingly, I've split off the negotiations page (Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) from the page addressing the actual final agreement (this page, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). It's not perfect, but I think it makes things more manageable. Neutralitytalk 07:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I restored and reviewed the missing details in Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It looks better now. Yagasi (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- After looking over the article, I do agree with you that there's a morass here, and that two articles are called for. I'm especially concerned that readers were having trouble distinguishing between the negotiations (and all the rapid changes over time, etc.) and the final agreement. Accordingly, I've split off the negotiations page (Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) from the page addressing the actual final agreement (this page, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). It's not perfect, but I think it makes things more manageable. Neutralitytalk 07:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- The agreement itself exists less than 24 hours. The negotiations took about 2 years. The implementation will probably take more than 20 years. Too much content for a single article and even for 2 articles. "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" may be a separate article and include most of the updates (new sections) made today. Yagasi (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- But this article is on the agreement itself, not just the negotiations leading up to it. Neutralitytalk 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. Undesirably vague. The title needs included the words "Iran" and "nuclear". Move it back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
JCPOA violation through non-termination of sanctions[edit]
The article fails to mention that Iran can summon UNSC under JCPoA as soon as, say USA, is in violation of its sanction-termination obligation. Obviously, AIPAC will push for this as well as non-ratification of the JCPOA. Also, the whole "snap back" verbiage is highly dubious. Russia did not go along with such a notion fundamentally incompatible with UNSC practises. --91.60.150.236 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
JCPOA contradictions[edit]
"iii. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons. "
§ 37. "Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part. "
So, if sanctions are reimposed, Iran will cease to NOT ever acquire nukes.
_____________
vii. The EU+3 acknowledge that the NPT is the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.
This is utterly wrong, next to meaningless dribble. None of EU+3 ever disarmend the slightest bit. --91.60.147.242 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Under the NPT, the permanent members of the UNSC are the only countries allowed to have nukes. Germany doesn't have nukes. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Analysis[edit]
Do we need an analysis section? Mhhossein (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Neutrality: I saw that you removed this section. May I know the reasoning behind that? Mhhossein (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
-
- Do you mean this diff? It's because that topic is dealt with in the International reactions section (under "Iran"). Also because it's outdated; it discussed the so-called "red lines" without mentioning the crucial fact that the Iranians ultimately yielded on many of the so-called lines. 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Neutrality: The reaction section is not covering the the issue well (what do you think?), although this section (analysis) was aimed to cover other analytical comments and not only those related to Khamenei. Btw, whether the red lines were crossed or not is not the issue here, the sources say that he defined some red lines which may be inserted as a fact. Mhhossein (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you mean this diff? It's because that topic is dealt with in the International reactions section (under "Iran"). Also because it's outdated; it discussed the so-called "red lines" without mentioning the crucial fact that the Iranians ultimately yielded on many of the so-called lines. 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Requires Senate Approval and 98-1 is not just Republicans[edit]
On May 7th, 2015, the U.S. Senate, in a vote that was 98-1, passed a Bill, DAV15280 - "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015". This gives the Senate 60 days to review this action by the President. - http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.615_Iran_Nuclear_Agreement_Review_Act_of_2015.pdf
On May 11, 2015, the United States Senate by a bipartisan vote 90-0, called for Iran to immediately release: Shown Here: Passed Senate without amendment (05/11/2015) (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) States that it is U.S. policy that: (1) the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran should immediately release Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian, and cooperate with the U.S. government to locate and return Robert Levinson; and (2) the U.S. government should undertake every effort using every diplomatic tool at its disposal to secure their release. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/16
The U.S. Constitution says the following: “The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....”
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause
The Senate is currently composed of 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 2 Independents. The President does not have 2/3's of the Senators to concur, however, has enough votes to uphold a veto. Whether this type of procedure violates the Constitution may be eventually up to the Supreme Court, and that could be 5-4...
The matter of Iran holding U.S. Citizens, arms for hostages, will be considered by the Senate before this is ratified.Easeltine (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bottom line, if the Senate rejects this agreement, it's dead. No ifs/ands/buts. The Administration would be on very perilous ground. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The claims above are false. The JCPOA is not a treaty. It is not a legally binding agreement at all. It does not require Senate advice and consent to ratification. The statute cited above provides a sixty-day review period during which U.S. sanctions cannot be saived and Congress can pass legislation to block the JCPOA, but like any other legislation it is subject to a Presidential veto. This veto requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to override. In other words, the burden is on opponents of the JCPOA to get two-thirds of both the House and Senate to block the JCPOA. This is quite unlikely. NPguy (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Need an RS to back up whatever it is you are trying to say - your own interpretations of law have no validity via the Article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
vandalism by user 'sky harbor'[edit]
This 'SK' vandal removed below crucial info without stating any reason. He is an obvious wikipedia abuser!
"The agreement provides that if Iran fails to fulfill its commitments before statutes of limitations apply, these sanctions will automatically be re-imposed. If sanctions are re-imposed, Iran stated it will no longer perform its commitments under JCPOA, which include the Non-Acquirement of nuclear weapons." --91.60.142.211 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Checks and balances or Republicans vs. Democrats?[edit]
The section Review period in the United States Congress is supposed to cover the issues related to checks and balances between the legislative (Congress) and executive (President) branches of the U.S. government under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. It could be expected that a significant part of the section is devoted to the review process of the agreement and to the interaction between the Congress and the executive branch of the government. It also could be expected that the information is presented in a balanced way, the opinions are in correct proportions, both facts and opinions are presented without awarding points, and feelings of a newsperson or a lawmaker are not provided to the WP consumer as a factual report and he is permitted to form his own opinion.
But actually the section presents a highly imbalanced, non-neutral, unfair and unproportional text, which is overloaded with irrelevant information. The section should be rewritten. I placed the template POV section on the section and bellow is the detailed explanation. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Imbalance in use of quotations[edit]
The section includes 4 quotes from President Barack Obama and 2 quotes from Secretary of State John Kerry, some of the quotes are rather long. But there is one quote only from the members of Congress, and this member doesn't refer to the agreement but deals with criticisms of her colleagues. And what about the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Bob Corker, the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Ed Royce and the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who opened Committees hearings? There is not a single quotation from their speeches on the deal in this WP section although they were posted to the Web. The imbalance between the Congress and the administration is more than obvious. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I added quotations from some Representatives and their viewpoints are more balanced now. The NOV problem for Senators isn't solved yet. Yagasi (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
After adding relevant quotes from several senators I intended to close the discussion in this subsection. But this edit prevented me from doing so, since the quotes of congressmen responding to Obama's "Republican caucus" statement were considerably shortened. The paragraph includes 117 words in the quotes from the president and his administration and only 68 words in the quotes from congressmen. Their qoutes shouldn't be shortened. Apparently the imbalanced (or even tendentious) use of quotes continues. This disbalance can't be justified as the two branches of government have significant role in the congressional review. Yagasi (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The quotes of different viewpoints in the section are more balanced now. The discussion is closed for now. Yagasi (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfavorable presentation of one the major political parties[edit]
The section includes the following:
- "uniform animus of Republicans" at the hearing
- Republican senators giving "long and often scathing speeches denouncing what they described as a fatally flawed agreement and accusing the administration of dangerous naivete" and showing "little interest in responses" from the three cabinet secretaries
- criticisms by Republicans were "ridiculous," "unfair," and "wrong."
This kind of expressions, not being factual and presented only in relation to one party, is unfair, unbalanced, and apparently irrelevant to the presentation. Even if the expressions are mentioned in respectable sources like Washington Post or New York Times, the WP editor must review whether this level of presentation and style is eligible for this encyclopedia. I tried to remove two of the above extracts (diff), but the user Neutrality restored them claiming "I think it's important to characterize the tenor of the hr'g." The current issue illustrates once more that the section is non-neutral, unfair and based on double standards. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Due weight: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Wikipedians are invited to give their opinion whether the above 3 expressions are fair or unfair. I claim that the first two of them violate WP:ASSERT and the third one is less problematic. May be the first statement should be attributed to the persons: "Jonatan Weisman and Michael R. Gordon from the New York Times wrote that Kerry, Lew, and Moniz faced "uniform animus of Republicans" at the hearing."? Yagasi (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Unproportional coverage of the third parties' opinions[edit]
It can be assumed that the plan of action has certain advantages and vulnerabilities and some of these could be found among the opinions of its proponents and opponents. However the section is overloaded with irrelevant endorsing "welcome messages" that hardly belong to the Review section. May be they can be placed in the Reactions section, but anyway the text lacks an honest discussion of the vulnerabilities of the deal that should be presented along with its advantages. The section includes a long list of politicians, retired military officers and diplomats supporting the agreement. But no politicians, retired military officers and diplomats that point out any vulnerabilities of the deal are mentioned. Why are not covered the concerns of former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Schultz, Ambassadors Dennis Ross and Charles Hill, General James Mattis, and others? The above analysis affirms the conclusion that different opinions are represented unproportionately and the promoters of the agreement have received an unfair advantage. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Re the hearing: The quoted matter is from reliable sources (the Washington Post and the New York Times). This is how they characterized the hearing - and it reflects what actually occurred. I do not view it as passing judgment on anyone.
- As to the third parties' opinions, the inclusion of the letters of support (as well as letters of opposition) are included as reflective of opinions of various significant persons who have weighed in on the JCPOA. (They are also a useful organizing tool, as they are collective opinions from dozens of people, rather than cherry-picked individuals. As for other individuals not mentioned - they can probably be included, as appropriate, if proper references are given.
- I have added some content referring to Dennis Ross' expressed views, and removed the tag. Does this assuage some of your concerns? I'm willing to work with you to add some content reflective of all sides of the question - understanding, of course, that is is not a simple support/oppose proposition, but is a multifaceted issue with lots of nuance. Neutralitytalk 01:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nothing was claimed about reliability, but about POV and this received no answer yet. Working with me assumes answering and discussing the above issues. The tag was removed in violation of When to remove and was reset. Yagasi (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Explaining/recounting the points of view of various parties (especially as filtered through reliable media outlets) is not a POV issue. When we explain or recount the views or actions of others, we are not endorsing them in our own voice. As I have already said, we do not pass judgment. I am happy to expand the section with the views of others, but I'm not OK with leaving the article incomplete or excising the widely reported-on reality of the congressional hearings.
- As for the people you name-dropped earlier: many of them have not made public written statements on the final agreement. Kissinger and Shultz's WSJ op-ed was in April, before the final agreement was announced, and they have made no public comment since, as far as I can see. Ditto with Mattis - I see nothing from him. Do you have proposed language? Neutralitytalk 12:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Before I can answer you I would like to know to what extent there is a consensus between us. Do you agree that the agreement was achieved by the President and is reviewed by Congress? Do you agree that the President and Congress play the main role in the review process? Do you agree that the issue is related to checks and balances? Yagasi (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not going to engage in a debate with you on executive and legislative powers in foreign policy (if you're interested, go read Dames & Moore v. Regan).
- If what you're really asking is: "Should the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 be dealt with in this article?" then the answer, of course, is yes - which is why a large chunk of this article is devoted to the Act and the review period under it.
- So again, bringing it back to the article (which is this talk page exists): do you have proposed language? Neutralitytalk 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Simple questions - complex answer. However, there is consensus at least in one point: the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 should be dealt with in this article. And the Act is intended "To provide for congressional review ... of agreements relating to Iran's nuclear program" that the President will "transmit to the appropriate congressional committees". I would like you to understand that what is complete (or NOV) in one article (section), may be incomplete in another. Significant elements of an article and its scope should be agreed by consensus. Yagasi (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Giving due weight is a POV issue and that includes quantity of text. Balancing significant viewpoints is a POV issue either. You are right, indeed, Kissinger and Shultz's article was in April after the framework. Hill and Mattis spoke after the agreement, but first things (imbalance with the representatives and senators viewpoints) first. Yagasi (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Re "imbalance" - under "reactions" we quote (or have a reaction) from McCain, Corker, Boerner, McConnell, Graham (congressional Republicans) and Pelosi, Reid, and Sanders (congressional Democrats), plus various non-congressional folks on either side (Hillary, Jeb, etc.) That seems perfectly proportional to me. As to the "congressional review" section below, we quote from Royce, Engel, Sander Levin, and Boxer, and we explain more generally (i.e., without quoting) what the main issues are. That seems pretty legit to me. We can always tinker around the edges, but I'm not seeing a huge discrepancy. I also think we need to be particularly attuned to avoiding redundancy; i.e., we needn't (and shouldn't) recount each members' opinion or statement, but merely take a rough sampling with a focus on the more important figures. Neutralitytalk 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Side deals article[edit]
I think this article should link to the Iran-IAEA side deals article. My previous attempt to do so was reverted. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- The link should be restored. The Iran-IAEA side agreements are the core of JCPOA verification provisions. Yagasi (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- The entire premise of that article is flawed. It is entirely appropriate for that article to remain an orphan unless and until is if in decent shape. In response to the comment above, the fundamental verification provisions of the JPOA are in the JPOA itself, as well as in Iran's safeguards agreement and Additional Protocol. NPguy (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
-
Nuclear impacts section[edit]
I see a recent edit allegedly "folded in" the nuclear impacts section to history. The strange thing is that the key facts from that section seem to have disappeared. For example, after ten years, even if Iran keeps the deal, everyone agrees that its breakout time will drop dramatically. That's important and is not the kind of information that should be dropped in a "folding in." Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- The breakout time stuff is at the bottom of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action#Nuclear (which I just added a bit to using the All Things Considered Aug. 11 piece). Neutralitytalk 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
This article lacks perspective[edit]
When I look at this article, I see a focus on short-term detail, while ignoring larger trends. For instance, much is made of some (debatable) estimates of what Iran's breakout time is immediately before and immediately after the deal, assuming they implement their part without cheating. The problem here is that it is missing the longer-term picture. What was their breakout time in 1995? (very long) What will it be in 2030? (very short, assuming they haven't broken out already). Yes, we say that, far down, but such obviously critical information needs much more prominent treatment.
Similarly, much is made of the fact that there will now restrictions on Iran's uranium enrichment. But what about the bigger picture? A major goal of the whole nonproliferation regime was to prevent the spread of enrichment technology. Many countries have nuclear power programs without enrichment -- see here[1]. If all Iran wanted was nuclear power, they could have it, no problem, without any enrichment capability at all. This agreement has abandoned the Bush Administration's prior insistence, as well as the prior insistence of several European powers, that Iran did not need to be enriching. The article talks about how their enrichment R&D has gone from "unconstrained" to "constrained", which is true -- but in 1995 it was "nonexistent", or very close, and in 2030 it will be plenty advanced. Furthermore, this agreement moves their enrichment capacity from "fair game for sabotage" to "protected by the international community". I don't think the article mentions that at all. That's what the JCPOA does, and the article should say so, right up front, not buried deep in some obscure paragraph most readers will never see.
This is only one of many problems of the tree-focused nature of the article. But it's the biggest and most obvious one, and it needs to be fixed. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Will the U.S. help Iran to protect its nuclear facilities from sabotage?[edit]
- I think that the innovation associated with the Iranian enrichment "protected by the international community" deserves a better coverage. By contrast, the Background section can be significantly shortened as this content was covered in Nuclear program of Iran. Yagasi (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- This includes, for example, "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems." (Article 10, Annex III) Yagasi (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Sorry, but this seems like a deliberate misreading of the deal. NPguy (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Deliberate? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this seems like a deliberate misreading of the deal. NPguy (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Lead[edit]
To remedy the above-described problem, I propose that the third paragraph of the lead be altered to begin as follows:
Under the agreement, the Western powers accepted uranium enrichment in Iran. Iran agreed to . . . [continue as before]
The boldface part would not actually be bolded; I bolded it simply to show what would be added. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Gah, no. First, that sentence is wholly redundant to the following two sentences, which outline specifically what is permitted (i.e., what and how many centrifuges and what type and quality of uranium). Similarly, it misleads the reader; phrased as a flat statement, it disregards all the limits placed on enrichment; the reader has to go on to a second and third sentence in order to get the full picture. Second, that sentence is factually inaccurate, as the P5+1 includes China and Russia, which are not "Western powers." This lead as it stands now, the stable version, is fine. Neutralitytalk 17:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
OK, take 2, addressing 2 out of your 3 issues:
Under the agreement, the P5+1 accepted uranium enrichment in Iran, subject to certain limitations. Iran agreed to . . .
Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- It's still redundant in the extreme. Neutralitytalk 20:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I have stayed away from editing this article as it has been under such heavy revision. I wanted to wait for it to settle down. The lede could probably be improved by including some more facts on the time frames, including clarifying which elements are temporary and which are permanent. I don't necessarily think the comparisons or "perspective" cited in the previous thread is what is needed here, but comparing to the situation before the JPOA would be appropriate. NPguy (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
-
"Summary of nuclear provisions" table[edit]
I'm removing this table per WP:NPOV. It is from an article whose subtitle "why an imperfect deal is better than none," which right there shows its bias. Additionally, it cherry picks to give a favorable view. For example, the "after JCPOA" column actually represents the situation immediately after JCPOA implementation, while ignoring what Iran could do 10 or 15 years out. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Well, I disagree that it's POV; the information is accurate and the summary is accurate. On the other hand, I do concede that it lacks nuance, since it does not include timeframes (although conceivably those could be added in a footnote within the table, as the source table does). So I can understand an objection on grounds of lack of detail ... I'd like to see if @NPguy: has any thoughts on it. The relevant diff is [2] and the source table is [3]. Neutralitytalk 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I undid the deletion, but changed the heading to make clear the limits of the table. It does not cover all provisions of the JCPOA for all time. But I don't see any bias. The omissions (nothing about the strong inspection provisions, the limits on Arak and weapons-related activity, the procurement channel, etc) are more important in understating the significance of the JCPOA than the potential misunderstanding of the time-frame. NPguy (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
-
NYT piece[edit]
Re this diff: User:Iran nuclear weapons 2 removed a quote from a New York Times news analysis. I've restored it. I'm not sure what the objection is (no reason was given), but it seems useful to me: it explains (accurately) why Republicans in Congress oppose the deal, which is an important aspect of the political debate that a reader would natural want to know. The quote (and the piece as a whole) is pretty balanced; it briefly give five reasons why opposition among the Congressional Republican caucus is so strong. If the quote were from some sort of polemical op-ed, I could understand the objection - but this is mainstream, helpful analysis. Neutralitytalk 22:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Much more accurate to actually quote the Republicans in question, rather than lead off with analysis from a source which is generally hostile to Republicans. Just as we don't lead off Obama's position with an analysis from the Wall Street Journal, we shouldn't lead off the Republicans from the NYT. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, if you look at the actual quotes from Republicans, there is a strong contrast to the NYT analysis. None of them talk about denying Obama a foreign policy victory; indeed on another issue (trade), the Republicans have been much more willing than Democrats to support an Obama initiative foreign policy initiative, with the TPP getting through the Senate with only 14 Dem votes, due to almost uniform Republican support [4]. If you look at the Republicans' actual statements, it is much more about assertions that the agreement is dangerous, a "death sentence for Israel", vulnerable to Iranian cheating, likely to result in an Iranian Bomb, inadequately verified, and so forth. Hence the evidence contradicts the NYT's assertion that Republicans won't give Obama a foreign policy victory; on trade, they did exactly that, and on this issue, their actual statements focus on other concerns entirely.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- First - that news analysis (and the source generally) are not "generally hostile to Republicans." Maybe the editorial page, but not the reporting/analysis side.
- Second - there's no basis in policy for the proposition that "we can only explain the position or motivations of a group via a direct quotes." First off, that's not what encyclopedias have done ever, really. Second, there are plenty of things that are well-accepted by scholars, but never directly said by a party itself directly. :::Third, there are multiple (probably a dozen or more) parts of the article where we directly quote from opponents of the deal in their own words proferring the reasons for their opposition. Neutralitytalk 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- To me, the NYT analysis -- while likely correct -- seems like a gratuitous attack on the motives of Republican opponents of the Iran deal. It seems unnecessary here. NPguy (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. I can see that in the second sentence (the one about denying Obama a foreign policy victory). How about this proposal: we delete that sentence, and retain the first one (the one that says that opposition is "born of genuine distaste for the deal's details, inherent distrust of President Obama..."). Neutralitytalk 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Per this discussion, I removed the second sentence. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm. I can see that in the second sentence (the one about denying Obama a foreign policy victory). How about this proposal: we delete that sentence, and retain the first one (the one that says that opposition is "born of genuine distaste for the deal's details, inherent distrust of President Obama..."). Neutralitytalk 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- To me, the NYT analysis -- while likely correct -- seems like a gratuitous attack on the motives of Republican opponents of the Iran deal. It seems unnecessary here. NPguy (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
RfC: Should the lead explicitly state that the P5+1 have accepted that uranium enrichment will take place in Iran?[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is consensus against including the proposed text in the lede. AlbinoFerret 16:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Proposed text: Under the agreement, the P5+1 accepted uranium enrichment in Iran, subject to certain limitations. Iran agreed to . . . [continue as it currently does]
The bolded part would not actually be boldface; I'm bolding it to show what would change. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Proposer's statement This acceptance is a core term of the agreement, reverses multiple UN resolutions demanding that Iran halt enrichment, and represents a failure of the longstanding attempt to prevent the spread of enrichment technology because it can be used to make nuclear weapons, giving substance to both implicit and explicit nuclear threats. As such, it needs to be stated explicitly, in the lead. Therefore, I support the proposal. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
| proposer's responses |
|---|
|
An aside on RFC threads, I feel that they have a tendency to become unreadable, largely because people answer each other back and forth, sometimes leading to interminable bits of text between actual responses. In an effort to make this different, I am going to try an experiment by putting my responses in my own section, collapsed, so that people can read the thread without them if they so choose. I encourage other users to follow suit; let's see if it gives us a more readable thread.
|
- Oppose. As I stated above, it is both redundant with the sentences immediately following it and lacks nuance, in that it implies a sharp shift in policy, when that was not actually the case. See, e.g., U.S. Position on Iran Enrichment: More Public Recognition Than Policy Shift." Neutralitytalk 13:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, clunky, unnecessary, and makes assertions not in evidence as noted above. I'd also question the faith of this RfC, given the OP's declared socking to avoid scrutiny on their user page. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Support: Since signing the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) the P5+1 shifted from zero enrichment requirement to limited enrichment negotiating position ("comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures"). This was a significant concession by the P5+1 (or a significant achievement for Iran) and became one of the few core issues of the JCPOA ("Iran will carry out its uranium enrichment-related activities… keep its level of uranium enrichment at up to 3.67%…"). Yagasi (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: The rest of the paragraph currently makes this plenty clear. "Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67% ... Uranium-enrichment activities will be limited to a single facility ...". I don't think any readers will misunderstand that some enrichment is allowed. (Did something change since the RFC?)
- Or maybe you're unhappy that this seems like a positive spin: "Less enrichment than before", rather than "More enrichment than zero as previously hoped". Is that what you're thinking? Anyway I would disagree with that. I think the most important information in an article like this is "what does the treaty propose, compared to the status quo", rather than "what does the treaty propose, compared to previously-stated demands of the two sides, i.e. who conceded what". The latter is also important, and should be in the article somewhere, but I think the former is the most important information and is the right perspective for the intro. I haven't read many wikipedia articles about treaties, but the ones I've seen have indeed emphasized in the intro what the treaty actually says and how it changed things compared to the status quo, rather than who conceded what in the process of negotiating the treaty. (The latter is in the article, but not really in the intro.) For example, here's one. --Steve (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Useless non-quote from Ernst / Dempsey colloquy (Dempsey's testimony)[edit]
Re this diff, on text inserted (and then reinserted again) by User:Yagasi - this quote is entirely useless to the reader. It consists entirely of a strange colloquy between Joni Ernst and Martin Dempsey, based on this following Washington Post report:
- Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) asked Dempsey who had advised Obama that war or the agreement were the only two options. The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he didn’t know.
- “I can tell you that we have a range of options and I always present them,” Dempsey added.
Is there any serious argument that this provides anything of value to the reader, much less value requiring a full quote (which are to be using sparingly anyway, WP:QUOTE)? This colloquy illustrates nothing at all, except that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not sit in on every one of the president's briefings and meetings (which is both self-evident, and irrelevant to the topic). Moreover, it's redundant with statements from Dempsey on the range of options already appearing in this article.
And, finally, we amply and directly address the question of the alternatives to the agreement/effect of rejecting an agreement/whether a "better deal" is possible further down, in "Congressional support and opposition" - where we have a much less cryptic, more informative bit where we quote Corker/Schumer vs. Obama/Kerry/Franken, with a footnote adding views with scholars on both sides. Neutralitytalk 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- My own view is that the article as a whole needs more topical organization, rather than temporal organization. By which I mean that, if you include an Obama quote about whether or not there are alternatives other than war, you should one opposing viewpoint, immediately following the Obama quote. I think it is important to keep "war" quotes grouped together -- and similarly for other topics. This lets the reader make up their own mind, and, critically, makes it possible to do so without jumping around what is rapidly becoming a very long article. We've succeeded in doing exactly this in the "provisions" section, for example, where supporting and opposing quotes for a specific provision are directly adjacent. Additionally, for specific sub-themes, we should use whatever is the strongest quote we can dig up for or against a given idea. So, for example, if someone comes up with a quote that is stronger than Pandit on the subject of snapback, it would make sense to put that in, in place of the Pandit quote. This last part would need to be relaxed in the case of highly notable individuals; if multiple such say pretty much the same thing, it could make sense to include all of them. Now, on the subject of the Dempsey quote specifically, it does relate to the question of whether or not there are options other than war, but it's also a pretty weak quote. Therefore, it should be included if we have nothing stronger on the topic of war and on the same side as Dempsey. If/when someone comes up with something better, that should go in, and Dempsey should come out.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- What do you mean by "weaker"/"stronger"? If you mean stronger in the sense of "more clear" - well, then I absolutely agree with should use clear, direct language rather than cryptic language, so as not to baffle the reader (as the Dempsey quote does). If you mean weak/strong in the substantive sense of what position is taken - I would argue against that, since sometimes the "mixed" opinions, or the ones more cautious, are the most useful.
-
-
-
- The right place for discussion of "alternatives to the deal/better deal/etc." is along with the rest of the discussion on that same topic, below - where we cite Schumer/Corker and then immediately afterward Obama/Kerry/Franken, and then in a footnote cite to scholarly commentary. Or, as an alternative, since this colloquy came from a congressional hearing, it could be housed within the "congressional hearing" section.
-
-
-
- I do appreciate your recognition that the Dempsey quote is weak. I have found a better source which lays out what was said and why more clearly. At some point soon I will come up with something based on it and see what people think. Neutralitytalk 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- @Neutrality -- I will give you an example of a "strong quote". Presenting the Munich Agreement in 1938 Chamberlain said that the agreement achieved "piece in our time". In his speach in House of Commons Churchill responded: "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame and will get war" (See appeasement). Today we discuss "deal or war" and it seems that shame and Churchill are well-forgotten. Yagasi (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Totally ridiculous analogy. Not going to engage with you on that nonsense. Neutralitytalk 01:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with Iran nuclear weapons 2 that Dempsey quote relate to the question of whether or not there are options other than war, but disagree that this is a weak quote. More than one opposing viewpoint can be presented unless one quote can cover the diplomatic, military, economic (sanctions), legal and other viewpoints of the "deal or war" issue. I agree that opposing viewpoint/viewpoints should immediately follow the Obama quote. Yagasi (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- The "deal or war" issue was widely discussed and debated in public and in reliable sources
- Different aspects of the "deal or war" message should be balanced (WP:BALASPS)
- A more neutral text is achieved "by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other" (WP:STRUCTURE)
- The presented information, including the quote, is useful since the readers are informed about "a range of options" (not just one alternative) presented by Dempsey to Obama
- Not a "a strange colloquy between Joni Ernst and Martin Dempsey" but a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
- This is the right place for the information since it immediately follows the quote from Obama
- Dempsey is neither supporter nor opposer of the deal and doesn't fit the "Congressional support and opposition" section. He isn't a congressman either
-
-
- No, it isn't. The right place for discussion of "alternatives to the deal/better deal/etc." is along with the rest of the discussion on that same topic, below - where we cite Schumer/Corker and then immediately afterward Obama/Kerry/Franken, and then in a footnote cite to scholarly commentary. And as far as "Dempsey isn't a congressman" - well, he's not part of the Obama administration either, not in the typical sense. Even if we were to keep this quote (and we should not), it really would belong in the "congressional hearings" section, which is where the quote comes from. Neutralitytalk 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I disagree with your opinion. Dempsey's testimony is a strong evidence to the fact that the president was presented by a range of options (not just a "deal or war" alternative). We should keep it. The right place for the "range of options" quote is directly adjacent to the "war" quote from Obama. Yagasi (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I think that weak vs. strong is subjective. So "weak" is my opinion -- "we have a range of options and we always present them" doesn't make a case particularly well. The "deal or war" issue, in my opinion (yes, it's subjective) has to do with trade-offs. If it comes down to it, are you willing to fight a war with Iran to keep the bomb out of their hands, or not? That's not a call a general should make. A general answers questions like what would be the likely cost (in lives, money, or whatever else) if we take this or that course. It's for the political leaders to make the trade-off. So when you say something like "deal or war" -- the context is missing -- what is your goal? It is possible that the President and Dempsey are both right, depending on what your goal is. In other words, if you want to stop them from getting the Bomb, your choices might be Deal or War. If you think that risking an Iranian Bomb is an acceptable risk, then you might have additional options. It would not be Dempsey's role to decide what degree of risk is acceptable; that's a job for a politician. So Dempsey could be correct that there are other options, but Obama could be correct that there are not other options if you are constraining yourself to certain goals. If you go back into a time warp to 2009, there might have been a third option -- get rid of the regime -- which might or might not have caused Iran to stop going for the Bomb, depending on choices made by the new regime.
- Norman Podhoretz, obviously no liberal, actually agrees with Obama that a "better deal" is not possible, and argues that the choices are conventional war now or nuclear war later.[5]. Unfortunately, that opinion has not gotten secondary coverage, so we can't use it. I think the difference among Obama, Podhoretz and Dempsey is in their viewpoints as to what is an acceptable risk. Obama appears willing to take some risk that Iran will get the bomb, in order to stay out of war. Podhoretz is not willing to take such a risk. Dempsey has yet another viewpoint -- as a general, deciding what risk is acceptable is not his job; his job is to present options. Which is part of the reason I view his quote as weak. A general is supposed to present options, so the fact that Dempsey does so doesn't tell the reader much. Sorry to ramble. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I agree with, or do not want to challenge, most of your arguments. However, even assuming that the goal was to prevent conventional war now (and not nuclear war later), I can't agree with you and with Podhoretz that better deal was not possible. Would the Administration be more cooperative with Congress, while negotiating this international agreement, it will probably be better. But Obama constantly sought to bypass Congress and went through the United Nations while ignoring lawmakers.
- I agree with you that an "opposing viewpoint" immediately following the Obama quote should be included and the "strongest quote" could be from a political leader. An American one is preferable, but if we disagree about that, a quote from Netanyahu can be included. I also agree with you that Dempsey quote "should be included if we have nothing stronger on the topic of war" adjacent to the Obama quote. Now let's dig up. What about Senator Chuck Schumer? He wrote:
- … when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.
- … the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years? To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
- I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.
- Yagasi (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Schumer certainly looks stronger than Dempsey, and he does address the war issue directly. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
Start of section on Republican congressional review[edit]
The section starts out thusly:
Republican leaders vowed to attempt to kill the agreement as soon as it was released, even before classified sections were made available to Congress, and "Republican lawmakers raced to send out news releases criticizing it."[260]
Two problems with this. First of all, Obama has been trying to sell this deal since long before there even was a deal, and we don't say that. Secondly, the passage gives the impression that Republicans were against the deal before they had much idea what was in it. But that's simply not the case; details had been coming out for months. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- The quote seems like an appropriate lead-in to me. An accurate summary and from a reliable source. NPguy (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's an appropriate lead-in, and well-sourced. It ought to be left alone. Neutralitytalk 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- The quote is not supported by the source. Additionally, see the open discussion Unfavorable presentation of one the major political parties. The quote should be removed or rewritten. Yagasi (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Indeed, the source down't say that at all; I'll rewrite it to reflect what the source actually says. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Part of the problem was that there were two refs with the same name, which resulted in the article pointing to the wrong source. I've fixed that. The other problem was that the source was used in a way that really is grossly inappropriate; someone had picked out sentences designed to be of Republicans, while not quoting or paraphrasing what the Republicans actually said. I've fixed that. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence was an accurate summary of the article in the New York Times, which is a reliable source. The Corker quote is not representative. NPguy (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- You keep repeating WP:RS. But WP:BIAS is also relevant. I'm going to rewrite the situation using the Washington Post's article here [6]. The Post did endorse Obama, twice, so it's still on the Dem side of the aisle, but it tends to be more centrist than the NYT. Hoping that will be an acceptable compromise. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- The sentence was an accurate summary of the article in the New York Times, which is a reliable source. The Corker quote is not representative. NPguy (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Part of the problem was that there were two refs with the same name, which resulted in the article pointing to the wrong source. I've fixed that. The other problem was that the source was used in a way that really is grossly inappropriate; someone had picked out sentences designed to be of Republicans, while not quoting or paraphrasing what the Republicans actually said. I've fixed that. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- Indeed, the source down't say that at all; I'll rewrite it to reflect what the source actually says. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Iran nuclear weapons 2: Re this material here - I agree wholeheartedly with NPguy. I see no reason to remove this. It is well-sourced (to a straight NYT piece) and it adds useful information for the reader (it explains the depth of the agreement and the reality that there was a rapid negative reaction from the Republican Party. It's entirely NPOV. We merely quote it, and we don't pass judgment on the merits of whether it was a good or bad decision. It reflects a historic reality and actual facts. Neutralitytalk 22:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- To add - the claim that we don't "quote or paraphrase what the Republicans actually said" is frivolous, and that's putting it mildly. The article bends over backwards to note the various concerns raised by Republicans, and directly quotes Republicans, Democrats, supportive experts, skeptical experts, and neutral experts, many, many times. Neutralitytalk 05:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was referring to the use of the particular source, not the article as a whole. Please strike per WP:NPA.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- We repeat the very same Corker quote (the "pariah" one) from the Steinhauer NYT article in our own article, under the "congressional hearings" section. In addition, we give a direct quote from Mitch McConnell two sentences after citing the Steinhauer piece. And, more broadly, we outline objections from multiple corners in many sections of the article, in both quote and paraphrase form. It appears to me that we give each party their due. Neutralitytalk 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I was referring to the use of the particular source, not the article as a whole. Please strike per WP:NPA.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- To add - the claim that we don't "quote or paraphrase what the Republicans actually said" is frivolous, and that's putting it mildly. The article bends over backwards to note the various concerns raised by Republicans, and directly quotes Republicans, Democrats, supportive experts, skeptical experts, and neutral experts, many, many times. Neutralitytalk 05:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Iran nuclear weapons 2: Re this material here - I agree wholeheartedly with NPguy. I see no reason to remove this. It is well-sourced (to a straight NYT piece) and it adds useful information for the reader (it explains the depth of the agreement and the reality that there was a rapid negative reaction from the Republican Party. It's entirely NPOV. We merely quote it, and we don't pass judgment on the merits of whether it was a good or bad decision. It reflects a historic reality and actual facts. Neutralitytalk 22:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
Belfer chart[edit]
Information from the Belfer chart here [7], page 29, was reverted, without any reason I could see, though I did neglect to include the page number initially; perhaps the reverter didn't see the chart in the report. I've restored the chart as it appears to be well-sourced, accurate, and relevant.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Background on enrichment and proliferation[edit]
Re this revert [8] -- Really? The fact that plutonium and enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear bombs is not relevant background? Wouldn't it be fair to say that this fact, alone, is the reason to even have this agreement in the first place, and therefore, critical background to the reader's understanding of the issue? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Certainly, it's relevant, but (1) it was very poorly sourced (a random 2004 speech by President Bush is not exactly ideal - there are surely some nonpartisan think tanks on the issue?); (2) I would like to see some discussion of it in the Iran context in particular; and (3) length is a consideration. There are a variety of background facts that are both exceedingly important and exceedingly complex (i.e., the NPT and its history, U.S.-Iran relations generally, nuclear nonproliferation, etc.) that are predicates to a full understanding, but cannot practically be outlined completely in this article. An analogy, for example: Doha Development Round cannot be understood without an understanding of free trade. Yet the Doha article can't possibly explain everything having to do with free trade, or even all the basics. That's the whole point of linking and of "see also," is it not? Neutralitytalk 04:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll work on the sourcing. I had simply grabbed whatever was in the other article.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I just put up a version with better sourcing. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I took a preliminary look. This looks better. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think this article is already quite long and could be shortened by including links to standard material, e.g. on the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear proliferation, fissile material, and nuclear weapon design. NPguy (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't propose anything lengthy on this topic. Just a bare-bones intro. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think this article is already quite long and could be shortened by including links to standard material, e.g. on the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear proliferation, fissile material, and nuclear weapon design. NPguy (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I took a preliminary look. This looks better. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I just put up a version with better sourcing. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'll work on the sourcing. I had simply grabbed whatever was in the other article.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly, it's relevant, but (1) it was very poorly sourced (a random 2004 speech by President Bush is not exactly ideal - there are surely some nonpartisan think tanks on the issue?); (2) I would like to see some discussion of it in the Iran context in particular; and (3) length is a consideration. There are a variety of background facts that are both exceedingly important and exceedingly complex (i.e., the NPT and its history, U.S.-Iran relations generally, nuclear nonproliferation, etc.) that are predicates to a full understanding, but cannot practically be outlined completely in this article. An analogy, for example: Doha Development Round cannot be understood without an understanding of free trade. Yet the Doha article can't possibly explain everything having to do with free trade, or even all the basics. That's the whole point of linking and of "see also," is it not? Neutralitytalk 04:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Max Fisher piece[edit]
Re this removal by User:Iran nuclear weapons 2 of the following text:
- "The reception of the JCPOA among arms control analysts was "overwhelmingly positive," while the reception among Middle East policy analysts was more divided." [cite to this piece]
The removal was on the basis that this was a "characterization" and that there are "plenty of experts on both sides; let them speak for themselves." That's a puzzling rationale. The statement that we cited is a statement of empirical fact, reported on by a reliable source, and is well-balanced - the second clause says that "the reception among Middle East policy analysts was more divided."
Nor is this article some kind of anomaly. See, e.g., this article, quoting Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association: "the majority of arms control and non-proliferation experts support the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal.”
While we certainly should and do quote plenty of individual experts and scientists, we cannot possibly quote all of them - and the broad breakdown among analysts is highly relevant information to readers, who should expect any encyclopedia to give a summary of the overall reaction, in addition to some specific reactions. Neutralitytalk 05:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- Also pinging @NPguy:. Neutralitytalk 05:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
- The text in question has been restored, and that's OK with me. Based on my reading of the commentary, this quote is fairly accurate. There are criticisms from partisan elements of the expert crowd, including relatively mainstream Republicans like Will Tobey and real hardliners like Fred Fleitz, but the non-partisan commentary is almost uniformly positive. However, I do think it is a fair question whether the source of this summary (Max Fisher) is sufficiently neutral to be credible.
- One point that might be useful - the Middle East experts who criticize the deal don't seem to understand how proliferation works. Many of them seem to take it for granted that if Iran develops an enrichment capability it will produce nuclear weapons. While that is possible, it would be a blatant violation of Iran's more basic and enduring legal obligations under the NPT, to which Iran professes strong allegiance. It would also be contrary to the norm that there are several countries (Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Brazil, Argentina) that have developed enrichment capabilities for peaceful purposes and could easily misuse them to produce weapons, but no one worries about them. I haven't seen anyone make this observation about the expert commentaries, so I guess it is inadmissible as original research. NPguy (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have time for edits now. One source you might consider adding is this one: No, Iran is not allowed to inspect itself. NPguy (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- I commend the comparison of Iran with Germany, but I would suggest a different period is more relevant. In recent decades, Germany has a strong track record of honoring its agreements, not plotting the murder of Jews, gays, etc., and an overall policy of nonaggression. None of these considerations apply to Iran. A much better analogy might be with the Germany of 1938. In all three respects, it had much more similar to modern Iran. Like Iran, the Germany of 1938 was given a large immediate benefit in return for a promise of future good behaviour. We all know how that turned out. Or we could compare North Korea, which is again similar to Modern Iran, other than the selection of which groups of people to kill. Again, the results are evident for all to see.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Polling[edit]
Re this bit: I removed an addition to the section lead which cited CNN piece talking about its month-to-month changes in CNN/ORC polling numbers. The so-called "trend" is just a comparison of CNN/ORC poll numbers from one month to another. We can't extrapolate from that any "trend" in overall public opinion, certainly not any trend that is encyclopedic. Moreover, certain polls should not get "double-billing" over other polls by being repeated both in the bullet points and in the section lead; that would be classically undue and would prize certain pollsters, methodologies, etc. over others. Neutralitytalk 16:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- The comparative information was rewritten and placed in the relevant bullet. Yagasi (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- IMO there are enough polls that they could go into a table. This would both shorten the text and make it easier for the reader to understand. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I've just done that very thing. Neutralitytalk 02:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Improves readability; thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- It's an interesting question how to handle that. I tend to think that polls of specific communitites within the United States should be relegated to a sub-article. About different ways to parse the data, again a sub-article could be a good idea. For example, the questions in the different polls are not the same, and furthermore, some polls make debatable assertions in their descriptions of the agreement, i.e. "if Iran is caught cheating, sanctions will be re-imposed" -- well, maybe. This kind of thing could be worth looking at, but no way the main article should do it. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I would not create a sub-article for this issue. But an encyclopedic table should be readable like this one. There are some differences between all polls, but a better big picture can be achieved if we don't mix the real deal with hypothetical ones and U.S. all adults with U.S. Jewish adults only. Yagasi (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- The problem is that for our polls, the methodology is not consistent. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
Khamenei quotes[edit]
Re this edit: I retained the information in the first sentence, which addresses the JCPOA, but deleted the last two sentences (the ones on Khamenei's book) which is not relevant to the JCPOA. Even the New York Post article linked as a reference notes that "Khamenei makes no reference to Iran's nuclear program." (By the way, the Post is a tabloid, and not a very high-quality source, particularly on a complex subject). Similarly, I took out this edit, on Khamenei's comments on the Hajj. This has almost nothing to do with the "review period in Iran" (the section those edits were inserted under), nor with the JCPOA in general.
Let me go personal for a moment. There's no dispute that Khamenei is a terrible guy. He leads an atrocious, violent regime. His hostility and hatred toward the U.S., Israel, and Europe are well-known, and repulsive. But this is an encyclopedia article about the JCPOA. It is not a coat rack to discuss in detail Khamenei, or Iran's hostile foreign policy in general. For such quotes as those above, we have foreign relations of Iran, Iran–United States relations, and Iran–Israel relations. Neutralitytalk 17:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am not going to contest your deletion but do want to make a couple of comments. On the subject of the NY Post, I realize they are in general not the best source, but as I'm sure you know, reliability is guaged on a case-by-case basis. The fact that the same story appeared in three widely separated sources (two of which I used for the book) made it appear reliable to me. On the subject of coatrack, I would suggest that it is not as cut and dried as you appear to believe. With the passage of time, Khamenei's views on Israel are likely to have a much greater bearing on the ultimate fate of the agreement than the arguments of (say) Frank von Hippel or Frederick H. Fleitz. This is particularly evident in articles about events further in the past; if you peruse them, you will see a much greater emphasis on statements by national leaders, even statements on subjects which are not directly related to the main topic of the article, and much less commentary from lesser-known people. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
"Moderate" Rouhani?[edit]
- "Mr. Rowhani suggested in his speech that Iran had used the negotiations with the Europeans to dupe them." [9]
- The official IRNA news agency on Tuesday cited Hasan Rouhani as saying close Iranian-Syrian ties will be able to confront “enemies in the region, especially the Zionist regime.”[10]
- Saying 'Death to America' is easy," Mr. Rouhani said in a speech in the city of Karaj, according to the state-run Mehr News Agency. "We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy."[11]
At the same time, it is true that journalists persistently describe Rouhani as "moderate." Not sure how to handle this one. We could say that journalists describe him as "moderate" but he's also done X Y and Z. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the "dupe" quote is most relevant to this article, as it was also in the context of a nuclear negotiation. I've added it to the same paragraph where Rouhani is described as moderate.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
-
- We don't need to go as far as 2006. According to Reuters a few days ago "moderate" Rouhani said Iran will not follow parts of the nuclear deal that restricts its military capabilities: "We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that".Yagasi (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Black propaganda[edit]
This gave me a chuckle, but I don't see a way to put it in an article without joining the controversy. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- The relevant section would be US public debate. But idk what are the rules on such images; do you need a secondary source? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Great job[edit]
I came across this article today, and after reading it and knowing how difficult is to write an NPOV article about which there is such a polarization of viewpoints, I take my hat off to the editors that worked on it. I know that it is not finished, and there are still issues to be addressed, but it is a great article and a great example of how a collaborative effort can succeed. Great job indeed. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
US Sanctions[edit]
Back in May, before the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, there was a lot of talk that only Congress could remove the bulk of sanctions on Iran. The idea was that, if the Iran nuclear deal went through, although the UN and EU sanctions would be lifted (this might be enough for Iran), the President could not remove any US sanctions (except for certain areas, like banking) without the authorization of Congress. This was because most US sanctions were written into federal law.
What happened to this? The only text in the article that I can find is "the U.S. "ceases" application of its nuclear-related sanctions". Does that mean that the President has somehow gotten the authority to cancel US laws? How? Nothing in the article about the INARA says so. In the early part of the year, you sort of got the impression that, once the Iran deal was struck, Congress would not only have to approve the deal but there'd be separate battles over removing each sanction, which might last for years. Did all that go away? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Before INARA: "under current U.S. sanctions law, the president can waive them. And that is just what Obama intends to do." After INARA: "The Administration asserts that it would implement the relief using waiver authority (for relevant U.S. statutory sanctions)... The Iran Nuclear Review Act (P.L. 114-17) prevents the President from suspending U.S. statutory sanctions at least through the period of congressional review of a finalized nuclear deal and, if a joint resolution of disapproval of the JCPOA is enacted, indefinitely thereafter." Yagasi (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Views on JCPOA[edit]
I think we can have a stand-alone article on this subject, then we can move the materials under "Expert reactions" to that article and leave a summary here. There are reliable sources reflecting the views of analysts. These days senators and other officials have made comments on this. Mhhossein (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- If we do in fact do a split (I'm neutral on that question for the moment), what about doing the reverse instead - retain the expert opinions in full here, and then splinter off the political back-and-forth to public debate on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in the United States, leaving only a summary here? That's one option. Neutralitytalk 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- That makes a lot of sense. This article should focus on the JCPA and its implementation. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The Congressional debates have been mostly political theater - a bit of a side show that in the end won't matter much. NPguy (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action#Review period in the United States Congress should be moved to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 and there is no need to create a new article. Pahlevun (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. The Congressional debates have been mostly political theater - a bit of a side show that in the end won't matter much. NPguy (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- That makes a lot of sense. This article should focus on the JCPA and its implementation. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- If we do in fact do a split (I'm neutral on that question for the moment), what about doing the reverse instead - retain the expert opinions in full here, and then splinter off the political back-and-forth to public debate on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in the United States, leaving only a summary here? That's one option. Neutralitytalk 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Article TOOOOO long - Needs to be divided into a few articles.[edit]
Main points of each section should be in this article and the rest should be divided Caseeart (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- The Reactions and the Public opinion sections are good candidates for a split. The rest should remain. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Legal aspects of Iran’s threat of genocide - is it a random fringe?[edit]
Two edits (edit1 and edit2) related to this important topic were removed while claiming "random fringe". I added legal opinions of 3 more experts and restored the paragraph. Apparently the fringe claim does not hold water, however the discussion is open and the burden of proof is on those who wish to remove the paragraph. Yagasi (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is one of the most pathetically tenuous claims I have seen. It completely lacks credibility. And it has rightly been deleted. NPguy (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
-
- Though I'd prefer it be deleted, I edited it the paragraph at least to avoid the deliberate misrepresentation of the Genocide Convention and its requirements. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- Emotional terms like "pathetically" can't rebut legal arguments asserted by the experts.
- @Vesuvius Dogg -- I made a few changes to your edits. I think this is the right place for the paragraph since both the Genocide Convention and Resolution 2231 were adopted by the UN. Here I would expect to find discussion and arguments, not just voting for or against deletion. Yagasi (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It is a very random fringe. I would perhaps be OK with saying "X, Y, and Z reject the idea of negotiations entirely, until Iran recognizes Israel, and Y additional ground is met" or somesuch as one or two sentences. As it stands, now, however: (1) the material is of dubious relevance (it is not really linked directly to the JCPOA - this is especially blatant with the Beres quote, which has nothing to do with the JCPOA but instead is focused on Iranian comments regarding Israel - that's not what the JCPOA is about, and has never been about. It's wholly collateral. (2) We already quote both Dershowitz and Rivkin/Casey once. Adding more from them seems to place an undue emphasis on their (minority) views. All three of those may be lawyers of some note, but none has any particular academic expertise on Iran or nonproliferation, and we should not give them undue billing.
- So on these grounds - and because at least four editors (Vesuvius, Archwayh, NPguy, and myself) have expressed concerns, I'm going to remove the text. Neutralitytalk 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- I decided to step away from editing this article since I can't be a coeditor with the majority of Wikipedians who think that the threat of genocide has dubious relevance to the JCPOA and who try to silence notable lawyers (minority?) that have expressed legal opinions on this issue. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that the legal theory you are trying to cite is simply ridiculous. Is genocide serious? Of course. Does Iran threaten Israel's security? Yes. But does that threat amount to genocide? Does Iran want to kill all Israelis? Nothing I have seen suggests that it does. Such claims strike me as overheated rhetoric designed to manipulate the political debate in Israel and the United States. But if we suppose Iran's threat were genocidal, would the obligations under the Genocide Convention forbid making a deal with Iran? In other words, would any such deal violate the requirement to prevent genocide or threats of genocide? Take a look at the convention. Show me a provision that could be interpreted that way.
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class Iran articles
- Mid-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- C-Class United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
- Mid-importance United States articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class energy articles
- Mid-importance energy articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles