Talk:Algiers Accords

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

International relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Where does this agreement stand now, in spite of current events? -Etafly 09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this describes it well. It is still in force. http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2006/02/iranian-democracy-fund-and-algiers.html -68.196.120.153 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research & References

Regarding OR and References:

I believe the article consists (matter of my own opinion) of four distinct types of text:

I believe that the text about the violation of the provisions by the Bush & Obama administrations is of such a nature (politics, diplomacy, matter of opinion) that it should be removed immediately and completely. If references come up, then it can be added again. I intend to remove this myself after a couple of days, unless discussion has concluded that it should not be removed.
Background. This concerns the material of the Iran hostage crisis. I think it's carefully and neutrally worded (no one person wrote the background sections in its entirety). Hence, it relies on the references of the main article.
A summary of the text of the Accords. My understanding of the "OR" policy suggests that the summary is OK, having as a reference the text of the accords. Accordingly this part is considered referenced.
The two chief negotiators/mediators. This is actually not referenced right now. "Christopher" I wrote myself and I have no recollection what the source was. "Abdulkarim Ghuraib" was in the "Iran hostage crisis" articles. I will attempt to find references on this.

--Atavi (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After extensive web searching (with search engines and otherwise), I haven't been able to locate a single reference to "Abdulkarim Ghuraib", other than the countless spawn pages propagating the text of WP articles. This doesn't mean that the person never existed and/or never participated in the negotiations, only that there is no such documentation on the the web. However, I don't think that having this information, which may or may not be true is vital to the article. Moreover, several sources (reliable) identify then Algerian fa minister as the chief mediator. For that reason I have deleted the reference to "Abdulkarim Ghuraib". I have put a "citation needed" tag on the same name in the Iran hostage crisis, since the name sort of "originated" there: Iran hostage crisis, Revision as of 2005-02-07T20:18:25.

Lihaas, regarding the violation of the terms of the accords, I have changed the "clarification needed" tag to "citation needed".

Even more than that however, I believe, as I have written above, that this claim is highly contentious. I am pretty sure (I haven't searched to find a source and verification for this, but usually these things go without saying ) that the official position of the United States government has been at all times (during both administrations) that the terms of the Algiers Accords have never been violated by the US. Of course this doesn't mean that such a position would reflect the reality, but it does mean that we will need reliable citations to back up the claim that they have been violated.

I still think that the entire sentence should be deleted entirely.

I am sure there are dozens of WP articles where highly political and highly POV claims are included and pages upon pages of discussions are devoted to them, but this doesn't mean we have to follow this lead.

Cheers, Atavi (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you wholeheartedly about both counts. Though id presume ywhoever added that last line is going on some broader structure of isses such #1,2, etc. which could have a claim but it would be synthesis. Nevertheless, i think tags like thise are to get other readers to add somethign and if nothing is forthcoming in a month or 2 we should take it off.Lihaas (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation (based on a sort of "intuition") was different, but on briefly reviewing the "citation needed" template and the verifiability policy, it seems to me that in this case it's OK to wait a while to see if someone finds such a source. Given the great variety of media around the world, I'd say this is possible.

So, I guess our conclusion is to leave this as is for some time.

Cheers,

Atavi (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would be amiss, if I didn't point out that the first version of the last sentence (with only the Bush admin mentioned) was added in this revision of the article by you, Lihaas. Inevitably, someone added the Obama admin soon afterwards. Atavi (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]