Talk:International sanctions against Iran/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Title change suggestion

Title "Multinational sanctions against Iran" must change to "Unilateral sanctions against Iran". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.140.128 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Section suggestion

Any objections if I add a short, new section about international reactions? I'm think in particular of mentioning a few dissenting views, such as those Russian and Chinese objections. Iloveandrea (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Useful here?

• The U.S. grants permission to seven countries on three continents to continue importing oil from Iran in contravention of the declared U.S. policy of isolating Iran. ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18405298 )

from Portal:Current events/2012 June 11

99.19.43.15 (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Iranian sanctions against Iran

Iran has said that it may respond to sanctions designed to reduce its profits from exporting oil by cutting its oil exports.

So what exactly is the problem with noting Iranian sanctions against Iranian oil exports? Hcobb (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with including it, although I can see why some people may not like the title. The title is a bit awkward, Iran sanctioning itself, but i don't have strong opinions on it. --Jethro B 23:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Then how about "Iranian adjustments to sanctions"? Hcobb (talk) 02:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, but "Iranian response" would probably be better, and should be a subsection of "effects." --Jethro B 02:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Repeated?

I was reading through this article when I noticed that a paragraph is repeated.

"In January 2013, the International Atomic Energy Agency, appointed by the UN, published an 154 page report titled "U.S. Nonproliferation Strategy for the Changing Middle East" in it they expressed concern that Iran's nuclear program has a military dimension. In the report, the IAEA stated that "based on current trajectory of Iran's nuclear program, we estimate the Iran could reach critical capability by mid-2014." The report recommended that the United States and its allies intensify sanctions pressure on Iran prior to that point because once Tehran acquires enough weapon-grade enriched uranium it would be "far more difficult to stop the program militarily." It also recommended that the U.S. government make very clear to Iran that the sanctions would not be lifted until Tehran agrees to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions. If they do not comply, the sanctions may not be enough and the U.S. may have to take military action."

The paragraph also happens to be false. This was not an IAEA report. I deleted it (twice). NPguy (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of Sanctions

Added the purpose of the sanctions. While the article is simply "Sanctions against Iran" US Specific reasons and sanctions could be moved to U.S._sanctions_against_Iran page to reduce redundancy and help with clarity. Patriot1010 (talk) 16:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, As the article name is Sanctions against Iran, the article "U.S._sanctions_against_Iran" I think maybe it should be merged with The Sanctions against Iran article, and that no need for separate articles for the Sanctions against Iran. Regards, KhabarNegar (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - the U.S. sanctions against Iran is smaller and could fit to this article most likely. Any idea why there were two in the first place?Patriot1010 (talk) 07:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

A couple of inexperienced editors have added a lot of non-encyclopedic material in the front of the article, which I am about to delete. There is no one purpose for sanctions, although Iran's nuclear program is the basis for UN sanctions and a major basis for other sanctions. But other sanctions have been imposed for human rights and counter-terrorism purposes. I agree that a section on purposes of sanctions would be useful, but it should be a section lower down and not an inaccurate ramble at the top of the article. I am about to revert most of this.

As to why there are separate articles, it is often the case on Wikipedia that there are general articles and more specific ones. The fact that articles overlap is not generally a problem, and I don't see any problem in this case. NPguy (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sanctions effects on ordinary people - No mention of Iran?

This contribution is a general statement, with no mention of Iran, and no mention of Iran in the reference. This is WP:NOR and WP:Nonesense as it relates to the article.

Current text: Over the past four years, the US Department of State has poured millions into exporting internet freedom in the form of circumvention technologies, trainings and other aid.[74] But Internet users in sanctioned countries have long complained about the effects of export controls, the result of which is often the wholesale blocking of communications technologies and bans from web hosting, among other things.[75]

Where in the article/source is Iran mentioned? Or should be?Patriot1010 (talk) 06:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

"no mention of Iran, and no mention of Iran in the reference." !?

This is the reference you are mentioning here: [1]

are you lying sir ?

Plus, sanctioned countries... are you really don't know what sanctioned countries means? Really?! OK, I hereby want to remember you about what we are talking sir, sanctioned countries means Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Sudan, and Syria. as if you may forget what sanctioned countries means I wish now you just remember them

But before saying goodby I want you to read my first paragraph again. you don't remember what we are talking about again? so OK I again copy it for you here below, Thank You.

"no mention of Iran, and no mention of Iran in the reference." !?

This is the reference you are mentioning here: [2]

are you lying sir ?

I don't know really, what your purpose is if you want me to loose and you win and this article becomes your personal point of view. That is OK to me, I hereby wanna tell everyone GUYS I LOST. But if you my friend want to see the reality and accept the facts, so let others also BE .

Regards, KhabarNegar (talk) 07:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have deleted the whole section in stages with explanations for each deletion. This is not suitable for Wikipedia. NPguy (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You just made the article as you want it to be, before editing like THIS. have others sayings in talk pages. Don't continue this behavior. KhabarNegar (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not about my preferences. It's about Wikipedia content standards, including bias and relevance. NPguy (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about, BE SPECIFIC. thanks, KhabarNegar (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Well first, KhabarNegar, this contribution does not mention Iran - in an article entitled "Sanctions on Iran"

Over the past years, the US Department of State has poured millions into exporting internet freedom in the form of circumvention technologies, trainings and other aid.[74] But Internet users in sanctioned countries have long complained about the effects of export controls, the result of which is often the wholesale blocking of communications technologies and bans from web hosting, among other things.[75]

This contribution was deleted with the edit summary WP:NONSENSE because it is, please look at the link, and try to improve this blathering about other countries. Also, the link from the source was broken, I see now you fixed it and that's fine, but again the contribution states nothing about Iran, in an article about Iran.

Second, you are violating WP:CIV which are "Personal attacks and harassment are contrary to this spirit, damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia, and may result in blocks." So please, keep up your uncivil and barbaric behavior. Patriot1010 (talk) 19:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First I didn't fix this link of the source, and that is there as it was, completely 100% unchanged.

Second how I violating WP:CIV? KhabarNegar (talk) 19:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should get a better translator?Patriot1010 (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

<- This section is rather confusing. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, does everyone agree that the Al Jazeera source here (that was removed here) is about the U.S. export controls/sanctions, has a subtitle that starts with 'The broad measures against Iran...' and contains the string 'Iran' 19 times ? Sean.hoyland - talk 07:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The section on the impact of sanctions on the Iranian people has many problems. Some have to do with relevance to Iran. The problems with the section based on this Al Jazeera source are (1) that it deals almost entirely with the effects on an Iranian-American U.S. citizen, and (2) that it gives undue weight to a marginally relevant anecdote. NPguy (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't advocating its use, I'd be happy to ban all opinion pieces, and if you were the only editor here I wouldn't have said anything. I'm familiar with your responsible editing in this topic area. I was merely trying to make sure everyone was talking about the same thing. Removing a source for reasons that don't make sense to the editor who added the source is a sure way to start a fire in a contentious topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

@ NPguy:

1- Right now in this article, There is no section "impact of sanctions on the Iranian people", so please don't lie. The section name now is "Sanctions effects on ordinary people". Although the section is completely relevance to Iran, and you have not yet tell us how you think its not about iran, its completely obvious they are effected by sanctions because they are related to Iran. Then what exactly you mean with relevance to Iran then? Please answer this question.

2- You said "it gives undue weight to a marginally relevant anecdote" who exactly manage the weight of the effects? Your speaking is like telling, You are the one who have the permission to tell what have the weight to stay or removed.

3- The main section name is "Effects" so the "Sanctions effects on ordinary people" is one of the effects Isn't it? Do you think effects on ordinary people is one of the sanctions effects or not?

KhabarNegar (talk) 07:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to the section on the effects on ordinary people. I did not "lie" about its name; I was simply mistaken, but not in a deliberate, malicious or even particularly misleading way. I propose to focus on one issue at a time, and set aside that section for now. I do think the section is not appropriate for this article (and the extended anecdote is also not well-written in English), so I would like to flag that section as in dispute. I want to emphasize that I'm not complaining about bias or good faith. I simply don't think the section belongs in this article. I would encourage you to review the undue weight standard. NPguy (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You said "The section on the impact of sanctions on the Iranian people has many problems. Some have to do with relevance to Iran.", and the section was "Sanctions effects on ordinary people",

Mathematically you have said "A" (a lie and you are saying a mistake) then you have said as its "A" so we can result to "B".

Which "A" was a lie or mistake from the first.

That is simply misleading. Anyone can read your text above its up there. and your telling "which you have had a mistake" doesn't change anything.

And About the weight of claims who exactly manage the weight of the effects? Your speaking is like telling, You are the one who have the permission to tell what have the weight to stay or removed.

About the weight of claims, you are introducing WP:Undue to me. I Read that line by line.

It have gave an example in WP:Undue, the example is :

"For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to the Flat Earth belief."

You see its completely a different situation from here. There they are talking about different points of views NOT about well sourced facts. Are you again misleading or mistaking?

it continues:

"In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it,"

Its obviously about ideas. Not about sourced materials. AND it doesn't said to delete facts.

it continues:

"For instance, articles on historical views such as Flat Earth, with few or no modern proponents, may briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail,"

It is exactly what is happening in this article. So no problem it have.

"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view.Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."

Again its obvious its about two points of views and not reliable sources.

And last lines of WP:Undue are saying:

"Also, if you are able to prove some theory that few or none currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to present such a proof. Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included."

Sir, WP:Undue is not the case here in our article. You are again trying to mislead, AGAIN. Sir you should not delet viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources unless there was obvious vandalism/BLP violations on the page, or a very clear point. KhabarNegar (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The relevant part of WP:UNDUE is this: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." The single anecdote lacks significance and does not deserve the level of attention it receives in this article. It could be mentioned, but summarized in a line or two rather than taking a whole paragraph. NPguy (talk) 02:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks like you don't want to accept the facts. As I have explained above in details. The WP:UNDUE is not about deleting well-sourced material. The WP:UNDUE is about when there are two points of view about a subject, one majority point of view and the other minority point of view(such as Flat earth vs Round Earth). In that situation the WP:UNDUE is talking about. And that's not about deletion of materials prevalence in reliable sources. The WP:UNDUE simply IS not the case here. KhabarNegar (talk) 05:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You are wrong. The full excerpt from that page is:

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This applies perfectly to the anecdote we have been discussing. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia. The WP:UNDUE is about when there are two points of view about a subject, One the majority view & One a minority viewpoint. READ THE WP:UNDUE.

Wait, do not continue reading my text, Go read WP:UNDUE now.

Did you read WP:UNDUE? Okay, now tell us where are the two opposite points of view here? Whats the majority points pf view and what is the minority points of view in this article? ... . SO, The WP:UNDUE is not for here . You should not delete notable materials from different articles.

Keep in mind that, you can not delete sourced materials from articles because they are not prevalence among you or your friends. If you continue deleting and reverting without using talk page it is trolling.

Don't do it again in any other article.

KhabarNegar (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

So you refuse to recognize a key element of WP:UNDUE, which I quote again here (emphasis added):

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

This is not about points of view, and is the reason the anecdote in question should not receive as much attention as you have given it. I would not object to a brief (three or four line) summary description that focuses on actual sanctions impacts and not, for example, legal actions against Apple. The section also needs editing to improve the English. I would encourage you to attempt such an edit. If not, I will propose something here on the talk page. NPguy (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Fact Checking Section

There are some lines with claims which are not in the sources which is provided by them, here any one can do check these claim, one by one. KhabarNegar (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was wondering if DNS spoof/poison attacks regularly occur from your location? I was wondering if you could check that fact please? Patriot1010 (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I know why you are asking this question. No Sir I'm not a government official. I'm a guy in my twentieth living in Tehran. Maybe you wonder how I have lots of information about this article. That is because these things are effecting our personal life everyday sir. And that's unfair. What We have done that we can not purchase anything from abroad.

Sir, Some of Your information about Iran are false. YES, there are some days in Iran that we have problem in accessing Internet but that's some few days of the year. Yes, Ordinary people have internet access in Iran and its not just government official as you said before. KhabarNegar (talk) 04:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, and no offense - have to ask!Patriot1010 (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please focus on article. This section is to talk about article before you continuing this behavior. USE TALK PAGE. FOCUS ON ARTICLE. Thanks KhabarNegar (talk) 07:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Well you see, I had a DNS Spoof/Poison attack originating from Iran so...I have the IP I guess well see if it was you or not! But back on topic - indeed I understand "ordinary people" have access to the internet - monitored by the internet police, (from my research on the topic) which I find interesting. Patriot1010 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It is very disappointing that this article has been frozen in the state preferred by one persistent editor who has thus far refused to engage in civil discourse over the substantive problems with his edits. The lead is now inaccurate. It makes general claims about the purpose of sanctions that are not correct, as I have pointed out. And (as I have indicated in the individual explanations for a series of deletions) virtually the entire section on the impact on ordinary Iranians is not relevant to that topic or more broadly to this article. The offending contributor did not respond to the substance, but instead merely restored the material I had questioned.

I trust that eventually these errors will be fixed, but while this is dispute is being worked out I have asked the editor responsible for protecting this article to freeze it in more satisfactory state, without the dubious material. NPguy (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Be Specific about what lines are you speaking. I am so happy at last you accept to talk. So now:

First don't tell us how you feel "disappointed etc." because its not the point. Instead I again asking you talk about the article not your feelings, Thanks.

So lets start:

About what part (lines... paragraph...) about what part you have questions? Lets talk.KhabarNegar (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

As its better we start one by one, so please start with your priories, Its by your choose and I am so happy you accept to talk, at last.KhabarNegar (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to focus on the inaccuracy of the lead section. This extended quotation at the beginning of that section is not, in fact, a quotation from any of the sources cited. It does not seem to an accurate representation of any of them. Rather it appears to be original research, which is against Wikipedia standards.

The second extended quote claims to explain when sanctions will be lifted, but no citation at all is provided. At a minimum a citation would needed to the source of the quotation. I doubt that it is an actual quotation, and it is clearly inaccurate. Different sanctions have different standards for when they can be lifted. What applies to UN sanctions would not apply to U.S. or EU sanctions.

Finally, the paragraph beginning "P5+1 governments" consists mostly if citations of a single opinion essay by Yousaf Butt. His opinions are controversial. His essay is a suitable source for describing opinions about Iran's nuclear program, but not a neutral source for factual information.

Some of the material that has been added to the lead section might be suitable for a section later in the article on the purposes of sanctions, but they would need to be scrubbed for accuracy and bias. My proposal would be to return the lead to its original form and move the added content to a new section. However, because of the substantive problems cited, it would need to be edited substantially to be suitable for this article. NPguy (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of your saying are accepted by me, I'm happy the froze of the page made you use the talk page. Thank You, Please see below:

You said:

1- "I would like to focus on the inaccuracy of the lead section. This extended quotation at the beginning of that section is not, in fact, a quotation from any of the sources cited. It does not seem to an accurate representation of any of them. Rather it appears to be original research, which is against Wikipedia standards."

I do SUPPORT this.

The material in the lead right now are not represented in sources, the editor who have put them there should be questioned for his action (User:Patriot1010). So I'm agree with deletion from " for: violating international law" to "Sanctions will be terminated when:".

You said:

2- "The second extended quote claims to explain when sanctions will be lifted, but no citation at all is provided. At a minimum a citation would needed to the source of the quotation. I doubt that it is an actual quotation, and it is clearly inaccurate. Different sanctions have different standards for when they can be lifted. What applies to UN sanctions would not apply to U.S. or EU sanctions."

Again you are right! this part have no citation at all! and it should be deleted, you are right here, I SUPPORT . it is clearly inaccurate. The user who have made this edit is User:patriot1010 again, so we both agree deleting this, no problem here again.

And you have said:

3- "Finally, the paragraph beginning "P5+1 governments" consists mostly if citations of a single opinion essay by Yousaf Butt. His opinions are controversial. His essay is a suitable source for describing opinions about Iran's nuclear program, but not a neutral source for factual information."

So you keep deleting the CSMonitor and Reuters and facts like "governments are insisting that Iran ratify the voluntary “Additional Protocol,”" and "such inspections may give the IAEA access to non-nuclear military sites" and " An EU court has recently struck down – for the second time – the legality of some of Europe’s sanctions on an Iranian bank.", you keep deleting these facts because Yousaf Butt is controversial :) What are we, do you think? Please End this game!

Here below is the only Paragraph which I made & you are talking about:

tell me what parts you want to delete so we can agree on (but the 3 facts which I mentioned above should remain as they are facts with the sources (CSMonitor and Reuters) & not Yousaf Butt opinions. Here below you may delete anything that you think is Yousaf Butt saying, I am agree with that:

"P5+1 governments are insisting that Iran ratify the voluntary “Additional Protocol,” which allows the IAEA to carry out more intrusive inspections. But since such inspections may give the IAEA access to non-nuclear military sites, Iran may be hesitant to agree to this.[10] The world powers appear to believe that they are negotiating from a position of power. But this attitude could be dangerously delusional and may backfire.[11] Yet there is no reason not to strike a deal with Iran on suspending its 20 percent uranium enrichment, especially since leaders have expressed openness to such deals in the past.[12] As time goes by, Washington's allies get weary of having to keep restricting trade with Iran; it may become more difficult to present a united face in enforcing the sanctions. An EU court has recently struck down – for the second time – the legality of some of Europe’s sanctions on an Iranian bank.[13][14]"

Please leave the paragraph you like to be here below.

After having the paragraph ready with us both we can make a section as "Current Situation" and put the current facts of the article there.

KhabarNegar (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

That paragraph and the two preceding ones are based almost entirely on the Yousaf Butt editorial. They are not news reporting but a mixture of news, analysis, and opinion. This is a problem for both WP:UNDUE and WP:POV reasons. The only quote that seems trustworthy is the one of Hans Blix, in his own editorial, saying ""a majority of Iranians would think the enrichment part of Iran's nuclear programme is not essential." The other Blix quote, included without citation in Butt's editorial, seems inconsistent with what I know of Blix's opinions. I suspect Butt has taken it out of context, but this is impossible to verify. NPguy (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Breaking down a paragraph (Anti Cheat section)

Here below is a paragraph which is provided by whom that have deleted a huge part of article and then started personal attacks, Here we break down a paragraph by him in order to correct him and do not let a cheat happen:

"editor who has thus far refused to engage in civil discourse over the substantive problems with his edits."

Lies and personal attacks and trying to cover what that really had happened.

"The lead is now inaccurate. It makes general claims about the purpose of sanctions that are not correct,"

He is true here and no problem is here, but see the continue.

He delete all the good sourced part AND parts which added by User:Patriot1010 with claims about the purpose of sanctions that are not correct "altogether", again and again.

Sir, Please show what lines you want to delete so we can check them together. Thanks,

"the entire section on the impact on ordinary Iranians is not relevant to that topic or more broadly to this article."

The main section name is "Effects" so the "Sanctions effects on ordinary people" is one of the effects Isn't it? Do you think effects on ordinary people is one of the sanctions effects or not?

Thank You very much for Speaking with others, Sir.KhabarNegar (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

POV Flags added

The article was unprotected. I took the opportunity to delete the inaccurate and poorly sources paragraphs at the front and replace them with accurate material in the section on UN sanctions. This added paragraph still needs citations.

I decided not to delete the other sections in dispute, but I did add flags indicating that there was a dispute over their neutrality and encourage other editors to weigh in. The back-and-forth between me and one other editor does not appear to be moving toward resolution. NPguy (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

"I took the opportunity to delete the inaccurate and poorly sources paragraphs at the front"

Thank you.

"and replace them with accurate material in the section on UN sanctions. This added paragraph still needs citations."

again thank you, but Don't forget to provide citations for your added paragraph as you said.

"I decided not to delete the other sections in dispute,"

sorry you didn't decide. You forced not to delete sourced parts of article. You forced not to delete thanks to protection of the page. stop these changing what that really had happened again and again. ENOUGH.

"but I did add flags indicating that there was a dispute over their neutrality and encourage other editors to weigh in."

read it again for yourself. You know all these things why you yourself did not act like this. anyway thanks for not deleting well sourced parts of article, and using talk page. as you see above sections I had put reasons why your actions were not true, please read them. KhabarNegar (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of disputed content

Let's take these one by one. The first paragraph in the section "Sanctions effects on ordinary people" reads:

"Over the past years, the US Department of State has poured millions into exporting internet freedom in the form of circumvention technologies, trainings and other aid.[67] But Internet users in sanctioned countries have long complained about the effects of export controls, the result of which is often the wholesale blocking of communications technologies and bans from web hosting, among other things.[67]"

This does not belong for several reasons:

• It is not relevant to the article. This article is about sanctions against Iran, and the text in question does not relate the general issue to the subject of the article.
• It is plagiarism. The two sentenced are copied verbatim from the cited article without quotation. This does not appear to be a copyright violation since the web page shows no copyright, but the material should at most be paraphrased.
• It is from an article on the same anecdote that already receives undue weight in this section.

I plan to delete this paragraph, but first solicit views of other editors. NPguy (talk) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting to talk one by one about the paragraphs you keep deleting them.

I'm happy you suggested this section, although I don't know why you do not accept my requests for taking these one by one before. But I do happily join you in talking about the actions one by one.

"There are some lines with claims which are not in the sources which is provided by them, here any one can do check these claim, one by one." in Fact Checking Section but unfortunately you didn't help.

"As its better we start one by one, so please start with your priories, Its by your choose and I am so happy you accept to talk, at last." in Fact Checking Section

Anyway Lets talk about the "several reasons" you provide:

"It is not relevant to the article. This article is about sanctions against Iran, and the text in question does not relate the general issue to the subject of the article."

You are lying. This is the source [3].

<- This section is rather confusing. Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, does everyone agree that the Al Jazeera source here (that was removed by you Mr.NPguy multiply times) is about the U.S. export controls/sanctions, has a subtitle that starts with 'The broad measures against Iran...' and contains the string 'Iran' 19 times ? I'm so fortunate by your reasons because it shows everyone that you have goals and that goals are not the article being neutral. Here below I am so happy to repeat one of your "reasons" so to make people judge the situation.

"It is not relevant to the article. This article is about sanctions against Iran, and the text in question does not relate the general issue to the subject of the article." OK now lets talk the other "several reasons" that makes you keep deleting and reverting edits.

"* It is from an article on the same anecdote that already receives undue weight in this section."

Again the same method you have used several times in above sections.

The wrong reasoning method.

You telling "My A Claim is true" so we can result that "My B claim is also true" when actually your "A claim were fake from the first place".

"that already receives WP:Undue" who gave that already received WP:Undue? You yourself?

We have talk in details above that WP:Undue is not the case here. Keep in mind, You are a simple Wikipedia editor like others, you do not have the power to say what is relevant and what should not stay in an article. You should not delete facts from articles.

"* It is plagiarism. The two sentenced are copied verbatim from the cited article without quotation. This does not appear to be a copyright violation since the web page shows no copyright, but the material should at most be paraphrased."

They are two parts here you have mixed:

First "It is plagiarism. The two sentenced are copied verbatim from the cited article without quotation."

No Its not plagiarism. Read the paragraph. It is a fact. The fact is not plagiarism. Its not an idea. Its a fact. If you have some sources that shows this fact is wrong then we can say its a plagiarism. Answer this question, Do you think the paragraph is accurate or not?

Secondly, the copyright issue. Although this does not appear to be a copyright violation since the web page shows no copyright But It is actually the only case you are right about. I am agree. We can change these two sentences so it does not be the same as the source. If you want you can change its writing, if not I will do it myself ASAP, No Problem. KhabarNegar (talk) 10:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to engage in discussion, and I get this rambling and intemperate response. Please be civil and try to be concise. I will give it one more try.

My claim is that this paragraph of text is not relevant to an article about sanctions against Iran because the text is not about Iran. I'm talking about the text in this Wikipedia article, not the text of the Al Jazeera article. This excerpt (quoted again below) does not mention Iran even once and for that reason is not relevant to this article.

Over the past years, the US Department of State has poured millions into exporting internet freedom in the form of circumvention technologies, trainings and other aid.[67] But Internet users in sanctioned countries have long complained about the effects of export controls, the result of which is often the wholesale blocking of communications technologies and bans from web hosting, among other things.[67]"

Plagiarism is when you quote text - using the exact words - from another source without making clear that it is a quote. Footnoting the text is not enough. Without quotation marks, you imply the words are your own when in fact they were written by someone else. To avoid plagiarism, you either need to paraphrase and put it into your own words, or use quotation marks, like this:

According to an article in Al Jazeera, "Over the past years, the US Department of State has poured millions into exporting internet freedom in the form of circumvention technologies, trainings and other aid." NPguy (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me turn to the quote of Jimmy Carter:

As concerned citizens, we must persuade Washington to reverse course and regain moral leadership according to international human rights norms that we had officially adopted as our own and cherished throughout the years.

This quote is clearly not relevant to the article. It says nothing about sanctions against Iran and the source does not appear to have anything to do with that subject. Therefore, the quote should be deleted. NPguy (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with deleting carter quote.

KhabarNegar (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made that deletion. Let's look at the next section:

To counter the effects of sanctions on ordinary people, the Iranian government banned imports of luxury goods such as computers and mobile phones, however ordinary people state "People will find a way to smuggle in what the Iranian consumer wants," and as a result, many had to turn to online ordering,[68] but the Government of Iran also blocks most popular internet sites,[69] and established a "deadly cyber police" who detain and execute ordinary citizens for illegal browsing.[70]

I agree that part of this is relevant to the article, namely the fact that people are getting around the ban in the import of luxury goods. However, there is no indication in the source that the purpose of the luxury good import ban is "to counter the effects of sanctions on ordinary people." Rather, the purpose seems to be to develop a "resistance economy" and to control the flow of money out from Iran. These are issues addressed in the previous section, in particular with this text:

Iran has sought to manage the impact of international sanctions and limit capital outflows by promoting a "resistance economy," replacing imports with domestic goods and banning luxury imports,[53] and by providing domestic insurance for tankers shipping Iranian oil.[54]

I propose to move the quote "People will find a way to smuggle in what the Iranian consumer wants." from its current location to come immediately after the sentence on "resistance economy."

I find no support in the cited source for the claim that many had to turn to online ordering, so unless you have another source for that claim it should be deleted.

Finally, the remainder of the excerpt, "but the Government of Iran also blocks most popular internet sites,[69] and established a "deadly cyber police" who detain and execute ordinary citizens for illegal browsing.[70]" is about repression by the Iranian government and not about sanctions against Iran or the impact of those sanctions. It is important information but not relevant to this article and therefore should be deleted here. NPguy (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

This section is not my edit. That's from Patriot1010, He's the one that should talk about this.

My Ideas are as below:

You are right the "to counter the effects of sanctions on ordinary people." should be deleted because its obviously is not in the source that the purpose of the luxury good import ban is "to counter the effects of sanctions on ordinary people."! Obviously its a faking claim that is not in the source.

And about "the luxury good import ban", As the currency problem is one of the effects of sanctions on Iranian people so you should not move this to any other part.

It is one of the results of Sanctions against Iranian people, Not a voluntary action.

You may keep the "People will find a way to smuggle in what the Iranian consumer wants." if it is mentioned in the sources & you want to keep it. I have no idea about this one.

KhabarNegar (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I made that proposed edit.

Next let's consider this line: "Broad-based sanctions all too often cause harm and deprivation to ordinary citizens.[77]" Like the first excerpt I commented on, this is both plagiarism (a direct quote not presented as such) and not directly relevant (as it does not mention Iran). I do not dispute the substance of the statement, but I wonder if it can be used better by paraphrasing and making it an introductory sentence, e.g. "Broad economic sanctions often harm ordinary citizens, and there are indications this is happening in Iran." NPguy (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am agree with this your last suggestion here above.

But about the previous "proposed edit", your changes are very good but why moving this paragraph to other sections of article?

Please put back this paragraph to the "effects on Iranian people section" again so we can continue:

"Iran has sought to manage the impact of sanctions by promoting a "resistance economy," and banning luxury imports such as computers and mobile phones."

Because it is written with your own words & as you have said its in the source and That`s in result of sanctions. So it should not moved from effects on Iranian people section and it should be in the effects on Iranian people section. Please don't remove it from the "effects on Iranian people section". Thank You KhabarNegar (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I moved the text for three reasons. First, the anticipated increase in smuggling that results from trade restrictions imposed by the Iranian government (the ban on imports of luxury goods) fits much better in relation to the section on the "resistance economy." Second, an increase in smuggling is not in itself an effect on ordinary people, though it might end up having an effect.

Third, I don't think the section "sanctions effects on ordinary people," or, as you put it above "effects on Iranian people," needs to be a separate section. Some of it can go into the general discussion of "effects" that appears above, and some in the "humanitarian impact" subsection that appears below. If you wish to keep a reference to the Iranian people in the subsection title, you could change that to "humanitarian impact on Iranian people."

By the way, do you mean the section to focus on the effects on Iranian people, or do you mean for it to be broader and include the effects on ordinary people elsewhere? The reason I ask is that the main anecdote remaining in the section is about the effects on an American person of Iranian origin.

I'd like to look at another piece of text: "Broad-Band internet sanctions cause harm and deprivation also, only these sanctions are imposed upon ordinary citizens by the Iranian government and limit internet access to 128 kilobytes per second.[76]" As with an earlier portion, this is not about sanctions imposed on Iran but actions of the Iranian government. The cited source does not refer to the actions as "sanctions," and it is bias or interpretation to label them as such.

For these reasons, I propose to delete this sentence. NPguy (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

My question was:

“Please put back this paragraph to the "effects on Iranian people section" again so we can continue:

"Iran has sought to manage the impact of sanctions by promoting a "resistance economy," and banning luxury imports such as computers and mobile phones."

Because as you have said it’s in the source and That`s in result of sanctions. So it should not move from effects on Iranian people section and it should be in the effects on Iranian people section. Please don't remove it from the "effects on Iranian people section". “

Your answer is: “I moved the text for three reasons. First, the anticipated increase in smuggling that results from trade restrictions imposed by the Iranian government (the ban on imports of luxury goods) fits much better in relation to the section on the "resistance economy."” Sir, I’m not talking about smuggling or any other stuff my point is clear above. My point is the fact of one of the Iran sanction effects, which is importing of luxury goods being banned. Finish.

You also have added: “Second, an increase in smuggling is not in itself an effect on ordinary people, though it might end up having an effect.” What are you talking about?! Who said anything about smuggling! SIR, The import of luxury goods ban is the point here.

And you also have added another comment which is: “Third, I don't think the section "sanctions effects on ordinary people," or, as you put it above "effects on Iranian people," needs to be a separate section. Some of it can go into the general discussion of "effects" that appears above, and some in the "humanitarian impact" subsection that appears below. If you wish to keep a reference to the Iranian people in the subsection title, you could change that to "humanitarian impact on Iranian people."”

The SECTION WHICH IS “Sanctions effects on ordinary people” should remain in this article. BEACOUSE there is no reason to remove facts(effects on ordinary people) which are in this section. If you continue deleting and moving texts from this section to other parts I HAVE TO REVERT, because the goal you mentioned above, which is “, I don't think the section "sanctions effects on ordinary people," needs to be a separate section” is false.

Please don’t continue deleting this section, and also materials which is in it.

You continued: “By the way, do you mean the section to focus on the effects on Iranian people, or do you mean for it to be broader and include the effects on ordinary people elsewhere? The reason I ask is that the main anecdote remaining in the section is about the effects on an American person of Iranian origin.”

Sir, I do believe, The sections which is “Sanctions effects on ordinary people” should remain in this article. And you should not do any try to make this section disappear.

For the next part,

I’m agreeing with the last paragraph of you, here below again. “I'd like to look at another piece of text: "Broad-Band internet sanctions cause harm and deprivation also, only these sanctions are imposed upon ordinary citizens by the Iranian government and limit internet access to 128 kilobytes per second.[76]" As with an earlier portion, this is not about sanctions imposed on Iran but actions of the Iranian government. The cited source does not refer to the actions as "sanctions," and it is bias or interpretation to label them as such. For these reasons, I propose to delete this sentence.”

I support this last part. This is from User:Patriot1010, he had added a cited source does not refer to the actions as "sanctions," of course you are right here.

BUT about the sentence you have deleted previously, you should not delete sourced facts in any section so I again added the sentence to the article. Last words, my friend, Sir, I do think you follow these kinds of articles professionally occasionally, so you should be the first person that should be eager to learn the facts. Sir, Think twice, maybe just maybe there are some things that you are wrong about in these issues.

Your goal, as you mentioned which is deletion "the sanction effects on ordinary people" section is not acceptable.

Because IF this article is about the Sanction SO the results and effects of this sanction should stay in the article.KhabarNegar (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me respond selectively:

This article already has a number of sections that deal with the effects of sanctions, including the humanitarian effects. Before adding new sections editors should consider whether the material is already addressed elsewhere or fits better elsewhere. There is no point in repeating the same information in multiple parts of the article.

The only portion of the disputed section that we both agreed was relevant was the quote about smuggling in response to Iran's decision to ban the import of luxury goods. That is not a direct effect of sanctions per se, but results from Iran's response to sanctions.

I am not arguing that the article should not address the effects of sanctions on the Iranian people. I am arguing that it should do so coherently, in one section. The creation of this section has made the article more confusing.

By the way, you did not answer my question about whether you intended to focus on the impact on Iranian people, as opposed to "ordinary" people elsewhere. NPguy (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Why you again reverted my text Here[4]? Your behavior is not acceptable. Why you did do this change[5] After reverting and deleting my added information so I can not undo your action?

I don't know how much energy you have but your are really making me tired.

Stop deleting well sourced notable materials from article, That is trolling.

About The question you are keeping mentioning:

"By the way, you did not answer my question about whether you intended to focus on the impact on Iranian people, as opposed to "ordinary" people elsewhere."

Whats the use of this question? What this question can change?

But the answer is, this sanction effects on ordinary people is very important & should be also mentioned. In a article which its TITLE is actually Sanctions against Iran.

I again take time to add the information which you again reverted and deleted, I don't know what can I do about your not responsibility and you insisting to delete materials. Last word: Next time if you want to revert my edits please don't do the accepted edit by both of us after that, So I be able to undo your actions with less take time. Thank you. KhabarNegar (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Why you also deleted the source of the next paragraph? Pay attention to what you are doing before reverting. you are obviously trolling[6]. Stop this behavior. Don't revert and delete my edits which have really no problem. Read this Help:Reverting, And next time don't continue the wrong action . KhabarNegar (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am unable to verify this paragraph because be two of the key citations are behind the pay wall at the Wall Street Journal. But I see nothing in this paragraph that is not covered in the previous section and therefore see no reason for it to be here.

The European firm was forced to disconnect around 30 Iranian banks, including the country's central bank, from its network following a European Union ban on dealing with the institutions. Iran has faced progressively tougher sanctions from the U.S. and the E.U. Iran's oil exports have dropped sharply over the past year because of sanctions, Iran has been affected by the slump in oil exports and the refusal of many international banks to make deals as a result of the sanctions. That result has triggered a sharp drop in the Iranian currency, and forced Iran to cut back on imports. Iran banned imports of 2,000 luxury items, including mobile phones, laptops and cars, in an effort to conserve foreign currency. Authorities have divided imports into 10 categories based on how essential they are seen to be, and will provide importers with dollars at a subsidized rate to buy basic goods. To save billions of dollars for essential products in the face of worsening sanctions Iran has banned the import of some "luxury goods" including foreign-made cars and mobile phones.[69][70][71]

And you still haven't answered the question. Do you mean the impact of sanctions on the Iranian people, or do you mean the impact of sanctions on ordinary people anywhere in the world? NPguy (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of disputed content in lead

There are three paragraphs in the lead that are both of questionable accuracy and (in this editor's opinion) do not belong in the lead. Let's start with this one:

There is no evidence to indicate that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons. In fact, the US director of national intelligence,James Clapper, testified in March 2011 that he has a high level of confidence that Iran has not even made such a decision.[1] Of course, since the Iranian government has shut off all outside internet access except for Iranian government officials, open source verification of this statement is not possible.[2]

The first sentence is not supported by the cited source. In fact, the IAEA reported in November 2011 that Iran had continued some activities related to nuclear weapons development. As for the second sentence, the testimony from Clapper was that Iran had stopped its earlier program to develop nuclear weapons and the U.S. intelligence community assessed, with high confidence, that the Government of Iran had not decided to restart that program. The IC has also assessed that Iran was keeping its options open. So the situation is ambiguous. The final sentence is a complete non-sequitur, linking the unrelated facts of Iran's internet constraints to the ability to draw intelligence conclusions. So at best the second of three sentences is partially true, but incomplete.

This does not belong in the lead because it is not central to the topic of the article: sanctions against Iran. It may belong in a section on the purposes of the sanctions, but not in the lead. NPguy (talk) 22:31, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

One by one:

Agree with this does not belong in the lead because it is not central to the topic of the article. It may belong in a section on the Reasons for sanctioning, but not in the purposes of the sanctions.

About The final sentence which is a complete non-sequitur, that’s again another edit by User:Patriot1010 .

[7]

This is obviously unrelated and should be deleted.

(ATTENTION: We are talking this “[1] Of course, since the Iranian government has shut off all outside internet access except for Iranian government officials, open source verification of this statement is not possible.” Not any other part of the article. PAY ATTENTION)

Very interesting that then he had reported me here:[8] And then you have had this edit on the talk page of the administrator : [9] ! Finish this behavior is not really beautiful .[10]

About this below:

“There is no evidence to indicate that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons. In fact, the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, testified in March 2011 that he has a high level of confidence that Iran has not even made such a decision. [1]” You have told above that: “The first sentence is not supported by the cited source.” That’s again another lie by you as we can count by read this page from above; it’s the way you almost always try. Sir it’s exactly in the source word by word checks it again.[11]

stop lies, ONCE AGAIN IF YOU TRY DELETING WELL-SOURCED MATERIAL I WILL REPORT YOU, FOCUS ON THAT INSTEAD TRYING ENDLESS TROLLING. That’s so serious it’s multiply times you make claim which obviously is wrong, and then you act according that and delete parts of the article. And after taking lots of my time then you say you have had make mistake. PLEASE try not to make any more mistakes.KhabarNegar (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Two points:

First, be civil. Accusing another editor of "lies" or "trolling" are unnecessary insults that violate Wikipedia standards of etiquette. It is fine to say you disagree or think I am wrong, say so without being insulting. Assume good faith. That is, assume that other editors are genuinely trying to improve the article and not acting out of malice or base motives.

Second, if you disagree with my statement that the first sentence "There is no evidence to indicate that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons" is not supported by the cited source, it is up to you to find text from the source that supports the very strong claim in that sentence. Simply accusing me of lying or trolling is not constructive and does not address the substance of my claim. I read the cited article, and found nothing to support that claim. Perhaps I missed it. NPguy (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Combine sections

Much of the dispute over the section "Sanctions effects on ordinary people" could be resolved by combining this section with the pre-existing section on "Humanitarian impacts." The latter is focused on food and medicine, while effects on ordinary people are broader. I propose a title along the lines of "Humanitarian and other impacts on Iranian people." NPguy (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for your hard pressure in order to make this section disappear? Look above how much you want to repeat this sir? No . "Sanctions effects on ordinary people" should remain in the article just like other sections. KhabarNegar (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? You have offered no logical argument why these closely related sections should not be combined. Your personal attachment to the name of the heading is not sufficient justification. NPguy (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't make edits to article when there is no per discussion page

You may copy paste the lead to a section named "Reasons for sanctioning" what do you mean with "Purposes" when this section is about reasons, no purpose there.

And Also Why you added some text from yourself! in the first of the section, that have also no source!?

AND Why you changed the quote by James Clapper to what you like it to be?! Go check the source... Why you changed this quote then?

IF you want to do any change, That is OK.

I'm agree with Copy Pasting the lead to the "Reasons for sanctioning" section .

AFTER DOING THAT, THEN if you want to do any other changes That's OK, we both can see what that changes are.

I really wish there was some one here that follow what you are doing, to this article.

User:NPguy, "per discussion page", I am agree with you moving the lead (unchanged) to another section, Remember UN-CHANGED.

Then, after that, if you see any changes in words and texts is needed, That's OK. then after that we can go for further changes. KhabarNegar (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is tiresome. I'm going to call in dispute resolution. I suggest edits on the discussion page. You either agree (on the new section) or remain silent (on the edits), then overreact violently when I go ahead and make them. You can't insist on discussion first and then ignore the discussion.

To respond: "Reasons" and "purposes" are approximate synonyms. Your complaint is nonsensical.

I did go back to the source and check the Clapper quote. That's why I changed it. You had it wrong. NPguy (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

1- Why you change the texts when you moving them!? Is that accepted by both of us? Why YOU add text (without any source) to the text meanwhile you moving the lead? Should I ask again WHY YOU ADD SOME TEXT TO THE ARTICLE WHY MOVING THIS PART?

Why you added this text meanwhile moving the text?

==Purposes== {{POV-section|date=March 2013}}

Sanctions have been posed on Iran for several reasons, including nuclear non-proliferation, human rights, and terrorism."

We can have had discussed about adding anything that has no problem, BUT why you add these kinds of words mean while moving parts of the article? That's the main question (although "Reasons" and "purposes" part is also a point BUT) the main failure by you is trying to add some texts without any source (your words) to the article.

2- Clapper quote source is here [12], why you see the necessity to change its words? we both can read the Clapper quote and this source. YOU have changed its quote. Again while moving the parts of the article. Why you try these things? KhabarNegar (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The only text I added in moving the text was the line:

"Sanctions have been posed on Iran for several reasons, including nuclear non-proliferation, human rights, and terrorism."

Do you dispute this? Both the United States and the European Union have imposed sanctions on Iran for all three reasons. Some sort of lead-in is needed as it is misleading to have a section on purposes that focuses solely on nonproliferation. At a later date we can add explanations for the human rights and terrorism sanctions.

The only other change I made was to remove text you had added to the section in dispute. If we are to debate every small change, why should your edits be accepted and not mine?

So I'm going to restore the article to where it was after my last edit. That is the point at which you agreed to move the lead to create a section on purposes of sanctions. If you insist on discussing further changes, this is the place to start from. NPguy (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you telling me you don't know that Right now this article have changed to what you wanted, You are again lying[13], you again do not pay any attention to talk page. you are forcing change you have done... By lie and troll you will get to nowhere. I wish someone just would follow this page. This Is Trolling.

Why you keep adding this:

"Sanctions have been posed on Iran for several reasons, including nuclear non-proliferation, human rights, and terrorism."[14]

But you do delete this then: "Over the years, sanctions have taken a serious toll on Iran's economy and people. Since the U.S. first acted to freeze Iranian assets in 1979, then again in 1987 the U.S. has been leading the efforts, & For the past decade, the U.S., U.N., and other nations have used sanctions to target Iran's nuclear capabilities program.[1] Tehran denies the charge, saying its atomic work is for medicine and generating electricity. Since the Nuclear talks between Iran and the Western powers have failed, new proposals to enforce stronger economic sanctions on Iran are now in the works.[2][3]"[15] KhabarNegar (talk) 06:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I explained. You agreed to move the intro to a new section on purposes. That section itself needs an intro, or else it would appear that nonproliferation is the only purpose of sanctions. I will propose a different way to do this if you like. NPguy (talk) 01:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

O so At last we find out why you keep deleting things and add some texts without any source to the article, that's because YOU WANT THAT it won’t appear like that nonproliferation is the only reason of sanction. Sir, your personal bias shouldn't affect the article. Please "never delete any well sourced part of the article again". Also I will not let you again add anything without source, because it looks like you have thought it has no problem to add text from yourself without providing sources (as I did let you that before) from now on please provide source for any claim you add to article because its looks like now you have personal bias about this article. Thank You, KhabarNegar (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I want the article to be accurate, which currently it is not. Is I pointed out in an edit that you reverted, there are reliable sources for the fact that sanctions have been imposed on Iran for reasons of terrorism and human rights. NPguy (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Deleting sourced parts without good explanation

Do you have any explanation for this [16]edit? You have added "Per discussion page, first move section, then discuss changes"; YOU ARE THE ONE WHICH HAVE ADD text without source!

1- You reverted the article to the version which is made by you which is made only by you and without considering any problems which are your new edits have, You also have referred "per discussion age", but have made odd changes and edits, which are not accepted at all.

2- You have deleted well sourced parts of the article which I don't think you will have any reason deleting them?!

We here so eager to hear your talks about this edit[17], and why you changed the article and when I fix it you have used the phrase "Per discussion page, first move section, then discuss changes", Don’t try to change what is really happening here again, thank you, KhabarNegar (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The version i reverted to was the version you insisted on as the basis for negotiating every further change. NPguy (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You are lie, this two are not the same, and the changes are not agreed. This one[18] & this one [19]. Stop lies and trolling, Thank you, KhabarNegar (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the version before we agreed to create the new section, and then created the new section by moving text. Because of your insistence that every change be adjudicated first on the discussion page, I did not accept the new content you added after we made that agreement. I did not revert to a version I insisted on. To the contrary, I reverted to a version YOU had insisted on. In fact, I think this article is in terrible shape mostly because of the edits you have made and insisted on. NPguy (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

What you think is not important AT ALL meanwhile they are trolling (deleting sourced parts, adding your own Ideas things with strong bias and Etc. again)… So keep that in mind WHAT YOU THINK is not important at all to others. Facts and Article being neutral is the goal, so don’t forget that. You again changed the article an added some parts without any source again, there is no agreement in making "purposes" section. But I just let you do that because you make me tired. But I will not let you add things without any source in to it! If you want add anything first move the section unchanged (don’t delete sourced parts of article) then after moving all the lead another part, then OK! We can see what the changes you are making to article…are. KhabarNegar (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

On April 7 you wrote:

Agree with this does not belong in the lead because it is not central to the topic of the article. It may belong in a section on the Reasons for sanctioning, but not in the purposes of the sanctions.

This is incoherent, because "reasons" and "purposes" are essentially the same thing. I will go back and relabel the section "reasons," but I'm sure you will come up with some other reason to object. At which point I will seek outside views. Your positions are inflexible, impolite, and irrational. NPguy (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

You are obviously trolling I want any admin which is seeing this article take action please. You have added parts without any source here [20] (also you have changed wording of some parts and changed sourced parts according your personal bias although they have sources but you changed the texts and so changed the meaning too), THEN here[21] you start deleting sourced parts from Gallup that you don't like and added some other parts instead them. AND AGAIN here[22] you continue deleting parts sourced with Gallup and added some things as you like and also mentioned in above section in talk page, that you have added those things because you don't want to it look like the sanctions are just because nonproliferation(your personal bias), and you as I said deleted sourced parts and added those other things without any source. AND AT LAST here in above paragraph you are talking about something else completely nonsense. This behavior is trolling and I wish if any admin sees these things. KhabarNegar (talk) 21:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop being insulting.

I've decided to leave the first few sentences up front, but edit them to reflect the content of the cited sources more accurately and paraphrasing. But I moved the rest back to a section on "reasons" as you had agreed.NPguy (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

The editorial disputes on this page, and in my view the behavior of User:KhabarNegar has been so egregious, that I posted a dispute resolution request. NPguy (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for sanctions

The top of this section isn't in great shape. I'm not sure the polls fit here or are event relevant to the article. The other sources were opinion pieces, we need better sources. If none are found, the statements should be removed. I haven't bothered touching the "Nonproliferation " subsection, since it's in dispute separately. TippyGoomba (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

False claim

I have deleted the false claim that there is "no evidence" Iran is seeking nuclear weapons. The cited sources did not support this claim. Some are outdated (from 2003-2007) and reflect the lack of evidence at that time. But the 2007 NIE and the November 2011 IAEA report are more recent and contradicts those old sources. And some sources are statements of opinion, not factual reporting.

It would be correct to say that "Until 2007 there was no evidence Iran was seeking to design nuclear weapons," or that "some observers have claimed that there is no evidence ...." But as long as there are reliable sources that provide such evidence, the claim that there is no evidence is false and unsupported by the cited sources.

If you want to edit along these lines, fine, but stop mindlessly reverting simply because you don't like my edits. NPguy (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

The question here is, why you again deleted 5 sources here[23], If the text needs date, OK… add date for it. But WHY YOU KEEP DELETING SOURCES AND THEN CHANGE THE TEXT TO YOUR LIKED EDITS?! [24]. By the way! Until 2007? Did you even bother yourself to check it out in the sources you keep doing deleting?! [25] What are you doing? KhabarNegar (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your claim was that there is no evidence that Iran is "currently" developing nuclear weapons, but none of the citations were "current." I kept/moved one as an indication that at the time (2003) there was no such evidence.

I have revised the section to begin with non-compliance and then move to weaponization - making it chronological. It also ends with Hans Blix's conclusion (contradicting the IAEA report). This seems to adequately address the differences of opinion over whether Iran is currently pursuing nuclear weapons. Please do not mindlessly revert again. NPguy (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The sources of that claim date are 2013 (one January and one March) I added the date to the article but you deleted them and sources again [26]. You have strong bias so you keep deleting any reliable source which you are not agreeing with. If you have something OK adds it to article, BUT never deletes parts and sources of the article with false reasons. Unfortunately talking with you is completely useless. There is a long history of trolling by you in the history of this article. KhabarNegar (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

NPguy, can you explain a bit more why you think these sources are not reliable? The sources you're attempting to replace with are older and hence do not address the claims. Can you provide more-recent sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the revision I made before User:KhabarNegar reverted. This explains the chronology and the sources:

• Non-compliance based on actions before 2003, but no evidence of weaponiztion at that time.
• 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate concluded Iran had been pursuing weapons until 2003, but then stopped.
• Early DNI Clapper statement that Iran had not decided to restart its weapons program.
• Late 2011 IAEA report expressing serious concerns about weaponization-related activities, noting that some weaponization activities may have continued.
• Hans Blix quote on "no evidence."

I don't mind having the statement about "no evidence" as long as it is put into a context that reports on evidence some fairly authoritative sources have found. The situation is ambiguous, and the claim "no evidence" does not meet Wikipedia standards for neutrality. I do mind taking a single person's opinion and outdated reporting to document a dubious claim. NPguy (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

We're saying "no evidence" in the voice of wikipedia. I agree, we should not do this. Does the qualifier that's there now suffice, in your opinion? TippyGoomba (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The current text (which is an attempt to rebut the arguments I've been making on this page) says "according to reports," two of which have recent dates (2013). However, the only "reports" (as in news reporting) are several years old. The recent articles, while they appear in newspapers, are opinion pieces. I think the section as I left it May 2 was a fair rendition of the facts, presented in a coherent chronological narrative. The reversion, compounded by the disingenuous opening "according to reports" leaves the section in an unsatisfactory state.

Apparently, User:KhabarNegar is unwilling to accept any substantive edits to text he/she contributed or to acknowledge the validity of any argument against his/her text. I have tried dispute resolution, and upon advice reported this as a conduct dispute. NPguy (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, opinion pieces aren't sufficient for this sort of claim. KhabarNegar, would you care to comment? Can you provide better sources? TippyGoomba (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

User:NPGuy Thank You for this[27] & User:TippyGoomba thank you for joining us… Would you tell me what are the changes you guys want to make to the article, EXACTLY? KhabarNegar (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I suggest replacing opinion pieces with better sources. If none can be found, the content should be removed. TippyGoomba (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you see, this is the edit you made[28], which content exactly are you giving the "opinion pieces" name and want to remove? KhabarNegar (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't see what that edit has to do with the topic at hand. Anyway, for example, the section reads According to reports like the ones in The Christian Science Monitor and then points to an opinion piece in the CSM. I can take a stab at cleaning it up, if you like. But I was hoping you might bring some better sources to the table. TippyGoomba (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

To me there is a basic philosophical problem with the "no evidence" claim. I have found sources that report evidence that Iran had (the 2007 NIE) - and may still have elements of (the IAEA November 2011 report) - a nuclear weapons program. Once such evidence is presented, any claim that "there is no evidence" becomes untenable. The discussion of finding better sources for such a claim seems beside the point. I tried to edit the section in a way that presented the relevant facts in chronological order and gave due place to skepticism over the evidence, but KhabarNegar simply reverted without offering a logical explanation - and then added more dubious text. Other than reverting this section back to how I had it a few days ago, I am at a loss.

I'm trying to be patient here, reporting this as a content dispute. From my description I was told to resubmit it treat it as a conduct dispute, which I did, but there was absolutely no response and the complaint has since been deleted. My experience trying to improve this article over the last few months has been very frustrating, and the lack of response to my efforts to seek assistance has only compounded that frustration.

Feel free to keep trying to get a substantive reply from KhabarNegar, but based on my experience I think you will be disappointed. NPguy (talk) 03:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I watch that noticeboard for situations exactly like this. I remove that troublesome first sentence. What do you think of the section now? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As you will note, the offending editor is at it again. He has reverted to his version - only worse.

I continue to believe that the version of this section as I left it May 2 was about right:

collapsed article content

In 1995, the IAEA Board of Governors reported that "Iran’s many failures and breaches of its obligations to comply with its NPT Safeguards Agreement ... constitute non compliance" with Iran's safeguards agreement with the IAEA. At the time there was no evidence that Iran was developing nuclear weapons. In 2007, the U.S. Intelligence Community issued a National Intelligence Estimate which concluded that Iran had a nuclear weapons program until 2003, when that program was halted. In March 2011, the U.S. Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, testified that he had a high level of confidence that Iran had not made the decision to resume that program. In November 2011 the IAEA reported "serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear programme" and indications that "some activities may still be ongoing." Hans Blix, former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, currently head of Blix and Associates, said in 2012 "So far Iran has not violated NPT and there is no evidence right now that suggests that Iran is producing nuclear weapons." He also stated "a majority of Iranians would think the enrichment part of Iran's nuclear programme is not essential." P5+1 governments are insisting that Iran ratify the voluntary "Additional Protocol," which allows the IAEA to carry out more intrusive inspections. But since such inspections may give the IAEA access to non-nuclear military sites, such as suspected nuclear weapons research at Iran's Parchin complex, Iran may be hesitant to agree to this. According to one analysis, the world powers appear to believe that they are negotiating from a position of power. But this attitude could be dangerously delusional and may backfire. Yet there is no reason not to strike a deal with Iran on suspending its 20 percent uranium enrichment, especially since leaders have expressed openness to such deals in the past. As time goes by, Washington's allies get weary of having to keep restricting trade with Iran; it may become more difficult to present a united face in enforcing the sanctions. An EU court has recently struck down – for the second time – the legality of some of Europe’s sanctions on an Iranian bank.

And I see no way out of the dilemma unless KhabarNegar is blocked from this page further. NPguy (talk) 02:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's take this slowly, if you don't mind. First, those opinion pieces need to to. Attributing an opinion piece to the publication itself isn't correct. There is no requirement for fact checking in opinion pieces.

I suggest we remove the opinion pieces as sources, which leaves nothing to support the statement

There is no evidence to indicate that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons, According to The Christian Science Monitor (January 23, 2013) & The Wall Street Journal (March 6, 2013, reporting from The U.S. National Intelligence).

Hence the sentence should be removed. We'll give him a bit of time to respond. If he doesn't, we'll try to introduce the edit again. If that doesn't work, we'll try a WP:RFC and/or admin intervention. Banning him from the article is a last resort. After that, we can take a closer look at your latest suggestion. Sound good? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to try. I have made the same point. The problem is that KhabarNegar will not allow any edits to his own text, however well justified. He will simply revert. I've done this many times, and you are beginning to have the same experience. It has long ago ceased to be an issue of Wikipedia standards and become purely an issue of one editor's behavior. You're free to repeat the experiment. I've found the result is highly predictable. Alternatively, you could just examine the history of this article. NPguy (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Are opinion pieces attributable to a publication/reliable sources for such and such claim

I suggest the following bit of text from the article:

There is no evidence to indicate that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons, According to The Christian Science Monitor (January 23, 2013) & The Wall Street Journal (March 6, 2013, reporting from The U.S. National Intelligence). [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

Two of the references point to opinion pieces in CSM and WSJ, mentioned in the sentence. The rest aren't particularly relevant to the sentence, in my opinion. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As any one can see it here [35], the sources are not what this user above is provided here[36]. Please check the artcle[37].

TippyGoomba and the other user User:NPguy They keep deleting parts of the article specially this part and its real sources. I want to ask anyone to please take time and take look on what these users are doing.KhabarNegar (talk) 03:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you've finally joined the discussion. I've corrected the references. {{reflist}} was giving results contrary to my preview. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"I'm glad you've finally joined the discussion.", Nice joke, Thank you. But don't forget all people are able to read and understand this.... KhabarNegar (talk) 04:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And! Oh Nice [38]. What are you doing? can you STOP These kinds of behavior[39].KhabarNegar (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

No takers yet. Per this, I advertised at WP:RSN and WP:WikiProject Iran. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove - Poorly referenced. Clearly a matter of opinion and Wikipedia is not opinion. NickCT (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

? A matter of WP:NOTOPINION, Poorly referenced? it's not true. KhabarNegar (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think his point was that the reference was an opinion piece, not that there wasn't a reference at all. Attaboy (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Opinion pieces are not good references. See WP:NEWSORG. NickCT (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not opinion pieces & it is an obviousity, how come you say its opinion?

Please no hurry vote according personal interests 01:12-15 May, when you are saying the christian science monitor is not good reference, what can I say? IF christian science monitor is not good reference to you & TippyGoomba & NPguy, then what is a good source then?!KhabarNegar (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

An article in the christian science monitor is a good reference. An opinion piece in the christian science monitor is not a good reference. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

re "An opinion piece in the christian science monitor is not a good reference." - Exactly.KhabarNegar, please assume good faith and don't accuse folks of voting "according [to] personal interest". I have 0 interest in this. NickCT (talk) 14:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. For the record. I was the one who originally made this point. NPguy (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove or reword. Opinion pieces can only be used to cite the opinion of the writer. Although hosted at a generally reliable source news organization, and may (or may not) have accurate information about the subject they are writing about, they are not to be used as a reliable source to verify said information. Find better sources please if an editor wants to add the assertion which is in dispute in this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast did you check the sources? it already have 6 totally reliable sources[40][41][42][43][44][45] then why it should be deleted? KhabarNegar (talk) 18:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I did. The Christian Science Monitor, and the Wall Street Journal articles are opinion pieces. Please see what I said above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just change it to what the references say.

  In 2009, incoming head of the IAEA, Yukiya Amano, said there was no evidence in official IAEA documents that indicated that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons,[46] and in 2013, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, former spokesman for Iran's nuclear negotiators, said that "there is no diversion of Iran's nuclear program toward weaponization", adding that, supported by over 4000 man-days of inspections, "there is no conclusive evidence that Iran has made any effort to build a nuclear bomb since 2003; and that the Iranian leadership has not yet made a political decision to build an actual weapon".[47]

  (and I am sure that someone can find someone who thinks the moon is made of green cheese, but please try to stick with credible opinions)Apteva (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the only recent articles in the list are the two opinion pieces. The others reliable but older. They could be used to support claims that "In year X so-and-so said there was no evidence." But they do not a claim that "there is no evidence," particularly when the IAEA reported in November 2011 that some weaponization-related activities may have continued and may be ongoing. NPguy (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should document claims regarding evidence from reliable sources at various relevant periods. I suggest we can discuss the finer details after the RfC closes, despite its obvious conclusion. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• As to the RfC, no, opinion pieces can not be used to support claims. Opinion pieces can only be used to support the fact that the author stated that claim. Apteva (talk) 06:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So do we have consensus that opinion essays in mainstream periodicals are not reliable sources for factual information? NPguy (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The Rfc will expire on it's own a month after it was initiated. It's quite obvious how it will end, as it was before it was even started. I'd prefer to let it run it's course, so we can have as many voices as possible. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks like opinion pieces are not reliable sources for this claim, surprise. TippyGoomba (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

User:TippyGoomba Be careful about your behavior, the result of this RfC is reword to what Apteva had suggested. and it is done. I see you started deleting the sources from all over the article. Be careful of what you are doing you may face block if you continue doing trolling like this. KhabarNegar (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is where you should go to have me blocked. If you want to reword, then reword. But the opinion pieces have to go. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Be sure I know where to go if it becomes necessary. KhabarNegar (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

TippyGoomba`s Edit on Village pump, Trying for Archiving of this page although there is active discussion here

As User:tippygoomba deleted his post here from talkpage of the article please go here check his post in Village pump, check the link below:

[48]

Reply ↓

It will effect, & I don't know whats the use of saying "someone with a very poor command of English" here? anyway, look here to know him [49], [50], [51]. When there is active dispute in article archiving pervious discussion have effect, specially if someone have lots of time to repeat his talks and claims again & again, Do not archive previous discussion because the answer of your claims are already in that sections. KhabarNegar (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you post your reply at the village pump so more people will read it. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:03, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I don’t want nationalism, patriotism, racism, language based bias, where people living location bias affect the facts. I don’t care what is in benefit of whom or which country I hope you guys also where the same but you guys (NPguy and you) are trying to make the discussion USA vs. Iran or English talking people against non-English and stuff like that. It is so hard to have a good dialogue with some ones that their nationality or patriotism for them is more important than the facts and reality of what is going on the earth. So that’s why I will not join you two guys discussion here and there in more public pages because if you see these edits [52] or [53], it is easy to feel the patriotism and trying to gather teams, That’s what I fully do not want & I hope you two guys also stop these team makings and start to accept facts try to accept realities, Its good for you too.KhabarNegar (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise you'd already been taken to WP:DRN. The result is here. They suggested you be taken to WP:RFC/U. We'll let the RFC and the village pump play out first. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:31, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Lie ... Result of the User:NPguy`s Harassments was the "Conduct dispute". Everyone check the links and read, Thanks.KhabarNegar (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Conduct dispute? What do you mean? TippyGoomba (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I sought a response to complaints about conduct by User:KhabarNegar on this page. That seems to be what got you involved. NPguy (talk) 02:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

It sounded like he might have been talking about WP:RFC/U. If it exists, I'd love to see it. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)