Talk:Iran–European Union relations

Ardeshir Ommani Comment

The following sentence in the article is misquoted from a Tehran Times (a newspaper published by the Iranian government) report:

:Ardeshir Ommani, Iranian President of the American Iranian Friendship Committee reacted to those comments explaining that US sanctions are designed to harm the Iranian people and calling the isolation of Iran in the international community a "myth". : In the original report Ardeshir Ommani quotes another corresponded with regards to the "isolation myth" concept and doesn't really explain it in detail. His report seems more like a propaganda piece cobbled together from different sources. Tehran Times is an Iranian Government newspaper and known for this kind of propaganda journalism. I don't know if this Aredeshir Ommani character is any reliable source to quote in the article. Does not look objective to me. Delete.

-Windcathers (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

First line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.114.122.28 (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge with Foreign relations of Iran

I think that this page can be easily merged into Foreign relations of Iran where the European Union can be listed under this heading. I welcome your thoughts below. Thanks, Whenaxis about | talk 01:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be hard to justify merging with Foreign relations of Iran, instead of Foreign relations of the European Union. Therefore, I think the merge is probably not a good idea. I don't feel strongly, though. Cheers. Kiwi128 (talk) 01:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can merge to both? Even if that's not agreeable, we can wait and see if there are any other ideas as to how to go about dealing with this. Whenaxis about | talk 01:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thought, although I guess new information would then have to be added to two different articles. I'm actually wondering if a new article about the current strain in relations would be a good idea. Kiwi128 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.. maybe not. It looks as of though that it is typical to follow "Country1-Country 2 relations" pages in Wikipedia instead of merging to individual foreign relations pages. So, instead of merge, maybe we can have a "See also: Foreign relations of Iran and Foreign relations of the European Union"?

The trouble that I see with this article is that it's a bit too specific, and much of the information within it is outdated. It had not received extensive attention until it appeared on WP:ITN just recently. That said, it has the potential to provide extensive, pertinent information on relations between Iran and the European Union. In order for this to be a quality article, it needs to stay up-to-date as relations between the two countries shift and change. I say wait until February or March 2012. If regular updates by that time have ceased, a merge may be warranted.--WaltCip (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The trouble I see is that this article has not a single Iranian source. I believe it would be useful to enforce in a stricter way the NPOV policy, specially in issues about relations between countries and I think that goal can be achieved by using sources from both countries or blocs of countries involved in disputes. This kind of NPOV enforcement is apparently overlooked in the English Wikipedia, specially when controversies happen between EU and US and the rest of humankind, when many editors and contributors, given they write in English, tend to use only or mainly US and British sources. --Ciroa (talk) 05:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll dismiss the very silly statement that the English WIKI ignores NPOV, and move to the only substance of your post. The English Wiki must use sources in English, unless there is knowledge in another source that isn't in English available nowhere else. Such situations will be very, very rare. If you know of Iranian sources that meet the Reliable Sources criteria, then by all means improve the article with useful citations from them on the topic. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll add an Al Jazeera source to the article momentarily to provide some balance.--WaltCip (talk) 15:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, HammerFilmFan, I don't think (of course!) it's a silly point, but a systemic bias. As WaltCip shows (thanks!), there are plenty of sources in English produced in many countries. The fact that English Wikipedia has so many articles, when compared with other versions comes from this fact: English Wikipedia, for many, it's the "international version", composed by people from all nationalities. Unfortunately, even non-native English speakers tend to use only the "main" English newspapers as their sources, when the fact is that there are newspapers all around the world written in English. We also have tons of people that are fluent in Persian (or any other language) and can provide you with translations, giving the sources in their original language as proof of the sincerity of their contributions, and Wikipedia, like no other encyclopedia, can rely on this resource. The point I raise is worsened because many newspapers have also "surrendered" to syndication and, in turn, lack original sources, hence becoming mere amplifiers of a single point of view. For example, I have been working in the Korean War for the last month, trying to provide Chinese and North Korean sources and, frankly, it's evident in those articles that the main source (up to my work) is the US Army and the historians that used the US Army version as their own sources (something that does not invalidate those sources per se, but definitely gives a strong bias to all those articles). Given that we all are voluntaries here, there is no time to become an expert in everything, that's why I ask the people that is trying to learn about the issues of this article (like you) to try to find variety in the POVs presented, I'm doing my part in the Korean War right now, so, please HammerFilmFan, do not think I'm lazy and come here just to whine around. Notice that "Reliable Source" does not mean "unbiased", as this neutrality in the sources it's almost impossible to find, or so I think. My point is not about European or American sources being biased and Iranian sources unbiased (that would be a ridiculous point of view on my part), but about Wikipedia contributors trying to be unbiased, that is, providing both sides of the coin, which is the standard practice in professional reporting. I also know it's not an easy goal, as you reasonably point out, but that doesn't make this effort I suggest less urgent. Check the intelligent (I think) observations given in the section below. I call this issue "urgent" in international relationships, specially in current news, 'when we live nowadays in a world where all armies and politicians use the newspapers consciously as a weapon of propaganda. So, that's why I think that searching for many sources is definitely better than searching for "neutral" sources that are almost extinct and is not a silly effort at all. To believe that major American or European newspapers are neutral (and sufficient as our base for writing this kind of articles) borders on ingenuity, given the fact of the huge merges of those papers that we have witnessed in the last decade, putting them under the thumb of very rich persons with clear egotistical interests. Thus, either we work harder (as a team) or we surrender to the fact that Wikipedia will become progressively infected by viral campaigns created by people with very specific interests, something that (I believe) is the foundation of the NPOV policy: with that policy Wikipedia tries to become the "common sense" of this world and in that, it has succeeded. My apologies in advance for the long explanation, I'm not interested in making you angry nor in deriding the efforts of the writers (on the contrary, thanks to all of you, specially HammerFilmFan, for giving me the chance to write this). Notice that many are worried (at least I am) because this Iranian brawl seems designed consciously by a few powerful groups to create another major war in the Gulf and imagine the potent interests behind this possibility. Frankly, I thought that the delusion a majority had with the Iraq war preparations in all media was enough to raise all alarms this time.--Ciroa (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that the consensus seems to be to delay a potential merge indefinitely, I will remove the merge-discussion tag from the article. If anyone disagrees with my decision, feel free to put it back. Kiwi128 (talk) 06:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Current shortcomings, objectivity

There doesn't seem to be any third-party comment on the reality or objectivity of either Iran or the EU's concerns. This seems to be a consistent problem on Wikipedia when dealing with international relations. Additionally, the language in this article makes no attempt to counteract the assumption that 'Iran is developing weapons', which would naturally be inferred from the EU's constant expressions of "concern". The talk in here also seems very concerned with only the most recent of events, not bothering to elaborate on the multiple issues in 2007 that were raised. There also seems to be no interest in bringing into account the breakdown of the UN votes and resolutions. (Security council? General assembly?) Some of these concerns may seem redundant in the face of the "incomplete" tag, but an incomplete tag is an incomplete descriptor of what is incomplete. Perhaps we should find some consensus as to what, for the moment, would be most useful in providing the newcomer a general idea of Iran's relations with the EU. 99.225.26.9 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)nhaler Edit: Also, are diplomatic cables considered respectable sources? I would think them to be invaluable.

Diplomatic effort

I placed a diplomacy section before the sanctions, with regard to the recent visit by an EU delegation, and expanded the nuclear program entries. This is in the light of the ongoing effort by the US and Europe to ease the tensions. I used a source that cannot be accused of being influenced by pro-Iranian propaganda. Without denying ongoing problems and differences, I believe reducing tensions are beneficial for securing world peace, and I ask kindly for the acceptance of my contribution. I am writing from a country that practices realistic diplomatic relations, and I am therefore less likely to develop biased opinions. It wasn't my goal to discredit any of the organizations mentioned. (Osterluzei (talk) 04:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC))

"Program" or "programme"?

Self-explanatory section. We've had a couple of IPs change the spelling of "programme" to "program". I would rather not get into an edit war, so I'm bringing it up for debate here: Are we to use American or British spelling on this article? Bear in mind that it was originally written in British.--WaltCip (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I will lend my vote to the British spelling. nhaler 99.225.26.9 (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia (country)–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:00, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Georgia–European Union relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Illegal seizure

Royal Marines have helped seize an Iranian supertanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria off the coast of Gibraltar, reportedly at the instance of the United Sates of America. Sanctions doesn't allow any country to restrict bilateral trade of a sanctioned country with a third country, unless the sanction is imposed by the United Nations Organization which encompasses all countries. This is arm-twisting sea piracy, similar to how the Portugese blocked sea-trade between the Indian kingdoms on the West-Coast of Karnataka like Ullal, Kozhikode, Mangalore with Arabia few centuries back which paved the way for European Imperialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.46.5 (talk) 06:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

More Footnoting

The page could be improved with the inclusion of more footnotes in order to attribute specific facts to the corresponding sources. This would improve the page by enhancing its' reliability and credibility. Barney Murphy (talk) 07:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)