Jump to content

Talk:Nuclear program of Iran/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

There has been some back and forth between me and User:Activism1234 on how to organize the latest additions on the IAEA August 2012 and related events. The explanations in the edit summaries don't seem to be sufficient and this is developing the appearance of a rather pointless edit war. Here's why I am once again deleting several headings.

The overall section has a heading for each quarterly IAEA report to the Board of Governors. This captures events in the time period and directly related to the report, including the Board meeting that follows the report and the technical briefing that precedes that meeting. These are all part of a regular cycle. The subheadings to subdivide what is in fact closely related text. All three subheadings under September 2012 are directly related to the report. The concern over Parchin was expressed in the report, and the content is from the IAEA's technical briefing on that report. It is essentially part of the IAEA's reporting to the Board. The "new intelligence" was in fact linked to the IAEA report, as "four diplomats" the intelligence was referred to in the IAEA report. Presumably it is an effort from outside the IAEA to elaborate on the IAEA report. And the Board of Governors' resolution was a direct response to the report. In short, the proliferation of subheads confuses by separating closely related material. NPguy (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

  • Two editors - not solely myself - created these subheadings. While we're discussing this on the talk page, you really don't have any consensus to go and revert, after another editor supported creating subheadings. It would be polite to kindly add in the subheadings again while this discussion is taking place. I refrained from adding in the subheadings after you deleted them a few times already, since I felt it would just be edit-warring, and thus have not done so since 13 September when you removed them. However, another editor has, and you removed it again. This is simply indicative of edit-warring and battleground mentality, since while it doesn't violate 3RR, it's simply reverting again and again and again edits by more than one editor regarding the subheading. It's not good behavior, and I really think you should change this until this discussion is closed.
  • Putting any of these sections as one single report is original research. NONE of the references say that these events were part of the report. Why? They weren't part of it.
    • A statement by a director of the agency days later is NOT included in the report - and no matter how much you want to believe that it's even connected to the report, there isn't any evidence that states so in the reference, and this is simply your own interpretation. This would be equivalent to publishing a report in August, which discusses Parchin, and then in December coming out and saying "We're very alarmed about new developments at Parchin... etc etc etc" and putting those in the same section.
    • The intelligence in September 2012 was intelligence collected from three years and given to the IAEA in September. It could've been given in August, or December even. It was given in September though. It's not in the report, it's not part of the report, the report does not discuss it. The report only possiblly alludes to it in one sentence. It's new, significant intelligence that the IAEA received in a different month and not as part of the report. Again, it's possibly it was alluded to very very very briefly in the report itself - but that's all that is, just an allusion. When the intel came out, it became its own significant event and an event after the report that isn't part of the report.
    • The IAEA resolution - NONE of the refs say anywhere that it is related to or part of the report. IF anything, the refs noted that it came a few days after PM Netanyahu raised concern over Iran (which itself can simply be a coincidence and unrelated to the resolution). Does this mean that the resolution was a result of the report??? Does it mean the resolution was part of the report??? OF COURSE NOT. And saying that it is would be original research, and just simply making an edit that is subject to your own personal interpretation, not backed up by refs. The ref doesn't mention it - you can't just put it as the same thing. That's not how Wikipedia works.

--Activism1234 01:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I never claimed that all the text in this section is part of the August 2012 report. But I have repeatedly explained that this text is directly connected to the report. The report is, after all, a report by the Director General to the Board of Governors, so subsequent elaborations (the technical briefing to the Board; the leaking of intelligence mentioned in the report) and responses (the Board resolution) are part of the same reporting process. The Director General reports every three months because the Board meets every three months, and Iran is a constant agenda item. Further, the whole section on the IAEA reports treats them the same way. Adding subheads implies a lack of connection and is therefore both confusing and misleading. However, I think some other text formatting could highlight the different parts of the process and make it clearer to the reader. NPguy (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
NPGuy, while we're discussing this on the talk page, it is not a good idea to make these changes to the article... It's really not right. STOP IT. When we finish this discussion, we'll see what can be done. For now, you just added unreferenced OR by saying "after the report, resolution..." If I add a section 5 years from now that the IAEA General ate ice cream, and the refs simply say that he ate ice cream, you can't just add in "After the August 2012 report..." It's certainly true this was after the report - but you're drawing YOUR OWN connection that is NOT established anywhere in the references, and this is misleading and source misrepresentation.
The only one I can understand is with Parchin, because the dates were very close and were over the same topic. The rest are completely different, new and significant, and the refs do not establish a connection, except for the new intelligence being alluded to in the report - big deal, it was alluded to in one sentence. Great. Now that it was released, it can be reported as its own - since simply put, it's not part of the report. It's not described in the report. It's not in the report. And we don't even know for sure that it was alluded to in the report. But even if it is, that's not relevant.
I would like to once again ask you to kindly reinsert the subheadings until this discussion is over. It's edit-warring, plain and simple. I don't edit war, so I'm not going to get the last edit in, while you're fine with getting 2 extra edits in, even when another editor agreed with my edit. Until you have consensus for this, while more people oppose this change than support it, it would be respectful to insert it back in. It's not right. --Activism1234 20:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I thought I would chip in my two cents' worth into a discussion that would otherwise be between just two Wikipedia editors. I have made a number of edits to this article going back to last spring, and in the case of a number of those edits, NPGuy would re-write the text that I had just added so that it more closely reflected the news sources I had cited in the original edit. When this first happened, I took a quick look at his edit history and examined some of the other edits he had made to highly-technical nuclear energy-related articles and decided that he was an expert on the subject, at least from my perspective. Not that experts are without fault, but some of his edits which might appear to be "original research" under Wikipedia editing guidelines comes from the fact that he is able to closely parse the various terms of art employed in the source documents and reports this article references. While the articles on the nuclear programs of India and Pakistan may not get as much election-year attention, this is only one of many articles he has made major, continuing contributions to making clearer and more comprehensive for the web-based reader looking for consolidated research on this subject. I think his organizational work, such as breaking out all of the many IAEA reports over the years into one section has made the article less confusing. I don't cross editing paths with Activism1234 as much, and am thus less familiar with all of his contributions, but do not doubt his good intentions here. Joel Rennie (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not engaging in edit warring. I have engaged in discussion and editing in good faith, though the result has been disappointing. I have explained my edits in the edit summaries and, when that did not satisfy, on the talk page. I really do not understand the fuss. Allow me to repeat: I never claimed I never claimed that all the text in this section is part of the August 2012 report. But I have repeatedly explained that this text is directly connected to the report. I have never heard an argument why that is not a good enough basis for defining the scope of the section. NPguy (talk) 02:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
You are violating WP:OR. You are establishing your own connection between the resolution and the report, by writing "after receiving the report." The refs DO NOT establish any such connection - you can NOT subject Wikipedia to your own personal whims of what you think is connected or not. If anything, the refs note that the resolution was a few days after PM Netanyahu gave more warnings - which itself is speculation. But they do NOT anywhere make a connection to the August report. Making such a connection is a violation of WP:OR, plain and simple.
Furthermore, you call it a "resolution" in quotes, as though you think it's not real?? What you think is irrelevant - Wikipedia is written based on references. If references will write resolution, and not think of it as bs or fake, then you have no right to call it fake, whether or not you're a self-declared expert. These are very serious violations - yet you keep ignoring Wikipedia rules.
NPGuy - PLEASE read WP:OR so we can settle this smoothly, and PLEASE understand that you do not have consensus for your changes, as demonstrated by the fact that only YOU are supporting these changes, while both I and AnkhMorpork oppose these violations. If the consensus changes as a result of this discussion, so be it - but as of now, this is just terrible. --Activism1234 00:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
It is not original research to say that the IAEA Board of Governors passed a resolution after receiving the report by the Director General. The report was a report to the Board - just look at the heading on the document. The GOV series of documents are reports to the Board. The Board passed its resolution after receiving the report. I really don't have a clue what the problem is here, but perhaps you could take a look here on the IAEA web site and find something that fills the gap you perceive. NPguy (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
NPGuy... There are two references in the passage concerning the resolution, which you have now put in quotes as though it's not real. Identify, in either reference, where the word "August" makes an appearance. I guarantee that you can not - I've spent much time searching for it. I have not found the word, I have not found such a connection to the August report. I have found a different "connection - noting the resolution came a few days after a prime minister expressed alarm. This is not the same as the August 2012 report.
If you can not, however, identify where the refs establish the connection (please remember - Wikipedia is not edited based on the personal whims and interpretations of editors, no matter how much of an expert they may be), then please, last time, change your unreferenced WP:OR edits that attempt to draw this connection. Chronological order is not a basis for a connection - not everything that occurs a day later, a week later, a month later, or a year later is connected. --Activism1234 01:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
NPguy, while some of the separate content is related to the August report, e.g. the Parchin concerns, the subsequent happenings do seem unattached to the previous report. If you dislike labeling it the Sep report, can you suggest a text formatting that could highlight the different parts of the process, or at least, please demonstrate why you still consider all the material directly linked, with reference to the sources and not personal judgement. Thanks Ankh.Morpork 23:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in. Just on the side, I've never made an edit that has labelled it as the September report, rather as the September 2012 resolution or September 2012 intelligence. Just wanted to clear that up. --Activism1234 23:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
You do realize, Activism1234, that you just deleted the text formatting I had made precisely for the reasons AnkhMorport cites. I'm going to restore that formatting. Also, the IAEA has finally posted the September resolution, which makes clear that it is in response to the August report:

Noting the Director General’s August 30 report (GOV/2012/37) entitled “Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement and relevant provisions of United Nations Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran”;

Ankh did not say a single thing about bolding certain words, and I'm sure he can confirm this for us. Unfortunately, this may represent part of the issue - establishing your own personal interpretations that can't be found in the source. I believe that's exactly what is happening in this entire dispute.
The resolution and link you provided do NOT say it is in response to the August 2012 report. To even suggest that it is in reaction to the report would be an extreme case of source misrepresentation for tenditious editing. It simply says that they "note" that there was indeed an August 2012 report. Now, if a reliable media outlet was to report as saying the resolution was in response to the August 2012 report... So be it. But this is a case of using a primary document for your own personal interpretation, rather than a secondary document like a media outlet. For example, consider how the resolution also says that they recall previous resolutions. By your logic, we should now include this info on every single previous resolution, because, after all, it's in "response" to them... --Activism1234 03:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
If you'd like, I'm willing to settle for including the material under August 2012 report, despite the fact none of the refs make this connection, but as a subsection of the report itself. The purpose is to create easy navigation in the TOC. In addition, the WP:OR would obviously have to be eliminated (the part that says "In response to the report"), since that's not stated anywhere in any of the three references. The IAEA resolution says that they "noted" the report, so we can replace "In response to the report" with a brief comment on how they "noted" the report (and previous resolutions). [Please note - I'm only saying this in regards to the resolution, the intelligence [and Parchin part] should still be a new section, in my opinion, as well as the opinion of AnkhMorpork above. However, we can deal with those two afterwards if you agree to what I'm saying here and settle this first].--Activism1234 03:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is getting really tiresome. I am a Subject-matter expert, though I have been trying patiently to explain rather than invoking authority. Despite my best efforts, Activism1234 seems intent on disagreeing, though the reasons for this intense disagreement are unclear.

Ankh said it would be nice to use text formatting to make the connections, something I tried to do by bolding key term, but Activism1234 had undone. The IAEA Board resolution specifically refers to the August report. I explained that the quarterly Iran reports are reports to the quarterly meetings of the Board of Governors, citing features of the report and the resolution themselves. The agenda for the Board meeting makes this even more obvious, but it is not a public document.

In short, I see no basis for changing the edits I've made and little point in further discussion. NPguy (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

You're an expert? I have no doubt that's possible - but it's impossible for me to know that as a fact. I can say I'm an expert too (maybe I am, maybe I'm not). However, even experts make mistakes. But more relevant to this case, experts are great for providing info, or for knowing the name of the sanctions committee - but in making judgement about whether to make a subsection, new section, name of title, etc, a lot of it is not based on "expertise."
The resolution noted the report. To connect the two as a cause-and-effect is YOUR personal interpretation, it is not necessarily true, and it is NOT established in any of the media outlets used as references in this article, which are secondary sources, rather than primary sources. If one of them was to establish it as cause-and-effect, then fine. Otherwise, it simply doesn't work.
You haven't explained at all why a solution of simply including all the information under the report but in a subsection of the report called "Aftermath" would be unacceptable. It's not necessarily saying there's a cause-and-effect relationship, while it is noting that it's tied in to the resolution (again, something I disagree with, but letting to go to reach a solution). And yet, you haven't even cared to provide an explanation why you refuse this.
The basis? WP:OR, no consensus (you're the only one who supports this), and belief that self-proclaimed expertise sets an edit in stone. --Activism1234 04:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this article is simply getting too long with the inclusion by Activism1234 of a summary of every new news item, including the issuance of diplomatic statements, which occur at regular intervals in any sort of negotiating process. The article is suuposed to be a summary, not an up-to-the-minute chronology of a decades-long program. To cite official Wikipedia policy to support my view, I would note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS

Also, I am concerned that the discussion here is not following WP:CIVIL, primarily because of the accusatory tone Activism1234 has adopted toward NPGuy. I had a similar experience with contentious editing and discussions with the Central Intelligence Agency article some years back, and just stopped editing Wikipedia for awhile as a consequence. Joel Rennie (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the relevance of a resolution passed by the IAEA's 35 member countries and significant new intelligence received by the IAEA regarding Iran has not been disputed here, and provides important information to the article.
Can you identify exactly what is uncivil? I've tried to be as polite as I can, even changing my words (see the edit history of this page) when I felt I was too harsh. --Activism1234 19:01, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I also see the article as getting too long, which is part of the reason I try to edit down new additions.
I don't see the discussion as uncivil but a bit petty. What's the big deal? NPguy (talk) 02:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

@NPguy, I think it'd be best if I submit a DRN. What do you think? --Activism1234 00:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't object, but I don't see the point. I still don't understand what important issue you think is at stake. Can you sum that up briefly? NPguy (talk) 01:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The issue is that there aren't any secondary references that state that there is any connection between the two events, and the primary reference simply says that they "noted" it, along with other resolutions. We need a reference to make the connection. Otherwise, it's WP:OR. That's the issue. --Activism1234 02:50, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I think that a prolonged discussion here wont' solve anything, DRN is the only chance for a peaceful resolution, something that I think is in both of our interests, as there isn't any reason to strain relations on an article that likely the two of us will be collobarating on for the near future, if the past holds any indicator. And you're a great editor anyway on these nuclear articles, I just happen to disagree with you regarding the subsections. --Activism1234 02:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Iran admits lying

Wait wait wait... I can see an argument that the statement on negotiations is too much. Fine. But the widely-reported bit about Iran deceiving the West? It even made The New York Times, not just "local" news. Come on, it's looking like any edit I make is just being blanket reverted without consideration. --Activism1234 01:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I made this a new section because it doesn't fit in the previous discussion. I tend to agree that the quote is significant and newsworthy, but where does it belong? I imagine it fitting with a quote from the November 2003 IAEA report about how Iranian information was often slow in coming and contradictory. NPguy (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
This is 9 years after 2003... There isn't a connection to anything in 2003, and if there is, it's not one that is established in the references. It either belongs in one of the recent additions of the IAEA, or as part of the Iran section. I'd say the latter, since Iran said they also lied to the West, not just the IAEA. --Activism1234 17:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it fits in the IAEA section as currently structured, but it would fit naturally in the last paragraph of the Iran section, since it was said in an interview with the Iranian press about the General Conference. NPguy (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the end of the Iran section seems fine. --Activism1234 02:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

World's view on the Iranian Nuclear program.

I feel that Wikipedia is a good search engine for vast topics. However, I feel some of the current sources I was looking for weren’t mentioned in the article. This why I am taking the time to mention some up to date information of the Iranian Nuclear program and the world’ Iran’s nuclear program is causing a world wide debate for the truth. Every country has their own opinion on the topic, such as the United States and Israel believes that Iran is attempting to create weapons of mass destruction (WMD). This is while other countries believe that Iran is simply creating a nuclear power source to become a more modernized country. Despite the on going debates the European Union is sanctioning Iran. At the same time the United Kingdom is seeking more sanctions (Blitz 2012, p.2). The UK is looking to not just stall the nuclear program in Iran, but to demolish it by adding more sanctions to the ones already in place. The sanction put on Iran is blocking the exports of Iranian oil at the same time restricting banking transaction over the last twelve months. (Blitz 2012, p.2).

The sanctions put on Iran might seem harsh. However, Israel and the United States were able to prove to the International Atomic Energy Agency that prior to the sanctions Iran was moving towards atomic weapons (Hartcher 2012, p. 9). This is why the UK is pushing for more sanctions. Due to the evidence Israel as well is pushing the tempo of war, while the United States slows it down. Even if the United States is trying to slow the tempo down, they are not backing down. During the United Nations meeting Honorable Barrack H. Obama addressed the nations by informing them that a Nuclear Iran is a danger leading up to an arms race in the region, at the same time he asked Israel to fix their priorities (Hartcher 2012, p. 9).

Through the entire thick and the thin we need to ask ourselves, “Is Iran in the wrong?” Should we second think our decisions before we start bring the military in? The whole world remembers when the United States invaded Iraq thinking they had weapons of mass destructions to find out it was all a fallacy. (George 2012, p. 13). We need to turn heavily to our intelligence community for real proof on whether Iran is developing weapons or merely developing modern energy. At the same time our intelligence community shouldn’t rely on foreign government’s proof due to the creditability it may hold (George 2012, p. 13). Foreign governments tend to try to influence a country’s opinion on a situation by proving non-creditable proof. We all need to stop speculating and instead go for hard facts.

References:

George, Z. R. (2012, October 2). What if we’re wrong on Iran?; In weighing an attack on Tehran’s nuclear sites, it pays to remember the WMDs that weren’t. Main News, p.13. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sf&sfi=AC01NBSimplSrch

Hartcher, P. (2012, October 2). Iran clock ticking but Israel, US hold hands. News and Features, p. 9. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sf&sfi=AC01NBSimplSrch

Blitz, J (2012, October 2). UK seeks more Iran sanctions. World News, p. 2. Retrieved October 2, 2012, from http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic/?verb=sf&sfi=AC01NBSimplSrch Phwang (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Op-eds. Got any secondary Reliable Sources to cite? HammerFilmFan (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Iran suspending 20% uranium enrichment?

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/report-iran-suspending-20-uranium-enrichment-as-goodwill-gesture-before-u-s-talks-1.474154?localLinksEnabled=false

Is this well sourced enough to show how Iran is finally starting to cave under Obama's relentless pressure? Hcobb (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

No. The original source was The Guardian, which now has this story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/04/iran-suspend-uranium-enrichment. NPguy (talk) 17:09, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Article too long

Does anyone else think that this article is too long? Do we really need month by month sections showing the IAEA's reports? Granted I know that we don't include one for every month, but we still have quite a few. This article is so long that it is difficult to read in a single sitting. Zell Faze (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a common observation. There are several threads in this talk archive making the same point. The article has already been split once (see Views on the nuclear program of Iran) and could be split again. I have suggested that the section on IAEA reports be split into a separate article on Iran and the IAEA. But this would take a bit of work and I haven't found the time. NPguy (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I thought the same, that seems reasonable. What do you suppose the new article should include? Mainly just the IAEA section and all the proceeding dated report subsections? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, disregard. I see the user page you've made. Do you hope to transfer all of that material outright to the new article, or retain short summaries of the removed content in this article? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hope is the right word. My intention, if I find the time, would be to draft a thematic summary for this article and move the details to the new article. NPguy (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I separated them into informational vs. inividual news articles. I fixed a broken link, found dates for those missing, and sequenced those in ascending date sequence. No links were added or deleted. My changes do not imply any endorsement of the existing links, just an attempt to bring some order into chaos. Flatterworld (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the inaccurate name change?

This article name was just changed from nuclear program of Iran to nuclear power in Iran. Why? With what discussion? There was a discussion months ago that reached consensus not to make that change, because it is inaccurate. NPguy (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Per MOS:CONSISTENCY. This is a wikipedia guideline. You can't single out Iran with this title while other articles have different titles.Pass a Method talk 20:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I have moved it back. The consensus at Talk:Nuclear program of Iran/Archive 5#Requested move was against moving, and so a move request is needed. StAnselm (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, on the 24th of November there was a deal between Iran and most major nations, including western nations to recognise the nuclear program as being used for atomic energy and as a result sanctions were lifted. It makes no sense to say that US administration officials in the US are providing assistance to Iran in its development of a civilian nuclear programme, including domestic enrichment, if its of the same status as before. Iran has been given a green light to continue enriching uranium up to 5% and the UN has not proposed any resolutions, meaning that as per wikipedia policy on article titles, theres no reason for us to name this article differently. Unless you have some new news reports to dd, the arguments in the consensus of the previous discussion do not apply here. Pass a Method talk 01:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Once again, you need to use WP:RM. Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting technical moves says:
If any of the following apply to the desired move, treat it as potentially controversial:
  • There is an existing article (not just a redirect) at the target title
  • There has been any past debate about the best title for the page
  • Someone could reasonably disagree with the move.
Why are you so blatantly disregarding this process? StAnselm (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
You have not countered any of the points i made. Pass a Method talk 04:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I was addressing the procedural issue. Start a move (why would you not want to?) and then we can talk about the name of the article. StAnselm (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, the points made were highly inaccurate. There was not a "recognition" that Iran's program is peaceful but the beginning of a process that might allow Iran to resolve serious questions and build confidence in that claim. Sanctions were not lifted, except in a very modest and reversible way. NPguy (talk) 17:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

There is very little information about Iran's nuclear program in this article

Most of the information in this article is about the dispute about the program, which is of course a very notable topic and does belong in Wikipedia. But Iran's nuclear program is not the same topic as the big dispute about this program, the fact that the latter dominates the former in the news media does not make it so.

This has the effect (which also exists in the real world) that Iran's position in this dipsute isn't explained well. Take e.g. the Iranian plans to build a few medium size nuclear powerplant (mentioned in the lede of this article). If we accept this at face value then this implies a certain demand for enriched uranium which is huge compared to what the current dispute is about. So, that simple fact is very relevant, but the lack of coverage means that people will not really understand the most fundamental problem underlying the dispute, i.e. that within a 100% verified peaceful nuclear program, Iran could still have a breakout capacity that is enormously larger than what the West and Israel are worried about today. Count Iblis (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

most of the world does not worry about "Israels worries". In fact, if Israel has worries, they can simply nuke Iran, and they sure will not refrain from doing that. So Why not mention Liechtenstein's non existant worries about Iran, or those of Palestine instead. --91.60.147.42 (talk) 02:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Misleading grammar

Small scale research into nuclear weapons may have restarted during the Iran-Iraq War, and underwent significant expansion after the Ayatollah's death in 1989.[4]

This is deceptive writing. the first clause suggests possibilty, the follow-up clause instead assumes that possibility does not exist. Something cannot undergo expansion if its very existence is hypothetical. Please adjust either the verb, eliding 'underwent' and changing 'expansion' to 'development' or finding verifiable information to change that 'may' etc. Nishidani (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I read it as meaning that the exact date of the program's restarting was unknown, and may have occurred as early as the war, not that the program itself nor its expansion after the Ayatollah's death is in any way hypothetical. Does that make sense? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
That's what the editor who wrote that probably intended to mean by it, but this is an encyclopedia, we are obliged to write lucidly, and not seed the text, particularly ones subject to POV pressures like this, with potentially misleading language.Nishidani (talk) 06:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
the whole article is pretty hasbara contaminated, above you see just one example. --91.60.147.42 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

New section on purported unofficial Iranian offer

An IP editor persists in adding a section entitled "Unofficial Iranian negotiation and peace offer to the US." The content is mainly from an article by the reported recipient of the offer. As there have been many reported offers and little evidence that any were serious, this incident seems both doubtful and not particularly noteworthy. Since the article is already weighed down with dubious and anachronistic content, this new section does not seem like an improvement. Contrary views welcome. NPguy (talk) 00:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


I think Iran is probably waiting for the goalpost to be moved. I suspect that no matter what Iran does there will be a problem. If Iran allowed the US/Israel to come and set up shop anywhere/everywhere we wanted and removed anything we pleased there would be a new demand the next day. Those oil wells we used to own before the Shah was kicked out would probably be first on the list. 24.128.186.53 (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"Those oil wells we used to own before the Shah was kicked out" Actually, wouldn't that be "...before Mosaddegh nationalized them"? ...76.10.167.11 (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Khomeini

I removed the following text from the lead:

After the 1979 revolution, a clandestine nuclear weapons research program was disbanded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902–1989), who considered such weapons as haram (sinful) and forbidden as unethical and immoral in Muslim jurisprudence.[1]

This both contradicts the rest of the information we have in the body of the article that says the West stopped cooperating with Iran on nuclear stuff, not that Iran decided to disband its program, and is also a violation of LEAD since it is not a summary of the body.

Could someone provide a quote from the book so we can see how to fix this discrepancy? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Yossi Melman, Meir Javedanfar, The Nuclear Sphinx of Tehran, Basic Books, 2008 pp.89–90.


"the West stopped cooperating with Iran on nuclear stuff," I believe this was for nuclear power. The CIA, Mossad and at least 15 other US intelligence agencies have all stated that Iran has never, is not know and has no plans for making a "bomb". Where is the news media on this - working for us or Israel? 2601:181:8000:D6D0:8D60:A8BF:9852:AD8C (talk) 15:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the U.S. intelligence community concluded that Iran was seeking to develop nuclear weapons, but halted that effort in 2003. The IAEA reached a similar, but more tentative conclusion, citing information provided by 11 different states. NPguy (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Nuclear program of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Nuclear program of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Nuclear program of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nuclear program of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nuclear program of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Move article to: Iran's nuclear program

Seriously, why not use this much simpler and commonly used name? FabulousFerd (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Nuclear program of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

German report

Some editors are insisting on including a reference to a German intelligence report to imply that Iran violated restrictions on nuclear procurement under the JCPOA. This implication is incorrect. Per Robert Einhorn of the Brookings Institution:

Critics have also pounced on a German report that Iran’s illicit attempts to procure nuclear and missile items continued in 2015. But Tehran’s requirement to import all nuclear items for its permitted civil nuclear program through the JCPOA’s procurement channel—and stop procuring items outside the channel—did not kick in until January 2016, and neither Washington nor Berlin has information that illicit efforts continued after that time.

NPguy (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Nuclear program of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Nuclear program of Iran. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey all, I just found that the first two paragraphs of section 2.5.2 is a copy/paste of page 171-172 of the book How Iran Plans to Fight America and Dominate the Middle East by Gabriel G. Tabarani. Either that or that author did a copy/paste from this wikipedia page, though I doubt that. See this link for the book from which it was stolen.

I don't edit wikipedia often, so I don't know what the procedures are for reporting this. Hopefully this is okay, what I'm doing. 71.85.213.146 (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Good call. It seems that the author in question copied from wikipedia. See this edit by NPguy on 2 April 2007. It looks like that paragraph developed organically. The book was first published more than a year later, on 16 October 2008. Uglemat (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Cherry picking the Asia times article ?!

Why an article is used to prove Iranian role in Argentina bombing in one occasion , but it can not be mentioned for balancing the POW and giving the alternative explanation ? ( my edit is reverted ) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The claim I reverted seemed to be sheer speculation. NPguy (talk) 02:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Whole story of Iranian role is still a claim . No international court has sentenced Iran yet . I think if we are going to show the claims , it is reasonable to show both sides view . Isn't it against WP:NPOV to use an article in one occasion and dismiss it as "only a claim " in other occasion ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
You may be right that the entire article is speculative and should not be cited here either way. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Other article from Asia Times , "Argentina's Iranian nuke connection" is also expressing the opposite point of view from the sentence that is been cited in this wikipedia article: "Some have linked attacks such as the 1992 attack on Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires and the AMIA bombing as part of an Iranian campaign to pressure Argentina into honoring the agreements" . The Asia times says :"... Argentina was continuing to provide Iran with low-grade enriched uranium and the two countries were in serious negotiations on broader nuclear cooperation when the bombing occurred. " and " undermine the official argument that Iran's top leaders were motivated to order the bombing by Argentina's decision in 1992 to cut off its supply of nuclear materials to Iran." More than that , Some in the beginning of first sentence seems to be a WP:WEASEL .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nuclear_program_of_Iran/Archive_6&oldid=1256345908"