Talk:Views on the nuclear program of Iran

Energy Mid‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran High‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPguy

Non-Proliferation Guy has all kinds of problems with the facts. Here are the original facts that he unreasonably keeps cutting out:

The situation in the United States is, as ever, frightening:

Right now the polling shows: 1. That most Americans support a strike on Iran (presumably to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapon) and 2. That most Americans think Iran already has a nuclear weapon. Which is to say, most Americans don't know what they're talking about.^[1]

Peter Beinart's facts were powerfully and amply supplemented by the observations of Charles Simic in a blog post today for The New York Review of Books:

"Widespread ignorance bordering on idiocy is our new national goal. It's no use pretending otherwise and telling us, as Thomas Friedman did in the Times a few days ago, that educated people are the nation’s most valuable resources. Sure, they are, but do we still want them? It doesn't look to me as if we do. The ideal citizen of a politically corrupt state, such as the one we now have, is a gullible dolt unable to tell truth from bullshit. . . . It took years of indifference and stupidity to make us as ignorant as we are today.

~ Iloveandrea (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs are not Reliable Sources per Wiki rules. HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:24, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Peter Beinart (23 February 2012). "Best Question From CNN Debate: Why Not Declare War on Iran?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 12 March 2012.

Orphaned references in Views on the nuclear program of Iran

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Views on the nuclear program of Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "nti.org":

From Iran and weapons of mass destruction: "HEU as weapons material – a technical background" (PDF). Retrieved 2009-09-20.
From Dolphin class submarine: http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/
From Nuclear program of Iran: "HEU as weapons material – a technical background" (PDF). Retrieved 20 September 2009.^{[dead link]}

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first one. I fixed the link. NPguy (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current views on the 2007 NIE

Recent edits have suggested that the U.S. government view now discounts the conclusions of the 2007 NIE, which said Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003. The wording of the NIE has been criticized (with some justification) as misleading, but that's not what is at issue here. One edit cites Defense Secretary Panetta in 2009 saying that Iran is seeking a "nuclear weapons capability" and implying that this is inconsistent with the NIE. In fact, "nuclear weapons capability" is usually used in this context to refer to the capability to produce high-enriched uranium, a key ingredient in a nuclear weapon. Iran has persisted in developing its enrichment capabilities, as the 2007 NIE made clear. Saying Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability in no way contradicts the NIE.

There does seem to be one change in the U.S. intelligence assessment, which is reflected in the IAEA's November 2011 report on the possible military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program. According to this report, some of Iran's weapons-related R&D continued after the weapons design program was disbanded. Let's agree on a set of edits that make these points clear. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any edits made were properly referenced. We report what references say, and the headline of the reference says exactly that, and cites Panetta specifically in regards to that, not as a general comment. It's not for us to interpret it on our own. --Activism1234 03:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it may be un-wiki, but I'm making an appeal to accuracy. Where an otherwise reliable source makes a mistaken judgment (in this case misinterpreting Panetta's remark) it's best not to repeat the error.

To respond to your question on my talk page, U.S. officials have said on the record that their assessment of Iran has not changed, since the 2011 updated NIE. That is, effectively, a denial of claims that the U.S. assessment has changed. I noted one such citation, but there have been quite a few. NPguy (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your appeal to accuracy, but this is your interpretation of what he said, and as far as I know, is not backed by other references. It's an explicit statement about the pursuit of nuclear capability. We can't allow editing based on what one person thinks is the real interpretation of what a person said, despite the reference saying the opposite.

Also, I'm not asking about denying the U.S. assessment. All I'm asking is for a reliable reference specifically about denying the 2012 NIE report (yes, there exists such a thing in politics as saying one thing in public but the opposite in an internal document). It shouldn't be that tough to find if it's really true. CNN, BBC, Huffington Post, any of these. --Activism1234 03:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reliable basis for claiming that there was an NIE? Public speculation by Ehud Barak?

Jeffrey Lewis just posted a great analysis of this issue on the Arms Control Wonk blog. NPguy (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable basis for this, which would be attributed, are two articles in Ha'aretz that coincided with an article in Yedioth Ahronot, and Ehud Barak's subsequent statements on it, again properly attributed. No one is attempting to write it as a definite fact, just that this has been in the news etc.

The link you posted is an op-ed on a blog written by a partisan author, and blogs generally aren't used as Wikipedia references, in addition to the fact it's an opinion piece. Either way, however, although a fascinating read (albeit some key mistakes are made), it's unrelated to what I've been saying here.--Activism1234 02:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are multiple reports of Barak trying speculating in the Israeli press that there is a new U.S. assessment. They are reliable expression of his efforts. But his claims are contradicted by official U.S. statements that the U.S. assessment is unchanged.

If this information belongs anywhere in this article, it should be as a the statement of Israeli views: Defense Minister Barak, arguing that a military attack might be needed to halt Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions, claimed that the United States had changed its assessment, but U.S. government sources did not support this claim.

Arms Control Wonk is actually a quite reliable and not particularly partisan source compared to many "reliable" press sources. This article is particularly good, and was also published online by Foreign Policy. NPguy (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of that FP story is in regards to Panetta's statements on Tuesday. Can you point out specifically where in his statements he denied that iran is working towards a nuclear capability, or affirmed the 2007 NIE report?

Q: (off mic) on Israel-Iran issues, there's been an uptick in publicity in the Middle East about speculation that Israel is getting ready to attack Iran again. This periodically happens, obviously.

On April -- on August , you were in Israel and you said we -- we need to exhaust every option, every effort before undertaking military action. Five days later, Michael Oren, the ambassador to Israel, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "Time is dwindling. The window of opportunity that opened 20 years ago to stop their program is almost shut."

At this point, what's your view here? Is Israel closer than ever before to undertaking unilateral strikes against Iran? And, General Dempsey, what's your latest thinking about the effectiveness of those types of strikes undertaken by a nation with non-stealthy aircraft and a limited number of bunker buster-type of weaponry?

SEC. PANETTA: I've said this before; I'll say it now. I don't believe they've made a decision as to whether or not they will -- they will go in and attack Iran at this time. Obviously, they're an independent, they’re a sovereign country. They're ultimately make decisions based on what they think is in their national security interest. But I don't believe they've made that decision at this time.

And with regards to, you know, the issue of where we're at from a diplomatic point of view, the reality is that we still think there is room to continue to negotiate. We're just -- these sanctions, the additional sanctions have been put in place. They're beginning to have an additional impact on top of the other sanctions that have been placed there. The international community is strongly unified in opposition to Iran developing any kind of nuclear weapon. And we are working together, both on the diplomatic side, as well as on the economic side, to apply sanctions.

And I think the effort, you know, is one that the United States and the international community is going to continue to press, because as I said -- and I'll continue to repeat -- the prime minister of Israel said the same thing, that military -- any kind of military action ought to be the last alternative, not the first.

Q: But when you've got the ambassador saying the window is almost shut, that implies they're at wit's end, almost, and that they're ready to strike.

SEC. PANETTA: I mean, I -- you know, obviously, Israel has to respond to that question. But from our point of view, the window is still open to try to work towards a diplomatic solution.

GEN. DEMPSEY: And militarily, my -- my assessment hasn't changed. And I want to make clear; I'm not privy to their planning. So what I'm telling you is based on what I know of their capabilities, and I may not know about all their capabilities, but I think that it's a fair characterization to say that they could delay, but not destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities.

The Reuters article linked to in the FP article specifically says,

"'U.S. officials would not directly comment on whether there was a new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which is a compilation of views of the various U.S. intelligence agencies."

Thanks. --Activism1234 04:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is tiresome. I responded to your comments on my talk page with a citation of official U.S. government source saying that the U.S. assessment had not changed. That should be sufficient to resolve the question. NPguy (talk) 02:37, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you gave me an opinion piece. If it is TRUE, it should be very very easy to find a reliable media outlet, like CNN, BBC, etc, that simply reported this... That's it. The failure to do so after so many days is disappointing. --Activism1234 03:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this analysis or this opinion piece? Each cites several confirmatory sources, as do the previous citations I have pointed to. NPguy (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well the last one is once again an opinion piece, on a site with the word conservative in it. I'm still hesistant on the first (seems to be a blog?), but it's essentially confirming that yes, there is an NIE, and it's different from 2007, but it just wasn't published in 2012, it was from 2010 and maybe published in 2011. If so, I feel it'd be proper to include all this info - "Ha'aretz reported... Ha'aretz also reported... Barak said... Back Channel said it's from..." etc. And once again, if a simple denial "No we don't have a 2012 NIE" can be found in some media outlet like CNN, BBC, Washington Post, New York Times, which I can't imagine it wouldn't be if it was actually denied, then that would go as well. But all I'm getting is blogs and opinion pieces. What do you think? --Activism1234 01:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When you search on this topic you tend to find blogs and commentaries. The article by Jeffrey Lewis is probably the best and should be adequate. It's from a reliable source (Foreign Policy). All these articles mention quotes of senior officials that presumably came from standard news outlets, though don't provide specific citations and are therefore harder to track down. None of the quotes say "we deny the Israeli claim." They say "our assessment has not changed," which is the same thing but less "in your face" to a key U.S. ally. It is quite clear that Ehud Barak was claiming there was a new U.S. assessment in 2012 and therefore that he was not talking about the 2010/2011 NIE. I don't understand your persistent questions on this point. As I've said, I would not dispute using the Barak/anonymous quotes as an indication of Israeli views, but they don't seem to accurately represent U.S. views. NPguy (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ha'aretz, however, didn't report it for an Israeli view, despite being published in Israel - they reported it as a report by a military correspondent on the American view. --Activism1234 02:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But the Ha'aretz story cannot be taken at face value. It is clearly wrong wrong, having been misled by its Israeli government source. Would we consider a Judith Miller New York Times article on Iraq's nuclear program reliable? NPguy (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Judith Miller, but the New York Times is taken as an internationally renowned source. Now, every journalist has sources that make mistakes, even if unintentionally (the sources may be misled). So on Wikipedia, it's best to attribute it, rather than report it as a fact, which is really all I'm asking for. --Activism1234 20:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More References For Arab Views

Just to add more to the current views of Arab countries on Iran's nuclear program the article "The Odd Couple Iran and Qatar: Two regional misfits" talks about Qatar who for 30 years has had mutual tolerance with Iran ("The Odd Couple Iran and Qatar: Two regional misfits", 2012), is now faced with an uncertain relationship. For a long time Qatar has been against sanctions on Iran and instead has urged affording diplomacy enough time to guarantee the achievement of a peaceful solution("The Odd Couple Iran and Qatar: Two regional misfits", 2012). However, this stance has recently changed and instead has voted in favor of harsher restrictions in 2007 because of Western momentum ("The Odd Couple Iran and Qatar: Two regional misfits", 2012). While Qatar wants to have a good relationship with Iran it will not favor it in global issues ("The Odd Couple Iran and Qatar: Two regional misfits", 2012). This article shows the relationship between one of Iran's supposedly closest ally. It also, represent the global stance that is being taken against Iran's nuclear program.

Another article though not as current that represents specific Arab nations' views on Iran's nuclear program is Gulf-Iran. While it says most Arab nations view Iran's ambitions as a threat ("Gulf-Iran", 2011), the article lists off the policies each Arab nation would like to enact to lessen the tensions and why each nation feels threatened from a nuclear Iran. It also states the deterioration that has occurred between the Arab nations and Iran and how they are each accusing each other of trying to destabilize Arab regimes("Gulf-Iran", 2011). It gives specific assassination plots that each country has accused each other of and the specific relationship of Saudi Arabia and Iran that is not covered in the article.

The last article Arab League head interviewed on Iran's nuclear programme, other issues gives an overview of the Arab League's joint view on Iran's nuclear development. It states that there needs to be a peaceful solution that will most likely occur with negotiations ("Arab League head interviewed on Iran's nuclear :programme, other issues", 2008). The interview also points out its wish to have no nuclear weapons in the Middle East and still maintains that nuclear weapons are not the intent of Iran ("Arab League head interviewed on Iran's nuclear :programme, other issues", 2008). It also helps clarifies Middle Eastern organization's stances and also provides actual talks with Iran. The article also gives more information on deterioration relationships and fully discusses the current relationship with most major Arab Nations and Iran.

References:

The Odd Couple Iran and Qatar: Two regional misfits.(2012, March 22). The Majalla.

Gulf-Iran.(2011, October 29). The Middle East Reporter (MER).

Arab League head interviewed on Iran's nuclear programme, other issues.(2008, August 30). BBC Monitoring Middle East.

Ecarney4 (talk) 05:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the same editor as User:Phwang? If so, you should either edit from 1 account only or specify on your account that you two are the same... Your editing structure is identical, in regards to how you edit talk pages. --Jethro B 19:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serry

This article is for the various views on Iran's nuclear program. It is not limited in scope to just countries. A representative of the United Nations who deals with the Middle East is certainly notable. Is there any reason why this shouldn't be in the article? --Jethro B 21:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Serry has no role in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. His views are not noteworthy in this context. NPguy (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[sic]

The "sic" added to the Netanyahu quote does not appear in the original source materiel. If you think it is appropriate to add an editorial comment (which originates with you, not the source) that says "what Netanyahu said here is wrong", then I suggest you need to review basic Wikipedia policies like WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Verifiability (sample relevant policy: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it"). If you agree taht such an editorial comment is not permissible under Wikipedia editing policies, that it should be clear that adding [sic] to say the same thing is just as impermissible. Brad Dyer (talk)

It appears that you don't know what the standard notation [sic] means. "Sic" is a Latin word that means "thus." It is used when quoting material that is mistaken, do indicate that the error was in the original source and is being copied verbatim, and not the result of an erroneous transcription. In this case it is an error in word choice, but it is also used to indicate spelling or grammatical errors. It's probably just a mistranslation from Hebrew. It should be "production reactor." This is not an editorial comment. NPguy (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NPguy: I think you've got a point that there's a touch of mistranslation in the quote but the correct term certainly doesn't look like production reactor to me. It looks like an overly literal translation of the term for Breeder reactor. MOS:QUOTE does allow for the insertion of sic, but it looks rather to pedantic to me to flag the term "enrichment reactor" when used in describing a reactor used for fuel enrichment. Dolescum (talk) 06:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "reactor" used for fuel enrichment. For that you use an enrichment plant. And it is unlikely that the quote is a reference to a breeder reactor. I'm not aware of any indication that Iran is seeking to build breeders. But Iran has been building a heavy water-moderated natural uranium-fueled reactor at Arak. This is a reactor type that has often been used for production of plutonium for weapons and is known as a production reactor. NPguy (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly what [sic] means, I just think you are using it inappropriately. Are you using it to indicate a translation error? what is the original wording, then? Brad Dyer (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what was said or written, but the quote from the cited web page is transcribed correctly. Since the source is Israeli and the article in English, mis-translation is possible. NPguy (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the source is supposedly a leaked South African cable, which is English, not Hebrew. I don't think we can indicate a translation error based on "mis-translation is possible", if no reliable source made that comment.Brad Dyer (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 19 external links on Views on the 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Views on the 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) 11:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Views on the 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) 05:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Peter Beinart (23 February 2012). "Best Question From CNN Debate: Why Not Declare War on Iran?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 12 March 2012.

[1]