Talk:Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge[edit]

There are three \articles dealing with the same topic, the negotiations between Iran and six leading countries over Iran's nuclear program. These are P5+1, Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program, and this one. The division is confusing and unnecessary. They should be merged into a single article. NPguy (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article could be kept as a redirect. NPguy (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the topic "Joint plan of action" which would consist two deals.Soroush90gh (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Washington Post presented the chart" - does this implies endorsement?[edit]

The subsection United States includes 2 clauses:

  • Glenn Kessler from the Washington Post has come to the conclusion that between 2013 and 2014 the amount of nuclear material, which could be converted by Iran to a bomb, has been increased.
  • Fred Fleitz stated in The National Review Online that the "number of nuclear weapons Iran could make from its enriched uranium has steadily risen throughout Mr. Obama’s presidency".

It's essential to bring to the attention of Wikipedia's readers that both sources present the same chart to support their conclusions and that is the reason the following sentence has been included:

Both, the mainstream Washington Post and the conservative National Review Online, presented the Center for Security Policy’s chart that illustrates Iran’s build-up of nuclear material since 2009.[1]

It looks inconceivable the above implies that Washington Post endorses (or criticizes) the chart. Apparently it doesn't. Nevertheless, the sentence has been removed as if it "Falsely implies Washington Post endorses graph". Trying to reach consensus (WP:CON) I propose to replace the word "presented" with "used". What do you think about this? Yagasi (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text should identify the actual source of the chart, which is neither the Washington Post nor the National Review, but the Center for Security Policy, Fred Fleitz's organization. NPguy (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not only the Center for Security Policy is the actual source, the Washington Post and the National Review are actual sources too. The Washington Post informs that the chart was prepared using Albright’s and Heinonen’s research. According to the National Review, Heinonen said that the figures understate the status of Iran’s nuclear program. As for Albright and Heinonen they are actual sources too. All this is reflected in the text, its internal links and references. Yagasi (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. The Center for Security Policy is the source of the chart and has an agenda in presenting the data selectively in this chart. The Washington Post notes this caveat. NPguy (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glenn Kessler from the Washington Post, while checking the facts related to the President Obama's statement, mentioned the following sources: IAEA (definition of "nuclear material"), Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken (testimony before the Senate), nuclear experts Olli Heinonen and David Albright, Jeffrey Lewis from MIIS and the Center for Security Policy’s chart which was extended by information provided by Heinonen and Kessler himself. Kessler's reporting is an actual source too.
Now about Kessler's conclusion: he gave three "Pinocchios" to the discussed President's statement and that means "Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions." I believe Washington Post wouldn't publish this if your doubts about the reliability of the chart's message were justified.
I disagree with your opinion but having reliable sources you can add it to the article. I think that unfounded removals from Wikipedia can be regarded as censorship. I also think that the dialogue between us should be suspended for now and we shall wait for comments from more Wikipedians. Yagasi (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question I raised is whether it is more accurate to attribute the chart to its original source or to a secondary source. A separate question is about the significance of this argument over Iran's stockpile. Does that stockpile represent a larger or a smaller concern than before the JPOA? All your sources except Fleitz would agree that, overall, the concern has been reduced. The argument is a sideshow.
I don't think a lot of people - wikipedians or otherwise - are paying attention to this article. NPguy (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References1[edit]

  1. ^ Fred Fleitz (22 January 2015). "Why Iran's Nuke Program Could Be Even Bigger than You Might Think". National Review Online. Retrieved 26 January 2015.

Mission creep[edit]

I think this article has become a sandbox for one editor and has strayed far beyond the scope indicated by the title. Though overtly factual, selective use of sources reflects clear biases of that editor. What do others think? NPguy (talk) 22:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like more editors to be involved, but, as NPguy noted, wikipedians are not "paying attention to this article". I don't think the article went beyond the scope. I do my best to be objective and unbiased. If a specific point of the article is disputed by somebody - we try to reach consensus about that point. Yagasi (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this article refers to something that doesn't exist -- at least not yet. The latest additions on the nuclear umbrella seem particularly far afield from the supposed subject. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NPguy here. Specifically, I think we can cut/move these sections: What-if analysis and Arak reactor. They don't seem important in an 'news' article dedicated to a potential treaty. Maybe give them their own page and/or link to them in the See Also section? I want to go through and look at the sources for bias as well though I don't think I have the time for it. I'll give editors a chance to weight in before I do anything. 66.45.157.213 (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At present, the article is on the main page and wikipedians pay attention to it. Please clarify which section you want to move to the other articles.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title[edit]

The title Comprehensive agreement on Iranian nuclear program and the short name "Comprehensive Accord" (used in the template Nuclear power in Iran) exist since 22 February 2014. Both names were chosen by other editors but I did not have then and still do not have any problems with these names. The editor used the more cautious term "agreement" (not "treaty", etc.). Possible future changes can be handled by redirects. Whether or not the negotiated agreement will be reached the title may remain in either case and changes can be applied to the lead only. Yagasi (talk) 14:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article existed mostly as a placeholder, to distinguish the final agreement from the interim Joint Plan of Action. But the agreement itself does not exist. You have written about negotiation that may lead to an agreement. That might eventually be relevant to this article, but would fit better in the article on P5+1. And the other background material is even less directly related to the non-existent agreement. NPguy (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article exists as a notable WP:ARTICLE. This article provides knowledge about an international nuclear agreement that is currently negotiated and receives significant coverage in many sources. The article includes essential relevant information about the negotiated content, the negotiating parties, negotiations framework, meetings held between parties, agreement implementers (such as IAEA), impact on third-parties and their involvement, analysis of probable developments and other issues. Some relevant issues (for example, negotiation styles of the countries) were omitted in order to keep the article size reasonable.
The content doesn't fit in the article on P5+1 since Iran as a nuclear negotiator, bilateral and trilateral talks and other issues don't fit it. Additionally, P5+1 article will probable grow over time because it lacks a lot of essential information (WP readers have not received information about P5+1 legitimacy, its legislative procedures, etc.). Yagasi (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This article should have been left as a placeholder until an agreement was reached. The process should be addressed in the P5+1 article. But no other editors have weighed in because no one reads this article. NPguy (talk) 16:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear umbrella[edit]

There are at least two essential reasons to include this issue in the scope of the article:

  • Saudi Arabia and the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council may be regarded as third parties to the negotiated nuclear agreement. They are neighboring countries to Iran and their security can highly benefit or suffer as a result of the agreement. So the issue of American nuclear umbrella can't be excluded from this article. It would be like to ignore the security of Poland and Finland while covering the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
  • It's difficult to believe that the U.S. will sign the agreement without finding a comprehensive or any other solution to the security of its close allies. Immediately after the talks in Montreux John Kerry flew to Riyadh and informed there the press as follows: "So a large part of why I wanted to come to Riyadh today is to update our Gulf partners on exactly where the negotiations stand, on what our standards are, on what we are looking to achieve, and what we have done since the talks first started... Now, obviously, everything we have just talked about emphasizes the fact that there is no shortage of urgent and complex challenges that face Saudi Arabia, the United States, the Gulf states, and our allies and friends."[1] Yagasi (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-

None of that is actually part of the agreement, and the second paragraph, commenting on the credibility of the U.S. extended deterrent, seems like a gratuitous criticism. NPguy (talk) 03:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no criticism in §2 and criticism is not relevant here. We can't say this about "none of that" yet, but who limited us to information being a part of the agreement? Shall we ignore the opinion of former U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz that Iran's missile program and its support of the terrorism should also be on the table? Yagasi (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References2[edit]

  1. ^ "Press Availability with Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal". United States Department of State. 5 March 2015. Retrieved 6 March 2015.

This article has been turned into a joke by people with an agenda[edit]

Just read "Agreement's duration" addition by user Yagasi among many of his single-purpose "contributions" and tell me it isn't pure POV and/or irrelevant digressions from dubious or partisan sources (United Against Iran, Daily caller, familymatters, etc). Sorry i don't know the wikipedia code to flag that for NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensi.fr (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned 3 sources are used as Wikipedia's sources in many articles. Anyway, "Agreement's duration" relies on 10 different sources and this makes it balanced and pluralistic. Yagasi (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"balanced and pluralistic" in your subjective delusion. I read all of your additions as utterly and completely biased, while "Agreement's duration" was solely added, oriented and redacted by you so hardly "pluralistic" by any standard. talk — Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sensi.fr:, once more: the section "Agreement's duration" relies on 10 sources, but before reading it you should read WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:SIGN. Yagasi (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Agreement's duration" section, the quote by Khamenei leads to a statement, outside of quotes, that there is "no doubt about Iran's adoption of religiously-inspired combat against the United States and the West." Statements by foreign leaders usually don't support these kind of broad conclusions. North Korean leaders threaten the U.S. routinely, and have been for over 60 years. There is nevertheless some doubt as to whether they will attack the U.S. Former statements by Saddam Hussein could be seen in the same light -- he clearly threatened the U.S., and those statements got a lot of play leading up to the Iraq war, but it was unclear he would have (or could have) acted in any meaningful way. This issue is complicated, of course, by the fact that both the North Koreans and the Iraqis under Saddam did, at certain points, take action against U.S. forces. And the same can be said for Iran today -- Iranian-backed militias attacked U.S. troops during the Iraqi occupation. But I think the broad point remains. There is hostility between these countries and the U.S., but we don't know they have any intentions for concrete actions against the U.S. It is a debatable point upon which observers disagree. Wswanniii (talk) 16:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework[edit]

I tried to paraphrase the main aspects of Full transcript: the international statement on the Iranian nuclear deal in Iran nuclear deal framework's section. However, please check it due to the fact that I am not a native speaker. Thank you.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot details which can not be covered in the main article, therefor I made a new article(i.e.Negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework) to contain such information.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is not up to Wikipedia Standards[edit]

Point 1: Covering Breaking News isn't the job of an Encyclopedia. Maybe a New Blog, but not a verified, well source, repository of information.

This is an article about a significant current event so it includes (but is not limited to) up-to-date summarized information. Wikipedians are encouraged to include such information within their edits. Yagasi (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 2: Wikipedia is not a Log. This is supposed to be a document, not a highly detailed log of what the editor thinks in important.

Please give specific examples of what you mean. Yagasi (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3: What Ifs/ Wikipedia is not a What If blog. An encyclopedia cover what happened in article form, from verified source... Wikipedia doesn't Make assumption of What could happened from the editors point of view.

The "What-if analysis" section isn't based on editors' opinions but on expert sources. Yagasi (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see a number of statements in the article as a whole that aren't NPOV, and the "What-if analysis" seems particularly problemmatic. The subsection under "What-if" on "Cutting a bad nuclear deal with Iran" has a point of view, in my opinion.
The first sentence says:

A deal "that removes the most important sanctions but does not extend Iran’s breakout scenario to at least six months, that does not address the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear work, that does not allow for rigorous monitoring and transparency, that places only short duration constraints that are easily reversible, and that unravels sanctions against Iran’s support for terrorism and gross human rights violations as well" is a bad deal.

While the sentence is quoting a source in describing the paramaters of a bad deal, the sentence is constructed to adopt that definition as fact. The "is a bad deal" portion is outside of quotes, and thus the view presented by the article. The following paragraph goes on to assert consequences of a "bad deal," so defined ... and while the consequences are sourced, they are also initially presented outside of quotes and unqualified. They are not things that "some think" will happen or that "may" happen. They "will" happen.
I also note that the "U.S. President versus Congress" section presents the point of view of several critics of the deal, but does not even mention that some members of Congress (and quite a lot of them, actually) support the deal.
In general, this article seems littered with POV. I note from previous discussion a reluctance to agree to edits. I think the article needs a thorough review. If someone else isn't willing to do it, I would be. Wswanniii (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yagasi: the What-if section opinions seem to be more or less sourced, but are they really notable? See WP:CRYSTAL. What if ;) we included published opinions about what might happen on a whole lot of other geostrategic issues depending on their uncertain outcomes? About what will happen to the Iranian civilian nuclear program and alleged military nuclear program if Clinton is elected in the next US presidential election? or if Bush is elected? or if the number of climate-related disasters increases notably? or if al-Assad loses power in Syria? or if the eurozone collapses? or if Russia invades the Baltic states and/or Poland? The articles would become more of an analysts' forum rather than an encyclopedia more focussed on claims about the real world. Boud (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This whole article need to be rewritten.

You're point are too general. Can you please clarify how should it be rewritten.--Seyyed(t-c) 10:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many edits are needed: true. See WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS and edit appropriately, section by section, or sentence by sentence. Please also learn to sign your edits with ~~~~. Boud (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did a few. See also WP:WEASEL, which I used a lot more than the others. Better edit (carefully, i.e. don't accidentally delete nearly the whole article like I did due to a browser tab error) than claim that someone else should edit... Boud (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fatwa doesn't exist?[edit]

Many sources claim that Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear weapons doesn't exist. What exactly are they basing this off of? The article documenting this claim clearly points to an Iranian government website declaring that nuclear weapons have been forbidden. The website further answers the question as to why there is no text of the fatwa: in Shi'ite Islam, the original fatwa need not be written and may simply be transmitted via reports. And no one can deny that reports of the fatwa, including by Iranian governmental figures, certainly do exist.VR talk 15:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources say there was a Fatwa. Others say their wasn't. The usual treatment of such a situation would be to describe the controversy about whether the Fatwa exists or not, while avoiding giving any answer to the question in Wikipedia's own voice. A good non-Wikipedia example of describing the controversy is here: [1] MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What-if analysis - how to rescue notable parts[edit]

In this edit, I removed the section "What-if analysis", under WP:CRYSTAL. Given that the most crucial aspect of the deal has been made, it's not so much crystal-balling anymore, it's more like speculation as to what might have happened if the negotiations had had a different result, or what might happen now given the actual result. In the sense that the details still have to be agreed on, it can be seen as "analysts" crystal-balling.

In case someone thinks that some parts can be rescued and reintegrated into the main body of the article, see the link above. Boud (talk) 21:13, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur re: WP: CRYSTAL. This is pure conjecture, even if it comes from sources. Even beyond Crystal, this is the sort of thing Wiki tends to shy away from. Especially in what is a politically charged topic, to much foreseeing opens up the article to a lot of potential NPOV.12.11.127.253 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL says: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". Anyway, "it's all yours, boys!", there are more sections "open for destruction!" But beware of disruptive deletions (WP:DISRUPT). Yagasi (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Netanyahu speech reference issue[edit]

The reference given for the Netanyahu speech content is essentially a primary source: the transcript (ref 238 currently) of the speech hosted at Fox News. I don't think we can argue this is a secondary source just because it's hosted at Fox. The issue is that our text (below) comments on and summarizes the gist of the speech. This is leaning too far toward OR/Sythesis. We need to replace this with reliable secondary sources that support what is said, or change what we've said to reflect secondary sources. Given that we're not just using the reference for the quotes, but also in support of our own analysis of the speech, I think we've stepped over the line. We also don't draw aline between what Netanyahu THINKS are its two major concession, and them actually being major concessions. If we can find a reliable secondary source that indicates this, the proper wording should get rid of generic subjective words ("bad") and indicate that it is what Netanyahu identified/saw/considers its two major concessions, not simply stating it in a way that sounds like these are universally seen as major concessions. This bit already smacks a bit of POV, intended or not. Let's at least clean up the reference and language.

"In his speech presented to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that the negotiated deal was bad because of its two major concessions: leaving Iran with a vast nuclear program and lifting the restrictions on that program in about a decade. "It doesn't block Iran's path to the bomb; it paves Iran's path to the bomb," said the Prime Minister. Netanyahu also urged the leaders of the world "not to repeat the mistakes of the past" and expressed his commitment that "if Israel has to stand alone, Israel will stand."[238]"12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced text in United States reaction section[edit]

While it's certainly due weight to add the negative reactions of many on the right, there is no balance from those in support of the process. The extent of the negative reaction text seems out of proportion with the section to begin with, especially in absence of supporting text. Again, I am assuming good faith, but without knowing the intent of the additions here, this reads as a fairly one-sided take on the US reaction when that hasn't been the case. I would recommend trimming down/summarizing the negative reaction, and providing balancing content.12.11.127.253 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-negotiating country[edit]

Opinions of Non-negotiating country such as Israel is not important and must be delete from table of parameters of prospective actions by each party.Papeli44 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your wrong edit. Edit with IP address is invalid edit and can be as vandalism edit.Papeli44 (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody please explain him/her why "edit with IP address" is as valid and not "vandalism"? :-)
Your edit is not related to title of the section. Your edit was for Non-negotiating countries' positions section. It is better that create a username then edit article.Papeli44 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now we agree, better watch your words next time :)68.199.101.203 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Parameters of prospective actions by each party[edit]

Why the rows of the table have been written in front of each other? The table is summery of framework deal between Iran and P1+5 and must be written follow each other.

Parameters of prospective actions by each party
Iran P5+1
Reduction in the number of installed centrifuges from 19,000 to not more than 6,000 for 10 years. Lift all sanctions within 4 to 12 months of a final accord.
Not enrich uranium above 3.67% purity (suitable for nuclear power generation only). Develop a mechanism to restore old sanctions if Iran fails to comply as per IAEA reports and inspection.
Reduce stockpile of enriched uranium from current 10,000 to not more than 300 kilograms. The E.U. will remove energy and banking sanctions.
Fordow uranium enrichment facility will operate not more than 1,000 centrifuges for research. 5,000 R-1 centrifuges will be running at Natanz. The remaining 13,000 centrifuges will be used as spare, as needed. The U.S. will remove sanctions against domestic and foreign companies who do business with Iran.
Arak facility will be modified so as to produce a minimal amount of plutonium but will remain a heavy-water reactor. All U.N. resolutions sanctioning Iran will be annulled.
Allow inspection of all its nuclear facilities and its supply chains such as uranium mining sites (Military sites are not included). All U.N.-related sanctions will be dismantled.

Papeli44 (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The simple reason was that The Wall Street Journal[1] (original source of this information) reported this info in that format. I would agree splitting the information into two tables though. 68.199.101.203 (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think WSJ's idea was to underline the "give-and-take" of each party in the agreement may be; but again splitting is best IMO. 68.199.101.203 (talk) 12:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Type of centrifuges[edit]

The WSJ article entitled The President Daydreams on Iran (Wall Street Journal, April 25, 2015) seems to dispute that any agreement on the type of centrifuges has been reached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.23.45 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This primary source says 5,060 IR-1 centrifuges at Natanz. NPguy (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References3[edit]

  1. ^ Solomon, Jay; Carol E. Lee (April 3, 2015). "Iran Agrees to Outline of Deal". Wall Street Journal: A4.

Non-negotiating countries security[edit]

The relevance of the removed text has been challenged by NPguy. I believe the removed text comes down to the core subject of the article: the goal of the P5+1 negotiations with Iran that is achieving a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. The question is whether the P5+1 countries negotiate in their own national security interests and intend to sign a private agreement with Iran or they also negotiate on behalf of non-negotiating countries and in the interests of all mankind. In the second case the relevance of non-negotiating countries' positions becomes much more obvious, but when we edit an article related to nuclear threat, the relevance can't be ignored in the first case either. It seems the P5+1 group does pretend to act in the interests of all mankind.

Looking back in history of the 1930s we can learn that Munich Agreement and later the agreement between Germany and the USSR had a fatal impact on the national security of non-negotiating countries: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Finland and others. Now closer to the point: a distinguished historian (author of the books "Hitler and the Holocaust", "Who's Who in Nazi Germany", "A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad" and many others) has pointed in his article: "TODAY, ONCE more, we see a deafening silence from Western leaders and decision-makers whenever Iran threatens Israel with total destruction. The subject is not even on the agenda in the nuclear negotiations, any more than is Iran’s expansionist drive, its subversive regional activities and determined support for global terrorism. Such Western silence over Iran’s genocidal anti-Semitism and hegemonic ambitions (so reminiscent of the 1930s) will in the longer run boomerang dramatically against the West. But for both Israel and the Sunni Arab world, this problem and especially its terrorist dimensions already exists in the here-and-now." If somebody thinks, that this is not relevant to the topic, he should carefully explain this here. Yagasi (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted excerpts are not relevant to this article because they are not about the nuclear issue. Instead, they address other concerns about Iran expressed by some states. The standards for inclusion in this article are already far too broad, and much of the material is only marginally relevant to the stated purpose and the article as a whole is entirely premature (since the agreement in questions does not exist). NPguy (talk) 12:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I meant to comment here when creating Iran Nuclear Talks Debate but failed to do so. In my opinion, the question of whether or not an agreement makes sense is highly prominent and should absolutely be included in Wikipedia. However, this article is already awfully long. That's why I created the other article.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
"The deleted excerpts are not relevant to this article because they are not about the nuclear issue" - this is the only relevant argument that belongs to this section. Nonexistent standards, the size of the article and the rest of the material - do not belong here, but may be discussed separately.
Not only purely nuclear issues are relevant. There are countries that enrich uranium but nobody is concerned about it. However, as the historian put it, the subject is "Iran’s expansionist drive, its subversive regional activities and determined support for global terrorism." Why should the article ignore the Iran's breaches of its obligations and the threat to destroy Israel? And its leaders' words like "death to America" or "festering Zionist tumor"? Only because these are not nuclear issues? Wikipedia isn't a branch of P5+1 and wikipedians can employ their own criteria for relevance.
It should also be reminded that many physicists assisted the U.S. in constructing the nuclear weapon for the only purpose to prevent Nazi regime in Germany, "the enemies of mankind", from being the first to make it. So, there are people who think that regime issues are no less relevant than the nuclear ones. Yagasi (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I remain thoroughly unconvinced. This is too far afield. Why not address human rights issues in Iran? Sunni-Shi'ite sectarian conflict? etc. etc. NPguy (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The usual rule for this kind of thing is that topic B is relevant to topic A if sources connect the two topics.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 04:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Iran Nuclear Talks Debate[edit]

Or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negotiations_on_Iran_nuclear_deal_framework ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The latter proposal makes more sense than merging with an orphan stub. The bigger problem will occur at the end of June, assuming an agreement is actually reached. This article will then purport to be about that agreement. NPguy (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Negotiations on Iran nuclear deal framework is a sub-article of Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program and thus it allows to keep less details in the main article. Iran Nuclear Talks Debate deals with a wider range of issues than the framework article and it can't be merged into it. As far as I understand the Iran Nuclear Talks Debate article will cover the debates from the point the Geneva agreement (JPA) was signed and if so it should include the {{main|Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program}} template. Yagasi (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the current article might better be titled "Iran Nuclear Talks Debate." What we need is an article that really is about the future Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, assuming one is agreed later this month. NPguy (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One major difference is that this article is organized by time, while that one is organized by topic. I've got to say I find the latter organization more helpful, though maybe that's just me. And yeah, it would help if the title of an article actually reflects its content.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Iran Nuclear Talks Debate is a stub and it's scope is unclear. If one article should be merged in the other, then Negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran is the main article.--Seyyed(t-c) 06:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per Seyyed, the debate article could be merged into this article as a section. Mozzie (talk) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 June 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Comprehensive agreement on the Iranian nuclear program → Comprehensive negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program → Negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran – The "comprehensive solution" was introduced in the Joint Plan of Action and since then the term "comprehensive" has been widely used. At that time and later it could be assumed that a comprehensive agreement will be signed within about six months and a single article would include all essential information about the negotiations and the "Comprehensive Accord" content. More than 18 months passed but despite intensive negotiations the Accord was not signed yet. When and if the Accord will be signed, a new article (like "Comprehensive Accord...") devoted to the agreement's content should be created. And for now the current article's title should be changed. The retitling will respond to claims like "the agreement itself does not exist" or "it would help if the title of an article actually reflects its content". --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the "negotiations" that are comprehensive, but the agreement under negotiation. Better to call it "Negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran." NPguy (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This suggestion replaces the previous one. Yagasi (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Negotiations_leading_to_the_Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action&oldid=1207142624"