Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action: Difference between revisions

A news item involving Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 April 2015.

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 is a natural part of Geneva interim agreement on Iranian nuclear program and should be quickly merged into it. Later it may be renamed to "Joint Plan of Action".
• The entity P5+1 is not dependent on "Joint Plan of Action", it may have attributes (topics) that have nothing to do with "Joint Plan of Action". Additionally, the article exists in other languages. So it's better to keep it as it is. Yagasi (talk) 18:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC) — Yagasi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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]

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]

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, Arak reactor, and Uranium enrichment. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]