Most discussions were cut from Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as related to this subtopic. See history of the other talk page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 April 2015. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
I agree with the topic "Joint plan of action" which would consist two deals. Soroush90gh ( talk) 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The subsection United States includes 2 clauses:
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:
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)
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)
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)
There are at least two essential reasons to include this issue in the scope of the article:
-
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)
"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)
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)
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.
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.
This whole article need to be rewritten.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Or /info/en/?search=Negotiations_on_Iran_nuclear_deal_framework ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.e-reading.me/bookreader.php/1032726/Kissinger_-_World_Order.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Most discussions were cut from Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action as related to this subtopic. See history of the other talk page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 April 2015. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
I agree with the topic "Joint plan of action" which would consist two deals. Soroush90gh ( talk) 19:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The subsection United States includes 2 clauses:
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:
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)
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)
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)
There are at least two essential reasons to include this issue in the scope of the article:
-
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)
"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)
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)
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.
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.
This whole article need to be rewritten.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
Or /info/en/?search=Negotiations_on_Iran_nuclear_deal_framework ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 14:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
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)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 20:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.e-reading.me/bookreader.php/1032726/Kissinger_-_World_Order.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)