Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action/Archive 1

NYT piece
Re this diff: User:Iran nuclear weapons 2 removed a quote from a New York Times news analysis. I've restored it. I'm not sure what the objection is (no reason was given), but it seems useful to me: it explains (accurately) why Republicans in Congress oppose the deal, which is an important aspect of the political debate that a reader would natural want to know. The quote (and the piece as a whole) is pretty balanced; it briefly give five reasons why opposition among the Congressional Republican caucus is so strong. If the quote were from some sort of polemical op-ed, I could understand the objection - but this is mainstream, helpful analysis. Neutralitytalk 22:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Much more accurate to actually quote the Republicans in question, rather than lead off with analysis from a source which is generally hostile to Republicans. Just as we don't lead off Obama's position with an analysis from the Wall Street Journal, we shouldn't lead off the Republicans from the NYT. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Additionally, if you look at the actual quotes from Republicans, there is a strong contrast to the NYT analysis. None of them talk about denying Obama a foreign policy victory; indeed on another issue (trade), the Republicans have been much more willing than Democrats to support an Obama initiative foreign policy initiative, with the TPP getting through the Senate with only 14 Dem votes, due to almost uniform Republican support . If you look at the Republicans' actual statements, it is much more about assertions that the agreement is dangerous, a "death sentence for Israel", vulnerable to Iranian cheating, likely to result in an Iranian Bomb, inadequately verified, and so forth. Hence the evidence contradicts the NYT's assertion that Republicans won't give Obama a foreign policy victory; on trade, they did exactly that, and on this issue, their actual statements focus on other concerns entirely.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 23:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * First - that news analysis (and the source generally) are not "generally hostile to Republicans." Maybe the editorial page, but not the reporting/analysis side.
 * Second - there's no basis in policy for the proposition that "we can only explain the position or motivations of a group via a direct quotes." First off, that's not what encyclopedias have done ever, really. Second, there are plenty of things that are well-accepted by scholars, but never directly said by a party itself directly. :::Third, there are multiple (probably a dozen or more) parts of the article where we directly quote from opponents of the deal in their own words proferring the reasons for their opposition. Neutralitytalk 01:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, the NYT analysis -- while likely correct -- seems like a gratuitous attack on the motives of Republican opponents of the Iran deal. It seems unnecessary here. NPguy (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I can see that in the second sentence (the one about denying Obama a foreign policy victory). How about this proposal: we delete that sentence, and retain the first one (the one that says that opposition is "born of genuine distaste for the deal's details, inherent distrust of President Obama..."). Neutralitytalk 02:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Per this discussion, I removed the second sentence. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Summary of nuclear provisions" table
I'm removing this table per WP:NPOV. It is from an article whose subtitle "why an imperfect deal is better than none," which right there shows its bias. Additionally, it cherry picks to give a favorable view. For example, the "after JCPOA" column actually represents the situation immediately after JCPOA implementation, while ignoring what Iran could do 10 or 15 years out. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 06:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree that it's POV; the information is accurate and the summary is accurate. On the other hand, I do concede that it lacks nuance, since it does not include timeframes (although conceivably those could be added in a footnote within the table, as the source table does). So I can understand an objection on grounds of lack of detail ... I'd like to see if has any thoughts on it. The relevant diff is  and the source table is . Neutralitytalk 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I undid the deletion, but changed the heading to make clear the limits of the table. It does not cover all provisions of the JCPOA for all time.  But I don't see any bias.  The omissions (nothing about the strong inspection provisions, the limits on Arak and weapons-related activity, the procurement channel, etc) are more important in understating the significance of the JCPOA than the potential misunderstanding of the time-frame. NPguy (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD move to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
The article was just WP:BOLDly moved to Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. I suggest that it seems undesirably vague to have a title that does not include either of the words "Iran" and "nuclear". —BarrelProof (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I get the concern, but using the official name is desirable here because there have been multiple Iran nuclear deals - there was the Geneva interim agreement (the Joint Plan of Action), the April 2014 framework deal (the Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), and this agreement (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action); if we use the official name, we minimize confusion among them. We have the proper redirects in place, and it'll be easily accessible from search engines. Neutralitytalk 20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would prefer to keep the title "Negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran" for the current article, "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" can be a redirect, and to use the title "Implementation of a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran" for future developments. Yagasi (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * But this article is on the agreement itself, not just the negotiations leading up to it. Neutralitytalk 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The agreement itself exists less than 24 hours. The negotiations took about 2 years. The implementation will probably take more than 20 years. Too much content for a single article and even for 2 articles. "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" may be a separate article and include most of the updates (new sections) made today. Yagasi (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * After looking over the article, I do agree with you that there's a morass here, and that two articles are called for. I'm especially concerned that readers were having trouble distinguishing between the negotiations (and all the rapid changes over time, etc.) and the final agreement. Accordingly, I've split off the negotiations page (Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) from the page addressing the actual final agreement (this page, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). It's not perfect, but I think it makes things more manageable. Neutralitytalk 07:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I restored and reviewed the missing details in Negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It looks better now. Yagasi (talk) 07:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Undesirably vague.  The title needs included the words "Iran" and "nuclear".  Move it back.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

JCPOA violation through non-termination of sanctions
The article fails to mention that Iran can summon UNSC under JCPoA as soon as, say USA, is in violation of its sanction-termination obligation. Obviously, AIPAC will push for this as well as non-ratification of the JCPOA. Also, the whole "snap back" verbiage is highly dubious. Russia did not go along with such a notion fundamentally incompatible with UNSC practises. --91.60.150.236 (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Tobey, Jack Goldsmith wrong, no such thing as relief or weak or not, monex matrs not, can relax no matter what. no such thing as weak argux, ceptu, say any is ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendk (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

JCPOA contradictions
"iii. Iran reaffirms  that  under  no  circumstances  will  Iran  ever  seek,  develop  or acquire any nuclear weapons. "

§ 37. "Iran has stated that if sanctions are reinstated in whole or in part, Iran will treat that as grounds to cease performing its commitments under this JCPOA in whole or in part. "

So, if sanctions are reimposed, Iran will cease to NOT ever acquire nukes.

_____________

vii. The EU+3 acknowledge that the NPT is the essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.

This is utterly wrong, next to meaningless dribble. None of EU+3 ever disarmend the slightest bit. --91.60.147.242 (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Under the NPT, the permanent members of the UNSC are the only countries allowed to have nukes. Germany doesn't have nukes. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, what does that that mean at all? Outside of NPT, everyone, even me, is allowed to have nukes. You want to sent the ICC of The Hague after nuke posession violators? Hilarious! Username of 2017 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Analysis
Do we need an analysis section? Mhhossein (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I opened it! Mhhossein (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw that you removed this section. May I know the reasoning behind that? Mhhossein (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you mean this diff? It's because that topic is dealt with in the International reactions section (under "Iran"). Also because it's outdated; it discussed the so-called "red lines" without mentioning the crucial fact that the Iranians ultimately yielded on many of the so-called lines. 14:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The reaction section is not covering the the issue well (what do you think?), although this section (analysis) was aimed to cover other analytical comments and not only those related to Khamenei. Btw, whether the red lines were crossed or not is not the issue here, the sources say that he defined some red lines which may be inserted as a fact. Mhhossein (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Requires Senate Approval and 98-1 is not just Republicans
On May 7th, 2015, the U.S. Senate, in a vote that was 98-1, passed a Bill, DAV15280 - "Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015". This gives the Senate 60 days to review this action by the President. - http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/S.615_Iran_Nuclear_Agreement_Review_Act_of_2015.pdf

On May 11, 2015, the United States Senate by a bipartisan vote 90-0, called for Iran to immediately release: Shown Here: Passed Senate without amendment (05/11/2015) (This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary of that version is repeated here.) States that it is U.S. policy that: (1) the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran should immediately release Saeed Abedini, Amir Hekmati, and Jason Rezaian, and cooperate with the U.S. government to locate and return Robert Levinson; and (2) the U.S. government should undertake every effort using every diplomatic tool at its disposal to secure their release. https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-concurrent-resolution/16

The U.S. Constitution says the following: “The President... shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur....”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

The Senate is currently composed of 54 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 2 Independents. The President does not have 2/3's of the Senators to concur, however, has enough votes to uphold a veto. Whether this type of procedure violates the Constitution may be eventually up to the Supreme Court, and that could be 5-4...

The matter of Iran holding U.S. Citizens, arms for hostages, will be considered by the Senate before this is ratified.Easeltine (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bottom line, if the Senate rejects this agreement, it's dead. No ifs/ands/buts.  The Administration would be on very perilous ground. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nope. Still wrong. NPguy (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The claims above are false. The JCPOA is not a treaty. It is not a legally binding agreement at all. It does not require Senate advice and consent to ratification. The statute cited above provides a sixty-day review period during which U.S. sanctions cannot be saived and Congress can pass legislation to block the JCPOA, but like any other legislation it is subject to a Presidential veto. This veto requires a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate to override. In other words, the burden is on opponents of the JCPOA to get two-thirds of both the House and Senate to block the JCPOA. This is quite unlikely. NPguy (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Need an RS to back up whatever it is you are trying to say - your own interpretations of law have no validity via the Article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NPguy is literally paraphrasing DAV15280, the Iranian Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. Shabbazzo (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)mn

vandalism by user 'sky harbor'
This 'SK' vandal removed below crucial info without stating any reason. He is an obvious wikipedia abuser!

"The agreement provides that if Iran fails to fulfill its commitments before statutes of limitations apply, these sanctions will automatically be re-imposed. If sanctions are re-imposed, Iran stated it will no longer perform its commitments under JCPOA, which include the Non-Acquirement of nuclear weapons." --91.60.142.211 (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Checks and balances or Republicans vs. Democrats?
The section Review period in the United States Congress is supposed to cover the issues related to checks and balances between the legislative (Congress) and executive (President) branches of the U.S. government under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015. It could be expected that a significant part of the section is devoted to the review process of the agreement and to the interaction between the Congress and the executive branch of the government. It also could be expected that the information is presented in a balanced way, the opinions are in correct proportions, both facts and opinions are presented without awarding points, and feelings of a newsperson or a lawmaker are not provided to the WP consumer as a factual report and he is permitted to form his own opinion.

But actually the section presents a highly imbalanced, non-neutral, unfair and unproportional text, which is overloaded with irrelevant information. The section should be rewritten. I placed the template POV section on the section and bellow is the detailed explanation. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)



Imbalance in use of quotations
The section includes 4 quotes from President Barack Obama and 2 quotes from Secretary of State John Kerry, some of the quotes are rather long. But there is one quote only from the members of Congress, and this member doesn't refer to the agreement but deals with criticisms of her colleagues. And what about the Chairman of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Bob Corker, the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Ed Royce and the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee John McCain, who opened Committees hearings? There is not a single quotation from their speeches on the deal in this WP section although they were posted to the Web. The imbalance between the Congress and the administration is more than obvious. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I added quotations from some Representatives and their viewpoints are more balanced now. The NOV problem for Senators isn't solved yet. Yagasi (talk) 06:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

After adding relevant quotes from several senators I intended to close the discussion in this subsection. But prevented me from doing so, since the quotes of congressmen responding to Obama's "Republican caucus" statement were considerably shortened. The paragraph includes 117 words in the quotes from the president and his administration and only 68 words in the quotes from congressmen. Their qoutes shouldn't be shortened. Apparently the imbalanced (or even tendentious) use of quotes continues. This disbalance can't be justified as the two branches of government have significant role in the congressional review. Yagasi (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The quotes of different viewpoints in the section are more balanced now. The discussion is closed for now. Yagasi (talk) 04:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfavorable presentation of one the major political parties
The section includes the following:
 * "uniform animus of Republicans" at the hearing
 * Republican senators giving "long and often scathing speeches denouncing what they described as a fatally flawed agreement and accusing the administration of dangerous naivete" and showing "little interest in responses" from the three cabinet secretaries
 * criticisms by Republicans were "ridiculous," "unfair," and "wrong."

This kind of expressions, not being factual and presented only in relation to one party, is unfair, unbalanced, and apparently irrelevant to the presentation. Even if the expressions are mentioned in respectable sources like Washington Post or New York Times, the WP editor must review whether this level of presentation and style is eligible for this encyclopedia. I tried to remove two of the above extracts, but the user Neutrality restored them claiming "I think it's important to characterize the tenor of the hr'g." The current issue illustrates once more that the section is non-neutral, unfair and based on double standards. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Due weight: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Wikipedians are invited to give their opinion whether the above 3 expressions are fair or unfair. I claim that the first two of them violate WP:ASSERT and the third one is less problematic. May be the first statement should be attributed to the persons: "Jonatan Weisman and Michael R. Gordon from the New York Times wrote that Kerry, Lew, and Moniz faced "uniform animus of Republicans" at the hearing."? Yagasi (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Unproportional coverage of the third parties' opinions
It can be assumed that the plan of action has certain advantages and vulnerabilities and some of these could be found among the opinions of its proponents and opponents. However the section is overloaded with irrelevant endorsing "welcome messages" that hardly belong to the Review section. May be they can be placed in the Reactions section, but anyway the text lacks an honest discussion of the vulnerabilities of the deal that should be presented along with its advantages. The section includes a long list of politicians, retired military officers and diplomats supporting the agreement. But no politicians, retired military officers and diplomats that point out any vulnerabilities of the deal are mentioned. Why are not covered the concerns of former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George P. Schultz, Ambassadors Dennis Ross and Charles Hill, General James Mattis, and others? The above analysis affirms the conclusion that different opinions are represented unproportionately and the promoters of the agreement have received an unfair advantage. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Re the hearing: The quoted matter is from reliable sources (the Washington Post and the New York Times). This is how they characterized the hearing - and it reflects what actually occurred. I do not view it as passing judgment on anyone.
 * As to the third parties' opinions, the inclusion of the letters of support (as well as letters of opposition) are included as reflective of opinions of various significant persons who have weighed in on the JCPOA. (They are also a useful organizing tool, as they are collective opinions from dozens of people, rather than cherry-picked individuals.  As for other individuals not mentioned - they can probably be included, as appropriate, if proper references are given.
 * I have added some content referring to Dennis Ross' expressed views, and removed the tag. Does this assuage some of your concerns?  I'm willing to work with you to add some content reflective of all sides of the question - understanding, of course, that is is not a simple support/oppose proposition, but is a multifaceted issue with lots of nuance. Neutralitytalk 01:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing was claimed about reliability, but about POV and this received no answer yet. Working with me assumes answering and discussing the above issues. The tag was removed in violation of When to remove and was reset. Yagasi (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Explaining/recounting the points of view of various parties (especially as filtered through reliable media outlets) is not a POV issue. When we explain or recount the views or actions of others, we are not endorsing them in our own voice. As I have already said, we do not pass judgment. I am happy to expand the section with the views of others, but I'm not OK with leaving the article incomplete or excising the widely reported-on reality of the congressional hearings.
 * As for the people you name-dropped earlier: many of them have not made public written statements on the final agreement. Kissinger and Shultz's WSJ op-ed was in April, before the final agreement was announced, and they have made no public comment since, as far as I can see. Ditto with Mattis - I see nothing from him. Do you have proposed language? Neutralitytalk 12:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Before I can answer you I would like to know to what extent there is a consensus between us. Do you agree that the agreement was achieved by the President and is reviewed by Congress? Do you agree that the President and Congress play the main role in the review process? Do you agree that the issue is related to checks and balances? Yagasi (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not going to engage in a debate with you on executive and legislative powers in foreign policy (if you're interested, go read Dames & Moore v. Regan).
 * If what you're really asking is: "Should the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 be dealt with in this article?" then the answer, of course, is yes - which is why a large chunk of this article is devoted to the Act and the review period under it.
 * So again, bringing it back to the article (which is this talk page exists): do you have proposed language? Neutralitytalk 18:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Simple questions - complex answer. However, there is consensus at least in one point: the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 should be dealt with in this article. And the Act is intended "To provide for congressional review ... of agreements relating to Iran's nuclear program" that the President will "transmit to the appropriate congressional committees". I would like you to understand that what is complete (or NOV) in one article (section), may be incomplete in another. Significant elements of an article and its scope should be agreed by consensus. Yagasi (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Giving due weight is a POV issue and that includes quantity of text. Balancing significant viewpoints is a POV issue either. You are right, indeed, Kissinger and Shultz's article was in April after the framework. Hill and Mattis spoke after the agreement, but first things (imbalance with the representatives and senators viewpoints) first. Yagasi (talk) 07:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Re "imbalance" - under "reactions" we quote (or have a reaction) from McCain, Corker, Boerner, McConnell, Graham (congressional Republicans) and Pelosi, Reid, and Sanders (congressional Democrats), plus various non-congressional folks on either side (Hillary, Jeb, etc.) That seems perfectly proportional to me. As to the "congressional review" section below, we quote from Royce, Engel, Sander Levin, and Boxer, and we explain more generally (i.e., without quoting) what the main issues are. That seems pretty legit to me. We can always tinker around the edges, but I'm not seeing a huge discrepancy. I also think we need to be particularly attuned to avoiding redundancy; i.e., we needn't (and shouldn't) recount each members' opinion or statement, but merely take a rough sampling with a focus on the more important figures. Neutralitytalk 15:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Serious imbalances were not resolved yet for Senate committees' hearings. Unfavorable presentation of one the major political parties was not handled yet. Disagreements still remain with disproportional coverage of the third parties. Yagasi (talk) 21:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see any imbalance in the presentation of the congressional hearings. If anything, citing first what congressional critics said gives them greater - and therefore undue - weight. NPguy (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The initial disbalance was described on August 2 here. Last update to this subsection was made on August 13. Quotations were added, the quotations are more balanced now and I hope this discussion will be closed soon. Yagasi (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Side deals article
I think this article should link to the Iran-IAEA side deals article. My previous attempt to do so was reverted. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The link should be restored. The Iran-IAEA side agreements are the core of JCPOA verification provisions. Yagasi (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree strongly. The article on so-called side deals is entirely based on a false premise.  Until that article is fixed, this one should not link there. NPguy (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If one or more issues of the article are disputable this can be reflected (and it is) in the article as long as the dispute is based on reliable sources. It is unreasonable to limit linking to an article in this case and keeping it orphaned. Yagasi (talk) 10:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The entire premise of that article is flawed. It is entirely appropriate for that article to remain an orphan unless and until is if in decent shape.  In response to the comment above, the fundamental verification provisions of the JPOA are in the JPOA itself, as well as in Iran's safeguards agreement and Additional Protocol. NPguy (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you indicate the WP guidelines that prohibit linking to an article if it isn't in "decent shape"? Yagasi (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why is it always about rules? The point is accuracy.  That article is not accurate. NPguy (talk) 03:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The question was, and still is, whether you can specify the prohibiting rule for linking (rules, together with other essential components of Wikipedia, allow us to be co-editors and to avoid anarchy). Yagasi (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear impacts section
I see a recent edit allegedly "folded in" the nuclear impacts section to history. The strange thing is that the key facts from that section seem to have disappeared. For example, after ten years, even if Iran keeps the deal, everyone agrees that its breakout time will drop dramatically. That's important and is not the kind of information that should be dropped in a "folding in." Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The breakout time stuff is at the bottom of Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (which I just added a bit to using the All Things Considered Aug. 11 piece). Neutralitytalk 14:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This article lacks perspective
When I look at this article, I see a focus on short-term detail, while ignoring larger trends. For instance, much is made of some (debatable) estimates of what Iran's breakout time is immediately before and immediately after the deal, assuming they implement their part without cheating. The problem here is that it is missing the longer-term picture. What was their breakout time in 1995? (very long) What will it be in 2030? (very short, assuming they haven't broken out already). Yes, we say that, far down, but such obviously critical information needs much more prominent treatment.

Similarly, much is made of the fact that there will now restrictions on Iran's uranium enrichment. But what about the bigger picture? A major goal of the whole nonproliferation regime was to prevent the spread of enrichment technology. Many countries have nuclear power programs without enrichment -- see here. If all Iran wanted was nuclear power, they could have it, no problem, without any enrichment capability at all. This agreement has abandoned the Bush Administration's prior insistence, as well as the prior insistence of several European powers, that Iran did not need to be enriching. The article talks about how their enrichment R&D has gone from "unconstrained" to "constrained", which is true -- but in 1995 it was "nonexistent", or very close, and in 2030 it will be plenty advanced. Furthermore, this agreement moves their enrichment capacity from "fair game for sabotage" to "protected by the international community". I don't think the article mentions that at all. That's what the JCPOA does, and the article should say so, right up front, not buried deep in some obscure paragraph most readers will never see.

This is only one of many problems of the tree-focused nature of the article. But it's the biggest and most obvious one, and it needs to be fixed. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Will the U.S. help Iran to protect its nuclear facilities from sabotage?

 * I think that the innovation associated with the Iranian enrichment "protected by the international community" deserves a better coverage. By contrast, the Background section can be significantly shortened as this content was covered in Nuclear program of Iran. Yagasi (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the claim that the enrichment program would be "protected by the international community." Recognized, maybe, but not protected. NPguy (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This includes, for example, "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems." (Article 10, Annex III) Yagasi (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's an incorrect inference. This is a standard form of nuclear security training.  Iran would remain responsible for protecting its own facilities. NPguy (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The wording may be changed from "protected by the international community" "protection assisted by the international community". Cotton spoke about it. In my opinion, the issue deserves covering. Yagasi (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this seems like a deliberate misreading of the deal. NPguy (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Deliberate? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead
To remedy the above-described problem, I propose that the third paragraph of the lead be altered to begin as follows:"Under the agreement, the Western powers accepted uranium enrichment in Iran. Iran agreed to . . . [continue as before]" The boldface part would not actually be bolded; I bolded it simply to show what would be added. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Gah, no. First, that sentence is wholly redundant to the following two sentences, which outline specifically what is permitted (i.e., what and how many centrifuges and what type and quality of uranium). Similarly, it misleads the reader; phrased as a flat statement, it disregards all the limits placed on enrichment; the reader has to go on to a second and third sentence in order to get the full picture. Second, that sentence is factually inaccurate, as the P5+1 includes China and Russia, which are not "Western powers." This lead as it stands now, the stable version, is fine. Neutralitytalk 17:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, take 2, addressing 2 out of your 3 issues: "Under the agreement, the P5+1 accepted uranium enrichment in Iran, subject to certain limitations. Iran agreed to . .."Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's still redundant in the extreme. Neutralitytalk 20:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have stayed away from editing this article as it has been under such heavy revision. I wanted to wait for it to settle down.  The lede could probably be improved by including some more facts on the time frames, including clarifying which elements are temporary and which are permanent.  I don't necessarily think the comparisons or "perspective" cited in the previous thread is what is needed here, but comparing to the situation before the JPOA would be appropriate. NPguy (talk) 03:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the lead explicitly state that the P5+1 have accepted that uranium enrichment will take place in Iran?
Proposed text: Under the agreement, the P5+1 accepted uranium enrichment in Iran, subject to certain limitations. Iran agreed to. . . [continue as it currently does]

The bolded part would not actually be boldface; I'm bolding it to show what would change. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposer's statement This acceptance is a core term of the agreement, reverses multiple UN resolutions demanding that Iran halt enrichment, and represents a failure of the longstanding attempt to prevent the spread of enrichment technology because it can be used to make nuclear weapons, giving substance to both implicit and explicit nuclear threats. As such, it needs to be stated explicitly, in the lead. Therefore, I support the proposal. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

An aside on RFC threads, I feel that they have a tendency to become unreadable, largely because people answer each other back and forth, sometimes leading to interminable bits of text between actual responses. In an effort to make this different, I am going to try an experiment by putting my responses in my own section, collapsed, so that people can read the thread without them if they so choose. I encourage other users to follow suit; let's see if it gives us a more readable thread.
 * @Neutrality -- which is a better guide to policy, a statement from a senior adviser which seems more like a "never say never" statement than an actual proposal, or the multiple UN resolutions cited above? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Steve -- what upsets me is that by talking about this restriction and that, without mentioning what has been given up, one gets a misleading impression of the overall trade-off in the deal.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I'm sure you know, a ubiquitous negotiation strategy is to start by making purposefully super-over-ambitious demands, in order to have wiggle room to later concede them. That's why comparing a treaty to the initial demands of the two sides is not a particularly important prerequisite to understanding the treaty.
 * Here is a real-life analogy. I've heard a lot of people complain about how underpaid they are. When they are complaining, they compare their salary to other people's salaries, and to cost of living, etc. But I've never heard anyone compare their salary to the larger salary that they initially asked for during the salary negotiation when they were first hired. That's just not useful information, because I have no basis for knowing how aggressive the initial demand was.
 * Again, it's worth putting in the article somewhere. But it's not a sensible way to contextualize the treaty in the lead. The right context is what is the status quo is and how does the treaty affect it.
 * If the demand was there for a very good reason - even a little bit of enrichment is dangerous because of XYZ - than problem XYZ ought to be able to stand on its own as a problem with the treaty, independent of who demanded and conceded what and when. --Steve (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As I stated above, it is both redundant with the sentences immediately following it and lacks nuance, in that it implies a sharp shift in policy, when that was not actually the case. See, e.g., U.S. Position on Iran Enrichment: More Public Recognition Than Policy Shift." Neutralitytalk 13:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, clunky, unnecessary, and makes assertions not in evidence as noted above. I'd also question the faith of this RfC, given the OP's declared socking to avoid scrutiny on their user page. Tarc (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support: Since signing the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA) the P5+1 shifted from zero enrichment requirement to limited enrichment negotiating position ("comprehensive solution would involve a mutually defined enrichment programme with practical limits and transparency measures"). This was a significant concession by the P5+1 (or a significant achievement for Iran) and became one of the few core issues of the JCPOA ("Iran will carry out its uranium enrichment-related activities… keep its level of uranium enrichment at up to 3.67%…"). Yagasi (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The rest of the paragraph currently makes this plenty clear. "Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67% ... Uranium-enrichment activities will be limited to a single facility ...". I don't think any readers will misunderstand that some enrichment is allowed. (Did something change since the RFC?)


 * Or maybe you're unhappy that this seems like a positive spin: "Less enrichment than before", rather than "More enrichment than zero as previously hoped". Is that what you're thinking? Anyway I would disagree with that. I think the most important information in an article like this is "what does the treaty propose, compared to the status quo", rather than "what does the treaty propose, compared to previously-stated demands of the two sides, i.e. who conceded what". The latter is also important, and should be in the article somewhere, but I think the former is the most important information and is the right perspective for the intro. I haven't read many wikipedia articles about treaties, but the ones I've seen have indeed emphasized in the intro what the treaty actually says and how it changed things compared to the status quo, rather than who conceded what in the process of negotiating the treaty. (The latter is in the article, but not really in the intro.) For example, here's one. --Steve (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Useless non-quote from Ernst / Dempsey colloquy (Dempsey's testimony)
Re this diff, on text inserted (and then reinserted again) by User:Yagasi - this quote is entirely useless to the reader. It consists entirely of a strange colloquy between Joni Ernst and Martin Dempsey, based on this following Washington Post report:


 * Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) asked Dempsey who had advised Obama that war or the agreement were the only two options. The outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said he didn’t know.
 * “I can tell you that we have a range of options and I always present them,” Dempsey added.

Is there any serious argument that this provides anything of value to the reader, much less value requiring a full quote (which are to be using sparingly anyway, WP:QUOTE)? This colloquy illustrates nothing at all, except that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff does not sit in on every one of the president's briefings and meetings (which is both self-evident, and irrelevant to the topic). Moreover, it's redundant with statements from Dempsey on the range of options already appearing in this article.

And, finally, we amply and directly address the question of the alternatives to the agreement/effect of rejecting an agreement/whether a "better deal" is possible further down, in "Congressional support and opposition" - where we have a much less cryptic, more informative bit where we quote Corker/Schumer vs. Obama/Kerry/Franken, with a footnote adding views with scholars on both sides. Neutralitytalk 12:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My own view is that the article as a whole needs more topical organization, rather than temporal organization. By which I mean that, if you include an Obama quote about whether or not there are alternatives other than war, you should one opposing viewpoint, immediately following the Obama quote. I think it is important to keep "war" quotes grouped together -- and similarly for other topics. This lets the reader make up their own mind, and, critically, makes it possible to do so without jumping around what is rapidly becoming a very long article. We've succeeded in doing exactly this in the "provisions" section, for example, where supporting and opposing quotes for a specific provision are directly adjacent. Additionally, for specific sub-themes, we should use whatever is the strongest quote we can dig up for or against a given idea. So, for example, if someone comes up with a quote that is stronger than Pandit on the subject of snapback, it would make sense to put that in, in place of the Pandit quote. This last part would need to be relaxed in the case of highly notable individuals; if multiple such say pretty much the same thing, it could make sense to include all of them. Now, on the subject of the Dempsey quote specifically, it does relate to the question of whether or not there are options other than war, but it's also a pretty weak quote. Therefore, it should be included if we have nothing stronger on the topic of war and on the same side as Dempsey. If/when someone comes up with something better, that should go in, and Dempsey should come out.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 13:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "weaker"/"stronger"? If you mean stronger in the sense of "more clear" - well, then I absolutely agree with should use clear, direct language rather than cryptic language, so as not to baffle the reader (as the Dempsey quote does). If you mean weak/strong in the substantive sense of what position is taken - I would argue against that, since sometimes the "mixed" opinions, or the ones more cautious, are the most useful.


 * The right place for discussion of "alternatives to the deal/better deal/etc." is along with the rest of the discussion on that same topic, below - where we cite Schumer/Corker and then immediately afterward Obama/Kerry/Franken, and then in a footnote cite to scholarly commentary. Or, as an alternative, since this colloquy came from a congressional hearing, it could be housed within the "congressional hearing" section.


 * I do appreciate your recognition that the Dempsey quote is weak. I have found a better source which lays out what was said and why more clearly. At some point soon I will come up with something based on it and see what people think. Neutralitytalk 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * @Neutrality -- I will give you an example of a "strong quote". Presenting the Munich Agreement in 1938 Chamberlain said that the agreement achieved "piece in our time". In his speach in House of Commons Churchill responded: "England has been offered a choice between war and shame. She has chosen shame and will get war" (See appeasement). Today we discuss "deal or war" and it seems that shame and Churchill are well-forgotten. Yagasi (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Totally ridiculous analogy. Not going to engage with you on that nonsense. Neutralitytalk 01:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Iran nuclear weapons 2 that Dempsey quote relate to the question of whether or not there are options other than war, but disagree that this is a weak quote. More than one opposing viewpoint can be presented unless one quote can cover the diplomatic, military, economic (sanctions), legal and other viewpoints of the "deal or war" issue. I agree that opposing viewpoint/viewpoints should immediately follow the Obama quote. Yagasi (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The "deal or war" issue was widely discussed and debated in public and in reliable sources
 * Different aspects of the "deal or war" message should be balanced (WP:BALASPS)
 * A more neutral text is achieved "by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other" (WP:STRUCTURE)
 * The presented information, including the quote, is useful since the readers are informed about "a range of options" (not just one alternative) presented by Dempsey to Obama
 * Not a "a strange colloquy between Joni Ernst and Martin Dempsey" but a testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee
 * This is the right place for the information since it immediately follows the quote from Obama
 * Dempsey is neither supporter nor opposer of the deal and doesn't fit the "Congressional support and opposition" section. He isn't a congressman either
 * Yagasi (talk) 14:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC) Yagasi (talk) 14:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't. The right place for discussion of "alternatives to the deal/better deal/etc." is along with the rest of the discussion on that same topic, below - where we cite Schumer/Corker and then immediately afterward Obama/Kerry/Franken, and then in a footnote cite to scholarly commentary. And as far as "Dempsey isn't a congressman" - well, he's not part of the Obama administration either, not in the typical sense. Even if we were to keep this quote (and we should not), it really would belong in the "congressional hearings" section, which is where the quote comes from. Neutralitytalk 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your opinion. Dempsey's testimony is a strong evidence to the fact that the president was presented by a range of options (not just a "deal or war" alternative). We should keep it. The right place for the "range of options" quote is directly adjacent to the "war" quote from Obama. Yagasi (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that weak vs. strong is subjective. So "weak" is my opinion -- "we have a range of options and we always present them" doesn't make a case particularly well. The "deal or war" issue, in my opinion (yes, it's subjective) has to do with trade-offs. If it comes down to it, are you willing to fight a war with Iran to keep the bomb out of their hands, or not? That's not a call a general should make. A general answers questions like what would be the likely cost (in lives, money, or whatever else) if we take this or that course. It's for the political leaders to make the trade-off. So when you say something like "deal or war" -- the context is missing -- what is your goal? It is possible that the President and Dempsey are both right, depending on what your goal is. In other words, if you want to stop them from getting the Bomb, your choices might be Deal or War. If you think that risking an Iranian Bomb is an acceptable risk, then you might have additional options. It would not be Dempsey's role to decide what degree of risk is acceptable; that's a job for a politician. So Dempsey could be correct that there are other options, but Obama could be correct that there are not other options if you are constraining yourself to certain goals. If you go back into a time warp to 2009, there might have been a third option -- get rid of the regime -- which might or might not have caused Iran to stop going for the Bomb, depending on choices made by the new regime.
 * Norman Podhoretz, obviously no liberal, actually agrees with Obama that a "better deal" is not possible, and argues that the choices are conventional war now or nuclear war later.. Unfortunately, that opinion has not gotten secondary coverage, so we can't use it. I think the difference among Obama, Podhoretz and Dempsey is in their viewpoints as to what is an acceptable risk. Obama appears willing to take some risk that Iran will get the bomb, in order to stay out of war. Podhoretz is not willing to take such a risk. Dempsey has yet another viewpoint -- as a general, deciding what risk is acceptable is not his job; his job is to present options. Which is part of the reason I view his quote as weak. A general is supposed to present options, so the fact that Dempsey does so doesn't tell the reader much. Sorry to ramble. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with, or do not want to challenge, most of your arguments. However, even assuming that the goal was to prevent conventional war now (and not nuclear war later), I can't agree with you and with Podhoretz that better deal was not possible. Would the Administration be more cooperative with Congress, while negotiating this international agreement, it will probably be better. But Obama constantly sought to bypass Congress and went through the United Nations while ignoring lawmakers.
 * I agree with you that an "opposing viewpoint" immediately following the Obama quote should be included and the "strongest quote" could be from a political leader. An American one is preferable, but if we disagree about that, a quote from Netanyahu can be included. I also agree with you that Dempsey quote "should be included if we have nothing stronger on the topic of war" adjacent to the Obama quote. Now let's dig up. What about Senator Chuck Schumer? He wrote:
 * … when it comes to the nuclear aspects of the agreement within ten years, we might be slightly better off with it. However, when it comes to the nuclear aspects after ten years and the non-nuclear aspects, we would be better off without it.
 * … the Iranian leaders have held a tight and undiminished grip on Iran, successfully maintaining their brutal, theocratic dictatorship with little threat. Who’s to say this dictatorship will not prevail for another ten, twenty, or thirty years? To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great.
 * I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable option, nor to challenge the path of diplomacy. It is because I believe Iran will not change, and under this agreement it will be able to achieve its dual goals of eliminating sanctions while ultimately retaining its nuclear and non-nuclear power.
 * Yagasi (talk) 09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Schumer certainly looks stronger than Dempsey, and he does address the war issue directly. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I replaced Dempsey quote by Schumer. Yagasi (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Start of section on Republican congressional review
The section starts out thusly:

"Republican leaders vowed to attempt to kill the agreement as soon as it was released, even before classified sections were made available to Congress, and 'Republican lawmakers raced to send out news releases criticizing it.'[260]"

Two problems with this. First of all, Obama has been trying to sell this deal since long before there even was a deal, and we don't say that. Secondly, the passage gives the impression that Republicans were against the deal before they had much idea what was in it. But that's simply not the case; details had been coming out for months. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The quote seems like an appropriate lead-in to me. An accurate summary and from a reliable source. NPguy (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's an appropriate lead-in, and well-sourced. It ought to be left alone. Neutralitytalk 00:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The quote is not supported by the source. Additionally, see the open discussion Unfavorable presentation of one the major political parties. The quote should be removed or rewritten. Yagasi (talk) 09:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the source down't say that at all; I'll rewrite it to reflect what the source actually says. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:27, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem was that there were two refs with the same name, which resulted in the article pointing to the wrong source. I've fixed that. The other problem was that the source was used in a way that really is grossly inappropriate; someone had picked out sentences designed to be of Republicans, while not quoting or paraphrasing what the Republicans actually said. I've fixed that. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The sentence was an accurate summary of the article in the New York Times, which is a reliable source. The Corker quote is not representative. NPguy (talk) 15:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating WP:RS. But WP:BIAS is also relevant. I'm going to rewrite the situation using the Washington Post's article here . The Post did endorse Obama, twice, so it's still on the Dem side of the aisle, but it tends to be more centrist than the NYT. Hoping that will be an acceptable compromise. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Re this material here - I agree wholeheartedly with NPguy. I see no reason to remove this. It is well-sourced (to a straight NYT piece) and it adds useful information for the reader (it explains the depth of the agreement and the reality that there was a rapid negative reaction from the Republican Party. It's entirely NPOV. We merely quote it, and we don't pass judgment on the merits of whether it was a good or bad decision. It reflects a historic reality and actual facts. Neutralitytalk 22:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To add - the claim that we don't "quote or paraphrase what the Republicans actually said" is frivolous, and that's putting it mildly. The article bends over backwards to note the various concerns raised by Republicans, and directly quotes Republicans, Democrats, supportive experts, skeptical experts, and neutral experts, many, many times. Neutralitytalk 05:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the use of the particular source, not the article as a whole. Please strike per WP:NPA.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 05:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We repeat the very same Corker quote (the "pariah" one) from the Steinhauer NYT article in our own article, under the "congressional hearings" section. In addition, we give a direct quote from Mitch McConnell two sentences after citing the Steinhauer piece. And, more broadly, we outline objections from multiple corners in many sections of the article, in both quote and paraphrase form. It appears to me that we give each party their due. Neutralitytalk 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Belfer chart
Information from the Belfer chart here, page 29, was reverted, without any reason I could see, though I did neglect to include the page number initially; perhaps the reverter didn't see the chart in the report. I've restored the chart as it appears to be well-sourced, accurate, and relevant.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Background on enrichment and proliferation
Re this revert -- Really? The fact that plutonium and enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear bombs is not relevant background? Wouldn't it be fair to say that this fact, alone, is the reason to even have this agreement in the first place, and therefore, critical background to the reader's understanding of the issue? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly, it's relevant, but (1) it was very poorly sourced (a random 2004 speech by President Bush is not exactly ideal - there are surely some nonpartisan think tanks on the issue?); (2) I would like to see some discussion of it in the Iran context in particular; and (3) length is a consideration. There are a variety of background facts that are both exceedingly important and exceedingly complex (i.e., the NPT and its history, U.S.-Iran relations generally, nuclear nonproliferation, etc.) that are predicates to a full understanding, but cannot practically be outlined completely in this article. An analogy, for example: Doha Development Round cannot be understood without an understanding of free trade. Yet the Doha article can't possibly explain everything having to do with free trade, or even all the basics. That's the whole point of linking and of "see also," is it not? Neutralitytalk 04:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll work on the sourcing. I had simply grabbed whatever was in the other article.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 10:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just put up a version with better sourcing. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 12:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I took a preliminary look. This looks better. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 16:09, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this article is already quite long and could be shortened by including links to standard material, e.g. on the nuclear fuel cycle, nuclear proliferation, fissile material, and nuclear weapon design. NPguy (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't propose anything lengthy on this topic. Just a bare-bones intro. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 13:17, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Max Fisher piece
Re this removal by User:Iran nuclear weapons 2 of the following text:


 * "The reception of the JCPOA among arms control analysts was "overwhelmingly positive," while the reception among Middle East policy analysts was more divided." [cite to this piece]

The removal was on the basis that this was a "characterization" and that there are "plenty of experts on both sides; let them speak for themselves." That's a puzzling rationale. The statement that we cited is a statement of empirical fact, reported on by a reliable source, and is well-balanced - the second clause says that "the reception among Middle East policy analysts was more divided."

Nor is this article some kind of anomaly. See, e.g., this article, quoting Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association: "the majority of arms control and non-proliferation experts support the P5+1 and Iran nuclear deal.”

While we certainly should and do quote plenty of individual experts and scientists, we cannot possibly quote all of them - and the broad breakdown among analysts is highly relevant information to readers, who should expect any encyclopedia to give a summary of the overall reaction, in addition to some specific reactions. Neutralitytalk 05:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also pinging . Neutralitytalk 05:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The text in question has been restored, and that's OK with me. Based on my reading of the commentary, this quote is fairly accurate.  There are criticisms from partisan elements of the expert crowd, including relatively mainstream Republicans like Will Tobey and real hardliners like Fred Fleitz, but the non-partisan commentary is almost uniformly positive.  However, I do think it is a fair question whether the source of this summary (Max Fisher) is sufficiently neutral to be credible.


 * One point that might be useful - the Middle East experts who criticize the deal don't seem to understand how proliferation works. Many of them seem to take it for granted that if Iran develops an enrichment capability it will produce nuclear weapons.  While that is possible, it would be a blatant violation of Iran's more basic and enduring legal obligations under the NPT, to which Iran professes strong allegiance.  It would also be contrary to the norm that there are several countries (Germany, Netherlands, Japan, Brazil, Argentina) that have developed enrichment capabilities for peaceful purposes and could easily misuse them to produce weapons, but no one worries about them.  I haven't seen anyone make this observation about the expert commentaries, so I guess it is inadmissible as original research. NPguy (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have time for edits now. One source you might consider adding is this one: No, Iran is not allowed to inspect itself. NPguy (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I commend the comparison of Iran with Germany, but I would suggest a different period is more relevant. In recent decades, Germany has a strong track record of honoring its agreements, not plotting the murder of Jews, gays, etc., and an overall policy of nonaggression. None of these considerations apply to Iran. A much better analogy might be with the Germany of 1938. In all three respects, it had much more similar to modern Iran. Like Iran, the Germany of 1938 was given a large immediate benefit in return for a promise of future good behaviour. We all know how that turned out. Or we could compare North Korea, which is again similar to Modern Iran, other than the selection of which groups of people to kill. Again, the results are evident for all to see.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This comparison has almost no merit. NPguy (talk) 14:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Polling
Re this bit: I removed an addition to the section lead which cited CNN piece talking about its month-to-month changes in CNN/ORC polling numbers. The so-called "trend" is just a comparison of CNN/ORC poll numbers from one month to another. We can't extrapolate from that any "trend" in overall public opinion, certainly not any trend that is encyclopedic. Moreover, certain polls should not get "double-billing" over other polls by being repeated both in the bullet points and in the section lead; that would be classically undue and would prize certain pollsters, methodologies, etc. over others. Neutralitytalk 16:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The comparative information was rewritten and placed in the relevant bullet. Yagasi (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO there are enough polls that they could go into a table. This would both shorten the text and make it easier for the reader to understand. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just done that very thing. Neutralitytalk 02:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Improves readability; thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * To give the readers a real opportunity to compare polls nationwide results regarding JCPOA, we should remove from the table questions about hypothetical agreements and polls inside specific communities. Yagasi (talk) 06:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting question how to handle that. I tend to think that polls of specific communitites within the United States should be relegated to a sub-article. About different ways to parse the data, again a sub-article could be a good idea. For example, the questions in the different polls are not the same, and furthermore, some polls make debatable assertions in their descriptions of the agreement, i.e. "if Iran is caught cheating, sanctions will be re-imposed" -- well, maybe. This kind of thing could be worth looking at, but no way the main article should do it. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would not create a sub-article for this issue. But an encyclopedic table should be readable like this one. There are some differences between all polls, but a better big picture can be achieved if we don't mix the real deal with hypothetical ones and U.S. all adults with U.S. Jewish adults only. Yagasi (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that for our polls, the methodology is not consistent. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Khamenei quotes
Re this edit: I retained the information in the first sentence, which addresses the JCPOA, but deleted the last two sentences (the ones on Khamenei's book) which is not relevant to the JCPOA. Even the New York Post article linked as a reference notes that "Khamenei makes no reference to Iran's nuclear program." (By the way, the Post is a tabloid, and not a very high-quality source, particularly on a complex subject). Similarly, I took out this edit, on Khamenei's comments on the Hajj. This has almost nothing to do with the "review period in Iran" (the section those edits were inserted under), nor with the JCPOA in general.

Let me go personal for a moment. There's no dispute that Khamenei is a terrible guy. He leads an atrocious, violent regime. His hostility and hatred toward the U.S., Israel, and Europe are well-known, and repulsive. But this is an encyclopedia article about the JCPOA. It is not a coat rack to discuss in detail Khamenei, or Iran's hostile foreign policy in general. For such quotes as those above, we have foreign relations of Iran, Iran–United States relations, and Iran–Israel relations. Neutralitytalk 17:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not going to contest your deletion but do want to make a couple of comments. On the subject of the NY Post, I realize they are in general not the best source, but as I'm sure you know, reliability is guaged on a case-by-case basis. The fact that the same story appeared in three widely separated sources (two of which I used for the book) made it appear reliable to me. On the subject of coatrack, I would suggest that it is not as cut and dried as you appear to believe. With the passage of time, Khamenei's views on Israel are likely to have a much greater bearing on the ultimate fate of the agreement than the arguments of (say) Frank von Hippel or Frederick H. Fleitz. This is particularly evident in articles about events further in the past; if you peruse them, you will see a much greater emphasis on statements by national leaders, even statements on subjects which are not directly related to the main topic of the article, and much less commentary from lesser-known people. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Moderate" Rouhani?

 * "Mr. Rowhani suggested in his speech that Iran had used the negotiations with the Europeans to dupe them."
 * The official IRNA news agency on Tuesday cited Hasan Rouhani as saying close Iranian-Syrian ties will be able to confront “enemies in the region, especially the Zionist regime.”
 * Saying 'Death to America' is easy," Mr. Rouhani said in a speech in the city of Karaj, according to the state-run Mehr News Agency. "We need to express 'Death to America' with action. Saying it is easy."

At the same time, it is true that journalists persistently describe Rouhani as "moderate." Not sure how to handle this one. We could say that journalists describe him as "moderate" but he's also done X Y and Z. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the "dupe" quote is most relevant to this article, as it was also in the context of a nuclear negotiation. I've added it to the same paragraph where Rouhani is described as moderate.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't need to go as far as 2006. According to Reuters a few days ago "moderate" Rouhani said Iran will not follow parts of the nuclear deal that restricts its military capabilities: "We will buy, sell and develop any weapons we need and we will not ask for permission or abide by any resolution for that".Yagasi (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Black propaganda
This gave me a chuckle, but I don't see a way to put it in an article without joining the controversy. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The relevant section would be US public debate. But idk what are the rules on such images; do you need a secondary source? Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Great job
I came across this article today, and after reading it and knowing how difficult is to write an NPOV article about which there is such a polarization of viewpoints, I take my hat off to the editors that worked on it. I know that it is not finished, and there are still issues to be addressed, but it is a great article and a great example of how a collaborative effort can succeed. Great job indeed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

US Sanctions
Back in May, before the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act, there was a lot of talk that only Congress could remove the bulk of sanctions on Iran. The idea was that, if the Iran nuclear deal went through, although the UN and EU sanctions would be lifted (this might be enough for Iran), the President could not remove any US sanctions (except for certain areas, like banking) without the authorization of Congress. This was because most US sanctions were written into federal law.

What happened to this? The only text in the article that I can find is "the U.S. "ceases" application of its nuclear-related sanctions". Does that mean that the President has somehow gotten the authority to cancel US laws? How? Nothing in the article about the INARA says so. In the early part of the year, you sort of got the impression that, once the Iran deal was struck, Congress would not only have to approve the deal but there'd be separate battles over removing each sanction, which might last for years. Did all that go away? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Before INARA: "under current U.S. sanctions law, the president can waive them. And that is just what Obama intends to do." After INARA: "The Administration asserts that it would implement the relief using waiver authority (for relevant U.S. statutory sanctions)... The Iran Nuclear Review Act (P.L. 114-17) prevents the President from suspending U.S. statutory sanctions at least through the period of congressional review of a finalized nuclear deal and, if a joint resolution of disapproval of the JCPOA is enacted, indefinitely thereafter." Yagasi (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Views on JCPOA
I think we can have a stand-alone article on this subject, then we can move the materials under "Expert reactions" to that article and leave a summary here. There are reliable sources reflecting the views of analysts. These days senators and other officials have made comments on this. Mhhossein (talk) 13:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we do in fact do a split (I'm neutral on that question for the moment), what about doing the reverse instead - retain the expert opinions in full here, and then splinter off the political back-and-forth to public debate on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in the United States, leaving only a summary here? That's one option. Neutralitytalk 18:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. This article should focus on the JCPA and its implementation. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. The Congressional debates have been mostly political theater - a bit of a side show that in the end won't matter much. NPguy (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action should be moved to the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 and there is no need to create a new article. Pahlevun (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea. NPguy (talk) 02:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Article TOOOOO long - Needs to be divided into a few articles.
Main points of each section should be in this article and the rest should be divided Caseeart (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Reactions and the Public opinion sections are good candidates for a split. The rest should remain. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Legal aspects of Iran’s threat of genocide - is it a random fringe?
Two edits ( and ) related to this important topic were removed while claiming "random fringe". I added legal opinions of 3 more experts and restored the paragraph. Apparently the fringe claim does not hold water, however the discussion is open and the burden of proof is on those who wish to remove the paragraph. Yagasi (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is one of the most pathetically tenuous claims I have seen. It completely lacks credibility.  And it has rightly been deleted. NPguy (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Though I'd prefer it be deleted, I edited it the paragraph at least to avoid the deliberate misrepresentation of the Genocide Convention and its requirements. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Emotional terms like "pathetically" can't rebut legal arguments asserted by the experts.
 * @Vesuvius Dogg -- I made a few changes to your edits. I think this is the right place for the paragraph since both the Genocide Convention and Resolution 2231 were adopted by the UN. Here I would expect to find discussion and arguments, not just voting for or against deletion. Yagasi (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It is a very random fringe. I would perhaps be OK with saying "X, Y, and Z reject the idea of negotiations entirely, until Iran recognizes Israel, and Y additional ground is met" or somesuch as one or two sentences. As it stands, now, however: (1) the material is of dubious relevance (it is not really linked directly to the JCPOA - this is especially blatant with the Beres quote, which has nothing to do with the JCPOA but instead is focused on Iranian comments regarding Israel - that's not what the JCPOA is about, and has never been about. It's wholly collateral. (2) We already quote both Dershowitz and Rivkin/Casey once. Adding more from them seems to place an undue emphasis on their (minority) views. All three of those may be lawyers of some note, but none has any particular academic expertise on Iran or nonproliferation, and we should not give them undue billing.
 * So on these grounds - and because at least four editors (Vesuvius, Archwayh, NPguy, and myself) have expressed concerns, I'm going to remove the text. Neutralitytalk 21:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I decided to step away from editing this article since I can't be a coeditor with the majority of Wikipedians who think that the threat of genocide has dubious relevance to the JCPOA and who try to silence notable lawyers (minority?) that have expressed legal opinions on this issue. Yagasi (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the legal theory you are trying to cite is simply ridiculous. Is genocide serious?  Of course.  Does Iran threaten Israel's security?  Yes.  But does that threat amount to genocide?  Does Iran want to kill all Israelis?  Nothing I have seen suggests that it does.  Such claims strike me as overheated rhetoric designed to manipulate the political debate in Israel and the United States.  But if we suppose Iran's threat were genocidal, would the obligations under the Genocide Convention forbid making a deal with Iran?  In other words, would any such deal violate the requirement to prevent genocide or threats of genocide?  Take a look at the convention.  Show me a provision that could be interpreted that way.


 * It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the legal theory is little more than a series of tenuous leaps of judgment strung together, not a serious legal claim. It is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence. NPguy (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE refers to concepts like "the US moon-landing was a hoax", not to political views that progressives disagree with or legal arguments that a Wikipedia editor finds unpersuasive for reasons that are unstated or don't make sense. Restoring. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverted. There is no consensus for including this material, as the above discussion shows. Start a request for comment if you believe you can reverse the consensus. As it stands now:
 * As I noted above, the Beres material quoted focus on Iranian comments regarding Israel, and not on the JCPOA itself. It's wholly collateral.
 * More generally, Beres argues that the JCPOA is illegal. That's fine, but it's a minority view. We already include text on the views of scholars (Dershowitz, Rivkin, Casey) that question the legality of the agreement. As I wrote above: "Adding more from them seems to place an undue emphasis on their (minority) views. All three of those may be lawyers of some note, but none has any particular academic expertise on Iran or nonproliferation, and we should not give them undue billing." Even if not an issue of FRINGE, it is an issue of WP:UNDUE weight. Neutralitytalk 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It is downright laughable to state, and I seriously question your motives for doing so, that the Beres piece and its arguments don't "focus on" the Iran deal and are "wholly collateral". The headline is "Looking beyond strategy at the still-hidden legal flaws in Iran deal" and the first three words of the article are "The new Iran agreement" ; the piece goes on to criticize the deal's perceived flaws in depth. As a matter of fact, criticizing the Iran deal is the only thing the article about. The Iranian incitements regarding Israel are related to only one of the criticisms—namely, that the US, author says, is being irresponsible by not insisting Iran repudiate these statements and stop making them, as a condition of the deal. So on a very simple and objectively determinable point, you are clearly talking straight out of your posterior. An explicit head-on criticism attacking the legal validity of the Iran deal is not merely relevant, it's centrally relevant.

Anyway, regarding your plainly erroneous contention on WEIGHT: yes, there are other critical views being reflected in the article. None of the other authors you cite, nor any others that I see, made the same point as Beres, or anything like it. In any event you can't just arbitrarily say "we can't have any more critical and/or pro-Israel views reflected because they are in the minority and they are wrong" or some such nonsense. Nor can you as a WP editor exert any judgment as to the validity of the legal view, even if you claim specialized knowledge and aren't horribly wrong. An actual non-Wiki legal scholar had a view published in a major political publication that has a seat in the White House press briefing room. The inquiry as to inclusion pretty much ends there. Slapping it down based essentially on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is well above your pay grade as an editor, and is not supported by any policy.

This material belongs in the article and you are not entitled to !vote it out with zero policy justification. And at that, I find it highly ironic that a very experienced editor with Neutrality as a username is going to such lengths (and deploying such a large volume of specious arguments) to keep clearly appropriate material out of an article. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The central claim -- that Obama administration’s failure to enforce anti-genocide norms in its nuclear dealings with Iran constitutes a serious violation of both international and U.S. law -- cannot be taken seriously. NPguy (talk) 02:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, why didn't you say so, then NPguy? You've obviously taken an interest in non-proliferation  of views you don't agree with , thus you must be more of a legal expert than an international law professor, published in a major political newspaper, who has written several books on nuclear policy!  It's too bad the editorial board of The Hill doesn't have your depth of knowledge, else they would have known not to publish the piece because it was wrong!


 * After all, you're a Wikipedia editor, and this clueless hack Beres has only had articles published in International Security (Harvard); The Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; Parameters Journal of the U.S Army War College; Oxford University Press; Brown Journal of World Affairs; as well as regular contributions to The New York Times; Los Angeles Times; Chicago Tribune; U.S. News & World Report; The Hill; Washington Times; and The Atlantic and others.


 * , you freaking rancid newbie, otherwise please stop wasting my time with dishonest argument and blithe ignorance of basic policy. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Be civil. NPguy (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Be an honest and diligent editor. Don't attempt to exclude content you don't like, and don't waste the time of good-faith editors, by raising arguments which you know are flatly contrary to policy, and which are thus made in bad faith.  Or, if you somehow didn't know, after editing WP for nearly a decade, you shouldn't be editing articles on contentious topics until you figure it out.  Perhaps you're needed elsewhere?


 * This goes double for article topics on which you obviously regard yourself as an expert and have an improper desire to use your own "expertise" as a basis to contradict or exclude claims made by actual, real-life experts in reliable sources (either of which is against policy). Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Or, go ahead and do do those things! Haha! Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

JPCOA is not a signed document - State Dept says it's a "political commitment"
Recently the State Department announced that JPCOA is a "Political Commitment" which has not been and never will be signed by Obama (or presumably anyone else). . Iranian media has also asserted this is the case.

In numerous places, this article refers to a signed document, which is now clearly wrong. I'm not sure what to replace it with, however; "political commitment" seems as though it may be USA-specific nomenclature. I haven't yet been able to find much about what it actually means yet; looks interesting, but maybe partison.

IMHO it would be good if someone could write a Wikipedia article on "political commitment" which could be linked to from this article, because "political commitment" seems to be an (unfamiliar and esoteric) term of art / specific legal concept, not just a rough description.

--Djbclark (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no necessary connection between whether an understanding is legally binding and whether it is signed. I have seen a signed version of the JCPOA front page online - with signatures from foreign ministers of the P5+1, Iran and the EU.  That does not make it legally binding. NPguy (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Connection between binding and signing, I'm not sure how that is apropos to this section; I didn't mention anything about what the effect of having or not having a signature was, only that if an agreement is not signed, a the article should not refer to it as being signed. The scope of changes I am intending to make is only replacing verbiage that indicates the agreement is signed with verbiage that reflects the most recent information from the state department.

If you have seen a signed page, a link would be nice. My guess is you saw signatures on a UN resolution that implemented part of the deal.

In any case, I fail to see how you seeing something in the past compares to a signed document from the appropriate state department official stating in no uncertain terms that the agreement is not signed, delivered to a US Congressman a week ago, and reported in several news outlets as well as that congressmans's clearly canonical (in the sense there is no question it actually comes from that congressman) house.gov web site.

--Djbclark (talk) 02:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * You could say that the agreement was "reached" or "concluded." Does that help? NPguy (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll do an edit on only this point soon; thanks for the suggestions.

BTW I looked into the binding thing; the State Department letter strongly implies but does not directly state the agreement is non-binding, but other state department documents make it clear that political commitments are by their nature non-binding; one such document that includes interesting history is here. The best more general definition I've found is here. Also, states "Lest there be any doubt, the drafters say this explicitly on Pg. 6 of the JCPOA, when the text refers to all of the subsequently detailed commitments as “voluntary measures.”"

--Djbclark (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * One point of view of the united nations related to resolution 2231 is here: "Member States are obligated under Article 25 of the Charter of the United Nations to accept and carry out the Security Council’s decisions." — https://www.un.org/en/sc/2231/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One test of the European parliament assumes it is signed: «The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed in July 2015 between Iran and France, China, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Union provides an opportunity for the normalisation of Iran's relationship with the rest of the international community.» — http://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=EPRS_BRI%282016%29577961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

"The reception of the JCPOA among arms control analysts was 'overwhelmingly positive'"
Even if this source weren't being OUTRAGEOUSLY MISREPRESENTED, it wouldn't belong here: it's a marginal author from a marginal and biased source that hasn't even existed for 2 years, with no expert credibility, pronouncing broadly on a question of the highest importance, and if you look at the article text he doesn't even explicitly assert the claim cited here--he reports it fairly vaguely as an impression and doesn't offer any substantiation other than saying, hey guys we looked at a bunch of tweets though maybe we missed some LOL. His interview subject doesn't even agree and in fact doesn't respond to the claim, presumably refusing to have words put in his mouth by a bearded twentysomething with a masters' degree and very little experience doing anything other than expressing his own opinions. The source itself doesn't belong and the material therefrom is being presented dishonestly. Removed. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * First off, you should not be rude or dismissive, in either edit summaries or in text.
 * Second, I have reverted your insertion of the Beres paragraph. This material has been discussed on this talk page before, and there is consensus that this is a very marginal view. Not every single op-ed in every single publication deserves a mention. Even if we retained this content, it should have one sentence, not a paragraph.
 * Third, the reception of the JCPOA among arms control analysts was, in fact overwhelmingly positive, and this is supported by numerous sources. If you object to reliance on the Vox source, I will find additional alternate sources. The age of the publication is almost entirely irrelevant (Pro Publica is only a few years old, yet it is highly reliable, while the New York Post is one of America's oldest papers and yet is an unreliable tabloid), and age of the writer (or whether or not he's "bearded") is entirely irrelevant. Neutralitytalk 18:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice that even as you indignantly complain in your edit summary about "restoring" some alleged text mentioning a "general consensus", no such text was ever removed—just a glowing flowery claim by a marginal non-expert source that wasn't supported by any of the new ones you've added and was dramatically different than the one that is supported. My job there is done; you are very welcome! Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

300kb of text and no mention of
Iran's new ballistic missile violations, new kidnapping and hostage-taking activities, taking US navy personnel prisoner and staging propaganda videos, ongoing threats of genocide against Israel... OOPSIE. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about the international agreement on nuclear affairs. It is not a coat rack for other matters relating to Iran's bad acts. Neutralitytalk 19:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These specific matters were predicted by critics of the deal, as consequences of allowing it to go forward. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

"Summary of provisions" & too much emphasis on enrichment-related provisions
An ugly table has been added at the beginning of this section which is a summary of the enrichment-related provisions. The facts about the nuclear provisions is already complicated and difficult to explain in words properly, but this table has even simplified everything even more by summarizing. In othre words: it is already difficult to judge about the provisions by reading articles, and summarizing information actually make it even more difficult and make it more probable for people to be misled. Moreover, unlike what news outlet has focused on, the most challenging part of this agreement was the implementation of the Additional Protocol, and what should be done with Arak heavy water facilities. --Z 11:33, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

New section on criticism of the deal in its aftermath
I added a section of criticisms regarding the deal and its alleged ill effects. I tried to keep it pretty dry and impeccably sourced. Please have a look. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed that you added an NPOV tag to this section, complaining in the edit summary about it being a "pile" of "garbage" or "rot", and also complaining (in non-displaying template text) that the section contains "disreputable fringe views".


 * I'll set aside the question of whether referring to notable views by high-quality sources in high-quality publications as "garbage"—and complaining that another editor has had the nerve to actually cite them—fosters a collegial editing atmosphere.


 * That having been set aside, the tag is plainly incorrect, and since you have dispensed with the usualy formality of attempting to substantiate the tag, I have dispensed with the formality of asking you to identify your complaints, and I just went ahead and removed the tag. Please go read WP:FRINGE and do not restore the tag without an explanation of what the heck you're talking about. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I am restoring the tag that NPguy added. I cannot speak for NPguy, but there are major concerns here about the section that you added:
 * The patrol boat content is not relevant, and is in any case excessive. This incident literally has nothing to do with the JCPOA. Content on it belongs at 2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident, not here. The incident is probably worthy of a sentence under "continued tensions," but no more.
 * The section is far too long - undue weight accorded to post-agreement criticism. It mainly recapitulates the sections on political criticism in the United States.
 * Strays from the article topic by going into detail (complete with lengthy quotes) about Iranian missiles. I am fine with including well-sourced criticism to the effect that missile controls should have been included in the JCPOA, but lengthy expositions on the missiles are simply irrelevant to the JCPOA.
 * Section is unbalanced - it is loaded up with paragraphs and paragraphs of material criticizing the agreement, yet no equivalent material that notes the agreement's successful implementation.

Because of these serious issues, I am restoring the tag. Do not remove it until the issues are worked out here. , can you weigh in here, particularly on the patrol-boat content? -- Neutralitytalk 19:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed a few bits that are either outrageous (the genocide claim) or irrelevant (the patrol boat story). But it's still unbalanced both for the lack of favorable commentary and for the lack of rebuttals to the cited criticisms. NPguy (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I fully agree with all of your removals and also agree that more work needs to be done to balance things out. Neutralitytalk 22:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not edit dishonestly. You have already been set straight on the Beres-"fringe" argument and there are simply no two ways about it. Your "fringe" argument is silly and wrong, being contradicted by both the clear words and the plain underlying meaning of the policy itself, as well as the illustrative examples provided. STOP.

You're also arguing that criticisms by the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee aren't entitled to any weight at all. A silly claim, made with zero basis. Also in connection with this improper removal: Huffington Post is cited extensively throughout this article. That being the case, you will not remove commentary from such important figures based on further BS claims about Breitbart not being "reliable" to provide a transcript of quoted remarks.

You're also arguing that criticisms by the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency aren't fit for inclusion because the publication they appeared in was The New York Post. This is just dumb, and I can't think of more obvious evidence that you are engaging in gamesmanship here.

The patrol boat incident was relevant. The relevance is stated in various sources, and not just the ones I cited. The relevance is also obvious. You don't get to contradict sources simply because you want to pretend that relevant things "aren't relevant", and because the guiding principle of the JCPOA itself is for US negotiators to be stupidly blind to Iranian duplicity and pretend it has no bearing on the deal. That idiotic fake reality is binding on Obama's negotiating team, but is not binding on the real world, the press, etc.; and it is not authoritative for Wikipedia articles, whereas RS commentaries are.

Please also note there is no WP policy whatsoever that recommends that important and well-sourced commentary be censored or otherwise excluded simply because you can't find a published rebuttal. If there are rebuttals, add them. If there are no rebuttals, tough—the unrebutted criticisms remain in the article. Nor is the section a "recapitulation" of other criticisms—by and large it pertains to Iran's increased provocation after and as a result of the deal. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * See previous discussion about the genocide claim, which is deliberately inflammatory and cannot be taken seriously. It is a fringe view. NPguy (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are fully delusional and should be blocked for bad-faith editing. You know that the policy does not support that edit and you have had it explained to you in clear terms.  Reverted. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The patrol boat incident is irrelevant to criticism of the nuclear deal because although many sources (The Telegraph, Business Insider, etc.) have written about it in conjunction with the deal, it has nothing to do with criticism, so it belongs elsewhere in the article. The ballistic missile test is relevant because sources have commented on whether it should have been covered under the deal, but and Israel's response to it is not (unless you can find a source that says Israel specifically mentioned the deal in relation to the test). I suggest you take a look at WP:SYN to help you determine what is relevant and what is not. And if you find someone, say, Shahi Hamid, opining that "JCPOA is bad", that does not belong in the article, because he is not notable, but if he writes "Secretary of State Jane Doe says the JCPOA is bad", then it belongs here because Jane Doe's opinion is notable in relation to foreign policy. Also, it is not helpful to insult editors (WP:CIVIL) or to divert the discussion topic ("That idiotic fake reality is binding on Obama's negotiating team", etc.; this page is for discussing the article's content and sources, not for discussing whether the nuclear deal is good or bad; see WP:TALK). --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: I agree with NPguy and with Joshua, above, that you should be civil (and not to accuse others, like NPGuy, of "bad faith" editing). I would also caution you against re-adding this material (i.e., the long, meandering extract at the patrol-boat incident), because there is a firm consensus on this talk page (at least 3-1) against including it.:
 * The NY Post material is also problematic, and you've been informed of this. The Post is a lousy tabloid, and ought not to be used, particularly on complex and important subjects. Neutralitytalk 22:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Dontmakemetypepasswordagain: It is a lost cause. You will not find even 3 righteous Wikipedians to break the consensus established by NPGuy and Neutrality. Yagasi (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I have renamed the section previously named New sanctions to Continued tensions, and moved the material on the ballistic missile tests there. I have also removed some of the claims that were in violation of WP:SYN (like "Iranian state press later boasted that...") and reworded some content to remove charged language taken from opinion pieces, so that it does not present the commentators' views as fact. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to further address the silly claim about a legal expert's opinion in an RS being "fringe". Just stop, NPGuy.  Moving along, the missile launches and patrol boat incident were both explicitly connected to the nuclear deal in the source material, in one case by Pres. Obama, and in the WP prose, and I have also adjusted the WP prose to make that more clear. I restored the remarks by the IAEA chief and former deputy chief, using a Harvard Kennedy School of Government article portal and a National Review piece, although I think it is silly to exclude quoted remarks from major expert figures simply because you dislike the newspaper.  I restored the Robbins quotes, which were not at any time presented as fact, or as anything other than the quoted statements of Robbins, so I found that to be a puzzling accusation, but in any event I added some more textual attributions to shore it up a bit.  Aaaand last but not least NPGuy hasn't called my edits "garbage" or "rot" in the last 24 hours so I agree to be more civil just like him! Ok folks, I'll see you soon. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I am one of three editors who disagree with your edits. You are clearly editing against consensus.  I did keep one piece, quoting Heinonen.  The claim in the National Review is opinion and factually incorrect. NPguy (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask for a little more discussion than that. Please state what needs to be removed, and why.  If something needs to be shortened, please state why.  If some opinion is mistakenly being presented as fact, please show where.  If something being presented as fact is incorrect, please show where. Please be a little more cooperative here. Dontmakemetypepasswordagain (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

All, I wanted to put it on everyone's radar that I decided to take this matter to the admin noticeboard, as this seems to be raising edit war red flags, and it also seems that this exchange has been going on for long enough. Pinging, , , and. Any others are also welcome. And if this is all just a premature action on my part and no action is going to be taken, my apologies for wanting some peace and clarity once and for all. :) But hopefully this steers the conversation in a new direction. Cheers. GabeIglesia (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Prisoner exchange - names and charges
I added the convictions (or charges, where they were awaiting trial) of those who were part of the prisoner exchange. My earlier revision was reverted by User:Neutrality due to concerns about the reliability of sources (Mail Online), so I have (The Guardian, CNN, NPR, Washington Post), and placed them next to the individual charges so that they can be verified easily. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the better sources - I appreciate it. Neutralitytalk 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://isna.ir/en/news/94072113595/Iranian-lawmakers-approve-JCPOA-details
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://isna.ir/fa/news/94072113545/%2525D8%2525AC%2525D8%2525B2%2525D8%2525A6%2525DB%25258C%2525D8%2525A7%2525D8%2525AA-%2525D8%2525A8%2525D8%2525B1%2525D8%2525AC%2525D8%2525A7%2525D9%252585-%2525D8%2525AF%2525D8%2525B1-%2525D9%252585%2525D8%2525AC%2525D9%252584%2525D8%2525B3-%2525D8%2525AA%2525D8%2525B5%2525D9%252588%2525DB%25258C%2525D8%2525A8-%2525D8%2525B4%2525D8%2525AF&usg=ALkJrhgDB4RNIlnjzRTR0Fi3jhiXRrdMIA
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.com/DetailFa/2015/10/13/433192/Iran-&edit-text=
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.farsnews.com/13940719000295

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested edit
This edit was made just before the article was protected. I believe the claim is false, as UN Security Resolution 1803 was superseded by Resolution 2231. Therefore, this edit should be reverted. NPguy (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Popular Culture
There was something of an edit war earlier about whether to include the section on popular culture. Since one editor has restored that section, that edit war could reignite. Rather than launching right in and reverting, let's discuss here.

My view is that the section as written is inappropriate because (1) it seems frivolous and (2) it refers to more general issues about Iran's nuclear program rather than the JCPOA.

Other views? NPguy (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Chomsky Citation
A recent addition cites Noam Chomsky to argue that Iran is not a military or nuclear threat:


 * This coincides with regular reviews of global security made by U.S. intelligence and the Pentagon which conclude that Iran's strategic doctrine is defensive. Also, that it is not a military threat because of its low, even compared to its region's standards, military expenditures and limited capacity to deploy force. There is no evidence of Iran nuclear weapons development. If there was, then nuclear development would be part of Iran's strategy to deter attacks.

These do seem to be accurate quotes from Chomsky's 2016 book Who Rules the World?, and Chomsky's assessment appears to be based on factual claims (though without citations), but also on Chomsky's own interpretations and extrapolations. At best this is a statement of Chomsky's opinion rather than fact. An overall this claim is difficult to believe, given Iran's military intervention in several states of the region and its past pursuit of nuclear weapons. I will add a dubious tag, but am inclined to delete as not reliable. Views? NPguy (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

WNEP's report about impact of liftening of sanctions on Iranian economy
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy made a report about impact of liftening of sanctions on Iranian economy. The changes have been modest according to it. I think it should be added. Also the language standard used in some places is poor, like poor grammar and wrong punctuations. I hope someone could take a look at that. 117.207.150.30 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Revert is not according to good reason
. . Hello. you make reversion whole my edits. I dont understand which of them are repeated!!!.however I am not agree with you about the reasons for reverting because:


 * All of my edits are referring to a new everts not repeated


 * there is no repeated sentences and therefore no need for consistency.

I ask you to return my edits.--m,sharaf (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The text you drafted was in bad English and repeated the same points in two separate sections at a level of detail that is incommensurate with that of the article as a whole. They are also unbalanced, since the U.S. position that the extension of ISA is not inconsistent with JCPOA is not mentioned.  My edits were designed to preserve the gist of what you added (the statements by President Rouhani and  Supreme Leader Khamenei) while improving the English and avoiding undue weight. NPguy (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As I said before, there is no repeating and every sentence has a individual speaker along with valuable source. Being in Bad English not allow you to remove it as you know probably.In contrary I think that you confused the historically orders of the news such a way that you start by Deuchewelle news agency. It is really a balance?--m,sharaf (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Bad English is a reason for editing. Reverting to bad English is not an improvement.  It is lazy and argumentative.  If you want to add text, let's discuss the specific proposals here first.
 * For what it's worth, I agree with you that the current section is unbalanced. There should be some mention of the fact that the IAEA has found that Iran is largely in compliance with its nuclear commitments, thought it has twice exceeded the limit on its heavy water stocks.  There should also be a rebuttal to the claim that the extension of the ISA is inconsistent with the JCPOA.  The fact is that the agreement is largely being observed by both sides, but that confidence is low and suspicions high on both sides. NPguy (talk) 15:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah!! I completely agree with you for "Bad English is a reason for editing" but not for reverting.At least I invite copy editor to promote it.I think that I begin the discussion before you. It becomes better to alert me for editing here before reverting.Anyway I ask you to return the whole edit in such a way that I could promote it and balance it. the text now is not balanced at all.--m,sharaf (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I already did that copy edit to summarize and put in better English. That's what you reverted.  If you think there is something missing, please discuss here. NPguy (talk) 20:29, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I dont think so. you deleted all of my edits and replaced them with you text. If you did copy edit of my text then where can I see them.--m,sharaf (talk) 10:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are the copy edits I made initially. I cut back a lot of text that seemed duplicative and put the remainder in good English.  If you think some of what I deleted is essential, please explain. NPguy (talk) 22:39, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * My editions is not duplicative. you must pay attention to the point that if a content expressed by different people and different view is not at all the same. for example when president say something he told the point from the place of president not spokesman. However I dont accept that they are one thing therefore duplicative. there are different description and explanations on the subject which is not the same.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

My view is that the range of Iranian views on the (dubious) claim that the extension of the Iran Sanctions Act is contrary to the JCPOA is adequately reflected by the views of the President and the Supreme Leader. Others are entitled to their opinions, but those are not noteworthy in the context of this article. To include them gives undue weight to this view. What is missing is the U.S. official view that there is no contradiction between the ISA renewal and the JCPOA. NPguy (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I told before many time that there is no same description of officials. Besides any of them told something different. unfortunately you started the sentence that the weight is contrary. In other word not only there is no undue weight for Iranian officials but also it reflects the case as if Iranian officials are subjected to denying JCPOA. pay attention that POV make us be indifferent to viewpoints and we just collect all views. But I Think your edit is not such a way that we could refer to all views.--m,sharaf (talk) 21:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's try again. Please provide an example of the view of any other Iranian official that is notable and distinct from those of the President and Supreme Leader. NPguy (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * surly, let see the difference between two phrases omitted by you.in one sentence Rouhani sentence any action contrary to JCPOA. but in other phrase by zarif you can see a different reaction to Kerry which is not at the same time identical with first.for example:

 On 4 December 2016, Iran's President Rouhani warned that Iran would respond firmly to the passage by the U.S. Senate of an extension of the Iran Sanctions Act, which he claimed would violate the nuclear deal  the above sentence is a alert by someone and its reaction to the subject in the form of alerting and alarming. but : '' On 19 December 2016,Muhammad Javad Zarif as foreign ministry of Iran reprimand firmly his counterpart namely John Kerry for extension of .. '' is another sentence and about other reaction about extension of sanction. As you can see both speakers and reaction are the same although they are about one thing. They are different reaction and sayings. how you could deny this fact?--m,sharaf (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, they don't say exactly the same thing, but they are similar negative reactions. At this stage the most important addition would be to cite the outcome of the Joint Commission meeting in Vienna January 10, after which the Iranians said they would accept the extension of the Iran Sanctions Act so long as sanctions continued to be waived. NPguy (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Therefore they are not as the same. even reaction are different. POV explains that editor have to collect all opinions not adding their opinion. isn't it?--m,sharaf (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The section is already unbalanced in reflecting only Iranian official opinions. It doesn't need more of the same.  It needs to be balanced, both by U.S. views and by the fact that Iran eventually accepted the ISA extension at the Joint Commission meeting. NPguy (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is your opinion. balancing doesn't mean to revert the all editions. Balance means that all opinions is included.--m,sharaf (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Balance does not mean all opinions are included. It means notable views are reflected.  In this case, all notable Iranian views are reflected except the eventual acceptance of ISA renewal, and non-Iranian views are missing. NPguy (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just contrary to your opinion, balancing is to reflecting all views in such a way that there is no POV. That said by you its really one example of not observing of POV.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I ask to Copy editors to promote the texts. That is below:

Iranian officials have also stated that if the deal is breached then Iran might ramp up uranium enrichment in response.

Slamming the renewal of sanctions, Iran foreign spokesman said that this act amounts to breach of the nuclear accord reached between Tehran and other world powers.

In response to sanction renewal, Hasan rouhani said that if Obamam doesn’t block the extension of senators then Iran vows a firm response to it. The president of Iran Also assert that the accord by congress is against the agreement of Iran with six powers.

Speaking at the University of Tehran, Rouhani asks questions such as Do you think that United States could tear the JCPOA and our nation let them to do this?

Analysts have warned that was it Trump’s reaction a harder line then the hardliners in Iran becomes prominent.

While Iran parliament JCPOA SUPERVISING committee discussed the violations by US, they evaluated ways for reciprocal measures in contrary to US Probable break.

Violations

On 9 November 2016, Deutsche Welle, citing a source from the IAEA, reported that "Iran has violated the terms of its nuclear deal". On 4 December 2016, Iran's President Rouhani warned that Iran would respond firmly to the passage by the U.S. Senate of an extension of the Iran Sanctions Act, which he claimed would violate the nuclear deal. On 19 December 2016,Muhammad Javad Zarif as foreign ministry of Iran reprimand firmly his counterpart namely John Kerry for extension of ISA.

Sanction of banks

For the sake of having high risk in commercial relation with Iran, the royal bank of Scotland doesn’t accept the efforts of its major shareholder namely the British government for facilitating trend with Iran.Uk financial and banking considered with the sanctions, corruption and money laundering issues by USA.

The above text needed to copy edit.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A request was made at WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests for a copy editor to visit this page. I have looked at the text above, and the relevant section of text in the article looks like a reasonably balanced summary of the above text. I also read the Daily Mail article, which has some statements about the effects of sanctions on banking. It seems reasonable that a sentence about that situation could be added to the Aftermath->Impact->Economic section. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Exemptions
The title and the content of this new section imply that the decisions of the Joint Commission that were published by the IAEA upon request by the P5+1. The actual documents make clear that they are not exemptions from JCPOA requirements but clarifications of those requirements. For example, enriched uranium that cannot be recovered from waste does not count against the stockpile limit. This does not create any loophole. At a minimum, the current text (which seems biased), should be balanced with straight factual reporting on the documents. NPguy (talk) 02:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that if WP:RS exist that call the exemptions anything other than exemptions, these should be added and if necessary modify the section as necessary. Then again, it would be interesting to know what kinds of enriched uranium exist as "waste" that _cannot_ be recovered.  XavierItzm (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/transcripts/2007/ft190207.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://isna.ir/fa/news/94072113545/%D8%AC%D8%B2%D8%A6%DB%8C%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%85%D8%AC%D9%84%D8%B3-%D8%AA%D8%B5%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%A8-%D8%B4%D8%AF%26usg%3DALkJrhgDB4RNIlnjzRTR0Fi3jhiXRrdMIA
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.presstv.com/DetailFa/2015/10/13/433192/Iran-%26edit-text%3D
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161202010625/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-sanctions-idUSKBN13Q5JW to http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-sanctions-idUSKBN13Q5JW

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129130025/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR_TALKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-24-07-58-13 to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR_TALKS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-11-24-07-58-13
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160829140816/https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/jcpoa_what_you_need_to_know.pdf to https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/jcpoa_what_you_need_to_know.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150804195203/https://medium.com/the-iran-deal to https://medium.com/the-iran-deal

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170109233531/http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-09-08-26-03 to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-01-09-08-26-03
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160407060706/http://www.davispolk.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-11_Nuclear_Deal_with_Iran_Establishes_Plan_for_Sanctions_Relief.pdf to http://davispolk.com/sites/default/files/2015-08-11_Nuclear_Deal_with_Iran_Establishes_Plan_for_Sanctions_Relief.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150718181351/http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1281870.shtml to http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1281870.shtml/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721045139/http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkey-welcomes-irans-nuclear-deal-with-west_393718.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/diplomacy_turkey-welcomes-irans-nuclear-deal-with-west_393718.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150812183300/http://www.paaia.org/CMS/paaia-releases-national-public-opinion-survey-of-iranian-americans-american-public.aspx to http://www.paaia.org/CMS/paaia-releases-national-public-opinion-survey-of-iranian-americans-american-public.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150723001412/http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/245067.htm to http://usun.state.gov/briefing/statements/245067.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150821235705/http://urj.org/about/union/pr/2015/?syspage=article&item_id=118381 to http://urj.org/about/union/pr/2015/?syspage=article&item_id=118381
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923220229/http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/us-defence-chief-tells-congress-military-options-remain-against-iran-a-46098613.html to http://www.dpa-international.com/news/international/us-defence-chief-tells-congress-military-options-remain-against-iran-a-46098613.html
 * Added tag to http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IRAN_NUCLEAR_DEAL_INTELLIGENCE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150817124341/http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/current-and-former-house-intelligence-committee-members-urge-colleagues-review to http://democrats.intelligence.house.gov/press-release/current-and-former-house-intelligence-committee-members-urge-colleagues-review
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925110959/http://www.criticalthreats.org/iran-news-round-september-11-2015 to http://www.criticalthreats.org/iran-news-round-september-11-2015

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:
 * Added tag to https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-says-iran-remains-significant-threat-to-peace-security/article25499682/
 * Added tag to http://aufc.3cdn.net/e6dca770dc6d71f7d2_tgm6bxklu.pdf
 * Added tag to http://jstreet.org/blog/post/new-poll-majority-of-american-jews-support-iran-nuclear-deal_1
 * Added tag to http://www.tampabay.com/blogs/the-buzz-florida-politics/bill-nelson-announces-support-for-iran-nuclear-deal/2239926
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170904231525/http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/nuclear-agency-rejects-irans-stance-military-sites-49546863 to http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/nuclear-agency-rejects-irans-stance-military-sites-49546863

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

the Vienna Treaty Clause
All that is quite confusing:

What is the the Vienna Treaty Clause?

Treaty Clause does not deal with Vienna.

Does the Vienna convention (on treaties) has a Treaty Clause? If so, is this Treaty Clause the Treaty Clause? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.51 (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * what is this question in relation to? Attack Ramon (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Removal of WP:NOTNEWS materials
The highly tangentially related and speculative sentence, fulled with "according to", "if confirmed" and "Reporters said", has no place in this article as per WP:NOTNEWS. One may take it to the a more related article. -- M h hossein   talk 12:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree it is unclear whether these two events can be uncontroversially linked. More sources might be needed to confirm the link. In any case, if this sentence is to remain in this article, it should also be added that the Iranian strikes were in response to previous alleged Israeli strikes. From the same news article: "Israel had been expecting an Iranian response for some time, following a series of military strikes in Syria that targeted Iranian positions. Syria and Iran blamed those strikes on Israel, and Iran's leaders vowed revenge." $\color{blue}\chi$chi (talk) 13:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes and adding the reasoning behind the attacks attributed to Iran makes it even more tangential. At the moment, there should be a source making a connection between the incident and JCPOA. -- M h hossein   talk 14:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Connection is already established by source: "One of the strikes occurred Tuesday night, only hours after President Donald Trump had withdrawn the United States from the Iran nuclear deal, sparking fears of further destabilization in the Middle East."--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This very belated comment after you were reported at AE for edit warring and violation of remedy is not showing your willingness to participate in talk page discussions. -- M h hossein   talk 18:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Says the guy who started the talk page discussion AFTER reporting me for "ARBPIA violations". You clearely are not here to contribute.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Haaaaa...funny. I reported you, ONE DAY after I had began this topic. You were clearly edit warring despite this ongoing talk, I don't say that, others say. Your talk page says "You clearly are not here to contribute." -- M h hossein   talk 13:25, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * How about we get back to discussing content as opposed to other editors? I see several sources making the connection -, and it would seem the US secretary of state made the connection The IRGC “has flown an armed drone into Israeli airspace and launched salvos of rockets into the Golan Heights from Syria,” he said with the JCPA . If RSes make a connection - so should we.Icewhiz (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that a claim made by a nation or government and indicated in a reliable source certainly belongs in an article. In the case at hand, the text should be reworded but the claim by Israel or if already a fact, the fact, should be included in this article. Thinker78 (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Rectification possibly needed on one sentence?
In the main section the sentence "IAEA inspectors spend 3,000 calendar days per year in Iran, installing tamper-proof seals and collecting surveillance camera photos, measurement data and documents for further analysis" may need some clarification. While this is a direct quote from an official source, the wording in it is erroneous for obvious reasons, and if not (for reasons that I currently fail to understand) perhaps this could be clarified a bit better.

86.44.63.103 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Why do you think this is erroneous? You do understand that it's person-days, right? NPguy (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the most biased Wikipedia page I have ever seen
I've read many Wikipedia pages in my life, including pages about political issues, and I've never seen such a biased page like this one. This is like a CNN op-ed, Wikipedia is supposed to be objective and credible. 141.226.14.121 (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Care to offer an example of bias? NPguy (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tour bus on W58 with JCPOA ad jeh.JPG

Consequences of US withdrawal
It is implied that one of the consequences of the US withdrawal from the deal is that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard launched rockets at Israeli military targets from Syria. It happening the next day is circunstancial evidence and, although widely reported, I could not find any proof supporting what is claimed by the IDF. It is simply claimed to be the case. Should that sentence be removed from consequences of US withdrawal? 109.49.238.49 (talk) 11:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Crimea is marked as Russian
I'd like to point at inappropriate map of Russia that includes Crimean peninsula, which is in fact occupied territory, officially recognised as a part of Ukraine (see United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_68/262): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JCPOA_signatories.svg

The author of the map is compromised by many of such deliberate imposing of the position of the aggressor (see his/her contributions), forcefully reverting any attempt to correct the maps into internationally recognised borders.

The best solution would be to substitute the map by one taken from a neutral source.

192.68.51.226 (talk) 07:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Or delete the map, which has no real explanatory value. NPguy (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Self-contradiction on status in US law.
This article states without attribution that "Under U.S. law the JCPOA is a non-binding political commitment". Although there is a citation for that, it seems to me it's only one scholar's opinion. And there's also a large footnote in this article that states/cites the opposite opinions "The extent to which the JCPOA is legally binding on the United States—i.e., whether a future president could lawfully repudiate the JCPOA once it goes into effect—is a matter of dispute. Legal scholars Bruce Ackerman of Yale Law School and David Golove of the New York University School of Law argue that the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 had the effect of making the agreement (once implemented) into a congressional-executive agreement". And that's not the same thing a as "non-binding political commitment". So either delete the footnote if it's entirely erroneous opinion, or change the unattributed statement that it's a (undoubtedly) a "non-binding political commitment". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.201.18 (talk) 03:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Also there's a 2018 CRS document (R44761) that reiterates the ambiguity in much more detail. It would probably be a better source for the legal status in US law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.201.18 (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The JCPOA is, on its own terms, not legally binding on any of its parties. It has legal force only to the extent that other legally binding instruments (such as UN Security resolutions or INARA) give it legal force. NPguy (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have proposed language, with sources? If so, perhaps you could post your proposal here? Neutralitytalk 15:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me read several times carefully about the advice above and guidelines on Wikipedia and write draft proposed wording on this talk page. Thank you for your response and have a great day. :) Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry, people: this discussion is too vague. If anonymous contributor 1882520118 (Nov.2019) has a problem with some assertion in the Wiki article, he should begin with clearly indicating where in the article it stands. If he considers that other scholars have other or even contradicting opinions on some issue, he can add that. If the article contradicts itself - what indeed regularly happens - he should simply repair the article. --Corriebertus (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Status of nuclear deal?
Given the recent (January 2020) developments and Iran’s declaration of their intent to withdraw from the JCPOA, I suggest that the status of the deal be discussed. Potential new status can be “withdrawn” or “partially withdrawn”.

It is subject to ongoing developments so on the other hand it could be putting the cart before the horse. Tlages (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Action item for Overly detailed in Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action section
I agreed with the issue of this article, Would you please fix this issue? "This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may interest only a particular audience. Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information," Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary of the reaction
I would summarize the reactions both positive and negative parts. I hope it would assist to fix the current problems of the 2015 version of Iran nuclear deal.

Especially, when I see the negative reaction - it is rational critism about the serious issues about the iran nuclear deal version 2015. Three issues are (as per the opinion from the some experts of nuclear bomb) 1) Iran would be able to make a nuclear bomb from 2030 2) Iran can develop nuclear bomb in the secrete place as IAEA can not access all place in Iran without additional approval from Iran 3) Iran can develop ICBM without restriction.

As the 2015 Nuclear deal is now out of date, I believe U.S. or neighboring countries of Iran, would not allow Iran to develop nuclear bomb. From my understanding, the potential solution of blocking the completion of the nuclear bomb: it would be 1. Diplomatic denuclearization deal with Iran- version 2020 or 2021 2. Destroy all nuclear facilities in Iran by ICBM missile 3. Full war with Iran and a lot of casualties in Iran. (or other potential places )

I sincerely want to see the outcome of solution from the option #1 above.

Regarding the summary of the reaction, I believe that we should avoid adding citations in the leading section (or summary section) per Manual of Style/Lead section, there are sources in the body (or in the main article) available for this.

Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have reverted your recent edit, which lacked sources, was redundant to content elsewhere in this article and in the sub-article, and was not well-written. WP:LEADCITE (the Manual of Style section you cite) does not apply to the new content you added, since (1) your edits were in the body of the article, not the actual lead section of the article, and (2) in any case, citations are necessary, even in lead sections for "Complex, current, or controversial subjects" (in the words of WP:LEADCITE). Please don't re-add the content, since your edit has now been reverted by two separate editors. Neutralitytalk 04:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear Neutrality,
 * Thank you for your kind update.
 * Would you please answer my inquiry below if possible?
 * Regarding the reaction section of the article below,
 * 1) Can we add the summary ? example of another topic: link []
 * 2) Please clarify the meaning of  "unsourced" regarding summary of reaction:
 * (From my previous understanding, the summary section of the article: it might be unnecessary to add the another reference as the original article already includes several references. )
 * Regarding advice above, now I think again the lead section (or summary section) should be carefully sourced (with references) as appropriate. ::: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have draft proposed wording that you can share on the talk page for others' reviews? Neutralitytalk 04:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Neutrality, Thank you for your suggestion and guiding me about WP:LEADCITE. Please review the draft below about the summary of the reaction and advise me about improvement factor of the draft version, or let me know whether the draft version could be acceptable. ;
 * "The nuclear deal received a mixed international reaction, with many countries expressing positive reactions it could achieve the denuclearization of Iran. However, some of Iran's neighbouring countries including israel  and U.S. lawmakers expressed distrust about the agreement, seeing it as seriously defective."
 * Please refer to that I've added some relevant references above, however the references could be added more if necessary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me update the summary of reaction on the article as there was review time more than three days. Please update fixes and improvements of the summary part if necessary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Broken links at end
Some of the links to JCPOA text at EU website don't work. Needs fixing. There are working links at the State Department's archived site. Sullidav (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Might Want to Clarify Spending "3000 days per calendar year" part
Most calendar years do not have 3000 days in them, do they? Is the reference to multiple staffers? Either way, rewrite this.