Talk:Nuclear concessions to Iran

This article is necessary
As the cites to this article show, the concessions made to Iran have themselves been a frequent topic of public discourse. For that reason, they need their own article.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Responding to your post on your talk page - my feeling is that this page would be a WP:POVFORK. All of the provisions of the agreement should be treated in either the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action article, or the negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. Having separate articles will split facts unnecessarily. Would we have an Iranian concessions to the West article?  No, that would be ridiculous. It is best to simply and accurately describe the provisions (and who is happy with them, who is not, and why) then to state (in Wikipedia's own voice) that X or Y or Z is a "concession." Neutralitytalk 18:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. But as you accurately pointed out, the material from this article is off topic over there! A POV fork is, by definition, an article about the same topic. Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 19:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bottom line: this is a POV fork. Citing Bob Corker's opinions as fact? Jennifer Rubin? The Washington Free Beacon? Selective quotation from presidential debates three years ago (which is entirely irrelevant to the actual agreement). Absolutely not. We are not a coat rack to hang up all the various lay-person opinions out there. Sorry. Neutralitytalk 12:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We can talk about sourcing if you want to. As I said, I would be delighted to work with another editor, such as you, on NPOV issues. As I am the only editor who has made a substantial contribution here, it is highly likely that there is room for improvement. But your contention that this is a POV fork is not consistent with your contention that the material from this article is off topic in the article you say it is a POV fork of. The topics cannot both be the same and different. If you are going to continue to argue that this is a POV fork, I respectfully request you to address that question. Doing so would indicate that you have heard my side of the question and would show respect for both me and Wikipedia processes. Thank you.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Concessions are an integral part of negotiations. We can handle this topic in the negotiation articles, really. And from a look at this page I have WP:POVFORK concerns as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not unusual for Wikipedia to have multiple articles on related topics. Hence we have Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, for example. Furthermore, because of their topic, certain articles will naturally appear to favor one point of view. This can be seen in the Israel-Palestine articles as well.  The purpose of this article is to focus on concessions made by the West.  That said, I will readily admit that NPOV can be improved.  I'd invite you to help with that.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that this article is a POV fork. An article that frames the agreement in toto (and misleadingly) as mere "concessions to Iran" is, without doubt, simply a spinoff of the general agreement article that aims to present the agreement in a negative light. It's a WP:COATRACK, and it's not permitted on wiki. Neutralitytalk 22:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you going to address my boldface concern?Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For Pete's sake. Re your "boldface concern" - the article is unduly duplicative of another article (specifically, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action). But it is different in that its very title and premise take a particular approach (i.e., that the agreement was a set of "concessions" - which is true of any agreement). In that sense, it is different from the two articles just linked. So it some ways it is too "similar" (which is a problem) and in some ways it is too "different" (which is also a problem). I'm not sure what more I can say.
 * I appreciate you working to fix some of the major issues, but again, the problem is with the premise itself. We should and will treat the entire agreement as a unified whole, covering all aspects of it, without creating duplicative, POV forks. Neutralitytalk 23:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for replying here. One problem I am having is that the person who argued it was off topic when I added it to the page you redirected to was you. Does that mean that if I make a further attempt to fix some of the issues (I do agree the prose still has a ways to go on NPOV), you won't argue, again, that it's off topic over there? About your "unified whole" issue, that's really not how Wikipedia works. We frequently have articles on subjects which could be considered aspects of another subject, and in many cases those aspects make one side or the other look bad. Examples include the Israel apartheid analogy within Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Climate change denial within Climate Change, and Binders full of women within 2012 U.S. Presidential election. The standard for inclusion is WP:GNG, not whether or not a subject is an aspect of another subject. All are arguably aspects of another subject, yet all have their own articles. And with the sourcing in the article, I think I'm on firm ground with WP:GNG. It is simply not the case that there is a Wikipedia policy allowing someone to insist that all material in a certain subject area go into one or two articles. I am curious if you see some fundamental difference between this example and the three I list above.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 00:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Those analogies are off point. Each one describes a well-known, well-documented phenomenon of its own separate and distinct from the "main topic." By contrast, "nuclear concessions to Iran" is merely one particular point of view or conception to a broader topic. It would be like someone creating an article: Wall Street irresponsibility and recklessness leading to the Great Recession, and then claiming that it deserved an independent article separate from Great Recession and causes of the Great Recession. That, of course, would be ridiculous - even though I could find no shortage of articles on Wall Street irresponsibility and recklessness leading to the Great Recession.
 * As for inclusion in the main article - the main article directly cites to opponents of the agreement and explains that their objection is that they believe too much was conceded. So it is included in the main article, and it given appropriate weight there. Neutralitytalk 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's look at one of my examples -- "binders full of women", take each of your descriptors in turn, and see which article better fits. "Well known" -- in terms of intensity of coverage, "binders" briefly reached a higher intensity within the United States than "concessions" ever did, though the intensity of coverage of "concessions" within Israel is likely higher than "binders" ever reached anywhere. Additionally, "concessions" has had coverage for years in multiple countries of the Anglosphere, while "binders" pretty much fell off the charts after a few weeks.   I'd argue that the duration and international scope of "concessions" outweigh the brief intensity of "binders" in the US, making "concessions" better known overall. Would you argue otherwise? "Well documented" is essentially the same as "well known," so the same comments and question apply. "Phenomenon" -- surely, the concessions by the West in this lengthy and difficult negotiation were a more significant phenomenon than the act of putting information about women into binders.  Here concessions wins, hand down. "Separate and distinct from the main topic" -- as noted above, after the election, "binders" simply fell off the charts; no one cared anymore. By contrast, "concessions" notes the evolution from the Paris Accords and the Bush Administration's position down to the present. This gives it more "distinctness" than "binders". "Point of view" -- "Binders" was a phrase used by Romney making a different point entirely that was siezed on by others as a point of attack. "Concessions" is a long-term trend in the negotiations which has similarly been siezed on as a point of attack. It's difficult for me to see any objective way of saying that one is more a point of view than the other -- certainly, both were pushed more by one side of a debate. In sum, it seems that "concessions" comes out ahead of "binders" on three of your four criteria, while on the fourth criterion I can't see much difference.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You write "By contrast, 'concessions' notes the evolution from the Paris Accords and the Bush Administration's position down to the present." But the history/evolution of the topic can and should be treated in nuclear program of Iran, in Iran-U.S. relations, and in negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? So there are no fewer than three places where such material might be relevant.
 * You also write that "'Concessions' is a long-term trend in the negotiations which has similarly been seized on as a point of attack." First, "long-term trend" is certainly up in the air - that is in the nature of political analysis, and has little or no bearing on encyclopedic distinctiveness. It presupposes the idea that the defining feature of the agreement are "concessions." Second, as you seem to recognize somewhat ("has ... been seized on as a point of attack"), the word "concessions" pretty much reflects a political talking point that is entirely an outgrowth of a distaste for this agreement. That's fine and dandy, but we need not have a separate article that takes a particular point of view of the starting point.
 * As to the binders full of women stuff: the rationale for having an independent article on that topic is quite weak. Luckily, the fact that other stuff exists doesn't really have a bearing on this particular topic. More to the point, "binders" is a discrete phrase - really, a specific meme - that was collateral to the main campaign. By contrast, "concessions" is a particular point of view (or, in the view of some, a "theme") as to the whole endeavor. Having a parallel article like this one is exactly what the WP:POVFORK policy was designed to avoid. Neutralitytalk 14:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As you appear to be arguing that the material from this article is on-topic over there, I'll take you at your word. I would appreciate it if you would work with me over there to fix the problems in this material, rather than simply deleting wholesale.Iran nuclear weapons 2 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)