Talk:Tehran International Conference on Disarmament and Non-Proliferation

Fairness and notability
I put paragraphs with wikilinks to both articles into the Intros of both articles. Both conferences are highly notable and should be mentioned explicitly and prominently. Simesa (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As there was need to put the conferences in a "Context" section in one article, I put them in Context sections in all three articles. Simesa (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good ideas. Thanks.-- Seyyed(t-c) 14:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

External reactions
Certainly there must be more meaningful External Reactions than that of an obscure think tank? What, for example, did the Russians think? This section really needs someone with some credibility to comment. Simesa (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * i agree there is, but its also a call to editors to find the sources. as time goes by more edits may come.(Lihaas (talk) 04:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear disarmament obligations
I've basically reverted the text on whether the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NNPT) explicitly requires total nuclear disarmament (it doesn't) based on the following text taken directly from the NNPT article: "The wording of the NPT's Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament, saying, 'Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament.' (ref given) Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them 'to negotiate in good faith.' (ref given)"

"On the other hand, some governments, especially non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the Non-Aligned Movement, have interpreted Article VI's language as being anything but vague. In their view, Article VI constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, and argue that these states have failed to meet their obligation. ..."

The above clearly needs to be put forth in the article. Simesa (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The given reference quotes the NNPT correctly and then blatantly mis-interprets that text - all the text requires, as also pointed out in the NNPT article, is for Parties "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to ..." Simesa (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've substituted a legal-opinion reference for the one that was there - again, the emphasis is on negotiations leading to total disarmament, not demands for unilateral disarmament. Simesa (talk) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of referring to two controversial analysis of the article why not just refer to the text itself. and THEN add BOTH analysis for the reader to decidE?
 * Better yet, just take out the irrelevant info from here altogether. if people want to see the controversy they can go to the NPT page. Lihaas (talk) 04:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the controversy is notable and worth mentioning, so I'd like to put it in the Controversies section. However, the ICJ opinion disagrees somewhat with the NNPT article, and I've posted a comment there on how we should modify that article.  The hard part here is going to be getting NPOV on the "three" interpretations. Simesa (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * woops-e-daisy, just got here. Its better for NPOV to use all the sources to show the disagreement.
 * but the this is not a controversy pertaining to the Tehran conference. the reference saying there was discussion of it implies that there was discussion at this conference. its more an NPT arguement. But add a see also/main article link from here, it's relevance is there i agree. but not direct to the Tehran conference.
 * Actually, context maybe better if you want to have it here. but cite both articles for the dispute. 122.167.217.200 (talk) 12:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

participants list
Most of the countries listed in the table did not participate. The list at the conference web site does not seem to work. This should be corrected. NPguy (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As per the source the list indicated these attendees. Unless there is something to show who did not attend (as in the usa) then its original research/POV to state otherwise.
 * The links seem to work for me, not sure why its not working on your end. maybe it was down at the time.(Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The main citation for most of the participants list is this one. It has three links.  The first one, for List of participating countries, produces a blank page on both of my browsers.  The second, List of Participants, produces an error message.  Only the third one List of speakers in the Plenaries, appears to be a working link.  I am unable to verify the list of invitees based on the cited reference. NPguy (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont know about the 2nd but the first gave me a list. the last seems to work for both. If it doesn't work for someone else as well then out a dead link tag as a call for the source. Seems to be a good compromise. Lihaas (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

conference statement
At the end of the conference, Iran released a 12-point statement, claiming to present conclusions of the conference. Singapore disavowed this statement, saying "The ministry said there was no agreement among delegates to the Tehran Conference to issue such a document, and 'neither was there any discussion on the contents of the document.'"NPguy (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good to have singapore's disavowed statement for the article. Ill add the source for the statement.(Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV queries
Before reverting NPOV statements back-and-forth there should be some discussion here, which there wasn't. I've reverted to the original pending a consensus on neutrality.(Lihaas (talk) 12:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Per this edit the first lead summarizes what happens at the conference and that was what he said. Per the 2nd, it says "see controversies" is that not simple enough? 3. the usa are listed on the page as invited but the link in the cotnroversies points to the fact that the usa said they weren't --> hence the correlation. Anything else incomprehensible? If so use talk and ask and ill be glad to answer the queries.Lihaas (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The United States did not participate. There's no credible source saying it did.  No real controversy. NPguy (talk) 02:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said they did? did you read what i said above? The source says they did not participate and the US expressly said they wouldnt attend, though the initial source listed them hence controversy.
 * Thorugh debate we can get consensus and then edit the page to reflect both opinions. Thanks for coming to talk thoughLihaas (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The deleted items suggested that the United States had been invited, had attended, and that there was controversy over this. None of those is true. NPguy (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The one source says the US was invited, the other source says the US wasn't invited. Hence the controversy. They don't suggest the US attended, if that's the issue then we can change that. the controversy was over being invited from one side, but the other saying they weren't.
 * Which part suggests they attended so we can remove/alter that.Lihaas (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The claim that the U.S. was invited comes from an Iranian press source shilling for the Iranian government. It's an unreliable source and the claim is false.  No one from the U.S. government was invited.  I believe some U.S. individuals were invited and even attended.  But since I still can't open the participant list page it's hard to figure out who they were.
 * I think it's also quite POV to cite the Iranian government's claims that their conference was better than the Nuclear Security Summit without noting that the Summit had an entirely different purpose. NPguy (talk) 22:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Iran source gives the iran view (as per a current wp:rs debate too). You say some participated? that could be added, i dont have a source though so you can cite yours. but as per considering both sides both sources ought to be cited (and are, which bring the contradiction). Not sure why you cant read it, i personally saw the list, which is where i added the info from.
 * for the controversy part in the table you deleted, i restored it because it gives a link to the section below which is cited.
 * Yes, you are right here. Which one says their conference was "better?" Its not inherently wrong to cite it, as long as it goes with the caveat that the Iran govt. said so. But go ahead be WP:Bold and add all that.Lihaas (talk) 06:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't read the page that supposedly says who participated. I have heard (but have no citation) that some Americans participated.  If I could open the page I could tell if any U.S. officials were invited.  The Iranian government is simply not a reliable source of information. It's all self-serving. NPguy (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure why, i read it off when i added the info.
 * Well, we can wait on the American who did participate, no rush.
 * Well, you can't say that for certain, it goes with any state source. There are no reports of fabrications, point of views perhaps, but not false.Lihaas (talk) 08:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Reference error
Was introduced by https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tehran_International_Conference_on_Disarmament_and_Non-Proliferation,_2010&diff=next&oldid=357147034 All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC).