Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Nandesuka 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran

As a selective collection of factoids, the page constitutes original research promoting the thesis that a US-Israeli alliance threatens Iran. The verifiable facts it contains should be presented in context as part of United States-Iran relations and Iran-Israel relations. Tom Harrison Talk 14:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: More discussion at Talk:2005-2006 US-Israeli threats to attack Iran#Original Research Tom Harrison Talk 16:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - Declaration of potential conflict of interest: i'm the person who started the page and probably have contributed most of it. Back to the AfD request: Quote from WP:NOR: However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. In other words, wikipedia policy encourages us to collect related factoids and organise them. Tom harrison claims that the selection is "selective", but hasn't tried adding what he alleges are the missing factoids. i agree that bias by omission is bias, and have done my best not to omit relevant NPOV facts. IMHO i have not stopped anyone from adding missing facts - please check the history and discussion pages. As for merging into United States-Iran relations or Iran-Israel relations, the problem is that the conflict involves all three of these countries together; it has only come to crisis in the past few years, especially during 2005-2006; and it is already about 30kb long (source), which is hitting the maximum recommended. A potential name change could be to 2005-2006 claimed US-Israeli threats to attack Iran, but then there would need to be some verifiable references claiming that the threats do not exist. Boud 15:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a synthesis of facts in so many ways:
  1. The mere allegation of "threats" is mere speculation based on current policy. A nuclear-armed NK isn't acceptable either, but it's pretty clear we're not about to attack them.
  2. the three-country link. There's no link between the U.S. and Israel other than expressed concern over Iran's nuclear weapons programme. That's hardly unique and many other nations have expressed such. Yes, they are the most likely to strike Iran, but that's OR and not apropos for this article.
  3. combining "possible attack targets" in this article. I don't see the point of combining this with the threats or perceived threats other than as crystal-balling a future attack.
  4. Motives. When the U.S. hasn't even issued an overt threat to attack, merely stating that it doesn't wish Iran to be armed with nukes, and now we're speculating about oil? Speculation on the motives of a yet-to-happen event is just terrible.
It seems like this is being written as a precursor for a presumed or predicted Iran-Israel-Iran war. If that happens, go ahead and write up your Precursor, Targets, Motivations, etc. Until then....it's groundless. --Mmx1 18:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete article is just a thesis and could be summarized in a few cited referencs in United States-Iran relations and in Iran-Israel relations--MONGO 15:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Shorten, Rewrite, and Merge into the articles Mongo mentioned. --Eivindt@c 15:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a list of facts or a timeline. You can't skirt the NOR criteria by making a list of your points and leaving out your implied agenda. Ask yourself: how could this list of events be tied together into an encyclopedia article and not just a list? You can't do it without introducing an original synthesis of facts. --Mmx1 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOR. RGTraynor 16:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Huge POV problem. Details belong in other articles as nom suggested. --Hetar 16:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or rename: (Interesting how all the Users who vote Delete are American. Hmmm... Do I detect some bias here?) As a non-American, non-Iranian editor, I just don't see the POV your talking about. Can you give an example? Seabhc?n 17:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
A compromise suggested by ADB below is to rename to 2005-2006 Iranian diplomatic conflicts and then work on the POV. Seabhcán 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Interesting that every single Keep vote has come from a non-American. Should I trouble myself to detect some bias there? For my part, I didn't make a judgment on the article's POV, but on its plain original research. Essays and op ed pieces certainly have their place, but encyclopedias are not among them. RGTraynor 18:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I'm an American, and I think the information should be kept. I don't see as much of an NPOV problem as others do. There's lots of WP articles that have implied perspectives, even if they're simply cultural blind spots. In this case, it's good to have material which provides an alternate viewpoint.
  • comment - the article itself is POV/OR in its title; why bundle the actions of the US and Israel into one article, other than to imply a deeper relationship on this subject between the two nations than a shared concern? I'd consider changing my opinion to split to "US threats..." and "Israeli threats...", though it would still have some POV problems, albeit ones that could possibly be solved by editing. — AKADriver ☎ 19:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I too am not an American, I'm a European, but I don't think one's continent is relevant here. Markb 17:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The information presented here is not all that bad from a factual standpoint, but the intent is obviously to draw some sort of unique conclusion. Too much crystal ball and too much original research. If it happens, create the article then. There is a reason Americans are keen to delete it, and it's not national pride; it's that this article takes certain concepts for granted that aren't widely believed here. Given that there could be shifts in the foreign policy of the US government after elections this year and in 2008, this could all be so much rubbish anyway. — AKADriver ☎ 19:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I am a Russian. And I am crazy. Go figure! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This collection of cited information is useful to digest the myriad facts thrown about by different sides in this escalating dispute over Iran's nuclear program. Abe Froman 22:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Include information in the article United States-Iran relations otherwise delete. OSU80 00:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete content/POV fork, crystal ballish, etc...--Jersey Devil 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a well researched thesis but I don't think that is what wikipedia needs. --Nick Y. 02:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as POV starting with the article title. The subject can be discussed in United States-Iran relations and Iran-Israel relations. Since Iran is making threats of its own (see [1], [2], [3]), it is best to cover the threats in a broader context. --Metropolitan90 03:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • comment ref 1 sounds to me like self-defence (reaction to attack), which is not quite the same as a threat, but could be a non-OR reason for changing the article title; refs 2 and 3 are about Ahmadinejad's remarks, including the misquote of "wiping off the map", which are already in the article Boud 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete. The article as it stands is strongly POV, but it is commendably well-researched, well-sourced, and contains a useful collection of references to an Iranian perspective on the current crisis. However, I cannot see any way in which it could be turned into an BPOV article, because its raison d'?tre is its attempt to tell the story from an Iranian perspective. To my mind, that's a story worth telling, but not on wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl 08:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge the relevant information into an existing article or a new one. The information is too good to lose, but it's currently messy. Perhaps a new article, something like "2005-2006 Iranian diplomatic conflicts" or the like. ADB 08:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy with this alternative. We could then include more prominently threatening comments made by the Irianian president.Seabhcán 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Iranian president's remarks have been already covered in three separate articles namely: Controversies surrounding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad and Isreal and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Therefore Seabhcán argument is not acceptable.--Mitso Bel21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge if there's anything worth saving. The POV is very largely in the title and grouping, which thankfully I see AKADriver has already outlined. --kingboyk 10:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • comment So please suggest an NPOV title which is accurate and consistent with the externally documented, verifiably claimed facts, and enables adding the missing facts. Boud 12:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
United States-Iran relations and Iran-Israel relations. Tom Harrison Talk 13:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Why does controversies around Ahmadinejad's remarks on Isreal need a separate article form Iran-Israel relations, but a continuous threat to attack a country in near future does not worth a separate article ?! The threat is not merely speculations. Several politicians have clearly mentioned it and the plan to attack Iran is everyday discussed in conferences and media. A simple google search will find milions of links about attack on Iran. I think the article should be improved and kept. --Sina Kardar20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles about Iran's WMD and Iran's nuclear threat are nothing but speculations. However I think nobody (including me) is against having such articles in wikipedia. Keeping the current article is encouraged by wikipedia policy. --Sina Kardar20:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per norm --- K a s h Talk | email 20:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research and badly-defined topic. Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very informative and well-sourced article. There are similar articles that covers the other side of the story. For instance the article on Iran and weapons of mass destruction is only there because of Israel and US claims, as it is stated in the article. To stay neutral, we need to have the other side of the coin as well. --Fooladin06:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per above. 1652186 20:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per norm. --Mitso Bel21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What norm?--Mmx1 21:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. Lukas (T.|@) 07:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV pushing--Ahwaz 22:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are hundreds of articles that are not NPOV and no one wants to delete them. The point of wikipedia is to build and improve articles, not to delete them at the drop of a hat. Raemie 23:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It is notable, it is properly referenced... the only thing that needs a little touching up is the POV, but that's not warranting a deletion of the entire article. --ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 02:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete crystal-ballery.  Grue  10:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The article contains only references to documented past events and makes no predictions. How is it "Crystal-ballery"? Seabhcán 10:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Excessive POV pushing, bordering on propaganda. --Gabi S. 11:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
You call it "bordering on propaganda"? Can you give an example of which parts are incorrect? Seabhcán 11:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. First of all, the title "Threats to attack Iran" imposes that the US and/or Israel deliberately threaten Iran. It is not the case. Iran actively procures nuclear technologies that will allow it to have nuclear weapons in 5-10 years, while US and Israel react verbally to these actions. It is not a symmetrical situation, and highlighting the threats, as is done in this article, serves Iranian propaganda by making the verbal threats look as frightening as Iran's nuclear plans. Second, every insignificant statement said by any US official is recorded, as if it is really important and reflects an official policy. Again, US officials are just reacting to Iran's actions and statements, which are an order of magnitude worse. All this makes me want to just delete this article and put just a small paragraph about the whole issue in "United States-Iran relations". --Gabi S. 12:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the title could be changed to something more NPOV, but that is not a reason to delete the article. I don't understand your claim that the threats are not deliberate. How can you accidentally, repeatedly threaten to invade a country? These threats have been repeated numberous times by many high level US political figures. It is widely believed that the US is threatening Iran. It is daily news. Rebels in Iraq have vowed to defend Iran from attack, so they must believe it too. Many writers and commentators, including numberous respected US journalists have commented on these threats. The former UK foriegn minister commented on them. France today declared it would not support such threats. It is notable.
You say that US politicians are simply reacting to Iran's actions. By this I assume you mean Iran's production of nuclear fuel. Why do these politicians react to Iran's actions with talk of bombings and invasion, while they give no such reaction to Brazil's recent announcement of production of nuclear fuel. Surely this difference of responce is notable?
Finally, Iran has no proven plans to produce nuclear weapons. The only countries which accuse it of secret plans are the US and Israel. On-one else seems to think there is a great threat. Infact the entire issue of this supposed Iranian conspiracy theory, true or not, has no evidential backing and is based solely on US and Isreali government statements. If this article is deleted, then there is a very strong case to also delete Iran and weapons of mass destruction. Seabhcán 13:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The article contains no comments from US figures other than speculation from journalists and other outsiders about unnamed high-level officials having made up their minds on the matter, and the official U.S. position which is fairly vague about invasion.
WMD is not solely nuclear weapons, there is well cited material regarding Iran's biological and chemical weapons programs in the Iran WMD article.
The link between the US and Israel is OR. Until such an event happens and you can point to a link between the two countries, these shouldn't be covered together.
Moreover, as I stated above, the article is collected around crystal-balling a potential attack - listing potential targets and motivations. This is silly and absurd when there is only speculation about treats to attack/invade. If and when such an attack is made, these no longer become OR. However, basing an article on speculation is crystal-balling. --Mmx1 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming that the war is speculation or the threats? Because this article is about threats. Seabhcán 15:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you said, but I also think I made my point clear, favoring the deletion of the article. I'm not going to take it any further. --Gabi S. 14:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
President Bush has stated publically "all options are on the table," and specifically refuses to rule out military action. Pretending this is not a threat is naive. Abe Froman 15:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Why should he rule out military action, and why would you expect him to, invasion or not? The link is speculative and OR. Nobody in their right mind makes any concessions in diplomacy unless it is calculated to win trust or as part of a quid pro quo. --Mmx1 15:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The previous passage is the OR. President Bush stating "all options are on the table," is verifiable. The rest of the Threats article also meets WP:V. Nearly every passage is cited. Conclusions editors draw beyond the sources in the article is their own OR, not the article's. Abe Froman 16:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm not proposing we put my speculation in the article. You are. Bush has said all options are on the table W.R.T. North Korea, as well as the speculated tax hike, for strengthening social security, and many other policies. The belief that "all options are on the table" somehow translates to "we'd really like to do this" is a fallacy and speculative on your part. --Mmx1 16:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Yet in relation to Brazil behaving in exactly the same way as Iran, Bush has said nothing. Isn't that notable? Seabhcán 16:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it is notable, in Foreign relations of Brazil or Foreign relations of the United States. If there's enough material, someone more knowledgable than I could write Brazil-United States foreign relations. I would oppose the creation of Suspicious absence of US-Italian threats against Brazil. Tom Harrison Talk 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
As would I. However, if the US spent three years issuing near daily threats to Brazil, a list of such threats would be notable.Seabhcán 16:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I've yet to see such issued threats, as opposed to implied or speculated. More like "daily speculation in the media". --Mmx1 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If the Iranian President was asked whether he would bomb the US, and he answered "All options are on the table", would you not consider that a threat? Seabhcán 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I would consider it nothing new and political-speak for "Do you take me for an idiot? I'm not revealing my cards" If I wanted to stir up anti-Iran sentiment, I'd claim that it implies a threat, but that's not the place of wiki.--Mmx1 17:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure; in Brazil-United States foreign relations. Tom Harrison Talk 16:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
There is too much material to merge. It would flood the article. Seabhcán 17:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone provide any info that Brazil has threatened the existence of any other country? Hence, why would the U.S. threaten Brazil....how farsical.--MONGO 01:58, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The Threats and Alleged violations sections are all that needs to be merged, and the former frankly longer than it needs to be as it is a cataloguing of media speculation. You could do a 1-para writeup of each and cite the same sources.
Any useful Likely Targets should already be in Iran and weapons of mass destruction#Facilities (that's where it was pulled from, it appears)
Please read the section again: Cities likely to be targets according to the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies [17] and the Oxford Research Group [23]: the likely targets according to the CNS and the Oxford Research Group are not just towns with nuclear research facilities, but also towns with military facilities. Boud 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
The Motives should already be in the individual "relations" articles.
  • Delete inevitably, irredeemably POV ➥the Epopt 16:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge (although this may be premature, since the issue is still in progress) or Rename to conform to NPOV. Juansmith 19:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - i think the relevant NPOV definition of threat in the wikipedia is A threat is also an explicit or implicit message from a person to another that the first will cause something bad to happen to the other, often except when certain demands are met. Often a weapon is used. ... The message may be vague and implicit in an attempt to avoid blame, including legal consequences, while still clear enough to serve its purpose, (emphasis added) except that the definition in our case concerns States, not individual people. i think the last sentence may particularly help for people who think that "All options are open" statements are vague. In a legal system, many options are closed. In a typical legal system, a policeman walking around carrying a gun does not have "all options open" for using that gun; in fact, he has a very restricted set of (legal) possibilities for using that gun. Boud 00:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • keep - the article is not too badly written in spots. It does actually present multiple viewpoints, which is good. The title is a bit harsh, though and could be toned down. Wallie 19:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Reeking of POV. -- N3X15 ( Scream · Contribs) 19:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very informative and well defined. There are no hypotheses and bias. The facts remain facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.92.244.43 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 13 May 2006.
This is the user's very first edit of wikipedia, probably a sockpuppet.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article contains a wealth of information not easily found elsewhere. I would say that the US government propaganda reeks of more POV than this article, so I find any information on this topic very relevant. Details are necessary in order to have a full understanding of the truth of the situation. Granted, this article needs very much work in regards to its concision in the least. Narcissus 07:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Censorship of legitimate and referenced material because of NPOV and/or OR is wrong. There are better ways of dealing with these problems than deleting entire articles. SouthernComfort 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the fist American to vote keep, b/c this topic is very encyclopedic. Raichu 16:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep What is the problem with the artical? All I see is emotional responses from the other side! 72.57.230.179 19:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • The problem with this article is that "as a selective collection of factoids, the page constitutes original research promoting the thesis that a US-Israeli alliance threatens Iran." Tom Harrison Talk 19:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV and unsourced original research.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pure original research designed to advance a POV. Jayjg (talk) 05:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. One wishes articles on current events were banned, as the present version is pure and utter POV conjencture. Hence: slash POV and transwiki to Wikinews. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as others have noted, original research and POV. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ←Humus sapiens ну? 10:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. May need a renaming (US-Iranian 2005-6 tension may be) and a {{NPOV}} tag, but it is clearly a significant occurance. --Midnighttonight 10:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is a selective collection of evidence in order to support a particular point of view. That point of view might well be correct (to be honest, I think that it is true in part), but the article is not acceptable given Wikipedia policy. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pov and original research. gidonb 11:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Pecher Talk 11:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete violates NOR Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_2005-2006_US-Israeli_threats_to_attack_Iran_5b49.html"