Talk:Current international tensions with Iran

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please read this Hi, and welcome. Take a deep breath and relax your eyebrows. If you are about ready to explode it is suggested that you stop for a minute and relax, because that indeed may happen after sifting through these heated debates. This is a controversial topic.

This discussion page may contain trolling. Before you post any reply, consider how you might minimize the effects of trollish comments. Simply ignoring certain comments may be the best option. If you must respond, a temperate response is always best, whether trolling is suspected or not.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Current international tensions with Iran article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Question of 2 January 2007 2 Suppressing POV Check 3 "Neutrality is disputed" from Cyrus111 4 Islamic Republic on M. Mossadeq 5 POV problem 6 How is this article encyclopedic? 7 Beginning of "Public threats by Iranian leaders against Israel" 8 Rename 9 For more balanced article 10 Non aligned movement 11 Motion to propose this article for Deletion 12 Lead 13 A problem concerning a template 14 Better than deletion 15 Rename 16 Let's discuss real issues 17 Can we now suppress the "neutrality" warning 18 Debate about the name of the article (following request for comments) 19 Can we suppress the neutrality warning? (2) 20 Russian Sources 21 What is the purpose of this page?

[edit] Question of 2 January 2007

One thing that this article must not say is that the International community is against them. Iternational commuinty is not against them. It is the Americans and the Western Europeans, who are against them. Last time I checked the world map, I saw 183 countries in the world.

arent hamas and Hizbullah democratically elected in palestine/Israel and lebanon... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.234.178 (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure what your question or point is. There are quite decent articles oh Hizbullah and Hamas which discuss their new political activities and that some countries consider them to still be engaged in terrorism. Could you propose some new or alternative text here in Talk? Simesa 05:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that hamas was elected for office and hizbullah is very popular amongst the lebanese people as well as a legit branch in their government. Are they then to be labeled terrorists? those that label them as such are those who benefit from such labels. It’s interesting that AIPAC and other elements of the Israeli lobby don’t have to register as agents of a foreign government. It would be nice if they did, because then we’d know when they’re advocating on behalf of Israel or they’re advocating on behalf of the United States of America. Scott Ritter

Are you comparing peacful political advocation on behalf of Israel (what AIPAC is doing) to military actions as a proxy army on behalf of Iran, what Hizbullah is doing? When Hizbullah would limit itself to political advocation activities only, I would be only too glad to equate it with AIPAC. Or are you implying that you won't mind if AIPAC starts to take military action in the USA as well, and you won't have any harsher label for them if they do so? counterboint

However this will not solve their problems. Surely dispicable acts of terror and killing of civilians can never be justified but terror is in the eye of the beholder, palestinians and others see themselves as victims of israeli terror. Henceforth labeling any party anything will be an unconstructive cycle. Its the rotcause that needs to be adressed not a constant blamegame. We must turn to rationalism unfortunately this is not the case today, is it rational to establish a state in a country without the vote of the people of that nation that lived there prior? this includes both jews and palestinians, is it then rational to equip this state with nuclear weapons, what are those nuclear weapons for? And further is it then rational to expect a nation like Iran to not follow suit? these questions need to be adressed not a constant blamegame towards desperate poor palestinians and innocent Israelis.

None of the Arab/Islamic states including Iran were established with a majority vote of their inhabitants, or even any vote whatsoever (even in the UN). Look it up (one of them 'was equipped' with nuclear weapons too=>Pakistan). Most of the countries in the region owe their independence to the benevolence (or cowardice) of their colonial rulers, who simply abandoned or partitioned them with no democratic process involved whatsoever, neither within or without. At least Israel was granted independece by the 1947 UN vote of 33 out of 57 countries. Do you allow those colonial partitions to exist "irrationally" as you say, but not Israel? is it anything to do with their being non-Jewish countries, by any chance? do emphasise your insinuations and get them out of the closet. counterboint

what do you mean by proposing some new or alternative text here in Talk? Are you saying I should refer to texts and articles that contradicts hamas and hizbullah being terrorist organizations, or do you mean personal opinions?

Cyrus111, as it is, this article has no POV. Why don't you add in the paragraph "Support of Islamism" that Iran denies that they are terrorist groups and put some appropriate reference ? Alain10 10:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say that it looks aggressive to put a POV-check without having discussed or proposed anything before. I think that you should be more productive and propose something. Could you please assume good faith of everybody here and remove this ? Alain10 10:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC). Well in fact I have read Wikipedia:POV check, and I understand that this is not for a dispute but for an honest debate about presenting in a neutral way. So fine with me. Alain10 11:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

why would I remove it if I dont agree with it you might agree with it but i dont hence it is not neutral from any side making the POV indisputably justified. Here is what i propose, if a phenonomen such as terrorism must be discussed it should be discussed from both sides somebody has to step out of their own realm and put ones shoes in other peoples who are not favored and represented by the most of the world media, only then can one understand the reality of any given act though or action. day by day we are fed with info about terrorist and terrorism (such as the democratically elected hamas and the soon to be democratically elected hizbullah, wich is already a legit branch in the lebanese government) without asking why these dispicable acts of violence are carried out or why this phenonomen even exist. Surely the "evil" state of Iran supports these groups that carry out acts of terrorism but we are supporting a state that carries out in what they see as acts of state terrorism. Why arent we talking terrorism when one group of peoples homes and properties are demolished in order for another group of people to settle. why? because its done with trucks and bulldozers and has the state and media blessings. This is not justice, and if Iran dont support these people who will? What are to be of these people? should they just diminish from this world? Put yourself in their shoes, lets imagine this would have happened in America, surely Americans would take up arms in order to protect their familys and properties, as would any people, are they then terrorist and lets say a nation would then help Americans in their cause is that state then a terrorist state? People fail to symphaties with other peoples because of a constant bombardment of P.R and the structure of modern day society that reduces the depht, spirituality and independent thinking to zero. I am sorry but someone has to "speak" for the other side without taking any sides. but then you are seen as a suspect. The answer is simple, rationalism, we must go to the root of a problem instead of scrathing the surface i.e. we must ask ourselves why terrorism exist in the first place, and not about terrorists or "terrorist groups". Henceforth terrorism and acts of terrorism must be discussed from a philosophical point of view and not from a partisan angle.

This debate about terrorism seems to me rather out of context: this article is named "Iran International Crisis" and deals with the current conflict between Iran and some States. Maybe you should contribute to the page "terrorism" or the pages of each individual movement, like Hezbollah or Hamas. In any case, what do you propose? My advice to you is to stop complaining in abstracto and try to contribute concretely to Wikipedia, so that all points of views are reasonably covered. Alain10 17:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If one allows calling the Israeli government, which has also been democratically elected since 1948, a terrorist organization, then one should also accept someone else calling Hizbullah and Hamas terrorist organizations. Either you allow any elected body to be called terrorists or none, or are you hinting that only certain ethnicities ought to be called terrorists? that's racism.

84.95.124.86

Cyrus111, I had a comment but will wait for you to respond to Alain10. Please sign your comments using four tildes like ~~~~ - everyone's work can be seen on the History button above anyway. Simesa 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the new sections "Iran's position" and "Israeli position", even though I believe they are both not strictly relevant to the nuclear issue, I have added the "Israeli position" section in response to the "Iran's position" section because of its unclarifying clarification to the "wipe Israel off the map" comment by Ahmadinejad. Mentioning the Palestinian Issue is all fine but Ahmadinejad still does not answer the question asked, does he mean these words or not! until there is a public clarification of his meaning (seems a simple enough request), if they bring about irrelevant smokescreen answers and accusations against Israel (i.e. the Apartheid claims and all that) then it is only fair that the Israeli response to the irrelevant accusations is shown too. counterboint

counterpoint, I thought it more easy to read and also more clear to merge your paragraph "comparison with" with the paragraph "Israel position", since the paragraph "comparison" deals also with the view of Israel. Alain10 19:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. This section is also a bit long, I'll try to shorten it. If no one writes on the strategic POV of Iran (i.e. its possible interests in nuclear technology other than against israel, e.g. as an insurance policy for the regime against reforms and counter-revolution as in North Korea, I guess I might have to write it just for the sake of balance, it will be an interesting experience for me! counterboint

If you mean the POV of Iran concerning nuclear power, it should be in "Diplomatic activity linked to Iran nuclear program". I am not sure this is necessary since this is very well detailed in the main article Iran nuclear program. It seems to me that the POV of Iran that may be missing in the current article is rather the one concerning the support of Islamism. This is more complex and probably a challenge for most of us. Alain10 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suppressing POV Check

Since the originator of the POV-Check has disappeared and does not debate any more, it seems to me that it means that he has accepted our views. I propose we suppress the POV-Check. Alain10 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Neutrality is disputed" from Cyrus111

Cyrus111, I am not extremely experimented with Wikipedia but it seems to me that, as a rule, people who put a "Neutrality is disputed" sign must justify it. In general, this is after they have tried to modify or add something and have faced some opposition. It would really be nice to expose what should be added or suppressed. Please look at [1]. In short, the wikipedia community deserves at least some explanation. Could you please discuss? Alain10 21:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Alain Sir. May I ask, what is your faith? Why is it so important for you to remove the POV. I have made a clear explanation about why it is not neutral(see above) Why is there a "Iran International crisis" in the Iran article anyways? Whats the crisis? Do you mean the crisis that Iran is under the NPT allowed to produce nuclear technology for peaceful purposes which they maintain they are, or the crisis created by controlled media and countrys which is not in their interest to see a prosperous Iran in the Middle East. Why is there no "Israel international crisis" under the the Israel article? Last time I "checked" it is Israel not Iran who possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads! I ask again, what are those nuclear weapons for? When did Iran commit any act of aggression towards another country?? Understand this, ALL Iranians are in favour for the nuclear program as well as all the NAM countries and others that support it. So know that when you are speaking against it you are slapping millions of people in the face which you do not have a right to speak for. Hence it is not "neutrality disputed by Cyrus 111" but 72 million Iranians and millions of others elsewhere. We are not the world here! The great country of United states (the American people) and the great country of Iran should be partners not enemies, Imagine that, Imagine the world then! cultures exchange is the key for future peace! Unfortunately there are "economic" interests at stake, but Iran has made it clear it is willing to talk to the US despite its people (mostly kids) being "murdered" in the hundreds of thousands by various countrys supporting the now dead and gone Saddam Hussein in the Iran Iraq war, how can that be right??? Iran also did not overthrow the democratically elected US government through its intelligens service, as what happened to Dr Mossadegh in the 50´s. How would we feel if a country did that to us? We would abhore it!!!However Mr. Alain the POV is justified because all Iranians support it period. Once again the quote from Scott Ritter: It’s interesting that AIPAC and other elements of the Israeli lobby don’t have to register as agents of a foreign government. It would be nice if they did, because then we’d know when they’re advocating on behalf of Israel or they’re advocating on behalf of the United States of America. Scott Ritter

Thank you for your answer (however please sign when you write, this is the wikipedia way). Whether we like it or not, and whether this is the sole responsibility of the media and the US or not, there is an international crisis concerning Iran. The sole fact that the US, the most powerful country in the world, talks about war, the fact that there are UN resolutions and sanctions, makes it a crisis. Whether this is just or not is not the issue. This article is not about international justice but solely about an international conflict. Whatever your side is, you cannot deny that there is a conflict and therefore an international crisis. My hope, when I created this article, was to try to give full information about this crisis. Please propose modifications if you think that Iran POV is not taken into account correctly. It seems to me more positive and helpful to contribute to explain the POV of Iran than to simply put a {{POV}} sign. Asking my faith shows that you question my good faith; I think that this is not the right attitude. One wikipedia principle that I like is "presume good faith". Please presume the good faith of everybody here, be positive and contribute to wikipedia! Alain10 21:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Understand this, ALL Iranians are in favour for the nuclear program.." how do you know this? was this program ever put to vote in Iran? was the Iranian policy against Israel ever put to vote? if you say something like this you should back it up with some solid statistical facts, though understandably they are hard to get in dictatorships. Secondly, Israel's nuclear weapons have never caused international conflicts because its leaders never threatened to wipe any other country off the map. That statement alone is enough to merit an 'international crisis'. Would you like an 'international crisis' label to be put over a country if its leader threatens erasing Iran off the map? if you do then you have to allow this label here also. If you don't, explain why Iran is allowed but other countries aren't. counterboint

[edit] Islamic Republic on M. Mossadeq

Is there a mullahcracy in Iran because Mohammad Mossadeq was supposedly removed from power by the CIA? I looked at the preamble of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Iran. According to it the "anticolonialist movement centered on the nationalization of the oil industry" in 1950s was "failure" because it wasn't Islamic[2]. I assure you that Mohammad Mossadeq would be totally against Islamic totalitarianism.--Patchouli 13:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

He will not answer, he just comes, put the flag POV write a few things that have nothing to do with the article and then he is not there any more... Alain10 20:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV problem

The article is POV right from the very begining. Why do we have such an article at all? What about US international crisis? or Israel international crisis? The first paragraph says "Iran international crisis = Iran-Israel crisis + Iran-US crisis" If Iran's interference in Iraq is a crisis, why not US's interference in Iraq is not a crisis? Numerous poeple of Iranian ansectry are now nationals of Iraq. Most of Iraqis politician lived for decades in Iran: Iraqi president Talebani, and both prime ministers of Iraq lived for two decades in Iran during Saddam's era! Was it also international crisis?! If Iran's threat to Israel is a crisis why not Israel's attack to nuclear facility in Iraq was considered a world crisis? Or threat to attack Iran's nuclear facility? Yes if you ask American neocons and Israeli politicians, they will tell you that Iran is a world threat and we are now dealing with Iran international crisis. if you go and ask Iranian politicians, they will tell you that US and Israel are threats to the world and we are now dealing with Israel international crisis and US international crisis. Funny thing is about weapon trade! While western countries provided saddam with chemical weapons to kill Kurds, Iran is accused of giving weapons to Iraqi millitants! Not even a single case of such a thing has been proven. Why do you call it a crisis? I suggest starting the article US hostage crisis for arresting Iranian diplomats similar to Iran hostage crisis for arresting US diplomats. Sinooher 18:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also nuclear program can not be considered international crisis. India, Israel, North Korea and recently Egypt etc have had such programs and we have no such article as India international crisis etc. They are not even a member of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Have you ever asked yourself why some countries like Israel do not sign NPT? Why did US renewed its arsenal? Yes! because they want to spread peace! Sinooher 19:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We, Iranians, are under terrible threats these days. We go to sleep hoping for getting up the next day alive. I am asking you guys living in Europe and US. Do you feel threatened by Iranians when you are at home or at work?!!! Sinooher 19:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As an Israeli, I can tell you that I and most of the people that I know, feel threatened only by the policies of Iranian leaders and not by the majority of their people, moreover I feel they (the Iranian people) share this same feeling with us, whether they like to admit it or not. (75,000 Israelis have emigrated to Israel from Iran so we know something about them not only from the media; our President, one former defence Minister and Army Chief of staff have been born in Iran [3]. Of course you'd be hard pressed to find any presence of Israeli or Jewish descendants in the Iranian government). As much as I sympathise with the innocent population that didn't want the current Iranian leadership, the threats on Iran, when viewed objectively (and it seems the average Iranians are more capable of this than their betters) are economic sanctions, and the very remote possibility that, if those were to fail, the cowards leading the USA/Israel will do something forceful to eliminate the Iranian nuclear infrastructure in spite of the civilian casualties involved. But even in the worst case, there is no threat of eliminating the Iranian nation, nor of human casualties one tenth of the damage possible if Iran got hold of nuclear weapons (with all of the humanist freedom fighting groups it allies with, which can be used to make a nuclear attack against any country in the world, anonymously). To try and envision threats of extinction to Israel, consider the hypothetical situation of Iran having had only 6 million citizens, 100 times smaller land, no oil, 80% of its people concentrated in Teheran, and then an enemy country threatening to wipe it off the map and financing two armies of terrorists on its northern and southern borders. Then I might believe you have significant cause to fear as an average Israeli has. I am sure you feel Iran would never stand for such a situation, so don't expect other countries to.

P.S. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is not a threat to Iran's existence-being 2000 kilometers away, any more than my sneeze would be. Its only a pretext used by Iran for its military and political expansionism for which Israel is only the beginning, and which cares about the 'Muslim Brothers' in Palestine just about as much as the average Israeli does if not less. I am not at all sure that the average Palestinian prefers the millions of dollars in generous Iranian 'humanitarian aid' (mainly weapons and suicide instructors+other fascism conditional funds), over the assistance of voluntary Jewish women from Machsom Watch who stand all day in the checkpoints making sure the Israeli soliders don't harass the tens of thousands of Palestinians on their way to make a honest living, often relying on infrastructure and informal commercial ties with the evil Zionist state. counterboint

I never denied the possible threat to Israel by Iran. Israel's policy is to convince the world that Iran is a world threat not a threat to Israel alone. Well you feel threatened at home. We also feel threatened at home. But no American or German or Italian ... are threatened at home due to Iran's nuclear program. Also I do not think Iran is a nuclear threat to Israel. I am quite sure both Israel and US know the details of our nuclear program better than us. And as you said you are very good in preemptive attacks (like what you did to Iraq nuclear plan). If you really felt threatened in Israel due to an atomic attack by Iran, you would for sure leave Israel to Europe at least for a short time (and you do not need a visa for that!). Also the life of every single Iranian who is working in nuclear facility is as important as the life of that Israeli soldier arrested by Hamas in 2006. Finally I suggest you to not to say a statement like the following to an Iranian. It reflects negative on you: "I don't believe it is a coincidence that you didn't ask Israelis whether they feel threatened (perhaps you view that as irrlevant, or even a positive development)." Sinooher 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok I retracted it. Don't say that the Zionist propoganda doesn't take into account the Iranian voice..!

You feel both Israel and the USA or so well informed, and that Israel is so good in pre-emptive attacks? well I don't know where you have this confidence, perhaps we should invite you over here to cheer us up a little. I don't believe even all of the western intelligence services combined know enough to destroy the Iranian nuclear program, from the media reports its just too well distributed and underground, unless they would use nuclear weapons or invade the country and I really don't believe they will do it. And do you think going to Europe for a few months is a solution? you never know when the attack will come, and anyway Israelis without an EU passport (i.e. the majority) can only visit Europe and not work or live there. Lastly, Israel's 1981 destruction of the single, weakly protected Saddam's Iraqi reactor was a piece of cake compared to what (hopefuly) won't be required here. As to comparing Iranian nuclear scientists to the abducted Israeli soliders... well if you insist. Those soliders were merely protecting Israel's borders (they weren't even inside disputed territory!), not making nuclear bombs... Iranian nuclear scientists making bombs can only be compared to Israeli nuclear scientists making bombs.. Hopefully the Iranian leadership will be convinced to back away from the program. I think there are a few alternative technologies and initiatives that will advance the nation of Iran other than nuclear ones... counterboint

You can find much more reasons to write an article with this title: US international crisis (US acts in prisons, US rejection of Kyoto Protocol, US renewal of its arsenals, US attack and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, US threat to North Korea, US threat to Iran, US attack on diplomats .... even allegation of selling military facilities to Iran by US which is now in the news). Why do you always feel free to write about a country like Iran? Sinooher 19:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against supporting groups like hamas and hezbollah by Iranian government. Apart from my personal view: the paragraph on "Islamism" is POV. Let's think about the current (2007) situation:

• Iran supports Hezbollah. OK! Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, the Netherlands and Israel consider Hezbollah, or its external security arm, a terrorist organization. All other countries do not list Hezbollah as a terrorist organization and all Arab countries consider it a resistance organization. So this section is POV of those countries mentioned.
• Iran supports Hamas. OK but Hamas is the official leading party in Palestine. Hamas is equivalent to the government of Palesine. Why do you consider supporting the government of Palestine, Islamism??! The word Islamism is by itself POV. Sinooher 19:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Each of your flawed argument can be refuted one by one. For example, Americans embassy workers did not participate in roadside bombings, etc.

Even if you were Iranian, your claim to represent 68,688,433 people has no merit whatsoever.--Patchouli 22:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sinooher, frankly I don't understand why you have a problem with the name of the article "iran international crisis":

• Let's take first the definition of wikipedia, article international crisis, and I think this is a very common natural definition: "An international crisis is a crisis between nations. There are many definitions of an international crisis. Snyder "...a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war, but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability of war". Isn't it exactly the current situation? Whatever people can think about it and from whichever side you look at it, this is clearly an international crisis.
• so there is an international crisis. How to name it? We could have said: "international crisis concerning Iran on one side, with some other countries, and, on the other side, the US, Israel, the European Union, Australia and some other countries", but I am sure that you recognize that such title would be a bit long and complicated. Any title is a simplification, but I believe that "Iran international crisis" is easily understood by everybody.
• If you accept the title, and I think that you don't lose anything by accepting it, propose modifications of the paragraph(s) that look to you POV, for example support of islamism. This seems to me as the positive way to proceed. Alain10 00:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Sinooher, also, I don't think it is fair to say that the article is globally POV. For example, on Islamist movements, or whatever you call them, it is written that : "Iran, like several countries, does not recognize these groups as terrorist groups, but qualifies them as resistance movements to Israeli occupation." On Iraq, the POV of Iran and Iraq is there clearly. On threats to Israel, the POV is fully expressed and an interview of Iranian president is even there. The POV of US opponents to the war is more than mentioned, as are antiwar movements etc. Alain10 00:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to tell you how much we are used to "Western POV" that we do not even notice it. I write you one clear example here. Iranian Embassy Siege and Iran hostage crisis. In both of these names the word Iran is mentioned. why? Why not having: "US embassy hostage crisis"? Why not "UK embassy siege"? If you think carefully you will see that as long as an issue is related to the west the very accurate terminology is used. When it comes to a country like Iran they use what ever stupid terminology they want. If you know Persian you know that we try to pronounce an American or European name as it is pronounced in US or America. But western people pronounce our names the way they want. They simply don't care (not necessarily intentionally). This is a crear disrespect and POV. In all my discussions here I am not trying to say Iran is angel and Israel/US are evil. Nor I believe Iran is evil and Israel/US are angels. Sinooher 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that you tried to keep the article as neutral as possible. But the point is that in practice no one can make any such articles about US or Israel in wikipedia. While many are busy writing articles about Iran just based on "allegations", "claims" and "speculations", any such articles about western countries will be immediately deleted. "Iran international crisis" means Iran is a source of a world crisis which is POV. Apart from what is a good title for such an article, I am questioning why we need to have such an article all. There are articles: Iran-US relations, Iran-Israel relations, Iran nuclear program. No need for another article. Sinooher 20:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We also have Foreign relations of Iran, which lists current disputes without concluding that Iran is necessarily in a crisis or that it's just short of actual war. --Interiot 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an international crisis, ie the beginning of a serious conflict and potentially a war. This is not POV but just a fact. Foreign relations of Iran is very large, too large, it does not focus on the conflict that is here. Alain10 20:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No it's not an international crisis, that's your opinion. Please don't remove the POV tag as there is obviously a dispute here, we don't have "USA international crisis" or "Iraq international crisis" articles, do we? The article is obviously a POV-fork with a POV title. --Mardavich 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is this article encyclopedic?

How is this article encyclopedic?Azerbaijani 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic at all, something should be done about this, perhaps a merger or a rename. --Mardavich 04:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Elaborate.--Patchouli 06:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been elaborated in the above section. Whatever you do, do not remove the POV tags, there is obviously a dispute here. --Mardavich 06:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments above are content-free.--Patchouli 07:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Exactly! Mardavich, could you please describe the dispute in precise terms linked to the content of the page? Alain10 21:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• I would like to add that it is not fair, and clearly against wikipedia etiquette, to put a note "the factual accuracy is disputed", without having tried before to explain which facts are not accurate. Could you please explain what is not accurate and propose some changes? Alain10 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• As far as the title is concerned, it is undoubtedly an international crisis. Just be encyclopedic and look at international crisis: An international crisis is a crisis between nations. There are many definitions of an international crisis. Snyder "...a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war, but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability of war". And I don't see any other short name that includes "international crisis" apart from "Iran international crisis". We could say also that the cuban missile crisis should have been named the "US crisis" etc. This is just the most simple ordinary language to name things; this is exactly what being encyclopedic is.Alain10 21:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious based on the comments here that this article is disputed. Therefore, the tags should stay. Khoikhoi 22:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What is not fair is that they are general critics, not specific critics based on actual text and counter-text. Alain10 00:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From a verifiability standpoint, the part of the article that needs the most sources by far is the conclusion that Iran/US/Israel/EU/Australia/etc are in a crisis / just short of actual war (as discussed above, each section of the article already has a full article covering that specific tension). From what I've read so far though, the sources don't seem to do that (though I haven't read through all them yet — most seem to just rehash the material under Category:Foreign relations of Iran). --Interiot 18:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My question hasnt been answered, how does this subject merit an article? This is no Wikipolitics, its Wikipedia. If you have an interest in writing about present day politic issues such as this, I do not think an Encyclopaedia is the place for it.Azerbaijani 19:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Current event is acceptable under wikipedia policy Alain10 22:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning of "Public threats by Iranian leaders against Israel"

It seems to me that it is not necessary to mention in the first para the insult of the US by Iran. While this may be relevant in another debate, I think that insulting is not a serious international crisis issue. And if we are logical, we should also mention that Iran is named "axis of evil" by the US etc.

I would just write: "Iranian leaders have made several vehement declarations against Israel, saying that Israel ought to be "Wiped off the map""

This is the real issue and we should focus on precise issues, especially now that the article is becoming bigger. Alain10 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have looked at the article Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Israel. This article is very complete on the subject, with all POV very extensively mentioned. I would suggest we just summarize the POV of Iran and Israel, each in one sentence or two, and refer to the above article. This would simplify this article, which becomes already big. Alain10 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Firstly I believe the 'Satan' remarks are not insults any more than the 'Axis of Evil' remark by The US President. It is important to mention the traditional Iranian leadership references to Israel and the USA (as "the little satan" and "the great satan") which originiate much before the current crisis, and show the Iranian cultural and political leadrship fundumental(ist..!) rooted beliefs and hatred of the west (not just of the Zionist state) which have began with the Iranian Islamic "revolution" of 1979 and at the time had nothing to do with nuclear technology, sanctions or objective threats from the west (in 1979 the American regime headed by President Jimmy Carter was much more conciliatory towards Iran than any other subsequent administration, not to mention Europe). With all due respect, I shall restore these historically significant references. If you feel the article is getting too long I shall be only to happy to suggest where to cut it, the portions which I don't like of course but can't factually dispute :) but if I can live with them, perhaps you can live with mine which you can't dispute too. counterboint

What I say is that this is not a matter of international relations. As you say it is there since a long time and this has not created any crisis for a long time. There are many countries that hate the west and especially America. This is not so significant. In a way, with some cinicism I would say that everybody has the right to hate America freely! International relations are not a matter of love or hate. Also, in my view this article should not become a long list of criticism of Iran. It is an article about an on-going crisis, not an article about the Iranian regime. Nobody, even Bush, has suggested that one reason of the crisis is that Iran hates America... Alain10 01:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course everyone has a right to hate anyone freely. But the difference in our opinion is whether that rooted hatred(s) ought to be taken into account when learning about a foreign situation/environment or not. I view it as crucial. Mentioning these facts of 'Death to..' shouts and leader incitement does not suggest that the crisis is only due to hatred-it enables the reader to conclude that it is not the only reason. It shows that the hatred was there much before the current conflict, and that international conflicts are rarely only about rational interests and disputes, more commonly they heavily involve popular irrational beliefs "of old" as Tolkein says, that won't go away by ignoring them. More likely they will go away by discussing them. I don't know, that's my take. Counterboint 00:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If we begin to enter into this, we will have to add the reasons why they hate the US. It will become a big part of the article and out of subject. Alain10 09:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC) For example we will have to mention the coup against Mossadeg (see Operation Ajax), but also the U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war etc. It is not fair to say solely "while no prominent politician from the USA or Israel has ever publicly questioned the legitimacy of Iran as a sovereign nation" without mentioning the history of intervention of the US. So, either we don't enter these subjects, which I think are not the point of this article, or we go at length to explain the relations between Iran and the US, which is not simple. Alain10 09:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Firstly... I don't believe the Wikipedia or any other 'pedia is there to specify the "Why..." of politics, only the "What", and let the readers decide, while making sure they have, if not sufficient, at least an equal number of facts from the opposing sides going back a reasonable number of years (at least 10!) A conflict has to have some background. it didn't start with the Iranian nuclear program because, an ignorant reader might then ask, Israel initiated its nuclear program almost 50 years ago, how come that didn't cause a similar conflict with the then colonial power patron of the Arabs, the USSR or with any Arab state? its overly simplistic to leave only enough info to conclude the conflict is primarily about nuclear technology in the region, or the USA wanting to prevent nuclear proliferation, or dominate the region (depending on your viewpoint). Pakistan and Israel, a Muslim and a Jewish country, have had this technology for years with hardly a peep from any world power. The special background of Iran which makes this issue sensitive (if not one of survival) to Israel, the USA and most neighbors of Iran- I feel, this merits a mention. If you insist on starting with the evil deeds of western colonialists, go ahead and add the bits you mentioned... :) in a few words (as I did). Just remember that in universal history terms, they were only second colonialists of the region, preceded by the Ancient Arabs themselves... it is not at all certain that the first or most potent grain of wrath was sown by Westerners. Don't worry, I promise not to drag out the Babylonians and King David if you bring in the Ajax cowboys. At any rate thank you for your comments...Counterboint 23:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the purpose of this article is not the wider context, which is more for articles like "relations between Iran and Israel", or "relations between Iran and the US" or "relations between the west and iran" if such articles exist. The purpose of this article is "Iran international crisis". And international crisis is something specific and limited in time, which could lead (or not) to a war. The article is there to present the different issues in the negotiations, the accusations of each party, the preparation of hostilities etc. Not the wider context. Alain10 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I've tried to sift through all this dispute, and I'm coming away with the impression that the information in this article is not considered POV, but just the title. If that is the case, those who feel this title is POV should offer ideas on new names, or else this tag should be removed. Joshdboz 18:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If the problem is the word "International", then per above, maybe it could be expanded to include or otherwise refer to other countries so it doesn't sound so one-sided, though I agree that naming 3+ other countries would be going overboard. If the problem is the word "crisis", then I'm not sure there's any alternative, since if it's not verifiably a crisis, then this is crystal balling, and an AfD might be appropriate. --Interiot 19:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

AFD definitely isn't the ultimate answer. Iran is taking up a huge portion of international news and this topic needs some kind of "portal" article to cover the main aspects of it. I personally think the current title is fine, but I'm curious to what the dissenting editors would suggest. Joshdboz 21:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Me too Alain10 22:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For more balanced article

I apologize upfront for the lengthy list below. But Its really minimal, I feel, In representing the case for a more balanced article. The article wildly understates the cultural, emotional and irrational elements that are fueling this crisis. (Perhaps for fear of exposing the Immense disparity and imbalance in the popularity and magnitude of Iranian hatred and incitement when compared to USA/Israeli hatred and incitement. No one can deny that there have never been "Death to Iran" demonstrations in evil USA or Israel to for example, nor calls by their leaders de-legitimizing Iran as an independent state.

As it is, the article is a mixed POV, somewhat in favour of Iran. After reading the article, it does reluctantly mention arguments against Iran but usually softens them up with closing bottom lines in Iranian POV.

The question is do you want to represent POV's or facts. If you want to present POV's in a situation where there are two or three main rivaling POV's, (USA+Allies, Antiwar, Iran+Allies) then you must make sure that you give a similar number of clinching arguments voiced by all major sides. Otherwise you are siding with a particular POV.

Out of 14 subsections in this article, 10 have an ending clinching argument supporting Iran's POV:

• "Iran, like several countries, does not recognize these groups as terrorist groups, instead qualifying them as resistance movements to Israeli occupation."

• "Iran has denied any wrongdoing and highlights on the contrary its support for the government of Iraq and for the development of Iraq"

• (The Iranian action) "..a legitimate mission in northern Iraq."

• (Bush's) "actions with regards to Iran were also called "offensive and provacative."

They were also called a brave stand though better late than never, depending on who you choose to quote.

• (regarding Iranian longings for elections in Palestine) "This is a democratic and popular way. Do you have any other suggestions?"

A ridiculous POV suggestion that has no place in an informative resouce, especially seeing as the Iranian Goose manifestly doesn't follow what it preaches for the Israeli Gander.

Attempts to make the USA appear isolated in its push for sanctions:

• "The United States have not been followed yet by other countries. But the UN sanctions are the first international sanctions levied on Iran. The United States is pushing for more economic sanctions against Iran [16]"

Where in fact some of the sanction initiatives come from European countries as well: Germany: Germany proposes wider Iran sanctions Britain: [4]

EU: EU Calls on countries to enforce Iran sanctions

Anti-US Military action (i.e. Iranian POV ending arguments):

• "..He also believes, like Scott Ritter and others, that the US will use tactical nuclear weapons.[28]"

Use of the propoganda-ish "others" phrase, is conspiciously lacking when describing the Iranian president's "Wipe Israel" declaration, making it appear that many experts believe the USA will commit nuclear atrocities while no expert opinion is given (except the Iranian president himself..) on what Iran is planning for its enemies. (And there is plenty of material on that, I guarantee you).

• "If there is military action, it will have catastrophic results, not only in the region, but the whole world,"

Many western leaders of NATO nations believe that if Iran has nuclear weapons, it will also be catastrophic to the whole world. Not just Israeli/USA leaders. The range of the latest Iranian intercontinental missiles has been extended beyond Israel (which the older versions reached already) by hundreds of miles, seemingly unecessary if all they want is to deter Israel, and now they reach some European countries such as Greece and Italy. [Iranian Missiles]

• "..On 26 January 2007, ten of thousands marched in Washington in an anti-war demonstration"

• "So far, Jones' resolution has 11 co-sponsors in the 435-member House.[32]"

(regarding weaving congressional authorisation for War, in essence showing that it is unpopular in the US Congress) Counterboint 00:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your interest in improving the article, but does this mean that you do not have a problem with the current article title? If POV complaints are within the article itself, then these can be adjusted much more easily. Certainly the article should not take any bias for or against Iran, but it is necessary to balance all things as reasonably as possible. For example, the paragraph about Bush's speech where he said that he would go after Iranian networks in Iran also had a long paragraph of criticism from Dennis Kucinich, who is not exactly a mainstream voice. Instead of getting rid of the criticism entirely, I shortened to two sentences describing the general points of argument that Bush's remarks generated. Feel free to shorten or lengthen criticism when you see fit, just make sure that when deleting information, you are not inadvertenly creating a pov context. Joshdboz 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

My view is that the article is globally balanced but is built often around a simple structure: the accusation (by the US and Israel but not only) and then the answer with Iranian POV. The structure of the article reflect the very structure of the crisis itself, where the west is accusing Iran of many things. How can we do it better? The accusations are clearly written and very explicit.

• We cannot for example say that Iran wishes to "wipe Israel off the map" without mentioning their own official clarification of what they say. But we give a lot of space to counterarguments.
• We cannot mention accusations of the US concerning involvement in Iraq without mentioning that there is no much substance yet to these accusations (but the Us government has announced that it will come).
• On support of Islamism, there is only one sentence to give the Iranian POV (how could we do less?)
• We cannot avoid to mention demonstrations against the war can we?
• There is some opposition in Congress. It should be mentioned shouldn't it?
• But I agree with you that a lot of improvements are possible: for example, as regards sanctions, it is true: we should mention existing European sanctions!

Overall, I believe that this article is rightly encyclopedic. Alain10 20:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Joshdboz, I have seen your modifications and I think they are good: they improve the article. Alain10 20:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• If you want to mention demonstrations against the war you should also mention the countless demonstrations in Iran against Jews, Israel, the USA and even Denmark (on occasion) which were scenes of orchestrated incitement to violence in the scale and popularity of which the world has not seen for a long time. "Death to..." demonstrations have to be mentioned. They happen all the time and the Iranians are not ashamed of them. The targets of this incitement are justly feeling threatened, primarily because they do not have one hundredth of such emotions against Iran or Islam. They also feel threatened by the good western souls who try to dampen down this reality merely because it dumps water all over their utopian pledge drives and romancing notions of the East.

• I did not suggest to say Iran wants to wipe Israel. Their president declared that he does, and this should be mentioned. Nowhere in their official 'clarifying' statements have the Iranian officials precluded the use of military force to do so. They have never said "we do not intend to use force to do this". What they have done is added that "What we expect is for Israel to disappear on its own/from history" while never retracting their president's words. This still does not explain what they intend to do if Israel decides, just to annoy everyone, not to disappear on its own. As far as I am concerned, the article should mention the weak Iranian 'clarification' but also say in the bottom line (and not just in a dark corner of the discussion page) that the Iranian president flatly refused to retract his "wipe" statement and that no one else has done so. If I am wrong then show me where.

Counterboint 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Counterboint, on your first point, yes there has been hysterical demonstrations in Iran against the US. But this is not part of this international crisis. The US for example, have not expressed any protest about such demonstrations, which have existed since years! The European union, for example, and most of the world have normal relations with Iran in spite of this. They are also not demonstrations against or in favor of the war, so I don't see why these demonstrations would have their place in the article about Iran international crisis. On your second point, there is only the expression of Iranian view in 9 lines, while the western POV in there in 29 lines! Just feel free to modify these 29 lines if they do not include the right arguments, but it seems to me that we cannot just say "Iran is threatening to wipe Israel off the map" without giving a few lines to Iran for clarification. Alain10 22:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I argue that my above points consist an integral axis of the conflict; e.g. the demonstrations and Iranian government orchestrated incitement against the USA, Jews and Israel are part of the crisis as one of the main Iranian public relations strategies for excusing Iran's Middle East expansionism and hardline nuclear/conventional military stance against its neighbors and the west, which make's Israel's expansionism look like a branch of the Salvation Army. This PR strategy may be compared, if you insist, to the way the US used its allegations of Iraqi WMD weapons before the war on Iraq; though the Iranian stance is much more baselessly paranoid than the former US stance, as the only existential threats facing Iran from the west are mild "pollution" of its hardcore fascism with moderate western values from satellite dishes, magazines or mind controlling Manchurian candidate tricks enslaving their masses if they (God forbid) are allowed to watch the Israeli song in the Eurovision contest-quite unlike Saddam's public threats against the US, his chemical weapons attacks on his own people and his historical attempts to gain nuclear weapons technology in the 80's. From the size of the wild "nonexistent WMD orgy" going on in wikipedia, I think similar PR tactics used by governments which are not evil-white-western colonialsts (but eastern ones..) ought to be mentioned too, and here. Secondly, you are ignoring the demonstrations against Jews and Israel which Jewish and Israeli organizations, officials and notable figures have also protested against and are commonly viewed here as the symptoms of the conflict which is hardly the nuclear issue, as I have mentioned before. This has to be mentioned. Counterboint 00:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

protesting against Israel has existed since the creation of the Islamist republic, ie since years, and there was no international crisis. Alain10 20:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Counterboint 16:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC) Actually, during the tenure of the previous Iranian president, Mohammad Khatami the scale of incitement was much smaller than under the incumbent Ahmadinejad. And although the nuclear program started years before him (some earlier, mistaken intelligence estimates by Israel and the USA sources suggested Iran would have the bomb already in 2006) but still it did not generate a crisis. The point I am making is that his initiatives of "Holocaust Research Seminars", and others are part of a new wave of incitement, which is bearing fruit among the Iranian people. The common Israeli view is that this is part of Ahmadinejad's strategy of military/ideological Middle East Pan-Islamic expansionism which has caused the international crisis, of which the nuclear issue is only a part or a spark-though integral, there are others. As I have mentioned, Pakistan has had the bomb for years, and there was no such crisis. It has to be explained what makes Iran different in this regard, why is it "prejudiced" against. The larger issue is Iran's change of political direction under the new helmsman which makes the nuclear issue threatening to its neighbors. I strongly suggest these views are to be expressed in the article counterboint

BTW there is something missing here, this is the opposition inside Iran to the regime confrontational position in this crisis. The problem is that I don't have many information on this. Alain10 22:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

There is indeed very little information, due to the recent years' regime clampdown on reformists and media, I don't know whether it merits the name 'inside opposition'. (From the outside, of course, its a different story).

A real opposition is not just a group of students shouting once or twice, but a "movement", which has named (or at least aliased) organizations and leaders. (Even "The Black Fox", give me something!) Any factual evidence to the contrary, of course, would be wonderful. counterboint

I read that Ahmadinejad lost the municipal elections because of his positions. Any idea about that? Alain10 20:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non aligned movement

The position is expressed 2 times. We have to decide: either at "Diplomatic activity linked to Iranian nuclear program" or at "International opposition to war", but not at both. Alain10 23:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motion to propose this article for Deletion

This article is about the current international crisis related to Islamic Republic of Iran. This crisis has many aspects. For the crisis that is linked to Iran's nuclear program see Iran nuclear program. However, the Iran international crisis also includes the relations of Iran with Iraq, support for Islamism in Lebanon and Palestine, Iran's relations with Israel, or possible military intervention. The purpose of this article is to unite all the components of this growing crisis.

I have never seen a more WP:NEO title and a more ridiculous leading paragraph on a wiki article before. Basically what the article wants to do is put every kind of current negative issues regarding Iran into one article, under a POV title, "for the heck of it". It would be interesting to start something similar to this about Israel and see a momentary deletion!!

WP:DP

• Suitability
  • Personal essay/opinions on current affair/News report WP:NOT#OR
  • Anti-Iranian Propaganda WP:NOT#SOAP
• A look at this talk page would show you that the creator of the article has a WP:COI with regards to Iran.

If you support deletion of this "article", please sign here. If there are enough people who support deletion of this "article" we will file for deletion. WP:AFD.

--Gerash77 14:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerash77 I will not comment on your violations of wiki etiquette by using some words like "ridiculous". I guess that you will find also ridiculous the page International crisis and you should delete also this page, as well as all the pages relating to international crisis, like Cuban missile crisis, Berlin blockade etc.

According to the page International crisis, "an international crisis is a crisis between nations. There are many definitions of an international crisis. Snyder "...a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war, but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability of war". Isn't it exactly the current situation?

Whatever you may think about the situation, nobody can say seriously that there is no international crisis concerning Iran today: there are international sanctions, aircraft carriers in the gulf, discussions about potential war etc. It seems to me that there is no current event that is more important than this one. Why on earth should there be no page about it? This is already a very important historical event.

I do not agree that this page is about all the bad things concerning Iran. There is no accusation by the international community that is not followed by an honest presentation of the POV of Iran. Nobody can seriously deny that it is informative and that all POV concerning this crisis are mentioned. And of course, if you believe that this not the case, feel free to mention what is missing.

Alain10 20:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

There is however one thing that I accept: maybe we could modify the first paragraph. I would suggest the following:

Since the Iranian revolution of 1979, Iran has had some difficult relations with western countries, especially the United States. The country has been under constant US unilateral sanctions, sanctions that has been tightened very much under the presidency of Clinton.

On August 14, 2002, Alireza Jafarzadeh, a prominent Iranian dissident, revealed the existence of two unknown nuclear sites: a uranium enrichment facility in Natanz (part of which is underground), and a heavy water facility in Arak. This has raised fear by western countries, and especially by Israël, that Iran may be working on producing nuclear weapons.

At the same time, Iran has been accused by the United States to support Islamic movements in the Middle East.

As a result, tension between between western countries and Iran has degenerated into an International crisis, up the point where the United States is speaking openly of war.

Alain10 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• • I regret that this article is not encyclopedic. Although "Cuban missile crisis" is a known terminology in world affairs, "Iran international crisis" is a WP:NEO, and the subject reads like a personal essay and a certain opinions on current affairs patched together. Unless you can bring the article to talk about a specific subject matter, such as Iran's nuclear dispute, the article is an obvious candidate for deletion, based on Wikipedia's policies.--Gerash77 10:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Again you don't answer the question at stake here, which is: is there an International crisis? This question governs the existence or not of the article. Then the debate about the content of this article is of course opened. But I don't see how we could mention only the nuclear debate, without talking about the grave accusations launched by the Bush administration against the Iranians on some other subjects. How can you deny that this is part of the international crisis? And also preparation for war etc. For example, some in the US congress have proposed a resolution to request congressional authorization for going to war against Iran. Isn't it part of this international crisis? Alain10 10:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• See new beginning of the article. Hope you feel better about it. Alain10 11:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• • It may be an improvement, but unless you can find a better title and subject matter, the article will remain against the policies. How about "Build up for war on Iran" or something more familiar with the English speaking readers?

--Gerash77 11:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact you are avoiding is that there is a complex global crisis going on with regards to Iran. Some of it has to do with the nuclear program, some with Iraq, some with supporting Hezbollah in the recent Lebanon War, some with the rhetoric towards Israel, etc. Now, each of these topics could and should be broken down into separate articles, on US-Iran relations, Israel-Iran relations, Nuclear Program of Iran, etc, but that would ignore the dynamics that all of these together coalesce into what can only be considered an international crisis. As for your bullets:

• This is not OR because all info is documented and the intersection of all of these issues is also a common topic in the media.
• No one is saying whether Iran's, the US's, or anyone's actions are right or wrong: simply what they are.
• If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or George Bush were editing this article, then yes, we would have a conflict of interest. But I seriously doubt that that is the case. You cannot discrimante against editors because of their nationality. -- Joshdboz 15:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or I think. What matters and what I am asking is which books, articles or sources sum up these affairs into one issue calling it "Iran international crisis"?!! None. Simple as that.--Gerash77 17:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to suggest an alternate title please feel free to do so! Joshdboz 19:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Gerash asked for a second opinion so here is my say. I read the article, and while most of the information is well-sourced, the concept of the "Iran international crisis" violates WP:NEO. Most of the information involves Iran versus US/Israel, so this article's content belongs at US-Iran relations and similar pages. Honestly, this article is very similar to a previous article (now deleted) about threats against Iran by the US and Israel, except that this article is more favorable to the US and Israeli positions. While I agree that it can be reasonably argued that there is a crisis, it doesn't appear to have been argued very much outside of this article. Essentially, this article argues that it is an international crisis, and then tries to support this with evidence that does not directly describe the events as an "international crisis." Hence, it is OR.

However, many of the mentioned events have been discussed outside of WP as relating to 'possible military action' against Iran by US/Israel. So, it is possible to make an article addressing this discussion, though it may be kind of speculative. I don't like articles that are entirely devoted to a speculative topic (outside of science), as this really becomes a battle of editorials. I recently supported to the deletion of the "emerging superpower" series of articles about China & India. I'm not sure how the speculative aspect of the article is different. It either relies upon the speculative comments of others or presents original research through presentation of certain facts. So, the article may be unwarranted, but in the meantime, should be changed to reflect that this is primarily an Iran versus US/Israel dispute. The Behnam 20:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is too narrow to see it as only Iran against US and Israel. The European Union is very much also involved. Even if it were only the Us and Israel, what does it change? Is doesn't make it less an international crisis. Alain10 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments Behnam. I understand your reasoning with regard to the "crisis", and that may not be the best wording, but there is no denying that all of these issues, Hezbollah, Nuclear weapons, Israeli threats, action in Iraq, etc, are all linked in terms of how Iran interacts with the world and vica versa. We can definitely agree upon a new title or format for displaying this information, but deleting this article would be ignoring the big picture, which is verfiable if one does a quick search on google news. WP usually does a pretty terrible job with these overview topics (see History) so I hope we can work this out. Joshdboz 21:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

To Alain, I'm not saying it isn't an international crisis. The problem is that we, Wikipedia editors, are defining it as an international crisis, while for some unknown reason, the term hasn't been used very much for the events (as far as I can tell). It is very insightful of us, but still original research. To Josh, yes, I think that an effort to improve the article should be made before deletion. First, the editors involved with the article should make the appropriate content & contextual changes regarding the term "international crisis," etc. Then, we can review the article to make sure that it isn't fundamentally a battle of oracular editorials. The Behnam 22:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that the term "international crisis" is not used very much by the media does not mean this is not an international crisis. In any case I don't see a better name.
• I don't see any original research here. Only compilation of events and references related to this crisis.
• I also don't see any "battle of oracular editorials" although I accept that some parts could be improved.
• Overall I believe that this article is very encyclopedic. For anybody who wishes to understand the crisis, main information is there and readily available.

Alain10 23:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• If it isn't a term being used, it isn't a term we should use. I agree that it can be reasonably argued that these events comprise an international crisis, but unfortunately it isn't in WP's place to make this argument or use this term.
• The fact that these things are tied together to form an "Iran international crisis" is original research.
• If we are going to discuss the "high probability of war," we will inevitably rely either upon speculative editorials or original research.
• It is certainly informative and well-sourced, but I don't think it is WP appropriate at this time, for the above reasons. The Behnam 00:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Alain, as mentioned before Wikipedia is not about the truth, but verifiability. Please adhere to the official policies.

Thanks Behnam for your participation. It is obvious the whole subject under question (patching together some info under a NEO title) is OR, and beyond any sort of repair. Nevertheless, I'll wait to see what Alain is going to do to improve his article.--Gerash77 10:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No one "owns" any article. This would go a lot quicker if you could offer some suggestions as for a new title, new way of relating the info to avoid OR, etc. If you are planning to send this to AfD regardless of what we do, you might as well do it now. Joshdboz 12:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

After have read again the article, it seems to me that the only thing that is original research is the part named "Israeli position" in para "Public threats by Iranian leaders against Israel". In order to be encyclopedic it should be based on official views of Israeli leaders on this, duly referenced. I will try to rewrite it. Alain10 12:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I regret that the only title that I find appropriate for these patched-up news articles is: Recent negative propaganda against Iran--Gerash77 13:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

International Tension over Iran, Iranian international disputes (2002-Present), etc. There's plenty of names from broad to specific. Joshdboz 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not "international crisis". This is a very clear and recognized name to describe exactly what is now happening. Again article International crisis is very clear. For those who say that the term is not used, here are references of politicians or journalists using the expression "international crisis" to describe this current event:

• Romano Prodi, Prime Minister of Italy: "Italian prime minister Romano Prodi said on Friday that an agreement on North Korea's nuclear program this week should set the example for Iran, which has sparked an international crisis by refusing to halt sensitive atomic work the international community fears is aimed at building nuclear weapons".[5]
• Time of India: "The attendance in Germany of Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani at the ongoing international security conference in Munich is regarded as another effort by Tehran to avoid an international crisis over its nuclear programmes." [6]
• The Guardian, UK: "Ironically, it is this very international crisis that may serve to save Ahmadinejad's presidency, a reality that the president undoubtedly understood all too well. As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world." [7]
• a "senior Russian official, as reported by the Daily Times of Pakistan: "Nuclear timeout: Iran has several doubts and queries about plans for a pause in the international crisis over its nuclear plans, a senior Russian official said Tuesday." [8]
• Belfast Telegraph: "The decision caused an international crisis as the enrichment process can lead to production of a weapon." [9]

Alain10 22:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No. They talk about nuclear dispute, not your patched up articles.--Gerash77 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear dispute is undoubtedly the main issue of Iran international crisis. However, this is not the only one: the only fact the president Bush talks about Iran involvement into Iraq adds to the crisis, whether you think he is lying or not. Also, the article is about the development of the crisis, not only the issues: the military build-up, the opposition to war, the debates in Congress etc. Even if the crisis were only about nuclear weapons, the article would still be needed. Alain10 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Alain10, I am interested to know what particular part of my fully cited contributions which you deleted seem "original research" to you.. The 20% Arab minority in Israel who vote part, or the only middle eastern country where an elected Arab politican can speak freely being Israel, part? if you have factual evidence to the contrary, do tell. Perhaps I went on for a bit there, but still, the Iranian POV in this article dragged Israel-Palestinian issues into the affair, not I. The beacon of liberalism Iran (at least insofar as can be perceived from some articles in Wikipedia) is mentioned as accusing that Israel denies political freedoms from people. Inasmuch as this is related to the crisis, I believe the counter POV has to be represented, or both issues be deleted as irrelevant. Counterboint 00:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Counterboint, I had nothing against what you wrote. Just it seemed to me that it was a bit out of subject and I think it was leading to legitimate criticism about the fact that this article should be deleted. If we want to keep this article as Iran international crisis, I think we should focus on the main official arguments of all parties. I agree that it makes the article less strong and original. The discussion about the situation of Arab population in Israel, for example, seems to me not precisely the subject of this article. And also it was too long. Alain10 22:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not in favor of deletion and I think the current name is fine, I was just suggesting alternatives in case someone would like options for a name change. Joshdboz 19:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to remove the Arab rights in Israel stuff. It is not entirely relevant, and it appeared to be OR; aka the sources did not say that this was Israel's reasoning. In any case, we shouldn't provide a platform here to fully argue either side. And consider that Israel probably does not consider its treatment of Arabs equivalent to Ahmadinejad & friends unrealistic "referendum" dream at all. Please, help maintain neutrality on this page Counterboint. I agree with you in changing the order of the Baradei quote, but I think you ended up leaning the page too much towards Israel/US. Especially your mention of the oil ranking in parentheses. Do you want others to add little asides that show that Iran needs nuclear energy? I don't think it is good to bring this battle to this page. The Behnam 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Thanks Alain for writing the new lead. I have edited it, but the main change I made was switching the crisis between Iran and Western countries to Iran and many countries around the world. The reason for this is because that many non-Western countries, including Saudi Arabia, and all non-Western members of the UN security council, have taken action condemning or countering Iran's actions. Joshdboz 15:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A problem concerning a template

I need some help. There is a template Politics of Iran and on this template, there is a link to Iran international crisis since 24 December 2006, which seems to me normal.

Gerash77 not only has suppressed this link on 9 February 2007 and has since entered into an edit war by suppressing it every day. On top of that, he is trying to create problems for me. He has told an administrator, user:AndrewRT that I was the problem, created this edit war, asked him to send me warnings etc. Any idea how I could fight this? Alain10 19:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the best idea is to resolve the disputes on this page. If this article is cleared of dispute, then you can justify adding a link to it on the Politics of Iran template. I can see why he would remove a link to an article that is disputed on a very fundamental level. So, if problems here are resolved the solution to the template problem will follow. The Behnam 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I posted warnings on both Gerash77 and Alain10's pages because they were revert warring. I had no contact with Gerash77 prior to my intervention and I am not administrator. Wikipedia is not a battleground - please see WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND for more details. Please abide by wikipedia conduct rules when you are in dispute and ask for third party assistance if you object to another's conduct. AndrewRT(Talk) 11:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed Behnam. Gerash77, in the meantime, please do not remove links from other articles to this one until this is resolved. Thanks, Joshdboz 12:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and I never did. Alain: talk about the template on the designated template's talk page.--Gerash77 13:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What I still don't understand is, why does the "article's creator" accused of having a 'conflict of interest' by Gerash77? is that because the creator isn't sympathetic enough to Iran or due to his/her ethnicity? such serious accusations have to be substantiated. I can also say, "As anyone who has ever read any of the deletor's wiki contributions would agree, he has a conflict of interest regarding Israel and the USA. " I request that such accusations be removed, even from the discussion pages, unless substantiated. Not much hope of either, of course. Counterboint 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better than deletion

I'm sympathetic to the suggestion that this article is a breach of WP:NEO and WP:OR as it appears to be a new synthesis of information. However, I'm not sure a deletion is the answer. A better move may be to rename and/or merge the article. I'll have a browse and a think to see if I can come up with some suggestions. AndrewRT(Talk) 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

Per suggestions above: crisis must be renamed to 'dispute' international should be changed to 'the West' or 'Western'. Putting it together: Current Iranian disputes with the West Should I go ahead with renaming?--Gerash77 20:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, many non-Western governments are involved. Saudia Arabia is attempting to curtail Iranian influence, and both China and Russia agreed to the UN sanctions. If you really don't want crisis, I would say something like Current international disputes with Iran. I don't know if there's precedent for using the word "current" in an article title, but picking a starting time for these disputes (ala 2002-Present Iranian disputes) would be OR. Joshdboz 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Current international disputes with Iran is ok with me. Anyone else? If so, lets get over with the title and start concentrating on the content. --Gerash77 22:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No such title would be misleading and would not describe accurately reality. Look at dispute: "A controversy or dispute is a matter of opinion over which parties actively disagree, argue, or debate". In international relations, a dispute is something light: like a dispute between Canada and France because of fishing rights in Saint Pierre et Miquelon! An international crisis is something stronger, that can lead to war! Alain10 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

So we have 2 for, 1 against. Any other votes? --Gerash77 23:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with Current international disputes with Iran. Dispute is a more factual description than crisis. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

3-1: I think its obvious there are more people who want a rename, hence I am going to go ahead with it. And since this neutralizes the title, only the factuality and neutrality will remain disputed.--Gerash77 02:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Alain10, I agree that this is an "international crisis" with regard to some countries, like the US v. Iran, but this article is covering the whole of Iran's international problems. I don't think crisis would be used to describe Russia-Iran or Saudi-Iran relations. If this issue deteriorates, we can always change titles again. Joshdboz 13:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree on this change. I think I have given enough proofs that this is an international crisis.Alain10 19:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's discuss real issues

I think that this article is here to stay. Let's discuss rather the content. As it is now, I don't see any argument to say it is not neutral. Could we take away the neutrality warning? Could somebody explain what is not fair in this article? Not general things or ideas about the name of the article, or the fact that there is some "conflict of interest" but, please, straight to the point:

• what is biased here? Frankly, I am not Iranian, but I don't see any official Iranian POV that is not here. Maybe I missed something. Please explain to us!
• what is original work? I don't see any. And any argument is backed by solid views officially expressed and referenced.

Alain10 23:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that there isn't very much official Iranian POV. My guess is that Counterboint said that? I recently had to remove some Israel apologetics that he added to the page, so I think he just doesn't like to see something that is against his POV. The Behnam 23:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I like very much to see things against my POV, that is why I generally don't remove anything, only add my own POV. But how about you and others who consistently delete my POV while advising me that I am supposed to be neutral. Is the Iranian POV supposed to be neutral too, or does that requirement depend on one's particular coordinates? Sorry but I am restoring my comments that you call 'apologetics' all they are doing is replying to the tolerated (if not encouraged) torrent of Iranian POV apologetics concerning their 'Wipe Israel' remarks, and their irrelevant dragging of the Israeli-Palestinian issue into the Iranian conflict with the USA and the west, while wiki-muzzling the Israeli POV response.

I shall repeat my point untill it is addressed or disproved. if the Iranian POV is allowed to present its accusations against the Israeli democracy, the Israeli democracy POV must be allowed to defend itself against them, with more than just a fig leaf such as "The Israelis view this as a diplomatic smokescreen". Otherwise the article favors the Iranian POV. An alternative option is to delete all of the Iranian POV "lost in translation" moderately funny stand up comedy routine plus their take on the Israeli-Palestinian issue which is not relevant to this article, and instead just say one sentence "The Iranians view the US stance merely as a diplomatic smokescreen for Israel/Zionism". That would be also fair as that is what you are allowing the Israel POV at this point. But thank you for reviewing my contributions. Counterboint 00:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that there is any overemphasis of Iran POV. I think that you actually want to provide a refutation of the Iranian POV by placing little facts in, like the oil mention. Of course, we could add Iranian counterarguments, but as neutral editors, we'd rather not fight on the page. I'm just going to ask you to edit neutrally with us, thanks. The Behnam 00:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine I accept your note on the Oil issue. But not about the others. How can you use the word "neutral" while allowing one POV to accuse a country of something, while not allowing it to present its take in referenced facts, other than "They view it as a smokescreen"? In the same vein I could post something referenced such as

"Israel and the US are popularly known as 'The little Satan' and 'The Great Satan' in Iran. Iran views this accusation as western propoganda."

Does this seem like a balanced paragraph to you? If you agree that my facts are threatening to refute the Iranian POV, are you suggesting that they ought to be suppressed for this reason, and this is neutrality? how about removing some of the Iranian accusations regarding Israel and the Palestinians because they are in risk of refuting the Israeli case against being wiped? Counterboint 00:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, calm down. About the random facts about Arab rights. Can you provide a reliable source stating that all of those things you mentioned, in connection with another, are the reason Israel considers it a smokescreen? I know that Israel considers it a smokescreen, but never before have I seen ramblings about Arab rights pretending to be equivalent to the "referendum" idea. I've seen other reasons, but I've yet to run into that particular source yet. If you can add the detail in a neutral, non-OR way, that is fine. But honestly, I don't think that is a common argument for not trusting Iran. The Behnam 00:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Now your'e talking. By the way I am perfectly calm... The Iranian accusations against Israel are seen as a smokescreen because they are seen to have no ground in past, present or future reality. In the common Israeli view, the majority of current inhabitants of Israel (Jews, Muslims and others) have already voted by public referendum on their future, on average every four years since 1949. The "referendum" idea is therefore implemented already as much as international law allows.

There is no precedent for a large community of non-residents being allowed to vote on the future of another country, even if they or their ancestors were born there. Plus, since it is suicide for the Jewish majority in Israel (and for some of the Arabs too, see below) to agree to this, you would have to enforce this Global referendum by military force on them. That is the pragmatic consequence; ergo, "Global referendum" is very similar to asking Israel to cease to exist by force.

Lastly, recent polls on the national sentiments of non-Jews in Israel have shown that while they feel great sympathy to the Palestinians, the majority of Israeli Arabs do not want to forsake their Israeli citizenship and become Palestinian citizens. Frankly I don't see what else is there to show that this Iranian claim is only subterfuge to throw some heat off their dark labs:

[2004 Poll on Political Attitudes of Israeli Arabs]

If you allow one POV to make extra-terrestrial arguments against the other, the other POV has to defend itself, (Even if the defence seems extra-terrestrial to you). Counterboint 01:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that the Iranian "referendum" idea is unrealistic. But the problem is that your presentation has no sourcing. The poll itself doesn't even begin to become evidence (it could just reflect a distaste for palestinian poverty, etc). Besides, you need a source not just for the facts, but for the presentation that this is the reason Israel sees it as a smokescreen. I admit that you have a very reasonable hypothesis, but so far as I have seen, it is you hypothesis, not that of reliable sources. So, just surf the web for awhile and see if you turn up anything good, bring it to the talk page, and we can take a look to decide what should be used in it. Until this has reliable sourcing and consensus for inclusion, don't reintroduce the paragraph. You shouldn't worry so much, Israel ain't going away just because this paragraph isn't fit for the article yet. The Behnam 01:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with you on the last count. The objective reality is that after 1995, Israeli leaders have never questioned the existence of Iran or any other nation, in spite of their own people being precisely so threatened by Iraqi, Iranian and terrorist group leaders. Counterboint 01:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've often wondered what the ME would be like had they not felt it time to return to the land they mostly stole from the various Canaanite peoples. I think it would still be problematic, with Sunni-Shia problems at the encouragement of West. Probably worse for Iran in a way since the Arabs wouldn't have anything else distracting them. Anyway, you keep looking for a source for your argument, I'll be back later, I have some schoolwork to do. The Behnam 01:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Again you do the same thing as in the article, piling up anti-Israel accusations while being most reluctant in allowing any credible defence. The alternate POV can be that Eastern Colonialism stole the land first (The Ottoman Empire, or we may go even earlier if you wish). Evil colonialism does not only lurk where you want it to. And as for "what the ME would have been like" remember the overwhelming majority of its land and populace was carved up by western colonial masters hostile to Zionism at that time, only Israel's fate was decided by a UN vote; so the alternate reality might be less favourable than what you imagine, what with only Europe in range as a target for non-Jewish expansionist forces which already led several militant empires much before Zionism, as you well know. Counterboint 01:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I was referring to much much earlier, as in Girgashiy. Is that anti-Israeli? Reading the earlier books from the Tanakh shows a clear case of theft, and I didn't realize that Israeli people deny that the land seizure & accompanying genocide was theft (if not genocide). Referring to the seizure of Amerindian land & slaughter of Amerindians as theft doesn't make me anti-American, so I don't see why Israel is different. I think it depends upon what you do with that information. Anyway, since when have I piled up anti-Israeli stuff in the article? I've barely contributed to this article and I came here recently because Gerash was complaining that it was too anti-Iranian or something like that. Now you have been saying that it is too pro-Iranian. Well, I'm still waiting for the "credible" defense, meaning that you provide reliable sources for the argumentative sequence you want to include here. I look forward to your findings. The Behnam 02:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, your mentions of "Genocide" aren't justified. Look it up. Palestinian Population growth rates have not decreased since Israeli independence, only the opposite; not to mention that there was never a national policy to erase the Palestinian nation. (Unless you are going to claim that each square mile of Palestinian Land gives birth, dies and can thus be listed in the population census as a person) therefore Israel is not engaged in Genocide, and using this word and others in a sensless orgy as if they were party decorations without even bothering to include arguments, what is one supposed to make of that? Counterboint 12:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is not the subject. The subject is the international crisis (or dispute) concerning Iran, not the situation inside Israel. Alain10 19:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, you guys are seriously getting into OR. This article is about the "friction points" that Iran currently has with the international community:

1. Nuclear program
2. Rhetoric against Israel
3. Support of designated terrorist groups
4. Activity in Iraq

All information should be related to these things and their effects (like sanctions, war preparations, etc). There is no reason to get into internal Iranian or Israeli politics. Joshdboz 19:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How can all of you let the Iranian POV mentioning of a universal Palestinian referndum, which is an existential issue for Israel, not to be counted as "getting into internal Israeli politics?" pray tell me what is more internal Israeli politics than that? repeating again, it is manifestly pro-Iranian to let their POV drag in internal Israeli political matters and make rabid accusations to cover Iranian nuclear disputes and expansionism, all the while forcibly denying me the tiniest mention of a credible defence against this attack. Either delete their irrelevant smokescreen or allow the opposite POV a reasonable response to this. Is it relevant to this article to describe the state of Iranian 'democracy' and its opposition which is being brutally oppressed? no, you think? why, then is it relevant to describe Israeli-Palestinian democracy matters? as it is, the aritlce ought to be titled not even "Current international tensions with Iran" but "Current international tenstions between wikipedia and Israel"Counterboint 11:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stay cool and be constructive. Your personal objections don't matter here unless you can substantiate them; I am still waiting for the source I asked for. If you can provide a reliable source indicating that the argumentative sequence you wish to include is Israel's official defense against the "smokescreen," we can go forward with this. Otherwise, it is just you, whining on the talk page. Please consider this request before ranting again here, as ranting is rather disruptive. Thanks. The Behnam 23:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we now suppress the "neutrality" warning

I don't see any serious disagrement now on content, except on minor issues. I thus intend to take away the "neutrality" warning. I vote in favor of it. Alain10 19:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Counterboint and I never resolved. He believes Israeli view is underrepresented on this page, but can't back up his proposed addition with sources. I assume he is still looking, but I doubt he is satisfied yet. The Behnam 19:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

You are is perfectly right that I am still unsatisfied. Regarding the voting issue and neutrality tag, I do not mind whether the article has a neutrality warning; I believe it is firstly more important to resolve the major dissenting opinions if there are any, and currently there are at least two opposing ones. This can be easily resolved if both POVs are fairly represented with a similar number of facts each side submits (rather than subjective accusations alone). In this vein, instead of the Iranian POV claiming that the Palestinians are denied political freedoms and then erasing my factual defence that most resident Palestinians and Israelis already vote freely on their futures, the Iranian POV can mention facts such as "The Palestinian refugees in exile are denied political freedoms" and then the Israeli defence would be as I said before. A wikipedia article is not just a propoganda loudhailer of both POV's, it should also bring forth the undisputed facts. Counterboint 00:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I propose we vote: who is in favour of removing the neutrality warning and who is against?Alain10 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Khoikhoi 23:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Voting won't do a thing here anyway, this article has only about 4 or 5 people involved, and distinct disputes usually originate with one person (Gerash, Counterboint). When we manage to resolve their problems with the article, or manage to strongly dismiss their objections, then we can take the neutrality tag off. The Behnam 23:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I hated the weird, POV, NEO, speculative, crystal ball title. Alaine can decide on the content. I don't care about the content as long as we have a NPOV article title, section titles and lead.--Gerash77 00:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If vote does not matter, I propose we come back to the original title, that was much better. Only 2 persons decided it, on 20th February, after an intervention on 16 February. This is really unacceptable. Alain10 21:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I renamed it "Current international crisis with Iran". This is a compromise between the 2 names. Alain10 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes don't matter for removing neutrality tags, it matters for rename and deletions. Please don't do that again, as it may result in blocking of your writing privileges. --Gerash77 22:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Threatening is against wiki etiquette; and also using too many wiki "legal" arguments. Alain10 23:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, please review WP:CON. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gerash77 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

You are "Hiding behind misinterpretations or technicalities of policy to justify inappropriate actions". See WP:WLAX Alain10 21:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate about the name of the article (following request for comments)

This page is about a current event: the developing crisis between Iran and some western countries, crisis that could lead to war.

This page was named initially Iran international crisis. My view is that it is right to qualify this page international crisis, since the current event is completely in line with the definition of an international crisis: an international crisis is defined as, "a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war, but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability of war" (source : Snyder, Glenn H. and Diesing, Paul: 1977. Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making and System Structure in International Crises. ISBN 0-691-05664-1).

This view is criticized by some editors, who believe that naming it "Iran international crisis" is biased against Iran.

Those who were against it have, after summary debate, decided on their own to change the name of the page to: Current international disputes with Iran. They did it in a very rude way. For an article that existed as "Iran international crisis" since December 2006, they intervened on 16 February 2007, and, after summary discussion, changed the name of the article to "Current international disputes with Iran" on 20 February 2007.

I disagree with the new name. Naming it a dispute is misleading and does not describe accurately reality. In international relations, a dispute is something light: like a dispute between Canada and France because of fishing rights in Saint Pierre et Miquelon! This is not appropriate for an event that can lead to war.

Also, the language international crisis is used by many politicians and journalists. Examples taken on the web in only one day are the following:

• Romano Prodi, Prime Minister of Italy: "Italian prime minister Romano Prodi said on Friday that an agreement on North Korea's nuclear program this week should set the example for Iran, which has sparked an international crisis by refusing to halt sensitive atomic work the international community fears is aimed at building nuclear weapons".[10]
• Time of India: "The attendance in Germany of Iranian chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani at the ongoing international security conference in Munich is regarded as another effort by Tehran to avoid an international crisis over its nuclear programmes." [11]
• The Guardian, UK: "Ironically, it is this very international crisis that may serve to save Ahmadinejad's presidency, a reality that the president undoubtedly understood all too well. As domestic difficulties mount, the emerging international crisis could at best serve as a rallying point, or at worst persuade Iran's elite that a change of guard would convey weakness to the outside world." [12]
• a "senior Russian official, as reported by the Daily Times of Pakistan: "Nuclear timeout: Iran has several doubts and queries about plans for a pause in the international crisis over its nuclear plans, a senior Russian official said Tuesday." [13]
• Belfast Telegraph: "The decision caused an international crisis as the enrichment process can lead to production of a weapon." [14]

Alain10 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

This was already discussed and answered above.--Gerash77 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you an example, so that you see the other POV: Should we rename the article about the immigration problems in France to "French Immigration Crisis" because 10 people have called it so? No. It is strong POV. Most people don't call it that!--Gerash77 01:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

French immigration problem is not "a sequence of interactions between the governments of two or more sovereign states in severe conflict, short of actual war, but involving the perception of a dangerously high probability of war" Alain10 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I said "French Immigration Crisis". I did not say "French Immigration International Crisis". The word in question here is crisis. To my understanding, the French are in a huge crisis with their immigrants. There was even a full scale war some time ago. Do you start to see the problem with POV word crisis or should I explain more?--Gerash77 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

To answer precisely your question, the word crisis is easily used in everything related to politics. In France, it is very usual to talk about crisis about anything. For example about an "economic crisis", or a "housing crisis", a "social crisis" or a "politics crisis". I even saw "marriage crisis" or "trust crisis" etc. I do not see anything negative in using the word crisis. A "housing crisis" is not negative against housing! Alain10 21:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet, it hasn't been used on wiki pages on France.--Gerash77 21:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Because this is a bit excessive, driven by the media, who like to overdo things to make them more spectacular. Crisis is a word that should normally be used for very serious problem, like a potential war! Nobody can deny that there is a risk of war. Alain10 21:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

There, you said it yourself. It's just your POV. Besides, Iranians see this as a psychological warfare.--Gerash77 22:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to condone paranoia. Alain10 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you.--Gerash77 23:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys realize how ridiculous this naming issue is. Why don't we just name it something like Current international tensions with Iran, and be done with it. It's obviously a crisis with regard to some countries, and a dispute with regard to others, so you're both right and wrong. Joshdboz 23:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can make Alain agree (!) it would be fine.--Gerash77 23:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree tensions is better since this is already stronger than dispute. ok for me. Alain10 23:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Joshdboz 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!! I thought of a better title Current internationally created tensions with Iran--Gerash77 01:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is fine for the time being. Joshdboz 12:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

How about something even shorter, such just Current? after all, it seems as if Narnia has more to do with this article than Iran? Counterboint 12:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to discuss this article please discuss constructively. It would be more helpful if you pointed out the specific problems you find. Joshdboz 12:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and even more helpful if people who admit that:

1) My contributions have a basis of undisputable facts, and 2) Accuse Israel of genocide

At least if they were willing to be good enough not to delete my factual contributions while preaching at me to be more "neutral" and "stop disrupting" by ranting agaist Iran in the discussion page (ranting against Israel is of course, not disruptive) I am sorry if I offend anyone but I am not the one keeping unsupported propoganda of the Iranian POV while deleting factual referenced defence of Israel. If you like you can see one content suggestion right under the "Can we now suppress the "neutrality" warning" title above. Counterboint 00:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the argument itself isn't sourced. You are taking a bunch of verifiable fact about Arab rights and purporting them as Israel's defense against the "referendum" idea. But the sources themselves aren't actually making this argument with these facts, you are. Until you find a reliable source that actually makes that argument on Israel's behalf the argument cannot be included in the article. I asked you a good while ago to provide the source; if you couldn't find it, that is OK, just stop spouting on this page. And by the way, I did not accuse Israel of genocide against the Palestinians. I mentioned Ancient Israel committing genocide against Canaanite tribes, and for the most part I think this reasonably describes some of the conquests in Canaan. So please, stop the ill-considered accusations. Anyway, "factually referenced"? Yes. "Defence of Israel"? Not yet. You need to source the defense, it cannot be your argument. Thanks again. The Behnam 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I saw the request for comment, and although I haven't read everything here, I have some thoughts I'd like to share.

• First, I'm sorry I can't take the usual tack and say something like "What are you guys arguing over?" It seems to me that the question of whether to call this a crisis is a serious issue. Countries opposed to Iran's activities have a vested interest in increasing the perception of gravity and urgency of the situation, and using the word "crisis" accomplishes this. So in determining whether observers consider this a crisis, it is not enough, in my opinion, that some officials on one side have called it a crisis. Every effort should be made to determine the views of mainstream journalists (I'm not actually going to define this for you) in a variety of countries, writing in non-argumentative articles (e.g., not editorials).
• Second, as I alluded to previously, the word crisis connotes both gravity and urgency. The perception that the situation might lead to war is not enough — the events in the immediate future must be perceived to be critical to the outcome. If I had to give a figure, I would say that meant the next 6 months or so.
• Third, if opinion among neutral observers appears to be divided, I don't think "crisis" is appropriate. The word "crisis" will do a lot more to heighten readers' sense of the gravity and urgency of the situation than the word "tensions" will do to diminish it.
• The pro-crisis side has given some quotes backing their position. I would say that the Belfast citation is good, as are the two Pakistani ones (which can be trusted to reflect a consensus view in their newsroom at least, I would guess.) The Guardian article is argumentative, and the Indian one actually goes against the pro-crisis side, because it says Iran wants to avoid an international crisis. Maybe the anti-crisis side can give some examples of their own to illustrate what those journalists not calling the situation a crisis call it. (Or maybe I've missed them.) Joeldl 06:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is one undisputed fact, whatever side of the argument you may choose: there is a risk of war. Since there is a risk of war, this must be named an international crisis. Alain10 21:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Crisis" isn't appropriate when there's simply a small risk of war, it should only be used when there's an obvious risk of war in the near future. Looking through a list of articles that use the title "crisis", my sense is that 1) it's a lot easier to determine whether something is a crisis in hindsight... trying to predict whether war is imminent in the near future is crystal-balling and should be avoided. 2) There are a few cases where it's possible to call something a crisis while it's happening, but only when something very serious has happened (such as shots being fired without full-scale war breaking out (eg. Taiwan Strait Crisis, U-2 Crisis of 1960), or in a political crisis, if diplomats have taken clear steps to escalate a situation (eg. 2005-2006 Thai political crisis, 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis (Baledrokadroka incident))). What's the problem with leaving it as "international tensions"? --Interiot 22:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

(note, the above was written before the 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel occurred... though one wonders if this article is still being maintained, since it still hasn't been mentioned in the article even though it's one of the few concrete things that might support the assertion that there's a risk of hostilities breaking out) --Interiot 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we suppress the neutrality warning? (2)

It seems that the passion has dissipated. Maybe now is the right time to remove the "neutrality" warning. Anybody can see that the arguments of all sides are accurately reflected in this article. In fact, there are as many arguments that mention that the article is biased against Iran than arguments that it is biased in favor of Iran Alain10 21:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

My dear Alain10 (not ironically!) it (the passion) has not disappeared, I am watering it every day. Only my available time for these things has withered, temporarily. For what it is worth, I deeply object to removing the warnings. Not by lying, but with an unbalanced and ostrichian selection of its facts (choosing them by their street popularity rating), the article presents a wildly distorted image of Iran, the USA and Israel that is (predominantly, save for a few unobtrusive paragraphs) merely a loudhailer of the incitement coming from the unholy union of the remorseful but guiltless Left/Libs and the remorseless but guilty eastern fascism. Just because most people think something is so, that does not mean the accused minority opinion deserves less article space for defence. IF one aims to be neutral, that is. Sorry for babbling, this is the shortest way I can express myself on this issue. Counterboint 00:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The major problem is the name of this article. Please pay attention that using international in the name is controversial while On September 16, 2006 in Havana, Cuba, all of the 118 Non-Aligned Movement member countries, at the summit level, declared supporting Iran's nuclear programme for civilian purposes in their final written statement.[15] That is a clear majority of the 192 countries comprising the entire United Nations and representing 55% of the world population.

If one U.N. decision can be ignored than so can another. A majority of the same UN body, alas, has also approved partition of Palestine and Israel's independence in 1947, but that doesn't deter this article from ignoring this, by censoring all of my attempts to defend (with referenced facts) against the genocidal Iranian accusations of Israel being an illegitimate regime and suggestions that all of its Jews have to be deported to Europe, i.e. the article implicitly supports this view in its 'majority opinion' by keeping the opponent view with one hand tied behind its back. The weakling argument that the Israeli propoganda doesn't take my line is irrelevant. If you aspire to be neutral, and one side makes vehement accusations against the other, the accused deserves a reasonable defence as long as it is factual. Wikipedia does not have to be merely a contest of propoganda loudhailers- it would not hurt to allow a trickle of facts from time to time.

highlights of subjects suppressed:

• The nature of Iranian expansionism and totalitarian policies since the Islamic revolution
• The opposition to Iran other than from the US government-the article seems to conclude that the Yanks and their interersts abroad are the main problem, which is not its place-the readers should make the conclusions.
• Iranian threats of military action against nations other than Israel and the US (Europe and neighboring Arab/Islamic states).
• Iranian involvement in acts of mass terrorism (The 1994 Oklahoma style truck bombing of a seven story Jewish center in Argentina in which 85 died; Argentinian prosecution has issued a warrant for the arrest of former Iranian president Rafsanjani in connection) Counterboint 09:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not all of these are relevant, NPOV, or certain. Please see WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. You still need to produce sources for your previous defense that make that specific defense. Also, with regards to the "unholy union," please see WP:CIVIL. Thanks. The Behnam 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Any sort of defamation of Akbar Shah is fine with me. Please include Argentine bomb-Rafsanjani connection, and the order for the arrest of this being! But I think others, like Behnam would mind, as he doesn't allow people to put their POV and libelous comments on the Akbar Shah's article ;-) --Gerash77 01:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I agree that he is crafty but I don't find it at all appropriate to say this in an encyclopedia article. The Behnam 10:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian Sources

According to Russian intelligence officials, unnamed, the U.S. will attack Iran on April 6, 2007. See: [16] DragonFire1024 11:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also speculations that the Martians will attack the Reticulians. Lord help us.--Gerash77 01:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

AT 53 minuets past midnight it's the 7th of febuary and there is no US attack so far (that the media have reported). -Hmm well in the UK anyway.NuttyProSci-Fi3000 23:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What does that matter? There is a list of alleged attack dates in there already...what will it hurt to add this one? DragonFire1024 08:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is the purpose of this page?

I am new to this page, and as such have not followed the evolution of this page. However - and if this discussion has been had before please say and I will shut up - I am concerned about how encyclopaedic this page is. What is its purpose? If it is to provide effectively a "timeline", then that is a) not really what we are about and b) should be in History of the Islamic Republic of Iran article. If this is meant to be some sort of analysis article, akin perhaps to Auschwitz bombing debate, then not only is the current article not doing that, but it would surely be a form of Original Research (what secondary sources could be cited?) In general, I am just not sure that a kind of "blog" of what happens day by day (incidentally covering only a small percentage of the international community) is not really suitable for Wikipedia. What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 15:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've long thought this is just a summary of the more detailed articles at Category:Foreign relations of Iran, and is a selective fork of Foreign relations of Iran and History of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and I think it should be AfD'd. I don't think the supporters have said it should be something like a Portal:Foreign relations of Iran, but have instead argued that it's very likely to turn into a specific politicial or military crisis in the near future, and (I'm assuming) that once the tensions with Iran climax or subside, the article would be renamed to no longer include the term "current". My take is that it's clearly original research and crystal balling to not assert the notability / historical significance of the current events, but to base the article's historical significance on events that the authors think will happen sometime in the future. --Interiot 17:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. If anyone else agrees, I am going to put it up on AFD and see what happens. Batmanand | Talk 18:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)