Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

U.S. Violation vs. Withdrawal

I have proposed (and accurately) that the section named "U.S. withdrawal" be referred to as a "U.S. violation" and subsequent discussion of the "withdrawal" be changed to "violation". The JCPOA has no withdrawal clause. Even if one does not view the JCPOA as a legal commitment, there was no basis in the agreement or in its context of implementation on which to justify the US decision to cease the fulfillment of its promises made under the JCPOA. The US simply decided to break those promises. I have been accused of POV-pushing vandalism which is extremely offensive - no justification has been provided for why "withdrawal" should be used when "violation" is a more appropriate term.

This section has now been edited multiple times in the last few days -- it makes sense to now discuss this topic and come to a resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.189.216 (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not call it 'violation', which you are trying to force, which is pov-pushing indeed. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:EDIT WARRING. --HistoryofIran (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you five other sources which call it a violation, see below. The Newsweek source says: "It's a material breach as well as a denunciation in violation of the terms. Both the material breach and the denunciation are in violation of standard treaty practice," Leila Sadat, director of the Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute at the Washington University School of Law, told Newsweek.
You have not yet given a justification for why "withdrawal" is the proper terminology here, where as I have given a justification. With respect to WP:CONSENSUS, there is plainly no consensus here and it is in fact you who is conducting an edit war. As I have said several times -- you have given no justification for your reasoning. If it is based on sources alone, then I would be happy to make the aforementioned changes and incorporate the below sources into my edits. I await your response.
https://time.com/5271040/trump-reckless-violation-iran-deal-national-security/
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/media-outlets-lawmakers-us-violated-iran-nuclear-deal-5907a0e5743a/
https://www.newsweek.com/did-trump-break-law-us-leaves-iran-deal-violates-world-order-risks-war-916173
07:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Wasnt the fact that many other sources do not call it "violation" not justification enough? What about those sources? Do we remove them because you don't agree with them? Please read the guidelines, I simply restored the long standing revision, to make such a controvertial edit u are doing, u have to reach consensus, which certainly isn't happening atm. HistoryofIran (talk)
No, it's not a justification. What makes your sources better than mine? A simple understanding of the terms "withdrawal" and "violation" justifies my position. How can you withdraw from an agreement when there is no clause within that agreement stipulating how you may withdraw? Who said my edits are controversial? I claim that the long-standing revision (which went unchallenged and in my estimation, un-noticed) is controversial. Additionally, if the U.S. has withdrawn then why are Iran's actions called violations? Shouldn't Iran's actions be a "partial withdrawal"? The current revision of the page stinks of pov-pushing.
If we are unable to reach a consensus, we can always have this arbitrated, but you have yet to provide a justification for your position other than the "that's what the sources call it", but I have provided you with several sources that call it a violation and pointed out the hypocrisy that U.S. non-compliance is called "withdrawal" while Iranian non-compliance is called "violation".
17:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not my sources, and I've never said it is better than the ones you have posted. Ironically it is you who is doing that when you ignore the long-standing sourced revision and try to change the article. Look, I'm not here to discuss politics with you, we better call for a third opinion or whatever it is called, since this is clearly going nowhere. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the fact that the current revision has gone unchallenged means that it is better or more precise in any way. If you agree that the current sources are not better, then why not use the ones I posted? Just because the revision has been long-standing, does not mean that it is immune from change or that it cannot be improved (as I claim it will be by my proposed revision). I am not debating politics -- the distinctions I have made are based on linguistics (the meaning of violation vs withdrawal) and the legal framework of the agreement (it contains no withdrawal clause).
I have already submitted for a third opinion on the appropriate wiki. Hopefully, that will come within the next few days. --19:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.189.216 (talk)
I've never said that I agreed that the sources you showed were better either. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My entire point is that you have not supplied any argument other than "I have sources which use the word withdrawal", to which I reply "I have sources which use the word violation" and "my revision has been around for a while", which is no argument at all. Please point to the clause of the JCPOA which stipulates the conditions for withdrawal. Please explain why the word "withdrawal" is used for the U.S. breach of its commitments while the word "violation" is used for the Iranian breach of its commitments. This is not a political question, it is a legal and linguistic one. Unless you can explain these two points, I really fail to see your argument. --20:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.189.216 (talk)
Response to third opinion request:
Good evening. I am Springnuts, an uninvolved editor. I have not, to my knowledge, previously edited this article or topic. First of all, thank you both for your forbearance whilst the discussion here is in progress.

First of all, I note that 173.73.189.216 appears to be a Single-purpose account, and that this user’s edits have been, perhaps unintentionally, disruptive. I am therefore doubly grateful to you for refraining from editing the article whilst waiting for a third opinion. Please do create an account.

I had a look at the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary: “Violation: an infringement of the law; an infringement of the rules in a sports contest; The action or an act of violating a person or thing.” (Then distracted by “Wilgie”, a kind of red ochre, used as a body paint) “Withdrawal: the act of taking back or away what has been granted; the retraction of a statement, proposal etc”

To my mind the linguistic position is quite clear: the US withdrew from the agreement. It took back what was granted (its agreement). In this context the word “withdrawal” is more accurate and more specific, and “violation” is clearly POV where “withdrawal” is neutral. There is no dispute about whether the US withdrew – there is dispute about whether that withdrawal was a violation, and if so what of (the treaty, international law or international norms; or some combination of these).

73.73.189.216 says that “Please explain why the word "withdrawal" is used for the U.S. breach of its commitments while the word "violation" is used for the Iranian breach of its commitments.” I do not find any statement that Iran has been in violation in this article, however, if Iran were to breach a specific commitment, then that would indeed be a violation.

173.73.189.216 may wish to add to the “Reactions>Opposition” section of United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. That is a good place to add material related to those sources which refer to the US action as a “violation” of the treaty.

My opinion is: the correct word to use here is “Withdrawal”. Springnuts (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I profoundly disagree that "violation" is POV. The U.S. has infringed on what it obliged itself to do. An international agreement is not the same as a statement or proposal. International agreements have withdrawal clauses which provide the conditions under which one may release oneself from one's obligations. The JCPOA contains no such clauses. Additionally -- if "U.S. violation" is seen as POV, then "Iranian violation" must be POV as well. I have a proposal -- "Iranian violation" be changed in the article to "Iranian partial withdrawal". I would be willing to drop my reservations if we could make this compromise. 20:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.189.216 (talk)
I am sorry you disagree with my opinion, however that is your prerogative. What is not my opinion, but a wikifact, is that this is not the place to have the debate you seek. Wikipedia is not a soapbox: ask yourself honestly whether what you want to do this article is truly WP:NPOV. May I again encourage you to create an account and to read the this link: Single-purpose account - there are 6,198,456 other articles you can contribute to. With all respect, Springnuts (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not debating political fact -- something which I have made quite clear. My argument is based on legal and linguistic facts, as well as the fact that I have several news sources which use the word "violation" instead of "withdrawal". I profoundly agree that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, something which several editors seem to have not noticed as the article itself is not WP:NPOV -- as a user pointed out earlier on this talk page, this wiki reads more like a CNN op-ed than a wikipedia article.
Since I intend to now escalate this issue further, I would like to reiterate my arguments for future readers. First, it is a legal fact that one cannot withdraw from an agreement with no withdrawal clause -- hence the U.S. cannot withdraw this agreement, it can only violate it, this is a legal fact and pointed out by several news sources I linked earlier. Second, U.S. infringements are labeled "withdrawal" while Iranian infringements are labeled "violations". The other editors claim that "violation" is POV. There are sources (some of which I pointed out in an earlier post) which use both terminologies for both the U.S. and Iran -- it is clearly biased to extend the POV argument to the U.S., but not Iran. I offered a compromise which is that both U.S. and Iranian violations be labeled as "withdrawal" or "partial withdrawal", which resolves the POV argument, but it appears that this compromise was not accepted.Neutral-Iran (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason why the U.S. action was not a "violation" of a "treaty" is that the JCPOA is not a treaty. The JCPOA is a political commitment by the participating countries, not a legally binding treaty or agreement. Therefore, the decision to withdraw from this commitment is not a "violation." The participants did not include a withdrawal provision because none was needed. NPguy (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the following:
"This is really actually going to anger a lot of countries," Bolton told Newsweek. "In international law, it is a custom that you keep your word. This is a violation of the international norm."
This is from https://www.newsweek.com/did-trump-break-law-us-leaves-iran-deal-violates-world-order-risks-war-916173, the comment is given by an expert and he uses the term "violation". The jist is that the U.S. is in violation of the agreement it voluntarily took on. In the same way that one can violate one's own promise. You would not say "He withdraw from his promise.", syntactically that is incorrect, you would say "He violated his promise.". But if thats the stand you want to take, then you must admit that since it is not a legally binding treaty or agreement that Iran cannot violate it as well, it can only partially withdrawal -- anything else would be be WP:POV. Neutral-Iran (talk) 16:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is questioning that the United States broke its word in withdrawing from the JCPOA. The term "violation" implies that this was legally impermissible, which is not true. NPguy (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I fully buy your argument. But for the sake of at least trying to resolve this, taking your argument forward: Then Iran's actions can also be seen as legally permissible. Hence, Iran's actions cannot be a "violation" either (using the same logic applied in your comments). So then you must agree that "violation" is the inappropriate word in describing Iranian actions? A possible resolution of this issue which I proposed earlier was that the description of Iran's actions be changed from "violation" to "partial withdrawal". Neutral-Iran (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can violate political commitments, not only treaties or legally binding agreements can be violated. It is a violation because there was a promise and then there was actions in a contrary way breaking that promise. 2604:3D09:A17E:8800:79C6:16EA:9CD:336E (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They didn’t have a withdrawal clause, no withdrawal clause was needed, but in the end, withdrawing was what they ended up deciding to do? Only the wisest and brightest of us can have any hope at all at understanding the dreaded International Law 2604:3D09:A17E:8800:79C6:16EA:9CD:336E (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You people are crazy. So many take pride in Wikipedia being anyone can edit, we want democratic sources and so on, edit from anywhere and then when someone does that and uses a single purpose account you’re going to take that as evidence of their bad faith. So I understand, you really do have tight hierarchies here and when someone edits how you don’t like they must be trolls trying to vandalize for you. You’ll clean them up 2604:3D09:A17E:8800:79C6:16EA:9CD:336E (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I decided I’m going to withdraw from Wikipedia rules. I take back what I granted you guys (the agreement that I’ll follow your rules and respect POV and reliable sources and all your Wiki nerd ideas). It’s fine, you guys are the ones violating things, I just withdraw and you can’t argue with me. 2604:3D09:A17E:8800:79C6:16EA:9CD:336E (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well it can be both, so what do THE BULK of RS say?Slatersteven (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the truth can ascertained by the bulk of the sources. Two of the editors agreed that "violation" is a POV term. So can someone explain to me why using the terms "withdrawal" and "partial withdrawal" throughout the article is not acceptable? Neutral-Iran (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussed section and proposed lack of changes does not conform to WP:NPOV. This topic has been submitted to

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. An RfC has also been made and a new section made for that below. Neutral-Iran (talk) 08:01, 30 — Preceding undated comment added 08:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about withdrawal vs violation terminology and POV

Should violation or withdrawal be used throughout the article when describing U.S./Iran breaches? Neutral-Iran (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw per Springnuts rational.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw per discussion above. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw is the correct term for what the United States did. President Trump announced that the United States "sill withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal." The United States considers itself no longer bound in any way by the JCPOA. But "withdraw" is not the correct term for what Iran did. Iran has not abandoned the JCPOA as a whole. Instead, it has selectively and progressively -- but for the most part reversibly -- exceeded limits set by the JCPOA. This might be described as "partial/selective non-performance" of its JCPOA commitments. NPguy (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw per my comments and discussion above. Springnuts (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Violation: after reading the discussions above I'm pretty well convinced that 1) the sources do not lean overwhelmingly one way or the other and 2) it would be a violation of NPOV to call US actions against the agreement "withdrawal" and Iranian actions against the agreement "violation" no matter what language the sources use. We're obliged to report the facts as the sources give them, but we're not obliged to reflect the bias of the sources, and it seems clear to me that using two different words with very different implications for the same thing done by parallel parties to the same agreement is pretty clearly non-neutral. Loki (talk) 01:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@LokiTheLiar, Do you feel it's a violation of the specific agreement between the U.S. and Iran (JCPOA), or international law in general? Maqdisi117 (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The specific agreement, which was not just between the US and Iran, but also included France, Germany, Russia, China, and the UK. In my view, while the US certainly did announce its withdrawal, and it was often framed as such in US media, that in practice was an announcement of intent to violate the agreement. There doesn't appear to be any mechanism for unilateral withdrawal of one of the parties from the agreement, and so the only way to withdraw without violating the agreement would be to renegotiate the agreement with all the parties. Loki (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat what I said above, the JCPOA is not a legally binding agreement. As such, there is no need for a withdrawal provision and there is no violation of international law. NPguy (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Withdrawal for both countries GMPX1234 (talk) 07:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)— GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs). [reply]

Actually, the United States said that it withdrew, but Iran did not. Iran says it still supports the JCPOA, but will not do its part as long as others fail to do theirs. It's like withholding payment on a purchase until the item is delivered. NPguy (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Violation: per Loki. Why do we feel JCPOA is not a legally binding agreement? Albertaont (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Press TV should be allowed as a source

Wikipedia does not allow material from Iranian sources to be posted, and that is factually censorship. I have been contributing to the re-negotiation part for over one year, and run into problems posting legal and fair opinions from Iran. If wikipedia continues to cut down on valid global sources, such as from Iran, Russia and China, we have to resort to only posting USNews and WorldToday.Osterluzei (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action