1791:: 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.
1433:
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.
651:
1474:, 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
548:
521:
887:
936:
558:
915:
271:
811:
784:
821:
1671:
700:
679:
429:
232:
710:
408:
1244:
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)
1025:
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.
1282:
439:
288:
946:
1352:
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)
340:
319:
1090:, 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.
1168:
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.
1318:
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
1192:
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
1143:
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
1823:
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
1167:
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
1024:
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
1565:
You people are crazy. So many take pride in
Knowledge (XXG) 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
1432:
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
1207:
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
1580:
I decided I’m going to withdraw from
Knowledge (XXG) 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
1506:
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
1447:
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."
1351:
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
1314:
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
1310:
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
1243:
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
1185:
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.
1076:
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
1952:
Knowledge (XXG) 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
1756:
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
1420:
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
Knowledge (XXG) is not a
1208:
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).
1611:
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?
1540:
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
1910:
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.
1824:
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.
1757:
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.
1507:
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".
166:
1296:
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.
1525:
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.
1324:
1303:, 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
1002:
1378:
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. Knowledge (XXG) is not a
2031:
1582:
1567:
1542:
1527:
1315:
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).
1465:"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."
390:
57:
160:
2021:
1986:
380:
588:
2071:
2036:
1991:
1838:
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.
1492:
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.
605:
356:
896:
794:
2026:
1981:
203:
660:
641:
531:
1890:
347:
324:
2076:
2016:
631:
1675:
595:
92:
877:
2066:
2041:
1211:
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)
600:
1976:
766:
2061:
867:
1086:
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
503:
98:
2051:
2011:
756:
181:
2091:
2081:
992:
148:
843:
571:
526:
2001:
493:
1028:
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.
461:
1359:
1251:
1218:
1035:
43:
732:
1809:@LokiTheLiar, Do you feel it's a violation of the specific agreement between the U.S. and Iran (JCPOA), or international law in general?
1678:
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.
1471:
1121:
2096:
1110:
1566:
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
968:
2056:
2006:
1586:
1571:
1546:
1531:
583:
37:
465:
112:
142:
834:
789:
117:
33:
2046:
579:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
87:
2086:
1902:
138:
1327:. That is a good place to add material related to those sources which refer to the US action as a “violation” of the treaty.
723:
684:
299:
1996:
1886:
959:
920:
78:
469:
188:
452:
413:
1429:-- as a user pointed out earlier on this talk page, this wiki reads more like a CNN op-ed than a wikipedia article.
270:
198:
1287:
122:
1099:
1055:
1050:
The sources do not call it 'violation', which you are trying to force, which is pov-pushing indeed. Please read
650:
212:
154:
1363:
1255:
1222:
1039:
305:
1744:
1234:
1198:
1149:
1063:
352:
1689:
1355:
1247:
1214:
1031:
1727:
1709:
1683:
1617:
1601:
1512:
1483:
1438:
1087:
1051:
68:
1829:
1796:
967:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
842:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
731:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
355:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
83:
1953:
sources, such as from Iran, Russia and China, we have to resort to only posting USNews and WorldToday.
1472:
https://www.newsweek.com/did-trump-break-law-us-leaves-iran-deal-violates-world-order-risks-war-916173
1122:
https://www.newsweek.com/did-trump-break-law-us-leaves-iran-deal-violates-world-order-risks-war-916173
1958:
1937:
1814:
1810:
1779:
1399:
1335:
1111:
https://archive.thinkprogress.org/media-outlets-lawmakers-us-violated-iran-nuclear-deal-5907a0e5743a/
563:
244:
287:
1898:
174:
1962:
1941:
1920:
1872:
1847:
1833:
1818:
1800:
1783:
1766:
1748:
1731:
1713:
1704:
Should violation or withdrawal be used throughout the article when describing U.S./Iran breaches?
1693:
1621:
1605:
1590:
1575:
1550:
1535:
1516:
1501:
1487:
1457:
1442:
1403:
1339:
1238:
1202:
1067:
1043:
1882:
1868:
1740:
1230:
1194:
1145:
1059:
217:
1077:
Whitney R. Harris World Law Institute at the Washington University School of Law, told Newsweek.
547:
520:
231:
1723:
1705:
1679:
1613:
1597:
1508:
1479:
1434:
216:
64:
1641:
1426:
1422:
1383:
1379:
1929:
1825:
1792:
214:
1475:
1391:
1387:
1304:
1300:
886:
237:
A news item involving Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was featured on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1954:
1933:
1916:
1843:
1775:
1762:
1497:
1453:
1395:
1331:
826:
1186:
non-compliance is called "withdrawal" while Iranian non-compliance is called "violation".
1425:, something which several editors seem to have not noticed as the article itself is not
1311:
taking back or away what has been granted; the retraction of a statement, proposal etc”
1894:
935:
914:
820:
810:
783:
1970:
1878:
1864:
715:
576:
951:
1448:
The participants did not include a withdrawal provision because none was needed.
1394:- there are 6,198,456 other articles you can contribute to. With all respect,
1229:
I've never said that I agreed that the sources you showed were better either. --
456:, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to
444:
1912:
1839:
1758:
1493:
1449:
1100:
https://time.com/5271040/trump-reckless-violation-iran-deal-national-security/
941:
816:
705:
553:
434:
709:
238:
699:
678:
575:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
1382:: ask yourself honestly whether what you want to do this article is truly
428:
407:
839:
1640:
The discussed section and proposed lack of changes does not conform to
728:
1325:
United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
945:
964:
457:
339:
318:
1319:
a specific commitment, then that would indeed be a violation.
281:
226:
218:
28:
15:
1330:
My opinion is: the correct word to use here is “Withdrawal”.
460:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please
885:
649:
269:
1932:. Why do we feel JCPOA is not a legally binding agreement?
1299:
First of all, I note that 173.73.189.216 appears to be a
260:
1665:
Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
1144:
reach consensus, which certainly isn't happening atm.
173:
1700:
RfC about withdrawal vs violation terminology and POV
1322:
173.73.189.216 may wish to add to the “Reactions: -->
1193:
it is called, since this is clearly going nowhere. --
2032:
Unknown-importance United States Government articles
963:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
838:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
727:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
351:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1596:
Well it can be both, so what do THE BULK of RS say?
365:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject International relations
187:
1676:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view/Noticeboard
2022:C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
1987:High-importance International relations articles
46:for general discussion of the article's subject.
2072:Unknown-importance American politics articles
2037:WikiProject United States Government articles
8:
1992:WikiProject International relations articles
368:Template:WikiProject International relations
1687:
1353:
1245:
1212:
1029:
909:
778:
673:
515:
402:
313:
2027:C-Class United States Government articles
616:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
1982:C-Class International relations articles
911:
780:
675:
517:
404:
315:
285:
1948:Press TV should be allowed as a source
1774:per my comments and discussion above.
1583:2604:3D09:A17E:8800:79C6:16EA:9CD:336E
1568:2604:3D09:A17E:8800:79C6:16EA:9CD:336E
1543:2604:3D09:A17E:8800:79C6:16EA:9CD:336E
1528:2604:3D09:A17E:8800:79C6:16EA:9CD:336E
2077:American politics task force articles
2017:Mid-importance United States articles
7:
1977:Knowledge (XXG) In the news articles
957:This article is within the scope of
852:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics
832:This article is within the scope of
721:This article is within the scope of
569:This article is within the scope of
450:This article is within the scope of
345:This article is within the scope of
1674:There is currently a discussion at
348:WikiProject International relations
36:for discussing improvements to the
2067:C-Class American politics articles
2042:WikiProject United States articles
1644:. This topic has been submitted to
741:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Energy
619:Template:WikiProject United States
38:Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
14:
977:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject 2010s
63:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2062:Mid-importance politics articles
1669:
1386:. May I again encourage you to
1280:
944:
934:
913:
819:
809:
782:
708:
698:
677:
556:
546:
519:
478:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Iran
464:where you can contribute to the
437:
427:
406:
371:International relations articles
338:
317:
286:
249:section on the following dates:
230:
58:Click here to start a new topic.
997:This article has been rated as
872:This article has been rated as
761:This article has been rated as
636:This article has been rated as
498:This article has been rated as
385:This article has been rated as
2052:Mid-importance energy articles
2012:C-Class United States articles
1189:17:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
304:It is of interest to multiple
1:
2092:Mid-importance 2010s articles
2082:WikiProject Politics articles
1862:Withdrawal for both countries
1749:17:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
1732:17:22, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
1714:07:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
1694:08:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
1622:19:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
1606:11:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
1517:19:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
1502:18:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
1488:16:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
1458:04:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
1443:23:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
1404:22:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
1340:20:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
1239:19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1203:18:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1132:07:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1068:04:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1044:03:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
1020:U.S. Violation vs. Withdrawal
971:and see a list of open tasks.
894:This article is supported by
855:Template:WikiProject Politics
846:and see a list of open tasks.
735:and see a list of open tasks.
658:This article is supported by
359:and see a list of open tasks.
55:Put new text under old text.
2002:Mid-importance Iran articles
1921:04:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
1873:07:34, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
1848:04:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
1834:23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
1819:04:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
1801:01:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
1784:11:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
1767:03:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
1591:16:20, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
1576:16:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
1551:16:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
1536:16:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
897:American politics task force
1942:06:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
1390:and to read the this link:
744:Template:WikiProject Energy
661:WikiProject U.S. Government
2113:
2097:WikiProject 2010s articles
1462:Please see the following:
980:Template:WikiProject 2010s
878:project's importance scale
767:project's importance scale
642:project's importance scale
504:project's importance scale
391:project's importance scale
2057:C-Class politics articles
2007:WikiProject Iran articles
1963:16:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
996:
929:
893:
871:
804:
760:
693:
657:
635:
572:WikiProject United States
541:
497:
481:Template:WikiProject Iran
422:
384:
333:
312:
93:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
1739:per discussion above. --
1722:per Springnuts rational.
577:United States of America
21:
2047:C-Class energy articles
1323:Opposition” section of
362:International relations
353:International relations
325:International relations
2087:C-Class 2010s articles
1392:Single-purpose account
1301:Single-purpose account
890:
654:
622:United States articles
294:This article is rated
275:
88:avoid personal attacks
1997:C-Class Iran articles
1288:third opinion request
889:
653:
298:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
273:
113:Neutral point of view
835:WikiProject Politics
564:United States portal
118:No original research
590:Articles Requested!
891:
724:WikiProject Energy
655:
468:and help with our
300:content assessment
276:
99:dispute resolution
60:
1906:
1889:) is a confirmed
1696:
1388:create an account
1367:
1358:comment added by
1346:
1345:
1305:create an account
1259:
1250:comment added by
1226:
1217:comment added by
1046:
1034:comment added by
1017:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1009:
1008:
960:WikiProject 2010s
908:
907:
904:
903:
858:politics articles
777:
776:
773:
772:
672:
671:
668:
667:
514:
513:
510:
509:
401:
400:
397:
396:
280:
279:
225:
224:
79:Assume good faith
56:
27:
26:
2104:
1876:
1673:
1672:
1284:
1283:
1277:
1276:
1003:importance scale
985:
984:
981:
978:
975:
954:
949:
948:
938:
931:
930:
925:
917:
910:
860:
859:
856:
853:
850:
829:
824:
823:
813:
806:
805:
800:
797:
786:
779:
749:
748:
747:energy articles
745:
742:
739:
718:
713:
712:
702:
695:
694:
689:
681:
674:
624:
623:
620:
617:
614:
566:
561:
560:
559:
550:
543:
542:
537:
534:
523:
516:
486:
485:
482:
479:
476:
462:join the project
453:WikiProject Iran
447:
442:
441:
440:
431:
424:
423:
418:
410:
403:
373:
372:
369:
366:
363:
342:
335:
334:
329:
321:
314:
297:
291:
290:
282:
263:
234:
227:
219:
192:
191:
177:
108:Article policies
29:
16:
2112:
2111:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2103:
2102:
2101:
1967:
1966:
1950:
1702:
1670:
1667:
1281:
1056:WP:EDIT WARRING
1022:
982:
979:
976:
973:
972:
950:
943:
923:
857:
854:
851:
848:
847:
827:Politics portal
825:
818:
798:
792:
746:
743:
740:
737:
736:
714:
707:
687:
621:
618:
615:
612:
611:
610:
596:Become a Member
562:
557:
555:
535:
529:
483:
480:
477:
474:
473:
443:
438:
436:
416:
387:High-importance
370:
367:
364:
361:
360:
328:High‑importance
327:
295:
274:Knowledge (XXG)
266:
259:
256:17 January 2016
221:
220:
215:
134:
129:
128:
127:
104:
74:
12:
11:
5:
2110:
2108:
2100:
2099:
2094:
2089:
2084:
2079:
2074:
2069:
2064:
2059:
2054:
2049:
2044:
2039:
2034:
2029:
2024:
2019:
2014:
2009:
2004:
1999:
1994:
1989:
1984:
1979:
1969:
1968:
1949:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1923:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1804:
1803:
1786:
1769:
1751:
1734:
1701:
1698:
1692:comment added
1666:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1594:
1593:
1578:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1538:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1430:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1360:173.73.189.216
1344:
1343:
1293:
1292:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1252:173.73.189.216
1219:173.73.189.216
1209:
1187:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1071:
1070:
1036:173.73.189.216
1021:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1006:
999:Mid-importance
995:
989:
988:
986:
983:2010s articles
969:the discussion
956:
955:
939:
927:
926:
924:Mid‑importance
918:
906:
905:
902:
901:
892:
882:
881:
874:Mid-importance
870:
864:
863:
861:
844:the discussion
831:
830:
814:
802:
801:
799:Mid‑importance
787:
775:
774:
771:
770:
763:Mid-importance
759:
753:
752:
750:
733:the discussion
720:
719:
703:
691:
690:
688:Mid‑importance
682:
670:
669:
666:
665:
656:
646:
645:
638:Mid-importance
634:
628:
627:
625:
609:
608:
603:
598:
593:
586:
584:Template Usage
580:
568:
567:
551:
539:
538:
536:Mid‑importance
524:
512:
511:
508:
507:
500:Mid-importance
496:
490:
489:
487:
449:
448:
432:
420:
419:
417:Mid‑importance
411:
399:
398:
395:
394:
383:
377:
376:
374:
357:the discussion
343:
331:
330:
322:
310:
309:
303:
292:
278:
277:
267:
265:
264:
257:
254:
250:
235:
223:
222:
213:
211:
210:
207:
206:
194:
193:
131:
130:
126:
125:
120:
115:
106:
105:
103:
102:
95:
90:
81:
75:
73:
72:
61:
52:
51:
48:
47:
41:
25:
24:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2109:
2098:
2095:
2093:
2090:
2088:
2085:
2083:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2073:
2070:
2068:
2065:
2063:
2060:
2058:
2055:
2053:
2050:
2048:
2045:
2043:
2040:
2038:
2035:
2033:
2030:
2028:
2025:
2023:
2020:
2018:
2015:
2013:
2010:
2008:
2005:
2003:
2000:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1990:
1988:
1985:
1983:
1980:
1978:
1975:
1974:
1972:
1965:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1924:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1875:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1863:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1816:
1812:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1787:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1770:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1741:HistoryofIran
1738:
1735:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1699:
1697:
1695:
1691:
1686:) 08:01, 30
1685:
1681:
1677:
1664:
1643:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1579:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1564:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1539:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1524:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1470:This is from
1469:
1464:
1463:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1431:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1326:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1306:
1302:
1295:
1294:
1290:
1289:
1279:
1278:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1231:HistoryofIran
1228:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1210:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:HistoryofIran
1191:
1190:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1151:
1147:
1146:HistoryofIran
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1101:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:HistoryofIran
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1026:
1019:
1004:
1000:
994:
991:
990:
987:
970:
966:
962:
961:
953:
947:
942:
940:
937:
933:
932:
928:
922:
919:
916:
912:
899:
898:
888:
884:
883:
879:
875:
869:
866:
865:
862:
845:
841:
837:
836:
828:
822:
817:
815:
812:
808:
807:
803:
796:
791:
788:
785:
781:
768:
764:
758:
755:
754:
751:
734:
730:
726:
725:
717:
716:Energy portal
711:
706:
704:
701:
697:
696:
692:
686:
683:
680:
676:
663:
662:
652:
648:
647:
643:
639:
633:
630:
629:
626:
613:United States
607:
604:
602:
599:
597:
594:
592:
591:
587:
585:
582:
581:
578:
574:
573:
565:
554:
552:
549:
545:
544:
540:
533:
528:
527:United States
525:
522:
518:
505:
501:
495:
492:
491:
488:
484:Iran articles
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
454:
446:
435:
433:
430:
426:
425:
421:
415:
412:
409:
405:
392:
388:
382:
379:
378:
375:
358:
354:
350:
349:
344:
341:
337:
336:
332:
326:
323:
320:
316:
311:
307:
301:
293:
289:
284:
283:
272:
268:
262:
258:
255:
252:
251:
248:
247:
246:
240:
236:
233:
229:
228:
209:
208:
205:
202:
200:
196:
195:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
133:
132:
124:
123:Verifiability
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
100:
96:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
80:
77:
76:
70:
66:
65:Learn to edit
62:
59:
54:
53:
50:
49:
45:
39:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
1951:
1925:
1861:
1859:
1858:
1788:
1771:
1753:
1736:
1724:Slatersteven
1719:
1706:Neutral-Iran
1703:
1688:— Preceding
1680:Neutral-Iran
1668:
1614:Neutral-Iran
1598:Slatersteven
1595:
1509:Neutral-Iran
1480:Neutral-Iran
1435:Neutral-Iran
1354:— Preceding
1329:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1298:
1286:Response to
1285:
1246:— Preceding
1213:— Preceding
1088:WP:CONSENSUS
1052:WP:CONSENSUS
1030:— Preceding
1027:
1023:
998:
958:
952:2010s portal
895:
873:
833:
762:
722:
659:
637:
601:Project Talk
589:
570:
499:
451:
386:
346:
306:WikiProjects
253:15 July 2015
243:
242:
197:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
107:
32:This is the
1891:sock puppet
466:discussions
445:Iran portal
261:8 July 2019
245:In the news
161:free images
44:not a forum
1971:Categories
1955:Osterluzei
1934:Albertaont
1811:Maqdisi117
1776:Springnuts
1396:Springnuts
1332:Springnuts
532:Government
470:open tasks
1926:Violation
1895:Waskerton
1789:Violation
239:Main Page
101:if needed
84:Be polite
34:talk page
1903:contribs
1887:contribs
1879:GMPX1234
1865:GMPX1234
1772:Withdraw
1754:Withdraw
1737:Withdraw
1720:Withdraw
1356:unsigned
1248:unsigned
1215:unsigned
1032:unsigned
849:Politics
840:politics
795:American
790:Politics
199:Archives
69:get help
42:This is
40:article.
1690:undated
1642:WP:NPOV
1427:WP:NPOV
1423:soapbox
1384:WP:NPOV
1380:soapbox
1001:on the
876:on the
765:on the
640:on the
502:on the
389:on the
296:C-class
241:in the
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
1928:: per
1476:WP:POV
738:Energy
729:Energy
685:Energy
606:Alerts
302:scale.
139:Google
1913:NPguy
1840:NPguy
1759:NPguy
1494:NPguy
1450:NPguy
974:2010s
965:2010s
921:2010s
182:JSTOR
143:books
97:Seek
1959:talk
1938:talk
1930:Loki
1917:talk
1905:).
1899:talk
1883:talk
1869:talk
1844:talk
1830:talk
1826:Loki
1815:talk
1797:talk
1793:Loki
1780:talk
1763:talk
1745:talk
1728:talk
1710:talk
1684:talk
1618:talk
1602:talk
1587:talk
1581:me.
1572:talk
1547:talk
1532:talk
1513:talk
1498:talk
1484:talk
1454:talk
1439:talk
1400:talk
1364:talk
1336:talk
1256:talk
1235:talk
1223:talk
1199:talk
1150:talk
1064:talk
1058:. --
1054:and
1040:talk
475:Iran
458:Iran
414:Iran
381:High
175:FENS
149:news
86:and
1893:of
993:Mid
868:Mid
757:Mid
632:Mid
494:Mid
189:TWL
1973::
1961:)
1940:)
1919:)
1901:•
1885:•
1877:—
1871:)
1846:)
1832:)
1817:)
1799:)
1782:)
1765:)
1747:)
1730:)
1712:)
1620:)
1604:)
1589:)
1574:)
1549:)
1534:)
1515:)
1500:)
1486:)
1478:.
1456:)
1441:)
1402:)
1366:)
1338:)
1307:.
1291::
1258:)
1237:)
1225:)
1201:)
1066:)
1042:)
793::
530::
169:)
67:;
1957:(
1936:(
1915:(
1897:(
1881:(
1867:(
1860:*
1842:(
1828:(
1813:(
1795:(
1778:(
1761:(
1743:(
1726:(
1708:(
1682:(
1616:(
1600:(
1585:(
1570:(
1545:(
1530:(
1511:(
1496:(
1482:(
1452:(
1437:(
1398:(
1362:(
1334:(
1254:(
1233:(
1221:(
1197:(
1152:)
1148:(
1062:(
1038:(
1005:.
900:.
880:.
769:.
664:.
644:.
506:.
472:.
393:.
308:.
204:1
201::
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
71:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
