Talk:Iran says it may withdraw from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Spelling

Please spell check, especially titles, before publishing. Neutralizer 12:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Npov

"Threatens" implies something other than withdrawal and is POV in this case,I think. Iran clearly states they would feel forced to exercise their rights, in fact I don't even know if someone can be said to be "threatening" to exercise a right. Maybe "warn"? Neutralizer 12:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think they are threatening....give us this or we will do this...one could even say extorting. But thats a little too much. But threaten is that they are doing, only because they are stating an ultimatum. Jason Safoutin 12:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, they are not being forced, IMO...They are already enriching uranium...so wheres the force? Nothing has been done to "force" them to stop other than a "draft resolution" and UN referral. Jason Safoutin 12:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your point about "forced" is a good point; I welcome that edit change you made to change the word "forced". Neutralizer 13:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, have to go to work again (on call today). Another good story,Jason. Neutralizer 13:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Not Breaking

I wouldnt say this article is breaking. Article is about a letter that made some buzz, not a incident. Still I think it goes for lead so dont missunderstand me. The article wasnt a stub in its first version and if it was so there is another tag for that. Someone may, or I do later, remove tag and change image at frontside to that in the article. international 14:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is... My humble opinion is that breaking news could simply be any latest hot news coming... You can be sure that sooner or later the tag will be moved to the next breaking news or removed at all... :) --Yuriybrisk 19:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

There is almost some kind of predictable dramaturgy over this conflict now. That make, in my humble opinion, the coming related articles less breaking compared to its newsiness (cool word, newsiness, isnt it). international 20:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

one-on-one

According to the source on the top, thy will not talk one on one-: "The U.S. isn't prepared to have talks on a one-to-one equal basis." That is what they said yesterday, if that changed it must be in a new article IMO. Jason Safoutin 12:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

...Raw Story earlier made claims from unnamed intelligence sources that some parts of the US administration are opposed to diplomatic activities with Iran. It claimed that US vice-president Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are carrying out "an ongoing attempt ... to squash diplomatic activities" and using Manucher Ghorbanifar, a key figure in the Iran-Contra Affair, to monitor and report on "any interaction and attempts at negotiations between Iranian officials and US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad.

Although this is from a Wikinews article I am not sure that it "balances" the article....unnamed sources...speculating...I am not sure its a beneficial piece of info? Jason Safoutin 13:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)