Highly slanted

Just to note here what we've been saying on the talk page:

This is an interview. We're reporting factually that this person said these things. The interviewee may be saying slanted things, but our article just reports what was said. This is kind of the essence of WN:NPOV.

No you are not.

"Its claims over nuclear enrichment are for a nuclear power program, although this requires 5% enrichment as opposed to the 20% enrichment level they claim the right to pursue which is more commonly used in nuclear bombs."

20% is not weapons grade.

There is discussion on-going about what to do about that sentence, yes — although frankly the "20% is not weapons grade" is trivial, a choice-of-preposition issue; the thing about the sentence that may occasion a {{correction}} (investigation ongoing) is something far more subtle.

What's really saddening is that while we slipped up a little on a factual detail in the intro, those objecting to it do not exhibit an ontological distinction between fact and opinion. (Emphasis on exhibit; one can only directly observe what is said, not what is thought.) The objections don't come across as having an interest in factual accuracy; they come across as seeking to discredit other, unproblematic facts in the article by association.

This is an interview. We are clearly presenting what the interviewee said as having been said by the interviewee, rather that being necessarily "true". The distinction matters between saying something is true, and clearly presenting it as something that someone else said is true.

Ditto this. That a correction over a minor detail that was incorrect because of another trusted source is something that seems rather trivial and easily addressed, but the focus on it gives the larger appearance of trying to discredit the opinions of the subject interviewed despite the fact that their words are clearly being defined as their opinions and not those of the reporter.