Talk:Mohamed ElBaradei: Highly enriched uranium found in Iran is "of little significance"

Sources say so

To avoid any conflicy now: please read this source in the article: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=271622&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/ Jason Safoutin 18:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

I agree, look at this source [1]. Looks like no solid evidence found yet. -Genjix

This article reports gossip and hearsay in the lede. The article is uncritical in its analysis of "evidence" (in fact, none is sourced.) Please provide sources for the report, and do not use weasel terms such as "diplomats" without at the very least stating their national affiliation. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 20:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong: Reuters reports unnamed diplomats have confirmed microscopic dust collected in 2003 from equipment at the now razed Lavizan-Shiyan research centre in Iran contained traces of "highly enriched uranium."

The diplomats said the particles of weapon-grade uranium came from sample swipes inspectors from the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog made last January at the Lavizan-Shian site in Tehran. from: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=271622&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

It was found in January 2005...not 2003. This is a new incident. Jason Safoutin 20:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, where is this said anywhere: Reuters's sources are likewise unsure if the current reports find previous contamination or is the result of Iran's research. Jason Safoutin 20:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You trust a story which makes an error regarding *where* the equipment is located (Lavizan-Shian was destroyed in 2004, recall) to support *when* it happened? May I suggest somebody should find the putative April 28 IAEA report regarding this event, rather than relying on third- or fourth- hand references to it?

"They have found particles of highly enriched uranium [HEU], but it is not clear if this is contamination from centrifuges that had been previously found [from imported material] or something new," said one diplomat close to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)." - from your South African/Austrian source, among others. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 20:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This from ABC News: In an April 28 report to the U.N. Security Council and the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors, agency head Mohamed ElBaradei said the agency took samples from some of the equipment of the former Physics Research Center at Lavizan-Shian. The diplomat said the evaluation of those samples revealed the traces in question. here is the link to the second page of the ABC news article and the paragraph is third from the bottom: http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1954997&page=2 Jason Safoutin 20:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The accusations of "Unnamed diplomats" is not worth reporting at all. Neutralizer 22:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok so writing about a report from the NSA (USA Today reports NSA obtained call logs from communications companies) that NO ONE has seen and writing an article that cites USA today in the title is not suitable for Wikinews either. This is the same thing. We are citing Reuters, which is a respectable news agency. The NSA/USA Today article is all hearsay IMO too then. Jason Safoutin 11:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop it. In my eyes this article started very bad and it is hard to make anyting out of it. Read my other comments on this page. international 11:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

quote?

This is NOT a quote: ...contained traces of "highly enriched uranium".

This is put into context from this quote: The uranium traces showed a "very high level of enrichment, close to weapons-grade", the diplomat added. From here. Jason Safoutin 22:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Amgine on this one. Not a quality news item,imo. Neutralizer 22:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

DragonFire: the lede quotes the Reuters article which it references in the opening phrase. The full quote is "“Preliminary analysis by the IAEA showed traces of highly enriched uranium in the samples,” a Western diplomat accredited to the IAEA told Reuters on condition of anonymity." DNA article. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The quote I used in the article was replaced with the misleading quote. We can say: Diplomats told Reuters that the uranium showed a "very high level of enrichment, close to weapons-grade". Jason Safoutin 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

This article may be too hard to differentiate from propaganda

Is Deletion the best approach? Neutralizer 23:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The article is currently misleading as the quote in the first line is not a quote at all. It was removed with again, what I posted above. Jason Safoutin 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, it is my belief that this non publiishing is censorchip. The sources are there and its not my fault if no one likes or believes them. Jason Safoutin 23:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

to researche sources and be an etical journalist

I had a brief lock at this... article. Earlier today when I first saw it and locked at the edithistory I saw it was edited mostly by Dragonfire. I was doing other things so there was no time for more than reading. It felt sensationalistic but it seemed to be very seriuos and important news, saw many sources so I thought it was ok to have it on first lead. Now what? If it was false info on first lead due to a wikireporter dont check facts and sourses its very serious! I told Dragon some time ago to be critical to sources and dont just believe them. This is about etics that a reporter, a wikireporter need to have. If Dragon dont understand this somewikinewsie must tell him. I suggest he stop write this kind of breaking news and do local news with original reporting that he is good at, as far I know. This is not duckshit. international 00:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the sources? Or the discussion? everytthing is there. Again its not my fault if you do not like what the sources say. Tell them that, not me. Jason Safoutin 00:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

IAEA Press Release

• "Report on Iran Nuclear Safeguards Sent to Agency´s Board and UN Security Council" — IAEA.org, April 28, 2006

Press Release says,

"28 April 2006 | IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei today released his report Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The report was prepared at the request of the United Nation´s Security Council. Its circulation is restricted, and unless the IAEA Board of Governors and Security Council decide otherwise, the Agency can not authorise its release to the public. On 29 March 2006 the Security Council requested "in 30 days a report from the Director General of the IAEA on the process of Iranian compliance with the steps required by the IAEA Board, to the IAEA Board of Governors and in parallel to the Security Council for its consideration."

The report was simultaneously circulated to the Agency´s Member States and to the Security Council in New York this afternoon "

It seems all the reports which was published on various websites has no official standing.So far IAEA or UN has not released any official statement as on today.Indrajitneogi 12:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

publsih

I plan to publish this article, any objections? Brian | (Talk) | ^{New Zealand Portal} 13:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh, you say that you *plan* to publish and ask if there are any objections on 13:00 - and 11mins later you publish it?--82.141.53.98 14:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

• That's not really an objection, as long as we attribute our source of the document, holding them with the liability. --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 15:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not for lead

This story is not a story that should be on lead. It is speculative and with a unnamed claimed UN diplomat as a sourse. The accusation, about high enriched uranium, is weak and we should wait to better and named sources surface it not a official report. Dont make us feel shame for wikinews because Dragon and maybe some more cant evaluate sorces and understand what is good journalism and what is not. international 16:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? Then what of the USA today reports on the calls being oogged by the gov't? thats speculation. Jason Safoutin 00:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As long as we cite sources and attribute to who is reporting them its allowed. If its not allowed, then the USA today reports about the all logs is not allowed eiter. Jason Safoutin 00:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

for general information

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, concerning the on-going debate of this article:

I´ve read this article in a slightly different form for newsbriefs yesterday. The first paragraph does not provide any new info, apart from the fact, that it is reformulated now, hence I did not add it to todays newsbriefs, because the info was given yesterday already. And the news added, do not change the core info from yesterdays article, as far as I understood. Which is why I did not put it in todays newsbriefs.

I´d think it would be reasonable to add it to audio newsbriefs again, when we have more knowledge whether the other lab-tests, which were anounced in the article yesterday (and today again), took place and then confirm the info from May 12th, or widen the info, in case the lab tests do not produce the same info, about which we informed our readers/listeners yesterday. Gumboyaya 17:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Still NPOV (see above section)

This article is still NPOV as others are saying. Please do not publish without a consensus. Neutralizer 00:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

thewre has been no objection for hours. There is no NPOV ad you need to state your reasons Jason Safoutin 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

After Dragons povpushing to the title its well taged NPOV. Though I think DR is the best tag. international 00:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is complete disruption. Eiother state an objection or don't. Jason Safoutin 00:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Change back the title, Dragon. international 00:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I give up. Jason Safoutin 00:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one wants to be accurate, I am no longer contributing to this article. Delete it, blank it whatever. Jason Safoutin 01:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Jason Safoutin 12:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

DR ?

This article can be remade when or if better fact and sourses surface. international 01:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is censorship. Jason Safoutin 01:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

no, it is an article that sucks! international 01:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know thats your personal POV and that violates WN:NPOV. I also would liek to add that other than a title change you have not made any edits to the article. Jason Safoutin 02:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you be so helpfull that you specify whish part of WN:NPOV you talking about.international 02:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This article sucks is a POV as you have made no edits to it...make it better...instead of creating disputes. Jason Safoutin 02:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes its my POV. Any objections to that? Why not do what I suggested on IRC?international 02:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal POV's are not allowed to be inserted into articles. I will not allow that. Jason Safoutin 02:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the DR. This article is not up to Wikinews standards of NPOV reporting and Amgine's concerns above are still relevant,IMO. Neutralizer 03:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Amgine editd it and his edits are still there. You have not stated how it is NPOV Neutralizer, and by not doing so, this is disruption IMO. Jason Safoutin 11:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This story is still not newsworthy. If things develop it my partly be used to big rewrite or a new story. Or you might get totally right. But for now it is speculative and based on (one) weak source: The alledged unnamed UN guy. Present title can be: 'Unconfirmed unnamed UN guy make spinn for some reason'. international 11:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So is this article: USA Today reports NSA obtained call logs from communications companies. Have you seen the logs? the telephone numnbers? the NSA article is just as unsuitable for Wikinews. Jason Safoutin 11:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I, its best to run the story and try to get it as NPOV as possible. Nyarlathotep 11:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Im on my way to lose temper and for som time stop involving myself in this article, shouldnt ever done it. Do your best. Good luck. international 12:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Highly POV wording

At present, the wording of the article is highly POV. I, I recommend that you try to rewrite it yourself and drop the DR crap. D, I recommend that you let him rewrite it without harrassing him. Nyarlathotep 11:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope its not...does anyone read sources? In fact here is on from 21minutes ago...

Highly enriched uranium in Iran of little significance: ElBaradei http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0605149956145839.htm

It might be of little significance but now ElBaradei aknowledges it exists...now tell me how its POV? Jason Safoutin 12:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"Mohamed ElBaradei said on Sunday he believes existence of highly enriched uranium in an Iranian atomic site was of little significance at the current juncture." What is it you want to say Dragon? international 12:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You obviously dont understand the diference between POW and newsworth. Im in the border to jump on the BrianIronidris way of express things! international 12:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the IRNA story, it confirms the traces were found and states that their origin is unknown at this time. There's quite a bit in our article covering that equipment from Pakistan may have been contaminated with these traces. Both POVs, that the find is significant, or that the find is insignificant, are well represented and attributed. If you lift all the quotes for either side you can argue that is is pro- or anti- Iran POV quite easily. The last thing to do would be to track down the Aljazeera stuff associated with this and see if you can get an ElBaradei quote, perhaps for the Pakistan section.

Incidentally, it is newsworthy, reports of the investigation into Iran's nuclear activities are important and I'm sure you wouldn't want to see the possible followup confirming the contamination was from Pakistan nominated for deletion. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

International, I believe its fixed. I have added the source above and quotes from it. I agree to the quote you presented. I hope that I got it right. Please elt me know. I have done about all I can with this article. I hope that its ok now??? Jason Safoutin 12:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Now its npov as I see it but still news little significance

Storys main thing is that there was highly enriched uranium found back in 2003, wich Iran claimed was from somwere else, and that was reluctantly accepted. Now samples are reanalysed and same conclution is still there. Nothing new. If UN can prove that highly enriched uranium was made by Iranians 2003 then that will be another story. We will see and continue to make articles. international 13:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken...these are new samples taken from the sitr early this year. Intirely new samples. And they did not find out where it came from. Investigating is still continuing as ElBardaei said. I also readded the quote you removed as it balancec NPOV. Jason Safoutin 13:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"The traces were said to have been found by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency on equipment linked to the Military Physics Research Center at the Lavizan-Shian base." I this the qoute you base your argumentation on? international 13:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

After Dragons reverts of some of my edits I dispute publishing. POV and slightly missleading. "Back in 2003, inspectors had discovered that there was several sites in Iran which tested positive for highly enriched uranium, but the uranium was believed to have come from equipment that was previously from Pakistan." as first paragraph make the article tolerable. international 13:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

One I reverted nothing, 2 the move I made was becasue the first thing is the uranium they found on Friday...thats the story...NOT what happened in 2003. Jason Safoutin 13:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I dispute publishing. I find no sources claiming anything else than they found uranium on material, like vacuumpumps (?), from the now destructed whatever from 2003. I will revert your revert one time and if you revert it again I tag it missleading international 13:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

DO not threaten me with tags. Do not threaten me period. It is not misleading. red the sources. IMO you have not. In fact here is the source that proves it was found this year. Read the ABC source too. Second page. Jason Safoutin 13:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

"A physics research centre was dismantled and topsoil removed in 2004 after suspicions were raised about activities at the site.

"They have found particles of highly enriched uranium [HEU], but it is not clear if this is contamination from centrifuges that had been previously found [from imported material] or something new," said one diplomat close to the UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

If it was new, it would show Iran was hiding its own work on making highly enriched uranium. "

My 'fatting' of som text. Lot of spequlation. international 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And cleanup the sourcefarm or I tag it that alsointernational 14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Your just put a quote into context. That is misleading. I removed NONE of yuor edits, which was just moving paragraphs around and removing a quote that balances NPOV. There is nothig misleading here. READ THE SOURECE: http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=271622&area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__international_news/

The diplomats said the particles of weapon-grade uranium came from sample swipes inspectors from the Vienna-based UN nuclear watchdog made last January at the Lavizan-Shian site in Tehran.

LAST JANUARY is 2005. The site can be gone but the equipment got moved. Jason Safoutin 14:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

When was Lavizan-Shian site destructed Dragon? 2004. This is an old dispute abote if Iran had some murky things going on 2003. If IAEA (?) can prove iran lied then about contamination from pakistan we will hear about it. Reporting is vague if its old equipment, soil from the destroid plant or what. Stop speculate. Write a new article when new an solid facts are availible. international 14:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Equipment gets moved and reused. They found it. Again you seem to have a problem with the sources and the fact the ELBardaei aknowledges the material. He is talking now. If you do not like the report then give him a call. Jason Safoutin 14:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Im tierd of this

You didnt accepted my try, fix it dragon or it will be disputed. international 14:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, do not threaten me. If you continue to threaten me I will refuse any and all collaboration with you. Please use ediquette (WN:E). Jason Safoutin 14:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've read this from when I thought it was objectionable up until my current copyedit to move a few things around and, hopefully, make it flow better. I didn't check who was last to edit it before me, so I'll ask if there are any specific bits that merit the tag staying. At the moment I read it as, "well, on Friday Reuters did this report, which was a bit sensationalist, the head of the IAEA says there's no need to get so heated about it yet, and there's a good chance it's contamination. Iran says it's the west posturing against them in an aggresive manner" I suppose it could be interpreted otherwise, but I think it is a fair representation of the information that has been presented in the sources. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

publish3

So...how is it now? publish? Jason Safoutin 16:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)