Talk:United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
Requested move 8 May 2018
editUnited States withdrawal from the Iran deal → United States withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – This is a more encyclopedic name, and it follows the pattern of Donald Trump and the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action —SpanishSnake (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Removing move template: already moved to the requested title. Dekimasuよ! 19:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Unclear statement: the agreement is not a treaty?
editIt is currently written: «a "withdrawal", a technically incorrect term; the agreement is not a treaty» «Officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the Iran Deal is an international agreement on the nuclear program of Iran reached in July 2015 between Iran, the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany)[5][6] and the European Union.» Treaty states that «A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact, or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all of these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same.»
So I wonder if it is correct to states that is would be «a technically incorrect term» in the summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.170 (talk) 13:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
This was simply stated with no source, and is incorrect. I have fixed it, and added sources that say it is not a treaty. Attack Ramon (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- Here is some part of explanation:
- This controversy might be linked to different definitions used in the international law and in the domestic US market due to the Treaty Clause, as according to Congressional Research Service,
[1].The term “treaty” has a broader meaning under international law than under domestic law. Under international law, “treaty” refers to any binding international agreement. Vienna Convention, art. 1(a). Under domestic law, “treaty” signifies only those binding international agreements that have received the advice and consent of the Senate.
References
Merger
editUser:DarthBotto: Can you show what parts are merged from the other article? --Mhhossein talk 06:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: At the time of the initial merger, I felt that the overlap was sufficient. However, I've since implemented content that was better expanded upon with the merged article. At this point, I think a priority will be to clean up this page. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 10:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Quotes
editThis article is tagged, correctly in my opinion, with "too many quotes". In fact, quotes account for about half the article at the moment. Any ideas on how to trim down the number of quotes? I've taken the first step by removing tweets- something not notable enough to be picked up by at least a newspaper article is clearly not noteworthy for an encyclopedia. But there are still way too many quotes. Should we limit them to one per country? Other ideas? Attack Ramon (talk) 03:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Quality rating
editNearly a B, but the one citation needed has to be resolved. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)