Talk:IAEA Iran report leaked


 * 11:00, 29 April 2006 Deprifry (factual inaccuracies. Iran has, as a member state, access to the report, see last paragraph of source)

You're perfectly correct - thanks! Boud 11:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken this from breaking (as it is no longer), and pushed it back to development, because there is a lot of information that should be added to this (this article is quite bare right now). --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 19:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The report was leaked - this is breaking news. Boud 22:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * i agree that more info could be added. But i guess we disagree about the "breaking" aspect. When a document which could possibly spark off a major war is published with a "restricted" distribution, and then gets published on the internet, this is IMHO breaking news. Maybe we need some other opinions on this? Boud 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Leaking a report online would not be breaking news, as it could have happened days ago.  --MrMiscellanious (talk) – 22:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The report was published with "restricted" access only yesterday 28 April. The wikinews article Iran nuclear impasse continues is dated (Friday) 28 April and states The IAEA is scheduled to report on Iran's compliance of the Security Council resolution on Friday. and made no comment on the presence of a leaked copy of the report on the internet. So at least to the wikinews community, the report was only found a few hours ago. Moreover, the IAEA still claims that the report cannot be published: http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/iranreport_sg.html So "breaking" seems to be correct - e.g. the UN Security Council might ask for Payvand to be blocked from publishing, whatever. Boud 23:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Breaking" seems right. Neutralizer 01:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)