Talk:Iran says it's ready for standoff over nuclear activities

Sources?
Where are the goddamn sources for this piece? Shouldn't something listed as "breaking news" have atleast one link to another news website?
 * Sorry there was a vandal who removed them. Article is fixed, user was blocked. DragonFire1024 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Typo
Title should be "Iran says it's ready for nuclear standoff."70.106.44.3 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * its and it's have always confused me (and I'm a stickler!). However, I believe IP is correct, as "its" is progressive, so I assume "it's" is "it is".... Where's (Where IS) the style guide? terinjokes | Talk | Come visit the WikiBistro 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's usually means It is...I changed it :) DragonFire1024 22:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's always means "it is". It is a contraction. --24.147.86.187 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Title
Anyone else think that "ready for nuclear standoff" reminds too much "ready for standoff with nuclear weapons" instead of "ready for standoff over Iran's (allegedly non-military) nuclear capabilities"? The difference is, I think, huge and I would like to see the title rephrased to avoid unnecessary confusion and possible FUD. 194.157.147.13 23:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No because no where does it say nuclear weapons. Assuming the nuclear program is peaceful, it would not be nuclear weapons. And we cannot assume that there are nuclear weapons. DragonFire1024 23:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly, we can't, but a "nuclear standoff" sounds as if there were nuclear weapons, therefore I suggest a more neutral phrasing ("standoff over nuclear capabilities" or similar). 194.157.147.13 23:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well sources have to reflect that new title. We cannot assume they are weapons or programs. Only what the sources say. If a source can be found to neutralize that then I think it can be changed. We don't know the nuclear capabilities of Iran...to say so would be misleading. DragonFire1024 23:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly! I don't want to say that Iran has nuclear weapons, I want to make sure that people don't get the impression that Ahmadinejad has stated that Iran is ready for nuclear warfare, when what he has said is that Iran is ready for a standoff over Iran's possibly non-military nuclear capabilities. 194.157.147.13 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So, if you don't mind, I'd like to change the title to "Iran says it's ready for standoff over nuclear capabilities", which IMO takes no standing on whether Iran has or has not nuclear weapons, whereas "ready for nuclear standoff" could be interpreted as if there were and the Iranians were ready to use them. 194.157.147.13 23:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I am glad that you made the unanimous decision to change it...thanks for collaborating (sarcasm). DragonFire1024 23:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Geez, man, what happened to "be bold"? Ok. Peace. But do you see my point, and do you mind the change, then?Naphra 23:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The change has to reflect what sources say, not what we THINK. I am not disagreeing with you, but in order for this to be ok, we have to find sources for what we "believe." DragonFire1024 23:57, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite follow. What I'm saying is that this is exactly why a wording like "standoff over nuclear capabilities" would be better, because we don't have sources that say that Iran has nuclear weapons and therefore saying "nuclear standoff" is a bit risky because it could be interpreted as if there were those, whereas "standoff over nuclear capabilities" would reflect more our present knowledge, and, more importantly, what Ahmadinejad has said ("ready for any possibility in the standoff over nuclear activities", not "ready for nuclear standoff"). Naphra 00:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If nobody will argue this any further, I'm going to go ahead and rephrase the title to "Iran says it's ready for standoff over nuclear activities" which in my opinion better reflects what actually has been said. Comments? Naphra 00:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nuclear activities sounds good to me. I agree that "nuclear standoff" is misleading.--DCo1 00:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Current title is good, some of our established contributors are quite conservative in some respects yet liberal with things like the tab.  On a slightly related topic, if people can highlight articles on the glorious leader of Iran I'll properly categorise them having recently added the category. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)