Talk:Israel preparing for attack on alleged Iranian nuclear sites

Title misleading, additional sources
Initially, I was all for publishing this article. I've looked for additional sources (because 2 is better than 1, 3 is better than 2, etc) and found that "Israeli officials" have denied preparations for an attack. This is an important article, but should be developed a bit more. I added one additional source that includes the denial on the second page. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the title should not be so absolute about it; even if the article is completely true, it should say "possible attack". As it is, Chiacomo's sources should be examined & appropriate changes made to the article; then a new title should be chosen. If a new title must be chosen immediately, I suggest "Controversy over possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites." Or "... on alleged Iranian nuclear weapons sites"

The Isrealis, *unlike* the Americans, are generally competent at intelligence gathering; and I think everyone knows where the Iranian nuclear projects are housed. So we can be confident that the Isreal would hit real "nuclear sites", again unlike the Americans in Iraq. However, the civilian or military role of the sites will obviously remain in question. So "alleged" is not necissary if you only say "nuclear sites", but "alleged" is critical if the title suggests that the sites are millitary. Nyarlathotep 20:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Rename the title to "possible", add the same to the article and cite at least one denial in the article and publish it. - Texture 20:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)