Talk:1982 kidnapping of Iranian diplomats

Linked articles

The linked articles to the 4 individuals contain no additional info beyond what's already here. I suggest they all be redirected to this article. Jeff Song (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I went ahead and did this. Jeff Song (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

POV tag

@CitiesGamer66: I saw that you had tagged the article. Could you please bring your points here in the talk page. Otherwise, your tag seems non sensible. Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: There's an disscusion at the NPOV Noticeboard that's why I tagged it. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 14:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@CitiesGamer66: Can you say what POV-related points are raised there except those related to grammar? Mhhossein (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I make an edit request to the NPOV template but there's an issue with lua modlue, see Template talk:NPOV. KGirlTrucker87 ^{talk what I'm been doing} 10:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@CitiesGamer66: I know that there's a topic raised at WP:NPOVN regarding the alleged POV issues of the article. But, no special point is raised! Can you say why this article has POV issue or remove the tag? Mhhossein (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 18:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Per MOS:BOLDAVOID, I think you ought to remove the bolding in the first sentence. It doesn't make much sense, as is. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   You have already fixed this. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   This is a blog and should be removed per WP:SPS. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   I don't think raialyoum.com is a reliable source; it looks horribly slanted which I could allow at least from Iranian media but this looks not much better than a blog. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   The good news is, there's no original research because the text sticks to what the sources say. The bad news is, the sources aren't very neutral. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   This passes the automated COPYVIO check. I'll be looking at the sources to ensure there's no plagiarism. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC) It's good to go. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See my comments under NPOV. The reason why the Iranians were in Lebanon needs to be addressed. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   I have since added content to fix this, as discussed. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   I trimmed out a small piece where it mentions the Jewish camp being a heritage site. I removed that and it's reference since the whole paragraph is really Iranian propaganda and that citation made it appear as if it were better sourced. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   This article has a pro-Iranian bias mostly due to the heavy reliance on Iranian sources. I understand some have to be used but WaPo establishes the group was there in Lebanon under the aegis of the IRGC. This wasn't just two innocent diplomats, their driver, and a journalist getting kidnapped. JCPA says Motevasselian was the commander of the IRGC force in Lebanon. This written by a Pakistani officer (citing Houchang E. Chehabi's 2006 book) agrees saying he was in command of the 27th Brigade and was sent with his unit to South Lebanon. AEI agrees. There has to be some balance in this article to reflect that this wasn't just a kidnapping/murder. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   I have since added content to fix this, as discussed. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Editing has not been brisk recently, so there's no issue here. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There are no images, yet. That's not an issue for this article to pass but it would be awesome if we had something we could include. I'll offer suggestions if I see anything. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I'm putting this on hold for you to make corrections. Meanwhile, this book mentions that the group was in a car with diplomatic plates when they were stopped. With how many Iranian sources you're using, you need every non-Iranian source you can find. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

   After a long back and forth between myself and the nominator I've determined that further conversation will only serve to embitter me. This article suffers from real problems with NPOV and despite my efforts to find a reasonable compromise I find I am unable to call this a good article. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Response to the reviewer

• @Chris troutman: Thanks for the precise review. I'll handle with your points. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Unbloded the phrase in the first sentence. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• @Chris troutman: 1- This blog is by shaker kasraee, a journalist who had been with Kazem Akhavan in the journey the diplomats were kidnapped. His narration of the events before the kidnapping is essential as a witness. 2- Ray al-Youm is an important Arabic news source, as far as I know. As you know, per WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective." But, if you are questioning the reliability of the source, we may discuss it at WP:RSN. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Mhhossein: WP:SPS says using the blogs of experts requires their work "in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" and I'm not seeing that. My concern is that Shaker Kasraee either wasn't really there or he's not a reputable journalist. I know nothing about Persian news outlets but a cursory search in Farsi didn't reveal anything showing "reliable third-party publication." However, this UPI source substantiates everything in that sentence including Akhavan's employment with IRNA, his attendance on the trip, and the fact that he departed from Damascus. We don't need the blog. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• As for the other matter, I posted to RSN here. Feel free to chime in. You still need to add the other sources and establish a more neutral viewpoint. The Iranians were not simply innocent diplomats wrongfully kidnapped (and presumably executed). Sources outside of Iran establish what those guys were doing and it needs to be reflected in the article. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Per this source (Islamic Republic News Agency), Shaker Kasraee was there! Anyway, I changed the source, thanks for that UPI source. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: You seem to be informed enough in this field as you said: "the Iranians were not simply innocent diplomats wrongfully kidnapped." I'll reflect those sources "outside of Iran [which] establish what those guys were doing," if you could find any. The last time I expanded the article, I searched for various sources to maintain the required neutrality. However, please present "those" sources, if you know them. Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I provided four sources in section 4 (WaPo, DTIC, AEI, and JCPA) six days ago. Didn't you see those? Chris Troutman (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh! I should have noted that...! --Mhhossein ^talk 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: I checked you're sources. Do you want me to add that Motevasselian was "in command of the 27th Brigade" or something like this? So, what? Do you know that he was a military attaché of the embassy (See [1] and [2]) and it's clear that a military attaché is "a military expert who is attached to a diplomatic mission" and that "this post is normally filled by a high-ranking military officer who retains the commission while serving in an embassy"? Yes, we know that he was a commander. What do you want to conclude? Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the background that "...Ahmad Motevaselian was the most well-known of the abductees because of his service in the Iran-Iraq war. The 27th Mohammad Rasoul-Allah Brigade, under his command, played an important role in Liberation of Khorramshahr, a "turning point" in the war." --Mhhossein ^talk 11:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Based on the four sources I pointed out, there appears to be more to the story. Motevaselian wasn't simply traveling through, he was there leading IRGC intervention in South Lebanon which explains why they were likely executed. That's what those four sources make out. Until the article reflects the apparent Iranian deception involved it doesn't cover the main points and isn't neutral enough to pass GA standards. If you need suggestions on what I would add, please ask. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris troutman: As far as I know, IRGC had left syria for Iran at the time they were kidnapped. However, I really like to have a drafted version of your suggestion. I'm willing to add all the main points, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: In the Background section after from Iran's embassy in Damascus I would add:

US and Israeli sources explicate that Motevaselian, operating under diplomatic cover, was in command of the IRGC expeditionary force supporting Shia militias like Hezbollah in Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley to fight against the Israeli invasion.

and then after a "turning point" in the war I would add:

Indeed, he had been chosen to lead the Iranian expeditionary force in Lebanon because of his success in crushing the 1979 Kurdish rebellion in Iran.

References

I think that provides the necessary explanation while identifying a difference in point of view. Will that work for you? These are changes you should be making as the nominator. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Chris Troutman: Thanks for the suggestion. However "operating under diplomatic cover" seems like WP:OR to my eyes, unless you can show that sources are explicitly saying that (or something like that). Thanks. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Crenshaw in Terrorism in Context is the source for the claim. She doesn't use the term diplomatic cover but that term describes more concisely what she's saying. Do you have an alternate suggestion for how to describe what Moteveselian, a military officer in command of IRGC forces in Lebanon, was doing using a diplomatic-plated vehicle to drive from the Iranian embassy in Damascus into Lebanon? The reason why is very much part of the story about the kidnapping. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: What I know is that we have to adhere to the reliable sources. We don't need to reflect our own understandings of the things. if sources have not explicitly said otherwise, I'm totally against adding such things. However, we can/should add that he was in command of a military unit, just how the sources say. By the way, can I know how you reached to the term "diplomatic cover" from "what she was saying." --Mhhossein ^talk 19:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Crenshaw makes out that his assignment was military in nature (leading Iranian intervention) in an undeclared war; the fact that the Iranian government sent him in a diplomatic vehicle is diplomatic cover. That's what it is. Why was a so-called "military attache" assigned to Damascus in Lebanon? Since when do military attaches who work in embassies assist partisans in guerrilla wars? If it rankles you, I'd be fine adding the material I suggested without the phrase operating under diplomatic cover simply to compromise and move this review forward. I'm concerned that you seem to not be reading the source material. I pointed out the sources and you didn't notice them, then I mentioned it and you didn't understand why that content is important, and now you seem to resist the term diplomatic cover. I hope you can edit this subject free of any nationalistic conflict of interest. I cannot pass this as a GA with such a glaring omission of well-sourced fact. Also, the RSN discussion seems to indicate the Rai al-Youm source needs to go, so please remove that content with the citation as well. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Your repeated RSN topic opening without referring to the background and with standing on merely one opinion is not really acceptable. That would be find if you could refer to my comment. Also, consider that the editor's comment on Ray alyoum is conditional! Regarding the your suggestion; I'm in favor of adding the material without "diplomatic cover" accompanying it. I did check the sources, that's why I pointed out to the WP:OR issue. I'm not/should not be against "well-sourced fact"s, that's why I asked you for further details. You need sources that exactly show your point. --Mhhossein ^talk 21:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I have made the change as agreed. I think the sole reply at RSN agrees with my concern about Rai al-Youm. Since I'm the reviewer it's my call. Remove that citation and the content it supports or I cannot consider that this article passes 2B, in which case it fails. I can request a second-opinion, if you wish. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The sole reply, as I said, brings you a clear condition, i.e. "unless it's absolutely critical for GAN, and you think it will stand up there." Also, I've shown why the paper is reliable and your concern does not tarnish the reliability of the source. For the same reason we added your suggestion (which already thanked), we need the points by Ray al-youm. --Mhhossein ^talk 22:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm the reviewer and I say it fails the requirement that citations come "from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". I have, therefore, asked for a second opinion. It may be a few days. If an answer is not quickly forthcoming I'll fail this nomination and you can try again. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Thanks but unfortunately you failed to show that the source is not reliable. You alleged that it's a biased source and apparently don't pay attention that reliable sources don't have to be neutral per WP:BIASED. As a reviewer, you are expected to explain why the source is not reliable. Your report at RSN led to a conditional response accompanied by my detailed explanation proving the reliability. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not a point I'm negotiating. I have already explained that I don't believe Rai al-Youm has any editorial board or fact-checking. This is independent of the source being BIASED. MSNBC is biased but many consider it reliable because it does have some sort of editorial oversight. Rai al-Youm looks like some guy's website to post whatever. That other outlets like NYT call it a "pan-Arab daily" doesn't impress me. (I don't trust much of what they publish, either.) If you want to substitute other sources to cover that material then go ahead. We'll wait for a second opinion, you can remove that content, or I can simply fail this nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Failing this nomination after the energy and time put on this is not a good choice. Abdel Bari Atwan is the editor-in-chief of Rai al-Youm, meaning that the paper has an editorial board. The fact that the source is referred to by other reliable sources adds weight. Besides the sources I mentioned in my previous comments, see how MEMRI has based his article on the report by Rai al-Youm. You can also see that the website is described as "the Arab world’s first Huffington Post–style outlet." --Mhhossein ^talk 19:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Failing this article is an excellent choice. I have no investment in the outcome of this review beyond the fact that anything I put my name on has to be good. Perhaps you ought to consider what you think is more important: having this promoted or sticking by what I think is a weak source. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Did you consider this and this comment where I tried to show the reliability? Do you have things to say against them? Please read them carefully, as a reviewer. By the way, some parts of the material is republished by Fars News and The Truth Seeker (this is the list of their columnists). How about keeping those supported by these sources? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm content waiting on a second opinion. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Chris Troutman: Here's the second opinion by one of the admins, suggesting a solution to the concern raised by you. So, I changed the wording, made appropriate attributions and removed the materials supported only by Rai al-Youm. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Note to the second reviewer

Most of the issues with the article were resolved. However, the first reviewer raised concern over the reliability of Rai al-Youm. Hence, he took that to WP:RSN twice, and received feedback the second time. No one said that the source was unreliable. The first user said that the material could be removed, if it was not important. The second user, who's an admin, on the basis of RSs' pointing to Rai al-Youm, suggested to use the material based on the narration of the RSs and not Rai al-Youm ([3] and [4]). I did based on the admin's suggestion, as the material was important enough to be included here. In spite of this, the reviewer demanded another opinion. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

This conversation's also noteworthy. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HaEr48 (talk · contribs) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at this. HaEr48 (talk) 08:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Thanks for the review. I'll be answering your questions and dealing with your possible suggestions. Btw, I think it would be much beneficial to take a look at the former review. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• I’ve read the previous GA review. The reviewer raised important points and I believe the article as it stands now have sufficiently addressed these:

• You have included the Motevaselian’s possible IRGC angle. I agree with you that saying “under diplomatic cover” without backing from source would be bordering OR
• Regarding the use of Rai al-Youm. You’ve shown in the WP:RSN thread that RSes like NY Times already use RaY as source, and the passage that reference the RaY article is explicitly attribute to RaY. I believe this is OK.

Other than these, I have other feedback:

• Lead section: include the Motevaselian’s IRGC angle there too
• Background: Add another paragraph about the perpetrator (Phalange), its relation with Israel (this is discussed in the sources including Washington Post and help explain why Israel got accused).
• Also possibly explain how Phalange+Israel and Iran+iits allies are involved in the opposite sides of Lebanese civil war
• “According to US and Israeli sources”: which sources, can we name them?
• “Indeed, he had been chosen to lead … because of his success in crushing the 1979 Kurdish rebellion in Iran”: seems this is attributed to a statement from former IRGC chief Mohsen Rezai, not just US/Israeli source
• “Kidnapping”: explain what they were doing before ending up in the checkpoint, e.g. “On [day], the party was travelling from Damascus to destination xxx”
• “The abducted individuals were reportedly imprisoned “: state whose account this is, because the fate of the prisoners seem controversial
• The fact that they are abducted by Phalange militia in al-Barbareh checkpoints seem to be supported by Western source (WashPo) too. Maybe cite it too to make the article less dependent on Iranian sources
• “Israeli detention speculation” vs “Possible death”. Maybe make the title match, e.g. “Possible Israeli detention” vs “Possible death”
• “He died in what Rai al-Youm claimed”: name the “he” because you named multiple men in the preceding text
• I believe “Political response” should be its own section instead of a subsection of “Fate”
• expand acronyms like IRNA, IRGC at their first mentions
• “Israel agreed to give a report on the fate of the four Iranians “: So was this report given and what did it say? This paragraph leaves it hanging.
• When first naming “Fars News Agency”, state that it is Iranian or Iran-based. Same for Press TV
• Describe Ray al-Youm as “pan-Arabic daily” or something similar, as per NYTimes description
• Reduce unnecessary quotation marks, especially when you’re just using a term in a neutral manner, e.g. "turning point", "an Israel-based prisoners' aid organization", “disappeared”, "a spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister."

• There's still some more unnecessary quotation marks. I'll try to reduce them too.

• “ It was believed that they were then buried at a site where construction later obliterated their graves”: shouldn’t this info be in the “Possible death” section instead? Also, state who believed this
• “the case had turned into a political issue rather than a judicial one”: can you explain further how it turned into a political issue in lebanon?
• “ In a statement, Iran expressed appreciation” mention year (or date) of this statement
• Similarly for “Mohammad Fathali, Iranian Ambassador to Beirut, said that Iran”
• “ Commemoration”: Does the source say that the event is regularly commemorated? Or does it just say that there was once a celebration in Iran/Beirut?
• See WP:SAY. Prefer to use neutral Said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to rather than “claimed”, “verified”
• Rather than saying “XX had an interview with YY journalist ZZ and said so-and-so”, just say “XX said so-and-so”, unless the identity of the interviewer is crucial to the statement. This is more concise, to-the-point, and easier to follow.

HaEr48 (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I wonder why I did not notice your recent change to this page. I will address the above points ASAP. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Second pass

• "According to IRIB, Elie Hobeika's interview.. " This sentence is too long. Please shorten or split.
• Also provide the full form of IRIB in the first mention.
• I just found out that the Ronen Bergman book provided details not mentioned in the article, especiallly pp.157-159. The author interviewed Robert Hatem, described as "chief hit man" of the Phallange and claimed to be a witness. Among others, he described the torture of the four Iranians, him witnessing the shooting of one of four and his claim that he shot Motevaselian himself. I believe incorporating these accounts to the article would go a long way to balance the strong reliance on Iranian sources.
• Please also see my unstruck comments above.

-- HaEr48 (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

HaEr48: I was astonished by your claim, "the strong reliance on Iranian sources"! Would you mind checking the sources once again? However, I added ([5], [6]) the accounts by Ronen Bergman. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Third pass

• Looking much better now. In addition to unstruck comments above, and replies below, please also address the {{page needed}} and the {{clarify}} tags in the article. HaEr48 (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• @HaEr48: Thanks for your efforts, suggestions and edits. I think there are only three unstruck comments remaining:

1. Naming "US and Israeli sources" which I dealt with in this comment suggesting to use 'footnote'.
2. "state whose account this is, because the fate...". I've responded to this comment.
3. 'Commemoration section': I don't know what to do with this section because per sources (which I presented earlier here) the commemoration have been done almost every year during recent years.

I'm waiting to hear from you. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I consider the second point addressed. For point 1, the relevant policy is WP:WEASEL (please read it). We shouldn't say attribute it to "US and Israeli sources" if the citation is combining several US and Israeli sources. Think of it this way, if we allow doing that, I can write some pretty controversial things, cherry-pick two or three US websites that say that, and then attribute the controversial thing to "US sources say..", which is kind of misleading to the reader. The Washington Post article attributes this to the US State Department, and another source is from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs maybe we can say, "according to the US State Department and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, ..." ? I believe the weight of these two organization is enough to make readers take it serously, rather than hiding behind the attribution "US and Israeli sources".

For point 3: the sources are about specific events, e.g. there was an commemoration in 2013, 2014, 2015 .... "The disappearance of the abducted diplomats is commemorated in Iran and Beirut" is a general statement that is synthesized from the previous specific (not general) facts. I suggest either (1) sticking to listing the specific events or (2) finding a source which specifically says that it's regularly commmemorated. 04:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I've now addressed both of your concerns. Regarding the commemoration, I could find a source explicitly saying that the commemoration is held every year. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to the reviewer

• " Motevaselian’s IRGC angle" is included in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• I tried to add a line or two regarding the Israel-Phalange relations. There are concrete evidences for this relation, however, most of the sources dealing with this issue are not necessarily on the abductions and hence WP:OR is prohibiting. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Can we Ignore talking about how the opposite sides of the Lebanese civil war were formed since it's marginally related to this subject? --Mhhossein ^talk 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Those US and Israeli sources are immediately cited after the sentence. Do we need to repeat them one by one? They are Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, School of Advanced Military Studies, Washington Post and Penn State University Press.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• I think so, unless it "US and Israeli sources" is the wording of an RS. Otherwise, combining multiple source and generalizing them as "US and Israeli sources" might constitute WP:WEASEL. HaEr48 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea to add the sources' names to the article body. How about using "some US and Israeli sources" and determine the sources via a footnote? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• "Indeed, he had been chosen to lead … " was attributed to 'According to Mohsen Rezaee'. Thanks for being so accurate and precise. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• It's explained what they were doing before the kidnapping. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• The diplomats transferring to the Karantina is not controversial. Other sources have verified that (see this and this). Another citation was added, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Two other citations were added to the al-Barabarah checkpoint portion. ([7] & [8]).
• The other sub-title was altered to address the concern regarding the titles.
• "He" was replaced by "Abu Hesham", as you suggested. "Political response" was changed into a level II subtitle. The acronyms were expanded.
• I found no material on whether the Israeli report was published or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhhossein (talk • contribs)

• Can you find out more? It's kind of a cliffhanger to read that Israel agreed to give a report in 2006, but we have no idea what it says. HaEr48 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• HaEr48: This source talks about a report by Israel published in 2009. Do you think this is the promised report? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• The origination of both Fars News and Press TV are now mentioned. Pan-Arab daily description was added to Ray al-Youm. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• The concern with the quotation was addressed. The remaining quotes are necessary in my viewpoint. What do you think on this?
• Some sentences were moved to their appropriate sections. I checked the source for the sentence "It was believed... ." It was not determined who believed that and I found it best to attribute the whole sentence to the source.
• It was explained why it has turned into a political issue.
• The date of the two statements was mentioned. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• WP:SAY and the interview issue were resolved. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I tried to act based on your review. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

• @HaEr48: Regarding this edit, I can't say yes and that's why I have attributed that to the IRIB. The author of the source have reflected his understanding of the Hobeika's interview. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: What does the source exactly say? It's weird to say that "the interview verifies", usually it's a person or an institution that verifies. Besides, since whether the handing over happened is under dispute, I don't think we should use "verify", because the word assumes that the assertion is true (see WP:SAY). HaEr48 (talk) 06:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@HaEr48: Not that weird, sometimes a clue can verify something. However, we can alter the wording per your suggestion. I don't think we had asserted on anything because the whole sentence is attributed to the IRIB, i.e. IRIB says that!--Mhhossein ^talk 13:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please do alter the wording. Is there perhaps a better translation to what the IRIB says. HaEr48 (talk) 04:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I changed the word "verified" to "indicate". Does it suffice? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the commemoration I did not find sources saying that the incident is commemorated every year, but it's evident by looking at various sources. For example, see the 30th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe say, "commemorated in Iran, including in 2013, 2014, ..."? HaEr48 (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the interview, "XX had an interview with YY..." issue, I think mentioning the dates and the Interviewer magazine is important from historical viewpoint. However, I've split up the sentence to be easier to follow. What do you think? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
• I tried to add two lines to the background regarding the Lebanon civil war, but there is not indication that Iran was an ally in the civil war. Adding more materials requires committing WP:OR.
• WP:SAY instructions is implemented and there's no such thing as "verified" and "claimed" or something like them. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:55, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
• "Reportedly" was changed into the "According to Lebanese judiciary sources" to show whose account it is. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Passing the GA

I'm passing the GA now. Thank you for your work and sorry for the numerous delay. HaEr48 (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey HaEr48, thanks for the very precise review! I'm glad to see it passed and enjoyed working with you. Regards. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160803061454/http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/409/default.aspx to http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/409/default.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://soc.culture.lebanon.narkive.com/suQrd3qW/the-fate-of-the-4-iranian-diplomats
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.dailystar.com.lb/GetArticleBody.aspx?id=9446&fromgoogle=1
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://edition.presstv.com/detail/84062.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

---

1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping → 1982 Disappearance of Iranian diplomats in Lebanon – It is unclear these Iranian operatives were actually kidnapped as opposed to being killed on the spot or disappearing. While the Iranian POV has been that they have been kidnapped, non-Iranian sources do not state this unequivocally Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title is unnecessarily longer, so I prefer the original. As far as I can tell the fact that they were kidnapped isn't in dispute. For example, Washington Post (USA), Haaretz (Israel), and Al-Monitor (US-based) unqualifyingly used the words "kidnapped" or "kidnapping". I think it is pretty much agreed that they were kidnapped by the Phalangists. The possible executions (contested by Iranian POV) would happen in captivity. HaEr48 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Al-Monitor doesn't say kidnapped - It says disappeared (it does quote the Iranian secDef who says kidnapped). WaPo and Haaretz use kidnapped in the context of a diplomatic deal with Iran on the four. In other contexts, e.g. WaPo here - [9] and likely was in response to the disappearance two weeks earlier of four Iranians -- two diplomats, a journalist and their driver. The four are now believed to have been killed by a Lebanese Christian militia. or Haaretz here - [10] - they use disappeared. Several other sources use disappeared - [11] [12] [13] [14][15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. The reason this is stated this way is that determining this was a kidnapping is ambiguous - no ransom was demanded, the four may have been killed almost immediately, and the fact that the four included senior IRGC (coupled with IRGC's involvement in the conflict) makes qualifying the four as un-involved difficult. The Iranian regime's position is kidnapping. RSes usually use kidnapping when repeating the Iranian position, but often use vanished, disappeared, or killed (particularly following various militia accounts stating they were killed) when describing the incident itself.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The current title is in accordance with wp:title. Thanks to HaEr48's sources, most of the sources are in agreement with "kidnapping". --Mhhossein ^talk 17:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose when someone is abducted and not found that is a kidnapping. Not snatched by flying saucers. No POV involved. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

The article, at present, presents the Iranian POV of the events - often in an unqualified manner and relying on Iranian official news agencies and/or media sources (that due to lack of freedom of the press in Iran, can not be critical of the gvmt). The article also repeats WP:FRINGE speculations by sources such as Rai al-Youm.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

"Presenting Iranian POV" is not a problem in itself. It's only a problem if it's the only POV being presented, which is not the case. On the contrary I think it's important to include to all POVs to achieve neutrality. Excluding the POV in the country most associated with the event, and relying solely on the Western (Israel, US) sources would be problematic. I agree that they should be qualified, especially when talking about contested facts. I believe the article currently does it. For statements not likely to be contested, e.g. the fact that they travelled from Damascus to Beirut, or the fact that the event is commemorated in Iran, I don't believe qualification is necessary, but I wouldn't oppose it if you want to qualify them as well. HaEr48 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Surely the POV of the Iranian regime should be presented. However, official Iranian news agencies and media sources can not be considered RS for anything beyond the Iranian regime's statements - just as we don't, generally, consider Russian sources RS. There is no freedom of the press in Iran - Freedom House Iran Freedom of the press. The allegedly planned route of the Iranian personnel should be qualified. Commemoration probably not. Stating they were held for 20 days in Adonis prison should be qualified if from a non-RS.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Lack of freedom of press in Iran" should be discussed on other boards such as RSN, not here. There was already a consensus over the reliability of the sources. Add qualification(s) if it's needed. I've removed most of the mass taggings. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Sources should be discussed on the specific article talk page first, but per your response here regarding prior consensus jere, I posted this to RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving the article

I propose we move this to "1982 kidnapping of Iranian diplomats." As is stands now, the title can be taken in two different ways, including that this refers to Iran kidnapping diplomats. What I suggest is clearer.VR _talk 16:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vice regent: It's a nice suggestion. You can do it if you think the move is not controversial. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing! I will wait a few days to see if anyone objects.VR _talk 03:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@Vice regent: Hey, more than a year since you suggested the move. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)