Talk:Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists

Copy-editing tag

This article requires WP:Basic copyediting. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler: Thank you, I made a request. Mhhossein (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It's now copy edited. Mhhossein (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article fails basic WP:NPOV. Reads like Iranian regime propaganda, stating as fact that Israel carried out these killings. Editor manipulating and misrepresenting material[1]. Questionable whether this user can edit neutrally in the Iran article space. Has faced issue after issue with maintaining neutrality on Iran-related articles. See the absurd struggle on this page to create NPOV version of this article: Talk:Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Plot Spoiler: Sorry to say that, but I think your accusations are probably stemming from a biased approach (of course this is my opinion only). Btw, the problem with Talk:Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare were some quotes standing alone in a separate section which were heavily supported by reliable sources. As you saw, we just incorporated them into the article body. To show my WP:good faith, I'll discuss all the concerned points. Mhhossein (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Plot Spoiler please point out any NPOV violations that may have been left in the article. Do consider the fact that we at wikipedia just report what WP:RS have said about events. If 99% RS agree that Israel is the most likely nation to have carried out these attacks then we just say what the RS say. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein its even more NPOV now. @Plot Spoiler please view the article now, I have added new information about Iran's role in killing its own FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Copy editing

Tucoxn: As you see, Baffle gab1978 has done some copy edits on the article. Please let us know if there are other points the article needs for further improvements. Mhhossein (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein: I noticed that. The grammar and punctuation are still irregular. For punctuation, see WP:TQ, and the section on quotation characters within MOS:QUOTEMARKS, for example. There are other verb grammar issues. That's why I posted that tag. - tucoxn\^talk 19:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Tucoxn: Anyway, thanks for your notice. I'll make a new request at WP:GOCE. Mhhossein (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Tucoxn: Jonesey95 here from the Guild of Copy Editors. I read the whole article, and I read WP:TQ and MOS:QUOTEMARKS. I did not find any copy-editing errors. Please cite specific instances that you think are in error (or "irregular", as you say above). The GOCE strives to do a satisfactory job, and I think we did so here, but articles can always be improved. You are also welcome to change the article yourself, of course. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done. I have completed a thorough copy-edit of this article. I found just a few minor problems. Another editor and I have also cleaned up the reference formatting, which is outside the scope of copy-editing, but which should make it easier to pass a nomination or review. I believe that it is ready to go. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jonesey95! But I saw that you partially reverted some of your own edits in another edit. Was it intentional? Mhhossein (talk) 03:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, that's a nasty bug! I definitely did not do that myself. I think I have reinstated those edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat: Your version of the lead is not in accordance with the sources and contains WP:OR:

1. In this source, Michael Rubin and Mark Hibbs made no comment about MEK. Hibbs only said that Israel agents could be inside Iran, he did not say anything about MEK. Both of them believe that Israeli involvement is possible.
2. Based on the existing sources only Michael Burleigh and Parsi talked about the role of Mujahedin.

You must have explanation for your edit summary which said that my version had NPOV problem. Mhhossein (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein Mark Hibbs says that it's also "conceivable this could be carried out by Iranians who oppose the government even without the support of outside governments,. The article then explains that MEK are the guys who "oppose the government". The "original research" i.e connecting of dots has been done my CNN, so we can use it as CNN is RS. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat: Fact-a: Marks Hibbs said: "It's conceivable this could be carried out by Iranians who oppose the government." Fact-b: "MEK are the guys who "oppose the government". It's exactly original research if we conclude that Mark Hibbs sayid: "The assassinations may have been carried out by the dissident Mujahedin-e-Khalq group". Because he simply never said that! This is you who is concluding this way. There's not only one opposition current inside Iran. Anyway, we can't act based on WP:OR. In the CNN article only Parsi is arguing that MEK could have involved in the killings. Mhhossein (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Ardeshir Hosseinpour

FreeatlastChitchat: The sources say Ardeshir Hosseinpour's death was dubious and non of the them speaks of assassination for sure. Allegations are just stemming from her sister's claims which are just not proved. You know that per WP:UNDUE we can't base the article on just an allegation from an escaping sister. By the way, per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So, please avoid further reverts until a consensus is built here. Mhhossein (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein According to WP:RS he may have been killed by the Iranians. His sister is eye witness to that and her testimony has been published by WP:RS. You have zero reasons to remove the section. There is no dispute on wikipedia policies. Furthermore all deaths are dubious. No source says that israelis killed the scientists, they all says "ISRAEL may have killed". Similarly this is a question of Iran may have murdered their own guy. If you remove "dubiuos" claims then out goes israel and this article is AFd'ed. And who said you cannot base this article on her testimony? We are basing half of it on the Ayatollahs ranting aren't we?the Ayatollah and his cronies rank lower on the reliability ladder than an eye witness. Also we do not form opinions, we just use what WP:RS has used. If a reliable source (I quoted almost half a dozen I think) says that Iranians may have killed him, in it goes.There is zero undue concern here. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat: Why did you revert? 1- Non of the sources say "Iranians may have killed him" 2- The sources says his death was dubious 3- All the sources say that the four other were assassinated (no mention of dubious death). The death of a man who is shot dead or killed via explosion of bombs is not dubious, he is surely killed. But this case is different, his death is dubious. 4- Do you know what WP:UNDUE Says? 5- As you said above "If 99% RS agree that Israel is the most likely nation to have carried out these attacks then we just say what the RS say." So don't attribute it to Ayatollahs. 6- You are exactly acting against WP:ONUS, because the material is really disputed. Mhhossein (talk) 08:16, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein ARE you even READING the article? I just quoted more than HALF A DOZEN sources that say they may have killed him. How in the name of all that is holy and pure can this gibberish be discussed? 1- Non of the sources say "Iranians may have killed him" Seriuosly? It is written in each and every one of the sources i cited. Go read them and then come back. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

No non of them say, they just reflect what the sister is claiming. They just attribute the claim to the sister. Mhhossein (talk) 08:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein yes so? Dude we here on wikipedia DO NOT, and I repeat DO NOT talk about our own personal opinions about sources. What you think about the sister is worth nothing. What WP:RS thinks about the sister is what matters. You think she is not good, fine with me, just keep it in your head and feel good. WP:RS thinks that she is a good source, and they used her as a source. So there is nothing you can do to prevent her opinion from being a part of this article. Can you quote any policy that says that even if someone is accepted by WP:RS we can just reject them based on our own personal opinion? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Freeatlast should follow the WP:ONUS here. In fact he should not have reverted Mhhoseein. I also agree that Freeatlast's version has severs WP:UNDUE problems (a claim based an his sister don't need such mentioning). So we have to mention her claim but not as it is now. Please don't revert until a suitable and neutral version is presented by you. Lstfllw203 (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lstfllw203 how is something quoted in multiple W:RS Undue. Please explain FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify the point, per undue "neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." So, this is not a matter of number of sources and the key point lying within the definition is the "viewpoint"! In other words, the sister's view, i.e. theory of assassination is regarded as "minority view" here. You can compare it to the view regarding the involvement of "Mujahedin" in the killings. At least two prominent researchers said that. Of course this does not mean that we should not cover that (Hosseinpour's assassination). We have to cover it just as much as its importance. I saw that your version had made a whole paragraph of the lead and a whole subsection in the body! That's too much for that viewpoint. I suggest you and Mhhossein present your suggestion here so that other users can comment of that.Lstfllw203 (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Lstfllw203: But we are not even sure whether he was really assassinated or not. His death was dubious, this is while we are sure the other 4 were killed and just who has killed them is not clear. FreeatlastChitchat: That the sources have reflected her opinion does not mean that she had been a reliable source to them. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

just for fun reverts

@Mhhossein your "just for fun reverts" appear childish to me. Please refrain from those. For example you reverted me here and changed the text in the article to exactly what the source has said without putting it in quotation marks. This was violation of copyright and you know it. there was zero reason to revert. If you are unable to understand that "opinion" is a synonym for "speculation" then just use a thesaurus or ask an adult. Then you reverted me again changing "killed by" to "was died because of". Not only was this unnecessary, the English you used was childish and quite wrong. Again, if you write bad grammar, I'm fine with that, and I will copy edit it. But if you revert my acceptable english and insert gibberish, its kinda bad. so no more of these reverts. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

• I don't know why you start every thing with revert! Specially, this revert was not in accordance with Wikipedia policies. 1- As you see, an admin (Gatoclass) is in agreement with me. He even put Iran in the last place while I put it before US (I think you'd asked me to find "someone who agrees with me before undoing this"). 2- The involvement of MEK is suggested by some analysts while Iran's is mainly based on some loose allegations of the sister. Over 99.99 percent of them say that "the sister believes Iran government..."! Mhhossein (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Jundallah (Pakistan)

I am removing the paragraph about recruiting Jundallah to kill Iranian scientists. It is not supported by either of the sources. Specifically, the article from The Atlantic states:

Though Jundallah has conducted assassinations within Iran, they haven't had the level of sophistication of the recent assassinations of Iranian scientists. Experts I contacted deemed it unlikely that these recent killings would have been outsourced to Jundallah by Israel. But, as one of these experts pointed out, that doesn't mean Mossad recruits from Jundallah, conveniently positioned inside Iran, couldn't have provided logistical support. Moreover, as Jim Lobe observes, there are other anti-regime Iranian groups that Israel could be harnessing, also under the pretense of American sponsorship.

Also, the article from Foreign Policy states:

There is no denying that there is a covert, bloody, and ongoing campaign aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear program, though no evidence has emerged connecting recent acts of sabotage and killings inside Iran to Jundallah.

Please stop reverting other editors' valid contributions to this article. It demonstrates ownership of content and could eventually result in sanctions. If you want this content to remain in this article, establish concensus on this talk page. Otherwise, feel free to contribute it to a more appropriate article, such as Israel and state-sponsored terrorism or the article on Jundallah itself. - tucoxn\^talk 15:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Tucoxn, there are differences between Facts and Opinions (did you know that?) Instead of warning you for removing my valid contribution to this article, I'd like to invite you for taking a look at "WP:ASSERT", where it says:"When a statement is an opinion (e.g. a matter which is subject to serious dispute or commonly considered to be subjective), it should be attributed in the text to the person or group who holds the opinion." Also, per WP:WikiVoice, "Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects." So, no one is asserting that "Israel did the recruit" or she did not. There's a significant viewpoint discussed by Foreign policy, The Atlantic and lobelog. The viewpoint is that "Israelis recruited Jundullah members". The opinion is not stated as fact and is attributed to two american officials. So, what ever the reality is, we have to reflect this opinion. Of course we can add another opinion that their involvement is not probable from the viewpoint of some analysts. Hey Tucoxn, this is an encyclopedia where we reflect significant viewpoints. By the way, did you notice the contradiction in the parts you cherry picked? 1- "Jundallah has conducted assassinations within Iran"[2] and 2- "no evidence has emerged connecting recent acts of sabotage and killings inside Iran to Jundallah"[3]. Mhhossein (talk) 20:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

For more accurate discussion I ping a third opinion: @Gatoclass:. Mhhossein (talk) 20:43, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein I agree with User:Tucoxn. However consensus is not writ in stone. Can you provide any source with the statement that "jundullah may have carried out these attacks".? Or any other statement to this effect. Please quote the exact statement here, but do keep it brief. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Guardian: "The series of assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists since 2010 has long been believed to be the work of the Israeli intelligence agency, the Mossad, but most of the speculation over the issue suggested that the Israelis sub-contracted the dirty work to Iranian rebel groups like the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) or Jundullah."
• Times of Israel: "Unsurprisingly, too, he also points out that Iranians aren’t exactly pleased with Israel over the Mossad’s alleged employment of MEK (Mujahadin-e-khelq) and Jundallah terrorists to assassinate their scientists — an allegation which he says every Iranian knows to be an undeniable fact."
• Alaraby: "Foreign Policy magazine also reported that Mossad had recruited members of the Jundullah movement, a Sunni militant group based on Iran's southeastern border with Pakistan, to assist in attacks on Iranian scientists." Mhhossein (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=40909
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=40909

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

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. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Pulling this straight from the B-class review: Two grammar issues: "..reportedly died of gas poisoning from a faulty heater..." he reportedly died, or died of gas poisoning from a supposed (reportedly) faulty heater.... and American Secretary of State should be US Secretary of State.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Any detection by the copvio tool is due to quotes being used.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The timeline of incidents section needs expanded quite a bit in my opinion. It may be better to have a timeline in the form of a graph or similar, and then move away from a list of events that occurred and instead describe them in a little more detail. For example, the Ardeshir Hosseinpour article goes into pretty good detail on what occurred, and pretty much all of that is missed in this article. Let me know if you disagree.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Reading through the sources, it looked like at least the initial reaction pointed to an Iranian group that may have performed it (among Israel and the US as well). I think it might be good to split up the reactions into more of an initial reactions and another section called something else that describes the allegations at a later time. This point is open for discussion, let me know what you think.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	On hold pending 6b.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images of at a minimum the scientists who were assassinated would be useful. The best case would be images of the aftermath of the explosions if you can find any.
	7. Overall assessment.

• Kees08: Thanks for the review. It appears that you are dealing with in a precise manner. Regarding the timeline I also think that graphically showing the points is more interesting. However, I'm not sure if it's right to separate the details. How about reflecting them in a table? On the reaction table, I prefer to separate state and non-state reactions. Also, I have no idea why a separate section is dedicated to Ardeshir Hosseinpour, among others. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A table will be fine, assuming we are thinking of the same thing. I do not know why he has his own reaction section either; if he has his own, they should all have their own probably. I'll wait to finish the review until some of the previous comments are addressed and we get a little closer to completion. Kees08 (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Response to the review

•  Done The grammar issues was resolved ([4], [5]). Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
•  Done A pic was inserted. I'm seeking for more pics. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

More pics added. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Early closure

• Kees08: Did you fail the nomination? I though that the discussion were ongoing. I meant to reshape the timeline section! --Mhhossein ^talk 15:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

No, I saw that. Legobot must be confused, I did not fail it. Kees08 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

This was due to the article being moved earlier today, and then moved back. While it was moved, the article name no longer matched the name of this review page, thus a disconnect and the (mistaken) assumption by Legobot that the review had failed because it had disappeared. Now that the article has been moved back, all is well; if it moves again more permanently, the review page will also need to be moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Table

• Kees08: How is this table in your viewpoint? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I am a little undecided on how that section should look in general. It could probably stay as-is or have the table added. The important thing with that section is that it gets expanded greatly. The article is about assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, but there is only a small list describing the attacks. If the article was titled 'Reactions to assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists,' it would be fine the way it is. Does that make sense? So in general the big thing I care about is a large expansion of the assassinations themselves. Kees08 (talk) 17:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think I can understand you better now! --Mhhossein ^talk 18:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm dealing with the suggestion. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I checked it out, definitely going the right direction. Would you be fine if I failed it, then when you resubmit it you can just let me know and I'll take it up right away? I try not to have too many reviews open at once. Let me know if you would rather not. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Conclusion

I am going to fail this for now, but when you renominate please ping me and I'll take the review again. I think once you finish up what you are doing it will be very close to a GA. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Kees08: Thanks for your suggestions. I was busy with real life but will keep on the job. I'll ping you when ever I'm done. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Great! Don't be discouraged by the 'fail,' we'll get this thing to GA soon enough. Kees08 (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Title should be plural, not singular

Shouldn't the title be "Assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists" (plural)? Singular would be appropriate, if we were talking about a concept or a conspiracy, but we're talking about multiple events, which may be linked by a conspiracy, but are not proven to be so. Your thoughts, User:Mhhossein, User:7&6=thirteen, User:Peacemaker67, User:Pahlevun, User:Clpo13, User:Monochrome Monitor, User:Gatoclass, etc.? User:HopsonRoad 13:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• I would refer to the sources instead of WP:OR. Although some of the sources have used the plural form, one can find plenty others using the singular form. Sorry for reverting your good faith move, however we need to discuss it further. Thanks.--Mhhossein ^talk 15:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for your reply and commentary, User:Mhhossein. I don't see how WP:OR applies, here. However, I certainly agree that there should be a consensus before further action is taken. For me, it's a plain language issue. If there had been one event with several targets, e.g. a bomb plot, then it would have been an "assassination of [victims]" (singular). However, it was a series of assassinations. If it were proven, which it is not, to be a plot or a program of assassinations, then I could see the case for the singular form. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Note that in the source titles, when the noun is used, it's always "assassinations", other titles use a verb form. User:HopsonRoad 15:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

FYI, it is a concept, an event, and a series or group of individual events. In short, the word "assassination[s]" is contextually ambiguous. The descriptive noun that is best is the one that better fits the article content. Reasonable editors may differ. YMMV. In any event, whichever one you choose, the alternative can be used as a redirect. So in the grand scheme of Wikipedia it makes little (if any) difference. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

And Allah be praised, we don't have to worry here about WP:DYK — as this kind of esoteric dispute could be a deal breaker there — as that is a fait accomplit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the civil response User:HopsonRoad. Please see the sources ([6], [7], [8], [9]) using the singular form in their title. Although one may find sources using the plural form. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for these examples, User:Mhhossein. I note that the first two are about individual assassinations and therefore appropriately use the singular "assassination" in the title; the second two (both Jewish and Iranian) posit a possible campaign of assassination, which would correctly use the singular form. However, since in Wikipedia we adhere to WP:NPOV, it would be incorrect to follow the assumption of a campaign or conspiracy of assassinations, until there was confirmation either through the perpetrator's admission or a court finding, for example. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 17:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Gentle editors. The singular in this article title is itself ambiguous, and readers could reasonably infer either of your constructions. Sometimes an ambiguity papers over the cracks in the wall. This is precise enough for our purposes, particularly given the existence of the redirect. I also note that the title in fact still uses the word "Scientists", which is plural. In sum, it is close enough for Horseshoes or Hand grenades. You both won. WP:Drop the stick. We have better things to argue about. Just sayin'. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your observations, User:7&6=thirteen. It's not about "winning", it's about precision of language. One version implies conspiracy, the other a pattern of events, connected or not. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That would be your inference, not necessarily the implication of the change. We still have the redirect, so both versions coexist. You can only be as precise as the subject matter and sources will allow. By definition, a lot of this was covert and probably a conspiracy by parties known, unknown, proved or unproved. Depending on whom you want to credit, including involved tribunals and intelligence services. OTOH, You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

I concur, User:7&6=thirteen, that it doesn't take magic glasses to infer—correctly even—what is going on. And it's fine to report accusation and denial in an article. I just feel that the article—and it's title—should not impute guilt without substantial evidence, as reported through reliable sources. Having a redirect from an "innocent" title to a "guilty" one, doesn't mitigate the circumstances when the title reads "guilty". Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

User:HopsonRoad: Sorry for the delay. Yes, the first two sources are on individual incidents. You know that other sources are found by search ([10], [11]), if we're to find them. Mostly, I meant to tell you that WP:NPOV is not applicable here. I mean, sources don't have to be neutral. Anyway, 'assassination' or 'assassinations', not that big you assume! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

This horse has now expired. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Mhhossein, for sticking with me in this conversation. It's clear that what I thought was an uncontroversial correction of English usage doesn't have support from other editors, so we'll let the matter pass. I appreciate that you stuck to the topic at hand and didn't deprecate the conversation, itself. Keep up the good work! Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 22:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. This how we have to cooperate here. Thanks for mentioning the points. --Mhhossein ^talk 07:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 17:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Unknown is spelled wrong. Y In the Timeline of incidents table, make capitalization consistent in the outcome column. Y Keep the periods and commas inside of quotation marks, for example change from because of "radioactive poisoning". to because of "radioactive poisoning." Y From: In January 2015, the Iranian authorities claimed to have thwarted a further attempt by Mossad to assassinate an Iranian nuclear scientist. To: In January 2015, the Iranian authorities claimed to have thwarted another attempt by Mossad to assassinate an Iranian nuclear scientist. Y Should Artesh be italicized? - In the vicinity of Artesh blvd (No, per Foreign words. Y --Mhhossein talk 14:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)) Should Velenjak be italicized? - Velenjak, in front of Shahid Beheshti University Y Should blvd be Blvd.? (Yes Y. --Mhhossein talk 14:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)) Should street be capitalized in Golnabi street? (Yes, it's a proper name. --Mhhossein talk 14:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)) From: At 07:58 am, "a remote-controlled bomb attached to a motorcycle" parked near Masoud Alimohammadi's car exploded while he was leaving home in Gheytariyeh neighbourhood of northern Tehran, for university. To: At 07:58 am, "a remote-controlled bomb attached to a motorcycle" parked near Masoud Alimohammadi's car exploded while he was leaving his home in the Gheytariyeh neighbourhood of northern Tehran to go to a university. Y No quotation marks needed here: The "jolt " was so strong Y Fix the punctuation here: I parked the motorbike near the tree... ," Y Did you mean perpetrator here? - According to Maziyar Ebrahimi, one of the preparators Y Apostrophe in wrong place here - had attached bombs to the professors' cars Y Capitalization: in her Interrogations. Y Rephrase: Rezaeinejad was killed by motorcycle borne gunmen outside the front gate of the family home, while he was driving home with his wife, Shohreh Pirani, after picking up their daughter, Armita, from kindergarten. Y Rephrase: Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was assassinated on his way to work using "a magnetized explosive" to the side of his car "on the second anniversary" Masoud Ali Mohammadi at 8:30 morning local time "in Shahid Golnabi street in Tehran's eastern area of Seyed Khandan." Y Reword: In January 2015, Iranian authorities claimed to have thwarted a further attempt by Mossad to assassinate an Iranian nuclear scientist. Y
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Keep the date format the same in all citations, for example change this one to match the rest: "Tehran denies reports on scientist's "assassination"". Xinhua News Agency. 2007-02-05. Retrieved 2007-02-05.Y Sources in the citations only need to be wikilinked one time. Y
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I am going to list out all of your sources here, and since this is a sensitive topic I will go through them one by one to verify they come from a reliable source. The Guardian - Y Time - Y Russia Today - State sponsored news agency, but used appropriately throughout the article Y The Independent Y The Globe and Mail Y CBS News Y International Business Times N ArutzSheva - fine in context Y Xinhua News Agency - State sponsored media, but used appropriately throughout article Y CNN Y Hamshahri Online The Media Line Y The New York Times Y BBC News Y Mehr News Agency - pending request below Dawn.com - Using material from AFP Y The Jerusalem Post - fine in context Y Homy lafayette N Ynetnews - fine in context Y Haaretz - fine in context Y The Telegraph Y Reuters Y Human Rights Watch Y i24news - fine given context Y National Post - In this case, it is using information from The Media Line. Y The Times of Israel - on hold pending below Khamenei - fine, since it is being used for his quotes Y
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No vios, one thing came up but it was just published yesterday and clearly copied wiki.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Expand out both the 15 January 2007 and the 3 January 2015 incidents in your timeline. I think this is unnecessary detail and should be removed: Israel has a history of targeting scientists working for hostile regimes on technologies capable of being weaponized. In the 1960s, in Operation Damocles, Shin Bet sent parcel bombs to ex-Nazi rocket scientists working for Egyptian President Nasser.[13] Israel is also "widely believed" to have been behind the killing of scientists working for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s[13] and 1990s.[32]
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Response to the raised issues

•  Done Two minor copy edits ([12], [13]). --Mhhossein ^talk 13:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I have been looking at this a bit, it is very close overall. After you expand out what is mentioned above, I will do a copyedit and we should be more or less good to go. Looks so much better now, thanks for all your time you put into it. Kees08 (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Kees08: No details on the "15 January 2007" is published. Just two lines may be added. Is that OK with you? --Mhhossein ^talk 18:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, I don't know what more I can add to the '15 January 2007' event. Please consider that the details on who did the assassination and on the real reason behind his death is reflected in another section. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Based on publication dates, and the fact that the International Business Times itself said it is not a newspaper of record, I would recommend replacing those citations with the article it appears it borrowed content from.

I would prefer if the homylafayette source is replaced with other sources, as it is an inactive blog with no one vetting the information. Kees08 (talk) 20:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Y I removed the source as you had raised concern over it. I think this form is better, too. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Y The IBT source was replaced with the suggested one. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Can we get another citation for this paragraph? "According to Maziyar Ebrahimi, one of the preparators with the pseudonym Amiryal (Persian: "امیریل"‎‎), three teams were involved in the assassination of Alimohammadi. "Some of them were on their cars watching the situation and covering the area and I was in my car in a further place from the incident place waiting to take them away after the explosion was done," said Ebrahimi in his reported interrogations."

Can we get another citation for this? - It was reported by "US private intelligence" that he died because of "radioactive poisoning".

I think we should get rid of the information relating to this in this article. "In January 2015, Iranian authorities claimed to have thwarted a further attempt by Mossad to assassinate an Iranian nuclear scientist.[4]" There really doesn't seem to be any information about it aside from the one Iranian report. The other assassinations are very well documented from a variety of news agencies from around the world. Thoughts about this?

Really, the 2007 incident as well does not seem to be covered by any of the major non-biased news agencies. They do not seem to link that with the other attacks. I think it may be best to keep the events covered in this article limited to the 2010-2012 events. What do you think? Kees08 (talk) 03:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Kees08: As far as I saw, "According to Maziyar Ebrahimi..." was originally published by YJC. ِِDo you want me to replace that with this source? Also, please note that these details are based on a documentary which is mentioned in the article.

Regarding the "radioactive poisoning" issue, I found another source with same allegation. I understood that by "US private intelligence", they mean Stratfor. You can find the original report here. Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think there is enough information on the 2007 incident to keep it in the article. I'll take a look at all of this later in the week. Kees08 (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Continuing review

Alright, I'll put everything left to-do below. You can ignore anything left above. If it is still relevant I'll chuck it below.

Remove supposed, the next sentence takes care of the definition: Ardeshir Hosseinpour reportedly died of gas poisoning from a supposed faulty heater,

Take US private intelligence out of quotes, and add in the sentence that it was Stratfor. I don't think radioactive poisoning needs to be in quotes either.

Change from claims and suggestions to reports: though claims or suggestions

Are all these quotation marks necessary? Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was assassinated using "a magnetized explosive" attached to the side of his car on his way to work "on the second anniversary" of Masoud Ali Mohammadi at 8:30 morning local time "in Shahid Golnabi street in Tehran's eastern area of Seyed Khandan."

I think this is unnecessary detail and should be removed: Israel has a history of targeting scientists working for hostile regimes on technologies capable of being weaponized. In the 1960s, in Operation Damocles, Shin Bet sent parcel bombs to ex-Nazi rocket scientists working for Egyptian President Nasser.[13] Israel is also "widely believed" to have been behind the killing of scientists working for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s[13] and 1990s.[32]

User:Kees08: Those pints were addressed. Regarding the so-called "unnecessary detail"; These details are all from the sources directly dealing with our case, i.e. Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, and are used as context by the sources for erecting their claims. Do you still think they are not necessary?

Yeah, I still think it is not necessary. Kees08 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kees08: I did the job. However, I would be grateful to know why you thought that part was not necessary. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Sorry for brevity before, was on my phone. It was a combination of reasons. I didn't think it flowed well in the article there, it was out of place. It starts treading into NPOV issues, as we did not talk about any other of the accused countries' histories in assassinations. I think those are the two biggest issues I had with it, hopefully that rationale seems reasonable. I'll do one final read-through of the article and if all seems well, I'll pass it. Kees08 (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Arab–Israeli conflict

• User:Shrike: Does it have anything to do with Arab–Israeli conflict? --Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Iran is part of the conflict though its not Arab.You welcome to ask any uninvolved admin or raise the issue at the AN/I--Shrike (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Shrike: Thanks for the response. I removed the template until you can show that the article is a part of Arab–Israeli conflict. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV problems

The article doesn't talk about that Israel view the Iran's Nuclear program as existential threat similar to Holocaust as it seems it oppose it just because it don't like it.--Shrike (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Shrike: This is exactly covered both in the lead and the body. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. 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/20160301231717/http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/56618-150104-iran-accuses-israel-of-killing-nuclear-scientists to http://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/middle-east/56618-150104-iran-accuses-israel-of-killing-nuclear-scientists

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) 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Merge from Assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad

I merged content from Assassination of Darioush Rezaeinejad to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists#23 July 2011 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darioush Rezaeinejad. I think I move most of the relevant content. I left out claims of Mossad responsibility as we discuss this at length and with much better sources further down in this article - the short segment in Rezaeinejad's article did not seem to add anything to here.Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

See also

@Mhhossein: - please provide a clear rationale as to why Assassination of Ali Sayyad Shirazi and Targeted killings by Israel Defense Forces are relevant to this page in see also. Different locations, different time period, different role, those responsible in the see also links have an unclear relation to this article... It is hard to see the connection here at all. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Please provide a clear rational as to why articles appearing in 'See also' should have similar locations, time period, role as the subject of the main article. For your information, Assassination of Ali Sayyad Shirazi was carried out by MEK, who is also accused to be behind the assassination of the nuclear scientists. As for the Targeted killings by Israel Defense Forces, see Rise and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations when it's talking about the assassination of Iranian scientists. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:47, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

See also is supposed to be related articles. As you well know, while Iran has accused many parties of carrying out these assassinations, there is no conclusive evidence any which way. We should avoid indicating, in our voice, there could be a link via the see also section. Furthermore, the choice here is quite random - we could like to Operation Entebbe just as much as to targeted killings - the relation between killing immediate terrorist threats and foiling an R&D program is rather scant. I'd also note that those who posit some sort of Israeli connection to these assassinations generally claim the Mossad is involved - and not the IDF - making the link even more scant. If you want something similar - Operation Damocles is at least more inline with what some suspect here, however even that is a stretch given that Mossad involvement in the Iranian case is not confirmed. AMAD Project and the Mossad's acquisition of the Iraninan nuclear files may be topically relevant as it concerns the Iranian nuclear project at least. Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

It was not only Iran who accused Israel, rather numerous experts already believe they did directly or via MEK. Moreover, we're not going to add every single targeted killings, rather we should mostly add those related to scientists and like. Adding Israeli fabricated allegations, i.e. AMAD Project, to the article is just making the page POVish. The other two were really irrelevant. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Source verification failed

@Stefka Bulgaria: I saw this addition you made to the article. One of the sources you used is this Washington Times article, but I can't find anything in it related to US State Department official denying MEK's role in assassinations. Perhaps you can post the quote below? VR _talk 14:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)