Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article requires WP:Basic copyediting. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
FreeatlastChitchat: Your version of the lead is not in accordance with the sources and contains WP:OR:
You must have explanation for your edit summary which said that my version had NPOV problem. Mhhossein ( talk) 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
"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)
@ 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 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)
"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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. |
| |
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. |
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)
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)
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, 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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. |
Apostrophe in wrong place here - had attached bombs to the professors' cars
| |
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. Sources in the citations only need to be wikilinked one time. | |
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 - Time - Russia Today - State sponsored news agency, but used appropriately throughout the article The Independent The Globe and Mail CBS News International Business Times ArutzSheva - fine in context Xinhua News Agency - State sponsored media, but used appropriately throughout article CNN Hamshahri Online The Media Line The New York Times BBC News Mehr News Agency - pending request below Dawn.com - Using material from AFP The Jerusalem Post - fine in context Homy lafayette Ynetnews - fine in context Haaretz - fine in context The Telegraph Reuters Human Rights Watch i24news - fine given context National Post - In this case, it is using information from The Media Line. The Times of Israel - on hold pending below Khamenei - fine, since it is being used for his quotes | |
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. |
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)
@ 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)
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)
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]
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
The redirect Iranian nuclear scientist killed has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17 § Iranian nuclear scientist killed until a consensus is reached. Gaismagorm ( talk) 20:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article requires WP:Basic copyediting. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
FreeatlastChitchat: Your version of the lead is not in accordance with the sources and contains WP:OR:
You must have explanation for your edit summary which said that my version had NPOV problem. Mhhossein ( talk) 17:37, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
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)
"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)
"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)
@ 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 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)
"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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. |
| |
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. |
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)
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)
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, 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)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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. |
Apostrophe in wrong place here - had attached bombs to the professors' cars
| |
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. Sources in the citations only need to be wikilinked one time. | |
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 - Time - Russia Today - State sponsored news agency, but used appropriately throughout the article The Independent The Globe and Mail CBS News International Business Times ArutzSheva - fine in context Xinhua News Agency - State sponsored media, but used appropriately throughout article CNN Hamshahri Online The Media Line The New York Times BBC News Mehr News Agency - pending request below Dawn.com - Using material from AFP The Jerusalem Post - fine in context Homy lafayette Ynetnews - fine in context Haaretz - fine in context The Telegraph Reuters Human Rights Watch i24news - fine given context National Post - In this case, it is using information from The Media Line. The Times of Israel - on hold pending below Khamenei - fine, since it is being used for his quotes | |
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. |
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)
@ 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)
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)
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]
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
@ 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)
@ 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)
The redirect Iranian nuclear scientist killed has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 17 § Iranian nuclear scientist killed until a consensus is reached. Gaismagorm ( talk) 20:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)