Talk:Haft-e Tir bombing

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hafte Tir bombing. 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/20090628075550/http://www.shahsawandi.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=39&page=view&catid=8&PageNo=1&key=16&hit=1 to http://www.shahsawandi.com/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=39&page=view&catid=8&PageNo=1&key=16&hit=1

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).

• 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) 21:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi living under a false name was assasinated in 2015 in the Netherlands, according to Dutch newspaper Dutch police found out only in 2018 it was Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi. Andries (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Source's saying it was MEK

Yes, it was MEK:

• "...the MeK launched violent attacks against IRP targets, the largest of which—the bombing of the IRP’s Tehran headquarters—killed more than 70 members of the leadership." RAND
• "As in the case, in 1981, of the bombs exploded in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials." [1]
• "...the MEK launched a bomb campaign against the Islamic government. In 1981, it attacked the headquarters of the Islamic Republic Party, killing 74 senior officials including the party leader and 27 members of parliament." The Guardian
• "In 1981 the MEK planted bombs in the head office of the Islamic Republic Party and the Premier’s office, killing some 70 high-ranking Iranian officials." [2]

There are certainly more sources on this. So, don't change the well-sourced facts. --Mhhossein ^talk 15:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Read the sources carefully before removing text. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Background

The whole section of Background was removed. while I had checked sources, Unfortunately, the section was based on SYNTH. There was nothing in sources that presented material in Background leads to Hafte Tir bombing. We need sources that exactly say X or Y is the reason for the bombing.Saff V. (talk) 06:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary is not correct

Please consider this edit, Some of my edits was reverted, while:

1. As User:Icewhiz said here, Tasnim can only be used to source IR regime positions, I exactly used Tasnim to make clear Iran Opinion about the bombing.
2. It was written in the edit summary Source not found, Tasnim News Agency not RS, and who was thought to be responsible needs to be in the lede, but I cannot find out why this well-sourced sentence According to the U.S department of state, the bombing was carried out by the MEK was removed ? Saff V. (talk) 07:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

(responding to ping) Tasnim (as well as other Iranian agencies) can indeed be used to represent IRI views - however it isn't clearly attributed - i.e. "As Tasnim News Agency reported, it is not possible..." is not a clearly attributed statement. The state department PDF is a dead link - and this would seem to me to be a primary document (probably reflecting a view point (possibly even not for State as a whole) for a certain time). Isn't there a secondary source, academic preferably, covering all the claims and counterclaims around the 1981 bombing? Using 1-2 good sources would be preferable to primaryish viewpoints. Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: There are probably numerous sources saying it as a fact. Three of the for example:

• "One week after his removal, MEK's militants bombed IRP headquarters, killing 70 high-ranking members. ABC-CLIO
• "From June through September, bombs planted by MEK-notably in the IRP headquarters and governmental offices, killed hundreds... ." Routledge
• "On June 28, 1981, they [MEK] set off a bomb in the conference hall of the IRP headquarters, which killed ... " Cambridge University Press.

Also, how can I make more clear attribution from Tasnim report? Would you give me a clue?Saff V. (talk) 19:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

None of the academic sources support "it is not possible that MEK to be fully responsible for the incident, and the bomb had been transmitted to Iran or built by military technicians in the country, with the help of Western and Israeli spy services. In other words, the United States and Israel,". Which I will note is mildly unlikely given the Israeli-IRI secret arrangement at that time (weapon supplies to IRI, Operation Scorch Sword/Operation Opera.... Israel was more concerned with Saddam winning, despite the broken relations - Israel's role in the Iran–Iraq war)..... However (my OR here aside), if you really to use Tasnim - then "according to Tasnim....". I would suggest, however, sticking to academic sources for a 1981 event.Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not only I am not going to claim that MEK is fully responsible for the bombing, but also I am just going to gather all opinions for accusing the responsibility of bombing. I replaced according to Tasnim in the article. Thanks for your contribution.Saff V. (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Saff V., you keep removing this without any reasoning:

"Later a Kermanshah tribunal executed four "Iraqi agents" for the incident, and a tribunal in Tehran executed Mehdi Tafari for the same incident. In 1985, the head of military intelligence informed the press that this had been the work of royalist army officers. Iran's security forces blamed the United States and "internal mercenaries".

This is relevant and backed by RS, please do not remove without an actual reason to. Also, you keep trying to add the following into the article:

According to Tasnim, it is not possible that MEK to be fully responsible for the incident, and the bomb had been transmitted to Iran or built by military technicians in the country, with the help of Western and Israeli spy services. In other words, the United States and Israel, with the sophisticated technology of that day, designed the bomb and plan of operation then presented the bomb and plan to MEK for operating.

These are speculations by non non reliable sources; far, far, far away from any form of encyclopedic content. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't accuse me to remove without reason, while you didn't pay attention to my edit summary or advice of Icewhiz " if you really to use Tasnim - then "according to Tasnim...." or as the said, Tasnim is reliable to explain Iran's position! Lead is a place for important material, Are you going to gather all opinions about the bombing in the lead?! the Kermanshah tribunal executed is in the body and it is enough, don't add it to lead! Also, it is necessary to check newly presented sources bout Kermanshah tribunal, that I will do ASAP.Saff V. (talk) 10:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Tasmin was disputed by another editor as "dodgy", so there isn't consensus to include it. Also what you've included is hardly encyclopedia material. About the lede, if people were executed in a tribunal as a result of the case, this is important information and lede-worthy - NYT sources backing this up (not Tasmin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

You removed the content sourced by US department of state. A careless edit like that leaves me with no choice other than reverting it.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, it's still there, and this has nothing to do with the misrepresentation of the Dutch sources that you keep adding to the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

References
References

As I had explained in the edit summary you should not make interpretations of why the US department of state relocated the content. The US department of state made some changes to their website. They now keep that report in this section of their website. You are misrepresenting the facts by saying they took it down from their website. --Kazemita1 (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: can I ask you to convince Stefka about using Tasnim for Iran 's position?! He doesn't want to accept it!. Also Stefka, Don't add undue weight material to lead while I have restored it in the body. I checked the Duch source. It really supports the material. De elektricien 'Ali Motamed' (56) die volgens justitie op 15 december 2015 door Amsterdammers is geliquideerd in Almere, was in werkelijkheid vrijwel zeker de in Iran ter dood veroordeelde aanslagpleger Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi...Hij was in Nederland onder een schuilnaam een nieuw leven begonnen. Reza Kolahi Samadi wordt beschouwd als hoofdverantwoordelijke voor de bomaanslag op 28 juni 1981 op het hoofdkwartier van de Islamitische Republikeinse Partij in Teheran, tijdens een top van partijleiders. You can use google translate.Saff V. (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Tasnim could be use for the Iranian position (at some point in time). However looking at the article it some somewhat full of the positions of various parties - and very short on actual events - e.g. the actual bombing is only one short paragraph - I would think the bombing itself should be expanded. @Saff V.: - does this reorganization (same text, except for a few sentences beginning with "A few years later, a Kermanshah tribunal executed four...." which appeared twice) make sense? Icewhiz (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Tag

After making natural and moderate the material of the article, I pick up the tags. @Mhhossein: Has any problem remained?Saff V. (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Saff V. The lead now contains the major points and proper attributions are done. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I would disagree. I will restore the tags and will be discussing the edits here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Stefka , Disagree about what?! Please discuss here at first, then edit the article. There is the agreement of three users on current version.Saff V. (talk) 06:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please retain the tags until you reach consensus - I restored them. See WP:WNTRMT. Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It is no problem, it might that there are POV issues (which I don't see) in the article but about the additional citations not. I tried to find the source for each claim or fact. Can I ask you to list problems related to the tag? Thanks! Saff V. (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Icewhiz: Is there any specific issue lead us to keep the Tag?Saff V. (talk) 09:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well - we have an open Talk:Hafte Tir bombing#RFC about making more natural lead - which seems to indicate that editors disagree on the neutrality of the lede (between 3 different versions at the moment). There also seems to be some dispute over the body. I suggest we keep the tag until the RfC closes, and after that assess whether there are any other open disagreements. A NPOV tag states there is an active Wikipedia:NPOV dispute being discussed - which in this case there clearly is given the RfC. Icewhiz (talk) 09:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Constructively in relation to the tag - I would suggest waiting for the RfC to close + 2 weeks. If there is no active discussion 2 weeks after the RfC close (e.g. leading to a different RfC) - then it could be removed. Icewhiz (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

"Dutch media said that the mastermind behind the bombing was Mohammad-Reza Kolahi" allegation

Kazemita1 and Saff V. have been including the following into the article:

• In 2018 Dutch media said that the mastermind behind the bombing, Mohammad-Reza Kolahi, was assassinated in the city of Almere on 15 December 2015. Samadi was living undercover as an electrician in the Netherlands since the early 1990s under the name 'Ali Motamed'.

If find there are several problems with this statement. First the article is not about Dutch sources revealing that Samadi was the person responsible for the Hafter tir bombing, but about the suspicious circumstances of his assassination in the Netherlands. Second, the article first introduces the Hafter Tir bombing saying that:

The electrician 'Ali Motamed' (56) who, according to the judiciary, was assassinated by Amsterdammers in Almere on 15 December 2015, was in reality almost certainly the perpetrator Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi, sentenced to death in Iran. He had started a new life in the Netherlands under a pseudonym. Reza Kolahi Samadi is regarded as the main person responsible for the bomb attack on 28 June 1981 at the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party in Tehran, during a summit of party leaders.

The article first introduces Samadi as the person "regarded as" the main responsible for the Hafter Tir bombing", so they don't need to include "regarded as" every time they mention "Hafter tir" in the remaining of the article. Third, if this story was about AD.nl uncovering that Samadi was behind the attack, then that would be easy to spot in the article, but it's not, because that's not what the article is about. All in all, this seems like a misrepresentation of the source. Please don't revert back into the article until we've reached some kind of consensus first. Thank you. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

References
References

This is what the title of the news piece reads

منابع هلندی از «ترور» عامل بمبگذاری در حزب جمهوری اسلامی خبر دادند

The translation from Persian to English is "Dutch sources reported assassination of the person behind IRP headquarter bombing". Ask Nikoo.amini to translate it to English for you, although you probably know some Persian yourself.--Kazemita1 (talk) 12:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but the body of the article does not confirm or say this, but instead refers to Iranian media as the source of Samadi's connection to the MEK and the bombing incident. This cannot be attributed to "Dutch sources". Also Radiofarda is a questionable source. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not to say I agree with what you said, but this is one of the Dutch sources. Make sure you accept the cookies first, before copying the content to Google translate.--Kazemita1 (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

The source is similar to the last, it does not say Kolahi was responsible, it says he was a suspect, and we already know this from previous IRI claims. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

That is far from truth. Here are the excerpts from the Dutch source with their English translation:

Hij was in Nederland onder een schuilnaam een nieuw leven begonnen. Reza Kolahi Samadi wordt beschouwd als hoofdverantwoordelijke voor de bomaanslag op 28 juni 1981 op het hoofdkwartier van de Islamitische Republikeinse Partij in Teheran, tijdens een top van partijleiders.

which translates to:

He had started a new life in the Netherlands under a pseudonym. Reza Kolahi Samadi is regarded as the main person responsible for the bomb attack on 28 June 1981 at the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party in Tehran, during a summit of party leaders.

Also,

Reza Kolahi Samadi zou als student een baantje hebben weten te bemachtigen als geluidstechnicus in het complex waar hij de aanslag pleegde. Hij was een prominent lid van de sjiitische 'verzetsbeweging' Mujahedeen-Khalq (letterlijk: heilige strijders van het volk) voor hij in de jaren tachtig als politiek vluchteling naar Nederland kwam.

which translates to:

As a student, Reza Kolahi Samadi would have managed to get a job as a sound engineer in the complex where he committed the attack. He was a prominent member of the Shiite 'resistance movement' Mujahedeen-Khalq (literally: holy fighters of the people) before he came to the Netherlands as a political refugee in the 1980s.

He is saying it plainly without quoting or attributing.--Kazemita1 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

ad.nl looks like a tabloid. And it is not in English. I replaced the segment based on coverage in English (mainly BBC for POV, personal details from RFEL (I'd prefer a better source)) - diff. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There is any doubt that Kolahi Samadi accused to plan the bombing, however (as Kazemita1 shows) Dutch source support it more strongly. Also as eggs is eggs, Radio Farda is definitely reliable. Anyway, I find more RS to confirm this accusation:

• On the day of the deadly attack, Samadi reportedly carried a powerful bomb hidden in his personal briefcase into the party’s headquarters in the heart of Tehran, where almost all of the party’s top officials had gathered....The man behind the massacre was officially named as nineteen-year old student and MKO member, Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi....Radio Farda

• Later, MKO clandestinely paved the way for Samai Kolahi to infiltrate the ruling Islamic Republic Party, serving first as a manager of sound and audio systems but quickly rising through the party ranks...On the day of the deadly attack, Samadi Kolahi reportedly carried a bomb hidden in his briefcase into the party’s headquarters in the heart of Tehran, where almost all of the party’s top officials were gathered at the time.Samadi Kolahi left minutes before the bomb went off, and after hiding for a time in an MKO safe house, fled Iran through its western border with Iraq and made his way to Europe.Radio Farda

• Motamed’s real name was Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi, an Iranian dissident sentenced to death in absentia after fleeing the country in 1981, accused of planting a bomb at the Islamic Republic party’s headquarters, killing 73 people.theguardian

• The man killed in 2015 was named as Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi, 56, who had previously been sentenced to death in Iran after being accused of planting a bomb at the Islamic Republic party’s headquarters in 1981, killing 73 people. theguardian

• Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi, was a prominent member of a Shi’ite opposition group and had been sentenced to death in Iran for suspected involvement in a bomb attack on the headquarters of the Islamic Republican Party in Tehran in 1981. dutchnews

• BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 6 (AP) - An unarmed spokesman for Iran's revolutionary guards said in an interview on Teheran radio today that Mohammad Reza Kolahi, a 23-year-old student and member of the Mujahedeen-i-Khalq, was suspected of planting two bombs that killed 72 Islamic Republican Party leaders on June 28 at the party headquarters.NYT

and finally the reports of washengtone and James Buchan 's book (page 293). Saff V. (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The article already mentions Kolahi as a suspect, and there is already an article on Mohammad Reza Kolahi saying that he was a suspect. There is no need to repeat this over and over. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but there are sources that take it beyond suspicion and name him as the actual person behind Hafte Tir bombing. This dutch source was recently deemed reliable both by Icewhiz here and the WP:RSN here.--Kazemita1 (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

To clarify - I said I had no concrete opinion on the reliability of ad.nl - don't know Dutch sources well enough. I do think however that we should, per WP:NOENG, prefer English language sources - which are available. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Kazemita1, if you want to include in the article that "Dutch sources confirm Kolahi as the person responsible" (and not merely a suspect), then you need to produce such a source (Algemeen Dagblad introduces Kolahi as "regarded as the main person responsible", which is not the same as confirming he was responsible). The Algemeen Dagblad article is actually about Kolahi's assassination, not about producing any new evidence about the bombing. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

In English, for instance, the Guardian (while I'm unsure on ad.nl - Guardian does pass RS) ran two pieces on this:

1. 14 Jan 2019 - "Motamed’s real name was Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi, an Iranian dissident sentenced to death in absentia after fleeing the country in 1981, accused of planting a bomb at the Islamic Republic party’s headquarters, killing 73 people. Among the dead was the second-in-command to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, then Iran’s supreme leader. Samadi had long known he was on a death list, although he only confided his real name to Galina in 2000, five years into their marriage, and he had withheld the full truth from his son, pledging to tell all when he turned 18."
2. 8 Jan 2019 -"The man killed in 2015 was named as Mohammad Reza Kolahi Samadi, 56, who had previously been sentenced to death in Iran after being accused of planting a bomb at the Islamic Republic party’s headquarters in 1981, killing 73 people. ... Samadi, who had been in the building shortly before the explosion, was accused of the attack and fled to Europe. He was sentenced to death in absentia.".

Both Guardian say he was sentenced to death in absentia in Iran.Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Any way by passing this discussion is there any disagreement that Kolahi is in charge of the responsibility of bombing and creating a section about his death(based on introduced RSe). I agree with this edit of Icewhiz but unfortunately, it was reverted by Stefka.Saff V. (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I had removed it because I see didn't see Kolahi's assassination as part of this event, but it's not a big deal, if you both agree, I'm fine with inclusion. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Lede

There also seems to be some disagreement about what the lede should include. Please include any proposed updates to the lede here for further discussion. Thanks you, Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It is obligatory to gather summarized important material of the article in the lead. It means that we have to avoid restore undue weight claims or fact in it. As I said many times here, this bombing includes a lot of opinions about who or which group is responsible for it. I gathered all the opinions in the body, but I just put the most probable opinion (supported by more RS in comparison with others) in the lead. As @Icewhiz reverted this edit, Don't restore it.Saff V. (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Umm - I wasn't taking a position on what was lede worthy. When I removed it - it appeared twice in the body in the "Events" subsection - which was clearly an error. It might well belong in the lede - however how about you finish with disputes on the body, prior to dickering over the lede? This is a short article. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

RFC about making more natural lead

Should the accusing of Iraqi agents or Mehdi Tafari for the responsibility of Hafte Tir bombing be removed from lead and restored in the body?Saff V. (talk) 10:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes As wp:DUE demands, articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Putting the accusing of Iraqi agents or Mehdi Tafari for the responsibility of Hafte Tir bombing supported just by one RS into lead gives undue weight and it is more natural to restore it in the body such other opinions about the responsibility of the bombing.Saff V. (talk) 10:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
• No: People executed as a result of this incident is central to the article. These are not "views" but verified events as described in the RSs provided. Additionally, just as it's important to mention that the IRI accused the MEK for this incident, it's also important to mention it also first accused the US. I've shortened the text a bit adhering to the most important info and placed back in the article, which can be later removed if there is consensus to do so. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is central to the article People executed as a result of this incident? Is there any other sources to support it? Just laying on one RS is it possible to move sentence into the lead?Saff V. (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes. The existing lead only discusses IRI claims on who was at fault. Perhaps, it would be a good idea to include statements by sources such as Guardian, US department of state, and Rand corporation as well. --Kazemita1 (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
• No - Since those accusations lead to actual executions, this should be mentioned. Rather than being fringe views, it's more of a change of the way the blame was cast. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there more RSes to support that accusations lead to actual executions?Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• All in or all out, leaning all out - Either the lead mentions all accused (Iraqi agents (executed), royalists, MEK, and whomever else is mentioned by RSes as being accused by Iran) - or it mentions no one (all out). For now - I suggest we stick to all out - keeping the lead at:

  On 28 June 1981 (7 Tir 1360 (Hafte Tir – هفت تیر) in the Iranian calendar), a powerful bomb went off at the headquarters of the Iran Islamic Republic Party (IRP) in Tehran, while a meeting of party leaders was in progress. Seventy-three leading officials of the Islamic Republic were killed, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti (who was the second-most powerful figure in the revolution after Ayatollah Khomeini at the time).

  And possibly add a short blurb on that various parties have been accused of this. It seems everyone at least agrees there was a bombing (killing 73). If and when this article is properly developed in the body in terms of covering the investigations/allegations/executions/counter-claims - then perhaps we should summarize all of it in the lede in a separate paragraph from the bombing it self. At present article length - 7,405 bytes of a prose - a short lede suffices. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

It is the bombing article, so it is not encyclopedic that there is anything about the responsibility of bombing in the lead, Also gathering all into lead gives undue weight. isn't it better to point to the Strongest accusation supported by more RSes?!Saff V. (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The strongest? Or merely the most recent? RECENTISM may be an issue here as well. In terms of the article - there is a POV battle here in the lead - but what is lacking is development in the body - in particular a description of the bombing itself (and those who died and their significance) - as opposed to events after.Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, development in a description of the bombing is needed but it has nothing to do with the RFC! The strongest view for responsibility means a view is supported by more RSes in comparison to other views. How many RS do prove that MEK is responsible for the bombing or Tafari is in charge of it?Saff V. (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

• All in or all out, leaning all out - Either the lead mentions all accused, or just a short blurb saying various parties are suspects, as Icewhiz says. Alex-h (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
• Yes, Not only per Saff V.'s comment, but also since, this version uses Bloomfield's work as the source for a challenging material and as I said elsewhere, it's known that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support [MEK's] cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements."[3] So, Yes remove them, unless there are reliable sources for them. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
• All in or all out, leaning all out there is no reason to include some suspects and exclude others. We either include all suspects, or just a short mention that there are several suspects involved. Barca (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Barca: What if there's no reliable source for some of the claims? (see my last comment, plz). --Mhhossein ^talk 07:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

• All in or all out, leaning all out supporting Icewhiz's suggestion:

On 28 June 1981 (7 Tir 1360 (Hafte Tir – هفت تیر) in the Iranian calendar), a powerful bomb went off at the headquarters of the Iran Islamic Republic Party (IRP) in Tehran, while a meeting of party leaders was in progress. Seventy-three leading officials of the Islamic Republic were killed, including Chief Justice Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti[1][2][2][3] (who was the second-most powerful figure in the revolution after Ayatollah Khomeini at the time).

Ypatch (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: According to recent discussion about the bombing in the People's Mujahedin of Iran's talk page, it was concluded that "The overall historiography may be used to construct the narrative, from all sources — but newer, more updated ones ought to be the focal point. The overarching description should follow that".Saff V. (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

References
References

Protected edit request on 5 June 2019

@El C: while the RFC did not have any outcome, Stefka reverted the edit just based on his opinion actually vote! In other hands, Alex-h reverted it with no discussion in TP, While other users were passing long debate around that edits. I was wondering if you could possibly review two edits and revert it?Saff V. (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Although, while the RfC is ongoing —and it is still ongoing— the version that should be up ought to be the status quo ante, the version that ends up being protected is, ultimately, random. There would have to be some serious policy-based arguments in order for any admin to revert to the other version in the dispute while the page is fully-protected. El_C 11:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Note also that RfC is not a vote and if I were the one closing it, I would probably not take into account Kazemita1's preference, since it is not specified to be based on anything. El_C 11:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I see, RfC is not a vote, so why did Stefka put disputed material while the RFC is ongoing? Is it OK every user who participated in RFC, edit the article based on their vote? Also, do you confirm the edit of Alex who hasn't had any edits in the article before?Saff V. (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The text was there before the RfC was started, and the RfC is about whether the text should be removed from the lede. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

and you put it onto the lead only based on your opinion while the RFC means other opinions of users is needed to make a final decision!Saff V. (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

not based on my opinion, but based on the pattern of the lede and RSs (lede included suspects, and these are also suspects, some of them tried and executed suspects). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

MEK-sympathetic author in lead

As it was discussed by Mhhossein, Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. can't be an independent author subsequently sources belongs to him is not natural. The source (actually author ) closely affiliated with the subject and WP:INDY is violated. At least such disputed should not use in lead to make it unbalanced.Saff V. (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Bloomfield is not being used to state an opinion here, so there is no violation as you claim. Furthermore, you're removing NYTimes and Ervan Abrahamian sources. Ypatch (talk) 14:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Bloomfield, a proved MEK sympathetic source, can't be used for statement of facts, though it can be used in the body for statement of opinions in an attributed manner. Ervand Abrahamian is also an old source which should not be preferred over fresh academic sources per WP:AGE MATTERS. These two issues are already discussed elsewhere on the talk page of MEK (which is closely related to this topic). The historiography is not something to be included in the lead with such details, though the article body is the due place for this. I suggest using the most recent and academic sources in the lead and use all reliable sources for describing the history in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

That would render the PMOI as the sole suspect of this incident in the lead, and that's clearly not the case here. Ypatch (talk) 13:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This is what the lead should say if most of the recent reliable sources are saying as such. I'm going to rewrite the lead based on the most recent academic sources, meanwhile you can provide sources saying MEK was not the only suspect so that we can use in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ypatch I just picked up material with disputed sources from lead, they stand in the body of article. At "Immediate aftermath" section other people or group who was introduced as a charge of bombing has been gathered, but as you know, we cannot mention such disputed material.Saff V. (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The "Immediate aftermath" section is quite good. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

• Umm - I fail to quite see where in diff by Mhhossein there are sources backing up the claim of said sympathies and furthermore I don't quite understand how said sympathies apply to a book published by the University of Baltimore. Icewhiz (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

FYI, this is right inside my diff: "Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr., it's know that Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, a lobbying firm where Bloomfield is a Senior Adviso, was hired "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements."[4]". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The cited source says nothing on Bloomfield - he's entirely absent from Financial Times. Icewhiz (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is starting to look like WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Please stop removing these reliable sources on the basis that the sources are not reliable. Ypatch (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Too soon for accusing others with WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Lincoln P. Bloomfield is [5] a senior advisor [6] at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, which was hired by MEK to "to persuade members of Congress to support its cause and has taken out several $100,000-plus newspaper advertisements."[7] So, it's not a surprise to see him be supportive of MEK's "cause"! That said, the source is not suitable (reliable enough) for balancing the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Also, per WP:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." --Mhhossein ^talk 11:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This has been reverted enough times already. We either include all suspects in the lead section, or none. We can't pick our preferred suspects. Ypatch (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

AFAICT Bloomfield is part time (does other stuff) with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld - which happens to be the largest lobbying firm (+law) in the US and got a small sum from MEK. This is like... Third degree separation. The publisher seems to be a reliable academic press. Icewhiz (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

His words regarding MEK is not just a coincident. I would not white wash the source based on own original research. Feel free to take it to the RSN, meanwhile it should not be used in the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I believe that mentioning such povish material into lead is not fine as well as I have to recall this conclusion that "The overall historiography may be used to construct the narrative, from all sources — but newer, more updated ones ought to be the focal point."So sources say that MEK is accused belong to 2015, 2014 but Abrahamian or NYT source belongs to 1989 and 1981. we need to be more update in lead.Saff V. (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Whether you agree with the sources or not, they are reliable, and you can't remove them on your own determination that they are "POVish". Ypatch (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a weird book, and I dispute that it was even published by a reliable academic press. The publisher is listed consistently (Worldcat, Google, Amazon) as "University of Baltimore College of Public Affairs". This is literally the only book that is so listed. Copies of the book are only held in four libraries, which would be very unusual for a book that was actually published by a University Press. In fact, I can't find any evidence that the University of Baltimore (or it's parent, University of Maryland) even has a real University Press. The only other items at Worldcat listing UofB as a publisher (the university itself, not the specific department) are student theses. The only publishing support the university provides is to help people get their work online. There is a very obscure and rarely listed publisher "University of Maryland Press" that seems to actually be "Capital Decisions, Ltd.", whose address is literally just a dude's house in Bethesda, Maryland. These are unrelated to "publishing support" and printing services offered by the universities that are only publishing in the literal sense - there are no editors. tldr; I'm pretty sure this is a vanity publication. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The sources removed also included NY Times and Ervand Abrahmian, both of which certainly meet WP:RS. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Citing a newspaper article from the day after the bombing is questionable for anything other than, maybe, official statements. It should still be disfavored heavily. Both this article and People's Mujahedin of Iran do this, and the use of this source should be pared back from both. They also both cite Bloomfield, which again should be removed entirely as a source. Can literally all of the disputed content be cited to Abrahamian? The two pages where the bombing would be mentioned are not viewable in Google's preview, so I have no idea how he frames it either. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 August 2019

The editors discussed the reliability of the work by Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr. I shed light on the author having links to a firm promoting the cause of MEK (the group widely accused to be behind the bombing). Another explanatory comment came just recently by a third party who is an un-involved admin; the comment said the disputed source was not reliable. Please remove the source by Bloomfield along with the materials citing to it. It's obvious that, the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material." @JJMC89: for your attention. Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s book meets WP:RS, other sources here included NY Times and Ervand Abrahmian, both of which certainly meet WP:RS. Moreover, Lincoln P. Bloomfield Jr.'s source is not used for his opinion, but rather as a source to other sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The response to your comment came, fresh and smart! --Mhhossein ^talk 11:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Pinging the admin who locked the article. Are you willing to take action here? How many un-involved users should say Bloomfield's source is not reliable? [8][9] --Mhhossein ^talk 11:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)