Talk:2017 Tehran attacks

Title of the page

I would suggest to keep the title of the page as 'Iran parliament shooting' or other title in which the word parliament is present. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep the title of the page as is because of the multiple locations in Tehran affected. StrikeDog (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Why?!? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

ISIS Claims Credit Shame Again

07 Jun 2017 BBC: "IS claims responsibility for attacks·

"Posted at 5:14·

"So-called Islamic State (IS) has claimed responsibility for the attacks in Tehran over an encrypted messaging app, saying its fighters had struck both locations. However, the group provided no evidence to back up its claim."·

-- Naaman Brown (talk) 10:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

there are not many candidates for the attack - either ISIL, Baluchis or Khuzestanis. Kurdish separatists and Mujahedin elHalq have long refrained from such attacks on civil targets.GreyShark (dibra) 10:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes but ISIS has been known to claim attacks as a way to promote their group. It has been covered but hasn't been proven. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

This is beyond doubt an ISIL operation - the use of live video proves this and this is intentional.GreyShark (dibra) 20:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Related/Background

Considering this is prematurely linked to Syria, background should mention MKO and the Syrian war. The western attacks have partly discounted daesh claims too.Lihaas (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lihaas: I noticed commentators mentioning a possible relation with MEK terrorist (which has been funded by Saudi Arabia for the last 3 years). Please share sources if you can find them, we could implement it into the article. Amin (Talk) 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Trump (as always)

Since I've reverted this once already; can somebody remove the content which includes synthesis about a living person, and is also completely redundant? I'm referring to this content. Vanamonde (talk) 08:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Clarification on Mausoleum detonation

I cleaned up a sentence regarding one of the mausoleum attackers detonating himself, which stated that no-one else was harmed by the blast. But the timeline below says that a gardener was killed and two others injured as a result of an explosion. Is this in reference to the same event? If there was a separate blast that did not harm any bystanders, why is it not included in the timeline? Any clarification would be appreciated. 8.19.241.10 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently there was two explosion in the mausoleum. The second one didn't have casualties. NIGHTdevil 16:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Given that the militants had hand grenades as well as rifles, it's possible that one explosion was a grenade attack while the other was a suicide vest detonation. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, there was just one detonation leading to the death of the gardener and probably injuring some others. The other terrorist was shot dead by police before blowing himself up. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

NYT: "Iranian Kurds Are Implicated in Terrorist Attacks in Tehran"

Looks like the issue is homegrown extremism, not an American-Saudi plot.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you. This is not called homegrown terrorism, because it was directed by a group outside of Iran, although their nationality was Iranian. Unless you consider the Manchester attack as "homegrown terrorism".--ArminHP (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

original research

The section "Ambiguities, paradoxes and accusations" is a real case of WP:SYNTH and is written in a weird style. I've tagged the section. Some of the sources used have nothing to do with Ambiguities, paradoxes and accusations. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

• By now, I've cleaned the section from synthesized materials and unreliable sources. The tag is removed. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein Hi I recommend you check the VOA-PNN and BBC sources too. Because we had similar thing with you in the Saeed Toosi fa article we were providing euro news but you was talking about twitter. Finally other users calmed you down to check the sources accurately. --IranianNationalist (Welcome) 08:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Simply discuss the current issue without trying to slip away from the real issue. User:Pahlevun had correctly tagged the section. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sharaky: Hi there, What's your opinion? --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

This is the controvesial text and sources. you can check the VOA and BBC sources EXACTLY talking about the Tehran attacks :

Ambiguities, paradoxes and accusations

Hussain Zolfaghari (fa) the Security Deputy of Iranian Ministry of Interior announced in the IRIB, the terrorists had ladies wear(Hijab in Iran) when they entered to the Parliament (to hide the guns because it was asked how the attackers could pass the guns through the parliament guards without any shoot (first time, one the victims asked it in the hospital showed in IRIB)) (Mahdi Falahati (fa) in the "LastPage" TV program of the VOA-PNN talked about this paradox). The videos of Closed-circuit cameras of the parliament entrance gate showed no ladies wear (but guns in bags) however in the short video Amaq News Agency of the ISIS broadcast from inside Parliament, there were 6 video frames showing the hand of a woman as the cameraman (but the officials had said nothing about any woman in the parliament) which this ambiguity has became reflected in the interior official news agencies such as Tabnak (fa) or Aftab(fa) or other Iranian websites.

5 days after 2017 Deir ez-Zor missile strike by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard to the ISIS positions in Syria as the retaliation to the attacks, Mahdi Falahati (fa) in the "LastPage" TV program of the VOA-PNN, on the Friday 25 July, regarded to the more details and paradoxes about the unknown hidden women cameraman in the parliament and to this subject that, some days after the attack, another woman had been introduced as arrested in the Mausoleum of Ruhollah Khomeini instead of the parliament. Also one of the terrorists in the entrance of the Mausoleum (Closed-circuit cameras) in an encounter to a simple civil enclosing to his AK-47 shows a moderated behavior unlike other ISIS members (also the suicide of one of the terrorists using Cyanide pill).Also with regarding to the recent ballistic US resolutions dates and the Revolutionary Guard counterattack date Falahati talked to the chief clerk of the whistleblower AmadNews (fa), Roohollah Zam (fa). They talked about the suspicious murder of the commander of the Iranian Cyber Army, MuhammadHussain Tajik 6 monthes before the Tehran attack because, that time, Falahati and Zam had another talk about Tajik revealing information about Revolutionary Guard having informational cooperation with ISIS stealthily (before his death). The murder news had not been published in the Iranian news agencies (Censorship) but Al Arabiya and The Times of Israel and some others had published the news.On 13 Sep 2017, BBC Persian broadcast a documentary by Zhiar Gol about how the Islamic Republic policies caused many Iranian Kurds to join Salafism and ISIS, including Sarias Sadeghi (one of the Tehran attackers), his name had been noticed as an ISIS activist by many sources 3 years before Tehran attack. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Your friend, Sharaky, has only 11 edits in En wiki, I wonder why you are canvassing him/her. Instead, please try to rewrite the second paragraph, omit your own analysis, pay attention to WP:MOS and WP:SYNTH. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mhhossein

• Special:Diff/801105236 (avoid such a censorship) Wiki is not WP:CENSOR and you must respect to WP:TALK
• Respect to WP:CIVILITY, Sharaky is not my friend but is a WikiFa admin
• It is wonderful when you couldn't censor this content in the WikiFa article you are trying to censor it in WikiEn based on lack of Farsi abilities in WikiEn.

--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 18:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

But about the second Paragraph (I told you I repeat PLEASE check the VOA-PNN source the paragraph is exactly based on it (I WAS EVEN MORE MODERATED. ALSO I REMINDED IT AS ACCUSATIONS NOT FACT)) HOW MUCH ZEALOTRY CAN BE PLANTED ON THE MOON :D --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 19:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• User:Pahlevun: As an involved editor, what do you think about the section? What should be done? --Mhhossein ^talk 02:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The issue of contradicting reports by the authorities is covered by Persian-language media (both inside and outside Iran) and is worth mentening. However, the content added, which is a rough translation from Persian Wikipedia is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, I suppose. Pahlevun (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Pahlevun. I also think the matter should be dealt with, that's why I said in my edit summary: "please rewrite the materials using reliable sources dealing with Ambiguities." However, IranianNationalist's version was a real mess. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's glad to me to see "The issue of contradicting reports by the authorities is covered ...", a vantage point. Not matter how the subject is proposed in the article but we just avoid censoring and stay impartial (Not fact but alleged and stayed in the article). AFAIK Iranian officials had no response (no responsibility too, like always) to the ambiguities and paradoxes. Also Roohollah Zam and AmadNews are outstanding sources for such discussions but alleged(not fact) (with regard to the disclosure about Saeed Toosi's disgrace and many other news of AmadNews). I don't know , why some users fear from Roohollah Zam to have an alleged claim in the article (if they don't agree with him).--IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 15:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

These constant accusations of censorship is clear WP:PA. Stop your unconstructive attitude and let others discuss. Pahlevun (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." --Mhhossein ^talk 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I said : "we just avoid censoring" means we (wiki society) it is a clear policy WP:CENSOR and it was not relative to you Pahlevun again anyway (How did you conclude that?). @Pahlevun, so plz don't WP:RUNAWAY. However Mhhossein tried once Special:Diff/801105236 (and we know what it means).
Avoiding censorship means IRIB sources and VOA PNN sources are both reliable sources for what they claim and can be pushed to the article allegedly(NOT AS A FACT) and I had done allegedly too as "accusations" not fact. --IsNotNationalist (Welcome) 10:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

References

"Temporary workaround to be deleted" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Temporary workaround to be deleted. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Temporary workaround to be deleted until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 22:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)