Talk:1982 kidnapping of Iranian diplomats/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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

1. Is it well written?

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

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

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

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

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

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

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

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

   C. It contains no original research:

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

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

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

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

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

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

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

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

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

5. Is it stable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

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

Response to the reviewer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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