Jump to content

Talk:Mohsen Fakhrizadeh

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Farzam1370 (talk | contribs) at 20:18, 1 December 2020 (→‎Nuclear physicist by training but not by education: Minor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Assassination?

How can the souces saying its an Assassination be trusted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.129.117 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many major and reliable news networks are telling the same information. Linphil (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terrorism deaths in Iran

I think we need sources beyond what the Iranian government says to establish that this cat is appropriate. Al-Andalusi thinks otherwise. Who's right? Let's discuss. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't give a crap what the Iranian government thinks. But I don't like the double standards here. Those "requirements" do not seem apply when US/UK and France are the ones making the accusations. They are taken at face value without anyone questioning. It's worse because we have entire articles and categories for their claims, such as: State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Andalusi, That's an argument for deleting or editing those articles/categories, not an argument for including this cat here. I see no reason why the controversial claim this cat implies—that Fakhrizadeh was a victim of terrorism—should not be subject to the same sourcing requirements we impose on all controversial claims: namely, that reliable secondary sources are necessary to establish them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a person dies inside a separate, very closed country, and the media of this country interpret his murderers as a terrorist attack, then this is probably the same thing :) Or do you, as the author of an international encyclopedia, think differently? JukoFF (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite know what you mean. If the ministry of defence of that country called it a terror attack, I would not think that Wikipedia should repeat the ministry's views in wikivoice without attribution. If independent sources called it a terror attack, then we would be justified in repeating the claim in our own voice. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven’t seen anyone calling it a terrorist attack. Iranian govt/media is saying it was an assassination. Western media is simply reporting that Iran govt confirmed the death and is claiming it is an assasination.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 21:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't. An innocent person (without any trial etc) was murdered by a state inside another state (illegally?) with potentially other victims as well
I take it back. I see that Iran is claiming it’s state sponsored terrorism.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Whatever consensus would have been developed here was cut short by The Rambling Man's bold merge. Since the issue is now to split, I have created such a proposal below. ~ HAL333 02:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No need for a separate article on his death at this point, both articles are borderline stubs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That just means the article needs to be actually worked on to expand his actual bio and trim down on extraneous info about his death plaguing the article rather than spinning another article off. Gotitbro (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This was a political assassination, and coverage of the event relegates it to it's own article due to the players involved and the target's role in the Iranian Nuclear Program. This is particularly true given that Israel is being accused of carrying out the assassination. Iran is stating that the killing was an act of terrorism, which also equates that the killing was carried out for political motives, which also makes it an assassination. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Splitting proposal

I propose that section Death be split into a separate page called Killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh or Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. With the massive media coverage of this event (almost entirely focused on his death) we can not adequately cover his death without giving undue weight to it in comparison to his life and works. Furthermore, there is a WP:Precedent. This situation is similar to Qasem Soleimani and Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Multiple reliable sources, such as the New York Times have stated that Fakhrizadeh's killing is as significant and notable as Soleimani's killing. This section thus deserves to be split and given its own article. ~ HAL333 00:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as proposer. ~ HAL333 00:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This was just merged (albeit in a somewhat unorthodox manner). Let's wait a few days and see if there's enough content to justify splitting. At least for general editing purposes, it is much easier to have a single article so we can integrate the biographical details that emerge during news coverage of his death. Before his death was reported, there was virtually no information about him as a person in this article. Since he passes WP:BASIC as a senior official in the Iranian nuclear programme, it makes more sense to fill out the article about him than prematurely forking to an article only about his death. Information specific to the assassination can be split off if and when the relevant section gets too big. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak support. It still seems a little soon, but I think we're at the point where the assassination has enough content for an article and is overwhelming the article on Fakhrizadeh himself. My concerns about finding additional biographical details are sort of moot now, as we've found quite a few (albeit many of them disputed). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support contingent that the article title be Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. This was a political assassination, and coverage of the event relegates it to it's own article due to the players involved and the target's role in the Iranian Nuclear Program. This is particularly true given that Israel is being accused of carrying out the assassination. Iran is stating that the killing was an act of terrorism, which also equates that the killing was carried out for political motives, which also makes it an assassination. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer that title too. It keeps it in line with Soleimani's article and most news sources describe it as such. ~ HAL333 02:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with AleatoryPonderings. The focus should be on improving the article ATM by using the sources that have emerged. If we split it off now there is nothing left in the article and we'll be saying that, hey this article has basically nothing on the subject but here is a page long death about him (with the argument that is the subject even notable beyond just his death to even have a separate article). So, I say wait for sometime let the article get improved and if the death still covers half the page, I would support the split. Gotitbro (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fawiki article is a good start to add more to his bio. Gotitbro (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man and Joseywales1961 Sorry for the ping. Since you were involved in the merge discussion (and the Death section has been greatly expanded), I assume that you would want to contribute here. ~ HAL333 02:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XavierItzm The main concern here is content, not size. The assassination, the leadup to it, the response, and its ramifications, deserve their own article where they can be placed in full context. (But on your complaint of size, the article is already nearly 60 KB.) ~ HAL333 22:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong support. I see a lot of "oppose" votes above, but honestly none of them make particularly compelling arguments. It really ultimately comes down to two questions: 1) Is Mohsen Fakhrizadeh notable, as the subject of an article, outside of this event (BLP1E). And the answer to that is of course yes - he clearly was!...And indeed Wiki has had an article on him since March of 2008 - more than 12 and a half years before his assassination! 2) Is the event notable? And again, the answer to that is yes - it clearly was!...For all sorts of reasons, ranging from foreign affairs to internal Iranian politics (including the MASSIVE weakness and vulnerability in Iran's intelligence and state security infrastructure that the assassination revealed) to US politics, etc., etc. And indeed, many of these reasons are explored in the large and rapidly expanding assassination section, which now dwarfs the rest of the article....So again, we come back to the original two questions. The ostensible subject of this article is (or now was) clearly notable outside of the single event, and yet coverage of that (also obviously very notable) single event now has massively undue weight within this (ostensibly) biographical article, so therefore it must be split. I'm honestly surprised that there was even ever a serious debate about whether or not the assassination should be split into a separate article, much less that those opposing the split would have a majority of the votes! 2003:CA:8743:FC86:C96D:69D6:5302:2012 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unnecessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • support I strongly support splitting this article and calling it an assassination as opposed to a killing. This was clearly politically motivated as all past assassinations have been. Maqdisi117 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The section on the assassination has been expanded greatly in the past few days so that even if it didn't need splitting at the start of this discussion, it certainly does now; it takes up about half of the article, so this article definitely gives undue weight to his death. And apart from that, the event is certainly notable, which is proven by the extensive media coverage which is still ongoing (also meaning that the assassination section will continue to grow). Lennart97 (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Netanyahu-MBS-Pompeo-Cohen rendezvous in Saudi city Neom

The criminal assassination of Fakhrizadeh came days after the media reported Netanyahu "secretly" flew to Saudi Arabia (Neom) to meet with MBS. Reports framed the meeting as discussions of "normalization", but targeting Iran is a top priority for both leaders. --217.234.68.245 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTFORUM. If reliable sources connect this meeting to the assassination, we will add it to the article. But these sources do not do that. The first one does not mention Fakhrizadeh; the second one appears to be a video-based opinion piece. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The connection is tentative, sure, but it was described in RS [1]. Still, probably does not belong to this page at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article linked above is an opinion piece. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is sourced view/synthesis by Simon Tisdall published in The Guardian. Looks like a trivial analysis of facts, but again, it does not belong here yet, I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tamara Cofman Wittes and Natan Sachs (Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution): Saudi-Israeli relations: The curious case of a NEOM meeting denied, November 25, 2020 : "There is a final, less likely but more dramatic possibility: that Pompeo’s trip was not just about legitimating Israeli settlements and tightening sanctions on Iran, but about coordinating a major American policy step that would precede the inauguration. This would have to be significant enough to demand a face-to-face consultation between the leaders. Such a step could perhaps even be a limited military strike targeting Iranian interests, such as the Natanz nuclear facility, where Iran has now reportedly enriched 12 times the amount of fissile material permitted under the Iran nuclear deal." --217.234.69.151 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Less likely", "possibility", "would have to be". Speculation, speculation, speculation. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your horses! It is an analysis written November 25. --217.234.69.151 (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was obvious for political commentators immediately after Trump has accomplished his purge in Pentagon - see this article published in NYT on November 11 [2]: "In his final weeks as president, Mr. Trump faces a series of decisions that could shape his legacy in national security. He must decide whether to leave Iran with far more nuclear material than it possessed when he entered office, a direct result of his decision to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal ... It is not impossible that the shake-up of Pentagon personnel could presage some volatile and dangerous period, to include even overt or covert operations against adversaries like Iran... It is possible, however, that Israel could see the next 70 days as a window to conduct significant attacks to set back Iran’s nuclear program.". And that is exactly what had happen. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see WP:NOTFORUM. If there is a reliable source that clearly connects this assassination with Trump's policy objectives in the Middle East, we can (and will) include it. But there is no point airing theories on the talk before such a source comes to light. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on U.S. policy

This entire paragraph (except for the last line about the USS Nimitz returning to the region) is just speculation about an impact that may or may not materialize. Not everything “Commentators” say are noteworthy!--Etatsor (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add military to employer

Given he is well know for heading a military program his military career should be his primary occupation, unless I am missing something Nheyer (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, he is known as the "father" of Iranian nuclear program (this is not just according to Israel) and should be described as such on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear physicist by training but not by education

Article states that: "Fakhrizadeh received his BA in nuclear physics from the University of Tehran in 1987. He studied for a master's degree at the University of Isfahan and received a PhD in nuclear radiation and cosmic rays." Written this sentence like an Iranian (a proud one) would have it done. The source is Iranian-- it cannot be trusted as a singular source. Multiple sources needed to verify this statement. PhD in physics usually requires thesis and published it online which can be found. With PhD, You are entitled as "Doctor" but in this case, Mr. Fakhrizadeh was never called that.

It is highly possible that Fakhrizadeh could be trained as a nuclear physicist without a degree (just like Russians did to theirs in 1920s in cases on Zel'dovich or Petrzhak).

Can we verify that or remove that sentence mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2D80:84:8886:EE11:A491:F85E (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ministry of defense has its own university called Malek-Ashtar University of Technology its graduate do not publish their thesis as it is security related(like IRGC imam hussein univwrsity and etc), the source here is Fereydoon Abbasi the former head of Iran atomic energy and all Iranian sources refer to him as doctor, the site publishing it is IRIN, Iran's official news network, it doesn't get more official than thatLFarzam1370 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Isfahan University of Technology official websites message of condolences, on that message IUT boards of governers explicitly identify Dr.Mohsen Fakhrizadeh as a graduate in master degree, his date entry in IUT was 1989.[1]
Farzam1370 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fakhrizadeh killing: Iran's security apparatus under scrutiny

Deutsche Welle wrote: Nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was one of the best-protected people in Iran. His assassination has cast a damming light over the country's security apparatus.https://www.dw.com/en/fakhrizadeh-killing-irans-security-apparatus-under-scrutiny/a-55761779 --Falkmart (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

Does https://beheshtezahra.tehran.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=92 actually support the claim that his birth date was 21 March 1961? I have reverted that change for the moment. (It has since returned.) I don't read Farsi but Google Translate does not seem to indicate that this page contains information about Fakhrizadeh or his birth date. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://news.iut.ac.ir/news/30525
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mohsen_Fakhrizadeh&oldid=991783297"