Talk:Ahvaz military parade attack

Perpetrators

• How to formulate the perpetrators from Iran's viewpoint? For now I took Khamenei's words as reported by Reuters. Please talk and reach a consensus before simply deleting information. Wakari07 (talk) 12:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I moderated to "Regional states, backed by the United States (accused by Iran)" Wakari07 (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

• Also important to note that the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahwaz (ASMLA) distanced itself from the responsibility claim, saying that the group which claimed the Ahwaz Terrorist Attack(Ahvaz National Resistance, who talked to Iran International TV as far as I can judge) was expelled in 2015. [1] [2] I incorporated this data in the ASMLA article as

On 22 September 2018, Yaqoob Al-Ahvaz claimed responsibility for the 2018 Ahvaz military parade Terrorist Attack in comments to UK-based Iran International TV. He said that his group Ahvaz National Resistance, a part of Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz, has "no choice but to resist." On 23 September, a statement made in The Hague, Netherlands, on the ASMLA website, denied responsibility for the Terrorist Attack, saying that the claim was made by a "group that was expelled from the organization since 2015".

In the Ahvaz National Resistance article, the same name is spelled as "Yaghub Hur Totsari" or "Yagoub Hor Altasteri". It will probably need some puzzling to find the right wording. Wakari07 (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

User GTVM92 changes

This user insists to delete a picture showing a child who was killed in the attack and changing a picture that shows An Iranian soldier directing a family away from the scene of the attack , plus he /she adds a sentence about a condemnation of person who seems to be unimportant ( the source is his personal twitter account ). I think the picture showing the soldier saving away civilians from the attack is important , no only because it is in the middle of an attack , but also it is the most famous picture in google search . The other picture ( now in the article ) is rather empty and is not showing an active scene ( perhaps showing only the aftermath of the attack ) .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

We should refrain from using propaganda images. Funeral images are clearly less related to the attack than photography at the scene of the attack. Furthermore, we shouldn't over emphasize civilian bystanders over the IRGC casualties. Icewhiz (talk) 19:58, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you define "propaganda images" ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I mean can a news photograph be a propaganda ? Maybe over emphasizing on one aspect can be propaganda , but using only one image is propaganda ? Then an image showing nothing , is the most possible neutral image at all ...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Template Infobox

It can be only one of {{Infobox civilian attack}} (redirect from Template:Infobox terrorist attack, used if we assume it was a terrorist attack) or {{Infobox military operation}} (redirect from Template:Infobox military attack, used if we assume it was a foreign military or civil war attack). The current one, Template:Infobox military conflict, is one for an overarching conflict and wrong anyway in my opinion. Wakari07 (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Template:Infobox military conflict is used for battles as well per the documentation - and in practice for quite small battles. In this case we have an armed force attacking the IRGC and the IRGC/locals firing back and killing the attackers - which falls squarely into the battle pigeonhole. Civilian attack is clearly incorrect given the military target and bi-directional shooting.Icewhiz (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

A ten-minute "battle" by a four-person "belligerent"? Sounds weird to me. Also, ISIS first claimed the target was president Rohani. After that, they claimed to show a jeep containing three suicidals. Then, mainly, the firing was not only to the parading unarmed guards, but also to the officials' reviewing stand and to the civilian revelers. Plainly a terrorist attack, in my view. Unless we assume a "real" military side. Wakari07 (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Armed militants on both sides = battle. At least half of the Iranian casulties were military. The podium with officials (many being high ranking officers) is clearly a military target as well. As for whether this is ISIS or local dissidents is undetermined and mostly irrelevant to the infobox.Icewhiz (talk) 20:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that is alike 2009 Fort Hood shooting , in both cases the military can be count as civilians . In both cases the group that fights back was not the military unit itself , but police or security ...( In parades the weapons are not loaded ) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:59, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Wakari07 and Alborz Fallah. An attack on a parade's unarmed military personnel and random civilian spectators by insurgents wearing a disguise can only be described as terrorism. Icewhiz's argument implies that all mass shootings or terrorist incidents in which the perpetrators are shot by police should be considered "military operations."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Shooting at a military target is different from a mass shooting. Are there any sources for the assertion the IRGC personnel were unarmed? In videos of the incident, and of the wider parade, e.g. see this by mehrnews - several of the IRGC personnel are clearly carrying rifles (with ammo clips inserted) and some are in partial battle gear (wearing combat helmets and fatigues, seems most are without battle harnesses) - the exception seems to be the marching band which is not carrying rifles (they may have pistols). Now, it is possible the marchers were marching without ammunition (something that countries that fear soldiers carrying out attacks on higher ups do... But in free countries soldiers carrying rifles usually have ammo) - but is there a source for that? Even a cursory look at the parade shows they are armed with what appears to be AKM assault rifles - and the personnel under attack would appear to be armed to the attackers. Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't know about "free countries" , but sure about no ammunition in military parades of Iran. There are many sources ( Including interview with the military victims ) that say so . I think that's clearly reasonable not to give ammunition to thousands of soldiers inside a city : one accident can mean one life .In the similar case of mass shooting at Fort Hood , were there not any soldiers carrying rifles with ammo inside the military complex ?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Source please. In many other countries soldiers carry ammo if they have rifles. In Ft Hood the soldiers were not armed, and this was in a medical clinic (and in US onshore bases soldiers do not carry service weapons).Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm Persian language . Countless Google search results are available in Persian ( and this ) , but not reliable sources in English ( the attack is new ) . About the lack of active ammunition in military parades , in other countries of the world , this discussion seems to be of help , but I'm not the expert . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@Alborz Fallah: If one of the Persian sources are a RS - add it to the article (possibly attributed - e.g. to an interview of one of the IRGC personnel) - would be relevant information for the attack (regardless of the infobox). Quora is not a RS (and ROTC is a different environment than elsewhere) - and I know of parades, drill receptions, and honor guards where the soldiers were with ammo (outside of the weapon, but with a clip with ammo on hand). In terms of sourcing - the source does not need to be English language - you can add Persian. Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Current debate was about the Infobox , and not about adding peace of information in the body of the article , but anyway best reliable sources in that search are some newspapers ( Resalat , Khabronline , Tasnim , Kayhan and Ghatreh ) . The problem is all of them are hardliner newspapers and maybe they are not best to add their statement to the article . For instance , Hamidreza Taraghi , is a conservative and I'm not sure about adding his statement to the article .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Started out that way - but this is interesting information to add. Regime sources are not RS, in my view, however they could be used to make an attributed statement (e.g. According to X interviewed by Y, <quote>). Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

If it is important , I find a RS . I'm not sure all governmental sources are not Reliable , but this one that I find exactly is the source that meets the needs of article : that is an interview with many wounded soldiers and all of them have names . Private Nazari , from Bagh-e Malek , says the weapons were empty : " ولی اسلحه‌های ما خالی بود و چیزی همراه نداشتیم" translates as " But our guns were empty and we didn't had anything with us " . Iranian Students News Agency is generally considered independent . I can add the information if it is important . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Shredded blood?

The caption for the image under "Casualties" says "Shredded blood from a victim". As far as I am aware, this isn't a valid English idiom--should it be changed to something else? --Joshualouie711^talk 19:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

ISIL propaganda

[3] [4] These additions are supported by two editors, but not by me. The two paragraphs (and illustrations) provide undue weight (WP:WEIGHT) to a point of view (WP:BIAS) that is not reported in reliable sources. Any pdf document sourced to any Wordpress site, claiming all kinds of unverifiable things (WP:OR, WP:PROPAGANDA), cannot be considered as a reliable source (WP:RS). Remember this is an encyclopedia, WP:NOTAFORUM. User:Wikiemirati mentions Reuters quoting from it, why not quote that agency then? User:Takinginterest01 says "This isn't an attempt to glorify the attack therefore your claim is irrelevant this is to be as detailed and thorough as possible in regards to what ISIS has said regarding the attack and their involvement and their threats of future attacks and their justification for doing such an attack, this isn't pushing a certain narrative or in any way resembling a blog post." and Wikiemirati says "This is ISIL's official response and parts of the quote has been used by sources such as Reuters. Both preparators and retaliation quotes have been presented and given due weight". Also I see that now another blog source is used (longwarjournal.org, Long War Journal, a dubious private neocon project, instead of jihadology.net, "A clearinghouse for jihādī primary source material, original analysis, and translation service" according to itself, the former described as "better" than the latter. What is the criterion for claiming that? Wakari07 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

It is a secondary source WP:PSTS and fulfills Wikipedia:Verifiability I believe. You may add the Reuters source, but it will not provide the full quote as seen here https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-military-attack-islamicstate/islamic-state-says-iran-attack-will-not-be-the-last-al-furqan-idUSKCN1M62FS Wikiemirati (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how this violates your citation of policies or how it is a propaganda or how it violates WP:NOTPROPAGANDA. Please elaborate :) Wikiemirati (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

The adds are simply non-facts, mere pixels without any substance. Since you care to mention the Reuters article, did you also read that disclaimer? "Reuters could not independently verify the audio recording." Wakari07 (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I think a threat made for a future ISIS attack in Iran is a big "substance" and shouldn't be dismissed as "mere pixels". The fact that ISIS made a threat for another future attack in Iran has been covered by major news publishers and it deserves a mention in this article. Your reasoning sounds to me like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Regards. Wikiemirati (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

No, of course it's a relevant non-fact (non-fact since attribution of the tape is unclear, thence anybody could spread any rumour, especially after the attack happened). But the bloat is ugly, and the sourcing. A mere threat that is not based on a credible claim of responsibility is just weak. Remember the eighties when the terrorists used to claim their attacks beforehand? Finally, I don't like terrorism, but that's not an argument here. Wakari07 (talk) 10:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's clear enough. Pretty much every ISIS statement is accompanied by the "could not independently verify" disclaimer when covered by certain Western media, as a matter of course. In the absence of evidence that its Telegram account and newspaper have both been hacked/overthrown/whatever, it's safe to assume it retains editorial control. Pretending ISIS doesn't kill people, despite the explicit admission, is the truly unduly pro-ISIS slant. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not an "explicit admission", it's an undersourced threat based on an underwhelming (post factum) claim. Also, it's not "safe to assume it retains editorial control", since Reuters is not able to *independently* verify that. Wakari07 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There's an explicit admission in the first six lines and an implicit threat in the last sentence, both are clearly attributed to Abul-Hasan Al-Muhajir via official channels. Reuters continues to recognize the spokesman and the channels as agents of ISIS, just claims it can't verify this recording. It's neither a surprise nor an impediment that Reuters, as a member of the coalition against ISIS, doesn't have (or won't admit to having) ISIS members in its Rolodex with which to factcheck such things. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Ahwaz Terrorist Attack

The self-proclaimed group that called itself the Patriotic Arab Democratic movement in Ahwaz, accepted the responsibility for the Ahwaz Terrorist Attack in a message sent on the social media on Saturday.

'The group has carried out a few sabotage operations in Khuzestan Province during the past years,' said a senior provincial police officer.

'A conscripted soldier was shot in the terror attack and later died,' Colonel Naqib Fatemi said on Saturday.

The group is supported by the foreign antagonists, including Saudi Arabia. They made several terror attacks about 13 years ago in a number of places in Ahvaz and killed a number of people.

A number of the terrorist group’s members opened fire to the people and officials attending the parade of Armed Forces on Saturday morning in Ahvaz.

The shooting claimed 10 lives and injured more than 20 others.

The number of the victims is likely to increase.

Disguised as the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) and Basiji (volunteer) forces, the terrorists opened fire to the authorities and people from behind the stand during the parade.

“None of the authorities were injured in the incident due to the fast reaction of the security forces”, Governor of Khuzestan Gholam-Reza Shariati told the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) after the Ahwaz Terrorist Attack.

He added, “The terrorist team was annihilated, two of them were killed and other two were arrested. One of the detained terrorists is injured”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DARYAKENAR2 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Source. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

ISIL propaganda

The propaganda material reflecting the ISIL's message is highly disputed and is giving undue weigh to their view. It can be restored only if there's consensus over it. As per WP:ONUS, "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." --Mhhossein ^talk 06:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The speech's inclusion can stay disputed, but in the meantime, I've restored the basic claim of who Muhajir says killed these people and why. That is far less arguably important to understanding the event and doesn't lean one way or another. To a pro-ISIS reader, the current brief explanation seems just and reasonable and to an anti-ISIS reader, it seems evil and maniacal. To centrists, it simply presents a claim of responsibility. Everyone wins. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Ahvaz military parade attack

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ahvaz military parade attack's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "mehrnews":

• From Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran: "Appoitment of Ali Fadavi as commander of IRGC Navy". Mehrnews.
• From 2018 Eastern Euphrates missile strike: "IRGC missiles hit HQ of Ahvaz terror attack ringleaders in eastern Euphrates". mehrnews (English). Retrieved 1 October 2018.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:43, 4 October 2018 (UTC)