Talk:1982 kidnapping of Iranian diplomats

Linked articles
The linked articles to the 4 individuals contain no additional info beyond what's already here. I suggest they all be redirected to this article. Jeff Song (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As there were no objections, I went ahead and did this. Jeff Song (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

POV tag
I saw that you had tagged the article. Could you please bring your points here in the talk page. Otherwise, your tag seems non sensible. Mhhossein (talk) 14:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * There's an disscusion at the NPOV Noticeboard that's why I tagged it. KGirlTrucker87talk what I'm been doing 14:32, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you say what POV-related points are raised there except those related to grammar? Mhhossein (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I make an edit request to the NPOV template but there's an issue with lua modlue, see Template talk:NPOV. KGirlTrucker87talk what I'm been doing 10:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I know that there's a topic raised at WP:NPOVN regarding the alleged POV issues of the article. But, no special point is raised! Can you say why this article has POV issue or remove the tag? Mhhossein (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping. 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/20160803061454/http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/409/default.aspx to http://www.irdc.ir/en/calendar/409/default.aspx
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://soc.culture.lebanon.narkive.com/suQrd3qW/the-fate-of-the-4-iranian-diplomats
 * Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.dailystar.com.lb/GetArticleBody.aspx?id=9446&fromgoogle=1
 * Added tag to http://edition.presstv.com/detail/84062.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping → 1982 Disappearance of Iranian diplomats in Lebanon – It is unclear these Iranian operatives were actually kidnapped as opposed to being killed on the spot or disappearing. While the Iranian POV has been that they have been kidnapped, non-Iranian sources do not state this unequivocally Icewhiz (talk) 08:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The proposed title is unnecessarily longer, so I prefer the original. As far as I can tell the fact that they were kidnapped isn't in dispute. For example, Washington Post (USA), Haaretz (Israel), and Al-Monitor (US-based) unqualifyingly used the words "kidnapped" or "kidnapping". I think it is pretty much agreed that they were kidnapped by the Phalangists. The possible executions (contested by Iranian POV) would happen in captivity. HaEr48 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Al-Monitor doesn't say kidnapped - It says disappeared (it does quote the Iranian secDef who says kidnapped). WaPo and Haaretz use kidnapped in the context of a diplomatic deal with Iran on the four. In other contexts, e.g. WaPo here - and likely was in response to the disappearance two weeks earlier of four Iranians -- two diplomats, a journalist and their driver. The four are now believed to have been killed by a Lebanese Christian militia. or Haaretz here -  - they use disappeared. Several other sources use disappeared -         . The reason this is stated this way is that determining this was a kidnapping is ambiguous - no ransom was demanded, the four may have been killed almost immediately, and the fact that the four included senior IRGC (coupled with IRGC's involvement in the conflict) makes qualifying the four as un-involved difficult. The Iranian regime's position is kidnapping. RSes usually use kidnapping when repeating the Iranian position, but often use vanished, disappeared, or killed (particularly following various militia accounts stating they were killed) when describing the incident itself.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The current title is in accordance with wp:title. Thanks to HaEr48's sources, most of the sources are in agreement with "kidnapping". -- M h hossein   talk 17:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose when someone is abducted and not found that is a kidnapping. Not snatched by flying saucers. No POV involved. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV
The article, at present, presents the Iranian POV of the events - often in an unqualified manner and relying on Iranian official news agencies and/or media sources (that due to lack of freedom of the press in Iran, can not be critical of the gvmt). The article also repeats WP:FRINGE speculations by sources such as Rai al-Youm.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Presenting Iranian POV" is not a problem in itself. It's only a problem if it's the only POV being presented, which is not the case. On the contrary I think it's important to include to all POVs to achieve neutrality. Excluding the POV in the country most associated with the event, and relying solely on the Western (Israel, US) sources would be problematic. I agree that they should be qualified, especially when talking about contested facts. I believe the article currently does it. For statements not likely to be contested, e.g. the fact that they travelled from Damascus to Beirut, or the fact that the event is commemorated in Iran, I don't believe qualification is necessary, but I wouldn't oppose it if you want to qualify them as well. HaEr48 (talk) 17:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Surely the POV of the Iranian regime should be presented. However, official Iranian news agencies and media sources can not be considered RS for anything beyond the Iranian regime's statements - just as we don't, generally, consider Russian sources RS. There is no freedom of the press in Iran - Freedom House Iran Freedom of the press. The allegedly planned route of the Iranian personnel should be qualified. Commemoration probably not. Stating they were held for 20 days in Adonis prison should be qualified if from a non-RS.Icewhiz (talk) 06:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Lack of freedom of press in Iran" should be discussed on other boards such as RSN, not here. There was already a consensus over the reliability of the sources. Add qualification(s) if it's needed. I've removed most of the mass taggings. -- M h hossein   talk 17:49, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Sources should be discussed on the specific article talk page first, but per your response here regarding prior consensus jere, I posted this to RSN.Icewhiz (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Moving the article
I propose we move this to "1982 kidnapping of Iranian diplomats." As is stands now, the title can be taken in two different ways, including that this refers to Iran kidnapping diplomats. What I suggest is clearer.VR talk  16:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a nice suggestion. You can do it if you think the move is not controversial. -- M h hossein   talk 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I will wait a few days to see if anyone objects.VR talk  03:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, more than a year since you suggested the move. -- M h hossein   talk 07:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)