Talk:Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists/Archive 1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=40909
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=40909

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Problems
I added some content to the article over the last few days, but the more I look at the sources, the more of a mess this article looks. Half the sources in the Israeli section, which cast doubt on the Israeli connection, are long out of date. The more recent sources all but confirm that these killings were carried out by Mossad-trained MEK operatives - several state that the connection is confirmed by intelligence officials within the Obama administration itself - but you wouldn't know that from reading this article.

Some other problems - many of the sources in the article are undated, just containing a "retrieval" date instead, which needs to be fixed. And the first three cited sources all link to the same article - that needs to be fixed too.

I'm really not sure what to do with this article now, because it really needs a rewrite from top to bottom, and I'm not sure I want to get that involved with it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @Gatoclass I can rewrite it, but almost every single time I edit something Iran related the creator of this article reverts my edit, so if you can review my edits and do an occasional trimming, I can rewrite it starting tomorrow FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Every single change would better be discussed here per Consensus. I would like to ask Gatoclass to list his suggestions here. Mhhossein (talk) 11:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm currently mulling a full rewrite myself. Given that I've now read through all the sources and have a good handle on the content, I'm thinking that perhaps I could manage a full rewrite after all. I'll make a decision on it over the next couple of days. Gatoclass (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We're waiting to see your improvements. Mhhossein (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding your recent revert, please note that "Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement" is repeated 3 times in the article and this is over repeated, I think. As you believe that we need that sentence because "it's Israel's response to the accusations" with which I strongly agree, I only say that we'd resolve the 'over repeating' issue. So, except the lead, we should just have one mention of Israel denial in the body, not more than this. --Mhhossein (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , firstly, information in the lede is supposed to be repeated in the article body so the iteration in the lede can be ignored. Now, you are correct that the information is repeated twice in the body, and as a general rule, I would agree with you strongly that repetition is a bad thing. In this case however, I couldn't see an alternative, because the sentence The Iranian regime itself blamed both Israel and the United States for the assassinations has to be coupled with the responses of both countries or it leaves the reader scratching his head wondering what Israel had to say about this accusation. The later repetition is also necessary because that is the paragraph describing Israel's response in detail. In a case like this, clarity of meaning trumps literary concerns in my view.


 * But since you've brought it to my attention, I've given the article another slight tweak to change the emphasis of the second sentence, so that the repetition reads more like a reminder of the previously stated fact rather than a new piece of information. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gatoclass, I think this version is better. Mhhossein (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)