Talk:Assassination of Paul R. Shaffer and John H. Turner

Removal of content
you made an edit with the edit summary "Some copy editing". But your edit went beyond mere copy editing and in fact removed sourced claims that MEK may have links to the killing of Shaffer. Since your removal is unjustified I'm restoring the content (but with attribution). If you wish to remove it in the future, please justify your removal. Also please use more accurate edit summaries.VR talk 03:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * in this edit you added the the text "Vahid Afrakhteh, a founding member of Peykar, confessed to the killing and later was executed" with the following source:.
 * I didn't find anything about this on page 8 of the book, but page 337 says: "" But the assassination of Shaffer happened on 21 May 1975, 5 months before Afrakhteh formed Peykar according to the source. Can you explain? VR talk 06:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your notes, Vice regent. There were several sources for that, and here are more sources.

So the split (and fights) between the Marxist MEK and the current MEK did not happen over night, it took some years.

I also found these sources.

So we know that Afrakhteh was held responsible and executed (which I will add to the lead), and that he belonged to the Marxist MEK, although some sources just generalize saying "MEK" (which I will add to the section "Assassination" otherwise it makes the lead too long).

If you have any more comments I will be glad to work with you. Thanks. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to work with you too. I'll accept that the MEK schism happened over a long time and the article should reflect that. Thus the lead should briefly mention both views, like this,
 * This is consistent with WP:MOSLEAD which instructs us to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I don't think my proposal would make the lead too long.VR talk 03:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is consistent with WP:MOSLEAD which instructs us to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I don't think my proposal would make the lead too long.VR talk 03:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think your proposal lacks important details that are better explained in the "Assassination" section. Right now we have Vahid Afrakhteh, the person who admitted to the killing and was executed for the killing, mentioned in the lead. Then in the body we have a section that explains the background and the different points of views about the background. The article is currently consistent with WP:MOSLEAD and WP:MOS. If you don't agree, maybe a RFC is the next step. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what are the important details that are missing? Whenever there is an assassination or terror attack, it is usually very important to mention all organizations alleged by reliable sources to be behind said attack in the lead (even if briefly). I'm not opposed to an RfC, but I request that before that you at least explain your position in greater clarity. Thanks, VR talk 16:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

VR talk 16:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you please respect the WP:BRD process? The allegation that MEK was responsible for the assassination is long-standing content. You boldly removed it, and I challenged that bold removal. I will restore it. Please wait for consensus before removing it again. Thanks,VR talk 16:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I also noticed that you removed this content (source:), can you explain its removal?

Do you also think it is worth including the views of Ambassador Daniel Benjamin who wrote Seymour Hersh also wrote "The M.E.K. had its beginnings as a Marxist-Islamist student-led group and, in the nineteen-seventies, it was linked to the assassination of six American citizens."VR talk 17:34, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * VR, it is you who is edit warring here. You say you restored to the longstanding version, but you are really separating sources that blame the MEK to mention as many times as possible that the MEK is responsible, even though we have Vahid Afrakhteh as a convicted responsible. This is what you have added:








 * You are also arranging the accusation of "Marxist terrorists" to the bottom instead of leaving it together with the accused Afrakhteh, which makes the read very confusing. Just mentioning that some sources blame the MEK is enough, I think that is a fair compromise, so this is what I will restore. If you want to continue with the pursuit of spreading "MEK is responsible" all over the article, you need to gain consensus for that, so please start a RFC so others can give their input into what you’re trying to do here. TheDreamBoat (talk) 15:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * in the longstanding version, before your edits on Dec 7, the lead said "The People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) was responsible for the assassination". You then WP:BOLD-ly removed that from the lead under a misleading edit summary. I reverted and explained why. Now you must seek consensus before re-removing that. WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo."VR talk 16:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * VR, my edit summary said "Some copy editing", and I replaced Vahid Afrakhteh for the MEK in the lead because Afrakhteh was the one who confessed and was executed for the killing. So please stop making all kinds of accusations against me (here and in other pages). I understand that we don't see eye to eye on how content can be arranged, but you are engaging in battle ground behavior. "Longstanding version" is not a policy or anything that decides how the lead should be arranged. If you want to add that the MEK is responsible for this killing to the lead, even though we already have Vahid Afrakhteh as the person who confessed to this, then you need to provide a convincing reason why. I don't think you have done this, but others might, so this is why i recommended you start a RFC so we get others to chip in.  TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "If you want to add that the MEK is responsible for this killing to the lead, even though we already have Vahid Afrakhteh as the person who confessed to this, then you need to provide a convincing reason why."
 * Here's a convincing reason: because 7 reliable sources say that MEK was responsible for the killing. That's more than the number of RS that blame Peykar and those that hold MEK responsible include Radical Islam: The Iranian Mojahedin, a book length treatment of the early MEK history published by Yale University Press. WP:WEIGHT requires that "" It also adds "" Thus placing the Peykar claim in the lead, but not the MEK claim in the lead thus violates WP:WEIGHT.VR talk 14:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)


 * To offer a compromise, I have added the MEK to the lead as you have asked. I know we don't agree in some of these pages, but it doesn't mean it can't be worked out. Just want to wish you a happy and safe 2022. best wishes, TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

BLP1E
I think this article is an example of WP:BLP1E and should be moved to "Murder of Paul R. Shaffer" per WP:DEATHS.VR talk

Requested move 20 December 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: There's unanimous agreement to move, and we'll go with the originally proposed one. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul R. Shaffer → Assassination of Paul R. Shaffer and John H. Turner – Most of this article (and sources on this topic) are about the assassination itself, and not much about victims is covered in RS, making this a case of WP:BLP1E. An alternative title could also be 1975 assassination of US military advisers in Iran as I don't know of any other assassination of American advisers killed in Iran that year. Here is NYT coverage of the event back then. Today many sources mention the event without mentioning the victims by name, so perhaps the alternate title might be more suitable. VR talk 18:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to Killing of Paul R. Shaffer and John H. Turner per WP:DEATHS guideline. 125.167.56.108 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DEATHS it would be "Murder of..." because there seems to have been a conviction in this case.VR talk 21:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Removal of caller responsibility
you removed the following from the article:

The calls received by US diplomats right after the assassination of American personnel in which a group claimed responsibility is certainly relevant to the article. Can you explained why you removed this important piece of information? This is different from who was ultimately blamed for the assassination, as this is a significant event that took place in the hours after the assassination.VR talk 16:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The article should be quoting experts or similar, not anonymous callers. Encyclopedias usually don't insert quotes from anonymous callers. But since you are so much in favor of having this in the article, then the compromise was:
 * TheDreamBoat (talk) 11:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No one simply quoted anonymous callers. I quoted reliable sources (New York Times and Associated Press) reporting on the anonymous calls received. If something is repeatedly mentioned in WP:RS then it should be given WP:DUE weight in the article too.VR talk 14:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Anonymous calls reported in sources are anonymous callers nonetheless. Experts or similar reported in sources constitute accounts by experts (or similar). The latter is usually what we want in an encyclopedia when adding controversial or sensitive material. Still I offered a compromise, which is what is now in the article. I'm sorry it's not exactly as you'd like it written, but we all have to compromise a bit. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I still disagree, but it seems you are disagreeing about the reliability of the source, so perhaps we can take this to WP:RSN? It would get more opinions on the issue. Also by compromise are you referring to this edit? Because it doesn't really touch on the anonymous calls received by the US embassy. I don't understand what is there to compromise? Wikipedia should state all the facts relating to this incident that have been reported by multiple RS in an encyclopedic manner. Our ultimate goal is to educate the reader. If what I'm proposing violates policy or is otherwise unhelpful, I'd like to be shown how so that I may correct myself. VR talk 17:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)