Talk:Iran and state-sponsored terrorism/Archive 1

Random header
"President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for the annililation of Israel" - that is not terrorism, that is warfare. Removing. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 23:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe so but helping and training insurgents in Iraq in assassination and guerilla warfare is more than just war its terrorism.-- Southern Texas  03:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The assassination and kidnappings are terrorism, I left those intact. However "guerilla warfare" certainly is not terrorism, look at its very name. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 03:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on your definition of terrorism. Guerilla warfare is the use of unconventional methods to kill an enemy including the killing of civilians. I think we should leave it and let the readers decide.-- Southern Texas  03:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of state terrorism by the United States
The appropriate title, per previous discussion of similar subject (Namely Allegations of state terrorism by the United States) is allegations of state terrorism by country. Otherwise it is POV. Moved article appropriately.Balloonman 04:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As primary author has "retired" am moving back to the name per previous discussions of similarly titled articles. What is state terrorism by one group are freedom fighters by another.  Southern's arguments above highlight that these activities are labelled as terrorism by the U.S. Government---thus a POV.Balloonman 05:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I support a move to "allegations of..." as that is what this article is - allegations. Jayran 05:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just like to note that whether an editor has "retired" or not is not a valid consideration for a page rename. If someone is having ownership issues here, then that should be handled appropriately. Tarc 12:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Generally, I would agree with you. But in this case, the individual showed himself to lack civility and this issue has already been hashed to death under Allegations of state terrorism by the United States.  Personally, I think both articles should be deleted as NPOV, but the precendent (as testified by numerous AFD's on the US article) is to allow these articles with the more POV title of allegations.  Since this pages creator has left, there is nobody to defend the original title.  Thus, lacking a contrary position and acting on precedent of other discussions, I changed it.  Again, my first choice would be deleted---but precedent elsewhere says this type of article is acceptable with the "allegations" title.Balloonman 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Content removal
I think that the content that was removed should be placed back since it is sourced and important to the topic. The fact tags also should be removed since everything is sourced at the end of paragraphs and such. I will not put a citation at the end of every single sentence.-- Southern Texas  19:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't just restore your version of the page with all of its flaws. Not everything is sourced and the fact tags are for things that are very condemnatory and must be sourced if they are to be in the article. You should read wp:own. There were not sources at the end of every paragraph also. Jayran 18:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't like this article... but some of the changes in the revert that you did were necessary but some were not. Reverting to an older version isn't the best option at this point because S.T. has made some decent edits to get rid of POV in the article that your reversion reintroduced.  Also, I suspect that you use British English?  The spelling corrections that you made, just look wrong to my American eyes... which is how this article was originally written.  Thus, per the MOS, unless there is a compelling reason to change the spelling to British spelling, it should remain in the American style.  Thus, I reverted your revert.  Am I happy about that---not really.  But I felt that less time would be required to clean up the older version than to clean up the one that you reverted to.Balloonman 18:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added fact tags to the needed citations, while preserving the current article. I'm going to cut out the section on the Ministry of Intelligence and Security as it isn't terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. The main problem with the current article is that it parrots the American government's opinion and view like they are a fact despite the obvious problem that many do not consider much of constitutes as "terrorism" in this article as terrorism. Jayran 21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed... but S.T. did try to moderate his approach with statements such as "it is believed" or "accused" as compared to blatant facts.Balloonman 22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The ministry of Intelligence and Security has been accused of committing terrorism and examples of this were cited such as this:

The ministry itself is believed to carry out some terrorism mostly directed at political dissidents. Examples of this include the September 1992 assassination of Sadegh Sharaf-Kindi, leader of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan and three others in Berlin. There is also speculation that the ministry helped with the Mujahedin units in Bosnia in the 1990s. [3] Remember that this article is "allegations" of State terrorism by Iran. The killing of political dissidents and destabilization of regions is considered by some to be terrorism. Why are you against this being in the article?-- Southern Texas  22:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Should we merge this article with Terrorism in Iran?  Yahel  Guhan  02:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a bad idea since Terrorism in Iran deals with terrorism that occurs within the state of Iran or to citizens of that state. This article deals with allegations that the state of Iran is funding and supporting terrorism not just within its own borders but worldwide. Its a completely different subject. Also Allegations of state terrorism by Russia is separate from Terrorism in Russia, and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States is also separate from Terrorism in the United States.-- Southern Texas  05:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Iranian ministers wanted for terrorism by interpol:
"Interpol, the world police organization, voted to issue "red notices" for the arrest of three Iranian government officials, including Deputy Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi. The three men have been charged in Argentina with conspiring alongside notorious Hizbullah terrorist Imad Mughniyeh to blow up a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in July 1994— an attack that killed 85 people. "

http://www.newsweek.com/id/71007

this should be definitely added, and it is even in no way a USA POV so we can all be happy that there is some NPOV info to add :)

I'll come back later (in a few days) and if no one would add it or object I'll add it myself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resurrection of Lazarus (talk • contribs) 19:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous Title
This was brought up on the corresponding US page, but was lost amidst all the noise surrounding the constant disputes and the AfD, so I decided to try the less "popular" articles. While I am not completely familiar with the history of these articles, I see there have been several different titles, at least for the oldest American article. I raise issue with the current titles (Allegations of state terrorism by... ) as it does not specify, grammatically, whether the article subject is receiving allegations or making allegations. I know that "Allegations of state terrorism committed by..." is a bit verbose, especially for a title, I'm sure there is some better option than what we have now. Random 89  05:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

On the validity of claims
I have established that all claims concerning involvement of Iran in international terrorism originate from a single source, namely a website called "Mehr Iran":. This is scandalous, as this website is just a plain page filled with one accusation after another without any reference as to the underlying sources and the people who might confirm the validity of these claims. It is the rule that websites of this nature must have a page called "About Us", which this site does not have (in the bottom of the page one has two dead links to "Return to Terror Index" and "Return to Mehr Iran Home Page"). On which ground can one consider the information by Mehr Iran as reliable? It cannot be that one opens a website and fills it with un-sourced accusations, without providing any information as to the individual(s) responsible for the news! Above all, such a scandalous website cannot serve as a source for a Wikipedia enrty!!! A quick action is required to rectify this fundamental problem. --BF 15:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to what I have written above, it is important to realise that unjustly accusing a nation can be a matter of life and death. Therefore we must be fully aware of our moral responsibilities as humans (remember the Ten Commandments?!), so as not to play in the hands of those who have no respect for human life. In this connection, one should realise that American Congress is likely to pass a resolution next week (more explicitly, following July 4) that may be interpreted as a declaration of war on Iran. For details please see:


 * Speech by Congressman Ron Paul, boadcast on June 26, 2008, by C-SPAN: YouTube (5 min 53 sec).


 * Just Foreign Policy.


 * Text of Resolution H. CON. RES. 326.


 * The interested may care to read the following article:


 * Gareth Porter, Bush's Iran/Argentina Terror Frame-Up, The Nation, posted January 18, 2008 (web only),.


 * Kind regards, --BF 15:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, for goodness' sake, WHAT is the quick action(s) you wish to suggest? Partial editing block? Maybe you should follow the Wikipedia procedure for soliciting help in submitting a formal request for "quick action". The procedure is to insert the following message on your User Talk page: put the word "helpme" inside these symbols: – . You can leave it at that, or you can elaborate on your help request, OUTSIDE of the  – . Usually within an hour, a volunteer will respond, and ask you what you want. There seems to be a new policy to steer requesters toward using chat to communicate. So if you can't use chat, add a note to that effect, e.g., "Please note that I do not have the option of using chat." So I suggest you post a help request and ask what courses of action might taken, and how. Hurmata (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hurmata: first, I cannot comprehend why you should feel so free as to respond to my message the way you have done; I am neither your classmate, nor your pal in your next-door pub. Now to the actual matter. The word "quick" here refers to the fact that a nation in the present entry is accused of a host of terrorist acts (acts that are likely to be presented to general public as the casus belli in the forthcoming WW III), yet all of the claims (which may be true or false) turn out to be backed up by a single source. And what a source? The pertinent website provides no information as to the origin of the claims; it even does not disclose to whom this website belongs. Well, it all seems to me plainly dodgy, to say the least. If this is not alarming to you, then please leave it to someone else; you are under no obligation to respond to my messages on talk pages. --BF 19:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Further to what I have written above, the interested might also like to consider the following article:
 * Peter Beaumont, Rory McCarthy, Tracy McVeigh and Paul Harris, Shadow of war looms as Israel flexes its muscle, The Observer, Sunday, June 29, 2008,.


 * Kind regards, --BF 12:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A further article to consider:
 * Seymour M. Hersh, Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush administration steps up its secret moves against Iran, The New Yorker, July 7, 2008,.
 * Kind regards, --BF 16:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * More for the interested:
 * Dennis Kucinich, Mindless threats imperil millions, June 28, 2008, You Tube (2 min 4 sec).
 * --BF 23:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the validity of claims, I think that the only sources that need to be used are those based on the international court of Justice in the Hague. Short of that, I find acceptable any source from the US government but then it should be matched with an opportunity for a response by the Iranian government on the same subject. See also WP:NPOV.

My 2 cents,

SSZ (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * MEHR is only used as a reference four times in the article, so eliminating it as a reliable source won't change anything substantially. Looking at it's web page, it would appear to fail the WP:RS test. Disputed claims of the various governments involved should of course be attributed to the people making the claims. 78.105.220.50 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) While the POV tag is understandable, Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are hardly neutral sources. They're in no way reliable either. On the other hand, what hasn't been considered is Iran's call for [ http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52380 3,000 dead Americans by Nov. 7, 2006]. DanTD (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Taliban insurgency
The following will be used as sources to demonstrate the theocratic Iranian regime's involvement with the Taliban:


 * http://www.cfr.org/publication/13578/
 * http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Afghanistan/gen-petraeus-iran-backing-iraq-militias-afghan-taliban/story?id=9346173
 * http://wfol.tv/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2779:us-says-pak-intel-iran-aiding-taliban&catid=51:other-resources&Itemid=14

--William Saturn (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits
Recently User:William Saturn (aka Southern Texas, STX) carried out these edits:


 * renaming the article without discussion
 * removing the positive comments about Iran made by the Iraqi and Afghan Presidents
 * inserting a photo of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an attempt to link Ahmadinejad to terrorist activity (this allegation has been completely discredited by the CIA, see Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the 1979 Hostage Crisis)
 * completely removing the "Denials" section so it appears that the U.S. claims are completely unchallenged
 * completely removing the Taliban insurgency section.

Obviously this kind of blatant POV pushing should not go unchallenged, but based on this users previous behavior I am reluctant to revert as this will no doubt begin an edit war. Josh Keen (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You forgot to mention, "improving the article." You must admit, this article was a mess, I simply reverted to an earlier version that was well sourced and not packed with irrelevant information. What do "positive comments" have to do with state terrorism committed by the theocratic regime? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested move

 * Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka
 * Pakistan and state terrorism
 * United States and state terrorism
 * State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime

Can you spot the article title which is *not* NPOV?

I suggest this article be moved to Iran and state terrorism asap. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:Otherstuffexists. No weasels here. This article's title is descriptive of its content and does not conform to PC. The article begins with and pertains to the actions of the regime following 1979 Iranian Revolution. It must be noted that the article is referring to this time period, and to this government (not its people). Lastly, these are not allegations, they are facts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Purely for consistency it makes more sense to make it similar to the others. The article itself regularly refers to "Iran" doing things. If there was another article pertaining to pre-1979 Iranian state terrorism, I'd see your point, but there isn't. What problem do you have with Iran and state terrorism as a title? I'd really rather not go make a request for move - are you sure you're not willing to budge on this? For a start, how about "Islamic Republic of Iran" ? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the title Iran and state terrorism, it's not very descriptive and seems as if the state terrorism is seperate from the state. Most of the instances do not even take place in the nation of Iran, the article concerns the actions of the theocratic government and its proxy organizations. I am willing to discuss possible changes to the title, but will oppose if they are not descriptive. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The page's original title was Iran and state terrorism, and it had been moved to a new POV title without a WP:consensus or a formal request for move. I have restored the original title. If someone wants to move the page, they should follow appropriate procedure. --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with William S. Saturn's issue with the article title. It is silly. Also, article titles do not need to be chosen so as to echo other article titles. They need to be chosen to reflect the article subject, case-by-case. "State terrorism committed by the theocratic Iranian regime" is probably still not a good choice as it is too long, and the "regime" implies illegality (which is a valid pov after the last "elections" but still just one pov). "Iranian government" will do. --dab (𒁳) 17:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: Kurdo777 removed references from the article and put up tags stating the article is unreferenced.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What references are you talking about? You had blanked an entire section, and removed sourced content that you did not like, as outlined in details by another user at Talk:Iran_and_state_terrorism. If there are reference you want to add to the article, go ahead and add them one by one, but do not blank an entire section or remove sourced content that you do not like per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Kurdo777 (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no stock in this article, I simply wrote it a few years ago. The article you reverted to is a disgrace of the subject. If you have something to add then add it, if there is something you don't like, then discuss it, don't mindlessly revert. I have already explained my actions in the above thread.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I concure. William S. Saturn's edits are questionable to say the least. as for the title, we need to be consistent on all these pages.WIMYV? (talk) 23:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Any more edits will be treated as vandalism. This is obvious sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. WIMYV has added nothing to the discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am not Kurdo, or related to him. Look at my edit history. I am interested in modern politics of Iran. Many other wikimedians may share my interests.--WIMYV? (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you can't just make such accusations and attack other editors, instead of addressing the issues--WIMYV? (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To Dbachmann: What title do you propose? See all the similar articles listed on State-sponsored_terrorism, they're all in the "X and state terrorism" format, so we need to be consistent in choosing a title that's suitable for all the pages in this series of articles, that's both encyclopedic and neutral in tone. I would suggest "allegations of state terrorism by X" as the best solution. Either way, any new title would be considered a controversial move, and therefore should be proposed and listed at WP:REQMOVE for broader community input. --Kurdo777 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The checkuser determined that WIMYV and Kurdo777 may be meatpuppets of each other. They have given no reason why their disgraceful version of this page should stand. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You filled a RFUC, the result was negative. Now comment on the content, not the contributor. The reasons why your version is in violation of WP:NPOV and several other relevant policies, were already given in details by another editors at Talk:Iran_and_state_terrorism. You don't own this page, see WP:OWN, and you will certainly not censor material that does not fit your world view, see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Three different editors have opposed your edits, you have no WP:Consensus. End of story. --Kurdo777 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You and your meatpuppet are the only editors that feel there is an issue. Please be more specific, and/or make additions to the much cleaner version of this article rather than mindlessly revert it to a poorly written, unreferenced collection of words. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (EC) As a matter of fact Sockpuppet_investigations/Kurdo777 has shown to be unlikely the same account. Instead it has shown that WIMV is Behzad.Modares, a respectable administrator of Farsi wikipedia. Administrators of our wiki usually obey rules of editing quite well, I think their administrators are kept to the same standards. BTW I have heard that the government of Iran is not that happy with Farsi Wiki and their admins and active editors can be in physical danger because of their wikiwork. I would rather avoid personal attacks against them if it is not absolutely necessary. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The investigation showed a possibility of meatpuppetry. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no interest in joining this dispute, but I should note that a checkuser giving his (or her) opinion that meatpuppetry could be a possibility is not more "authoritative" than if anyone else were to say that. CheckUser is useless for determining something like that to any degree of certainty. I only said that because some of the edit patterns seemed interesting; however, it is possible for two people to make the same or nearly the same edits completely independently. J.delanoy gabs adds  19:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I request the editors who prefer the current version to answer the question I asked in the above "Recent edits" section. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kurdo777 is stuck in the WP:OTHERCRAP fallacy. What title would I suggest? Perhaps State-sponsored terrorism in Iran. I realize that the terrorism in question does not exclusively occur in Iran, but the sponsoring nevertheless happens in Iran, viz. within the Iranian regime. It's the best title I can think of at the moment, but there may be better suggestions. Just make sure the suggestions are driven by the attempt to come up with the best title within WP:NAME, not some personal agenda. I find it entirely boring that every time somebody looks into accounts used to push Iranian patriotism, sockpuppetry is discovered. We are so used to this by now that there is hardly any need to check. This of course reflects badly on Iranian editors in general. Yes this is unfair on them, but they only have the numerous bad eggs in their own camp to blame. Wikipedia is not going to be a sucker just because of its AGF policy. AGF has an expiration date, and that has passed several years ago in the case of Iranian patriot editors. --dab (𒁳) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope that my long history of edits and my lack of edits to any articles related to Iran clears me of the accusations being thrown around here. I still think Iran and state terrorism is perfectly informative and still NPOV. I can't see how it's unclear. And while I'm aware of the "other stuff exists" guideline (more for deletion than for style, really, but point taken), the fact that there are other articles with a similar title format would seem to suggest that I'm right. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no personal preference on naming, but f somebody wants move the page, he or she must follow the proper procedure set by WP:Requests_for_moving. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I looked at several names that are suggested. IMHO, "Iran and state terrorism" is the least POV name among suggested names. We should be careful not to use any name which has any kind of agenda.--WIMYV? (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"[Hezbollah] is believed to be the Islamic terrorist group that popularized suicide bombings."
Unsourced and unattributed. Seems like both Avoid weasel words and WP:Terrorist would apply here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

neutral point of view
The article as it stands now, mainly reflects the view points of the United States administration. Iranian response to allegations has not been properly covered. The article needs to be balanced. 22:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Sinooher (talk)

The article needs to be cleaned up according to the sources (so the unsourced info should be deleted). Andranikpasha (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to come back from my break just shortly to say that every thing in the article is sourced, the fact tag is placed right above the paragraph where the source is cited, I will fix this. Also I'm not vandalizing the page, I'm not going to vandalize the article I created. I am willing to compromise and I think that putting two Iranian quotes and zero American quotes in the lead is overdoing it a bit WP:WEIGHT. I will keep the one that pertains to this article and reinsert the quote by Condoleezza Rice. Hopefully this ends any conflict.-- S    TX   04:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think if a quote by... Condoleezza Rice will end the conflict (any conflict)? Some parts of the article seems to be politically biased POV, and I cant find even a description of problem. Also I cant open the GlobalSecurity source you added I hope anyone else can do it and this link is not death. Andranikpasha (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I just clicked the link and it seems fine. Point out the POV parts and I will try to fix it.-- S    TX   17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the most doubtful part of the piece here is the allegations of Iranian involvement in Iraq. There is very little real evidence that Iran has been sponsoring attacks on the coalition - and a lot of evidence that the Bush administration and those seeking to please it have used Iran as an excuse for the administration's own policy failures. There is much more evidence of Saudi terrorists and suicide bombers active in Iraq, and the activities of Sunni-aligned insurgents (including the Saudis, but also Jordanians and others, as well as Sunni Iraqis) have been much more damaging to the coalition and much more destabilising than the activities of Shi'a militia (who were for the most part quiet until the provocation of the bombing of the Shi'a shrine at Samarra in Feb 2006). But that angle has been overlooked, or suppressed, because no-one wants to upset the Saudis. Take a look at the report in the LA Times from 15 July 2007. The group in Iraq most closely aligned with Iran is that backing PM Maleki - democratically elected and supported also by the coalition. Iran has said repeatedly that it wants stability in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the evidence (as opposed to the hype) tends to back that up.86.164.203.60 (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether fact or fiction the allegations are still made.--Southern Texas (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not there are allegations of Iranian support for militants attacking American forces is not relevant to this article. Attacks against coalition forces do not fall under any definition of terrorism. Poyani (talk) 13:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
Why are these sentences in the article?

Iraqi prime minister Nouri Maliki has praised Iran for its positive and constructive stance on Iraq, including providing security and fighting terrorism.[2] Afghan President Hamid Karzai has praised Iran, saying "we have had, very good, very close relations... so far, Iran has been a helper and a solution".[3] 

Two countries with terrible troubles sucking up to a powerful neighbor who can make their trouble worse. This has nothing to do with whether or not Iranian actors have committed terrorism. --Ebudswenson (talk) 21:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to find another forum for expressing your personal opinion. The statements are very clear and relevant to the article. Mitso Bel (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, the Iraq quote is relevant as the previous quote mentions Iraq. Why is the Afghanistan quote there?
 * Afghan President Hamid Karzai has praised Iran, saying "we have had, very good, very close relations... so far, Iran has been a helper and a solution".[3]
 * Rice does not mention Afghanistan (in the previous quote), and Karzai doesn't mention terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebudswenson (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a sentence about Afghanistan preceding the text you mention. The fact is that the US claims Iran arms the Taliban and that the Taliban are responsible for terrorist acts in Afghanistan, but the President of Afghanistan says the allegations against Iran aren't true, and he regards Iran as an ally. Both facts are notable and appropriate to mention. 78.105.220.50 (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * A speech by the Iranian president praying that the death toll of American soldiers in Iraq to rise to 3000 (even if true) is not a case of state terrorism. Poyani (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Terrorism
The most conventional definition of terrorism is "deliberate attacks targeting random civilians in order to achieve a political or religious goal". Most of the stuff here is not terrorism. In what world is establishing a military base in Nicaragua (even if true and even if against the wishes of local villagers) considered terrorism? Since when is disrupting a conference a form of terrorism? I think this article suffers from 2 important problems: 1. Much of the information here has nothing to do with terrorism. 2. Some of the actions committed by Iran, which fall under th definition of terrorism is not listed here (example: bombing of Iraqi civilian targets during war, bombing of Kurdish or Baluchi villages, murder of Bahais, etc) Poyani (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone have issues with me making changes in accordance to above? Please discuss here before I proceed. Thanks. Poyani (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * User William S. Saturn - I put discussion up yesterday. There was no response so I made the changes. please refrain from reverting without discussions.   Poyani (talk) 20:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of the four things you listed on my talk page, here is my reaction: deposing the Shah is not listed as terrorism, as for the others, sources say otherwise, so we must defer to the reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Which source has stated that Iran's establishment of a base in Nicaragua is "state terrorism". Also keep in mind that sources can be wrong. As for the Shah, it does not matter if it is described as terrorism in the article or not.  If it has nothing to do with the subject of "Iran and State Terrorism" then it does not belong here. Poyani (talk) 21:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it does because it gives background on the political situation. I removed statement about Nicaragua.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from reverting my edits until we have reached a consensus here. Poyani (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edits are against consensus, if you want to change consensus then you need to discuss it. There was no need to make a second revert. See BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Saturn, I see from previous discussions that many of these issues were raised previously but you reverted every time without discussion. I am not entirely sure why you oppose some of these changes.  Why are you opposed to removing items referenced to Mehr?  Mehr is clearly not a reliable source.  It is just a shady website.  It is not a publication.  Why are you opposed to removing items here which are not related to "Iran and State Terrorism"? These include:


 * Establishing bases in foreign countries
 * Supporting insurgencies against another nation's military forces
 * Disrupting a conference
 * Overthrowing the Shah


 * Even some of the other material, such as support for Hezbollah, is contentious. Hezbollah is only considered a terrorist organization by a very small number of countries.  But the source was good, so I agree that it belongs here.  But the rest just seems obvious.


 * In addition, I changed some weasel words (i.e. "some people say ...") and attributed each claim to its source. For example, it is not an established fact that Iran supports Hamas militarily. Some people accuse Iran of that and Iran denies it. It should not be stated as fact here. It should be stated that "Iran is accused of ..." Poyani (talk) 21:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The source MEHR is good because it shows the allegations, which is what this article is about. As for the four points above:

I am happy to work out any issues with this article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Nicaragua issue is settled. It has been removed.
 * The insurgencies are considered (remember "allegations") terrorists by some nations
 * The disruption mentioned is through terrorism.
 * Overthrowing the Shah is mentioned because it provide a necessary political background on Iran.


 * Also under the external links and see also sections looked terrible. What does Iran's nuclear program have to do with this article? I also don't understand why you put the intro of the revolutionary guards here. Establishing the guards is not terrorism. That info is available on the main article for the guards. The assassination of an individual by a state is never listed as an act of terrorism. It is not listed as such for the Israelis or Americans and it should not be as such here. Even if there are sources that describe them as such, that is not relevant. It is a fringe view. Poyani (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's treat these issues separately. For Mehr please refer to WP:SOURCES. For insurgencies, none of your sources are listing them as terrorism. As for your claim that "some countries ..." please see WP:WEASEL. As for the Shah. I don't think it provides any background information. In fact, it highlights a huge flaw in this article. None of the tactics mentioned are unique to the Islamic Republic. many were practiced by the Shah, who often assassinated political dissidents, supported foreign insurgency, and disrupted conferences. Many of the tactics in question are listed as being conducted by Iran's intelligence ministry VEVAK. VEVAK however is just the renamed version of SAVAK which was the Shah's intelligence ministry. Poyani (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Then that should be included in the background section as well. Furthermore, look at the definition of Amnesty International on the page State terrorism: "Amnesty International identified the main forms of state terror as arbitrary detention, unfair trial, torture, and political murder or extrajudicial execution." --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I am fine with using a consistent definition of terrorism. If you want to use this definition I can work with it but please note that then I will change the US article as well.  Under the Amnesty definition a lot of what the US does is State Terrorism, up to and including the assassination of Bin Laden which was an "extrajudicial execution".  There are even sources for that claim (such as Glenn Greenwald's articles in Salon or Noam Chomsky's numerous recent articles.  Also note that under this definition much of what goes on in Bagram Air Base and Guantanamo is "arbitrary detention" and "torture" and hence state terrorism.


 * Instead of using the Amnesty definition I propose we just describe actions which are widely described as "state terrorism" by sources. If we try to interpret the definition from Amnesty then we are engaging in Original Research.  There are numerous definitions for terrorism in the definition of terrorism page. They almost all refer to use of force against random civilian targets to achieve political/religious goals. This is widely accepted as the standard definition of terrorism (with minor modifications). Poyani (talk) 22:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. The point I'm trying to make is that these are all allegations, which the page was originally titled. I think that similar allegations should be added to the U.S. article. I also believe we should include counter-claims to the allegations in the article. At the moment, I can't do deep research on the subject, but perhaps you could. I just don't want a large amount of content to be removed. I wrote most of this article about four years ago, so there may be a few mistakes, but I'd say that the vast majority of it is accurate. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that these are allegations. But are they allegation of "state terrorism"? There have been allegations that Iran has been arming Shia militias which attack Sunni civilians in Iraq.  That is state support for terrorism.  But the notion that supporting an insurgency against a military force is terrorism, is fringe at best.  And I don't think we should go around adding these to allegations against the US.  If I add US support for insurgencies, for example in Afghanistan, as support for terrorism I will be told that it is a fringe view.  We should not be including such views.  We should certainly not be writing about them as if they are facts.


 * It should be noted that none of the sources listed for this article are listing Iran's alleged support for the Iraq or Afghan insurgencies as "terrorism" or "state terrorism".


 * I also feel strongly about the inclusion of Mehr. It is a terrible website to use as a source.  It doesn't meet the standards of a reliable source.  The items it alleges are not confirmed or reported by any other reliable source.  For all intensive purposes it seems like either someone's personal website or the website of a group with an agenda. Poyani (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, all material sourced to MEHR has been removed. As for the support for the insurgencies, see the brief statement on Iran in this 2006 U.S. State Department report on the alleged state-sponsors of terrorism.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Noting a change I'm making
The article currently lists the following under 'other allegations' of Iran supporting State terrorism:

"The Fatwa placed on Indian-born British author Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses.[1] In April 1996, Mohammad Yazdi, the head of Iran's judiciary stated that "[the fatwah on Rushdie] will finally be carried out someday"."

This is, as far as I'm aware a factual quote of Mohammad Yazdi and doesn't seem to be an act of State terror, unless the threat itself is the act of terrorism. I'm culling this from the list until someone contradicts this view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.205.156 (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

NPOV removed
I've removed the all tags, including NPOV, on the article, please use for sections or  for sentences, and clarify the issue(s) here. This will help address problems. - RoyBoy 00:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead doesn't fit article
The lead is too specific for the article. While the article deals with many examples and accusations from many countries, the lead singles out the United States for this. I recommend that this be changed.

Discuss. -- Activism  1234  03:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Same image with different captions
A picture appears twice right next to each other in the Israel and Hezbollah sections. They have different captions. Which one should we get rid of? Michael73072 (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I deleted the one with the least amount of info in the caption. The captions to me didn't seem to contradict, rather they offered different info, so I removed the one with the least amount. -- Jethro   B  22:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Michael73072 (talk) 03:50, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag
I'm going to tag this as not NPOV as it suffers from numerous problems. The article seems to mostly rely on US government positions, which takes a very hawkish and hostiel stance towards Iran. There are several problems with this article in various ways.

For instance, the opening line suffers from some problems. "Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution when the American backed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown and replaced by Shitte cleric Ayatollah Khomeini, the government of Iran is believed to have funded, provided equipment, weapons, training and given sanctuary to terrorists." It isn't since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 as the shah's SAVAK did perform various actions that can easily be construed as terrorism.

The first section is rife with problems. "After the fall of the Shah, the Islamic Republic of Iran established the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC - Pasdaran-e Inqilab) to domestically promote the government's social policy by use of force and propoganda." This isn't terrorism by any stretch of the imagination. Also, the Dawah party of Iraq isn't a terrorist organization unless one considers Prime Minister Maliki a terrorist, which few people if any do. Hezbollah as a terrorist organization isn't agreed by most and it is more accurately described as a paramilitary group. Also, the mention of the Japanese Red Army in '95 seems odd as their article makes it appear that the group essentially fell apart in the late 80s.

The second section says this - "Iran uses the Ministry of Intelligence and Security to gather intelligence to plan terrorist attacks." Is the source for this a rs for this subject (Federation of American Scientists seems an odd choice for sourcing) Also, is there any conclusive proof that the ministry does any of this as this directly implicates Iran in terrorist attacks.

Other sections seem to take a very pro-US government stance - such as the hostage crisis. Is that actually terrorism? The article for that subject never says so and the attempts to sue Iran under anti-terrorism laws has failed in court. Iran's actions in Iraq and Israel are also debatable and are arguably not terrorism. Jayran 03:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The beginning is to show what part of Iranian history I am talking about and what government I am talking about, just the facts. The first line is to inform the reader what the IRGC is. How is stating facts POV? The Dawah party was at the meetings, I will not misrepresent the facts. The US state department believes that Hezbollah is a terrorist organization since they are the leading organized killer of Americans after al-Qaeda, I thought the evidence should be included. The second section needs work feel free to edit it. The hostage crisis was ruled as a terrorist incident in 2000, the attempts did not fail, the money just was't awarded. The actions in Israel and Iraq are just there to state the evidence and the facts, some including the US State Department believe this to be terrorism, let the readers decide. Other than that I feel the tags should be removed. The second section is debateable and I will try to fix it. If you feel differently feel free to come back to this talk page and discuss.-- Southern Texas  05:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Your opening implies that state terrorism by Iran (if there is any) only started when the Shah was desposed. Going by the loose standards you are applying, many of the Shah's actions were far more indicative of terrorism than anything the Islamic Republic, no matter how nasty it is, has done. IRGC is a branch of the Iranian military - calling them terrorists is akin to calling the American National Guard terrorists. The "evidence" is controversial and tangential at best; it is more or less the American government's suppositions. This article is meant to represent "state-terrorism by Iran" - including info on non-terrorist organizations like the Dawah Party or Hezbollah does nothing to serve the reader except mislead them. The hostage crisis was not ruled as a case of the terrorism by the courts per se as Iran did not defend itself in US courts for obvious reasons - and higher courts overruled the lower court. The "we report, you decide" attitude you take towards this article seems more like a pov-push or a pov-fork than an attempt to have an article that is npov. I'm restoring the tags because this article in its current state is little more than an article on "The US State Department's view of state terrorism by Iran" and is in need of someone that is an expert or knows more about this. Many of your fixes just weasel words. Jayran 06:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am in no way an expert and I think it would be helpful if somebody who was an expert at this expanded this article without removing what I wrote. The article is about state terrorism by the current government. I added mostly what the American government thinks about Iran and it would be helpful if other viewpoints were added without the removal of my additions.-- Southern Texas  15:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm currently too busy to do in-depth research on this but as of now, the article is little more than a reflection of the American government's view. The various weasel words do not really change the situation. Also, several parts are not terrorism - including the inlclusion of the hostage crisis, support of Hezbollah (a paramilitary group), the facts on the IRGC, and the intro that implies terrorism by Iran, if any, has only started when the Shah fell. Disregarding past actions by the past government in an article called State terrorism by Iran is disingenuous. Just because the US government says it is so does not make it so - especially when taking in to account the current administration's belligerent stance. Many of your additions are superfluous. Jayran 05:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * While this position is valid, it makes the article Western; rather than not NPOV. Meaning a perspective is missing, rather than removed. Missing does not equate to NPOV. - RoyBoy 00:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not mutually exclusive, but I think NPOV seems more appropriate here. This is an article about an issue in international politics, and on such a topic there is always obviously an other point of view, so I do not understand how you can argue that 'a perspective is missing, rather than removed'. The US Government has for years adopted a belligerent stance vis-a-vis Iran, and its positions are not in any sense neutral, even for the West (many of these allegations are disputed and some are decisively rebutted, especially those connecting Iran to Al-Qaeda). As a result, this article is clearly anti-Iran in the extreme, to the extent that counter-claims are given a single paragraph in the whole article. This article needs to be rewritten or deleted, and probably most of the US Government sources should be removed, lest Wikipedia be quite rightly accused of being a fount for anti-Iranian propaganda. Sinbadbuddha (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)