Template:Did you know nominations/Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982)


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982)

 * ... that four Iranian diplomats were kidnapped in Lebanon by Phalange forces almost 34 years ago, and their fate remains unknown?


 * ALT1:... that the Iranian government believes that four of their diplomats kidnapped in Lebanon almost 34 years ago were handed over to Israel and are still alive?
 * Reviewed: Isa ibn Muhanna

5x expanded by Mhhossein (talk). Self-nominated at 07:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC).


 * Symbol possible vote.svg New enough, long enough, QPQ done. All non-lead paragraphs have cites. Copyvios picked up a bit of close paraphrasing, which needs to be addressed either by direct quoting and attributing or paraphrasing more fully. See here, particularly the sentence in the third paragraph of the "Fate of abducted diplomats" which is nearly entirely copied from the source. Both hooks are interesting and short enough. AGF on the main hook (subscription-only source), ALT1 is cited properly. ~ RobTalk 21:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the precise review. I try to resolve the mentioned copy vio issue. Mhhossein (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Issues resolved. I did some more copy-editing for one other close paraphrasing issue I found. I struck ALT1 due to neutrality issues. We really shouldn't air one nation's grievances against another on our front page. I'd rather not see Wikipedia cited in 10 years as a reason for a further deterioration of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I'm putting a tick on this, but also pinging for an experienced second opinion on this article. If you see any neutrality issues, please do bring them up. We need to get this right if it's going on the main page, given the topic area. ~ RobTalk 05:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rob: What you stroke was a well-sourced and well-attributed opinion and I don't know how you concluded Wikipedia would be "cited in 10 years as a reason for a further deterioration of the Arab-Israeli conflict." Anyway, thank you again for the review. Now I also think the original hook is more neutral. Mhhossein (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg Rob, I'm afraid I ran into problems with the very first sentence of the article, which states that three diplomats plus a reporter were kidnapped, which contradicts the four diplomats mentioned in the hook. (There are also issues with the wording of that first sentence: I rather doubt the kidnapped reporter was the only reporter the news agency has, but that's implicit in the wording.) Two sentences later, the names of the four victims are given, but now they're all diplomats. If one's a reporter, then say which one. FN15 (Mehr) gives detailed descriptions of each man's job title, while FN12 (PBS) varies in that Moqaddam is called a "driver" rather than a diplomat, though that could still mean embassy staff. Finally, I'm wondering whether "unknown" in the hook might be better as "unclear" or "disputed": either they were killed after their abduction, or they're still alive.
 * There are two major issues with this article. The first is that it needs a thorough copyedit, and should not run until that is done. If the copyedit is done by someone who can look for POV issues, so much the better. The second is that while I do not know many of the sources, I'm uncomfortable with the amount of bias inherent in their writing: many of them state as an apparent fact that Israel did the kidnapping, when the capture was done by Geagea's forces, and what happened next is what's unclear. The sole Israeli source mentions that the second stage of the 2008 swap would include a report from Israel on the fate of the four kidnap victims in exchange for info from Hezbollah on Ron Arad: didn't the swap take place? It seems unlikely that Hezbollah would have suppressed the report if they received it. About Geagea: he is reported in FN12 as having "said" that the four were killed after having been kidnapped; by using "claimed" in the article, Wikipedia is effectively casting doubt on Geagea's reported statement (see WP:CLAIM), which is a POV issue.
 * The second paragraph of the intro is problematic, in my view, in that it not only needs a prose revision, but it's taking an opinion of Nazih Mansour's that this has become political rather than judicial, and presenting it as fact.
 * I wish I had better news for you and Mhhossein, but for now this article needs significant work before it can be promoted to the main page. Thanks for the ping. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In response to Mhhossein, the reason ALT1 isn't neutral is that it presents Iran's opinion of things without presenting Israel's. Essentially, it would be using the main page to make an accusation against Israel, which some people would (rightly, I think) take issue with. I'm going to post this at the Neutral point of view/Noticeboard in the hopes of getting some additional eyes on this article. I don't think the problems are quite as severe as portrayed by BlueMoonset (prose is not bad enough to hold up on the basis of needing a ce, in my opinion), but the POV issues are a problem. I had flopped before giving his the tick on whether it should have to meet WP:WORDS, which is one of the reasons I pinged BlueMoonset for a second set of eyes, and after hearing his opinion I agree that it should given the sensitive topic area. Thanks for the second opinion. ~ RobTalk 12:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset: Apaprently, there are different narrations of the story regarding the titles of the kidnapped persons. Most of the sources (such as the one by Haaretz) use "four diplomats". I think there's no contradiction between being a photojournalist of a state controlled News agency and being a diplomat! What do you think? I also think "unknown" would better be replaced by "unclear". How biased the sources are does not matter, as you know per WP:BIASED, rather the way their content is reflected is important. We should be careful not to write 'opinions' as if they are 'facts'. AFAIS, wherever the allegations regarding Israel is written in the article, the sentence is attributed so that the readers understand that it's an opinion not a fact. On the Haaretz source; I don't know of the swap took place or not! Regarding the issue caused by "claim"; you're right and I'll do that. On the second Para of the intro; You're right again and I'll correct that by making proper attributions. Thank you for the points. Mhhossein (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Rob, some changes are made as you see, what else do you suggest should be done? Mhhossein (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, the NPOV tag needs to be resolved. An independent review for neutrality from a relevant WikiProject (WikiProject Military history/Middle Eastern military history task force, possibly) would also be helpful. Frankly, I don't know the material well enough to sign off on neutrality. ~ RobTalk 14:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm astonished that a photojournalist, even of a state-controlled News agency, could be considered the equivalent of a diplomat. They're not the same thing at all—diplomats have special status when they're in another country, unlike journalists, and would be credentialed entirely differently, too. Just because otherwise reliable sources have been careless with the facts by stating "four diplomats" doesn't mean Wikipedia should be, especially when there are more careful reliable sources available (and being used) on those four. I've struck the remaining hook since it contains the phrase "four Iranian diplomats". BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't insist on calling them photojournalist or diplomat or other things. The only thing I know is that we have to act based on the reliable sources. Remember that Your argument, i.e. "reliable sources have been careless with the facts", can be used to change many things in many articles and you have to prove this carelessness using some other reliable sources. Anyway, what should be done? Mhhossein (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear Rob, can you please tell me exactly what parts and what words have POV problems (as you have raised some of the POV concerns you must know the problems)? Ho can the NPOV tag be resolved when no point is raised. AS you see, your Neutral point of view/Noticeboard nomination has led to marginal issues such as grammar brought by an attacking IP. I don't say the article is neutral, neither do I say it's not! The only thing I say is that if you say it's not neutral then please be specific so that I can resolve the issue! Mhhossein (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of in the same spot as you in that I don't know if it's neutral or non-neutral due to an unfamiliarity with the sources. The fact that almost all of the article is devoted to Iran's view of what happened to the diplomats makes me suspect that this has a pro-Iran slant. When Israel's POV is talked about, it's often accompanied by somewhat of a negative slant. Use of words like "denies" is against the WP:WORDS guideline and suggests that Israel is guilty. The section stating that Israel handed over a "report" hints at the claim that Israel was responsible (rather than the more-likely possibility that they handed over a report on what their intelligence sources know; if they were responsible, they wouldn't go around handing a report saying they were). Fars is essentially a state-run media source, and you've used it to source the claim that Israel has contradicted themselves. I'm not saying you're pushing that POV; it's possible you've just found sources that have a pro-Iran slant as well. There is some alternative stances in the sources you already have in the article that haven't been incorporated. The Reuters piece calls the "kidnapping" an arrest, which isn't something even considered in the article as written. All that is a starting place, but what we really need is experts in the content to review the article, which is why I recommended posting at a relevant WikiProject. ~ RobTalk 05:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rob: Thanks for the points. I removed the "deny" word and would like to say that NOT all of the article is devoted to Iran's view rather it was tried to include most of available sources to enrich the article and most of the sources have paid to Iranian comments and actions, which is natural considering that the abducted individuals were Iranian! However if you find some other sources I'll welcome using them. On the report by Israel, this is what exactly is mentioned by the source and I don't see such a problem as you say. The Reuters piece have also used "kidnapped". Yes, there's an "arrest", but so what? they were arrested and kidnapped! Nearly all the independent sources say they were kidnapped (abducted). One point I'd like to say that we usually do the reviews here. If there are further points, take it here. If you think you "don't know if it's neutral or non-neutral" because of your "unfamiliarity with the sources", we can simply ask for another reviewer. Mhhossein (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Any other reviewer is welcome to review for neutrality and give a tick if they're familiar with this content area, but my point is that no reviewer is likely to have such familiarity unless you specifically seek one out by encouraging WikiProject participants to comment on the page (either at the WikiProject talk page, or here). ~ RobTalk 17:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As a side note, reviews are done here, yes, but content decisions that must be made to approve at DYK are routinely carried out on the article's talk page or another relevant talk page. DYK is not an appropriate venue to have a long discussion on neutrality that will likely require many participants. ~ RobTalk 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What should be done next? (BTw, plz consider this comment.) I went deep in the sources to understand the titles of the abducted individuals. Mhhossein (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Mhhossein, apologies for the delay in responding. I've made an edit to the article that included revising the last remaining occurrence of "four" with "diplomats" and also an unnecessarily inflammatory quote; it should still be clear from context that it's the four Iranians who were abducted. At this point, there are two active discussions on the neutrality issues—talk page and neutrality board—that need to reach their natural end and some kind of consensus before this can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I consider both discussions resolved in the sense that no specific concerns have been raised that haven't been addressed (since no specific concerns were raised at all). The point of the NPOVN discussion was to get eyes on the article, and that wasn't successful. The next usual step would be to notify relevant WikiProjects, as I recommended to a few times. At the very least, a neutral request for more eyes on the neutrality of the article should be placed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, possibly also WP:WikiProject Iran and WP:WikiProject Israel. If there's no response to those as well, I would consider neutrality "resolved". ~ RobTalk 16:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edit. I think that no specific concerns were raised at all, too and that the two discussions are inter-related. I don't think placing it at WikiProjects would be necessary and normal and I think the normal way is to ask for another review. : I welcome any specific problem, if you see any, otherwise we can't act based on speculations. Mhhossein (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alerting WikiProjects to content issues within their subject area is entirely normal. You're not going to find any reviewer who can verify neutrality without knowing the subject area. ~ RobTalk 18:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I admire your concern, but why do you think there's no reviewer here familiar with the subject? Mhhossein (talk) 05:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Because I know most of the regular DYK contributors and know that none of them specialize in the Arab-Israeli conflict. There's a chance someone would eventually come along, but it would go much more quickly if a notification was posted for the projects. ~ RobTalk 05:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

* Hi, I think the article is ready to go now. I did some copyedits for grammar and tone. Please add a hook. I think ALT0 ("that four [...] remains unknown") is OK, though ALT1 is not neutral. Intelligent  sium  12:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review requested: The reviewer would better consider the issues raised by BU Rob13, although no specific point by him is left un-resolved. Mhhossein (talk) 13:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol possible vote.svg This article is not neutral. Even though this article is about the kidnapping, the section Fate of abducted diplomats" is six times longer than the section about the actual event, much of which seems to be speculative. It's not a question of needing the Israeli point of view; this event doesn't even seem to be on the Israeli radar. A large part of this article seems to be devoted to fingering Israel for the kidnapping, even though as far as I can tell, it's not at all clear what happened to the diplomats and there seems to be little evidence that Israel is involved beyond the accusations of the Iranian government and its state media (on which this article relies excessively). This article mentions Israel 23 times. In order to become neutral, the emphasis on alleged Israeli involvement needs to be significantly reduced per WP:UNDUE, perhaps localized to a subsection of the Fate section.
 * Background, who the abductees were and the domestic reaction within Iran are usually major components of articles like this, but here they are conspicuously absent. These other facets should be expanded upon. The commemoration of Ahmad Motevaselian as a war hero is not mentioned at all for instance. I've found this source, which presents a more neutral treatment. Interestingly, it suggests that Iranians had largely forgotten about this event until it was raised again recently by an Iranian politician
 * In addition, this article still needs a copyedit. Why is the article called "Iranian diplomats kidnapping (1982)"? Diplomats should be singular, but what do sources on this subject use? Intelligent  sium  01:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. I think the Fate section is also a part of the article which is not separable from it. The article is naturally (as expected) written based on the existing sources which mostly deal with their fate. While no strong proof is provided to accuse Israel for holding them prisoners, the sources have dealt with this accusation and we can't therefore avoid it. As you see, it's tried to balance the section by using the counter views and denials. If you count once more, "Israel" is repeated just 10 times within the article body. However, I think we can reduce the emphasize on the accusation and have it locally in the Fate section.
 * Having a background section's a suitable suggestion and I'll deal with it.
 * I'll try to see what titles we can have. Mhhossein (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that sounds like a good solution. I wouldn't find it necessary to reduce the fate section if proportionate background and reaction sections were also added (and if the events section can be expanded). I think the inherent problem is that much more attention seems to have been paid to this issue within Iran (particularly by state media) than in other parts of the world, leading to an intrinsic selection bias. I looked again and you were right; nine of the mentions I found were in the sources (but it is still somewhat concerning if fully half the sources in the article about a kidnapping are about a theory which has little outside verification). Intelligent  sium  00:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A background section was added as you suggested and the event section was expanded as much as I could. I also tried to manage the Fate section by breaking it into three subsections and by adding more sources on their death allegation and hence reducing concentration on the claim of their being held in Israel. I also could not avoid adding the report by Rai al-Youm. For reactions I found nothing more than accusations and denials which are already included in the article. So, I don't know what you exactly mean by that! Please see the recent changes. Mhhossein (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the edits. I propose the altered for of the original hook, as now we know that the not all of them were diplomats:
 * ALT2: ... that three Iranian diplomats and a journalist were kidnapped in Lebanon by Phalange forces almost 34 years ago, and their fate remains unknown? Mhhossein (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Hook (ALT2), length, and date verified, AGF Arabic sources. Close paraphrasing check only shows quotes and names/titles. Pinging previous reviewers to ensure they have no outstanding concerns.  Intelligent  sium  15:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See the small copyedit I made to ALT2. Separately enumerating the "four Iranians" and "three diplomats and a journalist" is unnecessarily long for a hook. A quick once-over of the article yields no immediate concerns, but this is a travel day for me, so I won't be able to fully look over the article. ~ RobTalk 15:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)