Talk:2011 alleged Iran assassination plot

Alternative naming

Isn't "Iranian assassination plot" a too vague title for the article? I would recommend "Operation Red Coalition", since it is the name in one of the main sources. --Brandizzi (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It was just a temporary and functional title, and now has been duly changed by NuclearWarfare to the present title of "Adel Al-Jubeir assassination plot". It's a more technical and academic and collegiate title. As it probably should be, in a way. The former title was just a working title, and not necessarily meant to be permanent. It's better now. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Operation Red Coalition" is a much better name. Why? Because the alleged conspiracy involved more than a plot to assassinate Adel al-Jubeir, and because we don't know if this actually was a real plot or something the American government agencies fabricated to justify some ulterior motive. Truthtellers78 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We need stronger reasons than this. "Operation Red Coalition" is not a recognized term in relation to the plot while it is commonly known in the media as a plot to assassinate Adel Al-Jubeir. And Truthtellers WP:Soapboxing is irrelevant. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with you because of several reasons. Firstly the alleged plot involved more than assassinate Adel Al-Jubeir, it also involved bombing embassies. Secondly the name is not neutral and implies that the Iranians did it, and that there actually was a assasination plot. The whole deal could be a frame up to incriminate Iran and motivate some alterier motives, such as sanctions and War against Iran. I can not find a single thirld party publictation that uses the name Adel Al-Jubeir Assassination plot,whereas "Operation Red Coalition" is the name the FBI used for the sting.

"The top secret counter operation was carried out by the FBI and was codenamed ‘Operation Red Coalition’ and it began in May."

http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/10585440-operation-red-coalition-fbi-foils-an-assassination-plan

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=673675

This name thus sets the whole article to be written from a non-neutral point of view. This is also causing a content conflict where you say that claims of inconsistency should be merged with responsibility while they are two different subjects.

I think that you are the one who is WP:Soapboxing and trying to edit the whole article in a fashion that benefits Israel. From what I can see on your talk page I would say that you are conduction Israel-advocacy, I think this is why you remove content that doesn't this fit this agenda and creating pages and articles that is damaging to Iran, but this is another discussion.

Another point that I want to make is that claims of inconsistency has been a central theme in the discussion and analysis of the event it is not the same thing as responsibility that assumes that there really was a plot. It must be included for the article to be balanced.

I would advise you not to remove me content and do any more reverts before we settle this on the talk page to avoid a further edit warring.

Truthtellers78 (talk) 22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You are really out of line with your fringe comments and personal attacks against me that violate WP:Assume good faith. I recommend you strike those unjustified personal attacks against me. This uncivil behavior is not acceptable.

Regarding the article title, it does not assume Iranian culpability. You are mistaken. The key element of the plot was the alleged goal to assassinate Adel al-Jubeir. That's why it is the current title. The focus of the article is this alleged plot, not the FBI case name, "Operation Red Coalition," which is barely mentioned in the media. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I do think that it does assume Iranian culpability, because we don't know there ever was a plot to assassinate Adel al-Jubeir to begin with and you are removing content that suggests otherwise. I am just stating my opinion and thoughts regarding your point of view based on facts, and didn't you accuse me of soapboxing first?

We don't agree on the name the article should have and you are removing content that is well cited and I think is really important to this article because it doesn't fit your point of view. Stop doing this and let's settle this on the talk page. I won't change the article name and I'm asking you not to remove my content again because many analysts have pointed that the whole story have holes in it, it is relevant to include this point of view and the whole article cannot be based on the perspective of a single editor.

Maybe the article should be given a whole new name, based on empirical research? For now I'm putting back claims of inconsistency and I advise you not to remove well cited content.

Truthtellers78 (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the "inconsistency" section isn't well sourced as I mention in detail in the section below. The piece from The Diplomat is not a WP:RS because it is an opinion piece from an openly partisan author--not an objective analysis from a newspaper. The link is wrong in the second piece. And thirdly, all this material is already discussed in the section "Alleged responsibility". And I think you fail to understand what WP:Soapboxing is... I'm not propounding my ideas about Iran/Israel and making accusations about your political views like you are of me. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we are making progress here. Let’s put an end to reverting for a while. You claim that the sources that my sections use are not reliable source and based on biased opinions. Well almost all sources that this article is based on are opinions and interpretations of claims and accusations .There are very few facts here, the only facts we have are a bunch of claims, accusations and counter accusations made by several sides. Do you think that the Brookings Institution is not opinionated? Every author and every piece "News" being published is in fact an opinion piece of some sort, I don't think this is a valid argument to single out my sources.

Secondly I agree with you that some of the views being expressed in the section "Alleged responsibility" coincide with the claims being made in the section "claim of inconsistency" but most of the views are different and discuss how much the Iranian government was involved in the plot. But the two claims are quite distinct, there is a difference between the claim that the whole alleged plot is a shame and who is responsible for the plot.

I think that both sections should exist, and the claims/contents be separated. I'm also willing to look at the references and try to improve them.

Don't you think that the name Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot is biased and leas to circular reasoning? Wouldn't a more neutral name be :Adel al-Jubeir assassination allegation?

I hope that you are not propounding any political views, and I hope that I'm not either. But I feel that you tend to revert content that you don't agree with.

Truthtellers78 (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge redux

Unless I'm mistaken [1] was copying content from the other article in to this one. However the other article has now been deleted, and the attribution for the copied content was fairly confusing. Because of this, I have requested a history merge of the other article in to here. Please remember if you are copying content from another article when merging you should provide proper attribution to the article you copied from so the contributors attribution requirements are met and also remember to tag the original article to make it clear that it is needed for attribution requirements so it won't be deleted. Alternatively, request a history merge of the article you are copying from to the article you are copying to. Nil Einne (talk) 11:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As the creator of the other article, I deserved to be notified and allowed to give input for the merge. It was poorly handled and I would like my contributions to be accredited. DarthBotto _talk•cont 14:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly simple. There was no real need to waste time, and leave more possible confusion to linger. It was already discussed on Talk to some degree, and it has NOTHING to do with the fact that I created this article. It was these two facts and factors: One...the article here that I did was created FIRST... Number two, the article I created was more developed, bigger, with more info and material on it. The one you did was created afterwards, and it was barely a stub. If it had been the other way around (regardless of which one I personally created), I know that fair is fair, and logic is logic, and then your article would have been the proper one to remain, and to be merged to. But the fact (that can be checked out and verified) is the one I created was done prior to yours, and also was the very first one created on this subject. And it was a LOT more developed. And again, no need to wait around, to allow more confusion. It was discussed to some degree. And I did make notations in the edit comment, so attribution (even if not in the most perfect way) was done. Again, it was simply a matter of seniority and size. NOTHING else. I try to be fair. If your article was created before mine, and was more developed, I (honestly) would have stepped back, and would have allowed mine to be merged into yours. But mine came before, first in fact, and it was more developed. That's all it was. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is ot grounds for your to draw conclusions. [2][3]Lihaas (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

See what I mean by confusion. You might be misunderstanding. The section that was closed was NEVER originally on this article talk page. It was on the OTHER one, that got deleted. It does not even apply anymore.

Anyway, as far as the matter of which article in general, let's move on already...This article here came first, and was way more developed. It was only logical (and necessary) that this one be the one remaining. So? But check out the proof of what I mean:

(cur | prev) 18:41, 11 October 2011‎ Hashem sfarim (talk | contribs)‎ (110 bytes) (created article...under construction)

(cur | prev) 21:56, 11 October 2011‎ DarthBotto (talk | contribs)‎ (105 bytes) (←Created page with ' talkheader WikiProject Iran WikiProject United States WikiProject International relations ')

Check here and here to see actual solid proof of it.

This article here came first, and was more developed, and there was no real need to waste time and let the matter or confusion linger. Why? What purpose would that have served? It's like you totally ignored everything I wrote just before. It has nothing to do with your misapplication of "I don't like". It had everything to do with sequence, material, and timing. Now get over it, and move on and let's just deal with the article itself. (By the way, one of the links you put up in your comment was not even me, but "NuclearWarfare".) You're spending time on this nonsense, when it is not even close to necessary. Hashem sfarim (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not replying to my article being merged into this one; that doesn't bother me, so long as the material remains. What I'd like to see is the history from the other article merged into this one properly, which didn't happen, according to NuclearWarfare. Nobody here is really cares about which article remains, so long as they were merged properly. There should not be a counter-argument to merging the histories, nonetheless. DarthBotto _talk•cont 19:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Alright, now that I see the histories are all fixed up, I have no objection to anything with the article. I've always been a proponent of having the better Wikipedia article exist and I do recognize that Hashem sfarim had developed one more. I don't think further discussion is necessary, since the history was all that I was interested in. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure how to merge the histories. You say they are, but I don't think they ever were. So not sure what you mean. I agree they should be probably, but they don't seem to be. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Ease up boys... Hashem, you have to be admin to merge histories and you have to have a rather sophisticated understanding of how that works on top of it. No worries, I mentioned this to NW earlier and he completed the merge so it's all handled. As an aside, we don't typically choose merge targets based on first in time (this isn't a patent). Dont' worry though, it's all handled. Shadowjams (talk) 12:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I wasn't really aware of how that's done. As far as not typically choosing merge targets based on first in time (not a patent), ok, but that's why I said it was TWO things, not just that. I said "seniority and SIZE". The one I did first was also more developed...more info on it at the time. At that time, the other one was barely a stub. Barely an intro. Whereas mine had several paragraphs and refs already, etc. But also, it would seem that logically rationally the time-order also should play at least a little role in a situation like that. That time sequence should be a little bit of a factor to consider. Reasonably. But again, that was NOT my only rationale. Size and development was also the other thing. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

We're past that already, so there's no need to beat a dead horse. DarthBotto _talk•cont 15:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Implications

Saudi Arabia and Iran, for a long time, have competed for power and dominance in the Middle East. The alleged assassination plot would represent an escalation in the confrontation between the two. It would also be a drastic escalation of U.S.-Iranian tensions, further eroding any hope of progress in U.S. and Iranian relations over state-supported terrorism and concerns over Iran's intentions for its nuclear and missile projects, especially because this attempt, had it succeeded, would have occurred at the embassy and was explicitly targeting a government's highest representative, an ambassador. It should be stated that embassies are, by the principles of international law, supposed to be protected grounds, their personnel normally enjoy diplomatic immunity, and the embassies are the property of the nation, Saudi Arabia, who is being represented, not the country, U.S.A., where the embassy is located. Further aggravating the situation is that, while the embassy is considered Saudi Arabia's, it nevertheless is on American soil, in the national capital, Washington, D.C.

The implications section needs some work.Smallman12q (talk) 18:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of implications, I wonder if anyone would state a list of possible motives for the failed attempts? This matter is being investigated right now but from the reports in the press it seems that Iran is to blame. Law enforcement investigations rarely leave out the motive. The motive has people scratching their heads. If it was really Iran doing this, what is to be gained by killing diplomats or destroying property, all of which can be replaced without too much trouble, considering the resources of a nation-state? When you think about who would benefit, would it make sense to think of this as a covert means to pull another Operation Opera, which was overt? Ever since Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant was contemplated, let alone built and commissioned, lots of people were uneasy about it, but already now there is talk of the Nuclear program of Iran as it relates to this incident. There is also already talk in the press about pressuring anyone who might supply Iran with Nuclear fuel. So if the motive for the planned crimes was to mess with Iran's nuclear program, it appears to be succeeding. If, on the other hand, the motive was to kill the people and destroy the embassies, why would a nation state with an experienced intelligence service use people who are immediately identified in the press and who are not exactly stellar, like a used car salesman with a criminal record whose overt communications any intelligence service would instantly know would be made public in short order? As it is now, Iran's nuclear program is becoming a target and if everyone agrees that this was in fact done by Iran, then Iran's intelligence service are made to look like idiots.--Achim (talk) 00:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

A motivation would be the huge embarrassment for the US as a host nation for those embassies. That said, it makes very, very little sense for the government of Iran to officially make such an attempt, as it WOULD risk a full scale war. I'm also inclined to think some mid level type made a lousy choice in sponsoring the mission. As for Iran's nuclear fuel supply, Iran mines their own uranium, processes it, enriches it and uses it. THAT all said, this is a huge embarrassment to Iran's government and intelligence services for not detecting a rogue operation and forcing its termination as they have done in the past.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, let's please keep the conversation oriented toward changes in the article rather than general discussion on the topic. As per the suggestion of potential motives, if we have a source that lists them, fine, but if we pick from various sources and combine them as some sort of unified set of potential motives, I fear we are straying a bit too far into OR.204.65.34.246 (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree and apologize. I stand by my statements, but am unable to disclose sources. I regrettably knee-jerk responded to some obvious propaganda attempt above. I know far better, but was fatigued. But, frankly, ALL sides appear like idiots, when ALL facts are available for a viewer, classified and unclassified.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The {{Unencyclopedic}} tag

At the very first part of the article it stars with "Two Iranians, Manssor Arbabisar and Gholam Shakuri, have been charged in the United States with plotting to assassinate Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir on American soil on October 11, 2011. According to U.S. officials, the two planned to kill him with a bomb and subsequently bomb the Saudi and Israeli embassies in Washington, D.C. This has been considered an attempted terrorist plot, or perhaps by some[who?] even an act of war, if indeed it was sponsored by the Iranian government as some have claimed it was. Arbabsiar was arrested on September 29, 2011, at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York City, while Shakuri remains at large."

This doesn't sound encyclopedic (especially the bolded parts), and it sounds more like a Wikinews article. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 18:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the article is likely Encyclopedic, a better cleanup tag may be NPOV. I agree that cleanup in the header paragraph is appropraite. GormtheDBA (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Another disgusting propaganda piece

Sigh. Really? I suppose I can't blame Wikipedia for the existence of this article, but the story itself is nothing more than a propaganda piece for the United States. This article, while probably impossible to balance, needs more international perspective as to how other countries around the world are perceiving this story that I am afraid very few are buying into. 911 is a joke (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't assume good faith with your user-name - did you have trouble dialing the police on some occasion, or do you feel there is something humorous in the September 11th Al-Qaida terrorist attacks? Either way, the USA, Mexico, and most of the European gov'ts all feel the plot is/was very real. Are you trolling or do you have Reliable Sources for your ... your ... point of view? HammerFilmFan (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a section on international reactions, if that's what you mean. Ixathaqua 16:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That section is, at present, completely laughable, and hardly represents a global view. No one is buying this story and we need to do be doing a better job of conveying that message. [4] [5] [6] 911 is a joke (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That's quite a reach, and with all due respect coming into an argument like this with a name like "911 is a joke" really hurts your credibility in trying to argue a NPOV stance. That name and saying "no one" is buying this story reeks of an intractable bias which makes it hard to believe that you could reliably assist with the article in an NPOV manner. I also don't want to get personal, but some of us were actually in NYC on 911, and that sort of name is just inflammatory to us.--Cabazap (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

None of those links actually give any governments which question the veracity of Holder's indictment. If say the majority of 911 truthers have concluded that this is an anti-Iran hit job concocted by the Obama administration that is hardly encyclopeadia material. As it stands now we have Holder's 20 page indictment of the two suspects and Arbabsiar's confession which support the existence of the plot, while there is no evidence that it's a fabrication besides suspicions which do not belong in a wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.222.166.213 (talk) 19:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The reactions are from government officials, mostly. If you feel that is inappropriate, by all means, add to it. Ixathaqua 17:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but no thanks. 911 is a joke (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the phrase "disgusting propaganda piece" is a bit strong, and a bit wrong. Yes, this article could use a bit more balance and NPOV...I've said that already myself. I tried to put Judge Napolitano's words that this was NOT really technically "an act of war", but a criminal act, etc. And that gets removed for supposedly not being adequately sourced. Also, the thing you said about different nation's views, etc. But looking at the whole article, it does not seem to qualify for the term "disgusting propaganda piece." Because it is balanced by some views of people who think that this was NOT necessarily from the whole Iranian government, but rather probably just "rogue elements" in that government. The article (so far) could be a lot worse. It's not THAT bad. Though definitely could be (and should be) improved, and expanded. Hashem sfarim (talk) 02:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems that Saudi believes it. As does France. As does the UK. As does most of Europe. As for 911 being a joke, my cousin's family didn't find it funny, as he died on the 84th floor of the south tower. If you're looking for a joke, I suggest you look at Iran's government, save that it's not a funny joke.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I WILL add one consideration: If THIS is an act of war, even if it is a rogue operation, then the US and Russia should immediately begin a full scale thermonuclear bombardment, due to other rogue operations. As such has not happened, nor will happen, rogue operations are handled by the "owner" of the rogue. But, I'm unable to provide sourcing for that, as the information isn't in the open source.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Mexico reaction or position

Unclear whether Arbabsiar might have used US papers to enter Mexico, but Mexico would seem to have had a position or a reaction on this affair. knoodelhed (talk) 17:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What about Germany's reaction? From the course of events, I'd say this is largely a matter between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the US. I'm not sure how Mexico fits into this event, other than allegations that Mexican drug cartels were working with the Iranian would-be assassinators. —stay (sic)! 18:40, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

What? This absolutely effects Mexico as a US ally whose citizens were potentially involved in an attempt at terrorism on US soil. This is the sort of act that could result in a US military intervention in the northern Mexican drug wars if the Mexican government continues to be impotent at controlling these things and the drug lords start acting in concert with terrorist groups. Mexico absolutely NEEDS to bring these guys in assuming they are known.--Cabazap (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to disagree. If you've been reading the news, this assassination plot, in brief summary, was about two Iranian guys with ties to the Iranian government, sent into the United States to kill a Saudi Arabian ambassador in the US. However the assassination plot was foiled, with one perpetrator apprehended, and another still at-large. Mexico has little, if any, involvement with this failed assassination attempt. Btw, the only reason why Mexican drug cartels exist is due to the failing marijuana "prohibition" policies in the United States. —stay (sic)! 08:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

A Mexican reaction would be very useful. Also an Israeli reaction as the Iranians allegedly plotted to attack their embassy, along with that of Saudi Arabia. Which brings me to my major concern: (continued under the next title, please continue the discussion about the reactions here) gidonb (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say that ONE Mexican governmental reaction was the denial of entry of one of the key Iranian players in this. Probably on a watch list or he had badly forged papers. Even money though that it's classified and the Mexican government won't compromise their intelligence by commenting in public.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Shortcomings of the title -- can a better one be found?

According to the article and the media, the plot was to attack Saudi ambassador, as well as the Saudi and Israeli embassies. The assassination of the ambassador would have been in a busy restaurant. If so, we are looking here at three alleged plots of significant dimensions, not covered well by a plot to assassin just Adel al-Jubeir (important as he is). Now, I do not know offhand a better title, but would like to see if a better title can be found in consensus. gidonb (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Not really, because Adel was not only the main target, but in reality the only target. The News said that it being inside a busy restaurant was not necessary. It could have been outside the restaurant too, where no one else would theoretically get hurt or killed. It could have gone either way, it was stated. Adel was really the only target. No one else. Hashem sfarim (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the alleged plot to kill the ambassador in a busy restaurant, there were alleged plots also to attack the embassies of Israel and Saudi Arabia. The title covers some of one of the three plots. That is disappointing little. gidonb (talk) 00:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Plus the alleged plot to attack the Israeli embassy in Argentina, so we are talking about some of one out of four attacks covered. gidonb (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Skepticism

The article seems a bit skewed. The US government's claims are detailed and a significant amount of analysis are presented, with the presumption that the US government's position is true. The Iranian government's position is presented in one sentence, and is not included in any of the analysis.

Furthermore, skepticism of the US government's claim is totally missing from the article. They come from very notable sources, such as Prof Stephan Walt of Foreign Policy magazie, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, civil and constitutional lawyer/blogger Glenn Greenwald and a whole host of Iran experts.

Even the New York Times has changed its editorial stance, showing some skepticism. The wiki article should certainly follow suite. Without it the article will have POV issues.

See a small selection of skeptical RS:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/would-iran-really-want-to-blow-up-the-saudi-ambassador-to-the-us/246505/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/12/unanswered-questions-iranian-assassination-plot

http://politics.salon.com/2011/10/12/the_very_scary_iranian_terror_plot/singleton/

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/201110121715573693.html

http://www.juancole.com/2011/10/wagging-the-dog-with-irans-maxwell-smart.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/14/the-cia-and-the-iran-caper/

http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/14/the-iranian-%E2%80%9Cplot%E2%80%9D/

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/13/something_just_doesnt_add_up

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/10/12/will-the-washington-bomb-plot-force-obama-into-war-with-iran/

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/12/no-direct-evidence-of-iranian-government-complicity-in-arbabsiar-plot/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/odd-turn-for-mansour-arbabsiar-suspect-in-iranian-plot.html?_r=1

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/10/20111014122536970741.html

Poyani (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of skepticism is already documented in the section, "Question of culpability". We should beware adding too much skepticism per WP:Undue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A significant portion of the new RS on this story includes skepticism. Skepticism is not mentioned at all the lead and marginal in every section other than the poorly named "criticism" section, where it is mixed with a whole series of other information.

There is now a whole article published on the New York Times dedicated to nothing but skepticism.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/us/iran-sees-terror-plot-accusation-as-diversion-from-wall-street-protests.html?pagewanted=all

There are whole sections of the current article which analyze the situation based on the assumption that the alleged conspiracy theory is true. I think this is sufficient to show that as it stands the article suffers from WP:Undue.Poyani (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There is also a story entirely dedicated to skepticism on Voice of America now. It is entitled Alleged Iranian Plot Prompts Skepticism. May I remind readers that (according to its wikipedia article) Voice of America is "the official external broadcast institution of the United States federal government". When even an official government mouth-piece is forced to cover the story in this fashion, I think the wikipedia article should strike a balance. Poyani (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really prove much. The U.S. and its media institutions are quite capable of introspection, self-criticism and doubt. The same can't be said of Iranian regime sources, like PressTV and all the other propaganda outlets. Plot Spoiler (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. You consider the New York Times, the Guardian, the Atlantic, etc to be Iranian propaganda outlets? I don't think that is a legitimate reason for why the story is framed like this! I am sure in most of Wikipedia, NYT, Guardian, Atlantic, etc are considered reliable sources.Poyani (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fox news has this past weekend had a commentator suggest a case of 'wag the dog' to cover Attorney General Eric Holder regarding 'Fast and Furious' hearings and the Solyndra bankruptcy debacle. Doyna Yar (talk) 05:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The same story is now on Business Insider and Al Jazeera. Poyani (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll agree with ALL on a few points. When a politician comes out and tells me that the sky is blue, I promptly run out to see EXACTLY which shade of brown it REALLY is. If it turns out blue, I'm pleasantly surprised. Regardless of WHICH nation said politician is from. It's rather the nature of the beast of politics. BUT, the US didn't accuse, but INDICTED. There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference, as evidence is offered for sufficient cause to detain and initiate trial. Whereas Iran gave a one sentence blurb of denial. When one considers the nature of statecraft of opposing nations, history and especially the cold war, consider that when a US information source was caught in the USSR and the USSR provided volumes of information in accusation, the US responded with a sentence or two. When the converse was true, the converse occurred. It's called statecraft. Rather than either admit to a potential act of war, provocation or unlawful act, one side makes a one sentence, brief, rejection of claim. The other side proceeds with trial and eventually, the source is exchanged for THEIR captured source. In THIS case, it smells like a rogue operation. But, I have personal experience with a rogue operation that could either be acknowledged as a rogue operation by all OR an eventual full scale thermonuclear exchange would have occurred. Sanity obviously prevailed, as it will with this. Each side cleaning up their trash, as appropriate. BUT, that counts as OR, as my sources and events are classified.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wzrd1. There may be something to what you are saying, but I don't think it is relevant here. We are supposed to present the balance of the RS. Pushing the perspective of some RS but ignoring others what leads to NPOV articles. Poyani (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Argentina

Of all the RS reporting on this story I can find only one stating that plans of attacks on Argentina were discussed. That is one source at out of literally thousands of sources. Should this claim really be included? The one source could be mistaken. Poyani (talk) 20:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

A man was shot to death, along with his family, a couple of miles from me. The one source of the accusation was our local police department. Should we let the murderer go free because one source provided EVIDENCE TO A COURT OF LAW? Let the court do its job. I'm comfortable with that, why are YOU uncomfortable with that? If the court misbehaves, *I* will raise merry hell before YOU get the chance to. Either we are a people of law or we are not. I insist on following our history overall, we ARE a people of law.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't address the issue I raised. The person is not being indicted on attacks against Argentina in any court. Only one source is reporting that there was an attack against Argentina planned. The rest didn't discuss it at all. It is either an error on the part of that one paper (which means we should not include it) or it is a fringe view (which means we should not include it). So why is it here? Poyani (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Claims of inconsistency

This section simply repeats claims in the "alleged responsibility" section. I recommend the section be removed, particularly because (1) The Robert Dreyfuss piece is not a WP:RS - it is an opinion piece by a partisan writer, not an objective analysis. The link to the Guardian article is simply a dead link. So for now I am deleting this section.

I recommend editors focusing on the "alleged responsibility" section if anything needs to be added. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of the section "Claims of inconsistency" was to give a distinct section that expresses, skepticism of the US government's claim that was totally missing from the article although they come from very notable sources, such as Prof Stephan Walt of Foreign Policy magazine, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, civil and constitutional lawyer/blogger Glenn Greenwald and a whole host of Iran experts. The wiki article should certainly follow suite. Without it the article will have POV issues. The "alleged responsibility" section begins with the premise that the plot is true and one should be able to speculate from this perspective too. But these two opposing views should not be mixed.

Truthtellers78 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Protected

I have fully protected this page due to the ongoing content and name dispute. The locked version is simply the current version, there is no implication that the locked version is the correct or approved version. A fully protected page can be edited only by administrators. Modifications can be proposed on this talkpage, and after discussion an administrator can make any changes that reflect consensus. Admins can also make minor, uncontroversial edits, such as basic copy-editing. Placing the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page will draw the attention of administrators for implementing uncontroversial changes. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Article name

New wording in lead needs consensus

I have amended the first sentences in the lead to match the new title. The wording needs consensus in order to remain. The wording now is: In October 2011, US officials alleged there was a plot tied to the Iranian government to assassinate Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir in the United States. The plot was termed either Iran assassination plot or Iran terror plot in the media. The FBI called the case "Operation Red Coalition". The previous wording was: "Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot was an alleged plot tied to the Iranian government to assassinate Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir in the United States." Please indicate if the wording is acceptable, then we can move onto the next step. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Pretty good overall. I'd like to make one suggestion... maybe we could replace

The plot was termed either Iran assassination plot or Iran terror plot in the media. The FBI called the case "Operation Red Coalition"

with:

The plot was frequently referred to as the Iran assassination plot in the media, while the FBI named the case "Operation Red Coalition"

since Google searches (on the "News" tab) for "iran assassination plot" had 2,230 results, while "iran terror plot" had 393 (less than 18% in comparison). As the majority of media sources referred to it as the former, I think the sentence is a bit cleaner and reads better if we streamline it accordingly. Thoughts? AzureCitizen (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've implemented most of the above. I've kept Iran terror plot for the moment as that was a suggested name for the article, and is a plausible search term as it has been widely used. I get 1.8 million hits on Google. I wait what others say. I am here acting as agent and will implement consensus within reason and policy. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 19:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that we also should use "alleged Iran assassination plot" because it is the most neutral name and it fits well with the name of the article and because we have already reached consensus on this name after a lot of time and effort, we can't disregard from the previous discussions. I get 474.000 hits on it [9]. Another point that I would like to make is that "Iran terror plot" may generate most hits on a google search but it doesn't mean that it is the most used term in the media to describe the plot. The headline of the article usually also contain other words such as alleged

I think that we should change the sentence to the following

A term frequently used in the media to refer to the alleged plot has been the alleged Iran assassination plot, while the FBI named the case "Operation Red Coalition"

A neutral term used in the media to refer to the alleged plot has been the alleged Iran assassination plot, while the FBI named the case "Operation Red Coalition"

Truthtellers78 (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to see other views on this. It appears to me that the above suggestion is moving away from neutral toward taking a stance. If there are no comments in support, I will assume that the above suggestion does not have consensus. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SilkTork's recommendations for the lede wording. I think that's the best way to proceed. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I don't think that a google search is sufficient to determine which media term has been used more frequently. Maybe we should compile a list of credible media sources, or neutral? We are practically convicting Iran with this name, this is called being “convicted by the media” and this creates a WP:POV issue, why even mention what they media called the plot when different names have been used by different medias? Truthtellers78 (talk) 00:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, "frequently" is a judgement, as is "neutral". It's more appropriate to stick with verifiable facts. As you have mentioned sources, it does seem appropriate to cite the use of the terms, and so I have done a search, and used the first reliable source I found for each term.

If you are concerned that this article is mainly using Western media sources, and is so giving a distorted view, then we need to be looking also for balancing sources. Can you point to some? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Before we explore alternatives for the prose, we should take a look at tht title a bit more. The title that I created with my article that was inappropriately and improperly merged was "Adel al-Jubeir assassination plot", which doesn't propogate suspicions whatsoever. My content has been, for the most part, cleared, as it was merged into this article. However, the title should remain, because this new one is sloppy and comes across as it was originated by a fourth grader. We could change it in the future, assuming the ambassador faces future assassination attempts, but at this state in the game, we should go with a cleaner title. DarthBotto _talk•cont 23:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to name some of my sources now, the most important one is VOA (voice of America) which is the mouthpeace of the US government which still uses this term "alleged Iran plot"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/11/alleged-iran-plot-middle-east-war

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/13/us-iran-usa-plot-treaty-idUSTRE79C0SE20111013

http://news.yahoo.com/alleged-iran-plot-wikileaks-052400830.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/10/12/us-iran-assassination-plot.html

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/13/141305576/alleged-iran-plot-is-more-caper-novel-than-spy-novel

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/10/2011102165715629542.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/iran/Alleged-Iranian-Plot-Prompts-Skepticism-131884603.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-10-13/iran-terror-plot-US-Saudi/50746740/1

http://www.military.com/news/article/alleged-iran-plot-serious-amateurish-us-says.html

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/alleged-iran-plot-to-assassinate-saudi-envoy-in-u-s-may-violate-un-treaty-1.389690

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/1012/iran.html

http://worldnews.about.com/b/2011/10/17/alleged-iran-plot-referred-to-security-council-could-violate-treaty.htm Truthtellers78 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Thanks for that list. I've not been through all of it yet, but the information I am picking up from reading those sources appears to be already in the article. That there are doubts that this plot could have been done by the Iran Quds Force, as they are known to be efficient, and this plot was inefficient, is already in the article. Indeed, looking at our article as it stands, it is taking great pains to distance Iran from involvement. I'm not sure how much further we can go. We have "alleged" in the title, and we have "alleged" throughout the article, and we have more material on how it couldn't have been Iran responsible, than on the plot itself. Where is the information on the plot? Where is the evidence? Looking at the article as it currently stands, it reads as though there is a conspiracy by the US to fabricate a plot involving the Iran government. It would be good to get more details on the plot - to lay that out neutrally, without comment, and to then have the commentary in a separate section, thus allowing readings to view the facts apart from the opinion, and make up their own minds. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not really concerned about its context being alleged, but with or without Iran, there was a plot involved and I don't think "alleged" is necessary within the title. DarthBotto _talk•cont 06:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We have just closed the discussion on the article name, and it would be good to move on from that to other matters. It was agreed in the discussion that the name could be altered at some point in the future according to circumstances, though I think it's a bit early to be looking at that now. In order to make most effective use of our time here, would you mind if we now dealt with other matters, and when they are resolved, if you are still uncomfortable with the word "alleged" in the title, we can return to it then. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, moving on isn't really an issue for me, since this article is only a minor concern for me. I think there may have been a misunderstanding with what I was trying to imply, because I never really thought it was a concern for Iran to be mentioned in the title; I think it being considered alleged is already inherent, so it might catch some sideways glances from readers with "alleged". Then again, this isn't too terribly important, just so long as the article is not biased. DarthBotto _talk•cont 08:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion was not about the current content on the article but about the wording that should be used, you wanted sources that uses 'alleged Iran plot' and I presented them. Lets see your list who use the wording "Iran terror plot" and see if that wording is used more frequently. A central theme in this discussion have been if Iran really is involved or if the whole case is fabricated or manipulated to some extent to frame Iran and justify some ulterior motives, we cannot disregard from this fact. You are right; the article needs to expand in several directions such as the evidence, the trial, the suspects Mansour Arbabsiar and Golam Shakuri and the political implications of this.Truthtellers78 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood you. There are over 2 million Google hits for "Iran terror plot", which includes The Telegraph, Daily Mail, ABC, CNN, The Mirror, the BBC, Fox News, and the Washington Post. The widespread use of "Iran Terror Plot" was raised when we discussed the title. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to provide me with a list where the term "Iran terror plot" it used. We don't yet have consensus on this wording. Also I'm going to expand this article and create new pages for it to suit the needs.Truthtellers78 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there is consensus, despite your disagreement. SilkTork provided you with more than sufficient evidence. In fact, 2 million hits is overwhelming evidence. Let's move on to the larger issues in this article. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

• Click on the link in the words "over 2 million" above. If that link doesn't work for you, try putting the phrase "Iran terror plot" into Google; you'll be able to see for yourself which sources use the term, and also note on the Google results page the amount of results (it's presented in faint grey under the Google logo and before the list of results). I don't like keeping articles locked down for long periods, and would be keen for us to start moving on to other possible issues. If the only real issue is the name, and we can get consensus on that, then the article can be unlocked so people can get to work on it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I just feel that the wording is not neutral and should also include the term "alleged Iran plot" to make it more neutral and non judgemental. I may change the wording to just that later on. The central point for me is that We allow both sections to remain, the one that alleged holes in the story (claims of inconsistency) and the one that deals with alleged responsibilities(assumes that the alleged plot it real). If we have consensus on this then I don’t mind the article being unlocked Truthtellers78 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you asking for "alleged Iran plot" to be included as one of the media terms? So the lead would read: In October 2011, US officials alleged there was a plot tied to the Iranian government to assassinate Saudi ambassador Adel al-Jubeir in the United States. The plot was referred to as the "Iran assassination plot", the "alleged Iran plot" or the "Iran terror plot" in the media, while the FBI named the case "Operation Red Coalition". If so, we can look for consensus on that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes I'm asking for "alleged Iran plot" to be included as one the media terms. This is relevant because there has recently been claims of another terror conspiracy in Germany with alleged links to Iran, again without a shred of evidence. http://www.thesundaily.my/news/227463Truthtellers78 (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I have to say that would be an unwise inclusion that is not reflected in any serious sense in reliable media sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Content discussion

Let's open up the discussion.

I think the section order should be as following: (1) Alleged plot (2) Arrested and confession (3) Alleged responsibility - this section will discuss how far up the chain of command in Iran the alleged plot may have went (4) Claims of skepticism (more professional and broad than "claims of inconsistency") - currently, this section is too high. The alleged plot and arrest/confession need to be understand and articulated before claims of skepticism are introduced. Plot Spoiler (talk) 17:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you are willing to include the section claims of inconsistency. So lets get on with it and see where We end up. The article needs to be updated. Truthtellers78 (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I was always willing to include it -- you just kept placing it in the first section before the charges we're even being discussed. The question is, do you agree with my outline above? Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've unlocked the page to allow editing to take place. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I Think that claims of skepticism should come thirld, It should be (1) Alleged plot,(2) Arrested and confession, (3) Claims of skepticism , (4) Alleged responsibility. Otherwise I agree Truthtellers78 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a better approach would be to combine #3 and #4 together to a single coherent section which discusses both alleged responsibility and skepticism at the same time. They are logically interrelated and I think it is artificial to separate them. Thoughts? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

No we have discussed the matters, it wouldn't work and would create conflict to present diametrically opposed views in the same section, it would also create problems structuralizing the material.Truthtellers78 (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate on how it would "create conflict to present diametrically opposed views in the same section" and how it would "create problems structuralizing the material?" AzureCitizen (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes it would create a conflict in regards to how much content each side presentes in the same section, and the order in which they are presented.Truthtellers78 (talk) 23:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Truthtellers78, I can see there might be conflicts between the points of view of different editors as to how much to present and how to integrate the material together, while the distinction itself is still fairly artificial. By combining the material and parsing through it to make it well rounded and balanced, we'd probably end up with a higher quality article. Still, that might be a lot more work than people really want to invest. Plot Spoiler and SilkTork, what do you think of this? AzureCitizen (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Spelling of Clinton name

Whenever you unlock this article, let's change "Hilary" to "Hillary". KConWiki (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

New changes

I have changed back the lead because I think that is very relevant that no evidence has been presented that links the alleged assassination to top Iranian leaders. You also went on and made a few changed before discussiong it here Plotspoiler which I think is pretty bad. Truthtellers78 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There are those who are trying to change the content of the article before discussing the changes. I have a feeling that WP:POV is not being respected here, a central point this article has indeed been skepticism to this plot, many analysts have had doubts about it's authenticity, and I have presented much links to show this. Why do you want to reduce and marginalize this view? Should the US government claims the only that matters here? I don't think so. I think that we should leave the lead as it is.Truthtellers78 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have still got this article on my watchlist. While I note there has been a little edit war, I'm pleased you both worked through the issue. I will keep track of progress for a little while longer. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Lede summary of the body

It appears that Truthtellers78 and I have different perspectives on how the portion in the lede summarizing skepticism and evidence should be phrased. Here are the two versions:

The United States allegation of Iranian plot met a stream of disbelief from a number or foreign officials and analysts. Leading American leaders were themselves finding it hard to explain why the Quds Force would attempt such a delicate plot in such an unskilled style. No proof has been presented by American officials that link the plot to senior Iranian leaders.

The allegations were met with skepticism from some foreign leaders and outside experts. No evidence was presented implicating Iran's most senior leaders.

What do other editors think? AzureCitizen (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what other editors think, but I think that it is too short, it doesn't represent the source very well and it disregards why experts have shown Skepticism, what is it that that they have an issue with? And I do think that you are trying to marginalize and suppress a point of view which is against the guidelines of wikipedia WP:POV. Furthermore I do think that this is the first step of removing any claims of Skepticism to the U.S government claim completely from the article; it is basically a slippery slop which is why I must put my foot down.Truthtellers78 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Here another reason for why the content of doubts of the plots authenticity should not be shortened. There are 1.3 million Google hits for "Iran terror plot doubts", which includes which includes New York Times, Huffington Post, The Guardian, Voice of America, and the BBC. This view is widespread and well established within the media and amongst analysts therefore it should not be marginalized on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthtellers78 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't care which of these ledes are yours and which isn't, (haven't checked). The first quotation is the one that best explains the content of the article. DarthBotto _talk•cont 06:44, 09 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, DarthBotto. Would you mind pointing out in the article the specific sentences or portions that you discern the first quotation is summarizing? Primarily the phrase "a stream of disbelief from a number or [sic] officials" and the sentence "Leading American leaders were themselves finding it hard to explain... such a delicate plot in such an unskilled style." Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wholesale reversion of another editor's work

Hello, Truthtellers78. Please explain why you think my edits are objectionable, incorrect, poorly phrased, problematic, etc. Wholesale reverting of numerous edits with a comment to the effect of "you didn't get consensus" isn't a valid excuse for stopping progress on the article. Instead, specify and detail your concerns and opposition to individual components and edits, preferably with policy based arguments. See something specific that you don't think is right the way it's been phrased or changed? Edit that particular material, and include an edit summary that makes the rationale clear. If others are investing their time to improve the article, please put in matching time and effort. Why, specifically, do you think these edits were not an improvement? What, specifically, is the problem? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You are changing disputed content without first discussing it on talk page; this is not acceptable in any way. You are removing content, adding new content and shortening sections, merging sections together and in effect changing the character of the whole article, this is not some small correction of a grammatical error or rephrasing a sentence. The worst part is that you implement changes that other editors oppose and that have been discussed on the talk page with no consensus. It is your responsibility as an editor to propose changes, get approval or at least some kind of consensus and then push the bottom when it comes to such a sensitive article that has been contented. Why not remake the article first in your own user page and then linking to it here so we at least voice our opinion. Truthtellers78 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Making changes to articles to improve them is what being a Wikipedia editor is all about. There is no requirement to obtain community approval before making changes; that would be impractical, if not impossible to facilitate. As requested above, can you please describe here what specific issue(s) you have with recent edits, so that your concerns may be properly addressed? Xenophrenic (talk) 20:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

@Truthtellers78: Which content, exactly, is disputed? Be specific so that we can improve the article. I fixed your grammatical errors ("allegation of Iranian plot met", "from a number or foreign officials") and edited the sentence without changing the meaning of what you want to keep in the article, but you promptly wholesale reverted those problems right back in. Editors do not have to get special permission before making improvements; they are restricted against initiating repeated edits against consensus, but that has not been clearly defined here. Incorporating the alleged plot sections and including the actual details of the plot is clearly an improvement over the old version, and has no adverse effect on the only section you've voiced concern over to date, i.e., the skepticism section. I even added positive material to that section as well, so what exactly do you have a problem with there? Somewhere in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines it is written "don't revert good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes." If you have valid concerns, you should be able to point them out and articulate them easily enough. Here are side by side versions you can open in your browser: Prior Version and Current Version. What, specifically, is the problem with the text you see? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You edit before discussing proposed changes. I think that you have a problem respecting the WP:POV and are aggressivly pushing your own point of view. I have issues with many of your changes that I have no time to point out right now but I will later. One of the things that I cannot accept if merging the section "claims of skepticism" with "Alleged responsibility" you can't put view of those who are convinced that the alleged plot is real under "claims of skepticism", they are not skeptical about the alleged plot, they have opinions about how whom in the Iranian leadership is responsible. Truthtellers78 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything violating WP:POV in the edits and will certainly wait for you to detail and specify exactly where I am "pushing my point of view." With regard to merging the "claims of skepticism" section with the "alleged responsibility" section, you're losing me. Where exactly did that happen? Where exactly was material added to the skepticism section that included views from people who are convinced the plot was real? AzureCitizen (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I want the article reverted to it's prior version. I want all the sections and headline that you have removed or merged with others to come back because it is making the article hard to read and comprehend. The following sections must come back: Arrest and alleged confession, alleged responsibility, Claims of skepticism, Act of war. I think that you have vandalized the article and removed content with references that was relevantof skepticism" numerous contents have been removed from the two sections and contents have been places there that don’t belong there. This is clearly a WP:POV violation. Almost all material that was in the section "claims of skepticism" has been replaced with the material that was under the section "alleged responsibility", you know this very well. This is your last chance to revert the article to its prior version before I take additional action to resolve this content dispute according the guidelines of Wikipedia.Truthtellers78 (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

suggesting reversion

I suggest that this article be reverted to it's prior version. Let The Current Version be reverted back to the Prior Version, the reason is that he has removed numerous content with no consensus and made the article more difficult to navigate and read. I accept small changes that fixes grammatical errors and such.

He has also pushed for a point of view that deprives the article of a balanced point of view. Numerous content has been removed from the section "claims of skepticism" and content that does not dispute the plot been posted under this section. let's compare the two sections before and after his edit

The government of Iran vehemently denied the accusations.[17] While the U.S. Department of Justice said Shakuri was still at large, Iran said that Shakori actually belongs to an Iranian exile opposition group that aims to overthrow the Iranian Government.[18] Iran's permanent U.N. representative called the confession "suspicious claims by an individual", and said his claims were fabricated.[19] Additionally, a number of prominent Iran experts have questioned the Iranian government's link to the plot.[16][20] Some believe it was probably just rogue elements in the Iranian government. Suzanne Maloney, senior fellow at The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said much of what was known of the plot did “not fit the usual patterns of Iran's involvement with terrorist activities. It seems quite credible to me that it could be rogue elements, but I don't know to what degree the Iranian military tolerates such dissent."[21] Alireza Nader, an Iran analyst at the Rand Corporation, found it "difficult" to believe that Khamenei or Suleimani would order such an attack that "would put all of Iran's objectives and strategies at risk".[20] If an Iranian agent was responsible planning the assassination attempt, it parallels event in 1998, when the murder of prominent Iranian nationalists and writers was organised by three rogue Iranian secret service operatives, part of the Quds Forces [22] Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service, said, "There is simply no precedent – or even reasonable rationale – for Iran working any plot, no matter where located, through a non-Muslim proxy such as Mexican drug gangs.... The Iranian modus operandi is only to trust sensitive plots to their own employees, or to trusted proxies such as Hezbollah, Saudi Hezbollah, Hamas, the Sadr faction in Iraq, Iran-friendly extremist Muslims in Afghanistan and other pro-Iranian Muslim groups."[23] Reza Sayyah from CNN questioned the plausibility of the claim by asking, "Did an elite branch of Iran's military handpick a divorced, 56-year-old Iranian-American used-car salesman from Texas to hire a hitman from a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the ambassador to Saudi Arabia by blowing up a bomb in a crowded restaurant in Washington?"[24] Others speculated that the men may have been acting as rogue elements in the Iranian government, rather than the actual government itself. "It's so outside their normal track of activity", said a senior law enforcement official who had been involved in the investigation and would speak only on the condition of anonymity. "It's a rogue plan or they're using very different tactics. We just don't know."[14]

with:

At the same time, a number of prominent Iran experts have questioned the Iranian government's link to the plot.[21][22] Some believe it was probably just rogue elements in the Iranian government. Suzanne Maloney, senior fellow at The Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, said much of what was known of the plot did “not fit the usual patterns of Iran's involvement with terrorist activities. It seems quite credible to me that it could be rogue elements, but I don't know to what degree the Iranian military tolerates such dissent."[23] Alireza Nader, an Iran analyst at the Rand Corporation, found it "difficult" to believe that Khamenei or Suleimani would order such an attack that "would put all of Iran's objectives and strategies at risk".[22] If an Iranian agent was responsible planning the assassination attempt, it parallels event in 1998, when the murder of prominent Iranian nationalists and writers was organised by three rogue Iranian secret service operatives, part of the Quds Forces [24] Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst at the Congressional Research Service, said, "There is simply no precedent – or even reasonable rationale – for Iran working any plot, no matter where located, through a non-Muslim proxy such as Mexican drug gangs.... The Iranian modus operandi is only to trust sensitive plots to their own employees, or to trusted proxies such as Hezbollah, Saudi Hezbollah, Hamas, the Sadr faction in Iraq, Iran-friendly extremist Muslims in Afghanistan and other pro-Iranian Muslim groups."[25] Reza Sayyah from CNN questioned the plausibility of the claim by asking, "Did an elite branch of Iran's military handpick a divorced, 56-year-old Iranian-American used-car salesman from Texas to hire a hitman from a Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the ambassador to Saudi Arabia by blowing up a bomb in a crowded restaurant in Washington?"

Do you support my suggestion? Truthtellers78 (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight so I'm positive I'm understand you correctly. For the skepticism section, you want the top quoted text box, which begins with "The Government of Iran denied the accusations", replaced in it's entirety with the bottom quoted text box, which begins with "At the same time..." etc etc. Do I have that right? AzureCitizen (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

After re-reading the above, it's clear to me now that is indeed what you want, but in doing this, I honestly think you're weakening the strength of the "Skepticism" section which you've made clear you wish to advocate for strongly in your POV that the plot isn't true. If that is what you prefer, you'll get no further argument on that from me and I will change that immediately. What is your next issue? Please be specific just as you were with the text above so we can quickly resolve where we agree and where we disagree on the text. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It also occurs to me that if you like having sections for "Arrest and alleged confession", "alleged responsibility", "Act of war", etc., that's easy to fix without removing the relevant alleged details of what the plot was actually about. I'll add those and probably add some material back in there you didn't think belonged in the "Skepticism" section, although take note it isn't material from people who were "convinced the plot was real". AzureCitizen (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The response or claims of the Iranian government is not even relevant to "claims of skepticism" section, no government will readily take responsibility for state terrorism, and this is why the section "international reactions" should have remained. I want the content who alleges skepticism separated from the content that speculates about responsibility for the plot. These two views are not compatible because no source to my knowledge has claimed that the U.S government might be responsible for the plot.Truthtellers78 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

At present, the text of the "Skepticism" section is 100% identical between the prior version of the article and the current version of the article. I assume you're able to see that in your browser, right? Also, you've stated above that the section "international reactions" should have remained, but from what I can see, it was never removed. Are you seeing something different when you look at the article? AzureCitizen (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

RfC: suggestion reversion

Do you think the article should be reverted to it's prior version? Truthtellers78 (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Truthtellers78 would like other editors to compare the prior and current versions of the article and recommend which one they think is best. For quick reference, here are updated links. AzureCitizen (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Prior Version	Current Version
14 January 2012 at 1309	16 January 2012 at 0940

• Current (I refer to the link in the table, though it's actually current) seems better to me as it is well structured and readable. I see no substantial difference in content for an RFC though. Why didn't you go to WP:3O? BTW, the title (page name) is really bad and should be changed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply: WP:3O would have been a good idea. There was some prior discussion on trying to find the best name for the page here (look under the green collapsed text bar). Is there a particular name you think would be a better choice? Thanks for the input. AzureCitizen (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)