 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Haha this is the biggest bullshit I have read in a while.
According to who exactly is, "his behavior at the trial became a symbol of courage and determination." ?
And where is there no mention of, when Golsorkhi was asked if he will stop his terrorist business he answered "No" --JavidShah (talk) 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
why is the word shah always capitalized?
Probably the most biased article I've read in a while. Reads like a marxist propaganda pamphlet with no encyclopaedic information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.32.140 (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an expert in recent Iranian history, I must strongly object to this article. The text reads like a propaganda pamphlet, rather than an informative, unbiased encyclopaedic entry. In its current stage, it is genuine disinformation:
1. Golesorkhi was tried for having conspired to asassinate the royals, esp. the Shah. During the trial, he himself confirmed that if given the opportunity, he would attempt to assassin the Shah. All on record, all documented. Not a word about that in the article. You can (and I do) deem the trial problematic and the verdict disproportionate, and criticisms of that could be mentioned with references in a subsections of the article, as is usually the case on Wikipedia, but to simply omit these crucial details very obviously reflects a political agenda.
2. Hooman Majd is a proven propagandist of the Islamic Republic with a track record of attacking opposition voices abroad. Not a reliable source. Moreover, he is not in any way an authority to speak on history, both in terms if academic and biographical credentials. Why is he deemed important and authoritative enough to be quoted in an article about Golesorkhi?
3. The article mentions that at the time, the Shah was accused of having been behind the deaths of several named people. What the article doesn’t mention is that every single accusation turned out to be false. Again, the evidence is all out there, acknowledged and published several times by different authors and expert scholars. And again: why is this crucial information left out?
Based on the above points and several others that I didn’t mention, I would suggest either rewriting the article entirely in an encyclopaedic fashion with current, up-to-date references or simply deleting it, as in its current state, it is virtually pure disinformation. 2001:1716:4601:D90:9029:29DF:8DD5:F931 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
