This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
According to the NYT article he is a professor: [1]. Our article only calls him a lecturer in physics. Should this be changed somehow? Offliner (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Project 111 attribution
The previous wording implied the IAEA believed Western intelligence allegations, while the current IAEA stance would seem to currently view them as issues raising concern. There are a number of IAEA sources to support this.
Further, the cited sources only say the IAEA has named Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi "as the man it would most like to interview about the programme" and the "international agency readily concedes that the evidence about the two projects remains murky".--71.156.89.167 (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Merge
Whatever consensus would have been developed here was cut short by The Rambling Man's bold merge. Since the issue is now to split, I have created such a proposal below. ~ HAL33302:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The current size of Soleimani's article is not relevant. Its size has increased threefold since he was killed and the assassination article was created. ~ HAL33323:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The Rambling Man Please undo that move. As there was not a clear consensus and there was an ongoing discussion on the talk page, that action was unjustified. Can we just let this discussion run its course? ~ HAL33323:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment With the massive media coverage of this event (almost entirely focused on his death) we can not adequately cover his death without giving undue weight to it in comparison to his life and works. The move was immature and should be undone. ~ HAL33300:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
That just means the article needs to be actually worked on to expand his actual bio and trim down on extraneous info about his death plaguing the article rather than spinning another article off. Gotitbro (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This was a political assassination, and coverage of the event relegates it to it's own article due to the players involved and the target's role in the Iranian Nuclear Program. This is particularly true given that Israel is being accused of carrying out the assassination. Iran is stating that the killing was an act of terrorism, which also equates that the killing was carried out for political motives, which also makes it an assassination. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Fakhrizadeh killing: Iran's security apparatus under scrutiny
Given he is well know for heading a military program his military career should be his primary occupation, unless I am missing something Nheyer (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Regardless, he is known as the "father" of Iranian nuclear program (this is not just according to Israel) and should be described as such on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Netanyahu-MBS-Pompeo-Cohen rendezvous in Saudi city Neom
The criminal assassination of Fakhrizadeh came days after the media reported Netanyahu "secretly" flew to Saudi Arabia (Neom) to meet with MBS. Reports framed the meeting as discussions of "normalization", but targeting Iran is a top priority for both leaders. --217.234.68.245 (talk) 09:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
See WP:NOTFORUM. If reliable sources connect this meeting to the assassination, we will add it to the article. But these sources do not do that. The first one does not mention Fakhrizadeh; the second one appears to be a video-based opinion piece. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Tamara Cofman Wittes and Natan Sachs (Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution): Saudi-Israeli relations: The curious case of a NEOM meeting denied, November 25, 2020 :『There is a final, less likely but more dramatic possibility: that Pompeo’s trip was not just about legitimating Israeli settlements and tightening sanctions on Iran, but about coordinating a major American policy step that would precede the inauguration. This would have to be significant enough to demand a face-to-face consultation between the leaders. Such a step could perhaps even be a limited military strike targeting Iranian interests, such as the Natanz nuclear facility, where Iran has now reportedly enriched 12 times the amount of fissile material permitted under the Iran nuclear deal.』--217.234.69.151 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
That was obvious for political commentators immediately after Trump has accomplished his purge in Pentagon - see this article published in NYT on November 11 [3]: "In his final weeks as president, Mr. Trump faces a series of decisions that could shape his legacy in national security. He must decide whether to leave Iran with far more nuclear material than it possessed when he entered office, a direct result of his decision to pull out of the 2015 nuclear deal ... It is not impossible that the shake-up of Pentagon personnel could presage some volatile and dangerous period, to include even overt or covert operations against adversaries like Iran... It is possible, however, that Israel could see the next 70 days as a window to conduct significant attacks to set back Iran’s nuclear program.". And that is exactly what had happen. My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Again, see WP:NOTFORUM. If there is a reliable source that clearly connects this assassination with Trump's policy objectives in the Middle East, we can (and will) include it. But there is no point airing theories on the talk before such a source comes to light. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Nuclear physicist by training but not by education
Article states that: "Fakhrizadeh received his BA in nuclear physics from the University of Tehran in 1987. He studied for a master's degree at the University of Isfahan and received a PhD in nuclear radiation and cosmic rays." Written this sentence like an Iranian (a proud one) would have it done. The source is Iranian-- it cannot be trusted as a singular source. Multiple sources needed to verify this statement. PhD in physics usually requires thesis and published it online which can be found. With PhD, You are entitled as "Doctor" but in this case, Mr. Fakhrizadeh was never called that.
It is highly possible that Fakhrizadeh could be trained as a nuclear physicist without a degree (just like Russians did to theirs in 1920s in cases on Zel'dovich or Petrzhak).
Ministry of defense has its own university called Malek-Ashtar University of Technology its graduate do not publish their thesis as it is security related(like IRGC imam hussein univwrsity and etc), the source here is Fereydoon Abbasi the former head of Iran atomic energy and all Iranian sources refer to him as doctor, the site publishing it is IRIN, Iran's official news network, it doesn't get more official than thatLFarzam1370 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I have added Isfahan University of Technology official website message of condolences, on that message IUT boards of governers explicitly identify Dr.Mohsen Fakhrizadeh as a graduate of master degree, his master's date of entry in IUT was 1989.[1]
This entire paragraph (except for the last line about the USS Nimitz returning to the region) is just speculation about an impact that may or may not materialize. Not everything “Commentators” say are noteworthy!--Etatsor (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings: This is a website for searching graves in Behesht-e Zahra And all its information is entered from the identity cards of individuals ...We registered on March 21, 1961, on Wiki fa, but it is difficult to prove it on Wiki en Because no source mentions this date...Anyway, I hope we find a source soon Hoseina051311 (talk) 09:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@AleatoryPonderings: you're welcome...You have to search for his name in Persian and then the date and name of the father and ... will appear.......Unfortunately, I could not find a way to archive or save the search result...so I took a screenshot that you can see
Al-Andalusi, That's an argument for deleting or editing those articles/categories, not an argument for including this cat here. I see no reason why the controversial claim this cat implies—that Fakhrizadeh was a victim of terrorism—should not be subject to the same sourcing requirements we impose on all controversial claims: namely, that reliable secondary sources are necessary to establish them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:12, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
If a person dies inside a separate, very closed country, and the media of this country interpret his murderers as a terrorist attack, then this is probably the same thing :) Or do you, as the author of an international encyclopedia, think differently? JukoFF (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't quite know what you mean. If the ministry of defence of that country called it a terror attack, I would not think that Wikipedia should repeat the ministry's views in wikivoice without attribution. If independent sources called it a terror attack, then we would be justified in repeating the claim in our own voice. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I haven’t seen anyone calling it a terrorist attack. Iranian govt/media is saying it was an assassination. Western media is simply reporting that Iran govt confirmed the death and is claiming it is an assasination. Bait30 Talk 2 me pls?21:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it isn't. An innocent person (without any trial etc) was murdered by a state inside another state (illegally?) with potentially other victims as well
When the government of a sovereign nation, any government of any nation state, not just the ones you or I judge to be credible, but any lawful and legitimate government. declares an attack of this nature to be a terrorist attack It is reported as such, and documented as such in Wikipedia. This should be 'end of story' here. There should be no playing favorites, no showing of bias, and no going outside the spirit or text of Wikipedia's Neutral POV policy in documenting current affairs. If the government of Iran, India, Togo, the USA, or Sweden for that matter declares a particular incident to be a terrorist incident then the article needs to clearly reflect that. KJS ml343x (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
For example, in this article published by NPR Iran's Defense Ministry clearly states "In the shootout between Fakhrizadeh's bodyguards and the terrorists, the scientist was seriously wounded and taken to hospital," - Source: [[4]] - this is an official statement from a government representative made to the international press. The same article further cites Iran's Foreign Minister "Terrorists murdered an eminent Iranian scientist today," which again comes from a very high level. National Public Radio correctly and without displaying undue bias or a non-neutral point of view conveys this. KJS ml343x (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
See my comment below, these are officials of a sovereign nation. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy should always be kept in mind. It is not your place, or my place, to determine whether government ministers are or are not to be trusted. It is massively reported as an assassination in the International Media, in multiple countries, has been described by such by officials of the country which, irrespective or your lack of confidence or trust in them are de-facto High Quality Sources due to their position. Therefore it needs to be reported as an assassination here. Besides let's not kid ourselves here, he didn't exactly slip on a banana peel while walking down the stairs. All credible public information describes this as a highly coordinated attack involving, at one point, a bombing - if this doesn't fits= the definition of an assassination then I don't know what else would. KJS ml343x (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Image 1 Although I have never changed the lede image, I prefer #1. But I don't really feel strongly about this. ~ HAL33321:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Image 2Image 1 We should choose a photo where he glances to the center, to the text. It's a principle of composition to achieve appealing page layout/graphic design. --87.170.201.206 (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Note I agree with the reasoning of the IPs, but he does not look towards the text in Image 2. The only option where he looks towards the text is Image 1. Not quite sure what is going on. ~ HAL33322:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah, that makes sense. On the second matter, I'm not surprised - I've seen a few questionable IPs here over the last week. ~ HAL33300:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Note First: Please don't discriminate against IPs :-) Second: I'm sorry if you had unpleasant experiences last week, HAL333. But I'm not "questionable". I just messed up the photo captions "Current", "1" and "2". Sorry for that. Let's ascertained that all three of us favor Image 1 - where he glances to the center. Because of MOS:IMAGES and "the most visually appealing". Have a lovely evening --87.170.193.153 (talk) 19:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
That may not have come out correctly. I have nothing against IP editors - I was once one myself. There were just a few IPs that made politically motivated edits that were not supported by sources. I shouldn't have generalized. I also just realized that you were just clarifying yourself - for some reason I assumed that you were trying to create the impression that there was more support. Sorry about that. ~ HAL33319:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Splitting proposal
NOT DONE
There is no consensus for a split in this discussion. On both raw numbers and strength of arguments, the support for and opposition to splitting is currently almost exactly equivalent and leaving this open is unlikely to result in further clarity. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that section Death be split into a separate page called Killing of Mohsen FakhrizadehorAssassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. With the massive media coverage of this event (almost entirely focused on his death) we can not adequately cover his death without giving undue weight to it in comparison to his life and works. Furthermore, there is a WP:Precedent. This situation is similar to Qasem Soleimani and Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Multiple reliable sources, such as the New York Times have stated that Fakhrizadeh's killing is as significant and notable as Soleimani's killing. This section thus deserves to be split and given its own article. ~ HAL33300:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. This was just merged (albeit in a somewhat unorthodox manner). Let's wait a few days and see if there's enough content to justify splitting. At least for general editing purposes, it is much easier to have a single article so we can integrate the biographical details that emerge during news coverage of his death. Before his death was reported, there was virtually no information about him as a person in this article. Since he passes WP:BASIC as a senior official in the Iranian nuclear programme, it makes more sense to fill out the article about him than prematurely forking to an article only about his death. Information specific to the assassination can be split off if and when the relevant section gets too big. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Weak support. It still seems a little soon, but I think we're at the point where the assassination has enough content for an article and is overwhelming the article on Fakhrizadeh himself. My concerns about finding additional biographical details are sort of moot now, as we've found quite a few (albeit many of them disputed). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Support contingent that the article title be Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. This was a political assassination, and coverage of the event relegates it to it's own article due to the players involved and the target's role in the Iranian Nuclear Program. This is particularly true given that Israel is being accused of carrying out the assassination. Iran is stating that the killing was an act of terrorism, which also equates that the killing was carried out for political motives, which also makes it an assassination. Octoberwoodland (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I prefer that title too. It keeps it in line with Soleimani's article and most news sources describe it as such. ~ HAL33302:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with AleatoryPonderings. The focus should be on improving the article ATM by using the sources that have emerged. If we split it off now there is nothing left in the article and we'll be saying that, hey this article has basically nothing on the subject but here is a page long death about him (with the argument that is the subject even notable beyond just his death to even have a separate article). So, I say wait for sometime let the article get improved and if the death still covers half the page, I would support the split.Gotitbro (talk) 02:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@HAL333: I am striking my oppose as the article now has enough content that it can do without a death section but I don't have a serious opinion on this besides a comment. Gotitbro (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose There is so little about him prior to the attack that his notability seems to be very much due to the unusual attack. (not that he wasn't notable before, but very weakly there). A separate article makes no sense here unless the bio part can be expanded greatly. --Masem (t) 03:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment This clearly merits a separate article on notability but I totally agree with the opposers that it's not reasonable to split it off from a medium-sized article at this time. The recent work on the article, however, gives hope that the split-off may be justifiable soon contingent on further expansion, so I strongly advise to keep the discussion open for a while in order to prevent that a speedy closure with a rebuke be taken as an argument in a re-opened future discussion.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose for the time being, per comment above - it would surely merit it's own artcle at some stage but, at the moment, the main article needs more expansion to warrant this. I would have no objection were that to happen. JW 1961Talk11:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Oppose - unless the killing snowballs into something larger - it doesn’t seem to merit its own article. Iran anyway blames Israel for anything that goes wrong in its country and threatens to wipe Israel off the map every day. So Iran screaming about the killing isn’t in itself notable. If Iran actually does something significant in retaliation for the killing then we can have this conversation but until then it’s really premature to create an article about the actual killing which may very well have no significant impact--Etatsor (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
XavierItzm The main concern here is content, not size. The assassination, the leadup to it, the response, and its ramifications, deserve their own article where they can be placed in full context. (But on your complaint of size, the article is already nearly 60 KB.) ~ HAL33322:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Very strong support. I see a lot of "oppose" votes above, but honestly none of them make particularly compelling arguments. It really ultimately comes down to two questions: 1) Is Mohsen Fakhrizadeh notable, as the subject of an article, outside of this event (BLP1E). And the answer to that is of course yes - he clearly was!...And indeed Wiki has had an article on him since March of 2008 - more than 12 and a half years before his assassination! 2) Is the event notable? And again, the answer to that is yes - it clearly was!...For all sorts of reasons, ranging from foreign affairs to internal Iranian politics (including the MASSIVE weakness and vulnerability in Iran's intelligence and state security infrastructure that the assassination revealed) to US politics, etc., etc. And indeed, many of these reasons are explored in the large and rapidly expanding assassination section, which now dwarfs the rest of the article....So again, we come back to the original two questions. The ostensible subject of this article is (or now was) clearly notable outside of the single event, and yet coverage of that (also obviously very notable) single event now has massively undue weight within this (ostensibly) biographical article, so therefore it must be split. I'm honestly surprised that there was even ever a serious debate about whether or not the assassination should be split into a separate article, much less that those opposing the split would have a majority of the votes! 2003:CA:8743:FC86:C96D:69D6:5302:2012 (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
support I strongly support splitting this article and calling it an assassination as opposed to a killing. This was clearly politically motivated as all past assassinations have been. Maqdisi117 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Support The section on the assassination has been expanded greatly in the past few days so that even if it didn't need splitting at the start of this discussion, it certainly does now; it takes up about half of the article, so this article definitely gives undue weight to his death. And apart from that, the event is certainly notable, which is proven by the extensive media coverage which is still ongoing (also meaning that the assassination section will continue to grow). Lennart97 (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Gotitbro, Masem, The Rambling Man, Nurg, XavierItzm, Etatsor, and Kiril Simeonovski A week has passed since this article was merged. It has gone from around 10 KB to more than 75 KB and the assassination section stills makes up half of the article. I have to concede that Gotitbro was right when they said that having having a single article would help coordinate the expansion of his bio as details emerged. When major news sources first began covering this, little was known and the articles often devoted a sizeable portion to covering "Who was Fakhrizadeh?" But now, the amount news article are beginning to taper out; the recent coverage is almost all from Israeli outlets and focuses almost solely on the hit. This assassination is pretty convoluted, with conflciting accounts suggesting everything from assassins on motorcycles to terminator-style trucks. A separate article would allow this subject to be even further expanded without giving undue weight on the context of his life. Hope you're all having a nice weekend. ~ HAL33321:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Some of the response section is media speculation on how the event will affect relations which should not be included until they actually do cause such relationship deteriorations. But even with those sections, I still don't see the need to split; 75kb of readable prose is well under SIZE limits, and the article is more comprehensive with it, since if you split the assassination section you'd likely have to add more summary about Fakhrizadeh to that article, and keep some of the assassination info here, effectively adding more. Given that the coverage of the assassination did not last long, it also likely fails NEVENT as notable on its own. --Masem (t) 21:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
That's how any pair of biography and assassination articles work... They share information. The Assassination of Qasem Soleimani devotes many more bytes to explaining the background than this article would require. The fact that Fakhrizadeh was assassinated is not 25 times more notable than the fact that he worked on the Iranian nuclear program, as the size of the sections suggests. If his assassination can not be fully explained without giving it undue weight, it requires its own article. Simple as that. And the coverage of the assassination isn't over. It's just not in the huge quanities it was a week ago. ~ HAL33321:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
We have a list of assassinations article, most of which don't have a split off article about the killing. We have a dedicated assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists article. We don't need a third article. Add more detail to the latter, link from the former, job done. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose split again. The article isn't so long as to justify a split. It's "long" in terms of bytes because of the huge volume of references, but not in terms of content. Splitting seems to be an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Alright, if you wish to insult me for my opinion, stop pinging me. I don't understand why the obsession with splitting this article started around 50KB ago, and I don't understand it now. If the article was in a decent condition and there was a massive clamour for splitting, I'd get it, but I see literally no benefit in doing it. And I certainly don't appreciate your tone or approach, so as I said, leave me out of future discussion, you carry on with your crusade without dragging me back into it time and again. Good luck with whatever it is you're trying to achieve. And for the record, it should be "its size", not "it's size", since this appears to be a "who can be a dick" competition. P.S. I think you'll find (if you read what I wrote) I said the content didn't necessitate a split. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a personal attack. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 00:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:CONTENTSPLIT discusses distinct topics, i.e. a biography and an assassination. You were not referring to the two distinct topics but the "[lack of a] huge volume... of content." You were still talking about the size of the content. So yes, it was a straw man. On top of that, attacking an argument is not a personal attack. Any one can point out flaws in my reasoning - I'm perfectly fine with that and it doesn't affect me emotionally. On the second subject, you're the one who established this tone when you told me to "Get a grip" when I plainly stated that we shouldn't merge. Prior to that, I had known you to be a pretty stand-up editor. ~ HAL33300:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion and I'll just weigh in to say that calling a proposal that has substantial support 'absurd' really doesn't help any discussion move forward. Apart from that, Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, which is basically a list of assassinations, can not be expected to go into full detail on any one particular assassination. And neither can this article, which already gives more weight to Fakhrizadeh's death than to his life. I agree completely with HAL that WP:CONTENTSPLIT necessitates a separate article for the assassination. Lennart97 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
No, the correct destination for critical commentary of this event, along with all other similar events is the Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists. Probably a good idea to consider a merge of some of the less repetitive material found in this article about the general theme over there and leave this as the bio. This proposal doesn't have "substantial support". Why do we need three articles covering in various levels of detail the death of one individual? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm saying that Iranian scientists have been killed routinely and the best place to cover that is in the main article. If you think that article is lacking in coverage then I suggest you do something about it! This "assassination" is routine and should be assimilated appropriately. No news coverage for the last few days means it's not a notable "event" in its own right. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Routine? The last time this happened was in 2012. And what do you mean no news coverage in the last few days? Just today, the BBC, CBS, and The Guardian - all top-notch sources - published articles about his assassination. ~ HAL33302:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I'd oppose a split proposal for now due to the fact that there is simply no justification for it. The section on his death perfectly fits into this page. Comparing it to the article about Qasem Soleimani is also pretty pointless because each article happens to have its own structure and outline. If the section on his bio prior to the attack gets more and more expanded, then we can consider splitting the part covering the attack and its aftermath as "Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizade". Keivan.fTalk03:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Support split. The notability of both the person and the killing are what's relevant here, per WP:N. The oppose VOTES that it is "unnecessary" or "not long enough yet", are weak, because a split is precisely what would best allow this currently major topic to develop and be expanded upon. Also, to the closer: consider how much the killing section has grown since this discussion was started. The "it's not long enough" and "it's unnecessary" arguments have become quite obsolete for that very reason. I'd also like to state that The Rambling Man's interpretation of WP:IAR is bizarre and disruptive. IAR meant to circumvent unnecessary bureaucracy, not enforce your own preference when discussions are still ongoing. Prinsgezinde (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
That's not clear at all. In fact, it's clear to me that the current consensus supports a split. I guess I should just IAR and go ahead with the split, right? Makes total sense. Lennart97 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment most of the material relating to the assassination should be moved to the main article, i.e. Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists which is missing a lot of detail on this. For this BLP, the fact he was assassinated with some details around the exact chain of events would satisfy. There's an awfully large amount of fluff here which is re-hashed stuff that can go into the main "assassination of Iranian scientists" article, that's really general and not related specifically to Fakhrizade. I mean there's a whole para on some "bill" which was going to happen and then didn't. This really is puffing up a subject for the sake of it. What's the state of play on longevity, do we have loads of major news sources around the globe still reporting on this specific assassination? I'm not sure, I haven't seen anything at all anywhere after the day it happened, as it wasn't unusual, but perhaps I missed the huge legacy of this one specific assassination (as opposed to all the other specific assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists)? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
I mean, honestly, in all good faith, I'm reading tabloid shite like "The New York Times reported that:『One American official — along with two other intelligence officials — said that Israel was behind the attack on the scientist.』It added that "It was unclear how much the United States may have known about the operation in advance, but the two nations are the closest of allies and have long shared intelligence regarding Iran."[99]" being added here to fluff this up? seriously. No wonder this article is bloated beyond belief, it's just full of speculation and tabloidism. Good grief. I'd probably be tempted to support a split here now just to send the split out tabloid crap to be salted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
