Talk:2013 Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2013 Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving 2013 Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 21 November 2013.

Wikipedia

Iran Mid‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lebanon Mid‑importance

	Lebanon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lebanon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lebanon-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LebanonWikipedia:WikiProject LebanonTemplate:WikiProject LebanonLebanon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

Crime and Criminal Biography: Terrorism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Low-importance).

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article 2013 Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on November 19, 2016, November 19, 2019, and November 19, 2023.

On 19 October 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut to 2013 Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut. The result of the discussion was moved.

Title

Shouldn't we mention in title the bombing was executed in Beirut?GreyShark (dibra) 20:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is that really necessary? This is so far the only bombing of an Iranian embassy in 2013.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's too ambiguous. Could refer to Iran's alleged bombing of other embassies. This eliminates any ambiguities. Plot Spoiler (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what about 1998 United States embassy bombings and 1983 United States embassy bombing?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose 2013 Beirut embassy bombing. Hopefully it'll still be the only 2013 embassy bombing in the city by the end of this year... -Helvetica (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Moved. --LukeSurl^{t c} 23:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that we follow the format of the following articles:

For this article, we'd just need to add "in Beirut" at the end.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only Iranian embassy bombings Im currently aware of. Iranian embassy bombings should do it. Inline with the 2 moves conducted today (reverted TWICE) and ive moved it too in accord with those.

Also bera in mind OSEv Lihaas (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In Beirut" is unnecessary because there have been no other bombings at any another Iranian embassies in 2013, as of yet. But I'm not sure why "2013" was subsequently removed from the title. "Iranian embasssy bombings" by itself is a little bit too ambiguous IMHO. Having the year in the title gives the reader a reference point, therefore "2013 Iranian embassy bombing" a la 1983 United States embassy bombing is the most desirable title. --Tocino 03:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been another Iranian embassy bombing? (or bombings at that) If so then we could add caveats.(Lihaas (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

There were some explosions in the Iranian Embassy siege. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Iranian embassy bombings" is the worst of the titles -- ambiguous and outlets aren't using the plural form. There were multiple explosions but its still called a singular bombing. The 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut is simply entitled "1983 United States embassy bombing". I don't see a really compelling reason as to why this should be different. Plot Spoiler (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to use plural because there was more than 1. OSE is not a reason, nor is the media a reason for WP. Mere encyclopaedic FACT indicates more than one.

And because you deemed it the worst of all titles is not a reason to move while saying we need to discuss. the discussion is ongoing!(Lihaas (talk) 18:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

As you say, the discussion is ongoing, so don't force change when there is no WP:consensus. Plot Spoiler (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said so first, the discussion was this BEFORE YOU moved it. Sorry no you dont have control!

And while moving it to your version you added NOTHING about the discussion yet insist purly on your personal whim thatit should fit this. So to you: " so don't force change when there is no WP:consensus"(Lihaas (talk) 18:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Analysis

User:Lihaas has now twice removed the analysis section (violating the 1RR here incidentally), calling it POV. 1st revert, revert2. I can assure you that from my desk in Norwich I have no partisan opinions regarding the Syrian conflict. The section is fully cited and reflects the reliable sources (mostly the Financial Times). Please can a third party look at this. --LukeSurl^{t c} 01:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, I ll restore it. Sorry dint know this was 1RR at its not ARBPIA.

The content is not YOUR partisan opinion it is that of the source. The ifirst sentence could go in to backgroundbut it is rather UNDUE on this page, Still I would settle for it there.

As for being seen as a spillover from the Qalamoun conflict that is dubious as it has happened on the SAME day, so to coordinate and perpetrate that in a few hours is highly unlikely if not impossible. That was a spillover is fine (but again in background). As for th elast person that's worthy of analysis, but since its just the 1 section maybe as a subjeading of reactions(Lihaas (talk) 14:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Restored all content and just moved per babove. Better?(Lihaas (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

On a slightly different topic, are you ok with removing the expand tag in the Bombing section, Lihaas? It's still a bit thin but I can't find much else that feels encyclopedic to add there. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am satisfied the 'background' section now gives sufficient context. I would also agree the expand tag could be removed. --LukeSurl^{t c} 14:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should have a lot more, but that fine. And it seems someone has taken it(Lihaas (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Resolved

Responsibility

The Responsibility section was rewritten in a way that seemed to me to put undue weight on the notion of Israeli involvement. I have attempted to refactor this in a more neutral fashion, but more editing might be needed. The main reference added was to RT [1], a Russian news service; I've never heard of this and don't have any idea whether it is reliable; an independent reference for "The group has made false claims in the past" would be helpful. Also, the 2010 BBC reference quoted ("a name of convenience rather than an actual organisation") seems out of date; can a subject expert confirm what the current status is considered to be? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RT is like France24, Al Jazeera, BBC, etc. Its fine.

Not sure how it had undue weight against Israel, but that is not in the reactiosn section anyways. Th e actual claimants are thre. SO resolved?(Lihaas (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

The RT (TV network) article discusses the channel quite well. I can get it on my TV and it's clearly held within arms' reach of the Russian state. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. It was being used to support a (to my mind) very anti-Israel edit, which made me suspicious. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd take out "The group has made false claims in the past,[12] and expert analysis in 2010 considered this is "a name of convenience rather than an actual organisation".[13]" entirely. The Iranian claim of Isreali involvement is there. There's no need to add statements in such a way as to seeming hint on a judgement of the Iranian claim. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Gets us into WP:Fringe, WP:Undue. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I should probably have been more ruthless in the first place. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree as its going to another POV. The context here is notableLihaas (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 October 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 17:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– This minority grouping of titles is currently not WP:CONSISTENT with the majority of articles under Category:Building bombings in Lebanon, such as 1983 United States embassy bombing in Beirut, 1983 Beirut barracks bombings, or 1982 Beirut bombing. A year is necessary in a majority of cases per the naming convention WP:NCEVENTS, and is also desirable because they make the title more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to someone familiar, but not an expert in the subject of bombings (or bombings in Lebanon). Pilaz (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Iraniangal777 (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCEVENTS. Suonii180 (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.