Talk:Jamshid Sharmahd

Proposal to mitigate or reduce content that is State propaganda

Due to the fact that the person is still alive in captivity with their life in imminent danger, I propose to not highlight the accusations posed by the Islamic Regime of Iran. Especially sources that echo the Islamic Regime's state propaganda. This can create negative framing, and further endanger his life. Whoissya (talk) 07:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Alleged assassination attempt in US / alleged confirmation by Wikileaks cables

There is some charm in clicking a source and being taken to a tiny Iranian opposition YouTube page with a screen recording of a pirated CNN stream, complete with “MoxNews” watermark, where Elliot Spitzer credulously repeats some very Mandy Rice-Davies Applies claims from opposition leaders, and the cop whose claims are, AFAICT from the segment, the entire basis for the cable that we are claiming “confirms” them.

But, this is the kind of extremely inflammatory claim that if unchallenged is going to get repeated as fact by someone who absolutely knows better to gin up support for war -- so IMO that outweighs the charm of stumbling on a pretty transparent low-stakes influence operation.

To be clear, I'm not arguing that the claims in the video are necessarily untrue, but even ignoring the superficial issues with a watermarked pirated stream on an explicitly-biased source, a single breathless daytime cable news magazine report doesn't seem sufficient for including a claim of this gravity.

So, I added the "better source needed" tag, and am tempted to add a "dubious" tag to the "confirmed by leaked diplomatic cables" claim as well. But since the subject is at the moment a developing international news story, there's a good chance some more knowledgable editors will have eyes on this and can clear it up.

So, any thoughts? ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Disclaimer: this reply includes links to Wikileaks documents as they were referenced in the article's dubious claim: these are not intended to be taken as a reliable source for anything!

Reading through some of the documents referencing the incident, so far they are all Stratfor guys discussing media coverage and not independently confirming the events (one even expresses some doubt that it was an "MOIS plot"); one useful piece though is a now-dead link to a transcript of that bootleg Elliot Spitzer segment.

At this point I'd buy a formulation like "California police claimed that there was an aborted plot to assassinate Sharmahd", but the idea that there was an attempt, and that this was confirmed by unspecified leaked documents, is not at all supported by the current source. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 21:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead section

I've removed content from the lead section describing the group with which Sharmahd was apparently affiliated. In addition to being unsourced, I seems odd to describe the group as "violent" in the lead section, given the lack of evidence that Sharmahd engaged in violence, or did anything other than web publishing. Neutrality^talk 15:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I mentioned the source before and have now added it to the article, it's hardly a disputed matter. Tondar has itself taken responsibility for the 2008 Shiraz bombing, and its rhetoric has been clear: bring down the regime "by all means." To not mention this could lead a reader to assume the person was totally innocent, when in fact by any Western standard he would have been at least the supporter of a terrorist organization. (And given that, he quite probably might have been the leader, otherwise it's hard to see why Iran would have gone to the length of abducting him in Dubai if he was just an unimportant spokesman.) Mewulwe (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

On the procedural point: I see that you re-added the challenged content to the article. This is improper. Please respect WP:ONUS - the burden to establish consensus for inclusion is on the proponent of the content. Just saying "I want to include it" doesn't establish consensus. You have to wait for other editors to weigh in. I'm removing it (and, to the extent necessary, I'm invoking WP:NOT3RR #7 to do so - this is very contentious content about a recently decreased individual that also affects living people).

On the substantive point: yes, the Tondar group seems pretty fringe, but there is no evidence that Sharmahd engaged in violence. The source you shoved in, from the Jamestown Foundation, makes zero mention of Sharmahd, so this is arguably synthesizing material. We already discuss the Iranian government's view of Tondar later on in the article, so I see no need to include it in the lead. As for the 2008 attack: the Wall Street Journal article says that the group's LA-based members denied any involvement, and says that although the group claimed responsibility, "it said the target was a military installation, not a mosque, and that 24 military members were killed, not any civilians." Neutrality^talk 14:23, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying Sharmahd engaged in violence. But it's undisputed that he was involved with Tondar, and that Tondar engaged in violence - that is not just "the Iranian government's view" and that much should become clear even in the lead. I don't see what that has to do with synthesizing, since no "original conclusion" is made. It is simply explaining what Tondar is, which is not widely recognizable. Also I don't see the relevance of the target being military. It was still a violent attack, which in any country would lead to high punishments, and yet there is this tendency to portray Sharmahd as a totally innocent victim "murdered" for simply being in political opposition to the regime. Mewulwe (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why it needs to be in the lead. Again, there's no evidence that Sharmahd plotted a "violent attack" from Los Angeles. We don't just take the Iranian government at its word. Neutrality^talk 16:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything in the disputed edits that even implies that he was personally involved in the attacks -- if anything, omitting any mention of its revolutionary activities may create an untruthful impression (even if the body of the article rectifies this later).

Would a formulation that made his role in the organization more explicit be satisfactory? Something like "At the time he was providing technical services for the group's communications arm it gained attention for violent rhetoric and attacks"? Or is it really that *any* mention of the attacks in the lead is unacceptable? ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

If he wasn't involved in such things, than why does it need to be emphasized at all? (Then it goes from a BLP issue to a question of due weight). If we are already making clear, in the body of the article, the nature of the group, I scarcely see why it needs top billing in the lead section. As for the language you propose: Do the sources say that his role was related to "gaining attention"? Maybe so, but we can't consider such language without a very good source directly supporting it, otherwise it seems like we are synthesizing different sources together. Neutrality^talk 18:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

You're right, that was a poor suggestion: while tip-toeing around just saying it plainly, I made a wholly-unnecessary synthesized claim. It would be much cleaner to just be direct and reinstate the well-sourced fact that the group for which he was "reluctant spokesman" (his daughter's characterization) was involved in armed struggle against the state of Iran.

It goes without saying that we should not create the impression that a spokesman was involved in any of these attacks, or that this somehow excuses his abduction and execution, but by omitting that extremely critical context in some preemptive bank-shot attempt to stop a hypothetical reader from drawing those unfounded conclusions, we erode trust with everyone else by making it seem like we have something to hide. ShadyNorthAmericanIPs (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)