Talk:2022 Shah Cheragh attack

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Thanks for creating the article!. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 28 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.

---

result:
Moved as proposed. See below nearly equal support for both "shooting" and "attack" with the latter slightly moreso and supported also by sources. So "attack" it is. Thanks and kudos to editors for your input; everyone stay healthy! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 17:19, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Shah Cheragh massacre → Shah Cheragh attack – The leading word used by sources to describe this event is "attack", from my reading of the news coverage overall so far, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. That should be the title. While "massacre" does appear in some sources, e.g. [4] (but which more often uses "attack"), and while "massacre" is not "universally encouraged nor discouraged", it is not the best title under WP:NCEVENTS and in particular Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Maintaining_neutral_point_of_view. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Shah Cheragh shooting would be more precise. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Support per Jim Micheal 2's reasoning though like the other comments I would prefer shooting. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

What is his reasoning? He just said shooting would be more precise. Aminabzz (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Are you kidding? Shooting doesn't convey any deaths. Massacre is well understood and had plenty of historical precedence. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre . Wikipedia's own page on "Massacre" says this: "A massacre is the killing of a large number of people or animals, especially those who are not involved in any fighting or have no way of defending themselves". Iranians (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I chose massacre when I created this article because of its double-digit death toll. Many mass shootings with a similar death toll have massacre in their titles, including Hungerford massacre, École Polytechnique massacre & Columbine High School massacre. We also have many articles about mass shootings with high death tolls that have shooting in their titles, including Luby's shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Orlando nightclub shooting & 2017 Las Vegas shooting. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I think massacre is correct. "Shooting" is used often in specific US first amendment debate context and has a distinct US centric dimension to it. Like the gun issue is the main thing. Massacre on the other hand has more political dimension to it, which fits this case. Having said that, I see "mass shooting" suggested below as better than just shooting which was argued in this thread. But the best reason to use massacre here is to communicate that there were definitive deaths. Iranians (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Per @Iranians' latest comment (30 October) I would oppose shooting. Aminabzz (talk) 13:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Support as per Adumbrativus, though I agree with Jim Michael 2 that "shooting" would be better than attack (WP:DESCRIPTOR says "try to be specific"). Gazelle55 (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Support as per the request and previous comments, shooting is a better descriptor. - Yours Faithfully, GA Melbourne ( T | C ) 13:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, Support moving to 'shooting'. 'Massacre' is a pretty unacceptable title, shooting is more accurate and more neutral Wasianpower (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support moving to → Shah Cheragh mass shooting
  Thanks! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't normally include mass in titles of articles about shootings. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realize that. The definition of a mass shooting is pretty explicitly different from just a shooting. Is this naming policy mostly an unofficial cultural norm, or is there a thing written up about this, that explains style guidelines for naming articles, and the reasoning etc? I understand wanting to keep it concise, but am wondering if there is more to it than that. Just curious. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose - 'Attack' and 'shooting' do not convey that people were killed in this incident, particularly given the high number of victims, nor does it convey that the victims were civilians. There's nothing about the word massacre that violates NPOV, as evidenced by articles with titles like Hungerford Massacre, Columbine Massacre etc as pointed out above. JayAmber (talk) 10:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for similar reasons to User:JayAmber. I don't think 'massacre' violates POV, and there is no standard name for this incident (yet), so I think it's a good, NPOV descriptive name. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, per JayAmber above. As the examples given further above illustrate, "shooting" is an American term and I shouldn't wish to see the article hijacked in that way, per MOS:TIES. Spicemix (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, if shooting or the term mass shooting is an Americanized concept, then what kind of language is being used in Iran for this incident? Anyone have an idea of how Iranian media is reporting this? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Mehr News calls it "Shah Cheragh attack". But keep in mind there's no policy that says we should prefer the language used by local newspapers. In fact, in many cases local news will be biased and this is especially the case in Iran where the government exercises a degree of influence over the media.VR _talk 20:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer to that! Yeah, I was just curious about cultural & linguistic differences. I understand that mass shootings are a mostly American concept, but was wondering how such things are talked about globally, because obviously they do happen elsewhere as well. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

• Support Shah Cheragh mass shooting for now. The word "massacre" is WP:POVNAME that can only be justified if it is also the WP:COMMONNAME. So far that is not the case. If there is no common name, then we should choose the least POVNAME.VR _talk 14:19, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Comment − On a related note, this is being called a "terrorist attack" over at the Shah Cheragh article page. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support both of "Shah Cheragh attack" and "Shah Cheragh shooting" looks fit. -- Mahan (talk) 04:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support M.Nadian (talk) 16:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
• Support changing the title to Shah Cheragh mass shooting. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
• Support Either "Shah Cheragh attack" or "Shah Cheragh shooting" is fine. Some1 (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: "Shooting" or "attack"? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 22:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support Shah Cheragh attack or Shah Cheragh mosque attack. To me, "shooting" seems to downplay the magnitude of the attack. (I confirm that "mass shooting" does not appear to be used for article titles on Wikipedia.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2022 (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.

False flag

Some added content that this attack might be a false flag operation to the lead. I've moved it to the body for now, as I deemed it WP:UNDUE for the lead. The reason for that is that the sources used don't seem mainstream (an article from Iran International#Controversies and criticisms and this article in i24NEWS). I googled this and couldn't find other sources that also made the claim.VR _talk 05:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

People on Wikipedia might as well claim the Moon landing was fake and 9/11 was an inside job. The gall of some people. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:BD9A:18B9:AAF3:42E5 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please read WP:TENDENTIOUS and WP:FORUM. Thanks, - LouisAragon (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I24NEWS is a reliable source. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Saying that this was a false flag operation and pinning the blame on Iran is extremely objectionable. Iran has been a victim of continuous terrorism. Unfortunately, 124NEWS is biased and not a genuine source. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I24NEWS is a respected media outlet. And we aren't writing that this was a false flag, just that some people said it might be. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

• "...and pinning the blame on Iran is extremely objectionable."

Source/according to?

• "Iran has been a victim of continuous terrorism."

Source for "continuous"? And how is this assertion connected to an authoritarian regime making a supposed false flag when confronted with widespread protests?

- LouisAragon (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Are the 2008 Shiraz bombing, 2010 Zahedan bombings, 2010 Chabahar suicide bombing, 2017 Tehran attacks, Ahvaz attack, and Chabahar Bombing enough to be a victim of "continuous" terrorism for you? And, my assertion is that no matter how autocratic the government of Iran is, it's highly illogical and unencyclopedic to give much undue weight to what appears to be an inadequate and politically motivated report. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We already have two reliable sources expressing skepticism over the ISIL claims (ISW and I24NEWS). I don't see how these articles are politically motivated. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 15:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

To include the views of "some people" (who are of no special importance) seems pretty WP:UNDUE. If this was a credible allegation we'd see multiple analysts making the same assertion. When Iran shot down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 the allegation came from top officials in the United States, Canada (eg the Prime Minister[5]) etc before Iran finally admitted they shot the flight down. Nothing like that is happening here. If there was any merit to this allegation, would American intelligence not know something about this? Keep in mind that this is a conspiracy theory and they are usually WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims requiring a much higher threshold of evidence.VR _talk 01:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If American intelligence knew anything about it, would they necessarily say anything publicly, especially if American citizens aren't involved? The downing of an international flight is one thing, while a mass shooting or a car bombing is another. I'm not saying this was some sort of false flag or intelligence operation, but if we have reliable sources reporting on the possibility of such, then doesn't it deserve a small mention? Agree that it doesn't belong in the lede, unless there is much more in-depth and reliable reporting on it. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

If they haven't said anything publicly, then we should not be engaging in wild speculations. Just because one or two newspapers engage in such speculations doesn't mean we report them, unless there's some solid reason to do so. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:VNOT. There are literally thousands of protestors in Iran (and thousands outside Iran), we can't really give "small mention" to the views of every protestor, right? VR _talk 13:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed!. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean, it would be best if more sources were reporting on this angle or had anymore info beyond just some tweet quotes from a journalist or two, an academic, and others. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• A closer look at the i24 source shows that the source quotes Vantaka as saying "The timing is very fortunate for Iranian authorities. It’s too early to say this is a false flag operation or a way to deflect from the unrest, but is it rather convenient for a ruthless regime" (emphasis added). So it seems there is really is no solid ground for this false flag stuff and I'm removing it from the article entirely.VR _talk 21:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you. Izan Mehdi. (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

• @LouisAragon, @VR: More sources are coming questioning the Islamic Republic's narrative. There are others, and this factual questioning must be reflected in an unbiased article: --Arad (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Mohammad Al-Ahwazi, an expert on Iranian affairs, told The Media Line: “ISIS has not carried out many operations in Iran, even though Iran’s area is vast, and despite its claims to fight against the organization.”

“When the regime of Bashar al-Assad was about to fall, Iran used ISIS as a pretext for its entry into Syria to fight terrorism, and today Iran will also use ISIS as a pretext to eliminate the uprising of the Iranian people,” he said.

“ISIS’ operations in Iran since the inception of the organization do not exceed 10 attacks. Its re-emergence in this situation is nothing but a lie from the Iranian regime,” he concluded." "Was ISIS Really Behind the Attack on a Shiraz Religious Shrine?". The Media Line. 30 October 2022.

"The news network of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) broke the news about the attack on Shiraz’s Shahcheragh Shrine by displaying a banner at the bottom of the TV screen at 17:59 on October 26. CCTV pictures from inside the shrine showed an alleged attacker entering the shrine at 17:43.

Before more details about the attack where reported, meaning in the early minutes of the attack, a flyer about the assault was posted on Rubika, the Islamic Republic’s messaging app, an Instagram knockoff.

This flyer, which the East Azerbaijan Matna Telegram channel said was created by the paramilitary Basij in that province, was first posted on Telegram at 17:45, only two minutes after the attack was launched. [...]

Immediately after the attack, security agencies claimed that both the perpetrators and organizers were identified. That was quick, given that it took days for an official medical report on Amini’s death to be published.

Just a few hours after the attack, media outlets reported that the Islamic State (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack. However, ISIS-affiliated websites did not publish any pictures of the attack or the attackers, which is very unusual.

Media outlets linked to the Iranian regime have published a picture of what they claim was a page from the Islamic State’s website Amaq in which the group claimed responsibility. However, the picture contains several glaring errors.

The date on the picture is Rabi' al-Awwal 30 in the Islamic lunar calendar whereas, this year, Wednesday, October 26, corresponds to Rabi' al-Awwal 29 in the Iranian solar calendar and Rabi' al-Thani 1 in the Arabic calendar. But this year, the month of Rabi' al-Awwal in the lunar calendar has 29 days, not 30 days.

Also, the picture of the page attributed to ISIS features an Arabic term meaning “suicide attack” whereas none of the official reports mentioned anything about an explosion at the shrine.

In addition, the spelling in the picture follows the Persian rules of writing – not the Arabic ones.

After nearly 10 hours, the ISIS propaganda outlet Amaq published a different report about the attack that cites unidentified “security sources.” In the past, the extremist group has always directly taken responsibility for its terrorist operations without quoting any sources. "Shiraz Massacre: Suspicion Falls On Islamic Republic". iranwire.com.

The sources don't look reliable.

And the second source implies that not only did ISIS not commit this attack, but ISIS did not even claim responsibility for this attack. This claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL given the wealth of RS that attest that ISIS did, at least, claim responsibility for the attack:

• "ISIL (ISIS) claimed responsibility for the attack in a statement on their telegram channel." Al Jazeera
• "IS reported the attack on its Amaq news agency, saying that an armed militant had opened fire at the shrine, claiming to have killed 20 people." DW
• "The Islamic State group late Wednesday claimed responsibility for the attack on its Amaq news agency." CBC

VR _talk 20:54, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

"The Media Line" outlet is a part of the JP network of outlets, if you look at their writers, they are all coming from the JP I don't know why i am wasting my time writing this but that outlet presents itself as an "An independent American news agency covering the Middle East." and even written the location on their (probable, not sure) YouTube channel .

"There are others, and this factual questioning must be reflected in an unbiased article" it will never happen, Wikipedia already got troubles to make the Iran article neutral and every Iran-related articles

"IranWire" is not even an outlet at this point but the equivalent of far right hardcore neocons conspiracy theories websites concerning US subjects such as the "US made 9/11" and that "there are Jews living on the hidden face of the moon" or whatever obscenity, but for Iran, it works in the same manner as Iran International and is not funded by ads nor donations, everything is opaque about this blog, also Masih Alinejad wrote a lot of articles just non-stop spitting on Iran when they began, then relayed to writers that are unknown when typing their name in google, at least Iran International shows to everyone indirectly that they are tied to the Al-Saud family

"SOLMAZ EIKDAR" is the writer of the IranWire "analysis", i find strictly nothing about this individual as a journalist or blogger or whatever, also the page looks like a conspiracy theory page explaining you with screenshots and everything that Hitler is alive and being held captive by Aliens under control of the US deep state elite and that Trump should get back to remove it etc etc

I don't even know why i am using force to write this, i hope you both @LouisAragon and @VR are nicely paid for trying to make articles neutral and dealing with users bringing sources from these websites

But i just respect your work for not letting such things in this, the article already fully relies on Western/Israel/Saudi funded outlets/think tanks or the ISW warmongers think tank Tsunet (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

References

Not a single Iranian source?

Why not accepting a single Iranian source but mark it as claimed by a media affiliated to IRI instead of swarming a whole article about an ISIS terrorist attack inside Iran with western sources and Israeli/Saudi funded Persian language outlets such as The Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Institute for the Study of War; Iran International, the latter one known for spreading a vast amount of photoshops such as Navid Afkari "picture in the Olympics" and fake news about Iran and still used as a source for Iran-related topics? (This was actually them that were the roots of the "15000" Iranians going to get executed fake news came from and got spread everywhere even on reliable outlets

This is just like if a whole article about an ISIS terrorist attack made inside the United States or France was fully sourced with Russian think-tanks and Iranian state medias or CGTN and marking any US sources as deprecated lol. i guess that's how wikipedia works when it concerns Iran now Tsunet (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

@Tsunet: this is an unfortunate, but known issue, about English Wikipedia. You can read more about it at Wikipedia:Systemic bias.VR _talk 16:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Why not accepting a single Iranian source but mark it as claimed by a media affiliated to IRI"

Iran (like many other countries) has close to zero freedom of press. See Censorship in Iran. Thus Iranian sources are not reliable for topics related to politics (amongst others).

• "inside the United States or France was fully sourced with Russian think-tanks and Iranian state medias or CGTN and marking any US sources as deprecated"

Two wrongs don't make a right. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you think non-WP:RS sources are listed somewhere on Wikipedia, you are free to bring those to WP:RSN.

• "lol"

Please respect Wikipedia's WP:FORUM guideline. This entire post was written as if it was meant for some sort of social media venue, such as YouTube comments, Facebook or Reddit.

- LouisAragon (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

"Mass shooting"?

Terrorism: the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

ISIS are doing mass shootings now? https://inkstickmedia.com/are-mass-shootings-terrorism/

https://www.futurity.org/mass-shooting-las-vegas-terrorism-violence-1573452/

As far as i know ISIS is a terrorist group, and those deaths were all civilian without intent of killing someone in particular

The terrorist attacks led by ISIS in the United States/any country are labelled as terror attacks, what Mass Shooting have to do with that? The perpetrator is connected to ISIS, this is not some kind of personal revenge and it is written on the article itself. WP:NPOV ? 37.174.9.105 (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Points are fair enough, but the reliable sources should also support this naming. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

"Japan strongly condemns the terrorist attack which occurred in the Shah Cheragh Shrine in Shiraz City in the southern region of Iran on October 26."

UN, Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the Secretary-General  "The Secretary-General strongly condemns the terrorist attack today on the Shah Cheragh Holy Shrine in Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran, for which the so called Islamic State claimed responsibility."

Turkey: "We are deeply saddened to learn that many people lost their lives and were injured in the terror attack targeting the Shah Cheragh Holy Shrine in Shiraz, Iran."

Iraqi FM "The Secretary-General strongly condemns the terrorist attack today on the Shah Cheragh Holy Shrine in Shiraz, Islamic Republic of Iran, for which the so called Islamic State claimed responsibility."

Armenia: "We express our sincere condolences and sympathy to the people of Iran and the government of Iran upon the terror attack in Shah Cheragh Mosque in city of Shiraz, resulting in devastating loss of innocent lives."

Should we rely on medias owned in majority from countries/groups hostile to Iran for presenting this as a "mass shooting", or rely on country officials and the United Nations presenting it as a terror attack? Tsunet (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I mean, the International section is in complete contradiction with the lead of the article Tsunet (talk) 18:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, Tsunet. You may start a requested move. Before goin that way, I suggest checking WP:CRITERIA out so that you reassure the suggested title is in line with the guidelines. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The request wasn't for the title, but to replace "mass shooting" with "terror attack". Tsunet (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Umm...sounds reasonable to me. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

References