Talk:Imam Reza shrine stabbings

DYK nomination

I may nominate this page at DYK, but it can not make its way before being expanded. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Iranian Sunni scholars condemned the Imam Reza shrine stabbings carried out by a Takfiri extremist? Source: IRNA, al-Monitor
  • Reviewed:Template:Did you know nominations/The Archives of the Planet

Created by Kelhuri (talk) and Mhhossein (talk). Nominated by Mhhossein (talk) at 06:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC).

• Comments: The suggested hook seems too focused on something obvious – of course most scholars (whether Sunni, Shia, or otherwise) would condemn such an attack – that is only to be expected. I also think the hook should tell the reader when the stabbings occurred. I suggest
  Alt 1: "... that a Takfiri extremist stabbed two clerics to death and injured another at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, Iran, on 5 April 2022?".
  Alt 2: "... that a Takfiri extremist stabbed three clerics at the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, Iran, on 5 April 2022, killing two of them?"
  Alt 3: "... that a Takfiri extremist stabbed three clerics on 5 April 2022 at the Imam Reza shrine, killing two of them?"
  —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Also, was this incident considered for WP:ITN? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the suggestions, but I still stand with the original hook. Your Alts are too simple I believe. The incident was apparently a move against the Sunni-Shia unity (it happened after the killing of a sunni scholar in a mosque in northern Iran). That's why Sunni scholars unanimously condemned the attack. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
• Also the page has not been featured on the main page. --Mhhossein ^talk 05:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Mhossein, I'm looking at this, and at the article--but I'm stuck already in the second sentence of the description. "A second cleric who had died" needs a lot of ... well it needs some editing. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: Hey, I was not notified due to the misspell. I have nominated the page at GOCE. --Mhhossein ^talk 11:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

User:Mhhossein, I apologize, my friend--I should have checked better. Drmies (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No worries Drmies. Will the DYK nomination be reviewed by you after the GOCE job is finished?--Mhhossein ^talk 17:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing, Mhhossein--please just ping me when you're done. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey Drmies. The copyediting is finished [1]. Please let me know your thoughts. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• Mhhossein, good, thanks--just one thing. See edit history. BTW I'm fine with your original hook. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Dear Drmies. I addressed your point in the edit history. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

New enough, verified, etc. But please note I had to make a number of edits to move the article text away from one of the sources; this is a matter of some concern. Kelhuri, it's this edit, and I'd like to know from Diannaa if this warrants rev-deletion. Personally I'm inclined to say yes, though this comes pretty close to "how else are you going to say it". Diannaa, this is the source. Anyway, that's no longer in the article, so that's good to go. With the original hook. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

No, Drmies, I would not rev-del that, as it's over 50 diffs and on a potentially controversial recent news item.— Diannaa (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Takfirism

@Pahlevun: You just removed "Takfirism" from the infobox saying that was not verified. What kind of verification do you expect? Mhhossein ^talk 04:51, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: Hi. Takfiri has a special meaning in Iranian state media terminology. There has been doubts cast on the motivation of the perpetrator, as well as the media coverage (the event was reported exclusively by Iranian state media). I think that should be attributed to the officials, if it is going to be in the infobox. We are not sure if that is a fact. Pahlevun (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Pahlevun: hope you're fine. I don't know which special meaning you are referring to, but the term takfirism has a clear meaning AFAIK. Plus let's adhere to the reliable sources and ignore the 'rumors' (fringe theories) reflected here. How can we get sure it's a fact? --Mhhossein ^talk 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. According to Al-Monitor entry used as a source, "In Iranian media usage, takfiris are extremist Sunnis who commit terrorism, specifically against Shiites" (so it is no wonder that such cases are not considered takfirism in this terminology). I agree with you that reliable sources should be decisive and I would avoid making any arguments against the official narrative. As I said, this event has been exclusively reported by Iranian state media, which have covered it murky and framed, even refusing to mention citizenship of the murderer (whose Uzbek ethnicity was mentioned instead). I think official positions should be attributed to the officials and not asserted as facts, when the only available source is Tasnim News Agency and alike. In the context of Iranian internal issues, especially when the subject is controversial, Tasnim News Agency and similar sources are useful for being used as a source for official positions. I prefer using more-established outlets, if they are available. Pahlevun (talk) 15:32, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pahlevun: The Al-monitor source is correctly referring to the sectarian aspect of the Takfirism ideology. Takfiri is the one "who accuses another Muslim of being an apostate". So, there's no difference between the definition by the Iranian media and the on offered elsewhere. The NY article has nothing to do with Takfirism (killing because of accusing others of being "morally corrupt" has no sensible linkage to apostasy accusations). Also, I believe that even if the only narrative arises from the Iranian media, there should be strong counter-narrations to mandate doing attributions. In the absence of such sources, why not referring to the main POV offered? --Mhhossein ^talk 17:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mhhossein [The argument made in favor of exonerating the murderers in Kerman was that they considered the victims madhur al-Dam. Anyway,] Iranian media use the term Takfiri exclusively to refer to anti-Shia Sunnis, never vice versa. France24 used the term "suspected jihadist" to refer to the murderer, while Iranian state media used the term jihadi for the victims. I would not favor such word preferences by any media, because they have reasons to use specific terms based on their line. So, I would prefer neutral descriptions such as 'religious motives'.

About the narratives, the murderer has confessed that he had "personal motives" [, he lived in the same neighborhood with the three victims, and stabbed one of them 20 times. Is it a coincidence that a lone wolf terrorist attacks this weird? I'm not going to speculate. Some have mentioned killing of two Sunni clerics two days earlier [2]. These unanswered questions are even raised by media inside Iran [3], and Iranian government is reluctant to clarify.] Iran's Interior Minister has stated "this bitter event shows that the enemy has not ceased its efforts to spread discord... this is a blind movement crafted by Western countries". Should this be regarded the main POV offered because no Western government has reacted? Pahlevun (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I know your point but think the NYT piece is not relevant here. There's no "word preference" Pahlevun; however, I am OK with the current version. As for the uncertainties, this source came 1 day after the incident. Rumors always there. --Mhhossein ^talk 08:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)