Talk:Mohsen Fakhrizadeh/Archive 1

Archive 1

Professor/lecturer

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

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.

---

No need for a separate article on his death at this point, both articles are borderline stubs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a WP:Precedent. This situation is similar to Qasem Soleimani and Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. ~ HAL333 22:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  It matters not, there's not a single legitimate reason for a fork on the death when the main article is barely above a C-class article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  P.S. the articles you refer to are 143KB and 202KB in length. Here the BLP is 11KB and the "death" article is 5KB. Get a grip. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  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. ~ HAL333 23:26, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  No, what's relevant is the size of the two articles here. Both are barely above C-class. No need for individual articles at this time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:28, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge the 2 stubs into one reasonable article JW 1961 Talk 23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've WP:IAR and merged the one section from the "killing" article into this one. In due course, it may be relevant to split, but right now, it's abundantly clear that we don't need two separate articles for this. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:31, 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? ~ HAL333 23:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

  No, I invoked IAR. Let's see what consensus there is in favour of having two separate stub articles. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support Premature article creation of the death while this article was/is barebones. Gotitbro (talk) 23:43, 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. ~ HAL333 00:07, 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

Deutsche Welle wrote: Nuclear physicist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was one of the best-protected people in Iran. His assassination has cast a damming light over the country's security apparatus.https://www.dw.com/en/fakhrizadeh-killing-irans-security-apparatus-under-scrutiny/a-55761779 --Falkmart (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Add military to employer

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

• https://apnews.com/article/israel-saudi-arabia-benjamin-netanyahu-tel-aviv-mike-pompeo-f55744d193db805923bbe9177a90c291
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL3eFRc98ho Implications of the hush hush Netanyahu-MBS-Pompeo-Mossad chief rendezvous in Saudi city

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)

The connection is tentative, sure, but it was described in RS [2]. Still, probably does not belong to this page at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 23:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The article linked above is an opinion piece. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is sourced view/synthesis by Simon Tisdall published in The Guardian. Looks like a trivial analysis of facts, but again, it does not belong here yet, I agree. My very best wishes (talk) 23:20, 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)

"Less likely", "possibility", "would have to be". Speculation, speculation, speculation. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Hold your horses! It is an analysis written November 25. --217.234.69.151 (talk) 16:46, 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).

Can we verify that or remove that sentence mentioned above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2D80:84:8886:EE11:A491:F85E (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

Farzam1370 (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Impact on U.S. policy

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)

I agree in principle. Theorizing and journalist speculation does not always need to be included, not even for RS's. RopeTricks (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Birth date

Does https://beheshtezahra.tehran.ir/Default.aspx?tabid=92 actually support the claim that his birth date was 21 March 1961? I have reverted that change for the moment. (It has since returned.) I don't read Farsi but Google Translate does not seem to indicate that this page contains information about Fakhrizadeh or his birth date. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:53, 30 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)

Hoseina051311, Ah, so it's an official list of death certificates? That's helpful, thanks—I just didn't see the actual date listed on the page when I opened it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:50, 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

https://imgur.com/a/O9xGPvb

--Hoseina051311 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Terrorism deaths in Iran

I think we need sources beyond what the Iranian government says to establish that this cat is appropriate. Al-Andalusi thinks otherwise. Who's right? Let's discuss. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't give a crap what the Iranian government thinks. But I don't like the double standards here. Those "requirements" do not seem apply when US/UK and France are the ones making the accusations. They are taken at face value without anyone questioning. It's worse because we have entire articles and categories for their claims, such as: State Sponsors of Terrorism (U.S. list) and Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by the United States. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

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

I take it back. I see that Iran is claiming it’s state sponsored terrorism.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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)

Assassination?

How can the souces saying its an Assassination be trusted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.129.117 (talk) 23:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Many major and reliable news networks are telling the same information. Linphil (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• since all reliable sources are ultimately re-reporting officialdom’s confused narrative none are reliable and should not be used. Also, the story seems reminiscent of the downing of the Ukrainian jet. 2601:200:C100:CEA0:C9B6:9306:51EE:8A84 (talk) 04:34, 1 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)

Infobox photo

There are a bunch of possibilities at commons:Category:Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. I think the current one is the best (although they're all pretty low-res), but people keep changing it for no reason. Can we establish a consensus on this? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• 
  Current
• 1
  1
• 
  2
• 
  3

• Image 1 Although I have never changed the lede image, I prefer #1. But I don't really feel strongly about this. ~ HAL333 21:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Image 2 Image 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)
• Image 1. They're all of equal encyclopedic value, and image 1 is the most visually appealing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Note Image 2 Image 1 → Because → MOS:IMAGES → "It is preferable to place images of people so that they "look" toward the text." --93.211.218.25 (talk) 17:52, 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. ~ HAL333 22:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

  HAL333, He does in fa:محسن_فخری‌زاده and any other right-to-left wiki. That might explain it. Btw, per the whois, the IPs appear to be coming from the same ISP. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:33, 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. ~ HAL333 00:40, 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. ~ HAL333 19:48, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

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 Fakhrizadeh or Assassination 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. ~ HAL333 00:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. ~ HAL333 00:54, 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. ~ HAL333 02:11, 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)

The fawiki article is a good start to add more to his bio. Gotitbro (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Gotitbro Does the article's current state change your opinion? ~ HAL333 15:50, 11 January 2021 (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)

The Rambling Man and Joseywales1961 Sorry for the ping. Since you were involved in the merge discussion (and the Death section has been greatly expanded), I assume that you would want to contribute here. ~ HAL333 02:56, 28 November 2020 (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)
• Oppose obviously, no sense at all in separate articles at this time. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:38, 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)

Kiril Simeonovski Sorry for the ping. Does the article's current expanded state warrant a split? Thanks! ~ HAL333 15:56, 11 January 2021 (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 1961 Talk 11:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Joseywales1961 Sorry for the ping. Does the article's current expanded state warrant a split? Thanks! ~ HAL333 15:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wait - Agree that there may not be enough content for a split now. Per User:Octoberwoodland's comment, if/when split occurs title should be Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

NickCT Sorry for the ping. Does the article's current expanded state warrant a split? Thanks! ~ HAL333 16:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too little is known about the assassination at this point. My very best wishes (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Now, a week later, there are enough materials and publications for the split. My very best wishes (talk) 06:32, 3 December 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)
• Oppose. Article is nowhere near so big as to need splitting. Nurg (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This article is way too short to need splitting.XavierItzm (talk) 11:10, 30 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.) ~ HAL333 22:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Insofar as "ramifications" remain speculative and WP:CRYSTALBALL is forbidden by policy, the argument about ramifications is spurious.XavierItzm (talk) 08:14, 14 January 2021 (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)
• Oppose. Unnecessary.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:30, 1 December 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)
• Comment If this section is eventually split, could the edit history be preserved from the original article Killing of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh? Thanks. ~ HAL333 23:36, 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. ~ HAL333 21:23, 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. ~ HAL333 21:44, 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)

Ah, the classic straw man. I never said that the problem was its size. This is not a WP:SIZESPLIT, but a WP:CONTENTSPLIT. ~ HAL333 00:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Corrected it's to its. I was typing fast on a mobile device. As a grammarian, it was bugging me. ~ HAL333 01:06, 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. ~ HAL333 00:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It was (and still is) absurd to claim a need for separate articles. It was particularly absurd when both articles were barely start-class. List of assassinations makes it very plain that it's commonplace to discuss an individual's assassination within their biography. That this one relates to a wider topic, which is perfectly aptly covered by the good article which is "Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists" means a third article to discuss the topic is simply overkill. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:18, 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)

Adding this information to Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists would make sense if we only had five sentences, but we have tens of thousands of bytes. Transferring this section to that article would give it undue weight and make that list less navigable to the reader. And many assassinations have multiple articles devoted to them. For example, John F. Kennedy's assassination is discussed in well over ten: Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Timeline of the John F. Kennedy assassination, John F. Kennedy, Reactions to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of John F. Kennedy in popular culture, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories, List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots Single-bullet theory, etc. I should emphasize that I am not equating the significance of Fakhrizadeh's assassination with JFK's, but there is nothing abnormal about having a death discussed in multiple articles - it is entirely precedented. ~ HAL333 00:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No, there's literally no comparison between the assassination of the world's most powerful man and yet another Iranian scientist targeted. It's not comparing apples with apples. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

yet another, really? Are you saying that any of the other assassinations listed on Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists received anywhere near this amount of coverage? If so, Wikipedia certainly fails to reflect that. Lennart97 (talk) 12:23, 7 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. ~ HAL333 02:51, 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.f^Talk 03:46, 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)

  Yeah, that's IAR. Anyway, it's clear my IAR edit held and still holds (despite the woolly inflation of this article) community consensus. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:02, 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)

  I guess I won't be asking you to judge consensus on anything important then!! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:09, 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)

• Support per Octoberwoodland. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support under the name Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.--RM (Be my friend) 19:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Comment There has been no discussion for over 3 weeks at this point. There's also no consensus. Now what? Lennart97 (talk) 01:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Lennart97 Per policy, the discussion must be closed down and shelved due to lack of consensus. XavierItzm (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2021 (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.