Talk:Two Iranians hanged over mosque bombing

Review of revision 946921 [Passed]

Revision 946921 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 946921 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revert

Regarding [1] = IMHO, that was a non-sequitur and didn't connect to the rest of the article, as the main article body mentions nothing about the mosque. Also, there's only one source, LAT, connecting the mosque bombing to those executed (none of the others say anything about it), the BBC says the *group* was blamed for the bombing, but not specifically the executed men. It's possible the LAT goofed up or something. Also, I fail to see how my version is any less neutral. Tempodivalse [talk] 04:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your version says two men were hanged for protesting flawed elections, the LA Times (and two other sources I've added including the Associated Press) say they were hanged for participating in the bombing of a mosque that killed 13 people, months before the election protests ever happened. The men were already in prison during the June unrest...you fail to see how this is "any less neutral" than giving the true story? Sherurcij 05:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, good point - although all the sources I looked through said they were over the election, only the LAT mentioned anything about it being in connection with a mosque (perhaps I didn't look deeply enough? *shrugs*). But the lawyer's quote seems to suggest that would be the case, I must have missed that. Thanks Tempodivalse [talk] 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just be extra careful to really "dig" to make sure we're accurately reporting stories coming out of Iran, Afghanistan, Venezuela, countries that "our" media has reason to sometimes "fudge" details about to make things sound scarier than they really are. I mean, ideally we fact-check all stories extensively - but I'd say those countries are "keywords" that should perk our ears up extra-high before we hit "publish". Sherurcij 14:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)