Talk:Qasem Soleimani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

RfC: Should the article say Soleimani was "assassinated" or "killed"?[edit]

Use mainly "assassinated", but sometimes also "killed". Closing per a WP:AN request because discussion has slowed substantially. Numerically, "assassinated" is favored over "killed" by a bit less than two to one. In terms of strength of argument, it has been noted that both terms are used in reliable sources, so this is really a matter of editorial judgment and preference as to which group of sources we want to follow. Several people advocate for using both terms, on a case-by-case-basis, noting that they are not mutually exclusive. My understanding of the rough consensus resulting from this discussion is that "assassinated" is the generally preferred term, and should be mainly used e.g. when this event is briefly referred to, but that in longer texts it can be used in alternation with "killed", both for reasons of balance among sources and to avoid inelegant repetition. Sandstein 08:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
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.

Should the article say Soleimani was "assassinated", or "killed"? (See previous section. Both terms are found in RS.) -sche (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Assassinated- Although there are some sources using the general term, i.e. 'killed', the actions leading to death of Soleimani was 'assassination' by definition. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary assassination is defined as "to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons" and Cambridge dictionary defines assassination as "the murder of someone famous or important." So when the reliable sources say he was assassinated, and he was actually assassinated (on the order of U.S. president) according to the definitions from dictionary, the proper word describing the action would be 'assassinated'. --Mhhossein talk 21:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Assassination is a murder of prominent person enjoying leadership status thus assassination should be used instead of word killing. Nannadeem (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed - the Cambridge definition quoted above says that this is used for the "murder" of somebody famous or important. Murder is a highly charged word and it implies that the action is wrong, so in my view would contravene WP:NPOV. Killed is neutral and factual. Per my comments above, I would not contest adding wording to the effect of stating some commentators had called it an assassination. Darren-M talk 21:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Killing may be unidentified too, whereas assassination is always an open secret. Nannadeem

(talk) 22:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

      • Apologies @Nannadeem:, I don't understand your comment. Could you rephrase please? Best, Darren-M talk 22:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Word Assassination is used for killing in which one is killed due to his/her title or role. Basically all assassinations are killing but each and every killings do not involve politics or portfolio. We generally hear or read that someone was killed in a road accident by an unidentified vehicle (driver). Appropriately we will not use word murder or assassination because of words specific application. Conveniently, in assassination we have info about the killed and killer (both human beings). You may also see Assassination. Per International law norms this killing should be termed as assassination. Nannadeem (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • If, say, Iran lured the U.S. Secretary of the Army to Iraq as part of a peace negotiation, and there the SoA were killed by an Iranian drone, no one would hesitate to call it an assassination ... and it clearly is one under international law. To replace "assassination" with "killing" just because the party that did the killing has an interest in avoiding any charge of illegality is to inject POV. -- Jibal (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment / Note to admin or mod: This argument can almost certainly be dismissed, but if it is not dismissed, it will create a ton of work. If we're going to object to the use of 'assassination' and 'murder' on the grounds that they can never be neutral terms, then both words need to be removed from Wikipedia entirely. Selectively removing these words from articles about people killed by the US government but keeping them everywhere else would be a rather extreme bias. For the mod/admin who makes the final decision, please cite if you're basing your decision off of this argument or not. If so, we would need to change 60,898 articles with the words 'assassination' or 'assassinated', and 187,517 articles with the words 'murder.' -NorsemanII (talk) 11:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed. I came here from the RfC notice. I think the reality is that both words are accurate, and I see nothing wrong with using "killed" most of the time, but also referring to assassination at some places on the page. In a way, I think the sources are saying, above all, that it was a "targeted killing". Given that both words are widely used in sources, it's not really going to resolve the question to simply count how many sources use what. But I think that defaulting to calling it an assassination carries a subtle WP:POV that the US acted wrongly, whereas "killed" is a less loaded term. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • If assassinated is intrinsically linked with a subtle POV, then are you suggesting the word should be excised from Wikipedia, and certainly from article titles? We still have "subtle POV" Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., and many others. Or, perhaps you mean that people whom we appreciare get assassinated, people whom we don't like get killed so as to avoid a POV? — kashmīrī TALK 05:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm certainly not suggesting that it should be generally excised (and I even said both could be used here). I realize that this is splitting hairs, but in an assassination, one generally expects that there is an identifiable assassin, whereas killing is a more generic term. I do realize of course that one also associates a killer with a killing, but it can equally be a killer or multiple killers. If there were a team of assassins, one would generally specify that. But as I said, I realize that this is splitting hairs. Where you ask about people we like and people we don't like, well, maybe there's a bit of that too. Nothing I would be proud of, but I think it's a fact that readers will tend to read it that way, and thus, a subtle POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
        • He was assassinated by a drone. There's nothing in the meaning of assassination (check the dictionary or the Wikipedia page) that entails the general expectations you assert. As for subtle POV, that's exactly what avoiding the word is. -- Jibal (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment: See my comment above. If we're objecting on the grounds that 'assassination' inherently carries a bias, we'll need to edit over 60,000 other Wikipedia pages. I hope we're not using this argument, but if we do, it's going to create a ton of work. -NorsemanII (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed My thinking is that in the article itself, "killed" should generally be used, since it's more neutral and more commonly used by the media. But I would also include a note or two, maybe with some quotes, on the usage of "assassination" by the media and others. Qono (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Changing my vote to both. Though "killing" was predominant early on, I'm seeing more and more reliable sources refer to this as an "assassination", and so both should be used. Qono (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment There was a very similar discussion on the talk page for the article about the attack regarding the title. The consensus was that, at least for the title, "assassination" was not appropriate. Qono (talk) 22:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated Was he not? Killed is much more vague.HAL333 22:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated because he was pretty important.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed We generally reserve the word "assassinated" for one-on-one, in-person killings. In the case of people killed by military action we tend not to call it "assassination", especially when additional people were killed as well as the target. See Death of Osama bin Laden for example. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Use both as required, do not shy away from assassinated since the vast majority of RSs use the word without hesitation. — kashmīrī TALK 04:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
    • According to AP Iran intends to approach UNSC to condemn the killing of Qassem Soleimani making it an international issue with legal prospective. Basically it is a killing by order of the head of state against a high official of other state. Hence assassination should be used per definition of specific cause to cover the practice in vogue. Nannadeem (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Both per Kashmiri's statement. As for the lead section, I believe killed is more appropriate, as it gives enough context without being overly specific. KyleJoantalk 08:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed Per reasons given by MelanieN. Given the fact that RS are covering both sides of the argument ("what Iran is calling the 'Ghassem Soleimani assassination,'[...] Officials pushed back against calling Soleimani's death an 'assassination.' One official said,'It's not an assassination.'") I think it is appropriate to include the fact that there is controversy, but I think "killed" is the most neutral way to describe it in Wikipedia's voice without taking a side between "assassinated" and "justifiable action taken in self-defense" AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated As a result of "an act of terror" which used by more RSes, the assassination happens. In addition some RSes suppurt it including 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6.--Saff V. (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated Accurately describes the manner of the killing, and being used by many sources including BBC, Forbes, CNBC and more. FrankP (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed, Killed is a general word used by all media. Assassinated would violate WP:NPOV. Alex-h (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated per what most sources use. Also per definition this was an assassination.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"[T]he targeted killing of a high Iranian state and military official by a surprise attack was “clearly an assassination,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, an expert in international law and the laws of war at the University of Notre Dame School of Law."

[1]--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Let's apply a little critical thinking to Mary Ellen O'Connell's views. She maintains that after Bashar al-Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons on multiple occasions, an operation intended to diminish his ability to mount another such attack was "as serious as the triggering offense." Such a person has no credibility.
The article that deemed her an "expert" on the laws of war contradicts itself. Later in that same article, it says if Soleimani "was leading forces against the United States " – which indeed he was, having ordered multiple attacks against U.S. servicemembers and U.S. civilians – "under the international laws of war as enunciated in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, he and his forces could be considered legitimate battle targets during any actual war or armed conflict, declared or undeclared." And a strike on a "legitimate battle target" is the opposite of an assassination. RealisticPacifist (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
[2] tells me she is indeed well qualified and an expert in her area; one can of course bring opposing RS to the discussion.Selfstudier (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Wow, O'Connell's supporters continue to show a severe shortage of critical thinking skills. The source that you cited is a post on the Blog of the EJIL, and group blogs are "generally unacceptable" as Wikipedia sources. That blog post is quite informative about O'Connell herself, however. A quick look at it found no fewer than seven things that detract from O'Connell's credibility even further:
  1. O'Connell wrote that there were 63 "drone attacks against Somalia in 2019". Wrong: they weren't "against Somalia," they were against al-Shabaab terrorists, who are fighting to collapse the benevolent, internationally-recognized government of Somalia. (Are you aware that when al-Shabaab killed 537 bystanders on 14 October 2017, it was the fifth-deadliest terrorist attack in history?) The vast majority of Somali citizens, who aren't extremists, support these efforts to keep al-Shabaab in check. O'Connell's obfuscation of who exactly the drones were targeting is nefarious.
  2. O'Connell is incredulous that "reporters have actually been asking about the legality of the killing." This is as far from a neutral point of view as one can imagine. She seems to have forgotten everything she ever learned about the laws of war as articulated in the Geneva Conventions, which clearly provide the answer: military commanders who have been engaged in hostilities – such as ordering hundreds of rockets to be launched against U.S. servicemembers and U.S. civilians in November-December 2019, to name only some of Soleimani's recent aggressions – are legitimate military targets.
  3. She writes that a "defensive military response... must aim at the state legally responsible for the attack." She fails to acknowledge that the strike on Soleimani went above and beyond that requirement, because it was much more narrowly focused than some generic response against the state that had attacked U.S. servicemembers and U.S. civilians.
  4. O'Connell disingenuously writes that "it is inconsistent with self-defense to single out one military commander" – as if she would have preferred that a randomly-chosen member of the Iranian military had been targeted, rather than the specific individual who had recently ordered many attacks against U.S. servicemembers and U.S. civilians.
  5. She writes that military force must not be used to prevent an imminent attack. How hypocritical. Certainly if her home were invaded, and she had an opportunity to use force to prevent an imminent attack on herself or her family, she would not hesitate to do so.
  6. She writes that "if the United States has intelligence that Soleimani was plotting attacks on U.S. personnel in Iraq, the appropriate response was to take the information to Iraqi authorities." How naive; in other words, she thinks it's a good idea to count on the people who admired Soleimani so much that they attended his funeral to foil Soleimani's plots.
  7. O'Connell complains that Iran has been "set back even further from its urgent goal of economic prosperity." That is the effect of all economic sanctions – so apparently, she wants all economic sanctions to be lifted, even those imposed on the world's #1 state sponsor of terrorism. RealisticPacifist (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Assassinated as his death fits the definition at Assassination - "Assassination is the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious, or monetary reasons." Clearly, he was a prominent person and was killed for political reasons. Axedel (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Do you think Trump did it out of political interest? That's questionable - this seems to hurt his re-election to me. State Department and other major media sources says it was pre-emptive self defense, and from what we know of Soleimani's history of activities in the region, that makes a lot of sense. Danski14(talk) 14:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should be wary of using Wikipedia articles for definitions. The very next sentence in that article sets out different criteria - "An assassination may be prompted by religious, political or military motives." Military reasons, seems to fit. FrankP (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated The term has been extensively used by various reliable media, and in terms of jargon and definition, I consider using it proper. Pahlevun (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • killed From NPR: [3] State department officials say there is overwhelming evidence he was plotting an attack on US assets. "The official added that the administration also explored whether there was another way to stop Soleimani, such as having him arrested, and determined there was "no way."" Danski14(talk)
    • Yeah, NPR [4]. Given all the controversies related to NPR's choice of wording, perhaps Wikipedia should not rely on their "guidance". — kashmīrī TALK 16:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
      • More importantly, whether Soleimani was plotting something or another is irrelevant, as is whether the admin discussed alternatives to assassinating him. -- Jibal (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated. Widely-used in reliable sources and expresses events more clearly. While 'killed' is used as well and could be used in the article, it's euphemistic in context and makes it harder to articulate the intentionality of the killing (which is unambiguous and not under dispute); given that both are well-sourced and used by high-quality sources, we should go with the more clear option. The argument some people are making that "assassinated" could have POV or TONE issues doesn't hold water when so many high-quality sources are using it, and if we're going to disregard the heavy use of both terms, the euphemistic nature of "killed" introduces WP:POV and WP:TONE issues of its own. I strenuously disagree with the implicit presumption that more euphemistic terms are always less POV or more neutral - sometimes (as in this case), precision and clarity are more neutral than couching things in euphemisms, at least when choosing between two terms that are both widely-used in high quality sources. In that respect this is a WP:NOTCENSORED situation; a widely-used, precise, and accurate term cannot be excluded simply because some people might find it offensive. --Aquillion (talk) 22:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note: first, let me acknowledge that I am the admin who made the conscious decision to go with the alternate blurb, which used "killed" instead of "assassinate" on ITN. That said, participants should note that in the case of a no consensus result, "assassinate" will be prohibited from being added, per WP:ONUS. But those who express the preference for both, can obviously be included in the "assassinate" rather than the "killed" (per se.) camp. El_C 10:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment Don't try to play the system. The term assassinate was already there in the article before this RfC was started, only not in the lead section, so you will first need a consensus if you want to remove the word. Otherwise the terms stays and can be used as needed. — kashmīrī TALK 23:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, given that both terms have been in use both in RS (widely) and in this article, to say that only one requires consensus to continue being used while the other does not—that in the absence of consensus for either, one will be prohibited and removed while the other will be required—is...certainly one point of view... -sche (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected. El_C 23:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Since assassinated was there before the RfC, why is there editors changing it to death?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Killed Yesterday, many news outlets were avoiding the term "assassinate" because there is some debate about whether it was an assassination. It is a really gray area and opinions are in flux. Wiki guidelines state we used avoid the use of terms that are contentious. Just because the term was there before, is irrelevant and bringing it up is not playing the system, it is observing the guidelines. Whether it was a killing or an assassination is currently being debated on the World platform. While I think this will eventually be viewed as an assassination, I would suggest the article states "killed" for the present time. People should not be pointing at Wiki and using it as proof of condemnation. If there are any moves by World Organizations like the United Nations to condemn the act as an "assassination", the article can be updated later. I agree with MZMcBride that the debate itself may be worthy of mention. Vampire77

At this point, given articles such as <>, the discussion about whether to call this an assassination almost seems noteworthy to mention itself in the article. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Assassinated - Per WP:PRECISE; there's a good reason mainstream sources use both words. All assassination is killing, but not all killing is assassination. Saying someone who has been assassinated has been killed is true. Saying someone who has been assassinated has been killed, is more precise. That said, the article should use the word assassinated exclusively. We don't have to belabor the point. NickCT (talk) 04:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated at least some of the time: the term is widely used in reliable sources (e.g. BBC, NYT), including in those (cited in the preceding section) which also use the more general term "killed" e.g. for brevity in their headlines. I think we could follow the RS in using the precise term some of the time and then, if making repeated reference to his unalivening, sometimes also using "killed". Where do our policies and guidelines guide us here? The policy to use WP:PRECISE language, invoked in the comment above mine, is technically in a policy about article titles, not article-body text like is under discussion here (though one might find its spirit good to follow). In turn, WP:NPOV urges us to represent the views of reliable sources on a topic, and RS widely use the term "assassinated", as well as the term killed, so the suggestion some other commenters make above—that the policy forbids only one of those words—seems to selectively misunderstand the policy: it, and our general tendency to follow RS, would seem rather to lead us to use both words. -sche (talk) 05:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated -- It was, by definition, an assassination ("murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political or religious reasons"). Avoiding the correct word injects POV. Simply searching for "assassination" in google at this time brings up a string of articles in reliable sources referencing Soleimani. -- Jibal (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Both and the term death for the relevant subheader - @-sche: Why would you ask this and why would you even pick a side when you already said in the RFC blurb that both terms are found in RS? Flaughtin (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    Why would I ask? Because it was requested in the section above this one (which I referenced in my initial comment) that there be an RFC on this, and the comments here bear out that there are people who do not take the view that I (as noted in my comment above) and you do, that "both terms are found in RS" means "both terms can be found in the article". -sche (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated Majority of RS goes with this.Selfstudier (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed per WP:LABEL. "Assassinated" is obviously a controversial label. Adoring nanny (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated Most sources are describing the "killing" as an assassination. We should recognize that and use "Assassination" for the section heading and use the word "assassinated" throughout the article. "Killed" is a more general term but "assassinated" is reserved for targeted killings of high profile officials of a nation and Soleimani was considered second highest official of Iran thus his killing fits the definition of "assassination". According to some sources he was on official business as part of a peace mission delivering a message from Khamenei to Iraqi prime minister for Saudis as part of larger negotiations between the arch rivals. Getting killed like that when being on official business in another country fits the bill for the term "assassination". I am also in favor of using the term "assassination" and "assassinated" until this RFC is decided as this term was used first and there was no consensus to remove it. We can change it to "Death" or "Killed" if this RFC decides so at the end. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I think it is worth pointing out that that is not true. It was first described as "killed", per this edit, and the text used the terminology "killed" until (afaict) this edit two days after the RFC began (when there was no consensus to add it). Considering that fact, it the article should almost certainly use "killed" until there is consensus to change that. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 01:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed as the word "assassinated" usually denotes killing of a non-military target, while at least according to one party he was a legal military target (a commander of a specific unit) and we should take that into account to not contravene WP:NPOV. H2ppyme (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed We typically have a "Death" section in bios and leave the description of method to for the contents. It seems like most arguments on WP are about gratuitous characterizations like this. He was inarguably "killed." Why not simply describe how he was killed and by whom, and let the reader decide how to characterize it beyond that? The purpose of WP is to educate, but too many people want to use it to indoctrinate.John2510 (talk) 18:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated wikipedia says "Assassination is the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious, or monetary reasons. An assassination may be prompted by religious, political or military motives." sources: The Economist[1]The Guardian [2]The Newyork Times[3]Aljazeera [4] Rasulnrasul (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed This was a military strike against a military target. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated. It was a classic targeted assassination. That military means were employed is irrelevant. The target was not a 'military target'. The military were acting under a political order. Nishidani (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to make any sense. A serving army officer is a military target. And the military always act under "political orders". FrankP (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated It is what most of the reliable sources are saying, so is what we should say. AIRcorn (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated It's the word found in most reliable sources.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed As others above have mentioned, assassination tends to refer to non-military personnel/targets in a non-military capacity. Killing is more general and therefore a better option, especially since (as can be seen in this RFC) there's dispute over the terminology. Edit5001 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated as it is WP:PRECISE and it's widely used by the sources. --Cold Season (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated I don't know why this is even an issue. Three of the four references used in the first mention of his death in the article use the term,and the only one that doesn't is an opinion piece defending the action. Tom Reedy (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Those references were added when someone changed the status quo wording to wording that used the word “assassinated”. The “assassinated” wording was reverted, but the references were kept. It’d be easy to find & add 2 references that use the word “killed”, but what’s important is how many sources use “killed” & how many sources use “assassinated”. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated. It is a shame that after so much consent, somebody still reverts this to "killed". It was pre-planned, pre-meditated murder, on alien territory, without possible and required approval of Congress, UNO, Iraqi government, against US law, UN Charta, Iraqui sovereignity, even against common sense, so far without even the evidence for the claimed motives. Most reliable expert sources within the USA and even more outside, see it exactly as what it is. Almost the only ones questioning this are partisans of the President. --Gabel1960 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Context specific I think Flaughtin and Kashmiri make the strongest argument here, particularly with regard to the former's suggested phrasing of the section header. I think both terms can be used, depending on the context of the surrounding verbiage. So, my support is not for either "killed" or "assassinated," but rather, it depends on the context of the words surrounding it, and I'm not prepared to grant support to a blanket RfC that only one word may be used in the entire article. If the nom wants to initiate a new RfC that is more context specific and focused on a particular paragraph(s), then that's a good solution and I would consider supporting either "killed" or "assassinated" on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis. I also think one or more reference(s) to WP:PRECISE may be a red herring here, but, nevertheless, that policy cannot trump WP:NPOV. --Doug Mehus T·C 16:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated It's being used by reliable sources and killed is less precise. Dartslilly (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Killed is the proper use here. Many acts during wartime (weather cold or hot) are pre-planned, pre-meditated, military actions conducted in secret, and totally legal under the War Powers Act afforded the president of the U.S. by congress. Just as many RS references could be found using "killed" as any other, including "assassination". You can argue semantics, but the end result is he was unarguably "killed". GenQuest "Talk to Me" 21:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The UK SOE assassinated a lot of Nazis in the Second World War. They were proudly assassinating them using specialist weapons like Welrod that had no other purpose.RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The US was not in a state of war with Iran as the UK and Germany during WW2. That makes an important difference. Soldiers get killed on the battlefield in a war. Political leaders in peacetime get assassinated. — kashmīrī TALK 10:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated is the proper term for such a targeted political killing of this nature. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Assassinated is the proper term for the targeted killing of a political rival, approved by a nation state. RonaldDuncan (talk) 12:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Assassinated To remove it, an action that was identified as such worldwide, would be NPOV. "Killed" can be used as well, but it is substantially less descriptive and informative than the actual circumstance. Wikipedia is not censored, and to erase the commonly used term for what clearly happened would in fact be just that. Three drones fired missiles in the assassination. I just Googled "Solemaini" and "assassinated" and got 50 million hits. He wasn't the only one killed: "Iranian and Iraqi officials have so far confirmed the U.S. attack killed eight other people who were accompanying Soleimani at Iraqi’s Baghdad airport.' They were: Jamal Jaafar Ibrahimi, more commonly known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, was the head of Iraq’s powerful anti-American Shiite group, Kataeb Hezbollah, and the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Forces. The U.S. labeled al-Muhandis an adviser to Soleimani and a key Shiite militia leader targeting the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq and U.S. allies in the Middle East. He reportedly participated in the bombing of Western embassies in Kuwait and the attempted assassination of the emir of Kuwait in the early 1980s. Before his death in the U.S. airstrike, al-Muhandis earlier this week was seen leading hundreds of Shiite protesters and militiamen who attacked the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad. Major General Hossein Pourjafari, also referred to as Jafari Nia in Iran, was known as the right-hand man of Soleimani since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s and was his most trusted assistant afterward. He played a critical role in the formation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) intelligence wing. IRGC was designated a terror group by the Trump administration in April 2018 for its destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. Colonel Shahroud Mozaffari Nia served as a in the IRGC. Another Iran-Iraq War veteran, he spent his last years as a member of IRGC’s intelligence unit. He reportedly worked with pro-Iranian militias in Lebanon and Syria under the pseudonym of Abu Ahmad. Hadi Taremi, an IRGC lieutenant, was was a member of the IRGC security bureau for almost 10 years before his promotion to IRGC’s Quds Force unit. He was known to be one of the closest people in Soleimani’s inner circle and his No. 1 bodyguard. He accompanied Soleimani in most of his official visits inside Iran. Vahid Zamanian, another IRGC lieutenant was reportedly one of the rotating bodyguards of Soleimani and accompanied him in some unofficial international visits. Additionally, he reportedly was involved in the IRGC-Quds Force’s Fatemiyoun Brigade, an all-Afghan militia formed in 2014 and sent to Syria to help the government of Bashar al-Assad in the fight against Sunni rebels. Muhammad Radha al-Jabri was in charge of airport protocol for the Iraqi Shiite militia known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. Not much is known about al-Jabri’s background, but according to Iraqi media, he was a graduate of Imam Hossein University in Tehran. Hassan Abdu al-Hadi, Muhammad al-Shaybani and Haider Ali had not been identified as to their positions as of January 3rd. Activist (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like there's a consensus to use "assassination," by a count of 26-13 or so. Activist (talk) 14:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Killed.
Dear Activist: most people believe the international laws of war, as enunciated in the 1949 Geneva Conventions, are a good thing, because they have made warfare somewhat less brutal. E.g., the Geneva Conventions encourage combatants to use tactics that minimize civilian casualties, and they have reduced the incidence of rape as a tool of war. Do you agree that the Geneva Conventions have been a good thing?
Soleimani had ordered attacks against U.S. servicemembers and against U.S. civilians. Therefore, according the the Geneva Conventions, he and his subordinates were legitimate military targets – and a strike on a legitimate military target is the the opposite of an assassination. Case closed.
This supposed "consensus" has largely appeared because – in a transparent imposition of their own non-neutral point of view – some news organizations have mischaracterized the strike as an assassination. Wikipedia is not a place to amplify the mischaracterizations of other organizations. RealisticPacifist (talk) 19:40, 17 January 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.

Lack of neutrality[edit]

The style and content of the entire first paragraph of section 6.2 Reaction seem far remote from WP's standards of objectivity and neutrality. I propose the paragraph be removed completely. -- Kai Neergård (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The section I believe you're referring to was added recently and indeed suffered from a host of problems, including parts being unsourced, parts being sourced to unusable sources / sources not reliable for what they were being used for (per WP:RSPS), parts misrepresenting sources and/or failing to adhere to a neutral tone, and parts giving excess WP:WEIGHT to things. I simply reverted the entire addition. If any parts of the section were salvageable, consensus to add them can be sought here. -sche (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk page about my removal of this content; as this regards article content (and also as I don't have much time at the moment and hope others will weigh in), I am responding here. (I had not bothered to check who had added the content at the time I removed it, only noticing it in the big diff of all changes "updated since your last visit", but digging through the history I see it was added in diff (scroll past the relocation of the sanctions content), for reference.) The parts I referred to as unsourced were those that didn't have sources directly after them, such as the first sentence (perhaps the intention was that the sources present after the second sentence also verified the first). Other bits were more insidiously unsourced, and synthesized: for example, In one case, New York Times journalist Farnaz Fassihi cited Hassan Rouhani as a “moderate president”, while less than a month earlier 1500 protesters were killed at his orders[1]., where the quoted text does not appear in the cited New York Times article, although it does speak of "Iran’s relative moderates like Mr. Rouhani", and the mention of protestors being killed "at his orders" is nowhere in the NYT article at all (apparently it is intended to the "sourced" to the other Wikipedia article), which means by definition the NYT article isn't connecting the killing to either Rouhani's moderateness/non-moderateness or to Qasem Soleimani: the information is off-topic, clearly POV, and SYNTH. And so forth... -sche (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The piece of text discussed above was reentered today at 7 PM under a new headline "Iranian propaganda". I maintain the view that its style is absolutely inappropriate for WP. The author should specify exactly and in detail every single case of "disinformation", "fake news", "fabricated journalist personas", "coordination of the international public opinion" etc. etc. that is being referred to with valid documentation. The references given do not serve as such documentation. I have not looked at every one of them, but the few I checked were clearly not neutral. Neither did they pretend neutrality. -sche asked for a discussion in this forum for consensus. I request that the author of the section "Iranian propaganda" enters such a dicussion instead of stubbornly going on his/her own - Kai Neergård (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@Kai Neergård: "We are already seeing Iranian disinformation efforts by these networks surrounding last night’s strike" Telegraph, "Iran had long been working on a disinformation army to rival Russia’s Internet Research Agency, as well as other tactics such as the creation of fake news outlets and fabricated journalist personas" also Telegraph. Perhaps you would also be interested in "They showed Soleimani posing with children; Soleimani reading Gabriel García Márquez; Soleimani in a Palestinian keffiyeh; ... Iran also began deploying Soleimani on another front: launching a propaganda war centring on the self-styled “noble warrior,” a man who could appeal to both nationalists and religious conservatives. The “Commander of Hearts” became a fixture on domestic news. Iranian elites who would refer to him tongue-in-cheek as “Soleiman the Magnificent,” after the Ottoman sultan who so intimidated Europe" Prospect. Please, please spend 1/100 of the time I spent writing it and "look at every one of" the references. Just curious, aren't "Soleimani was viewed favorably by 82% of Iranians with 59% of them very favorable toward him" or "Soleimani's personality was compared to the fictional characters Karla, Keyser Söze and The Scarlet Pimpernel" among your concerns? Ms96 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to copy language from The Telegraph as describing facts. The Telegraph has a political agenda that is clearly recognisable to its readers. Readers of WP expect facts, not political propaganda. If you feel that the coverage of post-assassination events by media like The Telegraph has a relevance to the WP readership, the correct form would be "Some media report that ...". The headline should be "Media coverage of alleged Iranian propaganda" - Kai Neergård (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This is not only Telegraph, for example "Iran is a persistent, sophisticated and well-resourced actor which has been active in the online disinformation space for years" USA Today, Iran has online disinformation operations, too (CNN). This is not just what some "media" think 1 to say "Some media report that ...". "Media coverage of alleged Iranian propaganda" is absolutely misleading. Yes, all media have "a political agenda" and none is 100% neutral, but what? The whole article is based on info reflected in media. This section is the most well-cited and all references are in compliance with WP:RSP. Have you bothered reading the rest of the article? Is "Soleimani practiced karate and was a fitness trainer in his youth" more "relevant to the WP readership"? You didn't also make any comments about the above mentioned sentences ("Soleimani was viewed favorably ..." and ""Soleimani's personality was ..."). Are they better sourced? Better suited for WP readership? I added more references and will remove the POV tag soon if not challenged, as this part is the best sourced section (so far).Ms96 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Dismal, should be deleted in its entirety, if I put my mind to it, I am sure that I can create an equally useless section entitled "US propaganda".Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
This is not a survey on "do you like this paragraph or not", tell us based on which guideline should this be deleted? What is violated? Why don't you really "put your mind to it" and make contribution? It would be much appreciated. p.s.: Isn't anyone going to answer my questions up there? Are all the Karate and Keyser Söze stuff OK? Ms96 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't need to, I am joining with the two other editors telling you that this content is rubbish.If I make a contribution it will be to delete it (unless you do it yourself first).Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

IranDonald Trump is a persistent, sophisticated and well-resourced actor which who has been active in the online disinformation space for years

Disinformation is not peculiar to Iran, and therefore selecting this from a two-bit tabloiud piece of hackwork won't fly.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I removed the section, as there is clearly no consensus for it and many problems with it as outlined above. The content in question was here (old revision), removed in diff, if anyone wants to workshop/make a case for includabiltiy of particular parts of it. -sche (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
You cannot just remove this whole valid, well sourced section because it doesn't suit your POV. You think it has issues? Fine, then edit it. But do not remove the valid work of another editor. Tradediatalk 13:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, -sche, it is you who should try to reach consensus, not us. What is you're reasoning for removing lots of sourced information? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
And explain this edit. Weren't >25 sources enough to convince you that the Iranians' view of him was, at least, "mixed"? Ms96 (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the University of Maryland survey done over several years and published in 2018 that interviewed thousands of Iranians and found 82% of them viewed the general favorably (ranked more favorably than President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif). Do you think the people attending his funeral were bussed in? Did he have his detractors? Of course, just like most public figures do, but 82% is not "mixed".Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: For your notice: "In the past few years, the Center for International Security Studies (CISSM) at Maryland University has produced reports on polling surveys that have become popular among academics, the media and politicians in the West. The reports are mostly published under the name of Dr. Ebrahim Mohseni. In 2009, Mojtaba Khamenei helped Mohseni and Professor Mohammad Marandi to establish the University of Tehran Centre for Public Opinion Research (UTCPOR). Marandi — who studied in America and understands the mentality of Western media, politicians and writers — leads UTCPOR, which is monitored by the Iranian Foreign Ministry. He frequently appears on mainstream media, such as the BBC and Al Jazeera, among others, but one thing that these media organizations either do not know or fail to mention is that he is the son of Dr. Marandi, the head of Ayatollah Khamenei’s special medical team". "A significant amount of effort has been dedicated to presenting the polling surveys as a product of Maryland University. However, these are produced by Iran Poll. Iran Poll conducts research freely in Iran, which no other organization is allowed to do. ... this also reveals the monopoly Iran Poll has over the Western media when it comes to Iran, which demonstrates a troubling lack of critical assessment toward a polling institution supported by the regime in Tehran, which by its very essence cannot be neutral". Based on other polls by the same group, it is "claimed that Iranians believe the IRI is democratic while simultaneously claiming that Iranians do not want democratic forms of expression." [5]. YOU ARE STILL ASKING MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE ANSWER THOSE OF MINE INCLUDING THE KARATE and KEYSER SÖZE stuff. Ms96 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Just raised the issue in WP:RSN.Ms96 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
So, let's ignore the billions of opposing sources and accept that dodgy source of yours? (which you haven't even linked). This is not neutral at all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
"Billions"? My 'dodgy' (on what do you base this assertion?) survey is very well publicized across many RS, try google.Should I feel that the article needs it including, then I will link it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Sigh, obviously not meant literally. I say dodgy because I find that hardly believable, looking at other sources. Anyways, there are loads of sources who say the opposite, they should be included be as well - that's simply how it works here on Wikipedia. You can't just remove stuff because you don't like/agree it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Here is the pdf of the surveySelfstudier (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Please don't be aggressive, This is your problem, not Wikipedia M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Iranians Close Ranks Behind Leaders After U.S. Kills Popular General". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 January 2020.

I said I would not participate in the discussion But let me tell you something, People who advocate this kind of writing, They are a minority of Iranian society, Yes, the whole world has the right to read articles But this article should not violate the right of the majority of people, Sources have no credibility without understanding the reality, Again, this article is about this person, not other topics, I say my opinion Because it's my right Notable for some M.k.m2003 (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Iranian propaganda Heading[edit]

This Heading is about advertising in Iran But it's all a lie, Completely violates the wiki policy, I think its title should be media lies M.k.m2003 (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There is already a section about this above with title "Lack of Neutrality"; you might want to put your comments in there.Selfstudier (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There is so much in the lies section that I can't believe Wikipedia is here, Unilateralism also has a limit, Wikipedia is for everyone, How is it allowed to have such controversial content on Wikipedia? M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There are several editors now questioning the POV nature of this material, you are not the only one. Let's see if others will also comment.Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I moved this into the existing section where this is discussed, so that the discussions of this are all in one place. -sche (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
I feel like a few parts are salvageable, but the section as a whole had so many problems that it's better to remove it for now, yeah. Just going over the sources, several of them are weak or unusable - Cyberscoop and the Washington Examiner, say. Others are opinion-pieces being cited for statements of fact, which isn't acceptable, or are clearly WP:BIASED sources used without attribution. Some of the other sources aren't about Soleimani in particular and are used for WP:SYNTH. There are some higher-quality sources, but they tend to take a more cautious or careful tone, whereas the section adopted mostly the sweeping and dramatic tone of the weaker sources and the opinion-pieces. The whole thing strings together a few bits of factual reliable reporting with angry opinion pieces, some WP:SYNTH, and and a few totally unusable sources to create a much more dramatic whole than the more staid mainstream coverage. Also, propaganda is probably a WP:LABEL, and while some sources use it, several don't. --Aquillion (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Firstly, I admit being overwhelmed by opposite views in this discussion. Dear @Aquillion:, just specify exactly which sources are weak or "totally unusable", I will delete them. Also which aren't about Soleimani (frankly couldn't find any)? Would be helpful to note some sources (including cyberscoop and examiner) were added after @Kai Neergård: called me stubborn and asked for more sources. Then Selfstudier called it rubbish and tagged the the paragraph as overlinked). By my count >70% are referring to this as "propaganda" and I therefore insist on the topic. I will also change the tone to more neutral as I previously did. @M.k.m2003: be more specific, which "wiki policy"? Which "lie" with >25 sources? Dear @Selfstudier:, sure you "don't need to" contribute, but that's the normal protocol. I'm also adding the issue to wikiproject:Iran talk page. Also @-sche:, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." You were right, the paragraph was "removed again by someone", you! @HistoryofIran: your comments would also be appreciated; I want to attract more attention toward this talk without violating any guidelines, what should I do at this point? Ms96 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Ms96: my brother, This article is about Qasem Soleimani And this has nothing to do with the article, Wiki policy is separate from unilateralism, It is completely wrong to say that Suleimani's photo was torn by the Iranian people We must also consider the millions who mourned, But thousands have been told That's a big lie And the sources are not neutral either You must follow the wiki policy, wish you luck. Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 10:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi M.k.m2003! So you have problem with the word "thousands"? It was actually written in many sources, including those I used. I work 100% based on guidelines. Saying his photo was torn was wrong?! This statement was supported by, like 7-8 sources and I could add more. Related videos could also be found on YouTube and Twitter Ms96 (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ms96: First of all I have a problem with the whole text, In Iran they tore the picture of Donald Trump So go add this to this article, Your resources are not neutral if you add ten thousand sources So there is no Credibility M.k.m2003 (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

"I have a problem with the whole text", read WP:FORUM and WP:CENSOR. "In Iran they tore the picture of Donald Trump", why do you hesitate to add it to the article? "resources are not neutral", they actually are based on WP:RSP. I won't compromise on deleting sources with "No consensus" status or better. Ms96 (talk) 11:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ms96: Oh Are you kidding? I didn't mean just me, I think you got it wrong I mean wiki policy Because you are violating it, You have no right to be one-sided M.k.m2003 (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

At most any material about Iranian propaganda shouldn't take up more than a sentence or so of the article (perhaps as part of the reactions section), should be well sourced to reputable RS (one or two is enough) and should not give the impression that it is only Iran that is engaged in propaganda exercises. That's my 2 cents.Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Based on which guideline have you decided that it should be summarized in "1" sentence with "1-2" sources while being widely disscused on democratic/republican/western/eastern/Iranian/non-Iranian media? Which sources are good? I ask because you apparently don't believe in Telegraph, CNN, BBC, Fox, Washington Post, Prospect, Vox, Quartz, Vice, France24, etc. Why should it not give that impression while actually being mentioned in those media? Ms96 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
There is a whole artice devoted to Propaganda in Iran, why don't you write whatever in there? It is a very minor matter as regards this particular page. And I never said I did not believe RS, three editors have already explained what the problem is with the material you included.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Because all those sources are specifically about Iranian propaganda surrounding Soleimani, not in general. You keep asking questions without answering those of mine. (I repeat, sure you don't have to answer, but that's the normal protocol per WP:DR). Ms96 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Wut? this is clearly more relevant to the article of Soleimani, than Propaganda in Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Not gonna lie I've not read everything in this topic, so there might be some mistakes or something I've missed, anyways, here's my two cents: Sources by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) are obviously not reliable, and is indeed propaganda. Mind you, this is a country that doesn't allow basic rights, and violently supresses its people (yes, violently, 2019–20 Iranian protests), and calls the Iranian protestors for "American and Israeli spies" (look up Khamenei's twitter, there are loads of these accusations). I thought this was a no brainer. "The majority of Iranians loving Soleimani" is obviously not true, there were loads of sources that testified to that. Yet, it was removed, because.. it was POV? Lol. It's more POV now. It's a pretty normal custom for authoritarian governments to stage such huge funerals (and government rallies for that matter) in a desperate bid for legitimacy. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: How long will these lies, I was in all the protests and it wasn't, Did you ever go to the protests? I guess you are seeking to destroy the beloved country of Iran. M.k.m2003 (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep this on-topic please, not the first time you've been told. The same goes for the silly accusations. Keep your personal opinion for yourself. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I'm really sorry for you, You are insulting me and my nation! I have the right to defend myself And please do not include these in Wikipedia If not, I will sue you according to the policy M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm taking this as a serious WP:SUE case. Please stay calm and make constructive contribution instead of intimidating users. Ms96 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The user just deleted some parts of the discussion, tagging "Irrelevant topic". Ms96 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ms96: I restrained myself, I do not understand why you interfere? He insulted me and my nation Consider this too M.k.m2003 (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't about you. Again, keep your accusations/opinion for yourself. Don't derail this thread further or I'll report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The article is about Qasem Soleimani, not his country's policy, This type of text should be used in other articles Which I agree with But most importantly it must be neutral, Which is unfortunately completely violated, By fighting the debate will not get anywhere Please, keep the discussion polite, Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NPOV. That's all I'm gonna say. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I will no longer participate in this discussion, But you have to know I was really upset with this Speech, I wish you had a better conversation, good job M.k.m2003 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

  • The content is obviously undue. Especially that it is in a standalone section and in an article about a biography of a person. Could be shortened then placed in the article of the U.S. airstrike and also add content for balance like that the U.S. has provided no proof that Soleimani was planning an attack etc..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
How is it undue? Literally loads of sourced information was removed, and now only one type of information stands (if that makes sense). Now that sounds pretty undue to me. Sure it wasn't perfect, but then the issues of the text should have been fixed instead of outright removed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. The article is much more under WP:UNDUE now ...---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment The content that was removed by Selfstudier was reliably sourced by multiple sources and should remain in the article. Also, Iranian propaganda appears to be quite obvious and a section about that sounds relevant.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Just so we are clear about this, I was the last editor of three who reverted this material (in addition a fourth editor heavily criticized it). The problems with the material have been clearly explained and the onus is on the originating editor to put any material together in such a way as to satisfy a consensus. To put it another way, if there was an RFC for the addition of the material that was reverted, it would fail with "no consensus".Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The content was removed by multiple editors. The onus is on those who seek to include. The issues are clear as day, it's undue to have its own section especially considering that this is a biological article and is not balanced.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@Selfstudier: @SharabSalam: Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy (Although four users have also expressed their support of that paragraph). You insist on your idea while giving no specific reason (to every single sentence of that paragraph) despite being asked to several times, claiming that you "don't need to" do so, I'm assuming that it's rather your personal interest. (I also assume that you are aware of my reply to that poll survey you mentioned and the related section in WP:RSN where I raised the issue). To me, the result of this discussion is a consensus on keeping the paragraph and I will add an edited version immediately after the protection expires. Regards Ms96 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
while giving no specific reason, really? I said it's undue weight to have all that content in a section in a biographical article. This is not a specific reason?. Also, the source is reliable. It's more reliable than mainstream media because it is published in a highly reliable academic institution. The inclusion (WP:ONUS) requires consensus and no consensus for including that undue content.

The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.

-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)edited:14:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: Stop making so much nonconstructive, groundless friction with every single opinion opposing yours. @UniSail2: Simply wait till the protection expires, be bold, and edit. Ms96 (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Where is this so-called RfC about "Iranian propaganda" ? I can see the one above, in which i took part but nothing else.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Wikaviani:, you're at the right place. Ms96 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ms96: Thank you mate, so, i was not mistaken, there is no such thing as an Rfc here, only a section about "Iranian propaganda Heading". Gonna open a proper RfC. Cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 19:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Protection note[edit]

I'm not sure which version constitutes the status quo ante, but per WP:ONUS, that is the version that ought to be in place while the matter is being discussed. El_C 14:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there really no other option than hitting the nuclear button and gold locking the page? I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the context, but this page is one of high interest and I don't see how it serves the community or the site to keep this level of restriction imposed for more than a day or two. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
If there's another suitable option, I don't know what it is. But I'm open to suggestions. El_C 22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
What about blue lock and 1RR? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
El_C, the request for comment has been closed, can you implement the result? Use Assassination instead of death as the header of the section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Actually, I would rather wait for the protection to lapse than edit the protected page. El_C 11:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Section Should be titled "Death" and not "Assassination"[edit]

While we do know the Trump Administration clearly lied as to why he was taken out, we still don't know whether or not Soleimani was involved in the rocket attack which was used as an excuse to target him.2601:447:4100:C120:88F0:1D3:2AE2:B988 (talk) 20:05, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The section title was assassinated before the above RfC started and most of the time it was assassinated. Assassination means the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious, or monetary reasons. This fit into this story and also most reliable sources use assassination.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
That is not true. When the RFC began (and before that as well), it was titled "Death". It was only changed to "Assassination" two days after the RFC began, before any consensus was reached. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 07:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
The section title and section text are being mixed up, I think. As of this diff, just prior to the start of the RFC (hence at a time when there was not [as there still is not, the RFC being unclosed] any consensus to use the word "killing", among other things there was not consensus for), the section title was "death", while the text mentioned that "Sergei Lavrov, Medea Benjamin [et al ...] designated the assassination of Soleimani 'flatly illegal'". At various points after (and probably also before) this, attempts were made by some users to add, switch other words to, and make the article exclusively use the word "killing", while other editors switched some instances back in the other direction, to "assassination". Apparently, which words were "originally" used in which places was not always perfectly observed, although in this respect the article does seem to be in almost the same state now as it was just before the RFC, at least as far as the section title in question saying "death" again and the section saying the aforementioned folks "called the assassination of Soleimani 'flatly illegal'". -sche (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
He did not die a natural death. He was killed deliberately, no-one questions that. Whether the killing was an "assassination" is questionable, a matter of PoV. So use killing. Maproom (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
We conducted an RfC above. Editors voted 26-13 in favor of using the term "assassination." That sounds like a consensus to me. If not, to be consistent, I would propose that the "Jesus of Nazareth" Wikipedia article remove the terms "crucify" or "Crucifixion" (used 53 times) by "Roman soldiers" to instead read, "was said to have been temporarily suspended on a wooden structure by Italianate workers." Activist (talk) 11:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Said RFC has not yet been closed, and is thus ongoing. Reminder that RFC's are WP:not counting heads and consensus, or lack thereof, will be determined by an uninvolved closing editor. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
As alluded to by -sche, in some respects it does not matter which euphemism is used. It matters more whether the (insert favorite euphemism here) can be legally justified in some jurisdiction and/or in international law.Selfstudier (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Formally, it only matters which term is used in independent reliable sources (WP:RS). We Wiki editors are not supposed to do original research like searching for legal justifications (WP:NOR). — kashmīrī TALK 16:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course, I already said that in the RFC. The closer indicated that variability depending on context was in order since the RS tends to use multiple terms. There is no need to do legal research there is already a small mountain of legal RS available on the subject, I just don't want to write it up:)Selfstudier (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 January 2020[edit]

According to the Syrian Minister of Defense, Ali Abdullah Ayyoub, Soleimani was involved in the Siege of Homs, starting from 2011.[1] UniSail2 (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


Not a reliable source. I doubt the Syrian minister would say that. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@MSGJ: The text written could be added to Syrian Civil War section.
@SharabSalam: Not a reliable source ! Are you kidding? However, have you already checked the reference? There is a video showing the minister talking about the related topic ! UniSail2 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I am not kidding. Al-Arabiya is owned by the Saudi ruling family meaning it is a state-owned outlet. We don't use it as a source and the video is very short and shady, doesn't support what the tweet is saying. We already mentioned that Qasem Soleimani was fighting in Syria against the terrorists.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: It seems that you contradict yourself, initially you said: "I doubt the Syrian minister would say that" ! Then you claimed that there is a difference regarding the "tweet" ! Do you understand Arabic or not? The minister said that Soleimani was involved in Baba Amr (neighborhood in Homs) Siege since 2011 ! UniSail2 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I am not contradicting myself. Al-Arabiya is not a reliable source. It's a Saudi propaganda outlet. We can't verify what the guy said through a short, shady, unverified video clip sent by a Twitter user who made false claim saying that the MoD said Soleimani was part of "slaughtering Syrians", I understand Arabic and that's not what he said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: I think with this reference, this discussion comes to an end.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by UniSail2 (talkcontribs)
UniSail2, the source doesn't say that the video is verified. It is saying that a video posted online. The titles are usually not written by the authors. In fact, in the video the Syrian minister doesn't even mention the name "Qassem Soleimani". Sorry but this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and requires multiple high quality sources or it has no place in this article per WP:CRYSTALL rumours about BLP (including recently deceased) are not appropriate encyclopedic content..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: The first sentence of the video was Qassem Soleimani, I met him ... !! You are relentlessly trying to avoid the fact that a verified source mentioned clearly the link between Soleimani and Homs Siege as taken from mouth of the minister of defense! I do not do partisanship here, unlike you as you claimed that "Qasem Soleimani was fighting in Syria against the terrorists". It seems that you are clearly very much biased and you won't accept the facts presented, you are running around the bush by claiming that the first ref is related to the Saudi government, the video is shady, and the other ref is simply a speculation ! For Heaven Sake ! I do not know whom I am arguing with here, a bot or not ! UniSail2 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
UniSail2, show me where he says Qasiam Soleimani in the video. The video is cut of and there is no mention of the word Soleimani in it. This is why I said that. You asked me if I speak Arabic and I told you that the video doesn't show the minister saying Qasiam Soleimani. We report verified content not rumors of unknown sources. I am not biased. I am trying to make the content verified. Also Qasiam Soleimani was indeed fight terrorists in Syria per what most reliable sources say. And in Homs, the people who Assad was fighting were from al-Nusra terrorists as per the article itself.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
In any case, I am not going to allow such content to be in the article unless it is verified. The video doesn't mention the name Qassem Soleimani. Needs verification for this claim or not in Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam You do not even know how to write the name as you wrote "Qasiam Soleimani". For heaven sake, you asked me to show you "where he says Qasiam Soleimani", the first sentence is: Qasem Soleimani, I met him in 2011 .. etc. The subtitles are even written in Arabic ! However, it seems that you are chewing so much Qat right now that is making you half-blind and acting with no sense at all ! Cheers mate @Ms96:, but I do not like edit wars to be honest, because people here are stubborn and take the undo as an offence against their supreme pride and intelligence ! sad ! UniSail2 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
SharabSalam, you are now threatening to be disruptive, let's see how well that ends, how long till someone reports you etc. Also, UniSail2, I get that it can be hard at times, but please do try to keep a nice tone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
The disruptive is putting unverified claim in Wikipedia. The video doesn't say the name "Qassem Soleimani", the subtitles can be written by anyone, the MoD doesn't mention the name Qassem Soleimani full stop. This is why I said it is shady. Obviously, I should remove any unverified content, this isn't disruptive. Also for the comment about khat. I chew Qat everyday, I don't know how this is related to the discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@UniSail2: take the undo as an offence — you know what else people take as an offense? Being offended. So please stop doing that and adopt a more civil, matter-of-fact tone that is devoid of innuendo. Thanks in advance for your close attention. El_C 19:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Cheers mate ! I do not blame him, he is still 21 years old ! I would like to reach an understanding or a compromise here, not a personal conflict. I am glad that there are some decent people from Iran and Yemen who are contributing here. Best regards ! SharabSalam, you say: "The MoD doesn't mention the name Qassem Soleimani full stop", you lie to yourself or what?! Can you write here what the minister said please so I make sure that you are not deaf or something! Because I am really worried about you with the Qat daily consumption ! UniSail2 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Another source (In Persian). UniSail2 please stay calm! Ms96 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: I do not think the minister was talking about your grandfather, as The Times reference, that you try to avoid to acknowledge, is clearly stating ! You focus on the video but you won't admit that a reliable source verified it, whom to believe here as a neutral: The Times or SharabSalam?! UniSail2 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Here is the video [6]. The subtitles which is written by the telegram channel owner says "Qassem Soleimani" while in the video, the name "Qassem Soleimani" is not mentioned. Any Arabic speaking person would say that. There is a sound at the beginning that sounds like لكنني lakinani which means "but I..". This is exactly why I said the video is shady. The only source for this is the subtitles. Per WP:CRYSTAL we don't put unverified claims are not appropriate and WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that we should have multiple high quality sources for such claims. BTW, I don't really care, if it is verified I will put it in the article myself but it's not. Also for my age, that's absolutely none of your business and this is the last warning for you UniSail2. Be careful with your next reply.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Since this is ended to be about my grandfather. I think this editor is not mentally capable of having a civilized discussion. He should go and wash his face.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: Check the other source provided by the other mate. You say "this is the last warning for you" ! LOL ! who the hell are you to threaten people?! The other mates are calling me to stay calm; meanwhile, a kid is warning me while chewing Qat! Go take care of the Yemeni Civil War related articles, here is not a kindergarten where you swing around with adults! UniSail2 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I was actually laughing at your insults until you mentioned my grandfather, that wasn't cool. El_C, I don't think it is even questionable that this editor is not able to have a civilized discussion and instead is making personal attacks. I also highly suspect that this editor is a sockpuppet of OxfordLaw.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: You call people "not mentally capable" and "sockpuppet" but you can not hear a simple conversation and you even lie regarding hearing different words like "but" ! A civil discussion with a chewing Qat kid ! However, I hope that someone with authority and common sense removes you from here, because it seems at least three editors find you nothing but a pain in the ass ! UniSail2 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
"pain in the ass"😂😂😂😂 "chewing Qat kid"😂😂😂. You are obviously not mentally capable of having a civilised discussion right now, I said that after you mentioned my grandfather. I don't even understand why you are so angry. That editor OxfordLaw also used Qat as an insult and it is probable that you are him, he also gets angry in the discussion. There is also another editor called Ezabila or something like that who has many accounts and makes a lot of disruptive comments like you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
UniSail2, Not true, you obviously went way too far. please stop. Ms96 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
UniSail2, I have removed your last comment because it was rude. I said I don't even know why you are angry. All sources are attributing to a questionable video's subtitles. In the video the guy obviously doesn't mention the name "Qassem Soleimani". This is not verified therefore it is not going to be in the article per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: The content would be added, because you did not check the other video source and claimed that The Time article is speculation! Discussion ended ! UniSail2 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
UniSail2, I didnt say that The Time article is speculation, I said the video they are attributing to is questionable. I don't have any problem with the content BTW. I would add it myself if it was verified.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Even his mouth, seems to be moving way different than the audio.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: You are simply delusional ! No one is asking you to add it nor to verify it ! You would keep claiming that you did not hear the name in the video. I would add it myself based on the The Time article and the Persian link source, I wasted so much time arguing with you ! UniSail2 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Anyone here speaks Arabic? watch the video [7], did the guy say Qassem Suleimani?. I dont hear the name "Qassem Soleimani". On top of that, does anyone notice the differences between what the audio is saying and how his lips are moving? The video obviously doesnt verify the content. It is common that officials post fake videos. Have you ever heard of deepfake? or have you heard about that high ranking American official who just recently posted a photoshopped image of Obama next to Rohani? How can we verify thats all I am asking. I dont have any POV or anything about the content my objection is only policy-based, thats it, and in this case, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: Honestly, you are making yourself a total joke ! Why would the Syrian minister hide Soleimani's involvement in Homs Siege after his death ! Now you are talking about "deepfake" videos ! I am glad that someone like you would not write the history! UniSail2 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section[edit]

As multiple reliable sources have been found supporting Iran's propaganda, i suggest to include a section about it. Please see the above thread---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Please see the below wording for this RfC by El_C.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Administrator note:

this RfC editorializes, but it is about whether to include the paragraph that begins with the sentence: After his death, the Iranian propaganda campaign intensified disinformation efforts in creating fake news outlets, fabricating journalist personas, and systematically coordinating the international public opinion toward idolization of Soleimani. El_C 22:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

The RfC question is: should the dedicated section on Iranian propaganda (diff) be included in the article? El_C 22:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)|}

  • Support as nominator.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
What is the nomination here? This is a RfC. You should write a neutral RfC. This is not a deletion nomination. I have never seen a RfC like this.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per what I said in the linked thread. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: here is the section that Wikaviani is suggesting to add.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose if the material to be added is that previously tagged for POV and citation overkill, reverted here on 17 January,again here on 18 January and here on 19 January, discussed above. A section would be undue for this minor matter, if the purpose of the material is to provide contrary opinion to that cited in the section "Personal life and public image", a suitably sourced sentence can be added there. The impression that it is only Iran engaged in news management should be avoided.Selfstudier (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
How is this a "minor" matter? If there are so many citations regarding this topic, surely it isn't minor then? Also, you could have fixed those issues yourself instead of outright removing the valid work of another editor. Three editors removing loads of sourced information doesn't make it justifiable. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it was tagged by you. Then you were asked to participate in the discussion which you simply refused and deleted the whole part in a few days. It is still a matter of question whether deleting a complete well-sourced section was in line with WP guidelines. Ms96 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, in the first instance it was tagged for POV by another editor and criticized by two others (none of these three being the reverting editors).Selfstudier (talk) 13:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose What a POVish suggestion. See WP:NPOV. In agreement with Selfstudier, I believe we need to avoid POV by devoting a whole section to this POV. --Mhhossein talk 12:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support After a very long discussion (above) and answering to each of the concerns, I will definitely add an edited version after the protection expires. To anyone who is going to make a decision or leave a comment, please read the whole discussion above under "Lack of neutrality". Ms96 (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Since there is now an RFC running, you need to wait for the outcome before editing any further on this subject.Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Until you get the consensus for inclusion you can add it. We have talked about this. See WP:ONUS.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I will undoubtedly add an edited version. surely not in "1 sentence or 2", just wondering based on which guideline this statement is being repeated? I will also delete all non-relevant, non-encyclopedic, biased, weakly-sourced statements already spread all over the article. Ms96 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ms96, what is the edited version that you want to add? The time for bold edits has clearly ended. You need to discuss any edited version you want to propose and see if there is an issue. There is an issue with using repetitive sources and UNDUE weight with the current one. That it has a dedicated section is undue weight in itself.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear SharabSalam, "The time for bold edits has clearly ended", you're basically questioning blatant WP principles by this statement. "You need to discuss any edited version you want to propose and see if there is an issue", Other than clearly not being obligated to recheck every single edit with you, that's exactly what I've been doing these days. Very interesting to see you're now nagging me for using too many sources, you would have obviously asked for more sources if I had used less. What is this called other than disruption? Ms96 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose a dedicated section, but a sentence or two mentioning it in the context of the larger propaganda war over the topic might be appropriate. --Aquillion (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is an important, relevant, well sourced issue. If some editors have a problem with it in terms of tone, length, etc. then they should edit the section to make it better. Tradediatalk 20:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:VER and WP:RS. - LouisAragon (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I am responding to the inclusion of the Propaganda section cited here. My apologies if I misunderstood. Anyway, the tone of the Propaganda section I mentioned is not neutral. It reads like an opinion piece to me and uses a liberal amount of citations to reinforce the writer's arguments. Darwin Naz (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Darwin Naz Thanks for participating. Your concern regarding the tone could easily be solved (by you yourself or whoever), the paragraph could be split into parts, etc as I repeatedly mentioned. It is obviously not going to be an adamant rock. The problem is with deleting the whole thing (or reducing it to a couple of sentences) while the article is highly biased in favor of Soleimani in its current form: "Soleimani practiced karate and was a fitness trainer in his youth", "Soleimani's personality was compared to the fictional characters Karla, Keyser Söze, and The Scarlet Pimpernel, "He was described as having "a calm presence"", "he usually did not appear in his official military clothing", "he spent his time with weight training in local gyms", ... Do you actually support deleting the whole thing? MS 会話 14:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written, because it is WP:UNDUE (especially at the length proposed) and has POV issues as outlined in Talk:Qasem Soleimani#Lack_of_neutrality. Workshopping what portions of the text would be worth including either in this article or in another article on US=Iran tensions would be a good idea but obviously requires (volunteer) time. The suggestion made above that some other parts of the article are also undue or trivial, like Soleimani doing karate, is orthogonal and can be discussed independently of the section proposed here. Indeed, this article has accumulated some trivia/fluff that should probably be reduced (although articles on people do often provide some "personal life" details where these are reported in RS). -sche (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support this section is not POV and is sourced. (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC) (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is NOT neutral[edit]

  • This is not how RfC are written when there is a dispute per WP:RFCST, Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue in the talk page section. How is that the OP become a nominator in a RfC? The RfC is also not clear as it doesn't link/show the section that is disputed (this section)-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with this. The argument for why something ought to be done should be in the creator's first comment, not in the RFC statement like this. --Aquillion (talk) 15:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "The RfC is also not clear as it doesn't link/show the section that is disputed" correct. I'm actually not much satisfied with continuing it under this heading, as the discussion was already ongoing. It would be misleading for those new to this topic who'd like to participate, there is a high probability that they won't bother reading the whole story up there. Aquillion I pinged you many days ago please answer. Ms96 (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, it is not about to include a paragraph. We agree with adding two or three sentences about it. It is about including this section. Also the diff not an old version.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, this RfC is phrased in a confusing way. I guess I misunderstood. Also, I thought this was what your dispute was about, hence, the permanent link. El_C 22:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
El_C, It is confusing which is why there should be a new one and this one closed. Provide a "diff" not a "version" because the diff shows exactly the content that is disputed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your patience. I think I got it now. El_C 23:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
El_C No you were actually right!!! I said please read everythin before, really don't understand where this "2-3 sentences" story began. SharabSalam It is very hard to assume good faith this time! You're deviating the discussion. MS 会話 23:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ms96, so you dont want to make a dedicated section for "Iranian propaganda"???? See what Aquillion said in his "Oppose" vote. The whole discussion is whether we add an unbalance POV section to this biographical article or not.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, this one looks good, thanks. It would have been better if it was a new RfC but thats okay.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Should the RfC be closed and start anew, or is my revised RfC question (above) enough for it to continue? I open the floor to a few comments. El_C 23:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure keep it, just mention that everyone reads the discussion up there before taking any decision. That's all I meant. MS 会話 23:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
El_C, Ms96 is saying that you link the above discussion. The wording is accurate, he is just saying that the discussion above is not mentioned.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
El C, It is okay both. I was just saying that if people already voted to this RfC when it wasnt neutral then... we should have started a new one.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
What you deleted my comment!!!! MS 会話 23:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Ms96, It was a mistake. The script for reply was malformed. Calm down, I am sorry.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment OK, there could surely be edits in future, as Tradedia said. This possibly includes not publishing it under a separate section or even splitting it. The most important point here is that the whole section got deleted despite being modified multiple times. Agreed SharabSalam? MS 会話 23:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    Tradedia didnt say, not publishing it under a separate section. Tradedia is with a separated section ( not surprised after seeing their comment about "the enemy").
    I have problem with the length, relevance of this content as a whole to this biographical article. It is over 10% of the article content without it. I am with two sentences in a paragraph as Aquillion said. I would agree with anyone's wording of these sentences if it is sourced and per what reliable sources are saying. I havent voted yet because I want to write a full clear reason, I will do it tomorrow or after tomorrow.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I didn't say Tradeia said that paragraph should be separated, I think I'm writing pretty much comprehensible (but you keep misinterpreting). You're pointing out his comment somewhere else for what? Libel? PA? Disruption? Also, someone please explain why "two sentences" I mean based on which principle? Really puzzling. MS 会話 00:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The "two sentences" thing refers to what is due or undue. What you are/were trying to do (amongst other things) is give an undue weight to your POV in preference to other POV. By way of example, when removing the University of Maryland survey here describing it as questionable and as being discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard, a discussion that was initiated by you after you ran into opposition here and to which the only detailed response that you have been given up to now is to disagree with your POV walls of text. I repeat my suggestion that you wait for the RFC outcome.Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Multi-city funeral, redux[edit]

On January 7th, a user stated in Talk:Qasem Soleimani/Archive_2#Incorrect_fact_about_funeral that Soleimani was not the first person to have a multi-city funeral, but we couldn't find a really reliable source documenting an earlier multi-city funeral. However, in a recent edit, Ms96 helpfully mentioned another person who supposedly received one, Mohsen Hojaji, and linked a page that indeed speaks of "the funerals of Martyr Hojaji in the cities of Tehran, Mashhad, Isfahan and Najafabad". I'm not sure we'd consider a RS, but the gist is also documented by e.g. Voice of America/Times of Israel (although technically VOA/TOI and other sources I skimmed called what happened in Mashhad a "blessing" and Najafabad an "interment", and only speak of a "funeral in Tehran", so some editors might argue it depends on what the precise definition of is funeral is). Of course, Ms96 (or anyone else), if you could provide more sources about other people receiving multi-city funerals before Soleimani, that would be helpful. Still, even just considering the Hojaji sources, it's not as if we have to include the claim that Soleimani was the first in wikivoice. I suggest changing He was the first man to be honored with a multi-city funeral in the history of Iran and his funeral procession was said to be the second largest after that of Ayatollah Khomeini, which already uses "said to be" for the second part, to He was said by some media outlets to be the first man to be honored with a multi-city funeral in the history of Iran, and..., if not outright just He was honored with a multi-city funeral, and... -sche (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

-sche, Agree with just He was honored with a multi-city funeral, and.... Unverified claims by the media shouldn't be in the article. I reverted that editor edits because he removed well-sourced content like the one about the polls. The editor also changed "many" to "some" without a reason. Even the Time of Israel says "Soleimani himself remains popular among many Iranians, who see him as a selfless hero fighting Iran’s enemies abroad."[8].--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
-sche Such "multi-city" funerals are pretty normal in Iran, even for not-much-popular figures:
The difficulty you had finding sources was natural, because such issues are not of much importance to be extensively covered by foreign media.
SharabSalam "The editor also changed "many" to "some" without a reason." Read sources (a), (b), (c), etc. below. I have also publicly declared my problem with that poll survey section (its content) here and you shouldn't have deleted it per ONUS and EXCEPTIONAL which you yourself have repeatedly been mentioning. MS 会話 13:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. I changed it to merely say he had a multi-city funeral without saying he was the first. -sche (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)


@Ms96: I highly appreciate neutrality in any written topic. You have used terms such as "Iranians had mixed views regarding him"; meanwhile, another editor called "SharabSalam" removed the neutrality as shown here, and purposely used biased opinions such as "Soleimani was popular among many Iranians". We all genuinely know that he was not favored by lots of Iranian in or outside Iran, as the protesters chanted against him and tore his posters !

Moreover, why would a whole section with lots of references removed by one editor regarding Iranian propaganda? Even though there is a discussion here regarding it!

It seems that one editor tries to create a biased documentation of all the topics related to this man. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, it is clear that he has a middle eastern mentally, where they worship what they like without taking objectivity into consideration. UniSail2 (talk) 12:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

UniSail2, All sources say that he is popular among many Iranians who see him as a selfless hero even the Times of Israel [9]. It is very much that you just don't like it and you calling this "neutrality".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: Some sources could say that Erdogan, Houthis, Muslim Brotherhood, Khamenei, Haftar, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Trump, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Al-Assad, Bin Laden or even Hitler .. etc as being popular among their people!! Would you write that in their articles, or would you claim that some editors simply do not like him so we can't come to a compromise! I do not have an opinion about him at all, because he is dead. We write here about the subject; hence, people would read the stories as neutral. No one would write bad adjectives about anyone, we do not use opinions as sources, as claiming Trump is unhinged, even though they were written by journalists with college degrees! However, I truly believe your terms are biased and should be more neutral ! UniSail2 (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
UniSail2, All reliable sources say that the he is popular among many Iranians and that's even supported by the academically sourced polls. I could care less about what you believe is biased.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: You removed all reliable sources regarding Iranian propaganda, and you call him a "selfless hero", then you would say that we "believe that you are not biased". We do not believe that you are simply biased, many editors view you as a mercenary who only focus on writing subjectively ! You could not even hear a basic Arabic conversion, maybe you put the earphones in the wrong holes ! UniSail2 (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: "All reliable sources say that the he is popular among many Iranians" wrong, I formally disputed that poll in WP:RSN, I also formally disputed that content (related to that poll) previously. The fact that you are still saying this reflectd that you have clearly not even read that paragraph, see (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), etc.
Ms96 Roger that ! I am glad that I am not the only one who can see this problem. UniSail2 (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Problems with introduction[edit]

The introduction currently says Soleimani oversaw the Peshmerga and was the first to supply them. Neither of these statements is true. It also states that no Americans or Iraqis were killed in the reprisal attacks; if people from other countries were killed, why isn't this mentioned? Konli17 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The lead says "Soleimani was one of the first", not that he was the very first, and this statement is sourced in the lead and in the article body. If there are issues with the sources used, please provide other sources to support your own statement. As for the other statement, I have revised it to say no lives were lost, rather than only spelling out two nationalities. -sche (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
The Peshmerga have been an armed group for decades, so the Time article is just plain wrong. Soleimani might have given them supplies and moral support during the battles against the Islamic State (as per The New Yorker), but he never oversaw them as the introduction currently states, and in fact oversaw operations against them when he took Kirkuk during the 2017 Iraqi–Kurdish conflict. I don't read Arabic or have access to the linked book, so I don't know what the other references say. Konli17 (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)