Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Qasem Soleimani/Archive 2) (bot |
|||
Line 223: | Line 223: | ||
:::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 - [[User:Kai Neergård|Kai Neergård]] ([[User talk:Kai Neergård|talk]]) 22:20, 15 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 - [[User:Kai Neergård|Kai Neergård]] ([[User talk:Kai Neergård|talk]]) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC) |
||
:::: {{ping|Kai Neergård}} {{"We are already seeing Iranian '''disinformation''' efforts by these networks surrounding last night’s strike" [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/04/pro-soleimani-threats-flood-twitter-instagram-generals-death/ 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 [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/01/04/pro-soleimani-threats-flood-twitter-instagram-generals-death/ 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" [https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/quasim-soleimani-death-who-was-iran-us-uk-relations-qasem 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? [[User:Ms96|Ms96]] ([[User talk:Ms96|talk]]) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
Revision as of 07:47, 16 January 2020
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
RfC: Should the article say Soleimani was "assassinated" or "killed"?
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) - 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
KilledMy 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)- 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)
- In this case (to apply killing and assassination) it is suggested that the tittle of page be “Assassination of Qasem Soleimani” and word killing should remain in text of the page. Nannadeem (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- This would conflict with the results of the RfC on the main event article page: Talk:2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike#Correct Article Title?. Darren-M talk 09:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
- In this case (to apply killing and assassination) it is suggested that the tittle of page be “Assassination of Qasem Soleimani” and word killing should remain in text of the page. Nannadeem (talk) 08:21, 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)
- 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)
- 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: [2] 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)
- 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 <https://apnews.com/1f914021bc802931059746a5ce8a192e>, 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qasem_Soleimani&diff=933788415&oldid=933788253, and the text used the terminology "killed" until (afaict) this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qasem_Soleimani&diff=934420027&oldid=934415867 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)
References
- ^ https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2020/01/07/was-americas-assassination-of-qassem-suleimani-justified
- ^ https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2020/jan/07/assassination-of-qassem-suleimani-podcast
- ^ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/podcasts/the-daily/trump-iran-soleimani.html
- ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/trump-assassination-soleimani-200103172526102.html
- 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)
- 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)
- Assassinated is the proper term for such a targeted political killing of this nature. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
in the lead: "widely regarded as a breach of international law"
Wow, that needs clarification and citations. The WSJ argues it was lawful [4]. I think it is premature to conclude. More info from NPR here: [5]. Danski14(talk)
- The WSJ does no such thing ... that's an opinion piece by Alan Dershowitz (whose name bizarrely is misspelled). And your other citation is to Al Jazeera, not NPR, and it pretty much argues that it was not a lawful killing. -- Jibal (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect the lawfulness and propriety of this killing is something that's going to be debated for many years. WP can either: 1) set forth both arguments and the rationale supporting each; or 2) have an endless edit war over what characterizations are correct. We should do the former, but will doubtless do the latter. That's why people have little faith in WP when it comes to controversial subjects. John2510 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Jibal, question, but the WSJ editorial board would not have reviewed and approved Mr. Derschowitz' column, though, correct? I don't see a problem with including that statement in the Lede, though I'd probably remove "widely" per WP:NPOV and we may want to attribute the piece to Mr. Derschowitz. Doug Mehus T·C 16:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, obviously not correct. Newspapers constantly publish opinion columns that the management or editorial board does not agree with. And what statement? The statement that it is widely seen as violating international law is true. Danski14 referencing the Dershowitz piece is typical of his cherry picking, and labeling it as being by the WSJ is typical of his arguments from authority. -- Jibal (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Jibal, That's true they may not agree with it, but they've nonetheless included it for publication and have provided a higher level of editorial peer review than, say, a letter to the editor, which is not checked for factual accuracy beyond legal concerns (i.e., potentially libelous material). So, that's why I said attribution to Derschowitz would be necessary. Doug Mehus T·C 17:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- No, obviously not correct. Newspapers constantly publish opinion columns that the management or editorial board does not agree with. And what statement? The statement that it is widely seen as violating international law is true. Danski14 referencing the Dershowitz piece is typical of his cherry picking, and labeling it as being by the WSJ is typical of his arguments from authority. -- Jibal (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The Trump Administration stated that the attack on Qasem Soleimani was carried out in accordance with the War Powers Resolution under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) resolution of 2001. 96.234.63.6 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Kolef96.234.63.6 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- The question was not about the US law but about the international law. Read about the opinion of the UN Special Rapporteur.[6] (cached [7]) — kashmīrī TALK 18:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The opinion of Alan Dershowitz is obviously only his opinion; he is not the representative of anyone except himself. Huldra (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dershowitz is one record as thinking torture of captured enemies is not a violation of international law. His opinion is not technical, but political, and nothing he writes in this area is of value, and therefore even if predictably hosted by the WSJ it is just an opinion whose use hangs on the resonance of the name (the guy who got OJ Simpson off the rap). Find a better source, from a recognized scholar of international law specializing in this specific area.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Terrorism accusations.
We need to be more cautious about this. Obviously the fact that he was accused of terrorism is newsworthy (moreso now than it was a few days ago, given that it's being used to justify his assassination), but we still have to rely on the absolute highest-quality sources for something like that, meaning, specifically: First, no WP:PRIMARY sources. Finding someone on an official list somewhere is not sufficient if no secondary sources have reported it. Secondary sources ought to be easy to find now, so let's dig them up. Second, no WP:SYNTH. Sources for something of this nature have to mention him specifically, by name. Third, obviously, any such claims, sanctions, etc. have to be attributed to the source making them and presented with any appropriate context from the secondary source we're relying on. For the record, the version of the article prior to his assassination made no mention of the accusations in the lead (it mentioned them extremely briefly much further down.) Logically they may be more noteworthy now, but we need to rely on secondary sources to show that, and if the noteworthiness of the accusations stems from the fact that they were used to justify assassinating him, then we need to make that clear (ie. if we rely primarily on sources from after his assassination that present the accusations of terrorism as being used to justify him rather than impartial facts, we need to retain that context.) Conversely, we ought to go into detail on precisely what he's accused of if we can find high-quality, high-profile sources for it (the current sources are bafflingly vague.) --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- As a reminder, this is an unambiguous WP:BLP issue; per WP:BDP, BLP continues to apply to people for a while after their death, in part specifically for situations like this where the death attracts a flurry of attention. Saying that someone has been accused of or implying that they are associated with terrorism is an extremely severe accusation and requires similarly high-quality sources backing it up, not primary sourcing to official government documents, synth using sources that don't mention him, or misusing sources that don't specifically say he's been accused of terrorism. I don't doubt that sources, of some form, exist that can support some variation on that text, but it's extremely important that we get something like this right, especially on an article still covered by WP:BLP at the center of breaking news, and that means we need secondary sources that outline the accusations explicitly (ideally in detail rather than in passing.) Do not restore that text without a clear consensus here or with new sources that unambiguously satisfy the WP:BLP requirements I outlined above. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- You deleted this source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019D0025&from=EN. The argument that that is a tenuous document only holds for people unwilling to read it. The European Union says: "(1) On 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1)". If you take the time, as you should have, to follow on the EU's linked (1) at the end of the sentence, it takes you to the full description:
"Article 1 [...] 2. For the purposes of this Common Position, "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts" shall mean:
- You deleted this source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019D0025&from=EN. The argument that that is a tenuous document only holds for people unwilling to read it. The European Union says: "(1) On 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1)". If you take the time, as you should have, to follow on the EU's linked (1) at the end of the sentence, it takes you to the full description:
- persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or who participate in, or facilitate, the commission of terrorist acts,"
. Therefore, when the EU says on the cited source "The list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply is set out in the Annex to this Decision", it means the people on the list are terrorists. Person 15 is
- SOLEIMANI Qasem (a.k.a. Ghasem Soleymani, a.k.a. Qasmi Sulayman, a.k.a. Qasem Soleymani, a.k.a. Qasem Solaimani, a.k.a. Qasem Salimani, a.k.a. Qasem Solemani, a.k.a. Qasem Sulaimani, a.k.a. Qasem Sulemani), born 11.3.1957 in Iran. Iranian national. Passport number: 008827 (Iran Diplomatic), issued 1999. Title: Major General.
- People unwilling to do their due diligence ought to be careful before removing WP:RS. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- XavierItzm, this is not true, you are misepresenting the source. You are conveniently ignoring and leaving out that the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 is about - verbal quote - "in particular the fight against the financing of terrorism". "Facilitating" terrorism is not the same as being a terrorist. Analogy: If I donor money to Greenpeace, then I'm facilitating Greenpeace activists, but I'm not a Greenpeace activist myself. 93.209.239.205 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dude! Its's right there in the page! Full quote:
- 2. For the purposes of this Common Position, "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts" shall mean:
- persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or who participate in, or facilitate, the commission of terrorist acts,
- groups and entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and persons, groups and entities acting on behalf of, or under the direction of, such persons, groups and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons, groups and entities.
3. For the purposes of this Common Position, "terrorist act" shall mean one of the following intentional acts, which, given its nature or its context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation, as defined as an offence under national law, where committed with the aim of:
(i) seriously intimidating a population, or
(ii) unduly compelling a Government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
(iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation:
(a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death;
(b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person;
(c) kidnapping or hostage taking;
(d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss;
(e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport;
(f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons;
(g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, explosions or floods the effect of which is to endanger human life;
(h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is to endanger human life;
(i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed under (a) to (h);
(j) directing a terrorist group;
(k) participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group.
For the purposes of this paragraph, "terrorist group" shall mean a structured group of more than two persons, established over a period of time and acting in concert to commit terrorist acts.
- 2. For the purposes of this Common Position, "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts" shall mean:
- What part of "terrorist" is confusing you? XavierItzm (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- That's a straw man attack, you are completely ignoring my point. You want to trick people into thinking that this EU document declares Soleimani a terrorists simply because that document contains a definition of terroism. Do you think we are stupid? The point is not what the definition of terrorism is, but that the list does not only include terrorists themselves, but also people "facilitating" terrorism, especially financing terrorism in some way. To reiterate my analogy from before: If you donor to Greenpeace, you are "facilitating" and "financing" Greenpeace activists, but you are not a Greenpeace activist yourself. And if a Greenpeace activist acts as criminally, this doesn't automatically mean that you are a criminal. Maybe you are, but maybe not - this requires extra analysis and extra proof. 93.209.239.205 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- This seems to be yet another fight over some editors wanting to use a characterization rather than simply reciting the facts and letting the reader draw his own conclusions (which, IMHO, is by far the better approach). If they said he's a terrorist, then that's one thing. However, if they put him on a list of people involved in terrorism, then say they put him on a list of people involved in terrorism. Why not? WP should be used to inform, not persuade. Note that I similarly argue that he should be described as "killed" rather than "assassinated" for the same reasons. Characterizations, one way or the other, are to be avoided. John2510 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Full agreement. 93.209.239.205 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- The facts are: (1) The European Union put Soleimani on a list; and (2) the list is of "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts." You want it to read "in particular the fight against the financing of terrorism" but do not cite the source. Please cite your source. XavierItzm (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I already have cited the source, see above. Again: It's a direct quote from the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001. This is exactly the document you have copy-pasted stuff from and you have claimed to have read, but obviously haven't. Preamble section (2). And by the way, section (3) again talks about attacking "the sources which fund terrorism". But that's a side show again. The main point is that the document in no way claims that all peoples on the list are terrorists. Instead, they are targeted as part of an overall fight against terrorism and drying out its financing. 93.209.229.80 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- You are cherry-picking "the sources which fund terrorism". The document clearly says the list is of "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts." XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
- I already have cited the source, see above. Again: It's a direct quote from the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001. This is exactly the document you have copy-pasted stuff from and you have claimed to have read, but obviously haven't. Preamble section (2). And by the way, section (3) again talks about attacking "the sources which fund terrorism". But that's a side show again. The main point is that the document in no way claims that all peoples on the list are terrorists. Instead, they are targeted as part of an overall fight against terrorism and drying out its financing. 93.209.229.80 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- The facts are: (1) The European Union put Soleimani on a list; and (2) the list is of "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts." You want it to read "in particular the fight against the financing of terrorism" but do not cite the source. Please cite your source. XavierItzm (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Full agreement. 93.209.239.205 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- Dude! Its's right there in the page! Full quote:
- XavierItzm, this is not true, you are misepresenting the source. You are conveniently ignoring and leaving out that the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 is about - verbal quote - "in particular the fight against the financing of terrorism". "Facilitating" terrorism is not the same as being a terrorist. Analogy: If I donor money to Greenpeace, then I'm facilitating Greenpeace activists, but I'm not a Greenpeace activist myself. 93.209.239.205 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- None of the discussion over that source matters, because as an official government document it is still a WP:PRIMARY source and therefore inappropriate to use alone for a shocking claim about a recently-dead individual. Soleimani is, at the moment, the central focus of the entire world's news media; it should not be hard to find a secondary source discussing that if it is important. But we do need that secondary source, not just for BLP reasons but because it will provide us the context and interpretation that you are arguing about above (eg. how exactly to word our coverage of it, or how significant inclusion on that list actually is in the larger context of his bio, or, crucially, if and how that significance relates to his assassination.) We cannot just use a bare primary source like that to drop an exceptional claim about him in the lead on its own. Instead of arguing over that source, you should spend your time digging through the massive amounts of coverage he is getting to find the secondary coverage it has to have attracted, so we can use that to answer the questions people are running into here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- I think saying that person X (who even was a "public figure") led an organization A which is "considered a terrorist organization" by a number of countries is perfectly fine and not a BLP violation, assuming that the statement was well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Number of children
Diff changed the article from saying he has four children (two sons, two daughters) to saying he has two children (one son and one daughter) (without changing the Persian-language source for the statement). The Times and WaPo speak of four children, like we previously did, but they quite possibly copied that from us, since I've seen how certain other erstwhile confusions in our article also made it into some news reports (ah, citogenesis). What does the Persian-language source we're citing say? Google translate suggests it says "Qassim has two daughters and a son" (and elsewhere speaks of "one of the daughters of Haj Qassim", as if he indeed has more than one), which would represent a third number. The way the WaPo article is worded implies that some people could perhaps be counting a son-in-law as one of his sons, which could be behind some of the confusion. Can we find some definitive sources for how many children he has? Ones from before 2020 would seem less likely to be citogenesis. -sche (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
- (As an aside, that diff also named two children in the infobox, but are we supposed to name non-notable children? -sche (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC))
- The article now reports a fourth number: "five children: three sons and two daughters", citing The Guardian and Heavy. Hopefully this, at last, is the correct figure... -sche (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
South Africa Reacts
Often only some countries get mention, like UK and France. Well SA https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/anc-condemns-us-airstrike-that-killed-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-40075347 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.56.127 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Of course, it's no surprise that the leftist political elite of South Africa support a genocidal, anti-Semitic terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2748:6F00:2C1F:CAAC:780E:1F12 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Other reactions about Soleimani's death
Reliable sources are showing that not everyone reacted similarly to the Soleimani's death. I have tried to show this in the article but was reverted by Saff V. saying "these edit are pushing some certain POVs by adding details not necessary for this article". Adding a different POV is not the same as POV pushing. I have nevertheless tried to make the statements more neutral and added more reliable sources to back them up. This is what I'm adding into the article since these are backed by reliable sources and give information about different types of reactions about Soleimani's death:
- Iraqi anti-government protesters celebrated Soleimani’s death by singing, dancing and waving Iraqi flags in the streets.[1][2][3]
- Many U.S. government officials including Rudy Giuliani and Elizabeth Warren reacted to Soleimani's death by saying he had been “a mass murderer”.[4][5][6]
- US Senator Tom Cotton released a statement saying that Qassem Soleimani "masterminded Iran’s reign of terror for decades, including the deaths of hundreds of Americans.” [7] This was also stated by the New York Times who said: "General Suleimani planned and directed attacks that killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Syria, along with many American service members."
Alex-h (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed most of those. It's bad enough that people are bloating 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike with every reaction they can find, which (as discussed on that talk page) will get cut in a week [or, I see, many have already been cut now]; let's not duplicate that here. It's WP:RECENTISM; all these miscellaneous reactions for everyone who's said anything, especially short comments that someone was "a murderer" or whatever, don't have much WP:WEIGHT in the totality of what RS say about this person. (It also doesn't escape notice that you're presenting only some of the reactions of even the people you're citing, e.g. Warren has been critical of the manner of the killing but you're not including that, which raises questions of whether WP:NPOV is being followed...) -sche (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Iraq anti-government protesters sing, dance after Soleimani death
- ^ Iraqis ‘dancing in the street’ after Soleimani death: Pompeo
- ^ Iraqis Celebrate after Soleimani Death
- ^ Ted Cruz: Soleimani assassination is justice for Israel, Trump tweets flag
- ^ US officials began weighing in on the move, and reactions among Democrats and Republicans were dramatically split down party lines.
- ^ Who was Iran's Qassem Soleimani and why does his death matter?
- ^ Cotton Statement on Reported Death of Qassem Soleimani
- Reactions sections are sheer bloat. They have no encyclopedic function whatsoever, and are Wikipedia's imitation of instagram, facebook, twitter tweeting. No one is surely interested in a range of predictable statements all calibrated for political angle, and carefully manicured to show 'concern'.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Reason for sanction belongs in lead
What we have in the lead presently:
Soleimani was personally sanctioned by the United Nations and the European Union, and was designated as a terrorist by the United States.
Further down:
In March 2007, Soleimani was included on a list of Iranian individuals targeted with sanctions in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747.
On 18 May 2011, he was sanctioned again by the U.S. along with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and other senior Syrian officials due to his alleged involvement in providing material support to the Syrian government.
For myself, I would elevate both of those specific statements into the lead over the nondescript account we presently have. And you'd need a third sentence, I imagine, to cover America's terrorist designation. — MaxEnt 23:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
- He is not the only Iranian official that has been sanctioned or designated as a terrorist. Heck, Trump described the whole country as terrorist[8]. Iran likewise has designated US CENTCOM as terrorist. --Z 14:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Details of security
https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2020/01/09/iraqi-syrian-informants-helped-us-kill-soleimani-report Zezen (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Haphazard editing
I'm very short on time for the next 2-3 days, but I read the sources and completed five of six bare and/or incomplete citations and undid one subsequent edit that seemed to clearly violate Wikipedia standards. I would hope that those unwilling or unable to follow WP guidelines would make correct and complete NPOV edits or refrain from editing this topic at all. Activist (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @@Activist: Bear in mind this is an incredibly newsworthy and highly emotive topic, so there will be interest in this content above and beyond normal levels. I suspect many of the edits you are referring to are simply people unused to editing (or even being used to editing, but not such highly charged topics) who are simply trying their best. I think there's a danger here of not assuming good faith, and we also need to be mindful not to bite the newbies. Best, Darren-M talk 22:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Extremely fascinating to see a "WP guideline" legend who just "undid one subsequent edit that seemed to clearly violate Wikipedia standards" (1) from a newbie thinks "Wikipedia English is not an appropriate place for a foreign language". Anyway, thanks for caring, Darren! Ms96 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- I guess I stand corrected: You posted, I deleted, then you reinserted this. Somehow I thought it was Farsi. جمع در چند شهر ایران در اعتراض به انکار اصابت موشک به هواپیمای اوکراینی؛ گاز اشکآور و شعار علیه رهبر و سپاه در تهران|language=fa|website=BBC}} "شعار معترضان علیه قاسم سلیمانی در تهران: «سلیمانی قاتله، رهبرش هم قاتله»". VOA (in Persian). "معترضان: سلیمانی قاتله، رهبرش هم جاعله". Activist (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- Extremely fascinating to see a "WP guideline" legend who just "undid one subsequent edit that seemed to clearly violate Wikipedia standards" (1) from a newbie thinks "Wikipedia English is not an appropriate place for a foreign language". Anyway, thanks for caring, Darren! Ms96 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
References
List of all the URLs cited
I made and alphabetized a list of all the URLs this article cites, which I used to find and combine several duplicates. I also noticed we were citing the German tabloid Bild, a deprecated source per WP:RSP, and removed it. If anyone else would find such a list useful, e.g. to look over for other deprecated sources, it's here. -sche (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Lack of neutrality
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)
- 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,
- 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) 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Iranians Close Ranks Behind Leaders After U.S. Kills Popular General". The New York Times. Retrieved 13 January 2020.
Section Should be titled "Death" and not "Assassination"
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)