This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Qasem Soleimani was not "assassinated". He was killed by a legitimate, lawful military action as an enemy combatant in a war zone (Iraq). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.79.8 ( talk) 18:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Qasem Soleimani has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Using the word "assassinated" versus "killed" makes this page politically bias which as I understand it is not the purpose of wikipedia. "Killed" is factual and does not presume motivations that have not yet been uncovered. "Killed" should be used unless substantial evidence comes out that this was purely politically motivated. Hockeyhickey1523 ( talk) 21:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the {{
edit protected}}
template. See the massive discussion and
WP:RFC above for ongoing discussions on the topic. --
Aquillion (
talk)
21:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"He was the first man to be honored with a multi-city funeral in history of Iran". This is incorrect. First person was Reza Shah in 1950. [1] Also, for many other Iranian officials after 1979 this form of funeral was held, including Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi in Tehran and Qom in 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.134.177 ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Qasem Soleimani has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement and reference used in the opening paragraph is misleading. The paragraph states "...which was approved by President Donald Trump on the grounds that Soleimani posed an imminent threat to American lives." The source cited is unambiguously detailing why the drone strikes were NOT necessary. Whatever the facts, the cited source does not support the implications of the statement, which is stated as if the "imminent threat to American lives" is factual. The statement needs to be changed to reflect the article, or for a new source to be used. I suggest the statement changed to "...which was approved by President Donald Trump on the grounds that Soleimani posed an imminent threat to American lives, the validity of which is still being called into question." 47.176.71.98 ( talk) 00:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The article seems trying to avoid the word "assassination" and instead calls it "killing", "death". As this was a typical modern-day assassination, don't you think that we should not really avoid the term, especially when so many RSs use it? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] — kashmīrī TALK 19:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
What would be best is to launch a Request for comment, so that consensus for usage of the word assassination (or lack thereof) can be clearly codified. El_C 20:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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
https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2020/01/09/iraqi-syrian-informants-helped-us-kill-soleimani-report Zezen ( talk) 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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:
Alex-h ( talk) 14:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Wow, that needs clarification and citations. The WSJ argues it was lawful [11]. I think it is premature to conclude. More info from NPR here: [12]. Danski14 (talk)
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)Kolef 96.234.63.6 ( talk) 13:18, 10 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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Qasem Soleimani was not "assassinated". He was killed by a legitimate, lawful military action as an enemy combatant in a war zone (Iraq). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.79.8 ( talk) 18:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Qasem Soleimani has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Using the word "assassinated" versus "killed" makes this page politically bias which as I understand it is not the purpose of wikipedia. "Killed" is factual and does not presume motivations that have not yet been uncovered. "Killed" should be used unless substantial evidence comes out that this was purely politically motivated. Hockeyhickey1523 ( talk) 21:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a
consensus for this alteration
before using the {{
edit protected}}
template. See the massive discussion and
WP:RFC above for ongoing discussions on the topic. --
Aquillion (
talk)
21:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
"He was the first man to be honored with a multi-city funeral in history of Iran". This is incorrect. First person was Reza Shah in 1950. [1] Also, for many other Iranian officials after 1979 this form of funeral was held, including Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi in Tehran and Qom in 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.134.177 ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Qasem Soleimani has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement and reference used in the opening paragraph is misleading. The paragraph states "...which was approved by President Donald Trump on the grounds that Soleimani posed an imminent threat to American lives." The source cited is unambiguously detailing why the drone strikes were NOT necessary. Whatever the facts, the cited source does not support the implications of the statement, which is stated as if the "imminent threat to American lives" is factual. The statement needs to be changed to reflect the article, or for a new source to be used. I suggest the statement changed to "...which was approved by President Donald Trump on the grounds that Soleimani posed an imminent threat to American lives, the validity of which is still being called into question." 47.176.71.98 ( talk) 00:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The article seems trying to avoid the word "assassination" and instead calls it "killing", "death". As this was a typical modern-day assassination, don't you think that we should not really avoid the term, especially when so many RSs use it? [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] — kashmīrī TALK 19:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
What would be best is to launch a Request for comment, so that consensus for usage of the word assassination (or lack thereof) can be clearly codified. El_C 20:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
- 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
https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2020/01/09/iraqi-syrian-informants-helped-us-kill-soleimani-report Zezen ( talk) 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
References
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)
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)
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:
Alex-h ( talk) 14:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
References
Wow, that needs clarification and citations. The WSJ argues it was lawful [11]. I think it is premature to conclude. More info from NPR here: [12]. Danski14 (talk)
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)Kolef 96.234.63.6 ( talk) 13:18, 10 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)