Misplaced Pages

Talk:Qasem Soleimani: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:45, 29 January 2020 editKashmiri (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users43,540 editsm →RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section: mTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit Revision as of 04:01, 30 January 2020 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,311,284 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Qasem Soleimani/Archive 4) (botNext edit →
Line 18: Line 18:
}} }}
{{IRANPOL GS talk}} {{IRANPOL GS talk}}

== 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. -- ] (]) 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 ]), parts misrepresenting sources and/or failing to adhere to a neutral tone, and parts giving excess ] to things. I simply reverted the entire addition. If any parts of the section were salvageable, consensus to add them can be sought here. ] (]) 06:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

::I was asked ] 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 , 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 ]: for example, {{tq|In one case, New York Times journalist ] cited ] as a “moderate president”, while less than a month earlier ]<ref name="blazeaaa">{{cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/04/world/middleeast/iran-suleimani-killing.html|title=Iranians Close Ranks Behind Leaders After U.S. Kills Popular General|website=The New York Times|access-date=13 January 2020}}</ref>.}}, 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 Misplaced Pages 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... ] (]) 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 - ] (]) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

:::: {{ping|Kai Neergård}} "We are already seeing Iranian '''disinformation''' efforts by these networks surrounding last night’s strike" , "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 . Perhaps you would also be interested in "They showed Soleimani posing with children; Soleimani reading ]; 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" . 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? ] (]) 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" - ] (]) 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" , . This is not just what some "media" think 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 ]. 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).] (]) 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".] (]) 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 ] stuff OK? ] (]) 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).] (]) 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::::<blockquote><s>Iran</s>Donald Trump is a persistent, sophisticated and well-resourced actor <s>which</s> who has been active in the online disinformation space for years</blockquote>
::::::::::Disinformation is not peculiar to Iran, and therefore selecting this from a two-bit tabloiud piece of hackwork won't fly.] (]) 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 , , if anyone wants to workshop/make a case for includabiltiy of particular parts of it. ] (]) 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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? --] (]) 15:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

::::And explain . Weren't >25 sources enough to convince you that the Iranians' view of him was, at least, "mixed"? ] (]) 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".] (]) 19:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::{{ping|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, ] 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 ]. 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 ] 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." . YOU ARE STILL ASKING MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE ANSWER THOSE OF MINE INCLUDING THE ''']''' and ''']''' stuff. ] (]) 08:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::<small>Just raised the issue in ]</small>.] (]) 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. --] (]) 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.] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages. You can't just remove stuff because you don't like/agree it. --] (]) 22:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::::::::] (]) 12:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
{{ping|HistoryofIran}} Please don't be aggressive, This is your problem, not Misplaced Pages ] (]) 22:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist-talk}}

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 ] (]) 22:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)


===Iranian propaganda Heading===
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 ] (]) 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.] (]) 12:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There is so much in the lies section that I can't believe Misplaced Pages is here, Unilateralism also has a limit, Misplaced Pages is for everyone, How is it allowed to have such controversial content on Misplaced Pages? ] (]) 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.] (]) 12:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

::<small>I moved this into the existing section where this is discussed, so that the discussions of this are all in one place. ] (]) 19:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)</small>
:::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 ] sources used without attribution. Some of the other sources aren't about Soleimani in particular and are used for ]. 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 ], 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 ], and while some sources use it, several don't. --] (]) 07:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

::::Firstly, I admit being overwhelmed by opposite views in this discussion. Dear {{ping|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 {{ping|Kai Neergård}} and . Then Selfstudier and tagged the the paragraph as ]). 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. {{ping|M.k.m2003}} be more specific, which "wiki policy"? Which "lie" with >25 sources? Dear {{ping|Selfstudier}}, sure you "don't need to" contribute, but that's the ]. I'm also adding the issue to wikiproject:Iran talk page. Also {{ping|-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! {{ping|HistoryofIran}} your comments would also be appreciated; I want to attract more attention toward this talk without violating ], what should I do at this point? ] (]) 10:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello {{ping|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 ] (]) 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 ] (]) 10:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|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 ] (]) 11:17, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

:"I have a problem with the whole text", read ] and ]. "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 ]. I won't compromise on deleting sources with "No consensus" status or better. ] (]) 11:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|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 ] (]) 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.] (]) 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? ] (]) 11:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

:::::::There is a whole artice devoted to ], 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.] (]) 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 ]). ] (]) 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
:Wut? this is clearly more relevant to the article of Soleimani, than ]. --] (]) 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, ]), 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. --] (]) 11:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 11:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

{{strikethrough|{{ping|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 Misplaced Pages If not, I will sue you according to the policy ] (]) 12:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)}}
::I'm taking this as a serious ] case. Please stay calm and make constructive contribution instead of intimidating users. ] (]) 12:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
::: <small>The user just some parts of the discussion, tagging "Irrelevant topic". ] (]) 12:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC) </small>

{{ping|Ms96}} I restrained myself, I do not understand why you interfere? He insulted me and my nation Consider this too ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ] (]) 17:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

:::] and ]. That's all I'm gonna say. --] (]) 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 ] (]) 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..--] (]) 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. --] (]) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::: Agreed. The article is much more under ] now ...<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 23:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
'''Comment''' The content that was removed by {{u|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.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 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".] (]) 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.--] (]) 11:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|Selfstudier}} {{ping|SharabSalam}} Remember that ] (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 to that poll survey you mentioned and the related section in ] 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 ] (]) 12:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:::{{Tq|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 (]) requires consensus and no consensus for including that undue content. {{Tq2|The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is upon those seeking to include disputed content.}}-] (]) 12:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC){{small|edited:14:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)}}
::::{{ping|SharabSalam}} Stop making so much nonconstructive, groundless friction with every single opinion opposing yours. {{ping|UniSail2}} Simply wait till the protection expires, be bold, and edit. ] (]) 18:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
{{od}}
Where is this so-called RfC about "Iranian propaganda" ? I can see the one above, in which i took part but nothing else.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 22:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
: Dear {{ping|Wikaviani}}, you're at the right place. ] (]) 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
:: {{ping|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.<b><span style="color:orange">---Wikaviani </span></b><sup><small><b>] ]</b></small></sup> 19:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

===Protection note===
I'm not sure which version constitutes the '']'', but per ], that is the version that ought to be in place while the matter is being discussed. ] 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. ] (]) 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. ] 22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
:::What about blue lock and 1RR? ] (]) 23:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
::{{u|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.--] (]) 11:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Actually, I would rather wait for the protection to lapse than edit the protected page. ] 11:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)


==Section Should be titled "Death" and not "Assassination" == ==Section Should be titled "Death" and not "Assassination" ==

Revision as of 04:01, 30 January 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Qasem Soleimani article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 7 days 
In the newsA news item involving Qasem Soleimani was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 January 2020.
[REDACTED]
Misplaced Pages
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance).
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIran High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image be added to this article. Once the requested image is added, remove the imageneeded and imagedetails parameters from this template. The editor who added the request suggests the following:
A photograph under a free license
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / Middle East
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
B checklist
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
  1. Referencing and citation: criterion not met
  2. Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
  3. Structure: criterion met
  4. Grammar and style: criterion met
  5. Supporting materials: criterion met
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
Middle Eastern military history task force

Template:Vital article

Template:IRANPOL GS talk

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 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 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" Misplaced Pages 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  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)
As stated above, a consensus isn't voting. Two-to-one is a clear majority, not a consensus. While there's certainly consensus that he died (I hope), there's no consensus on a further characterization. Typically, WP uses "Death" as the heading, and then provides an explanation of the factual circumstances. Even Abraham Linooln gets "DEATH" as a heading. That should say something. Characterizations like this are used to persuade, not to inform. The latter is WP's purposes.John2510 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

John2510, consensus was to use assassination. See WP:DONTGETIT. Same with Jamal Khashoggi we used assassination after the RfC.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

We'll use "assassination" if and when a consensus can be reached to vary from the WP practice of using "death, followed by a factual description of the circumstances. No reason has been given to vary from that here."
Consensus in the above RFC was assessed by the closing editor, with the result being that "Assassination" should be the primary term used. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The consensus was to use "assassination" more often than "killed," but the category remains "Death." If, in the section on "Death," people want to use "assassination" that would seem consistent with the consensus. However, there's certainly no consensus to replace the almost universally used WP category "death" with something novel. John2510 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The RFC close is the operative guideline here, there is no WP death "category" (or "protocol") that would override that (if you think there is, please point me to it).Selfstudier (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
There's no RfC on what to call the topic, only how to characterize the nature of his death. For appropriate death topic labels on subjects who have died, I refer you to Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John2510 (talk • contribs)
The closing statement literally says to mainly use the term assassination. This is obvious WP:GAMING. We use assassination in many articles such as Jamal Khashoggi. Other stuff exist is not a good argument here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
John2510 Your edits appear disruptive, repeated attempts to override agreed consensus, notice given.Selfstudier (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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)

  • Stricken comment (original RfC question): 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 20:04, 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)
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 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)
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.185.253.120.41 (talk) 20:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)— 185.253.120.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as -sche mentioned , definitly it violets WP:UNDUE.Saff V. (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Just as ideology has been defined as what other people think, so propaganda is used here for what Iranian officials or spokesmen say. They often lie, as do spokesmen and politicians everywhere, but that is no reason for branding their disinformation as peculiarly mendacious. The US lied through its teeth in the Vincennes for several months though aware it had shot down an Iranian civilian plane. We don't write that up as 'U.S.' propaganda, any more than we describe the utterly spurious pretexts given by the US for invading Itaq in 2003 as propaganda. We know in great detail that Climate change dissenters or denialers were backed by an immense amount of money donated by interested lobbies and this was sheer mendacity, like Holocaust denialism, but we don't talk of 'propaganda' there. The Holocaust deniers are branded in a very short section as purveyors of propaganda, but the immensity of that kind of decades-long repudiation of reality cannot be compared to the ephemeral bullshit in this incident. To the contrary editors have done their utmost to blur the fact that public statements were acts of blind-siding the world. The contemporary euphemism for propaganda is spin, which is more acceptable because, under that term global papers write without distinction of what political discourse involves all over the world, regardless of whether it is 'us' or 'them'. In short, usage shows that 'propaganda' violates NPOV by implicitly suggesting something is contrafactual, whereas 'spin' does not so far entail the same in so far as it makes everything a matter of perspective.Nishidani (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Nishidani for participating. As far as I understood your (main) issue is with the word "propaganda" (and probably the tone), right? I was wondering if you and -sche would mind taking time and publishing your intended edits on the talk of this page. MS 会話 11:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
No, my main issue is with the violation of NPOV in a global encyclopedia's, in this instance, English version, which deals with a topic that has accrued much attention because he wasassassinated recently. The only way to achieve encyclopedic accuracy and neutrality is to wait for secondary sources, esp. scholarly books, detached from the immediacy of events, that contextualize whatever happened in historical terms. In reportage, ever since Walter Lippmann's Public Opinion it is universally known that immediate coverage of any event, in the West as elsewhere, will consist of witting official spin (read propaganda), so there is nothing peculiar in what Iran does. There is nothing peculiar also in school's curricula celebrating the life in the wake of his murder: that's what happened with J.F.K.Kennedy when schools adopted Kennedy assassination projects. I read of the heroicization of soldiers killed beyond one's borders very regularly in the Israeli press.

After his death, the Iranian propaganda campaign intensified widespread disinformation efforts in creating fake news outlets, fabricating journalist personas, and systematically coordinating the international public opinion toward idolization of Soleimani.

This simply won't fly because it is patently singling out, pinioning the discourse on 'propaganda' (what regimes, non-'Western' democracies do: not what we do), Iran as some odd man out in the mass falsification of facts: something weird to any student of contemporary western political systems.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Dear Nishidani, your comment above is a clear indication of your good faith and dedication. You rightfully pointed out the value of NPOV and that nothing particular exists about Iran in this case. The problem is, 50% NPOV is few and far between even in those scholarly books you mentioned.Idealism is wonderful if everyone adheres to it. How many of the current sources are "neutral" scholarly books at the moment? How many are even better than those of mine in terms of credibility? If I kiss killing my time in Wiki a goodbye... well, no one is getting dropped behind (one out of million). How more clearly should I shout this guy wasn't "loved"? (a), (b), (c), (e)? How more clearly should the world scream this is not a non-Western "democracy"? I haven't studied politics, but lived a heap of my life inside reality. I'm just doing my best to add what I believe is necessary, within WP boundaries, and setting it afloat on the stream of time to get forged through edits, by others with their own NPOV. Dealing with so much WP:ONUS, WP:NPOV, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:WTF (Misplaced Pages:Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point; , , ), just ripped me apart. Deleting the whole thing by sticking a POV etiquette is itself the most POV action. Regards MS 会話 19:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no intention of scaring you off Misplaced Pages. What I am saying is that we are obliged to keep our own experience of the world off the encyclopedia. You think my comments are illustrative of some idealism, whereas you 'live a heap of your life inside reality'. The reality we live in is, cognitively, 'magical', down to its foundations, but I won't argue the point here, but simply refer you to one of hundreds of illustrative texts that underline this viewpoint, by hardnosed realists.David Graeber, Against Economics, New York Review of Books 5 December 2019. Regards Nishidani (talk) 11:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Nishidani: With all due respect, i think you're mistaken. First off, the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a country like others, it is a theocratic country that practices mass killing of its own people, lies when its armed forces shoot down a civil plane killing 176 innocent people, etc ... How many countries do you know in the world like that one ? Surely, for political purposes, any country on this planet can use some propaganda but not like Iran, or at least, the Islamic Republic of Iran, does. The section i propose to add is loaded with many sources and there is nothing going against WP:NPOV, rather the very opposite in my humble opinion. Also, while i'm aware of WP:OTHER, i'm wondering why you suggest to wait for "scholarly secondary sources" especially for this topic while so many other similar articles on the English Misplaced Pages are sourced with reliable media outlets ... Best regards.---Wikaviani 23:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Simply per the reliable sources. If reliable sources are identifying "Iranian propaganda", then it's not our job to censor that, but the very opposite. Alex-h (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Per RS. I don't think that "everyone uses propaganda, it's no big deal and doesn't warrant a mention" is a valid argument against inclusion. If numerous RS deem it worth reporting on, I think it merits inclusion. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 09:46, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
AmbivalentUnequivocality, what about the fact that it is UNDUE in this biographical article as it has its own section, it is almost 15% of the whole article without it. I agree with including an appropriate amount of sentences about this but this amount which you supported is too much. This is without mentioning other issues like WP:SYNTHS, and the reliability of sources.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
That's an obvious exaggeration. That part contains around 400 words (actually less) out of 5400 (current size+the size of that paragraph) which is roughly 7%. Also, you previously mentioned "It is over 10% of the article content without it." here. MS 会話 06:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Also per RS. We even have an article for Propaganda in the United States, so why couldn't we write about propaganda by Iran when this is covered in reliable sources? If it's important and widely covered by reliable sources, then there is no reason why it shouldn't be on Misplaced Pages. Ypatch (talk) 13:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The propaganda of the Iranian government is an indisputable fact, therefore it should come in this article. MA Javadi (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written, the given text does not accurately reflect the sources and calling it hyperbolic would be polite. That being said theres no reason not to include propaganda about his death under Iranian reactions, it is only the current language that is objectionable not the sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:VER and WP:RS. Nika2020 (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose According to nominator what he means from this section is completely against WP:NPOV. (After his death, the Iranian propaganda campaign intensified widespread disinformation efforts in creating fake news outlets ...) This is clearly against what WP:NPOV is stands for:"All encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. "--Seyyed(t-c) 11:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support This is an important, relevant, well sourced issue. and need to have a section on "Iranian propaganda".Poya-P (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongest oppose unless sections on Syrian propaganda, Turkish propaganda, US propaganda, Russian propaganda are also included. Wars and conflicts have and are always accompanied by information warfare (propaganda) and it will be utter WP:BIAS to suggest that only the Iranians present propaganda and all the others present "facts". In fact, this would turn Misplaced Pages into a propaganda tool itself. — kashmīrī  11:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This RfC is NOT neutral

  • 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

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 khamenei.ir 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 khamenei.ir 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.".--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)

Neutrality

@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 . 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.
UniSail2 PLEASE, PLEASE STOP ANY DIRECT CONVERSATION WITH SharabSalam AND TAKE PART IN THE ABOVE RfC INSTEAD.MS 会話 13:17, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
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

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)

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

I think this page should at least mention Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 being shot down, as it was a direct (if accidental) consequence of Soleimani's death, it happened only hours after the retaliatory strikes that are already covered, and the events are consistently linked in RS. It seems like a glaring omission for it not to be included, but I figured that I would first discuss it here in case anyone has a good reason it shouldn't be mentioned. AmbivalentUnequivocality (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Qasem Soleimani: Difference between revisions Add topic