Talk:Qasem Soleimani/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Protected edit request on 20 January 2020

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

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

References

Not a reliable source. I doubt the Syrian minister would say that. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: The text written could be added to Syrian Civil War section.

@SharabSalam: Not a reliable source ! Are you kidding? However, have you already checked the reference? There is a video showing the minister talking about the related topic ! UniSail2 (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding. Al-Arabiya is owned by the Saudi ruling family meaning it is a state-owned outlet. We don't use it as a source and the video is very short and shady, doesn't support what the tweet is saying. We already mentioned that Qasem Soleimani was fighting in Syria against the terrorists.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: It seems that you contradict yourself, initially you said: "I doubt the Syrian minister would say that" ! Then you claimed that there is a difference regarding the "tweet" ! Do you understand Arabic or not? The minister said that Soleimani was involved in Baba Amr (neighborhood in Homs) Siege since 2011 ! UniSail2 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

No, I am not contradicting myself. Al-Arabiya is not a reliable source. It's a Saudi propaganda outlet. We can't verify what the guy said through a short, shady, unverified video clip sent by a Twitter user who made false claim saying that the MoD said Soleimani was part of "slaughtering Syrians", I understand Arabic and that's not what he said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I think with this reference, this discussion comes to an end.— Preceding unsigned comment added by UniSail2 (talk • contribs)

;Refs

UniSail2, the source doesn't say that the video is verified. It is saying that a video posted online. The titles are usually not written by the authors. In fact, in the video the Syrian minister doesn't even mention the name "Qassem Soleimani". Sorry but this is an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim and requires multiple high quality sources or it has no place in this article per WP:CRYSTALL rumours about BLP (including recently deceased) are not appropriate encyclopedic content..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: The first sentence of the video was Qassem Soleimani, I met him ... !! You are relentlessly trying to avoid the fact that a verified source mentioned clearly the link between Soleimani and Homs Siege as taken from mouth of the minister of defense! I do not do partisanship here, unlike you as you claimed that "Qasem Soleimani was fighting in Syria against the terrorists". It seems that you are clearly very much biased and you won't accept the facts presented, you are running around the bush by claiming that the first ref is related to the Saudi government, the video is shady, and the other ref is simply a speculation ! For Heaven Sake ! I do not know whom I am arguing with here, a bot or not ! UniSail2 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

UniSail2, show me where he says Qasiam Soleimani in the video. The video is cut of and there is no mention of the word Soleimani in it. This is why I said that. You asked me if I speak Arabic and I told you that the video doesn't show the minister saying Qasiam Soleimani. We report verified content not rumors of unknown sources. I am not biased. I am trying to make the content verified. Also Qasiam Soleimani was indeed fight terrorists in Syria per what most reliable sources say. And in Homs, the people who Assad was fighting were from al-Nusra terrorists as per the article itself.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In any case, I am not going to allow such content to be in the article unless it is verified. The video doesn't mention the name Qassem Soleimani. Needs verification for this claim or not in Wikipedia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam You do not even know how to write the name as you wrote "Qasiam Soleimani". For heaven sake, you asked me to show you "where he says Qasiam Soleimani", the first sentence is: Qasem Soleimani, I met him in 2011 .. etc. The subtitles are even written in Arabic ! However, it seems that you are chewing so much Qat right now that is making you half-blind and acting with no sense at all ! Cheers mate @Ms96:, but I do not like edit wars to be honest, because people here are stubborn and take the undo as an offence against their supreme pride and intelligence ! sad ! UniSail2 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

SharabSalam, you are now threatening to be disruptive, let's see how well that ends, how long till someone reports you etc. Also, UniSail2, I get that it can be hard at times, but please do try to keep a nice tone. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The disruptive is putting unverified claim in Wikipedia. The video doesn't say the name "Qassem Soleimani", the subtitles can be written by anyone, the MoD doesn't mention the name Qassem Soleimani full stop. This is why I said it is shady. Obviously, I should remove any unverified content, this isn't disruptive. Also for the comment about khat. I chew Qat everyday, I don't know how this is related to the discussion.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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

@HistoryofIran: Cheers mate ! I do not blame him, he is still 21 years old ! I would like to reach an understanding or a compromise here, not a personal conflict. I am glad that there are some decent people from Iran and Yemen who are contributing here. Best regards ! SharabSalam, you say: "The MoD doesn't mention the name Qassem Soleimani full stop", you lie to yourself or what?! Can you write here what the minister said please so I make sure that you are not deaf or something! Because I am really worried about you with the Qat daily consumption ! UniSail2 (talk) 19:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Another source (In Persian). UniSail2 please stay calm! Ms96 (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: I do not think the minister was talking about your grandfather, as The Times reference, that you try to avoid to acknowledge, is clearly stating ! You focus on the video but you won't admit that a reliable source verified it, whom to believe here as a neutral: The Times or SharabSalam?! UniSail2 (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here is the video [1]. The subtitles which is written by the telegram channel owner says "Qassem Soleimani" while in the video, the name "Qassem Soleimani" is not mentioned. Any Arabic speaking person would say that. There is a sound at the beginning that sounds like لكنني lakinani which means "but I..". This is exactly why I said the video is shady. The only source for this is the subtitles. Per WP:CRYSTAL we don't put unverified claims are not appropriate and WP:EXCEPTIONAL says that we should have multiple high quality sources for such claims. BTW, I don't really care, if it is verified I will put it in the article myself but it's not. Also for my age, that's absolutely none of your business and this is the last warning for you UniSail2. Be careful with your next reply.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Since this is ended to be about my grandfather. I think this editor is not mentally capable of having a civilized discussion. He should go and wash his face.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Check the other source provided by the other mate. You say "this is the last warning for you" ! LOL ! who the hell are you to threaten people?! The other mates are calling me to stay calm; meanwhile, a kid is warning me while chewing Qat! Go take care of the Yemeni Civil War related articles, here is not a kindergarten where you swing around with adults! UniSail2 (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I was actually laughing at your insults until you mentioned my grandfather, that wasn't cool. El_C, I don't think it is even questionable that this editor is not able to have a civilized discussion and instead is making personal attacks. I also highly suspect that this editor is a sockpuppet of OxfordLaw.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: You call people "not mentally capable" and "sockpuppet" but you can not hear a simple conversation and you even lie regarding hearing different words like "but" ! A civil discussion with a chewing Qat kid ! However, I hope that someone with authority and common sense removes you from here, because it seems at least three editors find you nothing but a pain in the ass ! UniSail2 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"pain in the ass"😂😂😂😂 "chewing Qat kid"😂😂😂. You are obviously not mentally capable of having a civilised discussion right now, I said that after you mentioned my grandfather. I don't even understand why you are so angry. That editor OxfordLaw also used Qat as an insult and it is probable that you are him, he also gets angry in the discussion. There is also another editor called Ezabila or something like that who has many accounts and makes a lot of disruptive comments like you.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

UniSail2, Not true, you obviously went way too far. please stop. Ms96 (talk) 20:27, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

UniSail2, I have removed your last comment because it was rude. I said I don't even know why you are angry. All sources are attributing to a questionable video's subtitles. In the video the guy obviously doesn't mention the name "Qassem Soleimani". This is not verified therefore it is not going to be in the article per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: The content would be added, because you did not check the other video source and claimed that The Time article is speculation! Discussion ended ! UniSail2 (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

UniSail2, I didnt say that The Time article is speculation, I said the video they are attributing to is questionable. I don't have any problem with the content BTW. I would add it myself if it was verified.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:36, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Even his mouth, seems to be moving way different than the audio.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: You are simply delusional ! No one is asking you to add it nor to verify it ! You would keep claiming that you did not hear the name in the video. I would add it myself based on the The Time article and the Persian link source, I wasted so much time arguing with you ! UniSail2 (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone here speaks Arabic? watch the video [2], did the guy say Qassem Suleimani?. I dont hear the name "Qassem Soleimani". On top of that, does anyone notice the differences between what the audio is saying and how his lips are moving? The video obviously doesnt verify the content. It is common that officials post fake videos. Have you ever heard of deepfake? or have you heard about that high ranking American official who just recently posted a photoshopped image of Obama next to Rohani? How can we verify thats all I am asking. I dont have any POV or anything about the content my objection is only policy-based, thats it, and in this case, WP:EXCEPTIONAL, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Honestly, you are making yourself a total joke ! Why would the Syrian minister hide Soleimani's involvement in Homs Siege after his death ! Now you are talking about "deepfake" videos ! I am glad that someone like you would not write the history! UniSail2 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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., where the quoted text does not appear in the cited New York Times article, although it does speak of "Iran’s relative moderates like Mr. Rouhani", and the mention of protestors being killed "at his orders" is nowhere in the NYT article at all (apparently it is intended to the "sourced" to the other Wikipedia article), which means by definition the NYT article isn't connecting the killing to either Rouhani's moderateness/non-moderateness or to Qasem Soleimani: the information is off-topic, clearly POV, and SYNTH. And so forth... -sche (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

The piece of text discussed above was reentered today at 7 PM under a new headline "Iranian propaganda". I maintain the view that its style is absolutely inappropriate for WP. The author should specify exactly and in detail every single case of "disinformation", "fake news", "fabricated journalist personas", "coordination of the international public opinion" etc. etc. that is being referred to with valid documentation. The references given do not serve as such documentation. I have not looked at every one of them, but the few I checked were clearly not neutral. Neither did they pretend neutrality. -sche asked for a discussion in this forum for consensus. I request that the author of the section "Iranian propaganda" enters such a dicussion instead of stubbornly going on his/her own - Kai Neergård (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Kai Neergård: "We are already seeing Iranian disinformation efforts by these networks surrounding last night’s strike" Telegraph, "Iran had long been working on a disinformation army to rival Russia’s Internet Research Agency, as well as other tactics such as the creation of fake news outlets and fabricated journalist personas" also Telegraph. Perhaps you would also be interested in "They showed Soleimani posing with children; Soleimani reading Gabriel García Márquez; Soleimani in a Palestinian keffiyeh; ... Iran also began deploying Soleimani on another front: launching a propaganda war centring on the self-styled “noble warrior,” a man who could appeal to both nationalists and religious conservatives. The “Commander of Hearts” became a fixture on domestic news. Iranian elites who would refer to him tongue-in-cheek as “Soleiman the Magnificent,” after the Ottoman sultan who so intimidated Europe" Prospect. Please, please spend 1/100 of the time I spent writing it and "look at every one of" the references. Just curious, aren't "Soleimani was viewed favorably by 82% of Iranians with 59% of them very favorable toward him" or "Soleimani's personality was compared to the fictional characters Karla, Keyser Söze and The Scarlet Pimpernel" among your concerns? Ms96 (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to copy language from The Telegraph as describing facts. The Telegraph has a political agenda that is clearly recognisable to its readers. Readers of WP expect facts, not political propaganda. If you feel that the coverage of post-assassination events by media like The Telegraph has a relevance to the WP readership, the correct form would be "Some media report that ...". The headline should be "Media coverage of alleged Iranian propaganda" - Kai Neergård (talk) 09:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not only Telegraph, for example "Iran is a persistent, sophisticated and well-resourced actor which has been active in the online disinformation space for years" USA Today, Iran has online disinformation operations, too (CNN). This is not just what some "media" think 1 to say "Some media report that ...". "Media coverage of alleged Iranian propaganda" is absolutely misleading. Yes, all media have "a political agenda" and none is 100% neutral, but what? The whole article is based on info reflected in media. This section is the most well-cited and all references are in compliance with WP:RSP. Have you bothered reading the rest of the article? Is "Soleimani practiced karate and was a fitness trainer in his youth" more "relevant to the WP readership"? You didn't also make any comments about the above mentioned sentences ("Soleimani was viewed favorably ..." and ""Soleimani's personality was ..."). Are they better sourced? Better suited for WP readership? I added more references and will remove the POV tag soon if not challenged, as this part is the best sourced section (so far).Ms96 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Dismal, should be deleted in its entirety, if I put my mind to it, I am sure that I can create an equally useless section entitled "US propaganda".Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not a survey on "do you like this paragraph or not", tell us based on which guideline should this be deleted? What is violated? Why don't you really "put your mind to it" and make contribution? It would be much appreciated. p.s.: Isn't anyone going to answer my questions up there? Are all the Karate and Keyser Söze stuff OK? Ms96 (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to, I am joining with the two other editors telling you that this content is rubbish.If I make a contribution it will be to delete it (unless you do it yourself first).Selfstudier (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Disinformation is not peculiar to Iran, and therefore selecting this from a two-bit tabloiud piece of hackwork won't fly.Nishidani (talk) 18:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I removed the section, as there is clearly no consensus for it and many problems with it as outlined above. The content in question was here (old revision), removed in diff, if anyone wants to workshop/make a case for includabiltiy of particular parts of it. -sche (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You cannot just remove this whole valid, well sourced section because it doesn't suit your POV. You think it has issues? Fine, then edit it. But do not remove the valid work of another editor. Tradedia^talk 13:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, -sche, it is you who should try to reach consensus, not us. What is you're reasoning for removing lots of sourced information? --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

And explain this edit. Weren't >25 sources enough to convince you that the Iranians' view of him was, at least, "mixed"? Ms96 (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the University of Maryland survey done over several years and published in 2018 that interviewed thousands of Iranians and found 82% of them viewed the general favorably (ranked more favorably than President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Javad Zarif). Do you think the people attending his funeral were bussed in? Did he have his detractors? Of course, just like most public figures do, but 82% is not "mixed".Selfstudier (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: For your notice: "In the past few years, the Center for International Security Studies (CISSM) at Maryland University has produced reports on polling surveys that have become popular among academics, the media and politicians in the West. The reports are mostly published under the name of Dr. Ebrahim Mohseni. In 2009, Mojtaba Khamenei helped Mohseni and Professor Mohammad Marandi to establish the University of Tehran Centre for Public Opinion Research (UTCPOR). Marandi — who studied in America and understands the mentality of Western media, politicians and writers — leads UTCPOR, which is monitored by the Iranian Foreign Ministry. He frequently appears on mainstream media, such as the BBC and Al Jazeera, among others, but one thing that these media organizations either do not know or fail to mention is that he is the son of Dr. Marandi, the head of Ayatollah Khamenei’s special medical team". "A significant amount of effort has been dedicated to presenting the polling surveys as a product of Maryland University. However, these are produced by Iran Poll. Iran Poll conducts research freely in Iran, which no other organization is allowed to do. ... this also reveals the monopoly Iran Poll has over the Western media when it comes to Iran, which demonstrates a troubling lack of critical assessment toward a polling institution supported by the regime in Tehran, which by its very essence cannot be neutral". Based on other polls by the same group, it is "claimed that Iranians believe the IRI is democratic while simultaneously claiming that Iranians do not want democratic forms of expression." [3]. YOU ARE STILL ASKING MORE QUESTIONS, PLEASE ANSWER THOSE OF MINE INCLUDING THE KARATE and KEYSER SÖZE stuff. Ms96 (talk) 08:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Just raised the issue in WP:RSN.Ms96 (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So, let's ignore the billions of opposing sources and accept that dodgy source of yours? (which you haven't even linked). This is not neutral at all. --HistoryofIran (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

"Billions"? My 'dodgy' (on what do you base this assertion?) survey is very well publicized across many RS, try google.Should I feel that the article needs it including, then I will link it.Selfstudier (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Sigh, obviously not meant literally. I say dodgy because I find that hardly believable, looking at other sources. Anyways, there are loads of sources who say the opposite, they should be included be as well - that's simply how it works here on Wikipedia. You can't just remove stuff because you don't like/agree it. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Here is the pdf of the surveySelfstudier (talk) 12:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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

References

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

Iranian propaganda Heading

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

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

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

There are several editors now questioning the POV nature of this material, you are not the only one. Let's see if others will also comment.Selfstudier (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I moved this into the existing section where this is discussed, so that the discussions of this are all in one place. -sche (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I feel like a few parts are salvageable, but the section as a whole had so many problems that it's better to remove it for now, yeah. Just going over the sources, several of them are weak or unusable - Cyberscoop and the Washington Examiner, say. Others are opinion-pieces being cited for statements of fact, which isn't acceptable, or are clearly WP:BIASED sources used without attribution. Some of the other sources aren't about Soleimani in particular and are used for WP:SYNTH. There are some higher-quality sources, but they tend to take a more cautious or careful tone, whereas the section adopted mostly the sweeping and dramatic tone of the weaker sources and the opinion-pieces. The whole thing strings together a few bits of factual reliable reporting with angry opinion pieces, some WP:SYNTH, and and a few totally unusable sources to create a much more dramatic whole than the more staid mainstream coverage. Also, propaganda is probably a WP:LABEL, and while some sources use it, several don't. --Aquillion (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I admit being overwhelmed by opposite views in this discussion. Dear @Aquillion:, just specify exactly which sources are weak or "totally unusable", I will delete them. Also which aren't about Soleimani (frankly couldn't find any)? Would be helpful to note some sources (including cyberscoop and examiner) were added after @Kai Neergård: called me stubborn and asked for more sources. Then Selfstudier called it rubbish and tagged the the paragraph as overlinked). By my count >70% are referring to this as "propaganda" and I therefore insist on the topic. I will also change the tone to more neutral as I previously did. @M.k.m2003: be more specific, which "wiki policy"? Which "lie" with >25 sources? Dear @Selfstudier:, sure you "don't need to" contribute, but that's the normal protocol. I'm also adding the issue to wikiproject:Iran talk page. Also @-sche:, "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." You were right, the paragraph was "removed again by someone", you! @HistoryofIran: your comments would also be appreciated; I want to attract more attention toward this talk without violating any guidelines, what should I do at this point? Ms96 (talk) 10:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

At most any material about Iranian propaganda shouldn't take up more than a sentence or so of the article (perhaps as part of the reactions section), should be well sourced to reputable RS (one or two is enough) and should not give the impression that it is only Iran that is engaged in propaganda exercises. That's my 2 cents.Selfstudier (talk) 10:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Based on which guideline have you decided that it should be summarized in "1" sentence with "1-2" sources while being widely disscused on democratic/republican/western/eastern/Iranian/non-Iranian media? Which sources are good? I ask because you apparently don't believe in Telegraph, CNN, BBC, Fox, Washington Post, Prospect, Vox, Quartz, Vice, France24, etc. Why should it not give that impression while actually being mentioned in those media? Ms96 (talk) 11:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

There is a whole artice devoted to Propaganda in Iran, why don't you write whatever in there? It is a very minor matter as regards this particular page. And I never said I did not believe RS, three editors have already explained what the problem is with the material you included.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Because all those sources are specifically about Iranian propaganda surrounding Soleimani, not in general. You keep asking questions without answering those of mine. (I repeat, sure you don't have to answer, but that's the normal protocol per WP:DR). Ms96 (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Wut? this is clearly more relevant to the article of Soleimani, than Propaganda in Iran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Not gonna lie I've not read everything in this topic, so there might be some mistakes or something I've missed, anyways, here's my two cents: Sources by the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) are obviously not reliable, and is indeed propaganda. Mind you, this is a country that doesn't allow basic rights, and violently supresses its people (yes, violently, 2019–20 Iranian protests), and calls the Iranian protestors for "American and Israeli spies" (look up Khamenei's twitter, there are loads of these accusations). I thought this was a no brainer. "The majority of Iranians loving Soleimani" is obviously not true, there were loads of sources that testified to that. Yet, it was removed, because.. it was POV? Lol. It's more POV now. It's a pretty normal custom for authoritarian governments to stage such huge funerals (and government rallies for that matter) in a desperate bid for legitimacy. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

I'm taking this as a serious WP:SUE case. Please stay calm and make constructive contribution instead of intimidating users. Ms96 (talk) 12:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The user just deleted some parts of the discussion, tagging "Irrelevant topic". Ms96 (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

This isn't about you. Again, keep your accusations/opinion for yourself. Don't derail this thread further or I'll report you. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about Qasem Soleimani, not his country's policy, This type of text should be used in other articles Which I agree with But most importantly it must be neutral, Which is unfortunately completely violated, By fighting the debate will not get anywhere Please, keep the discussion polite, Thank you M.k.m2003 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NPOV. That's all I'm gonna say. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

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

• The content is obviously undue. Especially that it is in a standalone section and in an article about a biography of a person. Could be shortened then placed in the article of the U.S. airstrike and also add content for balance like that the U.S. has provided no proof that Soleimani was planning an attack etc..--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

How is it undue? Literally loads of sourced information was removed, and now only one type of information stands (if that makes sense). Now that sounds pretty undue to me. Sure it wasn't perfect, but then the issues of the text should have been fixed instead of outright removed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is much more under WP:UNDUE now ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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

Just so we are clear about this, I was the last editor of three who reverted this material (in addition a fourth editor heavily criticized it). The problems with the material have been clearly explained and the onus is on the originating editor to put any material together in such a way as to satisfy a consensus. To put it another way, if there was an RFC for the addition of the material that was reverted, it would fail with "no consensus".Selfstudier (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The content was removed by multiple editors. The onus is on those who seek to include. The issues are clear as day, it's undue to have its own section especially considering that this is a biological article and is not balanced.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

@Selfstudier: @SharabSalam: Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy (Although four users have also expressed their support of that paragraph). You insist on your idea while giving no specific reason (to every single sentence of that paragraph) despite being asked to several times, claiming that you "don't need to" do so, I'm assuming that it's rather your personal interest. (I also assume that you are aware of my reply to that poll survey you mentioned and the related section in WP:RSN where I raised the issue). To me, the result of this discussion is a consensus on keeping the paragraph and I will add an edited version immediately after the protection expires. Regards Ms96 (talk) 12:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

while giving no specific reason, really? I said it's undue weight to have all that content in a section in a biographical article. This is not a specific reason?. Also, the source is reliable. It's more reliable than mainstream media because it is published in a highly reliable academic institution. The inclusion (WP:ONUS) requires consensus and no consensus for including that undue content.

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

-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)edited:14:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

Dear @Wikaviani:, you're at the right place. Ms96 (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Ms96: Thank you mate, so, i was not mistaken, there is no such thing as an Rfc here, only a section about "Iranian propaganda Heading". Gonna open a proper RfC. Cheers.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:57, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Protection note

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

Is there really no other option than hitting the nuclear button and gold locking the page? I'll admit that I'm not familiar with the context, but this page is one of high interest and I don't see how it serves the community or the site to keep this level of restriction imposed for more than a day or two. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

If there's another suitable option, I don't know what it is. But I'm open to suggestions. El_C 22:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

What about blue lock and 1RR? Wikieditor19920 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

El_C, the request for comment has been closed, can you implement the result? Use Assassination instead of death as the header of the section.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I would rather wait for the protection to lapse than edit the protected page. El_C 11:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

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 [4]. 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)