Jump to content

Talk:Qasem Soleimani/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

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."[1].--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)

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)

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

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

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

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:40, 2 February 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)

I wholly agree. It should be included. Activist (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Obviously, "it was a direct (if accidental) consequence of Soleimani's death" could be OR, I am against to make the article longer!Saff V. (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not OR if it's common sense. If it's dark and cloudy and you're getting wet from above, it's rain, and you don't need a meteorologist to figure it out. No other commercial aircraft has ever been shot down there, save the Iran Air plane flying through the Strait of Hormuz in 1988, with 290 aboard, that the our Vincennes took out by mistake in the Iran-Iraq war. Whoever was staffing an anti-aircraft missile battery was on high alert, jumpy, and shot down a passenger plane because they were panicky. If Soleimani and seven others were killed, and there had been en exchange of missiles, it's not hard to figure out that the Ukrainian plane was a direct consequence of the conflict. Activist (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Removing of the picture

@Keivan.f: can I ask you why did you remove the picture?Saff V. (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Saff V.: Hi. Because it did not serve any purpose in the body of the article. Only a profile image in the middle of the article with no caption; doesn't sound like a good idea to keep it. Keivan.fTalk 07:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

No consensus for the proposal and the rfc is arguably unclear.Selfstudier (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "media coverage" or "media Reception" sectionbe included in the article?Saff V. (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC) Support as VOA reported, there is mixed media coverage in Mideast, Media outlets in Saudi Arabia,Iraq, lebanon, Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan aired on news and opinion pieces on him. As well as I have to mention to the Western media coverge about Soleimani.Saff V. (talk) 09:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Relevant and appropriate RS are or can be included in an NPOV way in the article where necessary (eg in the section "Personal life and public image" or elsewhere) without the need for a separate section. As an aside, I am reasonably sure that we can also do better than VOA and foxnews for that.Selfstudier (talk) 10:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Support This title is more compatible with the policy of wikipedia and I prefer it to "Iranian propaganda section" which is discussed on this talk page.--Seyyed(t-c) 13:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect you will find it is simply the same thing dressed in different clothes:)Selfstudier (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Just include appropriate content in the relevant topical sections. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This is not a coherent RFC, as it seems to fail to identify what content is proposed for inclusion. It refers to "the media coverage [...] section", but what section is that? There is no section under that title in the article at present. -sche (talk) 09:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about inclusion of Iranian propaganda section

This intricate RfC concerns whether to include a section on Iranian propaganda in our article about Qasem Soleimani. The discussion below needs to be read in conjunction with a discussion in Talkarchive #4 of this page. In the early stages of the RfC, there was a lack of clarity by a defective RfC question; but after a brief period of confusion, this issue was fixed with commendable promptness. It did not derail the RfC and I am able to discern clear consensus on two points. They are:-

Q: Should we include a dedicated part of the article on Iranian propaganda?
A: Yes, there are sources for this.

Q: Should we make the specific edit referred to in the RfC question?
A: No, the consensus is that that specific edit is not acceptable.

I could finish the close and leave the matter there, but then editors might be forced to begin another RfC in order to agree different wording. Therefore in an attempt to speed that up, I have tried to determine the consensus about what an acceptable edit would look like. I find that:

1: An acceptable edit would be much shorter than the edit proposed in this RfC.

2: An acceptable edit would give the topic less prominence than the edit proposed in this RfC.

3: An acceptable edit would use some of the techniques described in WP:CITEMERGE to reduce the appearance of citation overkill.

4: An acceptable edit would adhere scrupulously to NPOV in its wording, with in-text attribution as well as references for anything controversial.

I hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 01:15, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

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)
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 (Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point; [2], [3], [4]), 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia are sourced with reliable media outlets ... Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 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 Wikipedia. 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 ...)[5] This is clearly against what WP:NPOV is stands for:"All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia into a propaganda tool itself. — kashmīrī TALK 11:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Kashmiri for participation. The article is clearly open to any sort of contribution from users, including addition of any relevant issues such as those you mentioned, even though the propaganda activity of no other side has received such extensive media coverage. Also, remember neither is this article about a war/conflict nor is that section. MS 会話 19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Content is not neutrally presented and bloated relative to the whole life, there may be a sentence or two here about Iran's coverage of his death, but not as proposed. Did Iran "feed" and "milk" public feeling about the death? Probably, but that does not mean the public anger was not genuine and widespread, the text seems determined to present it as wholly manipulated and 'fake'. As Aquillion says above, "Oppose dedicated section, but a sentence or two mentioning it in the context of the larger propaganda war over the topic might be appropriate". Pincrete (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Kashmiri; and it is a remarkable/true issue that: if we want to present "propaganda section" about Iran, thereupon we can/should regard or add about several other countries, too; hence, I think it is not fair to attribute it to Iran --as if Iran is certainly propagating, and the other side(s) are definitely mentioning the truths. And I think it cannot be based on the policies of Wikipedia. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it's too much content on a minority issue. This article is a biographical article about Qasem Soleimani, I don't think that the so called "Iranian propaganda" is significant enough to have its standalone section in this article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It is a well sourced and much needed section. ‍‍‍Telluride (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

*Oppose - Unless a separate section U.S. porpaganda is included, it fails WP:NPOV.--89.206.116.212 (talk) 16:12, 17 February 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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Qasem_Soleimani/Archive_5&oldid=1137106241"