Talk:Assassination of Qasem Soleimani/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pence on 9-11 connection with Soleimani

The page claims that there was no evidence for this claim, however it appears that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that this could have been the case. Iranian authorities “facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11,” and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard sought closer ties to Al Qaeda after the bombing of the USS Cole. According to a report by the US government, “Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Laden’s return to Afghanistan,”. It’s certainly a possibility that Soleimani was involved in this contact due to his role in the Iranian government as a source of funds for extremist groups. Therefore I feel like the wording on the page that Pence’s claim was “without evidence” was a tad bit harsh because he does show contact between Iranian authorities and Al Qaeda and Soleimani was often involved in interactions between the Iranian government and Islamic extremists Thrawn0504 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an RSs that back that? I'm finding three on the page right now, The Guardian, the NYT, and another that say that there's no evidence to back a connection. Alcibiades979 (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Alcibiades979,Thrawn0504: Per Newsweek: "According to the U.S. government's 9/11 Commission Report, there was evidence that Iranian officials were instructed to assist Al-Qaeda members traveling between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia through Iran by not stamping their passports" Also: Per Pence's representative: "For those asking: 12 of the 19 transited through Afghanistan. 10 of those 12 were assisted by Soleimani,"source: . XavierItzm (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Aye, but nothing saying Soleimani. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not to mention the political impossibility of that happening. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: Soleimani was the leader of Quds since 1997. Quds is in charge of all foreign/military operations. But never mind that. The fact is that you have an elected official (the VP) with access to information you and I have no access to saying that Solemaini was involved. You also have the 9/11 Report confirming that "Iranian officials were instructed to assist Al-Qaeda members traveling between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia through Iran by not stamping their passports". Absent proof to the contrary, I don't see why Pence's statement must be qualified on Wikipedia's voice in an adversary manner. NPOV remains important. XavierItzm (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

"The economic impact was considerable"

Alcibiades has already trimmed this ridiculous paragraph, which actually read like the title above (fake news, much?) until about an hour ago, but in my opinion the whole thing needs to go. Face it: so far, this is a non-event in economic terms. The Financial Times, for example, has today a whole article on how this is an economic nothingburger . Sample quote: "The price of Brent crude oil topped $70 a barrel on Monday, just shy of September’s $71.95 peak after a drone attack on Saudi storage facilities. Of note is the fact that oil is back near the top of its range that has sufficed for the past year. But the $86-a-barrel peak from October of 2018 remains some way off for now.". Who cares about the stock price of Northrop Grumman? Just get rid of the whole thing. XavierItzm (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

My problem with it is that discussing price information is just kind of meaningless because prices aren't monolithic. If Venezuela and Libya were both well and online at 3.2mmbbl/d and 1.5 and there were no truce in sight for the US-China trade war we may not have even seen a .50 cent rise, if this had happened before the shale boom we may well have seen a $10-$20 rise. But it doesn't really mean much because US Shale Oil production, critical to this metric, is irrelevant to this article as a whole. Hell, if we hadn't already had countless let downs like when Abqaiq got hit it would have probably risen higher, but there's not much room for irrational exuberance, and all those people are broke now anyhow. To just say the price did X factors out the incredibly complex nature of pricing. The market has valued this, for the moment as about $1.50 for today's world. But even that is further tainted by optimism over a China trade deal, the latest EIA storage report showing a big draw down, then the Baker Hughes rig counts, etc. etc. So it's just pure speculation. The articles about this all are opinion. Has this had a bullish affect on oil? Absolutely. Is volatility up? Yup. Can you quantify that affect as a number? Sure can't. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

opinion/speculation?

User:WikiHannibal. [1] It's OK that you consider the phrasing not good, but you are confusing a fact with "opinion/speculation". The source explains thoroughly that Popular Mobilization Forces were created in 2014, and since 2016 joined the Iraqi Armed Forces by laws enacted by the Council of Representatives of Iraq, so it was only used to support a fact: Kill personnel of the PMF, means killing of official Iraqi servicemen. Rephrase it, instead of removing it. Pahlevun (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I do not think I am confusing it. (BTW Some may see your staement as a personal attack, which I do not mind, plus it is not common to assign tasks to other editors. ;-) The only way to rephrase it I thought of was: "Since Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) are legally incorporated into the Iraqi security forces by a series of laws and Prime Ministerial orders, Smith Crispin interprets the killing of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and other Iraqi personnel in this attack as deliberately targeting Iraqi government military officials by the United States." Which is not very notable; but we could have discussed that were it not for the fact that even Crispin does not interpret it this way. He only says, as I quoted in the edit summary, that "it is hard to interpret the operation, if deliberately targeting him, as anything other than the assassination of an Iraqi government official". And that's so vague that I had to remove the sentence altogether. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

User:WikiHannibal. About this [2], the source says "A strategic framework agreement signed in 2008 between Washington and Baghdad called for close defense cooperation to deter threats to Iraqi “sovereignty, security and territorial integrity” but prohibited the United States from using Iraq as a launching point for attacks on other countries." So yes, that counts. Pahlevun (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again, I did not remove it as not true or anything like that, I just said it was, in its present wording, irrelevant = not related to this attack unless there is someone (an offcial from Iraq, preferrably) saying this was an attack on other 1) countries 2) from Iraqi territory. Both condituionsmust be met. We cannot assume that it was and that it falls under the wording of the Agreement. We need a RS source to do it instead. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there is some confusion here. The dispute is about if PMF personnel is interpreted by Iraq as being a part of their own governmental forces. It isn't about whether or not it was an attack against other countries from Iraqi territory because it was/is against another country (Iranian general) from Iraqi territory (the drone strike happened in Iraq). Just clarifying. Persistent Corvid (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Persistent Corvid perfectly explained what I meant. This is not an "interpretation" by an individual named Crispin Smith that PMF forces are officially Iraqi military forces, the source indicates that, as a matter of fact, Iraqi law recognizes them so. For example, this article by The New York Times calls al-Muhandis "a major Iraqi official" and adds that "The militias have since been brought under the umbrella of the Iraqi security forces, and Mr. al-Muhandis was their deputy head." This is a very important point about this event, while this Wikipedia entry has not mentioned it yet.

If there is a problem with letter and spirit, the headline is "United States Killed Iraqi Military Official and Iraqi Military Personnel in the Two Recent Attacks", and it is very rigorously stating it as a fact. Pahlevun (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, concerning the discussion above, I removed two sentences with quite separate meaning, and Pahlevun commented on them separately, so it would be best to keep the discussion separate.

1) At present our article says "Under Iraqi law, killing of al-Muhandis and other PMF members by the United States is a deliberate attack on military personnel and officials of Iraq, since PMF is legally incorporated into the Iraqi security forces by a series of laws and Prime Ministerial orders." I do not contest that "PMF forces are officially Iraqi military forces." However, the source says: "it is hard to interpret the operation, if deliberately targeting him, as anything other than the assassination of an Iraqi government official." I see a substantial shift in what is in the source, and what wiki says. Can you see it as well? Crispin is careful not to say what wiki says. "It is hard to interpret" means it is not completely impossible to interpret it in some other way; his "if deliberately targeting" [al-Muhandis] means he is not sure the attack was a deliberate attack on-Muhandis. The sentence is based only on this source, and it misinterprets it. A better source is needed or it has to be removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

2) Regarind the second sentence, "A mutual agreement signed in 2008, prohibits the United States from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi territory.", my point was that Iraq did not (in the source) claim the US violated this agreement; the source is a debate ragarding "Some legal experts questioned whether Trump had the legal authority to target Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government", without any official statements. So the sentence was out of context. But I think I have since read an Iraqi Foreign ministry statement which calls it violation of this agreement, so I hope someone will add it into the article later. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, according to the sources, even that one, it was not an outright deliberate attack on the military personnel and officials of Iraq. This needs to be phrased very carefully. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Iraqi PM has been quoted "The assassination of an Iraqi military commander who holds an official position is considered aggression on Iraq ... and the liquidation of leading Iraqi figures or those from a brotherly country on Iraqi soil is a massive breach of sovereignty." This view is not covered in the article. The word "deliberate" can be removed, the sentence was not perfect but it is verifiable and worth mentioning because it reflects views of one side. It is neglected in the article, that's against WP:NPOV. I'll add another sentence with different wording. Pahlevun (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

New article: The January War

Things shall be moving very fast now, so I've created The January War (Trump's War being unavailable). Have at it! kencf0618 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We have an overarching article at 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis. And, I don't see any sources referring to this as the "January War". I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm going to delete that article per WP:CSD#A10. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've created an article Trump's phony war which isn't going to happen, but an Iranian garden gnome has deleted it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I sympathise with you - how unreasonable (not)... Sir Magnus (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was ahead of the curve here -the article could have been renamed instead of summarily deleted- but I didn't belabor the point. kencf0618 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"Non-binding" in the lede?

We have "On 5 January 2020, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution to expel all foreign troops from its territory." It would be informative to change to "passed a non-binding resolution" to clarify that the Iraqi government has not yet taken the step of formally telling the US to leave. I haven't edited in years so I'm reluctant to make a change myself. Opinions?

Random citations:

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/05/world/middleeast/05reuters-iraq-security-parliament-resolution.html,

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iraqi-parliament-calls-expulsion-foreign-troops-200105150709628.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/iraqi-parliament-passes-resolution-to-end-us-troop-presence-2020-1

Nuts, now I've forgotten how to sign my post. Like this?: CouldOughta (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Nailed it!

No. The text is factual. "Non-binding" is confusing. Non-binding on whom?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, add as that's what the WP:RS say. Of course the lawmaker's resolution is non-binding, as per the WP:RS. It is very clear and unambiguous: it is nonbinding on everyone on the planet: nonbinding on Iraq's executive power, nonbinding on the U.S. military, non-binding on Wikipedia, nonbinding on you, and furthermore, non-binding on your dog. The sources could not be clearer: it is non-binding, period. XavierItzm (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, add - I disagree that "Non-binding" is confusing. "Non-binding legislation" is something that a lot of legislative bodies do. It's pretty common vernacular, and doesn't seem too jargon-y. NickCT (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Is Turkey in Middle East?

You can see it 'Aftermath' section, Turkey was included in other countries (non-middle east) sub-section, but in Indonesian Wikipedia equivalent of this article Serangan Bandar Udara International Bagdad 2020, Turkey was included in "other countries (in Middle East)" sub-section. Is Turkey in Middle East? If so, can someone move Turkey reaction to other Middle East countries sub-section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.12 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Geographically/culturally obviously Turkey is simultaneously European and Middle Eastern. If we are talking global politics, Turkey is probably Middle Eastern, especially under Erdogan. If we are talking Iraq/Iran affairs, Turkey is European politically -- until we bring up Kurds. This seems bizarre, but the same treatment is given to Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia -- and Armenia doesn't have a centimeter of territory in Europe. Politically, it makes more sense, as those four countries are typically not primarily actors in Arab/Persian/Israeli dramas... until you bring up Kurds, at least :). --Calthinus (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

European terrorist?

XavierItzm - Looking at this edit;

It's not clear to me that the secondary source provided in the body of the article actually supports this statement. The article says "sanctions were imposed on three Iranian commanders of the Revolutionary Guards including Soleimani for supporting the Assad regime". It doesn't say he was sanctioned for being a terrorist. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

NickCT, fair enough, I modified the main text to reflect what the source says, and removed the verification template. XavierItzm (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

XavierItzm - Ok. That seems fine. If I was going to nit pick, I would argue that you should explain why he was sanctioned. Just saying "Person X was sanctioned", leads to obvious question "Why was person X sanctioned?". I'm not sure mentioning the sanctioning without any explanation is particularly helpful. But honestly I don't really feel strongly about it. I guess saying something ambiguous is less bad than saying something inaccurate. NickCT (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

I would like to change it from teh bagdad airstrikes to kiling of Qasem Soleimani i would also like a add a few more minor details Aropet16 (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sakura Cartelet^Talk 20:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aropet16: There is a discussion on this move here if you would like to chime in there. Qono (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead sentence

This change was wrong and undiscussed. This wording should not be reintroduced without consensus. It is against Wiki guidelines, WP:BOLDAVOID and WP:REDUNDANCY. Stating that the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike was an airstrike near Baghdad International Airport in 2020 is absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: You have twice reverted me for putting the opening sentence into the standard format for articles. Boldavoid and redundancy have nothing to do with it, majority of articles are started in this way ie (article name in bold) is (say what it is). Kindly put it back the way it was originally.Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The wording you introduced is a textbook example of WP:REDUNDANCY and the reason why WP:BOLDAVOID exists. Please read the guidelines I keep bringing up. I did put it back the way it was originally, and that is without the pointless redundancy. Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

CNN Reporter's Comments

I've removed the comments by a random CNN reporter due to inordinate weight afforded to them - as these personal comments/opinions (i.e. not even CNN's official stand) were given the same weight as an official analysis/statement from the Pentagon. Personal opinions, especially from non-notable sources, should be given less weight compared to organisations publishing official analyses or statements (e.g. official government source, think tank or policy institute). --219.75.84.203 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

a.k.a. in lead?

Current lede sentence: The 2020 Baghdad airport airstrike refers to a.....

or

Proposed lede sentence: The 2020 Baghdad airport airstrike (also referred to as the Killing or Assassination of Qasem Soleimani) refers to a......

---

WikiHannibal - Regarding this edit; you know, we could solve this whole darn titling debate, if we simply included everyone's title in the lead. This doesn't seem overly cumbersome to me. Lots of articles use this kind of lede intro (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section). Also, tad disingenuous of you to ask "by whom?" in your edit summary. You've been involved in the discussion above. You know by whom. NickCT (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I know by whom. But the article, and esp. the lede, is not for editors "involved in the discussion above" but for readers. As is the whole wikipedia. As for the curent version "The 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike (also referred to as the Killing or Assassination of Qasem Soleimani) was..." is not cumbersome, so I will not revert, even though I still do not like the vague passive "referred to". I can only think of adding "in the media" but do not like that neither so will hope someone else will make it better. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Done as per WikiHannibal XavierItzm (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the "in the media", b/c 1) that does seem cumbersome, 2) if you look at other examples of where we do this kind of thing (e.g. Mumbai, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Baby boomers, Millennials, Technical debt, Gothic Revival architecture, Expatriate), we very rarely try to describe who uses which term, & 3) saying "by part of the media" is misleading b/c a) probably a majority of media outlets have used the terms in a least one article/segment/piece, and b) a whole bunch of people outside of "part of the media" (e.g. politicians) use these terms. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems, the discussion about the title moved from the talk page into the article disguised as these akas. Not sure who likes that, but I do not. I suggest to keep the lede without them for the time being. Contrary to the examples above (which are established), they are evaluative, and controversial (as evidenced in the article history). WikiHannibal (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, in the discussion just below, I see we have another who seems keen to get the word "killing" into the lead. I would suggest the neutral "death" and leave the legal analysis to the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not keen on any particular word. I am keen on not seeing the lead sentence unnecessarily repeat five words. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

What about these 5? Constitution of the United States.

Uhhh... I quite like the consonance? Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

As I thought, selective in your approach. It's an encyclopedia, not a high school essay competition.Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it's an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia can do better than say that the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike was an airstrike near Baghdad International Airport in 2020. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is selective too, and so I ask you once again to read MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY. Surtsicna (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Nor does proof by repetition work here.Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal: - In articles where there are contested or controversial names, the lead often mentions all the names (see Senkaku Islands dispute or Indian Rebellion of 1857). There's clearly a lot of support for names other than "Airport Strike". I think that level of support justifies us getting alternative names into the lead somehow. If not by a.k.a's would you like to suggest another way? NickCT (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of Soleimani to Osama and Al-Baghdadi

I'm going to edit this sentence and delete references to Osama and al-Baghdadi: "Unlike Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Soleimani felt comfortable operating in the open and was not hard to find." I realize that both al-Baghdadi and Osama were killed in US operations, but this comparison also makes it seem as if Soleimani were a terrorist such as this. He was an adversary of the US, but he was also a Major General in the Iranian army and given his status this comparison is disingenuous and demeaning. It's also worth pointing out that he was an enemy of the two of them. 93.38.67.230 (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it was a comparison of style. None of the above said he was incompetent. Nerd271 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Then why not use non-terrorists? This is borderline WP:BLP 93.38.67.230 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your points are cogent but I think they're original research. I've seen a lot of RSes I've read – I think like all of them – make the comparison between Soleimani, bin Laden, and al-Baghdadi. Maybe it's not a fair comparison, but it seems to be relevant context per the consensus of sources, and not just in the US. E.g., [3] [4] [5]. The thing that ties the three together isn't "terrorism", it's that all three were killed by the US. In fact, al-Baghdadi and Soleimani both during the Trump administration. – Levivich 05:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Because they are examples of major enemy combatants recently taken out by U.S. forces, especially al-Baghdadi. Nerd271 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have enemy combatants, Wikipedia doesn't have a nationality. He was an adversary to the US, and he was apparently a legend in his country. Look, I'm not Iranian, I'm not some weird fringe conspiracy theorist or any of that, but the guy was a political and military leader of a country, apparently there he was quite popular atleast with part of the population, regardless of anyone's thoughts on all that he was tremendously accomplished, to compare him on the Wiki page about his death with bin-Laden and the head of ISIL seems to me incredibly disrespectful and misleading. It's also not WP:OR, it's rhetorical fallacy false comparison. Same idea if I put on the Ben Franklin page: "Unlike Hirohito and Eichmann, Ben Franklin spoke English as his first language" that is factually true, and also character assassination, if I remove those names and put in modern ones it becomes BLP. 93.38.67.230 (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

One does not simply rank that high in the such an elite unit from a major U.S. adversary. So I'm still not convinced that was "demeaning" or a "character assassination." Your analogy is technically true but irrelevant because the contexts of those people are entirely different. It should be noted that we clarified who was making the comparison: someone who considered him an enemy. Nerd271 (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to rectify the issue by clarifying in the text that the comparison was based on the fact they are all individuals killed by the U.S. military. RopeTricks (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

The current version put forth by RopeTricks works for me. Nerd271 (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Works for me too. Thank you, RopeTricks. 93.38.67.230 (talk) 06:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point. I don't quite understand its relevance either, and it seems to me WP:UNDUE. The same point could get across with something along the lines of: "Soleimani felt comfortable operating in the open and was not hard to find." While true that he didn't hide himself and al Baghdadi and Bin Laden did. It's also true that he was a Major General in the Revolutionary Guard and the leader of Quds, so why would he hide himself? Do military leaders often hide themselves? The point of this comparison is to merely conflate him with terrorists. I don't get what added understanding the reader derives from this long comparison other than seeing his name next to Bin Laden's despite the fact that they were completely unrelated. I agree with the OP, and Mhhossein this should be cut. It is character assassination. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

That's the point, we are not going to be the voice of those who were his adversary by giving undue weigh to their claims. Unlike the U.S. version of the story, he is never compared to the terrorist leaders and making such a comparison, for whatever reason it is, makes for a clear POV pushing in the article. --Mhhossein ^talk 09:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

What's more is the comparison is completely bizarre. Soleimani fought against ISIL in Iraq and Syria, and al-Baghdadi would've killed him in an instant and put the video on al-Jazeera because of the fact that Soleimani was 1. Persian 2. Revolutionary Guard 3. Shia. They didn't even speak the same language. So the entire idea that somehow in death the two people so opposite become inextricably linked completely boggles the mind. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alcibiades979: According to this Politico article, he only operated in the open for the last 2 to 3 years. Prior to that, he moved around in secret. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Just because people are enemies does not mean they cannot be compared. As another example, Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham (RN) and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (IJN) fought on opposites sides and spoke different languages, but can still be compared (in fighting styles). Nerd271 (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This is not a matter of being enemy. Comparing an official with two terrorists is pushing the U.S. POV. I advise you to read the previous comments and ctrl+f "character assassination". --Mhhossein ^talk 07:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he was an Iranian state official, unlike two others, this is true, and this is a big difference, agree. However, a state official can be involved in creating and managing terrorist networks in multiple countries, which can make him a lot more dangerous than others. That is precisely the case here. Among all modern day countries, Iran is probably the one with the largest supporting proxy terrorist network. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

RSs refer to him as an Iranian General in the Revolutionary Guards and the leader of Quds. Thus he should be referred to here as an Iranian General in the Revolutionary Guards and the Leader of Quds. Apparently, as per the NYT he was also immensely popular in Iran, a bit of an icon. He can be referred to this as well. WP:OR however no. Alcibiades979 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In this case, one can be a high-ranking military official and be a terrorist as well, as first designated by the Obama administration. As for the NYT reporting on his popularity, it’s reasonably well documented that reporting in general, and specifically their reporting, can bury or gloss over the facts quite well. (E.g., their burying of Nazi atrocities against Jews and the debacle of their use of Walter Duranty’s USSR reporting). And it’s also worth pointing out that in nation that is estimated to execute more people per capita than any other nation on Earth, even for petty offenses like “insulting Islam” on their messaging app, demonstrations and public statements might ought not be taken at face value. Even the article you reference cautions that the sentiment they describe as so strong and universal “could be short-lived”.--Fythrion (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich:, @Nerd271: - Solemaini himself was listed as a terrorist by the European Union and was on U.S. terror watchlists. The body he led (the Quds) is considered a terrorist organisation by Canada, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United States. Given the multilateral assessment that Solemaini was a terrorist, there is no problem whatsoever in comparing him to other dead terrorists such as those from the Islamic State or Al Qaeda. XavierItzm (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Passengers

The lead mentions 9 other "passengers". I assumed that these were in an aeroplane that had been attacked, only much later discovering that they were in cars. All very confusing. Nigej (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Press Briefing January 2020

IDK if this could be useful?

Press Briefing with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Secretary of the Treasury Steve Mnuchin January 10 2020

Victor Grigas (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)