Talk:Bullet fee

Symbolic meaning?
What could the purpose of the bullet fee be? Surely it isn't to actually reimburse the state for the expense of the execution, but could it serve some sort of symbolic purpose? Might look for a source on this later... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AFDF:6800:3833:D883:4530:FE3A (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I have left a comment on this above. In my view, the article should be deleted. Hanoi Road (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Urban Myth?

 * None of the sources listed here cite any verifiable data. It appears to be hearsay repeated. I worked in China for many years and was reliably informed by those who would know, that such a charge has never been levied. Aside from the the bizarre nature of such a claim, what purpose could this measure possibly serve? I don't know about Iran, but an article casually entitled "Bullet Fee" seems to have crossed a line. Hanoi Road (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It's a propaganda article. Wikipedia is nothing but another JournoList-tier platform to publicly synchronize parts of the big media lies and make it look sciency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.188.188 (talk) 16:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Article.
I have deleted five citation links, all of which were either expired, misleading or otherwise bogus. Without solid, verifiable citations, this sensationalist article has no place on Wiki. I welcome any feedback, but more than that, I would appreciate impartial, verifiable sources to prop this up. Otherwise, it should go. Hanoi Road (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @Hanoi Road: Your edit removing citations is contrary to advice to repair dead links, or at least keep them. Please do not delete them just because they are now dead, instead go searching for where the cited articles are now available on-line, or flag them as dead, so somebody else can find them. The URL might have changed or may now only exist in an internet archive. Retaining the dead URL links means someone (else) can find the original text that was cited for verifiability. Mind you, it always helps if a full citation is given by those citing sources. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Kaveh Alipour death and WSJ source
Kaveh Alipour's situation, while tragic, simply did not involve a bullet fee as the article currently defines it, unless someone wants to change the definition to remove "financial charge levied on the family of executed prisoners". Mr Alipour was not arrested by the authorities and consequently simply was not executed. I don't think any plain reading definition of execution would typically encompass people who are shot by police during protests.--UshankaCzar (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did you get the idea that someone has to have been arrested for their killing to be characterized as an execution? Gang activities are rife with executions, no legal process involved. Largoplazo (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * My point was in-artfully worded, what I mean is that in most cases one must be detained to be executed. A gang execution has to involve the gang physically detaining someone (ie false imprisonment). Do you have any evidence that Kaveh Alipour’s death in any way resembled that situation? His family did not use the term execution. For all we know the police shot him on site in the street and then picked up the body. Just throwing out edge cases doesn’t help your argument.--UshankaCzar (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still back on disagreeing with the limitations you're placing on what can be characterized as an execution, and even whether someone is quoted in a given article as having used the term in that specific instance. Introducing limitations out of thin air doesn't help your argument. I'm not even seeing how "execution" is the key point, when the key point is clearly the exacting of a fee that's attributed to the cost of the bullet that was used to kill someone. Largoplazo (talk) 00:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, I mean you can be on disagreeing about my limitations on the definition, but why? The term must have some boundary or it’s meaningless, according to Websters (which wiktionary uses), an execution is “A putting to death as a legal penalty; death lawfully inflicted; as, the execution of a murderer.“ so not exactly out of “thin air”. Likewise why are you still on disagreeing on the circumstances of Kaveh Alipour’s death, he could’ve been shot in crossfire, what evidence do you have to the contrary? As for why execution is the key point, well that’s literally what the article says: “A bullet fee is a financial charge levied on the family of executed prisoners“.--UshankaCzar (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going by the source. I'm disagreeing with your rationale for denying the applicability of the source. Also, if you happen to be the person who just made this edit (or else this is directed at that person), that's not how consensus works, that you keep arguing until the other person gets tired of it and, in the absence of further input, you consider yourself to have gained consensus. If you're frustrated that other input isn't coming in, see WP:CONSENSUS or WP:Dispute resolution for ways to proceed. Largoplazo (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What does "going by the source" even mean? The WSJ article says that Kaveh Alipour was not a prisoner, does not use the term execution and says that the circumstances of his death are unclear. The definition of bullet fee used by the article makes clear that one must be an executed prisoner for it be within the bounds the article's topic. Yes I am still arguing with you, and I'm not sure why that is in any way improper as I have no way of knowing whether you have a retort to what I'm saying or are tired. If you would like a few weeks to think of refutations of my points, just let me know. I'm open to communication here.--UshankaCzar (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)