Talk:Qasem Soleimani/Archive 2

Qasem Soleimani was not "assassinated". He was killed by a legitimate, lawful military action.
Qasem Soleimani was not "assassinated". He was killed by a legitimate, lawful military action as an enemy combatant in a war zone (Iraq). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.2.79.8 (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a point of view. But there are others, many sources are using the word assassination. There's a section above here where this question is being discussed, perhaps you want to put a comment there? FrankP (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The technical term is targeted assassination. A foreign power murdered a general of a country it is not officially at war with.Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Qasem Soleimani was assassinated. His killing was not legitimate or lawful. He was not an enemy combatant. He was assassinated in Iraq, which is not a war zone. -- Jibal (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Despite the personal feelings of individual Wikipedia editors, one way or the other, this article must reflect how the preponderance of reliable sources worldwide describe the killing. It seems to me that such sources are using the word "assassination" in large numbers, but this is still a very new event. At this time, I believe that the word "assassinated" is justified by the sources, but possibly that might change as time goes by. Ultimately, historians will make their judgments of this particular killing. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  06:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you joking by predicting the future. Just follow the sources[bbc, guardian, DW, Aljazeera(you don't call it reliable?)]. It is your personal feeling (not sources) that says killing. Don't make exceptions for your feelings.Rasulnrasul (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He was certainly "killed." "Assassination" is a characterization best left to the reader based on facts in the article. There's no consensus for adding that characterization. Certainly, ome RS use the characterization; some don't. I don't think it's going to be productive to included in the article warring characterizations and justifications from RSs of different political bent. Letting the reader decide is almost always the best policy. John2510 (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020
Using the word "assassinated" versus "killed" makes this page politically bias which as I understand it is not the purpose of wikipedia. "Killed" is factual and does not presume motivations that have not yet been uncovered. "Killed" should be used unless substantial evidence comes out that this was purely politically motivated. Hockeyhickey1523 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. See the massive discussion and WP:RFC above for ongoing discussions on the topic. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect fact about funeral
"He was the first man to be honored with a multi-city funeral in history of Iran". This is incorrect. First person was Reza Shah in 1950. Also, for many other Iranian officials after 1979 this form of funeral was held, including Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi in Tehran and Qom in 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.102.134.177 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you please provide reliable source to the contrary? The source you provided for Reza Shah is not WP:RS! Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2020
The statement and reference used in the opening paragraph is misleading. The paragraph states "...which was approved by President Donald Trump on the grounds that Soleimani posed an imminent threat to American lives." The source cited is unambiguously detailing why the drone strikes were NOT necessary. Whatever the facts, the cited source does not support the implications of the statement, which is stated as if the "imminent threat to American lives" is factual. The statement needs to be changed to reflect the article, or for a new source to be used. I suggest the statement changed to "...which was approved by President Donald Trump on the grounds that Soleimani posed an imminent threat to American lives, the validity of which is still being called into question." 47.176.71.98 (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The phrase "on the grounds" means for a reason that is specific to the person or persons in question. As an example, if I were to question you about the last time that you flew in an airplane, and asked you why you chose to fly, you might respond by saying "because the destination was too far to drive" or that it was on another continent that made driving impracticable. So then it could be said that you chose to fly that day on the grounds that flying was easier. That claim does not make any statements about the truth or validity of your reasons for flying. The reason is true for you alone. Another person might disagree with you and choose to drive that same route by car or by boat on the grounds that those modes of travel were easier or perhaps the least expensive way to get to the destination. So using that phrase does not imply an overarching validity to whichever reason is stated.   Spintendo  02:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Killing vs assassination
The article seems trying to avoid the word "assassination" and instead calls it "killing", "death". As this was a typical modern-day assassination, don't you think that we should not really avoid the term, especially when so many RSs use it? — kashmīrī  TALK  19:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I just saw a news article that says assassination. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-50991810.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think just as many sources have opted for 'killed' over 'assassinated' and on review, they seem to be typically more notably neutral sources. ,, . I think assassinated has more complicated connotations that if we include it are more likely to lead to edit warring. I wouldn't be opposed to us adding content reflecting that some outlets have described it as an assassination, though? Darren-M   talk  19:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that if sources used killed that means they reject assassinated after all assassination is to murder (a usually prominent person) by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons. Very accurate description of what the U.S.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * All the three sources you linked use the word assassination as well. Does it make them less "notably neutral"? — kashmīrī  TALK  20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd note that Assassination includes the below paragraph: "On the other hand, Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis, in his 2010 book entitled The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, writes: "Assassinations and targeted killings are very different acts". The use of the term assassination is opposed, as it denotes murder, whereas the terrorists are targeted in self-defense, and thus it is viewed as a killing, but not a crime." (from
 * There is a relatively persuasive argument that there are negative connotations to the usage so I would continue to oppose. Darren-M   talk  20:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strange, do you expect positive connotations of what in legal terms was a premeditated murder? Assassination is the mildest term possible in this case. By the way, Sofaer's opinion is only his own opinion, we don't source Wikipedia to opinion pieces; the Geneva Conventions are more applicable. — kashmīrī  TALK  04:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Implying that a top Iranian official was a terrorist is not just POV, it is factually incorrect. Soleimani was lured to Iraq by the U.S. (using Adil Abdul-Mahdi as an unwitting intermediary) for the purpose of assassinating him ... it was not a "targeted killing" under Solis's own criteria ... criteria that distinguish self-defense measures against active hostile forces (combatants, terrorists) from political killings of officials like Soleimani. (And whether Soleimani was the architect of attacks against the U.S. is irrelevant, just as a similar killing of U.S. officials planning attacks on Iran would still be assassination). And that there are "negative connotations" to the word assassination" (duh) is not a valid reason not to use it; rather, that's extremely POV. Just google the word "assassination" and the first page is full of references to Soleimani. BTW, your own expert, Gary Solis, on this matter says "I think the best definition would be either one of assassination or murder". -- Jibal (talk) 06:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

What would be best is to launch a Request for comment, so that consensus for usage of the word assassination (or lack thereof) can be clearly codified. El_C 20:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure we need to run an entire RfC just to include a term widely used in mainstream reliable sources. — kashmīrī  TALK  20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually think it is of sufficient gravity so as to be warranted. El_C 20:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I would echo EL_C's rationale and support an RfC. Darren-M   talk  20:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright. It seemed simple enough to set one up (at least, phrasing the question is not terribly hard!), so, see the following section—hopefully I did it right. :) Go forth and discuss / !vote, everyone. -sche (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Terminated. 67.209.133.225 (talk) 10:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

South Africa Reacts
Often only some countries get mention, like UK and France. Well SA https://www.iol.co.za/news/politics/anc-condemns-us-airstrike-that-killed-iranian-general-qassem-soleimani-40075347 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.0.56.127 (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Of course, it's no surprise that the leftist political elite of South Africa support a genocidal, anti-Semitic terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:2748:6F00:2C1F:CAAC:780E:1F12 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Terrorism accusations.
We need to be more cautious about this. Obviously the fact that he was accused of terrorism is newsworthy (moreso now than it was a few days ago, given that it's being used to justify his assassination), but we still have to rely on the absolute highest-quality sources for something like that, meaning, specifically: First, no WP:PRIMARY sources. Finding someone on an official list somewhere is not sufficient if no secondary sources have reported it. Secondary sources ought to be easy to find now, so let's dig them up. Second, no WP:SYNTH. Sources for something of this nature have to mention him specifically, by name. Third, obviously, any such claims, sanctions, etc. have to be attributed to the source making them and presented with any appropriate context from the secondary source we're relying on. For the record, the version of the article prior to his assassination made no mention of the accusations in the lead (it mentioned them extremely briefly much further down.) Logically they may be more noteworthy now, but we need to rely on secondary sources to show that, and if the noteworthiness of the accusations stems from the fact that they were used to justify assassinating him, then we need to make that clear (ie. if we rely primarily on sources from after his assassination that present the accusations of terrorism as being used to justify him rather than impartial facts, we need to retain that context.)  Conversely, we ought to go into detail on precisely what he's accused of if we can find high-quality, high-profile sources for it (the current sources are bafflingly vague.)  --Aquillion (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As a reminder, this is an unambiguous WP:BLP issue; per WP:BDP, BLP continues to apply to people for a while after their death, in part specifically for situations like this where the death attracts a flurry of attention. Saying that someone has been accused of or implying that they are associated with terrorism is an extremely severe accusation and requires similarly high-quality sources backing it up, not primary sourcing to official government documents, synth using sources that don't mention him, or misusing sources that don't specifically say he's been accused of terrorism.  I don't doubt that sources, of some form, exist that can support some variation on that text, but it's extremely important that we get something like this right, especially on an article still covered by WP:BLP at the center of breaking news, and that means we need secondary sources that outline the accusations explicitly (ideally in detail rather than in passing.)  Do not restore that text without a clear consensus here or with new sources that unambiguously satisfy the WP:BLP requirements I outlined above. --Aquillion (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You deleted this source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019D0025&from=EN. The argument that that is a tenuous document only holds for people unwilling to read it.  The European Union says: "(1) On 27 December 2001, the Council adopted Common Position 2001/931/CFSP (1)".  If you take the time, as you should have, to follow on the EU's linked (1) at the end of the sentence, it takes you to the full description: "Article 1 [...] 2. For the purposes of this Common Position, "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts" shall mean:

- persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or who participate in, or facilitate, the commission of terrorist acts," . Therefore, when the EU says on the cited source "The list of persons, groups and entities to which Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP apply is set out in the Annex to this Decision", it means the people on the list are terrorists. Person 15 is
 * SOLEIMANI Qasem (a.k.a. Ghasem Soleymani, a.k.a. Qasmi Sulayman, a.k.a. Qasem Soleymani, a.k.a. Qasem Solaimani, a.k.a. Qasem Salimani, a.k.a. Qasem Solemani, a.k.a. Qasem Sulaimani, a.k.a. Qasem Sulemani), born 11.3.1957 in Iran. Iranian national. Passport number: 008827 (Iran Diplomatic), issued 1999. Title: Major General.
 * People unwilling to do their due diligence ought to be careful before removing WP:RS. Cheerio, XavierItzm (talk) 11:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * XavierItzm, this is not true, you are misepresenting the source. You are conveniently ignoring and leaving out that the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001 is about - verbal quote - "in particular the fight against the financing of terrorism". "Facilitating" terrorism is not the same as being a terrorist. Analogy: If I donor money to Greenpeace, then I'm facilitating Greenpeace activists, but I'm not a Greenpeace activist myself. 93.209.239.205 (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dude! Its's right there in the page!  Full quote:
 * 2. For the purposes of this Common Position, "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts" shall mean: - persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or who participate in, or facilitate, the commission of terrorist acts, - groups and entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and persons, groups and entities acting on behalf of, or under the direction of, such persons, groups and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons, groups and entities. 3. For the purposes of this Common Position, "terrorist act" shall mean one of the following intentional acts, which, given its nature or its context, may seriously damage a country or an international organisation, as defined as an offence under national law, where committed with the aim of: (i) seriously intimidating a population, or (ii) unduly compelling a Government or an international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act, or (iii) seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation: (a) attacks upon a person's life which may cause death; (b) attacks upon the physical integrity of a person; (c) kidnapping or hostage taking; (d) causing extensive destruction to a Government or public facility, a transport system, an infrastructure facility, including an information system, a fixed platform located on the continental shelf, a public place or private property, likely to endanger human life or result in major economic loss; (e) seizure of aircraft, ships or other means of public or goods transport; (f) manufacture, possession, acquisition, transport, supply or use of weapons, explosives or of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, as well as research into, and development of, biological and chemical weapons; (g) release of dangerous substances, or causing fires, explosions or floods the effect of which is to endanger human life; (h) interfering with or disrupting the supply of water, power or any other fundamental natural resource, the effect of which is to endanger human life; (i) threatening to commit any of the acts listed under (a) to (h); (j) directing a terrorist group; (k) participating in the activities of a terrorist group, including by supplying information or material resources, or by funding its activities in any way, with knowledge of the fact that such participation will contribute to the criminal activities of the group. For the purposes of this paragraph, "terrorist group" shall mean a structured group of more than two persons, established over a period of time and acting in concert to commit terrorist acts.
 * What part of "terrorist" is confusing you? XavierItzm (talk) 13:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a straw man attack, you are completely ignoring my point. You want to trick people into thinking that this EU document declares Soleimani a terrorists simply because that document contains a definition of terroism. Do you think we are stupid? The point is not what the definition of terrorism is, but that the list does not only include terrorists themselves, but also people "facilitating" terrorism, especially financing terrorism in some way. To reiterate my analogy from before: If you donor to Greenpeace, you are "facilitating" and "financing" Greenpeace activists, but you are not a Greenpeace activist yourself. And if a Greenpeace activist acts as criminally, this doesn't automatically mean that you are a criminal. Maybe you are, but maybe not - this requires extra analysis and extra proof. 93.209.239.205 (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be yet another fight over some editors wanting to use a characterization rather than simply reciting the facts and letting the reader draw his own conclusions (which, IMHO, is by far the better approach). If they said he's a terrorist, then that's one thing. However, if they put him on a list of people involved in terrorism, then say they put him on a list of people involved in terrorism. Why not? WP should be used to inform, not persuade. Note that I similarly argue that he should be described as "killed" rather than "assassinated" for the same reasons. Characterizations, one way or the other, are to be avoided. John2510 (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Full agreement. 93.209.239.205 (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The facts are: (1) The European Union put Soleimani on a list; and (2) the list is of "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts." You want it to read "in particular the fight against the financing of terrorism" but do not cite the source.  Please cite your source. XavierItzm (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I already have cited the source, see above. Again: It's a direct quote from the Council Common Position 2001/931/CFSP of 27 December 2001. This is exactly the document you have copy-pasted stuff from and you have claimed to have read, but obviously haven't. Preamble section (2). And by the way, section (3) again talks about attacking "the sources which fund terrorism". But that's a side show again. The main point is that the document in no way claims that all peoples on the list are terrorists. Instead, they are targeted as part of an overall fight against terrorism and drying out its financing. 93.209.229.80 (talk) 03:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are cherry-picking "the sources which fund terrorism". The document clearly says the list is of "persons, groups and entities involved in terrorist acts." XavierItzm (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the discussion over that source matters, because as an official government document it is still a WP:PRIMARY source and therefore inappropriate to use alone for a shocking claim about a recently-dead individual. Soleimani is, at the moment, the central focus of the entire world's news media; it should not be hard to find a secondary source discussing that if it is important.  But we do need that secondary source, not just for BLP reasons but because it will provide us the context and interpretation that you are arguing about above (eg. how exactly to word our coverage of it, or how significant inclusion on that list actually is in the larger context of his bio, or, crucially, if and how that significance relates to his assassination.) We cannot just use a bare primary source like that to drop an exceptional claim about him in the lead on its own. Instead of arguing over that source, you should spend your time digging through the massive amounts of coverage he is getting to find the secondary coverage it has to have attracted, so we can use that to answer the questions people are running into here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think saying that person X (who even was a "public figure") led an organization A which is "considered a terrorist organization" by a number of countries is perfectly fine and not a BLP violation, assuming that the statement was well sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Details of security
https://www.dailysabah.com/mideast/2020/01/09/iraqi-syrian-informants-helped-us-kill-soleimani-report Zezen (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Reason for sanction belongs in lead
What we have in the lead presently:

Soleimani was personally sanctioned by the United Nations and the European Union, and was designated as a terrorist by the United States.

Further down:

In March 2007, Soleimani was included on a list of Iranian individuals targeted with sanctions in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747. On 18 May 2011, he was sanctioned again by the U.S. along with Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and other senior Syrian officials due to his alleged involvement in providing material support to the Syrian government.

For myself, I would elevate both of those specific statements into the lead over the nondescript account we presently have. And you'd need a third sentence, I imagine, to cover America's terrorist designation. &mdash; MaxEnt 23:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * He is not the only Iranian official that has been sanctioned or designated as a terrorist. Heck, Trump described the whole country as terrorist. Iran likewise has designated US CENTCOM as terrorist. --Z 14:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Haphazard editing
I'm very short on time for the next 2-3 days, but I read the sources and completed five of six bare and/or incomplete citations and undid one subsequent edit that seemed to clearly violate Wikipedia standards. I would hope that those unwilling or unable to follow WP guidelines would make correct and complete NPOV edits or refrain from editing this topic at all. Activist (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Bear in mind this is an incredibly newsworthy and highly emotive topic, so there will be interest in this content above and beyond normal levels. I suspect many of the edits you are referring to are simply people unused to editing (or even being used to editing, but not such highly charged topics) who are simply trying their best. I think there's a danger here of not assuming good faith, and we also need to be mindful not to bite the newbies. Best, Darren-M   talk  22:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Extremely fascinating to see a "WP guideline" legend who just "undid one subsequent edit that seemed to clearly violate Wikipedia standards" (1) from a newbie thinks "Wikipedia English is not an appropriate place for a foreign language". Anyway, thanks for caring, Darren! Ms96 (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess I stand corrected: You posted, I deleted, then you reinserted this. Somehow I thought it was Farsi. جمع در چند شهر ایران در اعتراض به انکار اصابت موشک به هواپیمای اوکراینی؛ گاز اشک‌آور و شعار علیه رهبر و سپاه در تهران|language=fa|website=BBC}}  Activist (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

List of all the URLs cited
I made and alphabetized a list of all the URLs this article cites, which I used to find and combine several duplicates. I also noticed we were citing the German tabloid Bild, a deprecated source per WP:RSP, and removed it. If anyone else would find such a list useful, e.g. to look over for other deprecated sources, it's [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:-sche/sandbox&oldid=935478751 here]. -sche (talk) 21:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of children
Diff changed the article from saying he has four children (two sons, two daughters) to saying he has two children (one son and one daughter) (without changing the Persian-language source for the statement). [//www.thetimes.co.uk/article/general-qasem-soleimani-obituary-hb8g7ng3c The Times] and [//www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-strike-live-updates/2020/01/03/3779f55c-2e33-11ea-bcb3-ac6482c4a92f_story.html WaPo] speak of four children, like we previously did, but they quite possibly copied that from us, since I've seen how certain other erstwhile confusions in our article also made it into some news reports (ah, citogenesis). What does the Persian-language source we're citing say? Google translate suggests it says "Qassim has two daughters and a son" (and elsewhere speaks of "one of the daughters of Haj Qassim", as if he indeed has more than one), which would represent a third number. The way the WaPo article is worded implies that some people could perhaps be counting a son-in-law as one of his sons, which could be behind some of the confusion. Can we find some definitive sources for how many children he has? Ones from before 2020 would seem less likely to be citogenesis. -sche (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (As an aside, that diff also named two children in the infobox, but are we supposed to name non-notable children? -sche (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC))


 * The article now reports a fourth number: "five children: three sons and two daughters", citing The Guardian and Heavy. Hopefully this, at last, is the correct figure... -sche (talk) 06:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Other reactions about Soleimani's death
Reliable sources are showing that not everyone reacted similarly to the Soleimani's death. I have tried to show this in the article but was reverted by Saff V. saying "these edit are pushing some certain POVs by adding details not necessary for this article". Adding a different POV is not the same as POV pushing. I have nevertheless tried to make the statements more neutral and added more reliable sources to back them up. This is what I'm adding into the article since these are backed by reliable sources and give information about different types of reactions about Soleimani's death:


 * Iraqi anti-government protesters celebrated Soleimani’s death by singing, dancing and waving Iraqi flags in the streets.


 * Many U.S. government officials including Rudy Giuliani and Elizabeth Warren reacted to Soleimani's death by saying he had been “a mass murderer”.

Alex-h (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * US Senator Tom Cotton released a statement saying that Qassem Soleimani "masterminded Iran’s reign of terror for decades, including the deaths of hundreds of Americans.” This was also stated by the New York Times who said: "General Suleimani planned and directed attacks that killed thousands of civilians in Iraq and Syria, along with many American service members."


 * I've removed most of those. It's bad enough that people are bloating 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike with every reaction they can find, which (as discussed on that talk page) will get cut in a week [or, I see, many have already been cut now]; let's not duplicate that here. It's WP:RECENTISM; all these miscellaneous reactions for everyone who's said anything, especially short comments that someone was "a murderer" or whatever, don't have much WP:WEIGHT in the totality of what RS say about this person. (It also doesn't escape notice that you're presenting only some of the reactions of even the people you're citing, e.g. Warren has been critical of the manner of the killing but you're not including that, which raises questions of whether WP:NPOV is being followed...) -sche (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Reactions sections are sheer bloat. They have no encyclopedic function whatsoever, and are Wikipedia's imitation of instagram, facebook, twitter tweeting. No one is surely interested in a range of predictable statements all calibrated for political angle, and carefully manicured to show 'concern'.Nishidani (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

in the lead: "widely regarded as a breach of international law"
Wow, that needs clarification and citations. The WSJ argues it was lawful. I think it is premature to conclude. More info from NPR here:. Danski14(talk)
 * Yep, WSJ. We try not to use Fox News either. — kashmīrī  TALK  14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The WSJ does no such thing ... that's an opinion piece by Alan Dershowitz (whose name bizarrely is misspelled). And your other citation is to Al Jazeera, not NPR, and it pretty much argues that it was not a lawful killing. -- Jibal (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I suspect the lawfulness and propriety of this killing is something that's going to be debated for many years. WP can either: 1) set forth both arguments and the rationale supporting each; or 2) have an endless edit war over what characterizations are correct. We should do the former, but will doubtless do the latter. That's why people have little faith in WP when it comes to controversial subjects. John2510 (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , question, but the WSJ editorial board would not have reviewed and approved Mr. Derschowitz' column, though, correct? I don't see a problem with including that statement in the Lede, though I'd probably remove "widely" per WP:NPOV and we may want to attribute the piece to Mr. Derschowitz. Doug Mehus T · C  16:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, obviously not correct. Newspapers constantly publish opinion columns that the management or editorial board does not agree with. And what statement? The statement that it is widely seen as violating international law is true. Danski14 referencing the Dershowitz piece is typical of his cherry picking, and labeling it as being by the WSJ is typical of his arguments from authority. -- Jibal (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , That's true they may not agree with it, but they've nonetheless included it for publication and have provided a higher level of editorial peer review than, say, a letter to the editor, which is not checked for factual accuracy beyond legal concerns (i.e., potentially libelous material). So, that's why I said attribution to Derschowitz would be necessary. Doug Mehus T · C  17:35, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate with you your completely mistaken--and shifting--understandings of how opinion pages work.--Jibal (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Trump Administration stated that the attack on Qasem Soleimani was carried out in accordance with the War Powers Resolution under the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) resolution of 2001. 96.234.63.6 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Kolef96.234.63.6 (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The question was not about the US law but about the international law. Read about the opinion of the UN Special Rapporteur. (cached ) — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  18:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The opinion of Alan Dershowitz is obviously only his opinion; he is not the representative of anyone except himself. Huldra (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Dershowitz is one record as thinking torture of captured enemies is not a violation of international law. His opinion is not technical, but political, and nothing he writes in this area is of value, and therefore even if predictably hosted by the WSJ it is just an opinion whose use hangs on the resonance of the name (the guy who got OJ Simpson off the rap). Find a better source, from a recognized scholar of international law specializing in this specific area.Nishidani (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Here Nishidani (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2020 (UTC)