Talk:United States military kills Qasem Soleimani

Active discussions

NotesEdit

  • Lack of Israel involvement: qualified with "as of publication" given that future reporting cannot be predicted. Precedent for such phrasing can be found at, eg, Helen Thomas probes White House on torture; online community sends flowers ("As of publication, the site registered...") and Authorities in Belgium raid Church of Scientology ("The building remains closed as of publication.")
  • The quotation provided is a copy of the full press release - it can be trimmed if needed, but I think it is all relevant and contributes to the article. The source for the press release is listed; the contents of the press release are also used as a primary source (eg for Trump's authorization)

--DannyS712 (talk) 03:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

As of publication isn't safe to say; one ought to specify as of when relative to the sources rather than relative to the Wikinews review process. I'm also worried about a claim that no such-and-such was reported as of whenever, because that's an assertion about something having not been reported by anyone. --Pi zero (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Done the first part ("As of January 3") - I searched and couldn't find anything reported. I'll try to think of a better way to phrase it --DannyS712 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4537395 [Not ready]Edit

We've generally avoided all forms of offset quotes in the body of an article, putting all quotes in-line in the text, instead. --Pi zero (talk) 01:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I'm not sure - I looked for it but didn't find much? The article doesn't touch on the Iraqi government, so I'm not sure why it would be needed... --DannyS712 (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I'm' not sure what you mean by "offset quotes in the body of an article" - I was following the example of eg European Court of Justice says Facebook must remove 'illegal' posts globally --DannyS712 (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, I see that article does. That's unusual. Seems to be an approach to the technical problem of a multi-paragraph quote, which is not something we usually do. I'm not sure there are any other examples of that approach in the last several years. Usually, we don't set off quotes like that; we'd just have sentences in the body with double-quotes around part of it, and we'd omit paragraph breaks. We usually avoid very-long quotes that want paragraph breaks. --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I don’t see why we would not report on the reaction of the Iraqi government to something like this when it has taken place on their territory. We would certainly report on US reaction if the Iranians had killed a British general on US territory. All it needs is a line or so to say something like the Iraqi parliament is meeting on Sunday to discuss it with a new source if needed. --Green Giant (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@Green Giant: I added the Prime Minister's response --DannyS712 (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: I think we should address the quotes issue before another review. Perhaps the DoD quote could be trimmed to the first and last paragraphs? If not in the body, maybe we could use another template like {{cquote2}}? -Green Giant (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The middle is needed to help provide the DoD's justification for the strike. I trimmed the footprint of the second quote, since each paragraph was just one line. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, the statement is listed as a source, so it wouldn’t be difficult for a reader to find it. If the middle is needed, then we should have a trimmed version as the quote. Have you tried it with another quote template? Perhaps {{QuoteRight}}? -Green Giant (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I trimmed it a bit by removing the dod at the bottom (already given in prose at the top) - I took Category:Quotation templates, but I don't think any of them would look good here. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
I've demonstrated what I mean. --Pi zero (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4537476 [Passed]Edit

PreppingEdit

Iraqi parliament votes for expulsion of United States troops may warrant an {{update}} tag --DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Correction / sequenceEdit

> "The military strike follows rocket attacks"
Actually, the rockets followed the military strike.
Anon 21:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC) —The preceding comment was added by 23.30.146.165 (talkcontribs)

The article currently says: "The military strike follows rocket attacks on the United States Embassy in Iraq; Business Insider reported that the rocket strikes were carried out by sympathizers of the PMF."
(article source) Top Iranian general confirmed dead in US airstrike, days after an embassy siege in Iraq states that PMF sympathizers are behind the protest at the embassy, which followed a US attack killing 25, which followed a December 27 rocket attack killing a US contractor and named "Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the leader of the Shiite Iran-backed militia responsible for the assault on the US Embassy in Iraq earlier this week";
(article source) Pentagon says it killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani on Trump's order states that the DOD said that Soleimani is behind the December 27 rocket attack (killing a US contractor), the attack on the embassy, and other incidents in Iraq;
(article source) The DOD statement says he orchestrated the Dec 27 rocket attack (killing a US contractor) among others in Iraq, and approved the attacks on the embassy;
Other sources do not add to this aspect;
On Wikipedia, Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad does not mention rocket strikes on the embassy, but a mob attack;
(new source) A December 5 Daily Mail article talks about three rockets fired at the embassy that day, and two more the day before, in an aftermath of the Soleimani killing;
(new source) From a December 30 DOS briefing log: "In the past two months alone, there have been 11 attacks on Iraqi bases that host coalition forces. And then the most recent attack, which was a barrage of rockets on the base near Kirkuk, killed one U.S. citizen..." ... "On September 11th of 2018, the White House issued a statement saying that we do not make a distinction between the Iranian regime and any of its proxies"
(new source) From a January 3 DOS briefing log: "That decisive action has been threatened for a year and a half, since September 11th of 2018, when the White House put out a statement saying that there – this is after the rocket attacks on our diplomatic facilities in Iraq... "
(new source) This is the statement they have referred to. It says: "Over the past few days, we have seen life-threatening attacks in Iraq, including on the United States consulate in Basra and against the American embassy compound in Baghdad."
It seems that there were rocket attacks on the US Embassy in Baghdad earlier (before September 11, 2018). On December 27 there was a rocket attack in Kirkuk, killing a US contractor. Then the US hit camps with air strikes, killing 25. A protest erupted in Baghdad, leading to the siege and shutdown of the US Embassy there. Then Soleimani was killed. And, finally, on January 4 and 5, rockets were fired on the embassy again.
We might want to add a little detail to the sentence. - Xbspiro (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
We cannot, of course, make substantive changes to the article since it was published more than 24 hours ago (so our WN:ARCHIVE policy has kicked in); action would be limited at this point to adding a {{correction}} notice, which does not appear called. I agree the sentence could benefit from a slight clarification (if we could do it). --Pi zero (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The point I have wished to make is that the rocket strikes on the embassy, while happened (much earlier), are not in the original sources. - Xbspiro (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Return to "United States military kills Qasem Soleimani" page.