The idea behind the policy of not copying straight from outside sources is that we should be and *are* more than capable of writing our own words, without having to copy and paste from other sources. It's fine if articles are not as fleshed out as they could be due to this.
I went through the Soleimani edit to see for myself, and while I agree that you changed the wording, in my opinion it's not sufficient to count as "our own words".
The problem with Wikipedia is we can't trust anything that's written in it. They cite, for example, "Lebanese militant Anis al-Naqqash". Who is that though? Wikipedia often passes off imperialists and collaborators as reliable sources. Can we say for sure, right this instant, that this is not the case for Anis and that he is someone we want to cite on a proletarian, Marxist-Leninist encyclopedia?
In regards to copying we have no mechanism to detect if the editor actually read through everything and can attest it is the truth and they stand behind all of it, or if they simply copied and pasted and called it a day.
Additionally, please note that we use a different citations template to Wikipedia. In the Soleimani edit for example, half the references did not display at all because they were not brought over to our own citations templates.
Hope this clarifies why we have this policy and what it's meant to achieve.