Jump to content

Talk:Assassination of Qasem Soleimani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.157.124.90 (talk) at 06:29, 6 January 2020 (→More countries to add on reactions list: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reactions article

Because every major politician in the US and Iran are reacting to this (and will probably see more as statements get drafted and people wake up), there should be a reactions article created before the reactions section get too big. I would make one but I'm on mobile. Juxlos (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It’s still quite small, so to avoid any disputes I think it’s best to wait.
5225C (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems some consider it too large already, and began removing content. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I expect more unrelated non G8 foreign ministries and tier 2 politicians to comment on this soon so it might be a good time for a split. Juxlos (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Juxlos, I think the reactions section is reasonably compact and doesn't need to be split right now. Qono (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having a new article on reactions seems unnecessary at this time.Dig deeper talk 20:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's the best time to have something like this, before we need it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, January 3, 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal

I suggest we now split out the reactions to a separate article. The impact of this event causes a lot of noteworthy reactions from al over the world. Right now this section makes up half the article. People below calls for it to be made more concise. We should rather split out the reactions, and then keep a concise summary here. This allows us to include more notable reactions without worry about it becoming undue. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Support the split if other editors insist on not getting rid of the seemingly 60% of reactions and statements from so many uninvolved parties. The reactions section should be a short summary that only includes reactions from actually relevant/involved parties RopeTricks (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Conditionally support to split articles into two articles in order to make readers more easily read about these articles per RopeTricks. But for me, financial markets reaction, which is how commodities and equities reacted as follows:
  • "Global oil prices rose more than four percent in the wake of the strike, pushing oil stocks (of BP and Royal Dutch Shell) on the London Stock Exchange up. Arms company stocks (of Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon) also rose in the wake of the event. US equity futures and Asian stocks reversed their gains for the day and investors moved towards "safe haven" assets such as gold, treasury bonds, and the Japanese Yen".
Should be also moved elsewhere to reactions articles in economy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.24 (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose a split. It always happens in articles like this that we pile in lots of reactions at first, and then after a week or two we start to say "wait a minute, we don't need all these" and do a major trim. Right now we are in the adding-everything-everybody-said stage. In a week or two we will realize that we don't need to quote every country and every talking head, and we will cut out the fluff and leave only what Rope Trick called "reactions from actually relevant/involved -- MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)parties."[reply]
  • Support maybe most individual reactions to this attack does not exacty have lasting impact, but they do show the trends. Maybe keep several of the key reactions (Iraqi parliament and PM, Ayatollah, Trump) in this page, though. Juxlos (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legality and assassination

As there are efforts to assess the legality of the killing, it would be better to discuss the wording and proper sources here rather than by reverting the article. So far the article (not the lead, of course, see WP:LEAD) can be expanded by something like: The Spectator called Soleimani's death an assassination.+ref. We can start with that and expand, if necessary. The question is where to put it. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be called what it is, an assassination. There are many RS that back this word. [1] [2] [3] [4]. If a U.S. general traveling in Iraq was killed in a targeted drone strike by Iran, we would likely have no issues with calling it an assassination. WP doesn't represent any single country and doesn't have a political view. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See below –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the RFC for a title change, my comment doesn't have anything to do with changing the title and I provided many RSs for the single word change. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purpoted death of Hashed al-Shaabi

hindustantimes.com (archived here) affirms that "the strike, which occurred at Baghdad’s international airport on Friday in Iraq, also killed the deputy chief of Iraq’s powerful Hashed al-Shaabi paramilitary force". It seems that his death isn't referred by other journals on Google. At the moment, I think it can't be integrated yet into the current WP article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hindustan Times states that as a fact, based on Agence France Presse reporting. Provided there was only one strike and provided that we know as a fact that Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis is a or the deputy chief of that militia, I think we can integrate it in the article. In fact it is currently integrated, in the first sentence of the section "Attack", and sourced to The New York Times [5] and Axios [6]. The latter source says "was reported dead". I couldn't verify the former source, but I think it's reasonable enough to include his death and his office held. Wakari07 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling change

Some words have been changed as the spelling was in American English rather than British English and I feel that British English looks nicer to read. RyanPLB (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

English belongs to Americans! We invented it after all. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you are joking or not. Nusent 15:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RyanPLB, Please don't do that. See MOS:RetainLetUsNotLoseHearT 18:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was just doing what I feel is inherently correct. How horrendous of you to insult people out there who do not wish to read things in an Americanised way. Just saying. RyanPLB (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, let's not police UK vs. US English. Nerd271 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, "Americanized." – Levivich 04:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Darling, you know for sure I don't mean "Americanized". Sorry to break it to you babes! ;) RyanPLB (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
American English This involves the United States, and Wikipedia policy clearly states that the choice between American, British, or other forms of English should reflect the country the article is about. The Brits might have invented Iraq, but the Americans have owned it since 2003.Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Article Title?

New Title : Assassination of Qasem Soleimani

After discussion with NickCT I am snow-closing this RM discussion. It is premature and the proposed title is mostly being opposed. I will open a new discussion below where we can suggest possible titles and narrow down possibilities. Then if there is consensus for one we can simply move the article; if there is not consensus we can open a move request for the most favored title. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support

  1. [7] by Reuters (NB: headline from a quote "Iran will take a crushing revenge for the assassination ... Iranian Defence Minister Amir Hatami said" WikiHannibal (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  2. [8] by Time (NB: other Time articles linked from this one call it killing 1, 2 WikiHannibal (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  3. [9] by The Hill (NB: called both assassination (3x) and killing (5x) in the article WikiHannibal (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  4. [10] by Forbes
  5. [11] by Al-Jazeera
  6. [12] by The Daily Telegraph
  7. [13] by The Atlantic
  8. [14] by CBS
  9. [15] by CNBC
  10. [16] by The Jerusalem Post
  11. [17] by The Japan Times
  12. [18] by The Independent
  13. [19] by RT
  14. [20] by Asharq Al-Awsat (NB: This article from October 2019 is not about the January attack. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Aside from the Headline, many sources use the term "assassination" in the lede or elsewhere in the text. Pahlevun (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed title doesn't cover the fact that another notable target - Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis - was killed in this event. Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: - See my comment above about Governor Conally in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. NickCT (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a fair comparison, because John Connally wasn't killed & isn't known to have been an intended target. Jim Michael (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mahdi wasn't the target though. So isn't it a good comparison? NickCT (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was Soleimani the sole intended target? Were the others who were killed & injured merely collateral damage? Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: - From what I've read, it seems they were collateral. In fact, Mahdi may have been unintentional. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Pahlevun: - Good list! I'd add [21] by NPR and [22] by New York Times. NickCT (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Also, "killing" is more neutral than "assassination", which implies treachery and political motivations; this was a military attack. This follows WP:NPOVTITLE. Qono (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I prefer 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike for the time being. Until the majority of political voices (not journalists) tend to calling it assassination or killing. Wiki articles are not news. Plus I think the list of sources is biased, not interpreted properly. I will write my comments on the first three I checked directly into the list, please excuse me. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Qono. "killing" is not more neutral, it is a general term and every article needs its jargon. This article includes an academic examination of the term "assassination" and its usage in military: Pratt, Simon Frankel (2015). "Crossing off names: the logic of military assassination". Small Wars & Insurgencies. 26 (1). doi:10.1080/09592318.2014.959769. —Pahlevun (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From the Introduction of that article, "In the relatively small literature on the strategic rationale behind government directed killings of specific individuals, the term ‘assassination’ doesn’t often arise except in reference to the tactics of state oppression. Assassination commonly carries with it pejorative connotations of cowardice, subterfuge, and unlawfulness". As I read it, the author is arguing in favor of a value-neutral definition of "assassination", but acknowledges that this is not the existing definition of the word. Given that the article currently only has two CrossRef citations, I do not believe this definition has been accepted by the consensus of relevant literature. userdude 22:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TFSA: "Assassination" is not among the words listed in WP:Contentious label, rather it is the technical standard in military jargon. Please see:
Pratt, Simon Frankel (2015). "Crossing off names: the logic of military assassination". Small Wars & Insurgencies. 26 (1). doi:10.1080/09592318.2014.959769. —Pahlevun (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose: This article is about the airstrikes themselves. The strike killed other important leaders and is bigger than just Soleimani, so naming the article after him alone is improper and misleading. RopeTricks (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least until the dust settles and journalists, politicians, and others start using one name. The JFK assassination is most definitely called the JFK assassination or similar. I don't think we can yet judge how people will refer to this airstrike/killing/assassination. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, and should wait to mimic everyone else. Hydromania (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly oppose. Not opposed in principle, just a matter of timing. As others have said, wait till the dust settles. But I don't buy the argument against renaming because others died in the same incident. Soleimani was way ahead of Muhandis in notability, and as I understand it the others were subordinates of those two. It seems pretty certain Soleimani was the principal target, and that is how news outlets are mainly covering it. But further details may yet emerge I guess. FrankP (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per User:TFSA. smileguy91talk x my huckleberrying 20:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, current title is neutral, and is too recent to gauge if this action will be historically known as an assassination of a prominent figure or as a military operation. Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think this article is correctly titled as a raid or airstrike, not an assassination. We define assassination as "the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious, or monetary reasons." But we also generally think of assassination as an in-person killing of one person only. So for example the articles about the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Archduke Ferdinand, Ghandi, etc. are all called “Assassination of…” They were attacks carried out by one person against another, bodily. But we don’t generally describe the targeted killing of a rival leader via military means as an assassination. For example, the death of Osama bin Laden is detailed in an article Killing of Osama bin Laden. The killing of Abu Bakr is detailed in an article called Barisha raid. Going further back, the American shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto’s plane is titled Operation Vengeance.
And more to the point - since Wikipedia policy says to use Reliable Sources - some sources are calling this an assassination but most are not. A Google search for Soleimani by itself produces 170 million hits. "Soleimani killed" brings up 78 million hits and "Soleimani killing", 80 million. "Soliemani assassination" gives only 16 million hits. "Assassination" is not, or not yet, the common name. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Assassination" is a heavily loaded term considering the existence of US executive orders prohibiting them. The Trump administration doesn't consider this an assassination, a view also expressed during the Obama administration w/r/t their policy of targeted killings. For this reason alone I disagree with this proposed move due to WP:NPOV. We shouldn't be endorsing a specific viewpoint that's under dispute in the title of the article, which is what calling it an assassination would do. Even if a majority of sources called this act an assassination I wouldn't support the move as the US government isn't a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. OpposeGrognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As many have said before, wikipedia's definition of Assassination presupposes some personal gain on behalf of the killers. It could be argued either way whether President Trump made political gains or losses based on this action. However, Michael Pompeo also stated this morning on CNN that the killing of Soleimani was conducted in order to end the threat of an imminent attack against U.S. servicemembers in the region. Soleimani's case is unprecedented because he was not only an Iranian General but his role as commander in the Quds Forces was to support extraterritorial forces such as Hezbollah, which are considered terrorist groups by the U.S. and its allies. Due to the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and murder of an American contractor earlier this week, which were orchestrated by said groups, the killing of Soleimani comes across not as a sudden death but as retaliation against an enemy combatant. Amanda.Yaya99 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Title : Soleimani-Mahdi Assassination

Closing this early per WP:SNOW. This is unlikely to make anyone happy. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  • Several people seem to object to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani on the basis that Qasem wasn't the only person assassinated. Can we get consensus to mention the two major figures assassinated?

Support

The Wikipedia article on him is Qasem Soleimani, so we should stick with that, I think. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion

2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike → Assassination of Qasem Soleimani – Seems like the more WP:COMMONNAME.

It seems like most sources are focusing on this event as an effort to assassinate Soleimani. Shouldn't we move this article to that page per WP:COMMONNAME? NickCT (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests#Uncontroversial_technical_requests. NickCT (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, I don't think the current title is ideal, but I don't see most reliable sources calling this an assassination. "Killing" is used much more commonly. I think "U.S. killing of Qassim Suleimani" or "2020 airstrike against Qassim Suleimani" would more closely adhere to WP:COMMONNAME. Qono (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qono: - Doing a search engine test makes it look like "killing" is roughly as common as "assassination". Interesting that most US sources tend towards "killing", while non-US tend to use "assassination". I'm sorta ambivalent about which one we use, but I think "assassination" might be more percise. It explains what kind of killing was being done. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, There may be something to the U.S./non-U.S. difference, but the sources that are most reliable and arguable the most international (NYTimes, AP, BBC, Al-Jazeera) are using "killing". A neutral Google News search for "Qasem Soleimani airport" also shows pretty clearly that "killing" is more common. I think "assassination" is also problematic because several people were killed and "assassination" implies only one person was targeted and killed. Qono (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qono: - Your link doesn't seem to work. I think what you'd want to do is compare ("Qasem Soleimani airport" killing) versus ("Qasem Soleimani airport" assassination). Saying you're doing a "neutral" search w/ a single term doesn't make sense, b/c it's still you counting the number of hits (which is subject to your bias), rather than letting Google count for you.
re "several people were killed" - Sure. But the main event seems to be Qasem's assassination, right? I mean Governor Connally was shot at the Kennedy Assassination. We still call it the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Not the "The Book Depository Shooting". NickCT (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, Sorry about the broken link. The point is that after searching generally for "Qasem Soleimani airport" shows that most of the top hits use "killing" and not "assassination". This is just one measure. Wikipedia's policy says that the common usage in "independent, reliable English-language sources" should determine the title, and as far as I can tell, "killing" is more common and more neutral as well (WP:POVTITLE). "Assassination" implies treachery and political motivations. This seems to be a primarily military-motivated attack. Qono (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qono: - I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just asking whether you should be counting references to determine WP:COMMONNAME, or whether you should be letting Google (which likely isn't biased) do the counting for you.
I'm not 100% sure that assassination is necessarily treacherous, more than it's stealthy. Plus, assassination can be for military reasons. Check out our great article on Assassination! And yes.... I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. NickCT (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, Simply counting sources has its shortcomings, we should be considering the usage by reliable sources and giving them due weight based on their reputation and readership. I've made a list and consolidated my arguments below. There's a link to Merriam-Webster that shows the treachery and politically-motivated implications of "assassination". P.S. You might want to add a move template to the top of this section to draw more attention to this conversation. Qono (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But you're calling sources reputable and well read to confirm your own bias. For instance, you picked up on a NYT article that used "killing", but ignored NYT also uses "assassination. Google doesn't do that when it produces a count.
PS Will add the template. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, I'm calling sources reputable based on the consensus of Wikipedia editors and the prevalence of those sources in Featured Articles and Good Articles and was neutral in my search query that resulted in the list below. I came across 2-3 uses of "assassination" among the 20+ sources I listed below. Regarding the NYTimes, if you look at their home page, "killing' and its variants appear 11 times, "assassination" 0. Thanks for adding the template! Qono (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qono: - I take your point that if you look certain places you can see "killing" used more often. I just prefer methods that look over the whole sum of RS's, rather than just certain places. If I looked only at the sources I liked (e.g. the NYT homepage), how would I know I'm not cherry-picking to find the wording I want?
You didn't answer my point about assassination being "stealthy" rather than "treacherous". Can you find a source that defines assassination as "treacherous". Perhaps that's just you conception of the word? NickCT (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, My earlier explanation should show that I'm not cherrypicking sources. I'm using neutral wording in my query and the consensus of editors regarding which sources are reliable. The source that I linked to below in Merriam-Webster, which defines "assassinate" as "to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously". Qono (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Qono: - Hmmmmm..... It would seem you've opted for Webster's secondary definition. Do you see how that's cherry-picking? You literally picked a more obscure definition from several definitions to fit your conception. NickCT (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, Both senses are applicable. The weaker figurative sense implies treachery. This is also captured by Century Dictionary: "Assassinate means to kill wrongfully..." In most dictionaries I've checked, the primary sense also usually emphasizes a political motive, which seems wrong given that the motive here is primarily military, as I've said. Either way, my NPOV argument is my secondary argument. The main thing is that "kill" is used far more often by reliable sources. Qono (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono - Agree that assassination is primarily political, but Soleimani was a pretty substantial political figure. It would seem the motive for the assassination/killing was both political and military. I think the way you're coming to your "far more often" conclusion is flawed. Wikipedia:Search engine test could be helpful. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, Ok, I don't think raw numbers of Google search results is the only way to go about it, but even given that measure "Soleimani assassination" has 9 million results, "Soleimani killing" 58 million. On Google News, it's 1.4 million to 12 million, again in "killings" favor. Qono (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono - You didn't limit the time frame. Doesn't really make sense to look for the terms in articles from a month ago. Plus, you've got to go to the end of the list to figure out the number of unique hits. See the comparison I provided earlier. The count will obviously change as time goes on.... NickCT (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, Fair enough, but even when limiting to the last 24 hours, it is 7,710 results vs. 4,900,000 again in favor of "killing". Qono (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Qono - Can you provide links? I'm getting 131 versus 120 when I try that. NickCT (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, Sure. Hopefully these links work: "killing" (~6M) vs. "assassination" (~9K). Qono (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Country X, orchestrates a fatal attack on a military commander of the country Y, on the soil of country Z, while neither are on war. What do you call it? Pahlevun (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I call it assassination but personal opinions of editors are irrelevant. WP:OR, etc.. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiHannibal: - Nothing says the article title can't change with time. If it changes to killing tomorrow, so too we can change. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that "majority of sources call it assassination". I also think article names should not change every day based on news headlines. Such intention makes this discussion a waste of time. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiHannibal: - I'm not sure a majority do either. Doing a search engine test, "killing" versus "assassination" looks pretty comparable in search engine testing to me. One seems more precise though. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So when you wrote above that "A majority of sources call it assassination today.", that was a general sentence not related to today's today nor to this particular article? If that was so, I did not get it, sorry. In any case, I still think article names should not change every day based on news headlines. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I misspoke. I should have said "If a majority of sources...." I was just trying to say that common names can change, and we can change too. Agree we shouldn't change every day. But I think we should try to at least get it right on the first day! I know we're not news.... NickCT (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:WikiHannibal: Those links were examples to show that using this term is common, so commenting on them one by one would lead to a red herring in my opinion. Using the term "assassination" in the title would not be a personal opinion nor WP:OR when you have reliable sources. Qono argued that assassination is not a neutral word, and I provided a scholarly source that says otherwise. We even have Category:Military assassinations here. I'm not saying that any other naming would be wrong, but I believe that the straightforward and historic name for this event would be that. No one will remember Baghdad International Airport, the year 2020 or airstrike in future. Pahlevun (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that making a list of sources that call in assassination and not saying the rest (that the same sources also call it "killing", that they quote someone etc.) is a misinterpretation. As for the rest of your response, I did not comment on your discussion with Qono, nor wish I to do so. My concern is, and will be, only the list which looks impressive and can influence editors who are not careful enough to check the sources themselves. I am sorry I cannot say now what "No one will remember". WikiHannibal (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiHannibal: -re "making a list of sources that call in assassination and not saying the rest" - That's a fair point, though we've also made a list that call it "killing". NickCT (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the items of the list list which was to support "assassination" call it "killing" as well. Or quote. Or are not related to the current attack, etc. The list is not objective but a misinterpretation of sources. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
re "Some of the items of the list list which was to support "assassination" call it "killing" as well" - And vice versa. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, above you said Doing a search engine test, "killing" versus "assassination" looks pretty comparable in search engine testing to me. That was not my result. I found that "Soleimani killed" (without quotes) brings up 78 million hits and "Soleimani killing", 80 million. "Soliemani assassination" gives only 16 million hits. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: - Hi Melanie. Thanks for weighing-in. Couple notes; 1) are you restricting your search to content written since the strike? If I ask for articles since then with the terms "killing" versus "assassination", I see roughly comparable numbers. 2) I think even if you find these terms are roughly comparable, there's a WP:PRECISE argument to picking assassination. "Death of MLK" and "Assassination of MLK" might be roughly comparable terms, but I don't think anyone would propose that it'd be OK to rename Assassination of Martin Luther King. NickCT (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To encapsulate the nature of the killing, "airstrike" and "assassination" are both insufficient -- airstrike sounds strictly military and wider-scale while assassination sounds strictly political and surgical. Furthermore, as many have pointed out, many important people died, and unlike the Death of Osama bin Laden (note the title), where multiple high-value targets were also killed, one was not so overwhelmingly instantly recognizable to the general public that any other casualties were an afterthought. I know of no poll to gauge public recognition of Solemani prior to this week, though one may come out after this week. Furthermore, in a month or a year, it may be that another of the casualties was the more critical political figure in the events to come. Tldr: it is too soon to say one figure here stands head and shoulders above the rest in consequence to world events in the past and coming months, and it is too soon to know to what extent the killing was political or military or something else in nature to ascribe it a proper word. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultimograph5 and PhilipTerryGraham: - Governor Connally was shot at the Kennedy Assassination. We still call it the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Not the "The Book Depository Shooting". NickCT (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NickCT: And like Jim Michael stated, it's an unfair comparison to make. We should have definitive, reliable sources which state that Soleimani was the sole intended target of the drone strike. If I'm allowed to speculate, it would otherwise seem extremely coincidental that the commander of the militia at the heart of this episode (December 2019 United States airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad) just happened to be collateral damage in this strike. Therefore, it'd be wise to have definitive sources first. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could do something like "Solemani Mahdi Assassination". NickCT (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, it seems there's consensus for a move, even if this move isn't the one we want. I see no evidence of that. In fact discussion above appears to be strongly opposed to either of the currently proposed moves. Future discussion might result in a tweak of the current name, but no move should be undertaken without discussion and consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: - When I wrote that, only a couple folks had weighed in and it seemed those opposed might want "Killing of" rather than "Assassination of". Looking back, I should of polled for what the "right" new title should be before making the move request. It seems clear to me that whatever the title should be, the current title is wrong as it seems to imply this "event" was an attempt to blow up an airport. I think we can all agree that that's not right?
Unfortunately, I think there's too much emotion surrounding the word "Assassination" and national pride for my initial proposal to carry. NickCT (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point about putting "airport" in the title. Maybe just "2020 Baghdad airstrike"? I think you are right that we need a free-form poll to suggest possible titles, before narrowing it down to one. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think about snow-closing the open "support-oppose" discussion, removing the "proposed move" tag, and starting a new discussion "suggested titles"? With all proposals to be listed at the top and numbered for discussion purposes? "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" as "Soleimani-Mahdi Assassination" would be two of the proposals. And maybe with no !voting as such, just discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN: - "2020 Baghdad airstrike" would definitely be more concise, and probably less misleading. But it still doesn't seem to make clear that the substance of this event was that one or more people got killed/assassinated. The notability of this event was the deaths that happened, right? Not merely that there was a strike.
Yes. Snow close please. My proposed title obviously won't succeed. Maybe I'll set up a poll tomorrow. I do like voting though. The problem is that there are going to be too many ideas on what the title should be. The discussion will be endless. Voting will tell us quickly which title there is most consensus for... NickCT (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I have to go out, would you please ping previous discussants to the new subject? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MelanieN:  Done. Thanks. NickCT (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on proposed titles for the article

Let's discuss what this article should be called. It is clear that we are not yet ready to !vote on a single proposed move. I suggest that we list possible titles and number them for discussion purposes, with new proposals being added to the list as people come up with them. In the preferences section people can note briefly which titles they prefer or don't like, and modify or add to their notes as new titles are suggested. In the discussion section we can expand and explain our reasoning. I hope this method will work for people; isolating the preferences from the discussion will make it much easier to summarize how the discussion is going. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed titles

  • 1. 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike (the current title).
  • 2. Assassination of Qasem Soleimani
  • 3. Soleimani-Mahdi Assassination
  • 4. 2020 Baghdad airstrike
  • 5. Baghdad airport airstrike

-Proposals added to nom's original list-

  • 6. Killing of Qasem Soleimani
  • 7. Killing of Soleimani-Mahdi
  • 8. Targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani

Preferences

  • Number 1 is the best option of them all. I noted above that the definition of the word 'assassination' makes any proposal with it flawed. Elimination of an enemy combatant on the battlefield is clearly not that. The fourth option is not good because it is too general. Where in Baghdad? It also assumes there is only one notable airstrike in the city in 2020, which has just gotten started. Nerd271 (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 4 is succinct and accurate. The article is about an airstrike, not just the killing of one (or two) notables. That the strike occurred adjacent to the airport is also not significant, its just where the convoy happened to be when the drone struck. 2020 Baghdad airstrike does the job. WWGB (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 362 days left in 2020, American "terrorists" are in Baghdad and Iran has an air force next door. What are the odds of things getting ambiguous faster than they did in early 2003? I don't know. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:59, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
  • Number 6 (added by me). It is clear that Soleimani's death is the key thing about this attack. And "killing" is a neutral term that is used extensively by media outlets in their coverage. ― Hebsen (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't move for now until the RSes stabilize and come to consensus on a WP:COMMONNAME. Right now, they're using both "assassination" and "killing". Give it some time, and I think it will start being described by just one of those words, at which point it should be moved to #2 or #6, or something similar, based on which term the RSes use most commonly. – Levivich 04:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I oppose #2, #6, and particularly #3. I don't really care for #1 or #5 because the airport itself was not the target. I am OK with #4 but it is not ideal either so I am open to more suggestions. -- MelanieN (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I also oppose 7 and 8. If we must have one of those "killing of" titles I would favor 6 so count me as a weak oppose there. I have not yet seen a title I'm enthused about. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 6 or Number 2. Soleimani's death is certainly the most notable aspect of this attack, the only reason it is receiving extensive coverage. It remains to be seen if the consensus of reliable sources consider it an "assassination", though if there is ambiguity I favor "killing" as a more neutral term. userdude 06:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 and 3. Weak Support 6,7 and 8. Oppose 1, 4 and 5. The notable part of this event is that a certain person or certain people were killed/assassinated. If there had been an airstrike, and no one had been actually hurt/killed, this would not be a notable event and wouldn't have an article. The WP:COMMONNAME for this incident is still being worked out (by the sources). In absence of a common name, lets just choose a name that simply and succintly explains the important part of this event... NickCT (talk) 06:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the event was not even notable, we would not even have a page for it. But because the page exists and is being updated with a variety of sources, we know it is notable.Nerd271 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nerd271: - I don't think you take my point. Imagine if the bombs had missed yesterday. Or imagine they had hit an empty car. Do you think we'd have this article today? Probably not. Why? B/c the notable part of this event was the people who were killed. NickCT (talk) 06:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. This page is not only not nominated for deletion but keeps getting updates. So of course it is on a notable topic. The fact that Wikipedia has an article (that no reasonable editor would nominate for deletion) means that something significant happened. Nerd271 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nerd271: - Ok. So we both agree the topic is notable. And we agree the notable part of the topic is the killing. So why title the article "Airstrike" instead of "Killing" or "Assassination"? Isn't "Airstrike" misleading? NickCT (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: Very good! We're getting somewhere. A notable airstrike inflicts damage of some sort. You see where I'm going with this? Nerd271 (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nerd271: - Right...... but you just agreed that the airstrike, in and of itself, was not notable. It was the killing that was notable. So why call it a "notable airstrike"? NickCT (talk) 06:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because one highly notable military officer from Iran was killed in action, along with his associates, which someone who reads the introduction would find out. I understand the desire to change the current name; the situation is fluid. But I think the current one is sufficiently general and adequate for now. Nerd271 (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nerd271: - Ok. Good. So my point is that the article is more appropriately called something like "military officer from Iran killed". Or more succinctly options 2,3,6 or 7 above. I think you get the point. I'm not arguing the current title isn't "adequate". I'm saying there's a clearly better option.
If all we strive for is "adequacy", where would we be? NickCT (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@NickCT: By 'adequacy', I mean neutrality, specificity, objectivity, and factual correctness. I think option 1 satisfies the said requirements. Nerd271 (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Franz Ferdinand was killed w/a gun, not a bomb. Also, this probably won’t lead to a world war. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is important to understand the basic problematic loop of 'credible sources' that exists in Wikipedia and especially English Wikipedia, and that is that mainstream media sources - especially in English - will reflect the interests of the English speaking countries or even go so far as to say repeat official state positions. Thus information from mainstream new sources on any political topic is tainted with bias – an international perspective would be a great start to correcting this. The current title, '2020 Baghdad International Airport Airstrike', is not neutral as it is complicit in 'tidying up' the political ramifications and the motivation for the killing. It looks like it takes a page out of the PR handbook of US military jargon... think 'Collateral Damage'. In other words, neutrality means POLITICAL NEUTRALITY. Further, not including the name of the main target - a person of international notability - is frankly dangerously close to joining in with official state propaganda. I realise almost all the people on here are USAmericans and as such a very strong effort needs to be made on topics of this sort to maintain a non-state and international level of neutrality. It was admitted by the US president to be a targeted killing, and there are political reasons for it... Thus, it is an assassination. Strongly in favor of number 2, support number 6. Hesperian Nguyen (talk)
  • 'Wait to move. Let a consensus develop IRL. Can come back to this later. (Leaning toward Number 5, it was a strike which killed at least two targets (probably, still were both targets?), I don't believe much is known about previous efforts to kill/eliminate/assassinate him, and its short and easy. Hydromania (talk) 02:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 1. The current title ("2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike") best reflects what our article says in the Attack section: "In the early morning hours of 3 January 2020, Qasem Soleimani's plane arrived at Baghdad International Airport as a U.S. MQ-9 Reaper drone and other military aircraft loitered in the area. Soleimani and other pro-Iranian paramilitary figures, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, entered two vehicles and departed the airport towards downtown Baghdad. At around 1 am local time, the drone launched several missiles, striking the convoy on an airport access road, engulfing the two cars in flames and killing 10 people." I think reflecting the Attack section involves the least interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 2 or Number 6 (prefer 2) as per the examples mentioned above with Franz Ferdinand and co., and the virtue that in the aftermath of this event "Qasem Soleimani" probably became close to a household name globally while Mahdi did not. One caveat to this is that the death of Isoroku Yamamoto (used as comparison in the article) is titled Operation Vengeance (the U.S. name) instead of Assasination of Isoroku Yamamoto, but I feel that the factors for Number 2 outweigh that. Juxlos (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 2 This was a high-ranking member of a nation-state that was targeted, not a raggedy terrorist or stateless actor. Harretz, BBC, NPR, Financial Times. Zaathras (talk) 13:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 2. I have explained my reasons in the discussion above. Pahlevun (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 1 for now. Simple and functional descriptive title until dust has settled a bit.--Staberinde (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number 8: Per "Targeted killing is defined as a form of assassination which is carried out by governments against their perceived enemies." soibangla (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Number 2. Assassination of Qasem Soleimani; or Number 6. Killing of Qasem Soleimani. The strike is associated with one notable individual, whose name should be in the title of the page. Oppose 1; 4; 5 -- this is vague if not misleading. The article itself says that the strike occurred near the airport. The airport was not the target; Soleimani was the target. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

(Moving here, responses to Hebsen's choice of #6)

@WikiHannibal, Pahlevun, Jim Michael, Mr.User200, Qono, Ultimograph5, PhilipTerryGraham, TFSA, RopeTricks, Hydromania, FrankP, Smileguy91, Kencf0618, LuvataciousSkull, Nerd271, DPdH, Chess, InedibleHulk, and Ultimograph5: - Per User:MelanieN's instruction, I hereby ping participants in the previous move discussion, who have yet to comment in this new move discussion. NickCT (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still like 5. The airport wasn't destroyed, but it was in the area. But once an "Operation Blanking Falcon" name is finalized, I support that. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:14, January 4, 2020 (UTC)
I think any title with the name "assassination" is flawed and this entire discussion is too. Right now we're debating over whether or not the airstrike was an assassination or not. That's not what we should be discussing. The term "assassination" is a heavily charged word and is not appropriate for the title of the article as it would violate WP:NPOV. Whether or not the act was a targeted killing on the battlefield or a "bona fide" assassination is a debate that should happen in the political arena and among secondary sources. Not on Wikipedia. The characterization of this act as an "assassination" is disputed by the US government which is certainly not a WP:FRINGE view and we need to respect that there are multiple points of view on this airstrike, using the most neutral title we can for the article and explaining the debate over whether or not the airstrike was the means by which an assassination was carried out in the body. We shouldn't be debating at all over whether this is an assassination, but how we can convey the debate over whether or not this is an assassination in a neutral manner. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 07:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you edit your comment to make it moe visible in this discussion? Chisel in stone, perhaps? I tried to explain the same notion to some of the editors here, but failed. Thanks! WikiHannibal (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality means the we can not be complicit in sanitizing events. Neutrality has to be political neutrality. The US is the culprit in this killing and caution should taken to maintain an international perspective because of this. The current title is tantamount to using a state sanctioned euphemism. If we followed the logic of the above commentary by Chess we would retitle it "Iranian General Kicks the Bucket"!!! Hesperian Nguyen (talk)

I think the title should be changed to reflect the purpose and outcome of the attack. The purpose was not to attack the airport; the existing title is quite misleading in that sense. The purpose was to kill Soleimani, and that was the outcome. Yes, others were killed; that information is covered in the article. None of the victims were household names in the English-speaking world, but that does not mean we should avoid naming the prime target in the title. In the event a code name comes to light, eg: Operation Snuff Soleimani, we can change the title to that from whatever title then exists. In the meantime, I favor a title (number 6, "Killing of...") that more nearly describes the event and purpose than the present one. DonFB (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with choice of #6, it's descriptive of what was surely the main intention behind the attack. True, others died and one at least was notable, but not on the scale of Soleimani. Check any news outlet covering this story and see how many times Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis gets mentioned in comparison. In six months or a year or more how will the event be remembered? As the "Killing of Qasem Soleimani" I should think. FrankP (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of the first five titles are appropriate since this is now much bigger than the airport strike. While I personally think it was an assassination of Soleimini, there is a dispute about that term, so I prefer the more neutral "Killing." I also think we have to consider domestic reactions in Iraq, so I prefer to use both names, including Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the direction of this article and how it has less and less to do with the airport attack itself and more about the death of Qasem Soleimani, I'm leaning towards article title Number 2 or Number 6. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis

@MelanieN and NickCT: My tally of the votes at this point shows option #2 and option #6 both in a healthy lead with 10 votes each. Since changing the title to #2 was already failed, perhaps we try proposing option #6? Qono (talk) 01:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qono: - I see #2 up by one vote. It's always possible that consensus can change, so we shouldn't assume past failures mean a proposal won't succeed in future. Regardless, I'm not 100% sure we need to re-propose. We can probably use consensus developed above to move forward with a proposal. NickCT (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don’t evaluate this kind of free-form discussion just by head count. We have to take into account discussion, and opposes as well as supports. At this point the discussion has been open for 2 days, which is not very long, but we have input from 25 discussants so it may be possible to figure out the trend. Here is my summary:

  • 1. 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike: 6 support, 4 oppose
  • 2. Assassination of Qasem Soleimani: 12 support, 3 oppose
  • 3. Soleimani-Madhi assasination: 1 support, 3 oppose
  • 4. 2020 Baghdad airstrike: 4 weak support, 4 oppose
  • 5. Baghdad airport airstrike: 2 support, 5 oppose
  • 6. Killing of Qasem Soleimani: 14 support, 1 weak oppose
  • 7. Killing of Soleimani-Madhi: 3 weak support
  • 8. Targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani: 4 weak support
  • don’t decide now, wait for sources to agree on a name - 2 support

Taking into account both supports and opposes, I think it is clear that the current consensus is for something with Soleimani’s name in it (#2 or #6), and that #6 “Killing” is preferred (more supports and fewer opposes). Do the rest of you agree with this analysis? Shall we simply retitle it to #6, “Killing of Qasem Soleimani”? Or should we keep it open a few days longer? Or do we need to file a formal move request? (I favor either moving forward with this result, or waiting a few days for more discussion in this thread. Given the amount of input we already have, I hate to start all over and make people !vote again. But if people feel the formal process is needed we can do that.) Never mind; I see that a formal process has been started. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 6 January 2020

2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike → Killing of Qasem Soleimani – The current title makes it sound like the airport itself was the target of the attack; the "Killing of Qasem Soleimani" is how this event is referred to by most reliable sources. Though others were killed, Soleimani's death is the main thing mentioned about this attack. Though "assassination" is sometimes used by reliable sources, perhaps four times as many sources use the more neutral term "killing". "Killing of Qasam Soleimani" follows Wikipedia's policy that titles should use recognizable names that are neutral, precise, concise, and descriptive and non-judgemental. Qono (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, it was a comparison of style. None of the above said he was incompetent. Nerd271 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then why not use non-terrorists? This is borderline WP:BLP 93.38.67.230 (talk) 05:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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., [28] [29] [30]. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Background

The back ground sections needs to be trimmed. The sources with no direct connection to the subject should be removed from the section for the sake of No Original Research. The policy reads as such: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." This is while some of the parts seems to be the editors' understanding of the events.

Moreover, the section is promoting a U.S. version of the incidents. It is attempting to justify why Soleimani was assassinated by U.S. We know that even U.N has rejected the statement by the U.S. --Mhhossein talk 07:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What all would you change? I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiment. The cause is straight forward, this is the english language wiki, majority of editors are probably from the US. I liked your edit here. What else would you do? Maybe we can get some consensus together as to how to make this a better and more international article. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section should be changed to 'Immediate Background' because the background dates back to the US support of the Shah, The Iranian Revolution, the 2 US invasions of Iraq... Hesperian Nguyen (talk)
Mhhossein, what exactly should be changed and how? Without knowing that, placing the NPOV tag is futile. I do not see any justification, I see a description explaining why the US attacked. The point of view is US-ish bcs the US interpretation of the situation caused the attack. There is no evaluation in the section (e.g. proper vs improper "response"). WikiHannibal (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcibiades979, Hesperian Nguyen, and WikiHannibal: Sorry for the delayed comment, as I said before, the background needs to get rid of the synthesized paragraphs. To be specific, I think the last three paragraphs of the "Prior threats against Qasem Soleimani" should be merged into 2 or 3 lines. This way both OR and NPOV will be respected. Note that these paragraphs are being supported by rather old sources which are not "directly related to the topic of the article," as OR demands. Also note that the article is getting larger and larger with new incidents happening on an hourly basis. --Mhhossein talk 21:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please merge them here? It makes no sense for other editors to trim paragraphs into 2 or 3 lines in an effort to meet your idea of the section. Is the problem only the "Prior threats against Qasem Soleimani" section? You said "The back ground sections needs to be trimmed." as well as "the background needs to get rid of the synthesized paragraphs". But in my understanding, trimming often leads to synthesis. I just do not get it. Please do trim it yourself and we can discuss it here. Besides, based on your arguments, I think you slightly misunderstand WP:OR. Which rferences are outdated or not related to the topic they are used to support? Thanks, WikiHannibal (talk) 13:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US asked for proportionate response to general’s killing, says Iran

This should be added into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 11:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the US actually said that (which I doubt) it would have been incredibly stupid. To a) basically agree to accept retaliation but b) request that it be "proportionate" - who in their right mind would they say such a thing? I see no reason to believe that this message, or anything similar, was actually sent. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. A Swiss official confirmed that the Swiss delivered a message from the U.S. to Iran.[31] But I certainly don't think we can believe, or should report, the Iranian claim about what the message said. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN, since we have a POTUS who thought it was appropriate to send a letter to Erdoğan that said "don't be a tough guy, don't be a fool", I don't think we can dismiss reports of the administration doing something stupid. I would like to see confirmation of the content of the message though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. But seriously? To suggest a "proportionate" response to killing their top military leader, often described as the second most powerful person in the country? I hesitate to think about what kind of retaliation might be "proportionate" to that. Agree that we would need confirmation, not just the Iranian report of what the message said. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soleimini or Suleimini?

I think we should be consistent with the spelling—I've seen both forms used in this article, although "Soleimini" is more common. English language media also use both spellings.Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure with your penultimate vowel there? Surely you mean Soleimani vs Suleimani. I don't think I've ever seen his name spelled to end in mini. The interchange between U and O is very common with names from the region - witness Osama vs Usama B.L. My impression is that the norm in English-language sources is to spell it with O (e.g. BBC NY Post NBC). I've just checked a few TV channels available to me and see that CNN, France 24 and Al Jazeera (English service) all use O. There appear to be no uses of Suleimani in the article body, but only in the references, to headlines in publications which adopt the U form (e.g Guardian, NY Times). FrankP (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our article is called Qasem Soleimani and I think that's what we should use. The lead of that article says "Qasem Soleimani, also spelled Qassem Suleimani or Qassim Soleimani." What we are dealing with here is how to transliterate from another language when there are various ways to render it in English. There doesn't seem to be any universally used spelling of either of his names in sources. From a quick Google search just for the names: Soleimani 208 million hits, Suleimani 55 million hits, Qasem 62 million hits, Qassem 112 million hits, Qassim 16 million hits. It would be Original Research for us to try to choose among them. Let's stick with Qasem Soleimani. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And in fact our article is consistent in using Qasem Solemani throughout in Wikipedia's voice. Occurrences of Sulemani, Qassem, and Qassim are in quotations or references. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funeral

While processions can be held in more than one place, a funeral can take happen in only one place as an individual can be buried in only one place at a time. This section does not distinguish between events in Baghdad and events in Tehran.Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem far-fetched or misleading to group the procession leading to a funeral under the funeral section. Juxlos (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Reference to Balad as a US base

Balad is being referenced frequently in the media and in this article as a US base with US military personnel on it. It is an Iraqi base with no US military personnel stationed there anymore. There are contractors there but no CJTF-OIR or other military members present. This should be clarified in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.178.60 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are these videos in the Public Domain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZc0psEVims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTe59fezEZY Victor Grigas (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at C-SPAN copyright policy on their website it seems to be translatable to CC-BY-NC-SA. That's a no-go then. Juxlos (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are in the public domain, as they are from the senate floor. From the link above: Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain. That being said, they are undue here. ― Hebsen (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now in the article Victor Grigas (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date format for article

There are conflicting date formats being used throughout the article. I'm assuming we should stick with DMY, e.g. 3 January 2020, as the strike took place in Iraq and that is the popular date format there. I would love input from more experienced editors, though. Warpaltarpers (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting of Trump assertion needs to be followed by statement saying no evidence given to back assertion

I have added a sentence directly after the reporting of the Trump assertion which sought to justify the attack. This is for balance and neutral point of view (the assertion needs to be reported but no evidence given to back assertion also needs to be reported). Nerd271 has twice now (1, 2) removed this sentence with no good reasons given in their edit notes. I would welcome input from other editors. Thank you. Oska (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting that bit there sounds weird given the information available in the 'Prelude' section. Of course not all information is going to be available. We are talking about one part of an on-going military conflict. The article by and large should not be self-contradictory. Nerd271 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was good removal. The assertion that Soleimani had been planning further [terrorist] attacks on American diplomats and military personnel is pretty much obvious. And of course US and other countries used targeted assassinations (a classic terrorism tactics) against terrorist leaders for a long time, this is nothing special. The significance/difference of this case, however, is that Trump targeted a high-ranking Iranian military state official, which is an act of war against the Iranian state, just as the previous Iranian-coordinated attacks against US servicemen in Iraq were an act of war against the US. It is already an ongoing war between Iran and US. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes: Maybe that's obvious to you (we don't act based on the users' original research). Reliable sources should be respected here and I think Oska can restore the removed portion which is supported by a high quality source. --Mhhossein talk 09:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree it is important to know what was exactly the evidence about the "imminent" attack by Iran-controlled forces. If something was published about it, this should be included. This is an important casus belli question for the war which is going to happen. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article should be renamed to something more meaningful

like "2020 airstrike on Qasem Soleimani" soibangla (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: It wasn't just Soleimani. There were multiple people. ‍‍Telluride (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soleimani is the main story, by far soibangla (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Had Soleimani had an upset stomach and missed the convoy, resulting in the airstrike only killing the other 8 and al-Muhandis, this article would've still existed under the same name. I think a redirect works for now unless in a week "assasination of Qasem Soleimani" becomes the way media refers to the incident by default. Juxlos (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At least 10 people died, including prominent Iraqi paramilitary figure al-Muhandis. Naming the article after only one of the 10 victims just because contemporary Western media outlets focuses on the big name individual is silly. No specific name should be in the title in my opinion, and the current title sufficiently reflects the location and nature of the military operation. RopeTricks (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I'm fairly sure that in 10 years all media will still focus on Soleimani when it comes to this attack. Juxlos (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but there's no telling what the PMU's Shia Iraqi militias and their devotees can do to avenge al-Muhandis and his legacy in particular, long term and short term, or the impact it will have on Iraqi society alone, yes, even in comparison to Iran's response. Good thing not all editors are dictated by source preferences and media tunnel vision for these types of events. RopeTricks (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla: - There's an ongoing discussion in the section abvove to figure out what the right name is! Weigh-in there. NickCT (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Juxlos: - Same comment to you. Weigh-in above. NickCT (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source clarification

As Nerd271 has noted that certain sources are marked as unreliable be WP:RS, I am reaching out to other editors to double check that Twitter is a reasonable/reliable source if coming from a credible individual. Due to the increased amount of people using Twitter to make statements about traumatic or important events, such as politicians and police, I am currently aware of a few articles if not more that use articles referencing the Tweet as a source or even the tweet itself for information or a reference. Is it completely banned from use as a source or is it only if the individual has not be verified as the individual the account is representing by Twitter? Thanks for any help if clarifying this for me. Leaky.Solar (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check that Wikipedia page. It has a list of frequently encountered sources on Wikipedia, with explanations for the various designations. Twitter should generally be avoided because it is a self-published source. Anyone can post anything on there. Unless you are actually quoting an notable and relevant person, it is best to avoid it. Nerd271 (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty acceptable practice to quote certain obviously notable people (e.g. Trump, Pompeo, Javad Zarif) directly from their tweets because nobody is going to really dispute that their reactions are notable. But yeah certainly tread very carefully if it's used to reference something presented as fact. Juxlos (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for responding. I went back and reread the page and realized that as sleep deprived as I am I had managed to skip/blur through some sections such as the user-generated material and others. Will definitely keep it in mind thanks again. Leaky.Solar (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

US mainstream media reaction

[32] Another aspect of this event is that the US mainstream media is treating it with a different tone than they did with President Obama's military strikes. They are portraying the target of the strike in a more sympathetic light and portraying President Trump's decision as emotional and counterproductive to peace efforts. 173.66.156.205 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine where you got the idea that US media are portraying the target in a sympathetic light. Even the Democrats who criticized the decision are in agreement that this was a bad guy. And all media reports note that he was responsible for hundreds of American deaths. There is debate about the TIMING of this action and the likely consequences, but I haven't seen anything sympathetic toward Soleimani himself. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check the link I posted. CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times tried to portray the Iranian general in a sympathetic light. 173.66.156.205 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, they didn't. I did check the link; did you? It’s a Fox News article, primarily based on opinions from Joe Concha, a writer for The Hill appearing on Fox and Friends. Concha said that coverage would be different if Obama was president. For evidence he accuses the Washington Post of having published an obituary of Al-Baghdadi three months ago with a complimentary headline, and he cites a couple of recent tweets by a New York Times reporter (note: tweets are not reporting). Oh, and he cites a comment from opinion writer Jonathan Alter on MSNBC. That’s it. Nothing from CNN, nothing from the Times newspaper, nothing about Soleimani from the Post. From these few weak examples, Fox News comes up with the headline that "News media coverage of Soleimani strike reveals 'disturbing pattern' ", and a lead sentence about “mainstream media coverage”, even though literally nothing they cite for evidence was mainstream news media coverage. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a point? A suggested change or addition to the article? Zaathras (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MelanieN, and just made a minor fix about it. I guess he is generally described as someone who built the terrorist empire of Iran, and of course the Iran itself is generally described as a theocratic dictatorship. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This airstrike had only one target: Soleimani

As The New York Times has reported on January 5, the target for this attack was only Qassem Soleimani:

When Mr. Trump chose the option of killing General Suleimani, top military officials, flabbergasted, were immediately alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region. It is unclear if General Milley or Mr. Esper pushed back on the president’s decision.

Over the next several days, the military’s Special Operations Command looked for an opportunity to hit General Suleimani, who operated in the open and was treated like a celebrity in many places he visited in the Middle East. Military and intelligence officials said the strike drew on information from secret informants, electronic intercepts, reconnaissance aircraft and other surveillance tools.

The option that was eventually approved depended on who would greet General Suleimani at his expected arrival on Friday at Baghdad International Airport. If he was met by Iraqi government officials allied with Americans, one American official said, the strike would be called off. But the official said it was a “clean party,” meaning members of Kataib Hezbollah, including its leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Mr. Trump authorized the killing at about 5 p.m. on Thursday, officials said.

I think it should be clarified in the article somehow. Pahlevun (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2020

In the Casualtiies subsection please link: American pilots shot down the plane → Operation Vengeance
2606:A000:1126:28D:80CC:FB4F:9449:9FB1 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump formerly accused Obama of plotting to wag the dog; include?

In the “Reactions” “United States” section we mention that some people have called this a wag the dog incident, “parallel to the bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan by president Bill Clinton during his own impeachment process,[1] which had itself been seen as reminiscent of the contemporaneous film Wag the Dog.” Soibangla just added In 2011 and 2012, Trump asserted that President Obama would start a war with Iran to improve his reelection chances.[2] I reverted it saying Not really relevant here; Obama did not in fact do anything, and he was not under impeachment. Soibangla restored it saying it is relevant to the immediately aforementioned Wag the Dog. I am bringing it here for discussion: is it relevant to mention that Trump in 2011-2012 claimed Obama would start a war with Iran to improve his re-election chances, even though Obama did not in fact do so? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  1. ^ U.S. President Bill Clinton launched an airstrike on Iraq amid impeachment proceedings against him in 1998.
  2. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/03/politics/kfile-trump-obama-2012-iran-war-reelection/index.html
Well, on doing some searching I find that this is getting widespread coverage [33] [34][35][36] so I guess it should stay. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction section is too long, please make it concise.

Reaction section is too long, please make it concise. Detailed response from many public officials or response from unpopular group like MKO isn't necessary. 168.211.50.222 (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Another case of too many uninvolved people having their reactions be overvalued, resulting in another bloated reactions section. RopeTricks (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A separate article on Reactions is discussed above. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also information about Trump's tweet and 52 targets is duplicated in US reaction section. Annihilannic (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it always happens in this kind of article that at first we pile in every comment from every politician or country or talking head in the world. And after a week or so we say, wait a minute, we don't need to know what every uninvolved country or politician had to say. After the smoke clears, for instance, I will suggest eliminating the ENTIRE "National" section, from Argentina to Yemen, possibly leaving one or two that are more relevant to the action or less duplicative of what everyone else had to say. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

opinion/speculation?

User:WikiHannibal. [37] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:WikiHannibal. About this [38], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

More countries to add on reactions list

--69.157.124.90 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani&oldid=934383460"