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 Fythrion (talk | contribs) at 04:59, 11 January 2020 (→‎Comparison of Soleimani to Osama and Al-Baghdadi). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:IRANPOL GS talk

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]

  • Support renaming the article as "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" in line with other historical assassinations, e.g. "Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand" and "Assassination of John F. Kennedy". The term 'assassination' has been used by credible international media outlets such as BBC, DW and Al Jazeera in relation to the death of Soleimani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.210.212 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the nominator. Qono (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I agree that the current title is ambiguous at best (the airport was not the target). Is there an official designation (i.e. "Operation [Whatever]"?  2606:A000:1126:28D:80CC:FB4F:9449:9FB1 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as proposer. The current title is a bad title, as it is neither recognizeable, nor natural, and it conceals the ramifications of the killing behind technical precision. I would like to note that the killing/assassination discussion was expected, and will likely continue. And that is okay. We can always move it again, when things are more clear, and media are more settled on what they should call this. A move now would make a future discussion on killing/assassination much more focused. ― Hebsen (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not opposed to the title "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani", I just think the target's name should be in the title. More news organizations are beginning to use "assassination", and it can be said to be a more WP:PRECISE title. ― Hebsen (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was not my preferred title, but given the clear consensus in the earlier discussion, I believe we should move to this title. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per RfC above. Still prefer "assasination", but I guess it's a more loaded word. Juxlos (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Neutral. The Google search link in the proposal has a date range of Jan 1–3; the event happened on Jan 3 and it's now Jan 6. The "About 3,000,000 results" figure on the top of the first page is unreliable. When clicking through the pages of actual search results to the end, you can see there are far fewer unique pages than that. Search results also vary from user to user and region to region. Here are some variations I tried, and the numbers I got:
    1. Searching Google News, Jan 3–6, for soleimani assassination: "About 6,000,000 results" on the first page [1]. But, at 10 results per page (default setting), it's only 12 pages of results, and on the 12th page, it says "117 results" [2]
    2. soleimani killing: 17 pages, 155 results [3]
    3. "soleimani assassination": 13 pages, 127 results [4]
    4. "soleimani killing": 16 pages, 150 results [5]
    5. intitle:soleimani+assassination: 13 pages, 124 results [6]
    6. intitle:soleimani+killing: 18 pages, 175 results [7]
    7. intitle:"soleimani assassination": 13 pages, 126 results [8]
    8. intitle:"soleimani killing": 15 pages, 145 results [9]
For me, the results aren't showing that one is 4x more popular than the other, but that "killing" is only slightly ahead of "assassination". I still think it's too soon to make this decision and we should wait until one or the other pulls more clearly ahead. – Levivich 07:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: - Once again, I don't think there's anything that says we can't have this conversation again in a week. If you agree that "Killing of..." is a better title than what we currently have, why not just change now, revisit later? NickCT (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NickCT, I think moving a page multiple times within the first couple weeks is inefficient and kind of disruptive, in the sense that it adds unnecessary complication to a page's history, and creates unnecessary work (to update backlinks, etc.), especially when you end up with redirects to redirects to redirects to the final title. Editors get fatigued from multiple discussions about the same thing. And this page has already been moved multiple times. I'm of the camp that the current name is fine until we have a clear common name. That said, I've changed by !vote to "neutral", because you're right, I don't really oppose "Killing of...", and even if it's not a "clear winner", it has more search results, so it seems there isn't much grounds for opposing that name in particular at this time (which is different from opposing a move in general, which is really how I feel). – Levivich 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leviv: - I take your point, and agree we shouldn't be moving stuff willy nilly. That said, for current events, more frequent movement may be warranted.
Do you really think it's all that much work to do a move. Bots take care of double redirects, no? What's a backlink? NickCT (talk)
@NickCT: By "backlink" I just mean an incoming link ("what links here"), and yes, bots update double redirects... it's not like the entire encyclopedia will break if we move a page too often :-) And yes, a current event article might necessitate moves as facts change on the ground. I just don't see a reason to move the page from a title that describes it accurately based on the year, location, and type of attack, to one that describes it in terms of who was killed. The technical aspects of frequent moves (like updating redirects) might be no more than an inconvenience or unnecessary use of automated resources, but I think the discussion, which uses up the very limited and precious resource of human editors' time, is the most "disruptive" part of an unnecessary or premature move request (or multiple such requests). Since the sources don't clearly point in one direction or another, what we get instead are pages and pages of discussion that amounts to little more than editors sharing their personal opinions about whether "assassination" or "killing" is the better term, and whether it should name just one of the victims or two of them. It's not so much the redirects, but the discussion, that's wasteful. However, I'm "neutral" because that ship has clearly already sailed :-) – Levivich 18:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also support moving to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. It was indeed an ordered assassination, not a simple form of killing. --Mhhossein talk 07:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The current title works as per WP:NPOV. Qasem Soleimani and al-Muhandis's killings were a part of a U.S. military operation, and the article should be titled as such. The current title tells you the general location (the airstrike was not at the BIA terminal, but just outside the airport, a major landmark, on an access road) and the nature of the event (an airstrike, part of a military operation featuring intelligence gathering, positioning assets, etc.), along similar reasons for why the Barisha raid article isn't titled "Killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi": It was a military raid in Barisha, like how this article is an airstrike in Baghdad. The current title should, for now, remain unless further developments in the region reasonably suggest a more Iranian-centric title to the point of rendering any non-Soleimani related details not even worth applying. RopeTricks (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakly support: Certainly the most important thing about the airstrike (as well as the reason for it) was the killing of Soleimani. Even if almost as many sources call it an "assassination" as opposed to a "killing", the fact that there is ambiguity means Wikipedia should use the neutral term. I prefer "targeted killing" to "killing" or "assassination", as is more precise than "killing" and still neutral. userdude 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a Military operation, it is not a killing or assassination. 76.21.97.234 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I suggest another name - Qasem Soleimani's liquidation. In Google, there are a lot of article with such name. Because this is a result of Army's actions, the word "Liquidation" is best. Check in Google results (Qasem Soleimani's liquidation). M.Karelin (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liquidation" in this context is a much less standard term and there may be a section of the audience that interprets it as the US melting down Soleimani into a weird goo. Juxlos (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Qasem Soleimani not the only casualty. 61.219.59.36 (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Is not just Soleimani but also Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.Shadow4dark (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • question mark Suggestion: Can we extend this RM to also consider the title Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. I appears to be a suggestion that have support, also by looking at the numbers from the RFC, so it would be stupid to have another move request after this one, if there is not consensus for "Killing of Qasem Soleimani". ― Hebsen (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Qono and Mhhossein Trolligarch (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There were multiple targets for the airstrike. The airstrike succeeded in reaching multiple targets, including one. It would be incorrect to name the entry after only one of the targets. XavierItzm (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the airstrike was indeed targeting Suleimani, but also al-Muhandis and 8 other people.GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike is OK. Can be changed later, for example after its legality is determined. I hope we will not have a new discussion on the title every day. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support - Better than the proposed title would be Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, but the proposed title is better than the current title. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How about Death of Qasem Soleimani? It's the way Osama Bin Laden's death article is titled and is neutral on either grounds. Seloloving (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Seloloving: - That's a good suggestion. We had a long discussion about possible titles. We should have included that one. Anyway, at this point I think we're simply to trying to decide whether this title (i.e. "Killing of...") is better than the current title. We can always have another move discussion later. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @NickCT:Thank you, and I apologize if I distracted from the vote itself. I only brought it up as it's a title no one else has proposed yet (I ctrl-f the Talkpage) and "Killing, Assassination and Liquidation" smacked of political overtones, not to mention the last one being overly superfluous, in my opinion. I feel my proposed title would serve to cover the the problem of additional casualties incurred in the strike like the Bin Laden raid, while focusing on the main target being the the Iranian commander himself. Seloloving (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Seloloving: - No need to apologize. I also don't think "Killing of..." is the perfect title. The problem is, everyone thinks the perfect title is something different. If we look for everyone to agree on one title, the title will never change. At the moment, I think we all ought to look at the title under consideration and simply ask "is the proposed title better or worse than the current". I'm sure this discussion is going to get recycled in the near future, and at that point "Death of..." can be considered. NickCT (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: Change the title to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and create a redirect from Assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis to this article. Reasons: The WP:TITLE should be recognizable by someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area. The title should be natural, be a likely search term, and a title that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. The title should be Concise, no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Also, event naming conventions say, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Soleimani was a top ranking state representant of Iran and his assassination by the US government aimed to influence the political decisions of the leadership of Iran. Xenagoras (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I just listened to The Daily from NYT who labelled their episode "The Assassination of General Qassim Suleimani" when the initial NYT reports across the board were largely referring to it as a 'killing.' It shows that RS may begin to reference this event using alternate language as it's properly processed by them. I agree with @Levivich that it's too early to make a move for any title rename at the moment. Sleath56 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, because it is the common name and I don't consider it to be more neutral than "killing". Plus, assassination is the word in the specialized military terminology. Pahlevun (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support I also think Assassination would be the most accurate, but would accept Killing especially if it meant (perWikiHannibal) that we don't have this discussion every day for a while. It can always be changed again at a later date if a clearer view emerges. FrankP (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like we have Death of Osama bin Laden and Barisha raid (Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi), we can rename to "Death of Qasem Soleimani". Assassination is another thing, articles about Kennedy and Lincoln are called assassination. This is Military operation !! 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:1:D09B (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The word 'Assassination' may convey a connotation detrimental to the understanding of the article, as it was/is a military operation. The current title is slightly misleading, as it does not mention the names of those killed. Perhaps something like "2020 Baghdad Airstrike and Killing of Qasem Soleimani" would work, although that seems almost too wordy. There is a happy medium somewhere though.Mulstev (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of connotation do you mean? That would not be "detrimental to the understanding of the article" since the "military operation" was in fact "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani". We need to respect the readers and using a wrong title would be "detrimental to the understanding" of the readers. --Mhhossein talk 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Soleimani was killed at a civilian airport in a region where there was no war. Also, his country was not at war with his killers. Xenagoras (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter what type of airport it was?! Also, do the US and Iran have to be engaged in a war so that we consider Iraq a combat zone? Since it's already designated as so by the US government 1 2. Ms96 (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Killing of... as much better than the present title which is vague and misleading. My 1st preference is Assassination of... but I'm willing to go with the present proposal just to get rid of "Airport airstrike". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not like the current name at all, but "killing" and especially "assassination" seem to violate BLP policy. They suggest intent by a living person or persons to intentionally kill a specific person for political or military purposes (with strong connotations of the wrongness of the act) when no such intents have been established by law. The American president maintains (according to this article) that this was an action to disrupt an imminent attack, and not an attempt to kill an individual. That would certainly be neither an assassination nor an illegal or unjustifiable killing, were it true. (That's the hump we've got to get over - to find RS to prove it not true. The POTUS still has a viable defense.) It would be a killing incidental to a military action, the intention of which was not specifically stated as killing one man. But until RS meeting the high standards of BLP clearly give killing this specific man as the intent of those who carried out the action, I think the proposed move is contrary to WP policy. Something like "2020 US Military attack on (whomever, wherever, or whatever group)" would be far more appropriate. It does not presume any illegal motives that would require BLP evidence to support an intentional killing or murder or assassination. Dcs002 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While I agree with the underlying logic of renaming the article to focus on Soleimani, the proposed language is far too loaded, especially given the intense controversy surrounding this event. Killing, targeted killing, assassination, or any language to that effect seems tantamount to taking a stance on the issue. On NPOV grounds, I believe that language should not be used. As some posters have suggested above, I believe that "Death of Qasem Soleimani", in the style of Death of Osama bin Laden, would be the best title moving forward. Astro000 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sort of support with caveats The proposed title is certainly better than the current one, but as many people have cited, the Death of Osama bin Laden title format precedent should be kept. Additionally, the article would need to be restructured to be more about the killing itself instead of making the attack the primary focus of the article. I see why people feel like the title should be kept due to the present nature of the article, but I think that the death of Soleimani is a more notable subject of an article than airstrike itself. pluma♫ ♯ 05:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, since Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah was killed as well. If it was just one high ranking dude (Soleimani) it would be one thing, but in this case there are two significant targets. Hippeus (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hippeus is spot on. al-Muhandis was (1) the founder and commander of a 25,000-strong militia which is considered a terrorist organization by Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States. (2) al-Muhandis himself was listed as a terrorist by the United States back in 2009. (3) al-Muhandis was the Deputy Director of the PMF, a 150,000-strong military organization. This was no 2¢ terrorist. XavierItzm (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While there are many wikipedians support the renaming to killing of Qasem Soleimani, I suggested that this article should be split as well, with information regarding deaths of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis need to split to separate article, while former article will be named Assassination of Qasem Soleimani since it is more focused about itself. The former can be restructured to be focused about the assassination of him (Soleimani), while others like Abu Mahdi will mentioned in separated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.19 (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment with regard to "Assassination of:" There is an ongoing debate over whether or not the killing should be considered an assassination. See: "Was America's assassination of Qassem Suleimani justified?". The Economist. 7 January 2020. The American authorities dislike the word “assassination”, because it implies a flouting of international and humanitarian law. … Barack Obama issued a report on the legal framework guiding the United States’ use of force (which had included a raid on Pakistani territory in 2011 without the local authorities’ knowledge to kill bin Laden). It says: “Using targeted lethal force against an enemy consistent with the law of armed conflict does not constitute an ‘assassination’.” Assassinations, it notes, are unlawful under an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. It is not our place to pick a side in this debate. The killing's legality can be discussed in the article; the title must be neutral.
    • Comment: A decision on whether to use the word assassination should be based primarily on the merit of its own grammatical accuracy. The opinions of "American authorities" who ascribe a negative connotation to it through their own opinion do not matter just as Myanmar government denial of the Rohingya situation did not preclude that page being titled Rohingya genocide. Sleath56 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Sleath56: Assassination has a specific legal definition in American foreign policy guidelines; there is more than just a grammatical difference between assassination and killing. With regard to your comparison to the Rohingya genocide, if a state officially contests the use of the word "genocide", such as the Turkey and the Armenian Genocide as well, Wikipedia relies on inquiries by independent reliable sources to determine if an event meets the criteria of the word. Subsequently, denial of the Rohingya or Armenian genocides are now considered fringe theories. Per the Economist source, there are ongoing inquires into the legality of the airstrike. If independent reliable sources reach a consensus that the airstrike should be classified as a killing then I'll wholly support "assassination", even if American authorities maintain the fringe view that the killing was not an assassination. userdude 23:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SharabSalam: Pinging userdude 23:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also:"A One-Word Accusation Swirls Around Trump's Deadly Strike: Assassination". The New York Times. 8 January 2020.. As long as there is a debate within reliable sources, the title must remain neutral. Legality can be addressed in the prose. userdude 01:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond the topic of legality and this event's placement within the US' framework on assassination, which is nebulous and deserves its own discussion, the view I've stated which is that US government's opinion on 'assassination' is irrelevant in determining the title can elaborated as this: The argument that the title must be determined by the US' position of a 'legal assassination' is a false proposition in my view. Utility of the word 'assassination' would not construe an editorial position on whether or not the strike was legal in the US and domestic appropriation of that term to fit certain connotations is irrelevant and tangential. What in particularly relevant here is how the RS come to describe this, which as indicated in my earlier statement of personal position above is in a process of evolving especially in the currently developing peripheral situation along with the grammatical merit of the term. I believe moving titles to any conclusion is very premature at this time, but if the RS come to adopt 'assassination' as the predominant terminology of reference, discussions on 'domestic legality' or the US government's view are wholly immaterial to this decision on title. Sleath56 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleath56 and SharabSalam:"Assassination" has more meaning than just indicating domestic legality. See, for example, Economist:it implies a flouting of international and humanitarian law or NY Times: as with many politically charged labels, the word has taken on significance broader than any one meaning, shorthand for concerns that Mr. Trump’s decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was unethical, illegitimate or dangerous. There is an ongoing discussion within RSs debating if the term "assassination" is accurate, and (per WP:NPOVNAME) until the point that the significant majority of RSs use the term "assassination" we ought to use the non-judgmental term "killing". userdude 22:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for a reply. As I've iterated, it's my view that the utility of the term to determine a conclusion through any framework of 'legality' is an appropriation of its grammatical merit. Additionally, in the case of the Rohingya genocide, 'Devil's advocate' debates were doubtlessly held on RS with an ultimate objective of debunking and proving that the otherwise, which would to be charge it as a 'genocide', was within the journalistic repertoire. The existence of such debates on RS should not hold precedence in the case of determination over a term's ultimate adoption and ubiquity in parlance through the RS. I believe such was your assessment on the Rohingya comparative citation as well. To which I'd add an addendum that the example of that page determines such secondary appropriative utilities do not demonstrate an infringement of WP:NPOVNAME . As I've said, I don't at the present hold a view on the adoption of any alternative name as I believe the event which was exacerbated by further recent developments has not had a chance to settle in the RS as of this time. However, if the case presents itself that the RS adopt it as the predominant term, that along with the appropriateness of its grammatical merit take the ultimate primacy in a case of determination. Sleath56 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sleath56:Thanks for your clarification, but I don't think it is correct to consider the two RSs I mentioned 'Devil's advocate' debates. Both publications appear to use forms of "kill" rather than forms of "assassinate": Economist NY Times. To reiterate the points I think we disagree on: 1) I argue that there is a substantive difference between "killing" and "assassination" (outside of legality). 2) I argue that, per WP:NPOVNAME, until a significant majority of sources use assassination, we ought to use the more neutral term killing. userdude 06:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Killing" gives an impression of killing someone for trophy hunting. I will support a move to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. It was an assassination of a high profile official of a country on an official business in a third country. "Killing" in the title is inappropriate. Let me make it clear though that I do not like current title either but the word "Killing" for this killing is not a neutral term in my opinion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the name Killing of Qasem Soleimani; Support the name Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and al-Muhandis. This was a deliberate killing as stated clearly by Trump and other US senior officials. Others were killed, but Soleimani was the main target, so for brevity, Assassination of Qasem Soleimani would be a reasonable descriptive name. Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and al-Muhandis would also be a fair descriptive name, but would need sources showing that the US Trump/Pompeo decision to strike included the killing of al-Muhandis as a deliberate action. Boud (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because current title has better neutrality and is broad enough to cover the fact that Qasem Solemimani was not the only person killed. Perhaps we should rename this to the actual name of the operation, analogous to Operation Vengeance or Operation Wrath of God, once the name is publicized. I oppose "assassination" because Sulemani was arguably a military officer killed on the battle field. Calling this an assassination would be taking sides in hotly debated political controversy, a violation of neutrality. [10] Jehochman Talk 14:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the name "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" the most, but Killing of Qasem Soleimani is still a huge improvement over the current title. Militaries assassinate people often throughout history, and even military targets like Reinhard Heydrich, Yamamoto, etc. The fact that another person was killed in the strike is irrelevant; other people were killed in the assassinations of Bin Laden (Al Qaida members), al-Baghdadi (ISIL fighters), and Archduke Ferdinand (his wife). Both suggested new titles are short, concise, and WP:COMMONNAME, unlike the current title. TheNavigatrr (talk) 21:00, 9 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., [11] [12] [13]. 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]
In this case, one can be a high-ranking military official and be a terrorist as well, as first designated by the Obama administration. As for the NYT reporting on his popularity, it’s reasonably well documented that reporting in general, and specifically their reporting, can bury or gloss over the facts quite well. (E.g., their burying of Nazi atrocities against Jews and the debacle of their use of Walter Duranty’s USSR reporting). And it’s also worth pointing out that in nation that is estimated to execute more people per capita than any other nation on Earth, even for petty offenses like “insulting Islam” on their messaging app, demonstrations and public statements might ought not be taken at face value. Even the article you reference cautions that the sentiment they describe as so strong and universal “could be short-lived”.--Fythrion (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich:, @Nerd271: - Solemaini himself was listed as a terrorist by the European Union[1] and was on U.S. terror watchlists. The body he led (the Quds) is considered a terrorist organisation by Canada,[2] Saudi Arabia, Bahrain,[3] and the United States.[4] Given the multilateral assessment that Solemaini was a terrorist, there is no problem whatsoever in comparing him to other dead terrorists such as those from the Islamic State or Al Qaeda. XavierItzm (talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://archive.ph/20130213132209/http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:165:0072:01:EN:HTML
  2. ^ "Currently listed entities". Publicsafety.gc.ca. Archived from the original on 2 February 2017. Retrieved 11 November 2014.
  3. ^ Saudi, Bahrain add Iran's IRGC to terror lists—SPA Archived 10 May 2019 at the Wayback Machine euronews.com
  4. ^ "Fact Sheet: Designation of Iranian Entities and Individuals for Proliferation Activities and Support for Terrorism". U.S. Department of the Treasury. 25 October 2007. Archived from the original on 10 November 2014. Retrieved 11 November 2014.

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.12 (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geographically/culturally obviously Turkey is simultaneously European and Middle Eastern. If we are talking global politics, Turkey is probably Middle Eastern, especially under Erdogan. If we are talking Iraq/Iran affairs, Turkey is European politically -- until we bring up Kurds. This seems bizarre, but the same treatment is given to Georgia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia -- and Armenia doesn't have a centimeter of territory in Europe. Politically, it makes more sense, as those four countries are typically not primarily actors in Arab/Persian/Israeli dramas... until you bring up Kurds, at least :). --Calthinus (talk) 19:19, 8 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]
Arguably, the reactions to this attack (especially from the 3 main involved countries) are the most important and notable part of the article. The attack itself is a relatively straightforward "drone shoots missile", while reactions include making nukes, expelling soldiers, and anti-war protests (and preparations for citizen evacuations, for other countries). Juxlos (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly echoing what MelanieN said, I would say that on a practical note it tends to be easiest to just revisit and trim/condense Reactions sections of articles after several weeks (or more) have passed: it tends to be easier to see which reactions had lasting significance, and also there tend to be fewer people insisting that the response of e.g. Argentina or Brazil is somehow vital. -sche (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

opinion/speculation?

User:WikiHannibal. [14] 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 [15], 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]
Persistent Corvid perfectly explained what I meant. This is not an "interpretation" by an individual named Crispin Smith that PMF forces are officially Iraqi military forces, the source indicates that, as a matter of fact, Iraqi law recognizes them so. For example, this article by The New York Times calls al-Muhandis "a major Iraqi official" and adds that "The militias have since been brought under the umbrella of the Iraqi security forces, and Mr. al-Muhandis was their deputy head." This is a very important point about this event, while this Wikipedia entry has not mentioned it yet.

If there is a problem with letter and spirit, the headline is "United States Killed Iraqi Military Official and Iraqi Military Personnel in the Two Recent Attacks", and it is very rigorously stating it as a fact. Pahlevun (talk) 10:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, concerning the discussion above, I removed two sentences with quite separate meaning, and Pahlevun commented on them separately, so it would be best to keep the discussion separate.

1) At present our article says "Under Iraqi law, killing of al-Muhandis and other PMF members by the United States is a deliberate attack on military personnel and officials of Iraq, since PMF is legally incorporated into the Iraqi security forces by a series of laws and Prime Ministerial orders." I do not contest that "PMF forces are officially Iraqi military forces." However, the source says: "it is hard to interpret the operation, if deliberately targeting him, as anything other than the assassination of an Iraqi government official." I see a substantial shift in what is in the source, and what wiki says. Can you see it as well? Crispin is careful not to say what wiki says. "It is hard to interpret" means it is not completely impossible to interpret it in some other way; his "if deliberately targeting" [al-Muhandis] means he is not sure the attack was a deliberate attack on-Muhandis. The sentence is based only on this source, and it misinterprets it. A better source is needed or it has to be removed. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2) Regarind the second sentence, "A mutual agreement signed in 2008, prohibits the United States from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi territory.", my point was that Iraq did not (in the source) claim the US violated this agreement; the source is a debate ragarding "Some legal experts questioned whether Trump had the legal authority to target Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government", without any official statements. So the sentence was out of context. But I think I have since read an Iraqi Foreign ministry statement which calls it violation of this agreement, so I hope someone will add it into the article later. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to the sources, even that one, it was not an outright deliberate attack on the military personnel and officials of Iraq. This needs to be phrased very carefully. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iraqi PM has been quoted "The assassination of an Iraqi military commander who holds an official position is considered aggression on Iraq ... and the liquidation of leading Iraqi figures or those from a brotherly country on Iraqi soil is a massive breach of sovereignty." This view is not covered in the article. The word "deliberate" can be removed, the sentence was not perfect but it is verifiable and worth mentioning because it reflects views of one side. It is neglected in the article, that's against WP:NPOV. I'll add another sentence with different wording. Pahlevun (talk) 22:13, 7 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]
Alcibiades979,Thrawn0504: Per Newsweek: "According to the U.S. government's 9/11 Commission Report, there was evidence that Iranian officials were instructed to assist Al-Qaeda members traveling between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia through Iran by not stamping their passports" Also: Per Pence's representative: "For those asking: 12 of the 19 transited through Afghanistan. 10 of those 12 were assisted by Soleimani,"source: [1]. XavierItzm (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but nothing saying Soleimani. Alcibiades979 (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the political impossibility of that happening. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Alcibiades979: Soleimani was the leader of Quds since 1997. Quds is in charge of all foreign/military operations. But never mind that. The fact is that you have an elected official (the VP) with access to information you and I have no access to saying that Solemaini was involved. You also have the 9/11 Report confirming that "Iranian officials were instructed to assist Al-Qaeda members traveling between Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia through Iran by not stamping their passports". Absent proof to the contrary, I don't see why Pence's statement must be qualified on Wikipedia's voice in an adversary manner. NPOV remains important. XavierItzm (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/mike-pence-9-11-iran-suleimani-katie-waldman-1480398

Convert to US dollar

Hi, i found the statement: Aropet16 Alex: On 7 January, Iran's parliament approved a €200 million increase in the Quds Force's budget, to be used in two months. The value needs to convert to US dollars since Indonesian Wikipedia use US dollar equivalent of the same article with same source from Financial Times. In Indonesian Wikipedia the value in US Dollars is US$235.5 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.7 (talk) 12:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2020

I would like to change it from teh bagdad airstrikes to kiling of Qasem Soleimani i would also like a add a few more minor details Aropet16 (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sakura CarteletTalk 20:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aropet16: There is a discussion on this move here if you would like to chime in there. Qono (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The economic impact was considerable"

Alcibiades has already trimmed this ridiculous paragraph, which actually read like the title above (fake news, much?) until about an hour ago, but in my opinion the whole thing needs to go. Face it: so far, this is a non-event in economic terms. The Financial Times, for example, has today a whole article on how this is an economic nothingburger . Sample quote: "The price of Brent crude oil topped $70 a barrel on Monday, just shy of September’s $71.95 peak after a drone attack on Saudi storage facilities. Of note is the fact that oil is back near the top of its range that has sufficed for the past year. But the $86-a-barrel peak from October of 2018 remains some way off for now."[1]. Who cares about the stock price of Northrop Grumman? Just get rid of the whole thing. XavierItzm (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My problem with it is that discussing price information is just kind of meaningless because prices aren't monolithic. If Venezuela and Libya were both well and online at 3.2mmbbl/d and 1.5 and there were no truce in sight for the US-China trade war we may not have even seen a .50 cent rise, if this had happened before the shale boom we may well have seen a $10-$20 rise. But it doesn't really mean much because US Shale Oil production, critical to this metric, is irrelevant to this article as a whole. Hell, if we hadn't already had countless let downs like when Abqaiq got hit it would have probably risen higher, but there's not much room for irrational exuberance, and all those people are broke now anyhow. To just say the price did X factors out the incredibly complex nature of pricing. The market has valued this, for the moment as about $1.50 for today's world. But even that is further tainted by optimism over a China trade deal, the latest EIA storage report showing a big draw down, then the Baker Hughes rig counts, etc. etc. So it's just pure speculation. The articles about this all are opinion. Has this had a bullish affect on oil? Absolutely. Is volatility up? Yup. Can you quantify that affect as a number? Sure can't. Alcibiades979 (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ft.com/content/63fda924-30b9-11ea-9703-eea0cae3f0de

New article: The January War

Things shall be moving very fast now, so I've created The January War (Trump's War being unavailable). Have at it! kencf0618 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an overarching article at 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis. And, I don't see any sources referring to this as the "January War". I appreciate your thoughts, but I'm going to delete that article per WP:CSD#A10. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've created an article Trump's phony war which isn't going to happen, but an Iranian garden gnome has deleted it.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with you - how unreasonable (not)... Sir Magnus (talk) 12:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was ahead of the curve here -the article could have been renamed instead of summarily deleted- but I didn't belabor the point. kencf0618 (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-binding" in the lede?

We have "On 5 January 2020, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution to expel all foreign troops from its territory." It would be informative to change to "passed a non-binding resolution" to clarify that the Iraqi government has not yet taken the step of formally telling the US to leave. I haven't edited in years so I'm reluctant to make a change myself. Opinions?

Random citations:

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/01/05/world/middleeast/05reuters-iraq-security-parliament-resolution.html,

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/iraqi-parliament-calls-expulsion-foreign-troops-200105150709628.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/iraqi-parliament-passes-resolution-to-end-us-troop-presence-2020-1

Nuts, now I've forgotten how to sign my post. Like this?: CouldOughta (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Nailed it![reply]

No. The text is factual. "Non-binding" is confusing. Non-binding on whom?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, add as that's what the WP:RS say. Of course the lawmaker's resolution is non-binding, as per the WP:RS. It is very clear and unambiguous: it is nonbinding on everyone on the planet: nonbinding on Iraq's executive power, nonbinding on the U.S. military, non-binding on Wikipedia, nonbinding on you, and furthermore, non-binding on your dog. The sources could not be clearer: it is non-binding, period. XavierItzm (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, add - I disagree that "Non-binding" is confusing. "Non-binding legislation" is something that a lot of legislative bodies do. It's pretty common vernacular, and doesn't seem too jargon-y. NickCT (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European terrorist?

XavierItzm - Looking at this edit;

It's not clear to me that the secondary source provided in the body of the article actually supports this statement. The article says "sanctions were imposed on three Iranian commanders of the Revolutionary Guards including Soleimani for supporting the Assad regime". It doesn't say he was sanctioned for being a terrorist. NickCT (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NickCT, fair enough, I modified the main text to reflect what the source says, and removed the verification template. XavierItzm (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XavierItzm - Ok. That seems fine. If I was going to nit pick, I would argue that you should explain why he was sanctioned. Just saying "Person X was sanctioned", leads to obvious question "Why was person X sanctioned?". I'm not sure mentioning the sanctioning without any explanation is particularly helpful. But honestly I don't really feel strongly about it. I guess saying something ambiguous is less bad than saying something inaccurate. NickCT (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a.k.a. in lead?

Current lede sentence: The 2020 Baghdad airport airstrike refers to a.....

or

Proposed lede sentence: The 2020 Baghdad airport airstrike (also referred to as the Killing or Assassination of Qasem Soleimani) refers to a......

WikiHannibal - Regarding this edit; you know, we could solve this whole darn titling debate, if we simply included everyone's title in the lead. This doesn't seem overly cumbersome to me. Lots of articles use this kind of lede intro (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section). Also, tad disingenuous of you to ask "by whom?" in your edit summary. You've been involved in the discussion above. You know by whom. NickCT (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know by whom. But the article, and esp. the lede, is not for editors "involved in the discussion above" but for readers. As is the whole wikipedia. As for the curent version "The 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike (also referred to as the Killing or Assassination of Qasem Soleimani) was..." is not cumbersome, so I will not revert, even though I still do not like the vague passive "referred to". I can only think of adding "in the media" but do not like that neither so will hope someone else will make it better. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done as per WikiHannibal XavierItzm (talk) 10:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "in the media", b/c 1) that does seem cumbersome, 2) if you look at other examples of where we do this kind of thing (e.g. Mumbai, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Baby boomers, Millennials, Technical debt, Gothic Revival architecture, Expatriate), we very rarely try to describe who uses which term, & 3) saying "by part of the media" is misleading b/c a) probably a majority of media outlets have used the terms in a least one article/segment/piece, and b) a whole bunch of people outside of "part of the media" (e.g. politicians) use these terms. NickCT (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems, the discussion about the title moved from the talk page into the article disguised as these akas. Not sure who likes that, but I do not. I suggest to keep the lede without them for the time being. Contrary to the examples above (which are established), they are evaluative, and controversial (as evidenced in the article history). WikiHannibal (talk) 21:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the discussion just below, I see we have another who seems keen to get the word "killing" into the lead. I would suggest the neutral "death" and leave the legal analysis to the article body.Selfstudier (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not keen on any particular word. I am keen on not seeing the lead sentence unnecessarily repeat five words. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about these 5? Constitution of the United States.
Uhhh... I quite like the consonance? Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, selective in your approach. It's an encyclopedia, not a high school essay competition.Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia can do better than say that the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike was an airstrike near Baghdad International Airport in 2020. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is selective too, and so I ask you once again to read MOS:AVOIDBOLD and MOS:REDUNDANCY. Surtsicna (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does proof by repetition work here.Selfstudier (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiHannibal: - In articles where there are contested or controversial names, the lead often mentions all the names (see Senkaku Islands dispute or Indian Rebellion of 1857). There's clearly a lot of support for names other than "Airport Strike". I think that level of support justifies us getting alternative names into the lead somehow. If not by a.k.a's would you like to suggest another way? NickCT (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence

This change was wrong and undiscussed. This wording should not be reintroduced without consensus. It is against Wiki guidelines, WP:BOLDAVOID and WP:REDUNDANCY. Stating that the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike was an airstrike near Baghdad International Airport in 2020 is absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Surtsicna: You have twice reverted me for putting the opening sentence into the standard format for articles. Boldavoid and redundancy have nothing to do with it, majority of articles are started in this way ie (article name in bold) is (say what it is). Kindly put it back the way it was originally.Selfstudier (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording you introduced is a textbook example of WP:REDUNDANCY and the reason why WP:BOLDAVOID exists. Please read the guidelines I keep bringing up. I did put it back the way it was originally, and that is without the pointless redundancy. Surtsicna (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reassess the article

As of 10 january i found that this article was assessed by wikiproject Iran as mid importance scale. But because for me this event was much international coverage regarding qasem, this article needs to reassess in Wikiproject Iran. I still C-Class but upgrade as High-importance because very much internasional coverage. in French Wikipedia, this article was termed as High-importance (elvee in French) for both Iran and Irak, as well as Middle East French wikiproject but this article in English wiki was High-importance only on Wikiproject Iraq.

CNN Reporter's Comments

I've removed the comments by a random CNN reporter due to inordinate weight afforded to them - as these personal comments/opinions (i.e. not even CNN's official stand) were given the same weight as an official analysis/statement from the Pentagon. Personal opinions, especially from non-notable sources, should be given less weight compared to organisations publishing official analyses or statements (e.g. official government source, think tank or policy institute). --219.75.84.203 (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752

Should Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 be mentioned in the intro? It looks like it was shot down & that was presumably linked to the increase in tensions after the death of Soleimani. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do sources make the connection/presumption? – Levivich 00:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, according to this: "The Boeing 737 took off from Tehran and suffered a catastrophe, which amateur video suggests was a missile strike or other explosion. The blast came hours after Iran had fired missiles at bases used by U.S. troops in Iraq in retaliation for the U.S. assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani at the Baghdad airport. Tensions were high, and it is entirely possible Iran’s air defense forces were on alert and made an error. A full investigation is required to establish the truth." My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani&oldid=935205778"