Talk:Assassination of Qasem Soleimani/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

Wikipedia precedents are mixed:

• Operation Anthropoid was the code name for the assassination during World War II of ...Reinhard Heydrich,
• . After surviving several assassination attempts over the years by the Taliban, Raziq was killed in an insider attack
• Harold Joseph "Harry" Greene (February 11, 1959 – August 5, 2014) was a United States Army general who was killed during the War in Afghanistan.
• Wikipedia has an article on assassination Assassination, maybe that article needs more clarifying
• external link with discussion of the US legal definition of assassination and section on assassination by US government employees. [1]
• I personally think assassination vs targeted killing seems to be based on who the perpetrator was. The military does not like being associated with assassination, assassination is what the 'spooks' and civilian 'insurgents' do, a kind of hold over from the days of Chivalry. There may also be a US legal complication, assassination might be illegal if perpetrated by a US government employeeChurch Committee.
• An internet search of 'assassination' Yamamoto yields hits that imply saying Yamamoto was assassinated is acceptable usage Geo8rge (talk) 15:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• 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)

  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, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with number 4. Anything that states that Soleimani was targeted and not the airport is what it should be.— Preceding Kobesean comment added by Kobesean (talk • contribs) 18:21, 7 January 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

• Number 1 The current title does the job, at least for now. It is succinct and clear about the nature and location of the event. Having specific names in the title minimizes the scope of the event and doesn't reflect the established fact that more than two people died. RopeTricks (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Number 1 (or more reluctantly Number 4). WikiHannibal (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Number 6 Until such time that RSs support "Assassination", or an official code name is publicized. DonFB (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Number 2. There is no dispute among scholars that this is an assassination or a Targeted killing (one form of assassination). Personally, I would pick the title "Targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani". For some, the term "assassination" is charged, whereas "targeted killing" is both less charged and more precise. Can my suggestion be added to the list? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Number 1, or at least for now. The current title is clear and concise. Number 4 is too ambiguous to me, number five does not give the date, and 2 and 3 use the word assassination, which I feel isn't appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Number 2 or 6 (2 is better). A better descriptive title. Yes, other targets were also killed, but the actual significance is the assassination of Soleimani. Also WP:Common_Name seem to tilt this way. This might be remembered in the future as another Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand leading to another Big War. My very best wishes (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Number 6: the article is patently about the killing of Soleimani, not about an airstrike on Baghdad International Airport. The current title is equivalent to having the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand article at 1914 Sarajevo bomb attack. I slightly prefer the word "killing" to "assassination" as it does not have the rather sensationalist connotations associated with the later. I could agree a consensus around numbers 2, 7 or 8, but prefer number 6 as the most neutral. --RexxS (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

• Number 6. News outlets are about 4x more likely to use "killing" over "assassination" for stories about this event: assassination, 4.4M stories vs. killing, 17.2M. "Killing of Qasem Soleimani" follows the formulation used most often by reliable sources, is succinct, and is more neutral than "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani". Qono (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Number 1 is best due to its specificity, but I’d be fine w/Number 4. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Number 2. I have explained my reasons in the discussion above. Pahlevun (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Number 1 for now. Simple and functional descriptive title until dust has settled a bit.--Staberinde (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support Number 1. 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike (the current title) - descriptive, unambiguous, covers the multiple targets which were successfully accomplished. It would be dumb to have an article named after only a subset of the targets, and then to have to go into long winded explanations that there were other targets which were also successfully stricken. XavierItzm (talk) 13:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• 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)
• Number 2 This was clearly an assassination and many international media organisations are describing it as such (BBC, CBC, CBS, DW, Haaretz, Hindu, NPR, Reuters, SMH, Time, WP). I'm sure that in due course historians and academics will also describe it as an assassination. Those opposed to using "assassination" because of the negative definition of assassination need to understand that this definition is flawed and that not all assassinations are bad/unjustified. Those opposed to using "assassination" because lots of people died need to understand that it's not that uncommon for assassinations to result in collateral damage e.g. Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, Assassination of Anwar Sadat, Assassination of Park Chung-hee. Numbers 1, 4 and 5 are too vague - there must have been hundreds of strikes on Baghdad airport since 2003 and no doubt there will dozens in 2020.--Obi2canibe (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Option 2 This is a non-starter. There is a strong precedence for using "Assassination of X when high-profile representatives of states are assassinated. Every other option runs into quite severe POV-problems and the impression that we try to downplay assassinations when the US are behind them. If we opt for any other option than #2, we should change all other articles currently named 'Assassination of X' as well. Jeppiz (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Option 5, then 4, then 1: 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) 11:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 per above discussion arguments made by Pahlevun.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Number 1 Just because Soleimani involved is not a reason to call it other than what it is.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

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

• What about the other notable military officers killed? Nerd271 (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  The Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand also killed his wife. The Assassination of Anwar Sadat killed 10 other people. The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto killed 23 other people. – Levivich 04:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  I do not think any additional notable people died in the assassinations of Anwar Sadat and Benazir Bhutto. But the list can be extended with Assassination of John F. Kennedy and Death of Osama bin Laden, where there did. ― Hebsen (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  An incidental police officer, not previously notable and not killed as part of the actual assassination shooting incident, was the only other person who died in the assassination of JFK. Several other people died in the killing of OBL (which is not titled as an assassination); one of them was a minor notable. In this case, one other highly notable person was also killed. In any case I oppose naming the intended target, Soleimani (with or without the incidental target, Al-Muhandis), in the title. -- MelanieN (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Mel, why not name the intended target in the title? – Levivich 06:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Because there was much more to this attack than the simple killing of one person. And because in previous cases (Abu Bakr, Admiral Hirohito) we have not generally named the target when the killing was carried out by a military operation that killed multiple people; we have named the operation instead. (Killing of bin Laden is an exception to this pattern.) -- MelanieN (talk) 06:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Compared to Soleimani, al-Muhandis is not important. The article mention Soliemani 30 times (and of the listed sources, his name is within 29 of the titles). Al-Muhandis is mentioned five times, not anywhere in the aftermath section, and in no source titles. ― Hebsen (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@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)

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, 4 January 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Qono and MelanieN: - Bit miffed Qono took it upon himself to unilaterally start the move request, opting for the title he likes. Would have been smarter to let Mel do it as a disinterested party. My tally is very close to your guy's, though I see more support for keeping the current title. One way or another, it's clear support for "assassination" versus "killing" in the title is pretty much 50/50. I think it's appropriate that whichever title gets adopted, both words get used in the lead. NickCT (talk) 13:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The article compares this incident to the downing of Yamamoto's plane in 1943. You might notice two things about that: (1) Wikipedia's entry does not use the word "assassination" anywhere on Operation Vengeance's entry and (2) The Operation Vengeance title does not mention Yamamoto at all. One might think something can be learned from the perspective and comparison of a similar event 80 years ago. After all, Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. XavierItzm (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you are missing the rather obvious fact that that was during WWII. The US and Iran are not (officially at least) in the middle of war. We don't have articles on the death of every soldier killed either calling it murder precisely because it a completely different case. It has absolutely no relevance to this article whatsoever. Jeppiz (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If it has no relevance whatsoever, why does the NYT compare the case to Yamamoto's? Are you saying the NYT makes up stuff? XavierItzm (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Related RfC : Soleimani was "assassinated" or "killed"

Please refer to the related article and RfC below RfC: Should the article say Soleimani was "assassinated" or "killed"? link: Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

More countries to add on reactions list

• Cuba and Nicaragua denounced the attacks: IRNA - 1 and 2
• Australian PM Scott Morrison calls for calm: Sydney Morning Herald
• European Council reaction: euronews
• Arab League chief concerned on the crisis, calls for calm: al-Arabiya
• South Africa's ANC party rejects the killing of the commander: The South African

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

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

No misunderstanding, sometimes synthesis may lead to inclusion of a POV which is not supported by any reliable sources. So, both OR and NPOV would be violated! --Mhhossein ^talk 07:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Add South Korea in aftermath section

Can editors add reaction from South Korea in aftermath section, this is already added in Indonesian Wikipedia version with source from Yonhap:

• (Sedangkan pemerintah Korea Selatan memantau situasi keamanan sekitar 1.600 warga Korea Selatan yang tinggal di Irak)

Translated to English as this: While the South Korean government is monitoring the security situation of around 1,600 South Koreans living in Iraq S. Korea 'closely watching' safety of some 1,600 S. Koreans in Iraq. This is statement also from New York Times, which also include Philippines as well Philippines Braces to Evacuate Its Workers in Iraq, Iran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.6 (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Video

There is no section currently about international protests, but here's a protest in Pakistan, in case that section is made:

'Protests Held in Pakistan to Condemn Assassination of General Soleimani' - video from FARS News Agency

There are other protests in many other places too. Victor Grigas (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

It may be getting widespread coverage, but I don't think that is a valid reason for leaving the statement there. The section is supposed to pertain to reactions specifically, and the paragraph does not contain enough relevance to justify the statement's inclusion. Also, inserting a comparison to Trump's previous statement detracts from the unbiased nature Wikipedia is supposed to have, by implying that Trump is a hypocrite (whether or not he truly is should not affect the fact that bringing the hypocrisy to light is in fact biased). I think the statement should be removed. XethroG (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

His name's written قاسم سلیمانی‎ which would be something in the neighborhood of Gasém (a pronounced like the a in father, first letter is like a G but your tongue hits further back, stress on final syllable the cheat to do this is break the sylables up as Ga-sem), soleemanéé (a again like a in father, ee like e in beat, the o is generally like the o in the english so, but some times can be pronounced like the o in boot which is why you see different spellings. Sources generally go with Soleimani, and that's how I'd pronounce it.Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020 - 2

Can you write 10 in word form?And can you include the UTC thing?That would be January 2,2020 at 11pm. 47.16.99.72 (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Which "10"? And we have the time zone UTC+3 already in the info box. We use local time to describe events EvergreenFir (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to have link added to section: Soleimani's trip to Iraq

Hi

Could you kindly add following (at the very bottom) link to:

WikiPage - Soleimani's trip to Iraq - WikiPage

Iraqi prime minister says Qassem Soleimani was in Iraq to 'discuss de-escalating tensions between Iran and Saudis' when he was killed - and claims Trump had asked for help mediating talks after embassy attack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.128.79 (talk) 20:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

First link appears to be a WP:MIRROR; second link is from Daily Mail which has been deprecated (WP:RSP), but it credited the author for Daily Mail, AP, and AFP, so probably there exists a similar article on AP or AFP that is citeable? --Nemoschool (talk to me) 01:19, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Section: In terms of agreement with Iraq

This section gives the idea that Kataib Hizbollah is under the control of the Iraqi government: "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... [Maleki] also said "The assassination of an Iraqi military commander who holds an official position is considered aggression on Iraq"."

This is all technically true. But in reality it's far more complicated. What set this chain of events off was Kataib launching a rocket attack on an Iraqi military base, at which point the US bombed Kataib, Kataib attempted to storm the US Embassy, then the US assassinated Soleimani and its leader. So yes... they're technically part of the Iraqi military, but its worth mentioning here that this means that one part of the Iraqi military launched a missile attack on another part of the Iraqi military which shows just how bizarre the situation is. It continues a bit with Maleki's quote. Al-Muhandis yes was technically part of the Iraqi military but his orders weren't coming from Iraq, had they he'd still be alive as he'd never have been in that car. I have a few more RSs, this is the one I have handy. If I get together a few more sources, would anyone mind if I were to tinker with this section more. Because at the moment it almost comes off sounding as if the US assassinated an Iraqi Military Commander, which while, once again, technically true, is in actuality false. I would prefer something more along the lines of "technically incorporated into the Iraqi security forces by a series of laws." -or- "theoretically". I don't mind the legal part, but once again, they literally launched a missile attack against an Iraqi military base a couple of weeks ago so calling them Iraqi security forces or alluding to that is misleading.Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, good comment. I agree. How do you want to fix it? My very best wishes (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

A separate article on Reactions is discussed above. WikiHannibal (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Also information about Trump's tweet and 52 targets is duplicated in US reaction section. Annihilannic (talk) 22:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)