Talk:Assassination of Qasem Soleimani/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

Do sources make the connection/presumption? – Levivich 00:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

Should be incorporated more directly than just as an See also article. WikiHannibal (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officer who made the decision to shoot down the plane just held a press conference in which he stated that the plane was mistaken for an incoming cruise missile. See NYT article here. It's pretty clear at this point that the strike on Flight 752 was a major component of this event and should be mentioned in the article. Jacob.stein (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

There are sources that do make the connection. [1] [2] [3] Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There's clear consensus from the sources, including the IRGC officer asserting responsibility (direct or indirect?) for launching the missile, that this was an incident (accident, no sources claim it was deliberate) in direct relation to the Soleimani assassination. Boud (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• I think this can be noted in the Aftermath section, but not in the lead. None of the sources claims that the assassination was the reason for hitting the Ukrainian plane, unless the Iranian side will admit they intentionally hit the plane in response to the airport strike. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Iran's supreme leader comforts Qasem Soleimani's relative.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Title Re-Proposition: Assassination of Qasem Soleimani

Unsure how the Move Request works, may look into it later time permitting, but Assassination of Qasem Soleimani is the title that describes the event with the most lasting accuracy, when examining the historical intent ("a decisive 'defensive action' for prevention of further attacks on American diplomats and military personnel"), and outcome of the event (it was successfully carried out). "2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike" does not detail the outcome of the event; and is also grammatically clunky. I oppose "Death of" or "Killing of" for many obvious reasons: the event was a political/military operation, "death" and "killing" does not describe the operation as political/military. To the point raised about the death of other figures during the operation: this is secondary, and implied in any significant event, per WP:Recognizability a major point of a title is "recognizability". The operational goal and subsequent outcome wasn't a strike on an airport as the current title may imply, but to assassinate a political target. To the point of "assassination" being non-neutral, this is bias and needs to be consistently pointed out as such. If the event was not an assassination, then what, by definition, constitutes an assassination? The word assassination is commonly used in history to describe a political event where a major figure was intentionally targeted and killed. Nobody says the 'the assassination of John Lennon" (to use a non-political figure) and says it derides Mark David Chapman. Use of the word doesn't imply what "side" you're own; that is user-created bias, exacerbated by the current hyper-polarized era. A consistent absence/deletion of the word "assassination" is against Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as it doesn't give "proportional" weight to the event being political/military in scope. To the point cross-referencing "Death of Osama Bin Laden" as precedent for "Death of", which would fall under Wikipedia:CONSISTENT, that's an entirely different type of event; that operational goal was to capture or kill Bin Laden; his death was the outcome, but not the only goal, unlike this event. --Stono rebellion (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

See the first section of this talk page, this has been very heavily discussed. Juxlos (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Juxlos, stating the obvious isn't beneficial for anyone. My proposal/re-proposal tries to crystalize several prominent points, while pointing out the inherent, continual bias in avoiding use of the word "assassination" which is inconsistent with Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view as I pointed out above. I didn't create another move proposal as I've no experience with the protocol, and there's already one open for → Death of Qasem Soleimani, which I oppose as I've noted. --Stono rebellion (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that assassination is the best title (with killing being second-best), but we can only have that in the title if we mention Soleimani. And unfortunately it seems many oppose doing so, because he was not the only one killed. This is the primary blocker for a rename. The trouble with requested moves is all though reasons are given, all nuances becomes support or oppose. I can't really tell if opposer think the current title is fine, or if they just opposes the particular proposed title. I think it is beneficial with a broader discussion about what people think about naming, instead of just going ahead and proposing another title. For me, "Killing of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis" is a reasonable compromise. But I have no idea whether people like that or not, so not going to nominate it. ― Hebsen (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

unfortunately it seems many oppose doing so, because he was not the only one killed. This is the primary blocker for a rename. Their argument is rather weak and unconvincing. Neither Benazir Bhutto nor Franz Ferdinand were the only ones killed, but just like Qasem Soleimani, they were the primary targets of the assassinations. M.Bitton (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Recommendation: Creating New Page for Death/Killing/Assassination of Qasem Soleimani

I mentioned this before in my comments related to renaming this article, and I'm presenting this as a solution:

It is abudnantly clear that the majority of people on here agree on two things:

1. That the page should not be renamed to focus only on Qasem Soleimani
2. That the people who want the name changed can't agree on what to call it

To that end, I recommend creating a new page focused entirely on the circumstances related to the death of Qasem Soleimani and have this current page link to that new page. This frees up this page to focus primarily on the airport attack, and a brief summary of the death of Qasem Soleimani can be put on this page.

Would there be support for this move at this point and time? LuvataciousSkull (talk) 13:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The "circumstances related..." are already in the page Qasem Soleimani.Selfstudier (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I used "circumstances" only because no one has agreed on Death / Killing / or Assassination being the appropriate title. That said, there are countless pages for the circumstances around the death of people such as Martin Luther King, Jr, John F. Kennedy, Osama Bin Laden, and countless others. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. The RFC decision at Qasem Soleimani is to mostly use assassination so between that page and this one, everything is covered.Selfstudier (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2020

Can someone please close this so we can re-propose for "assassination"? Thank you! :) Red Slash 04:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for the article to be moved the requested title, leaning towards consensus against. Another requested move may be opened in the future proposing to rename the article to one of the alternative titles discussed below. (non-admin closure) — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

---

2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike → Death of Qasem Soleimani – Though reliable sources typically refer to this as the "killing of" or "assassination of" Qasem Soleimani, editors in previous move requests have objected to these as loaded terms conflicting with Wikipedia's NPOV policy on titles, so I am proposing the neutral "Death of Qasem Soleimani". The current title makes it sound like this was an attack on the airport itself, which it was not. Though others were killed in the attack, Soleimani's death was singled out by the vast majority of reliable sources as being the most consequential. His name is the most recognizable and the most natural. This new title is precise, concise, and consistent with the naming of articles about the deaths of other important figures. It meets Wikipedia's criteria for good titles. It is neutral and non-judgemental. Editors preferring the stronger "killing of" or "assassination of" may consider that, while "Death of Qasem Soleimani" is not their first choice, it is a better choice than the current title. Qono (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support as better than the current title, which is technically correct, but totally fails to explain what this is about. Personally, I prefer "killing" or "assassination". Most opposition on the previous move request was based on the fact that al-Muhandis was also killed, and I believe that opposition will also show here. They have a strong case: although he was not the target, al-Muhandis was not a nobody, and his killing will affect U.S.–Iraq relations. I believe that the only title that is able to gather broad support is Death of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, or with death replaced with killing or assassination. That is a reasonable compromise. ― Hebsen (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support as better than the current title.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support but only for second title as Hebsen proposed is Death of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Only refer as Death of Qasem Soleimani violates the NPOV policy and I oppose that move to Death of Qasem Soleimani only because beside Qasem, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis also notable people that was killed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.137.188.124 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Support - "Death of...." is a bad title b/c 1) it's not common in media, and 2) it's not neutral b/c it plays with words to effectively "sanitize" the actions the US took here. Those two things said, it's still clearly better than the current ridiculous title, which is terribly misleading, inconcise and fails to highlight the notable aspect of the event. A bad title is better than a terrible one I guess...... <sigh> NickCT (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I'd still prefer "Assassination" or "Killing", but it's a step in the right direction. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Qasem Soleimani is the proper place for describing the death of that person, this article is not merely about his death.Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Neither was he the only casualty, nor is this article basically intended to only describe the very process of his death. The majority of those voting against moving it to "Killing of Qasem Soleimani" up there have already expressed their opposition toward making it an exclusive case of death/killing/assassination of Qasem Soleimani. Please stop this. Ms96 (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "those voting against moving it " were a minority. NickCT (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

    By my count, it was close to 50/50. But Ms96 talks about he majority of the opposes. And that is certainly true. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

    • We tallied an older discussion and got people in support "Killing of" vs "Assassination of" vs Keep Airstrike at approx 1/3 each. A super majority support some title other than the current title. NickCT (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

      Yes, but most that supported killing also supported assassination. When I group those, it is only a slight majority. And that is not sufficient for a consensus. (I can't really say if you refer to the RM on 6 January or on the RFC prior to that. I deem the latter outdated, considering this is very recent news.) ― Hebsen (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title adequately summarises the aggressive and militaristic nature of the attack, together with its location. The suggested title "Death of ..." is vague and unhelpful. (Perhaps he died in his sleep?) It also completely overlooks the fact that nine other people were killed in the airstrike, focussing solely on one victim. I find it disappointing that another RM was begun so soon after the failure of the previous request. If this one fails too, give it a rest. WWGB (talk) 03:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Any attempts to tidy up the assassination with 'death' or 'targeting killing' are misleading military doublespeak and not politically neutral. The events are the definition of an assassination and is used in all major news sources now, even in the US. The article title needs to reflect this. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. He was not the only one. --Nicola Romani (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – "Death of ..." title, in an instance where the person was killed, is a horrible euphemism. We should clearly state what happened and not obfuscate at the detriment of NPOV. He did not just drop dead. Some one planned and executed an operation to kill him. I support Killing of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This must be "Assassination [or Killing] of..." per comments by multiple contributors in the previous discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose -- has all of the problems of "Killing of ..." and none of the advantages. On the one hand we emphasize him over the others. On the other hand, we obfuscate what actually happened. The title should describe the topic. When it is so vague as to possibly also mean he tripped over his shoelace on the stairs, it's actually less descriptive than "2020 Baghdad ... airstrike". --Calthinus (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

  Calthinus, would you be OK with "Killing of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis"? Yes, others besides those two were killed but they are not notable, in the same way that there were other casualties in the Killing of Osama bin Laden. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

  Yes.--Calthinus (talk) 12:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose WikiHannibal (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Soleimani was not the only victim! UniSail2 (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  UniSail2, would you be OK with "Killing of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis"? Yes, others besides those two were killed but they are not notable, in the same way that there were other casualties in the Killing of Osama bin Laden. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose "Death of Qasem Soleimani → 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike" would be a more appropriate application of the request. Considering the chronology of events, one event leads to the other, it would reveal a more insightful cause as to why Qasem Soleimani was killed in Iraq and not in Iran! -- obamanator1793 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support, unless the scope of the article and its lead seriously changes. Despite claims to the contrary, this article is all about taking out Soleimani, in particular, and the political fallout for doing so, with very little mention of any other aspect. As at the concurrent Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden#Requested move 8 January 2020, I oppose using "Killing of...", per WP:PRECISE, which instructs us to only be as precise as is actually necessary. It's also a WP:NPOV problem; as Red Slash put it at that RM: 'The word "killing" puts the focus on the people who killed him. The word "death" keeps the focus on [him].' Given that lame-ass Hollywood movie about Bin Laden, there's already been too much borderline-propagandistic focus on the people who killed him and various other Islamists. Military people following orders and procedures and doing their [sometimes fatal] job isn't the encyclopedic topic. And while the US airstrike on Baghdada Intl. Airport, as such, could be one, that is not the article that has been written; it is about an airstrike to kill Soleimani, which incidentally happened at a particular place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  You opposition to "Killing of ..." is entirely POV. If Iran killed Donald Trump, would you argue for the title to be Death of Donald Trump. I don't think you would. Your world view is clouding your analysis of the matter. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

• See also: Talk:Death of Osama bin Laden#Requested move 8 January 2020.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose both "Killing of X" and "Death of X" for the exact same reasons given in the prior name change/move discussion. Users MS96 and Selfstudier make fair points, this article is not exclusively, solely about Qasem Soleimani dying and describing the processes of the death itself. You can simply go to Soleimani's page for that. Given the overly militaristic nature of the event and that several other IRGC officials and Iraqi paramilitary dignitaries also were killed, not just one consequential man, naming the entire article "Death of [insert one individual here]" is needlessly misleading and not neutral. Current title does not seem to violate WP:COMMONNAME. RopeTricks (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

  RopeTricks, can you point to some sources that use the term "Baghdad International Airport airstrike" to refer to this event? Because that is what COMMONNAME means. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You are right, my point on that specific regard is dubious at best. But my general point regarding the article name's exclusivity and neutrality remains. RopeTricks (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

RopeTricks, would you be OK with "Killing of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis"? Yes, others besides those two were killed but they are not notable, in the same way that there were other casualties in the Killing of Osama bin Laden. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I think this article should be titled to reflect its overly militaristic nature and that no specific name should be in the title, considering that not 1 or 2, but multiple casualties resulted from the strike. Similar to how Barisha raid is not titled "Killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi". Also that I think the current title adequately gets the point across on what occurred during the event. "2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike": An Airstrike occurred in 2020 on an access road just yards from the BIA that resulted in multiple KIAs as a part of a military operation. I just don't think putting specific names in the title is completely necessary at this point in time. RopeTricks (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title fails the following characteristics for a good Wikipedia article:
  • Consistency: 9 of 10 of the Google search results for the proposed title ("Death of") are not consistent with the following articles...
    • Death [consistent with the proposed title]
    • Death of the novel
    • Death of the Virgin
    • Death of a Superhero
    • The Death of Dick Long
    • List of unusual deaths
    • Death of Samantha
    • The Death of Virgil
    • Death of a Ghost
    • Death of a Dude
  • 10 of 10 of the Google search results for the current title ("airstrike") are consistent with the following articles...
    • Airstrike
    • 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike
    • July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike
    • Chenagai airstrike
    • Gora Prai airstrike
    • 2019 Tajoura migrant center airstrike
    • H-3 airstrike
    • Qana airstrike
    • 2017 Mosul airstrike
    • Airstrike (disambiguation)
  • Recognizability: Of the two proper nouns, the proposed title of "Death of Qasem Soleimani" includes the name of the person "Qasem Soleimani" who has 25 million hits from a Google search. The current title of "2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike" includes the name of the city "Baghdad" which has 85.3 million hits from a Google search.Pen1234567 (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Pen1234567, I cannot comprehend you oppose. If your consistency-argument that "Death" is used in culture, so it would be inconsistent to also use it here? And your recognizable-argument that Baghdad, the capital of a country, is more known that an Iranian general, so we should use the first? Could you please elaborate. ― Hebsen (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
• Editors active here might be interested in Talk:Barisha raid#Requested move 21 January 2020 ― Hebsen (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:EUPHEMISM and WP:NOTCENSORED. The target of the raid died a violent death, i.e. was killed. To obscure this fact is not neutral. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, other people were killed as well not just Soleimani, this is downplaying the attack and might indicate he died peacefully instead of being killed. Primdena (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Multiple targets were hit by the airstrike. It would be misinformative to name the entry after only one of the targets. Furthermore, it should be noted that at least one of the other targets hit by the airstrike was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah, who self-evidently was a blue-linked terrorist himself. 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, and the title should not adopt a misleading slant with regard to the astrike itself nor of its results, by eviscerating al-Muhandis from the title. XavierItzm (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – I'm not seeing evidence that "Death of ..." is the common name, and I'm not seeing any other reason under WP:AT for the proposed move. While I don't think the current title is necessarily the best title, I don't think that "Death of ..." is any better than the current title for now. Also, thanks to Xavier for explaining that there are two kinds of terrorists in this world: blue-linked terrorists, and 2¢ terrorists. – Levivich 01:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Re-propose with "assassination". I agree with SmcCandlish who agrees with me that "killing of" puts the focus on the killers rather than the killed, but "assassination" (since it is a noun, not a verb/gerund) is more balanced. It's obvious that the killing of this man was absolutely an assassination under any reasonable definition, and although other people died, Soleimani got the vast vast majority of the coverage. And of course, the article about this killing should have the name of the person who made it so notable in the title. The current title is an absolutely absurd compromise. "Death" isn't going anywhere because people want to make sure everyone knows it was violent. Well, "assassination" should work. Red Slash 04:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  • "Assassination" was also the outcome at Talk:Qasem Soleimani#RfC: Should the article say Soleimani was "assassinated" or "killed"?. – Levivich 04:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.