Wikipedia

Talk:Assassination of Qasem Soleimani/Archive 6

< Talk:Assassination of Qasem Soleimani
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Community Tech bot in topic A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Requested move 28 January 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago40 comments12 people in discussion
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: This discussion has very much been one involving multiple options. As it is clear this has become a defacto "name to be considered" ("?") discussion where no ad hoc consensus will be achieved, I am relisting/restarting the discussion; see below. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike → 2020 Baghdad Airport road targeted killing – The previous two RM discussions focused on Qasem Soleimani, with debates over whether to characterize the event as "killing of", "death of", or "assassination of" Soleimani. But, there is no consensus for a title of that nature because Soleimani was not the only notable person killed by the strike. Meanwhile, as those discussions went on, other, more technical issues with the current title have been left unresolved. (1) Baghdad Airport is more concise – "International" isn't needed in the title. (2) But the event happened as the convoy was leaving the airport, or just outside the airport. Baghdad Airport Road more precisely communicates the location, i.e. it happened on a road, not at the airport (terminals/runways) itself. (3) The term airstrike brings to mind larger offensive operations carried out by multiple aircraft. Targeted killing is a more precise term to describe this event, which brings to mind the use of a drone. I think we got stuck on the current title based on early news reports; later news provided the more specific details about location and weapon used. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Tentative support Not sure if anything better is possible, I do have some sympathy for this suggested move, it is at any rate better (imo) than the previous suggestions. It is exactly the Targeted killing aspect, as well as it being in Iraq, that explains my reluctance to accept a focus on Soleimani alone. It's not just that there were other casualties including at least one other of notoriety. Drone strikes have been mostly off the RS radar recently except in this case where even conservative RS have weighed in on the assassination/legality issues, Soleimani attack: What does international law say? and General Qassem Soleimani: A targeted killing? Or an assassination? while the US authorities have difficulty clearly expressing their position and there was an attempted killing of Quds Abdul Reza Shahlai in Yemen at the same time. The "best" title would likely be too long; I think that between the Qasem Soleimani article (RFC decided to use "assassination" mainly) and this one, the case is covered reasonably well.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Name should not include the airport or the euphemism "targeted killing". This article is about how Soleimani died, the reasons Soleimani was killed, the reaction to his death. The target wasn't an airport road, it was Soleimani! The current name and this one are poor descriptions of this event. Not only are those names not common names, they're used nowhere but this article. No one in their right mind wanting to read about Soleimani's killing would type in this article's title. Everyone looking for "Killing/Death of Soleimani" will instead find this inexplicably-named article. TheNavigatrr (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Seconded. The best by common use/facts would be Assasination of Qassem Soleimani, but it would be hard to obtain consensus. So death, killing is acceptable, I guess.Smeagol 17 (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • This is a better title than the current one. However, it is just utterly absurd not to include the name "Soleimani" in the title. The title should obviously be "Targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani" or "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Response to above comments. Despite this article's improbable title, pageviews indicate that readers were having no trouble finding this from the get-go, and continue to find it – redirects from assassination/killing/death of Qasem Soleimani are available to help those searching for those titles, but they get relatively few page-hits. The search box drop-down suggestions indicate the most searched for "assassination of" articles are John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King (Abraham, Martin and John), all of whom were killed by lone gunmen, albeit with conspiracy theories. Fourth on the list is the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, which led directly to World War I. That's been compared with this targeted killing (World War III (Internet meme)). But the killer of Ferdinand and his wife was largely viewed as a terrorist; he wasn't acting on orders of a government head. This killing was also done in a manner that didn't also (indiscriminately) kill anyone else in the vicinity. So, I think calling this an "assassination" is a euphemism, and either targeted killing or extrajudicial killing (what's the difference between those terms?) is a more accurate term to describe this. I'm sympathetic to removal of the year 2020 from the title, as I don't care for titles that are so generic as to require a year for disambiguation (see "Title history" below), and agree that adding "Soleimani" to the title is a good way to avoid the need for specifying "2020". But I think the way to do this is to specify that the drone attack was on the Soleimani convoy, which clearly indicates that multiple people were attacked and killed. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Because Assassination of Qasem Soleimani was already proposed, and not supported. Other proposed, and not supported names include Soleimani-Mahdi Assassination, Killing of Qasem Soleimani, and Death of Qasem Soleimani. Other names were also discussed. There has hardly been a time without an ongoing Requested move. I do not think it is time to propose a name that has not gaiend support some time earlier. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Red Slash: See Talk:2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike/Archive 1#New Title : Assassination of Qasem Soleimani – wbm1058 (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
As of 2 February, that is five full days after the nomination, the main page still reads that the title is up for a vote change to "2020 Baghdad Airport Road targeted killing", whereas the the killing did not take place on the Baghdad Airport Road. Yet the actual proposal here on the TP has been changed to something else, right in the middle of the !voting. This is procedurally incorrect. This !vote is flawed. XavierItzm (talk)!
  • Comment The precise euphemism is not that critical, "targeted killing" has no legal existence as such (assassination and extrajudicial killings do) it is just associated (invented) terminology associated with drone strikes by usage (mainly in the US).Selfstudier (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the quality discussion we're having here. This piece gets to the heart of the issue of deciding between assassination and targeted killing. The Associated Press Stylebook, considered a news industry bible, defines assassination as “the murder of a politically important or prominent individual by surprise attack”. The Trump Administration characterised the killing as defensive, thus a "targeted killing", not a murder. But Wikipedia defines targeted killing as a form of assassination, and has decided (in its own voice) that Soleimani was assassinated, based on several sources saying so. If Wikipedia consensus is reflective of the consensus of the American people, we have a de facto consensus that President Trump has ordered the murder of a foreign leader. If that's not an impeachable offense, what is? Recalling his boast that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Given the vagueness of the invented term targeted killing (does it or does it not imply assassination?) and that I'm also sympathetic to the argument that the target wasn't an airport road, I'm liking the suggestion (US) drone strike on Soleimani convoy more and more... wbm1058 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: (US) airstrike on Soleimani convoy would also be OK, of course. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Status of my proposal. Hmm, Death of Osama bin Laden, not Assassination of Osama bin Laden {{r from non-neutral name}}. The only element of my proposal that's passing is the removal of "International" from the airport name (at least nobody's objected to that). The term "targeted killing" is too ambiguous and controversial, and "drone strike", which seems an acceptable more specific replacement for "airstrike", is better anyway. I think maybe we can have a title that includes both Soleimani and Iraq:
    US drone strike on Soleimani convoy at Baghdad Airport. That might be pushing the limits on conciseness, but I think it's still reasonably concise. Regarding "airstrike" vs. "drone strike"; airstrike is certainly the more generic and commonly used term, but see Category:Drone strikes conducted by the United States. There doesn't seem to be much precedent for articles about drone strikes. Many people have been killed by US drone strikes, but none of those strikes were apparently notable enough to have their own article. Until now. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Requested moves are all or nothing, there will be no “passing” of the removal of "International" from the airport name without a new move request. Personally just for the sake of reducing ambiguity I would object to that change if you proposed it. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, of course, doesn't mean we can't have a bit of a discussion while it's running, right? It might help with the next one.Selfstudier (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. Horse Eye Jack, can you explain your objection? The only disambiguation needed is for a small airport in Arizona which has a different spelling. GOOGLE Ngram shows growing usage of the term since 2003, and it was the primary name before 1975. "What links here" shows this to be a common redirect. Is there another airport in Baghdad? – wbm1058 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
My objection is based purely on policy, namely WP:COMMONNAME. As the Google Ngram shows there is a clear common name and Baghdad Airport is just a redirect so we don’t really have a choice in the matter. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, fair enough. I think policies give us a little wiggle room on this, given the need to balance commonname against conciseness, especially on articles not about that topic, but where the topic is part of a longer title, but I'm OK with:
US drone strike on Soleimani convoy at near Baghdad International Airport. Should we take that title for a test flight? wbm1058 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need the place (Baghdad International Airport) in the title at all? It is quite long. WikiHannibal (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need to even change the current title? No. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The problem with the current title is that it says that Baghdad International Airport was struck. The airport wasn't struck. The Soleimani convoy was struck. wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
No, the current title reads Year / Location / Type of Attack. The current title makes perfect sense. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 02:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The location is actually Baghdad Governorate, if the goal is to really make the title obscure, use that. The location is near the airport, not at it. No runways or buildings were damaged. The title may state both location and target, e.g. Airstrikes on hospitals in Yemen – the target is hospitals and the location is Yemen. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
That's because that title is airstrikes on hospitals, and this article isn't titled "2020 airstrike on Baghdad International Airport". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 03:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It isn't titled "2020 airstrike near Baghdad International Airport" either. But any title that omits Soleimani is weaker on WP:RECOGNIZABILITY. The current title is downright misleading. It's not going to be obvious to the typical reader unfamiliar with Wikipedia naming conventions that the airport is a location but not a target. wbm1058 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
I suppose US drone strike on Soleimani convoy is OK. Would be nice to have a straw poll on whether the location should be included. wbm1058 (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
It is also worth considering the retaliatory attack title 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and the debate about the appropriate name for that.Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Consensus seems to be trending towards Operation Martyr Soleimani, another title including the name "Soleimani". wbm1058 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
The reason for all the fuss about this particular drone attack is because a line was crossed; its one thing to conduct a "targetted killing" of a non-state actor, it's quite another when you kill the head of a country's armed forces absent a declaration of war (even then it would still be a cause for debate).Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • U.S. drone strike on Soleimani convoy, or variations thereof, is a good compromise name, that I think most people can live with. It satisfies both those that wish to include Soleimani's name in the title, those that oppose the other suggested forms as Muhandis was also killed, and those that wish to keep the focus on this as a military operation. It is only those that want the title to explicitly say that Soleimani was killed/assassinated that would not be satisfied, but the done title suggest that is indeed what happened (leaving the killing/assassination-distinction to personal interpretation).
Wbm1058 procedurally, I think the best way forward is for you to withdraw this requested move, and then open a new one under the drone name. That seems to be within WP:RMCI (at least in the spirit), as of those that have supported your proposal, Selfstudier has indicated support for the drone name, and Snooganssnoogans see it is an improvement, but no the best title. ― Hebsen (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Good point, U.S. rather than US – is there a guideline on that? But, practice indicates that's the preferred form: US seems only used when it's part of an organization's proper name]; U.S. is the form used far more commonly. Right, this is heading for a relisting under your proposed title; keeping it open for just a bit longer. –wbm1058 (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the attack happened on an access road inside Baghdad International Airport and did not happen on Baghdad Airport Road as originally proposed 28 January 2020 and improperly changed over 24 hours later, after 11 !votes and comments had been recorded. Procedurally alone, the !vote process here is flawed and should be discarded, and re-proposed, on those grounds alone. Furthermore, the currently existing title on the article is: (1) WP:COMMON, as described by others above and (2) perfectly descriptive: date/place/what, as explained by others above. The flawed new proposal adds nothing other than confusion and obscurity. XavierItzm (talk) 10:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it seems clear that the attack took place on the road in/out the airport not on the main road (or Route Irish), so it is more correct to describe the location as being the airport although I still think it ought to be drone strike and not airstrike.Selfstudier (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


Title history

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.

Requested move 2 February 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments13 people in discussion
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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 06:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)


2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike → U.S. drone strike on Soleimani convoy – Please review the prior move discussion for this page. This proposal is a followup to/relist of that discussion. In my view, including the name "Soleimani" in the title makes this a far more recognizable title, given that the Iranian response to this drone strike was a military operation code named Operation Martyr Soleimani. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Support as a very good compromise. There have been much discussion about the name because many opposes the current name, but there have not been consensus for any alternative. I think this will satisfy most of the editors and hopefully settle the title discussions. It includes Soleimani's name in the title, as many have asked for. It strongly suggests that he was killed/assassinated, but does not take sides in the killing/assassination debate. It does not suggest that only Soleimani was killed, so also have the Muhandis's death within scope. It frames it as the military operation it was, and are precice about it being a U.S. drone strike. Perhaps some editors are not fully satisfied by the name, but please don't oppose because of that. This is a compromise, and the alternative is that the article is kept on the current name, which many opposes. ― Hebsen (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose the current name is good and satisfies WP:COMMONNAME. I don’t understand the logic of saying that because you believe the page for the response should be named Operation Martyr Soleimani we must therefore name this page "U.S. drone strike on Soleimani convoy.” If we kept the logic consistent wouldn’t we name this page whatever the American military decided to call the operation? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Not another bleeping page move request. The current name is GOOD. Ultimograph5 (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support as stated in the discussion, and by Hebsen. (But I would am quite satisfied with the current title as well.) WikiHannibal (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Yet another move request? This title is even worse than the previous, more encyclopedic entries. It doesn't need to be specified in the title itself that it was a drone strike, it makes no difference, and it also does not need to be specified in the title that there was a convoy, as it makes no difference. This entry is bizarre, needless and tacky and arguably a downgrade from the current one, not an improvement. Death of Qasem Soleimani would even be better in terms of consistency, and that does not need to changed either because it already redirects to this article anyway. RopeTricks (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I suppose the move requests will just keep coming because there seems to be fundamental disagreement. Anyway I think this is a decent compromise between the opposing views, it would be nice to add "in Iraq" to the end of it, never mind.Selfstudier (talk) 10:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose How many times we go spam tittle change? Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis died also.Shadow4dark (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, he was in the Soleimani convoy. The title does not allege that only Soleimani died, in fact it alleges that other people in the convoy was also killed. ― Hebsen (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per every other discussion. Stop trying to change the article's title, get over it. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Better then what we have now, at least. Smeagol 17 (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Arbitrary made up name in opposition to WP:COMMONNAME. XavierItzm (talk) 08:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Soft Oppose better than existing title but again is propagandistically avoiding/covering up what every mainstream new source and government internationally is acknowledging *correctly* as an assassination. Until English Wiki deals with its US political bias this will not be solved. Too many people involved in this topic are emotionally too close to the subject of the article. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 23:24, 15 February 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.

Soleimani drone strike

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Food for thought:

—wbm1058 (talk) 13:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2020

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments9 people in discussion
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: Moved. There is an overwhelming consensus that "assassination" is the preferred term to describe Soleimani's death rather than "killing". The one opposition vote of any weight has no objection to this consensus, but makes a point that Soleimani wasn't the only person killed. I think the precedent of Assassination of Benazir Bhutto helps in this regard. Finally, the use of the term "execution" is wildly inappropriate and not at all neutral. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike → Assassination of Qasem Soleimani – There were a slew move discussions regarding this article several months ago. Proposed names were 2020 Baghdad Airport road targeted killing, U.S. drone strike on Soleimani convoy, Death of Qasem Soleimani, Killing of Qasem Soleimani & Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. While no one seemed to like the current name (i.e. "2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike"), we couldn't seem to produce a majority support for any other title. Now that this event is in the past and emotions have hopefully given way to clearer thinking, I'd like to re-test consensus for a move to "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" as it seemed to be the most popular option in previous discussions. NickCT (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I agree that no-one much liked the current title but couldn't agree on what else to call it. There are several I could agree with, this being one of them. Because, even though others were killed, the only one that anyone seemed interested in afterwards was Soleimani and it's still indirectly doing the rounds because of the recent Iran war powers kerfuffle.Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Killing a military commander on active duty in a military strike is not an assassination. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Fyi (and anyone else interested), WP consensus is to prefer assassination.Selfstudier (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
A less selective reading of that "consensus": 'In terms of strength of argument, it has been noted that both terms are used in reliable sources, so this is really a matter of editorial judgment " JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Struck comments by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 16:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - title proposed is far more recognisable for readers and Soleimani's assassination is what the Baghdad airstrike will be principally remembered for. JLo-Watson (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Soft Oppose Soleimani was the most notable death, but he was not the only person killed. Not just two or three, but nine other people were also killed, whether they were the target or not. Naming the article after only one of the 10 victims seems undue. "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" already redirects to this article anyway. I personally propose simply adding "also known as the assassination Qasem Soleimani" to the lead rather than trying to change the article's title again. RopeTricks (talk) 23:43, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - A much more recognizable title. Anyone new to this topic researching it will have no idea it was at an airport, hence they'd search for his assassination. Rotation4020 (talk) 13:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The bin laden military strike article is named “death of osama bin laden”. Technically it’s an assassination,but that word also carries strong implicit association with “unjustified” deaths. We don’t typically call the deaths of terrorists or their funders/enablers/followers “unjustified.” This guy was an Iranian terrorist in a war zone. Perhaps “Execution of Qasem Soleimani” will present a more neutral view? Bigsundar (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC) — Bigsundar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Legality

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't think there is anymore debate about the legality, as long as you recognise the authority of the UN. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53345885 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.92.196.188 (talk) 17:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under Significance of the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, please add that the Quds Force under him, were considering on working with the U.S. government to fight against the Taliban but that Bush's Axis of Evil listing of Iran hindered this.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:D944:303B:E24D:9592 (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/01/03/when-united-states-qasem-soleimani-worked-together/

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Sentence about media "stoking" and citation.

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, all. I'm a casual reader. The following sentence strikes me as needlessly POV-pushing: "the media stoked fears of a military conflict that ultimately came to nothing.[5]" The citation for this dual assertion is an opinion piece in Newsweek that says the following: "Many pundits on the Left warned that Trump's strike on the Revolutionary Guards [sic] commander was a dangerous mistake—their predictions of World War III circulated on the web. In reality, of course, practically nothing happened." You know it's a bad sign when an op-ed offers a more qualified assertion than the encyclopedia does: The language of "many," "on the left," "warned," and "practically" is replaced by the far more loaded language of "the media," "stoked fears," and "ultimately came to nothing." The sentence literally says all media outlets everywhere made a concerted effort to induce fear in consumers, and that no military conflict of any kind followed the killing into infinity (that's what "ultimately" means). Recommend deleting the sentence, or replacing it with something like, "Some pundits argued the conflict would lead to imminent war, which didn't happen." ~ Peter Scholtes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.240.125 (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I am in full agreement with Peter Scholtes's excellent comment and his proposed sentence is ideal: «Some pundits argued the conflict would lead to imminent war, which didn't happen.» XavierItzm (talk) 15:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

"Iran asked for another Interpol notice "

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@WikiHannibal: Aljazeera's account (US President Donald Trump has had a “red notice” request for his arrest issued through Interpol by Iran) is false, and Wikipedia should not be using it. Red notices are issued by Interpol, not by governments or law enforcement forces; see What is a Red Notice? and Article 3 of Interpol's Constitution. Here's another source explaining it. According to the reliable source I provided,[1] Interpol declined to consider both of Iran's requests, deeming them to be motivated by political or military concerns. Wikipedia saying in WP voice "asked for another Interpol notice" sounds as though an Interpol notice was issued after the first request which wasn't the case. While the Aljazeera article does say later on in the text that France-based Interpol rejected Iran’s request, saying its constitution forbids it from undertaking “any intervention or activities of a political, military, religious or racial character”, the blatantly misleading headline, subtitle, and first sentence of the article should preclude the article from being used as a reliable source.

References

  1. ^ Chappell, Bill (January 5, 2021). "Iran Renews Interpol Request to Arrest Trump, Other U.S. Officials". NPR. Retrieved April 30, 2021.

Source on Interpol's rejection of Iran's first request in June 2020: Reuters. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, 1) I am not sure if, as you say, "blatantly misleading headline, subtitle, and first sentence of the article should preclude the article from being used as a reliable source". 2) What you quote from Aljazeera US President Donald Trump has had a “red notice” request for his arrest issued through Interpol by Iran) is not used in the article; and rightly so, as a lead paragraph is often too simplified and not precise. 3) I will address your concern regarding "as though an Interpol notice was issued after the first request" bcs that may really cause misunderstanding but 4) I reverted simply bcs you had added same/similar info into the article repeatedly not bcs of the nature of the content. WikiHannibal (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassination_of_Qasem_Soleimani/Archive_6&oldid=1238661351"