Talk:Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri

Biden related?

Could we justify having this article being about U.S. president Joe Biden? -The Gnome (talk) 08:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

He authorized the assassination, announced it and has his name in headlines about it. Probably inevitable to see his approval rating tied to it somehow for a while. It is a rather long and intrusive sidebar, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The sidebar is relevant enough to be present. It should be modified so that it can be collapsed. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant sidebar, Bidens contribution was to approve an action between mouthfuls of ice cream. The Bin Laden murder has the Obama sidebar which feels like a stretch as well. --LaserLegs (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Biden's role in this was minimal. The "Presidency of Joe Biden" category is justified, and maybe even the embedded video of Biden announcing the killing, but not a giant sidebar with Biden's smiling face looming large over the article. Storchy (talk) 13:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

How about if the sidebar were collapsed? Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I've just WP:BOLDly added "|state=collapsed", but that doesn't seem to have worked. Perhaps that's only about collapsing the subsections, which appear to be collapsed by default. Storchy (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

It needs to be modified so that it can be collapsed, like many campaignboxes and templates are. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 14:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Title

Which sources refer to this as an assassination? Most sources I read use the word "killed", which would mean this should be called "Killing of...." 331dot (talk) 10:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

AFP. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Also the Times of Israel. Storchy (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Headlines don't count. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Killed; CNN, Reuters, Politico, TOI 331dot (talk) 14:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• It could be called an assassination but most I see are using killing. Killing of Osama bin Laden is also at killing.PrisonerB (talk) 14:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• As absurd as it is to not call an assassination an assassination, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(violence_and_deaths)#Flowchart already covers this. I think that doc is a mess, but so long as it stands WP should adhere to it. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that flowchart. At the top it nods to WP:COMMONNAME, and "killing"/"killed" is by far the most common usage in the press at the moment. Storchy (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The talk discussion for that page at WT:Naming conventions (violence and deaths)#Assassination is missing, notes that assassination is not covered by that flowchart - there's little consensus. Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Assassination - the killing of Osama bin Laden is not comparable. That was a "a kill-or-capture mission". There was no scenario in this case that would have resulted in al-Zawahiri surrendering. What is comparable is the recent Assassination of Shinzo Abe. There are media references for this such as https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/8/4/ayman-al-zawahiris-assassination-spells-bad-news-for-the-taliban, https://theprint.in/opinion/zawahiri-kill-question-if-assassination-ends-terrorism-why-cant-others-follow-us/1066911/, https://www.timesofisrael.com/months-of-efforts-to-track-al-qaeda-chiefs-pattern-of-life-key-to-assassination/ - particularly in Middle Eastern and South Asian media Nfitz (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
• Killed. When I write about this event, I use the word "assassination." But I am not a "reliable source". And, therefore, it does not matter if I make a good case for my preferred term, like Nfitz just did. The fact is that, whether we like it or not, WP:COMMONNAME rules and the most commonly term used is, by far, "killing." -The Gnome (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
• Question for clarification: What is the policy for the use of 'killing' vs 'assassination' in the article text? It seems like both are being used at the moment. Should wording in the text reflect the wording in the title/the consensus here? user:kevillarreal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:32, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Sherpur or Shirpur?

I see both spellings in RS used by the article at the moment, and we don't have an article on it yet. Storchy (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested source

[1] — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 00:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe he's dead

there is no proof Udehgfjed (talk) 00:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Udehgfjed You are free to believe as you wish. This article summarizes what independent reliable sources say, and they report that he was killed by the US government. If they are in error, you will need to speak to them and get them to issue corrections. 331dot (talk) 01:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

He's dead. Accept. Process.PrisonerB (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Without wishing to get into a debate about the topic that does not help improve the article, note that if he were alive it should be fairly straightforward for him to release a video where he holds up a copy of a recent newspaper, discusses events that took place after 31 July, or offers some other proof of life. Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It's easy, of course, but foolish enough to remain unlikely. Remember, this guy (reportedly) stayed alive for 20 years by laying low and would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for that meddlesome Internet. Of all times to toot his own horn, now is probably the most suicidal. I'm not saying I think he's alive and I'm not saying I don't. Just asking you to consider what you'd do if you were a highly evasive fugitive who can now very plausibly convince most suspicious people you only resemble the notorious-but-dead outlaw you (hypothetically) actually are. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Also with the quality of deepfake videos now, the value of a posthumous video or audio is diminished.PrisonerB (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Greene notability?

The Republicans side-lined her some time ago, she's a known nut - her opinion doesn't matter - if a more reputable/stable member of the U.S. gov't has objected, that would be appropriate of a mention. 50.111.41.243 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, no need for a very minor viewpoint.PrisonerB (talk) 11:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Legality

There's nothing in the article about the legality or illegality of the killing, or about possibly conflicting legal opinions about it, apart from one brief mention with a German-language source of a professor saying he believes it's a violation of international law. There are three 'jurisdictions' to consider:

• Firstly, the killing took place in Afghanistan. Presumably it would be treated as murder there, with the perpetrators liable to prosecution if they later set foot in the country? Have the Taliban said anything about this?
• Secondly, what is the legal basis for an act like this under US law? If the president directs US personnel to kill someone, what is the legal provision by which he or anyone else down to the person who pushed the button are not thereby guilty of murder or some other crime?
• And finally, under international law, what are the legal implications of the government of country A assassinating someone in country B, when A and B are not at war?

I don't have answers to these questions, but the article is missing an important area if they are not addressed. Please note I am not asking about nor making any point here about the morality of this killing. Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure, it was probably illegal under Afghan law. But other than that, the legality of strikes against a terrorist leader isn't an issue that must be expanded in each article on such a strike.PrisonerB (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

We don't want needless duplication, but it might be a good idea to link to wherever we discuss this topic, if anywhere. I feel like if a terrorist leader were to be assassinated in the United States by means of a bladed missile dropped from an aircraft operated by a foreign country, the article would read rather differently, don't you think? Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Beorhtwulf: It's an important part of the story but do you think the main stream media will cover the legality of the action? I just made a rather quick search which brought up [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6] (this one is an Op-ed but still can be insightful). These sources the legality status of the action is disputed. Let me know your thoughts pls. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Can we make the article semi-protected?

Since this article is about an operation of killing someone important, don't you think this needs to be protected in some way, so someone doesn't add some crazy conspiracy theory onto the article trying to make it facts? RowanJ LP (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. According to its history, within a dozen of days of its creation, there have been a total of 11 users (six of which are IPs) who committed changes which were later tagged as "Reverted". My personal opinion is to apply pending protection since the article is not significantly popular enough.197.2.17.143 (talk) 04:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, just need to get someone to do that. RowanJ LP (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is what you want. I submitted a request on your behalf. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The request was turned down. Jokes were made. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)