Talk:Stabbing of Salman Rushdie/Archive 1

Archive 1

"carrying a fake license"

A license for what, exactly? I assume this means a driver's license? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have mentioned it in the article, as per the citation. Kpddg ^(talk) 15:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Khamenei's website

In 2019, Khamenei's official website published a 1992 speech, "You can see today every imperialist institution, and their scribbling henchmen and hirelings have made a united front in defending a worthless person who presented "The Satanic Verses" to the world: that blasphemous heretic Salman Rushdie." Human rights in Islam is to defend the rights of oppressed - Khamenei.ir 2601:C4:C300:A210:CD7A:1388:EDED:384F (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Suspect name

If and when he's charged it may be appropriate to name the suspect, but until then I think WP:SUSPECT says we should be cautious in naming a living person until they've been convicted, much less even charged. nableezy - 01:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree. If they'd picked him up on the street, and there were no witnesses, maybe. But there's video, hundreds of witnesses, and he was arrested at the scene. There's zero doubt on this, and no requirement to protect the failed assassin. Nfitz (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Its not about protecting anybody. What part of WP:SUSPECT do you think does not apply here? And what is gained by naming him before he is charged? We can ask BLPN if youd like though, I dont care too much tbh. Just read the article and it seemed out of place at this stage.

But that was removed per WP:BLP and you should not be restoring it absent a consensus to do so per WP:BLPRESTORE.

I dont really feel like edit-warring over this, but the restoration was improper. For now I raised it at BLPN nableezy - 04:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• You, User:Nableezy raised this at BLPN after a single edit by me; this may be the biggest over-reaction I've ever seen here and a massive violation of WP:AGF! I don't see how SUSPECT applies at all - it was never intended for a high-profile assassination attempt in front of hundreds of witnesses, and arrested at the scene. And then there's the announcement by the police they will be charging him. You are applying a black and white lens here - which isn't how Wikipedia works. I'm also puzzled why you seem to be arguing with yourself above. A single response should be made, rather than three (contradictory?) responses within a few minutes. Nfitz (talk) 04:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Its not an attack on you, its a request for outside opinions. As far as three responses, they are all indented to you, and they arent contradictory. I suppose I could have combined them in to one, and now I did. nableezy - 12:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Agree, high profile assassination and the suspect was tackled to the ground at the scene. His identity isn't a mystery. The entire attack is on video. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. This is pretty clear cut; like Lilach5 said; a high profile assassination (attempt at this point). Suspect was found at the scene, identified by hundreds of witnesses with video evidence. I see no justifiable reason to not include the suspects name. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I cant say I agree but I wont argue against this anymore. But I feel like our BLP policy exists specifically for the people we dislike and we should be following it especially closely in such cases. nableezy - 12:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

offtopic nonsense
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Nfitz and Chuckstablers:, look at the bottom of the User:Nableezy page. He says he supports "right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation" while naming Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a Lebanese terror group supported by Iran, and Lebanon hasn't been occupied for over two decades. "Resistance" by Hezbollah is how Hezbollah describes all their actions. Iran has also gone after Salman Rushdie. That statement on his user page shows he can't edit this page. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC) I'm really not sure the relevance of much of that User:לילך5. Besides as far as I know, Hezbollah is active in portions of Israeli-occupied Palestine. Surely most would support an end to any military occupying other nations throughout the world - which while hopefully peaceful, will surely be violent when ethnic cleansing is or has been occurring. Further I don't see any political reason to hid the name - surely those in support of murder, would be celebrating ... I don't see that this shows bias. Do any of their other edits on this page show bias? Nfitz (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC) @Nfitz: Hezbollah has attacked civilians in northern Israel, which is Israel, nothing to do with Palestine. However, relevant to this page Hezbollah vowed to kill Rushdie,[1] and the attacker here was a supporter of Hezbollah, carrying a fake ID evoking the name of a Hezbollah terrorist.[2] When Hezbollah says "Resistance", it means acts of terror by Hezbollah around the world.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 09:00, 13 August 2022 (UTC) If you are unable to read the infobox and see it does not say Hezbollah, that seems like a personal problem. You are obliged to follow WP:NPA. What bias do you think I have here? Pro murder of Salman Rushdie? WP:NPA is not an option here. Comment on the content, not the contributor. If you think I have a conflict of interest here you can raise it in the appropriate forum. I am collapsing this bullshit. nableezy - 12:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Khomeini was immensely vain. At the beginning of the fourth part of the Satanic Verses, he is described ruthlessly. The fatwa was personal revenge. --87.170.202.199 (talk) 09:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

His name was established everywhere on the news. He’s a suspect, and therefore his name should be there. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t matter if he’s been charged or not. Any suspect must be listed eitherway LordBossMaster100 (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

User LordBossMaster100 is entirely correct. We are calling Matar a suspect in the article, he is called the suspect in the RS, and he is, in fact, the suspect. Naming the suspect in a stabbing is an entirely standard procedure for a page like this. Joe (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

And another important thing that you need to look at. He was apprehended by multiple people at the scene of the crime. It’s a slam dunk. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

@JoePhin: Exactly, he’s a suspect and must be labelled as one. And since he was taken down by a lot of people moments after the stabbing, it’s clear cut, people obviously knew it was him. More people agree that Hadi should be labelled as a suspect than him not being labelled, IPs won’t read the discussion. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 11:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECTS only comes in if there’s not enough proof stating otherwise, but like I said, a lot of people apprehended him, a lot where at the event so it’s a slam dunk. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont really know where any of this is coming from in terms of when SUSPECT comes in to play. What it says is

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

Is Mattar a public figure? No, then SUSPECT comes in to play. Clearly a lot of people feel otherwise, but I do not see how the policy does not apply based on things being raised here. nableezy - 12:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

He’s a suspect and should be labelled as one. More people agree that he should be on there. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, youre just asserting something without responding to the point at all. Ah well. nableezy - 12:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not edit war. 1, 2,...Kpddg ^(talk) 12:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think there is clearly consensus to include it, but I do think that is incorrect. And Ive requested semi protection to stop the IP edit war. nableezy - 12:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The IP is the one at fault the most. Not me. Because I actually partook in the discussion and they didn’t. I don’t try to edit war and I do sincerely apologise if any stirs have rose, it’s thanks to people like them that cause problems, it’s like they do it on purpose to screw over other people. I believe and taking note of all the points, the bottom line is most people in this discussion agree that he should be labelled as suspect rather than people not agreeing, it’s a fact. it’s not like anyones saying “oh yeah it’s him, he did it” nobody’s pointing any fingers, suspect labelling isn’t some accusation of guilt. For example of one case, XXXTentacions killing, all the suspects got labelled and nobody pointed any fingers saying who specifically shot him, the world “alleged” was placed, so it’s not saying IT WAS, it’s saying it COULD be. it’s only sticking to the facts. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

When an IP is edit-warring against consensus just ask for semi-protection, much easier than continuing the edit war. When applied, revert back. nableezy - 13:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I never really apply for that because I hardly edit pages like this and I didn’t really know where exactly the reporting site was. But I have a better idea now. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The consensus to include the name is clear enough. I appreciate the sentiment behind WP:SUSPECTS, and if we were merely reporting on a person who had been accused of a crime, I might agree that we should strike the name for the meantime. However, Mr. Matar made himself a public figure when he got up on the stage with Sir Rushdie in a public place, in full view of everyone at the event. Mr. Matar is no longer a low-profile individual, and as such WP:SUSPECTS no longer applies. Moreover, WP:SUSPECTS states that editors "must seriously consider not including" the names of low-profile suspects, not that we 'must not include' such names. Even if WP:SUSPECTS still applied to Mr. Matar, which I would argue it does not, but even if it did, after much discussion it seems that the editors already seriously considered the issue, and that there is a clear consensus to include the name. Joe (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

That isnt what public figure means in that context. But yes, I agree there is consensus (which is why you dont see me removing it). nableezy - 13:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying Mr. Matar is a public figure (at least, not yet), merely that he can no longer be considered low-profile. You may be right that being a public figure is the actual standard in WP:SUSPECTS, though. Eh. Either way, the consensus is to include. Joe (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

We can put this to rest because they just announced that Matar has been charged with Attempted Murder and Assault. LordBossMaster100 (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

With that Im fine including the name. but please see WP:INDENT nableezy - 15:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's all moot now, but this isn't the first recent assassination attempt where the suspect was on video, witnessed by hundreds, and held at the scene. But not one person at Assassination of Shinzo Abe suggested censoring the suspect's name before they were charged. Nfitz (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The cavalier way that WP:BLP is tossed aside is disappointing, including the claims of "censorship". And yes, the same thing came up there. nableezy - 16:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It is censorship not to include the name. --SCNBAH (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• A suspect has been charged in New York state with attempted murder in the second degree, and there is no valid reason not to name him. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was opened prior to that, but yes since he was charged this moot. nableezy - 17:02, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion 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.

---

I propose merging this article into Salman Rushdie. I think the event is best covered as part of the victim's biography and I do not believe merging (at current size) would introduce size concerns. Future information is unlikely to change this situation. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 07:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wait. I think it best if we wait until Rushdie's condition and the outcome of the stabbing is known. He appears to be in a bad way. Should he not survive, an article on his murder would be entirely appropriate. WWGB (talk) 07:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Merge. This article shouldn't be here at all, and should be listed as an "Article for Creation" (AFC), at minimum. Activist (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Reminder - AfC is an entirely optional process so there is no requirement that it be used. - Fuzheado | Talk 09:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Wait. In case Rushdie dies as a result of this, then an article titled "Murder of Salman Rushdie" is surely encyclopedia worthy. BetweenCupsOfTea (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose, this is a significant event, and it won't die away even if Rushdie survives. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait Let's see what becomes of this. I don't see a problem doing that if this article is only ever going to be 2 or 3 paragraphs. But there's no point changing it now. Nfitz (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait. Let's wait for the outcome.EditingMatthew (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• I’m very sympathetic to this proposal and there is a fair dose of WP:CRYSTAL in the comments above. However I’m ok to wait a bit longer on this one mainly to get the merge proposal header off what is currently a high traffic page. Quick close of this is appreciated. Vladimir.copic (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Lilach5 argumentation. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a pretty significant event given the background. And there is that fact that if he doesn't survive, this becomes an article on his death. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait, leaning towards oppose. It's too early to say one way or the other, but I strongly suspect this will be an event which can be considered notable enough for its own page in its own right. That being said, we might revisit the question in a day or two when more has come out. For right now, leave it be. Joe (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait Depends upon the outcome and how much coverage it gets.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose at present The amount and depth of coverage sure seems to meet WP:GNG. Adoring nanny (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait, leaning towards Oppose, per Lilach5. --Rosiestep (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait. As already mentioned, the outcome and details of the incident will determine if this topic deserves its own article or not.--Ideophagous (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait let's see how it pans out. Too early. Andre🚐 14:52, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait, but probably merge per WP:RECENT unless the story evolves into something bigger. Sundayclose (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Soft Merge with a redirect as death now appears to be unlikely. However, if he should expire, I would likely support recreation. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I wonder if this is best merged to the biography or to The Satanic Verses controversy. Assuming that it is confirmed to be related to the fatwa. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  Actually given this I think the connection to the fatwa is established already. However, several hardline Iranian newspapers poured praise on Matar on Saturday, including the Kayhan newspaper, whose editor-in-chief is appointed by Khamenei, Reuters reported. "A thousand bravos ... to the brave and dutiful person who attacked the apostate and evil Salman Rushdie in New York," it said, according to Reuters, adding: "The hand of the man who tore the neck of God's enemy must be kissed." – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - seems notable with significant coverage Kpddg ^(talk) 15:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support Rushdie is likely to recover, the encyclopedia is better served with the event being in-bio than a perpetual stub. Gotitbro (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Hopefully Rushdie will recover. Then this will just be another incident in his life, and given how rich and important his life has been, and that this is just another chapter in the long fatwa saga, we probably will only want a couple of lines on it in his own article. Nevertheless, the event is major in itself, and deserves full coverage, as it is unprecedented in American life. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait; love em or hate em, these snap "event" articles have become a backbone of Wikipedia activity over the years, and I see no reason to deviate from that practice here. The fact of there being no deadline means that, once the news cycle moves on, we'll have a better idea of whether this is actually a significant event that needs to be addressed separately from, say, The Satanic Verses controversy. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The stabbing has gotten significant media coverage, along with being a major part of a long-running and international controversy. Liljimbo (talk) 17:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The event is significant enough on its own to warrant its own article. Moncrief (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait: Recommend waiting for 60 days - Aboudaqn (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait per others. Urban Versis 32^KB ⚡ ^{(talk / contribs)} 17:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose because this internationally highly-publicised stabbing of a high-profile writer is an important enough event to have its own article. It's well-sourced & well-written. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait: My feeling as to whether to keep the separate article or merge it would likely depend on Salman Rushdie's prognosis given the severity of his injuries. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Satisfies WP:GNG as an individual event with wide international coverage. Rushdie spent 33 years without having been attacked; his books are already covered in many individual articles, The Satanic Verses controversy is split off, and it is currently unrealistic to cover this full event within the main Rushdie article without overwhelming that article. There is plenty of precedent, e.g. Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, Attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II, for famous people who survive assassination attempts. Boud (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether or not Rushdie recovers, it is abundantly clear by now that significant coverage of this attack by WP:RS will continue. Nsk92 (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose: sufficient to stand on itself with plenty of info not possible to bring that all into the Rushdie article) and creation of independent article for the event is consistent with other articles created to cover the attack on high-profile individuals. Solipsism 101 (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is a major event in and of itself to warrant its own article. Obvious lasting impact that goes far beyond just being included in the article about the life of the victim. -- Veggies (talk) 22:23, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• oppose a notable/significant event with in depth coverage. This is not sensationalising of news. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is the first actual, physical attempt on Rushdie's life, and it is definitely bound to leave him with lasting effects if he survives this. This is certainly a notable event. Love of Corey (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
• Wait/Oppose - Beyond the stabbing, the event is likely to be notable for the reaction of Western and ME leaders, the change in public perceptions, and any policy effects it has. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

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.

Lead

Most of the sources detailing this event describe the background of the author as Indian-born (e.g. those cited in the article [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]). Which is clearly relevant in that this is not an isolated event and is the culmination of a long running controversy regarding Islam, immigrants and censorship. The author's background becomes focal in this context which the novel also similarly dealt with. This specific context has been noted elsewhere as well e.g. The Guardian, Economic Times. Gotitbro (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. WP:LEAD requires that the fatwa be noted in the lead. Failure to do so would be a serious breach not only of that style guideline but of NPOV. I've added a brief paragraph but it could be beefed up a bit. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Well put: "This is not an isolated event and is the culmination of a controversy regarding Islam, immigrants and censorship." DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I added a bit to the lead. nableezy - 01:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Date style?

I am curious about date format in this article. At present, it uses mdy, which is valid given that the event occurred in the U.S. However, given that Rushdie is British, and his article uses the dmy date formate, perhaps that would fit better here, given that most readers will probably look at both articles. What do others think? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I personally think mdy dates make the most sense due to the attack occurring in the U.S., with an American attacker and American authorities conducting the investigation. Liljimbo (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Rushdie has been a US citizen since 2016 (in addition to his British citizenship, of course). That fact, combined with the location of the event, argue for retaining the current mdy style. See also WP:DATERET. Moncrief (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

mdy makes the most sense to me since this event happened in the U.S. Love of Corey (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

dmy is much more readable. --SCNBAH (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a profoundly subjective opinion. Moncrief (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

More people internationally use dmy Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 02:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

However, that's not relevant as the guidelines at MOS:DATE are the ones that matter. - Fuzheado | Talk 04:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The first occurrence can include a note about the convention being used throughout the article. DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it relevant where the accused parents came from?

If they emigrated from the UK or Germany for example this would not be mentioned. Stating this is weasel words that the fact they arrived from a Muslim country is trying to imply the accused is not really American, which he is. This is not relevant to the article at all and needs to be removed 2A00:23C4:22D:CA01:106C:EFFF:6D04:E836 (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:NOTEVERYTHING in the media needs to find its way into Wikipedia. WWGB (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The bit on the fake license is all eventually sourced to Fox News as well. Ive looked and I cant find any serious source that does not attribute this to Fox and media in the US, but cannot find any non-Fox/Breitbart/worse source for it. The bit on ancestral home is just fabricated, the source says Flags of the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hezbollah are visible across the village, along with portraits of leader Hassan Nasrallah, Khamenei, Khomeini and slain Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani. but the only thing we know is that Matar's parents came from that village, not anything beyond that. And it likewise is not relevant. nableezy - 13:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the bit about Hezbollah flags in the village is relevant to the aftermath section, if it is/can be properly sourced. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

It is VERY RELEVANT. The fake license with the enjoined Hassan Nasrallah-Imad Mughniyeh is covered by everyone. His support for Hezbollah and the revolutionary guard has everything with where he originated, a hardliner village that flies Hezbollah flags all over. AP covered his hometown [10]. So did Reuters [11]. Washington Post [12]. AAWSAT [13]. Arab News [14]. Sky News [15]. Al-Arabiya [16]. And many others. --SCNBAH (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, the Hezbollah part of this is ARBPIA related, kindly do not edit the article about that. nableezy - 15:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Every source I see about the license attributes it to Fox. Every US source I see about it is Fox, Breitbart, or further down the line to the depths of unreliability. His support for Hezbollah and the revolutionary guard has everything with where he originated, and most towns in southern Lebanon are pro-Hezbollah, especially those near the border. You can see that on the map of election results. But Matar is from the US and has never visited Yaroun. So how are you coming up that this is formative for him? nableezy - 15:29, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Le Figatro:[17] "L'auteur de la tentative d'assassinat avait également un faux permis de conduire, au nom de «Hassan Mughniyah». Un pseudonyme «éloquent pour qui connaît l'islamisme chiite et le Hezbollah», note Romain Caillet, islamologue et consultant français. Le nom évoque celui d'un officier des Gardiens de la révolution islamique d'Iran, Imad Mughniyah, qui dirigeait le Hezbollah, sa branche libanaise. Il a été abattu en 2008 par Israël, avec le soutien des États-Unis." No Fox. Also Iran International English. --SCNBAH (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Im unaware of what Iran International is, but I find it hard to believe that a satellite tv station in the UK has any reporting capability in western NY state. But I did finally find a source on a fake ID that isnt on the spectrum of bad to terrible sources, AP says "A judge ordered him held without bail after District Attorney Jason Schmidt told her Matar, 24, took steps to purposely put himself in position to harm Rushdie, getting an advance pass to the event where the author was speaking and arriving a day early bearing a fake ID." But I still cant find anything giving a source besides Fox for the image. And several sources say its Fox, eg The Independent: "Fox News and other US news outlets said the suspected attacker, who has been named as Hadi Matar was using the fake name Hassan Mughnaiyah." nableezy - 15:50, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The support for Hezbollah & the Iranian gov by the accused, detained at the scene seconds after the stabbing & since charged with attempted murder is very relevant considering the hatred directed by them against Rushdie. Hadi Matar's family's origin is connected to that. It's not a trivial side-issue. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think anybody argued against that the suspects views are not relevant. But what is Hadi Matar's family's origin is connected to that based on? A village he had never seen that his parents emigrated from supports Hezbollah? Ok, so do most of the southern Lebanese villages, whats that have to do with Matar though? nableezy - 21:27, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

“But what is Hadi Matar’s family’s origin is connected to that based on?”

Maybe because that’s literally his family? Don’t you have views similar to that of your parents? RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont have views similar to those of the village my parents emigrated from, no (and not that similar to my parents either tbh). And beyond that, we have this rule against original research. nableezy - 00:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It’s not original research if the sources mention that. RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

But where do the sources mention that a village he had never been to being a Hezbollah stronghold has anything to do with his views? Im not saying dont include that he supported Hezbollah, the Iranian government, the IRGC, the whoever or whatever he expressed support for. But what does Yaroun being a Hezbollah stronghold have to do with this? I dont get why anybody thinks thats important. nableezy - 01:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The stabbing of Salman Rushdie is another unfortunate episode related to the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini decades ago. The exact motivation for the crime is not yet known, but it seems obvious to me—and you will agree with me—that given the circumstances it is certainly related to religious extremism. I don’t think there are any reliable sources that argue the opposite (quite the contrary), and I challenge you to find any. In that sense, it is natural to highlight the relation of Hadi Matar’s parents’s village to an Islamic fundamentalist group. Whether you like it or not, during the upbringing of children, parents transmit to them their own worldviews, which will undoubtly influence them. RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Things that seem obvious to me or you are not things that should be put in an encyclopedia article. Could be nationalism, could be religious extremism, could be any number of reasons. When those reasons are discovered and discussed in reliable sources then we include them. But youre making leaps here that are just wrong. The village isnt related to an Islamic fundamentalist group, Hezbollah isnt even all that fundamentalist. Its an Islamist group yes, but not especially fundamentalist. Hezbollah is one of the largest political parties and providers of social services in Lebanon, and yes its fighting with Israel over the decades of occupation of southern Lebanon have left that area a stronghold both militarily and politically for Hezbollah. It is an entirely benign fact that this southern Lebanese town, like nearly all of them, is a Hezbollah stronghold. And it has jack to do with this article. (also, Hezbollah denies any knowledge of the attack) nableezy - 03:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The national origin of both victim and perpetrator are relevant, because, as well put above, "This is not an isolated event and is the culmination of a controversy regarding Islam, immigrants and censorship."

Also, what do you mean by, "Hezbollah isnt even all that fundamentalist"? DenverCoder9 (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I mean it isnt an Islamic fundamentalism aligned group? Please see WP:OR, you are mistaking the purpose of Wikipedia. Beyond that, Matar's national origin is the United States. nableezy - 10:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

We can ignore users who wave a Hezbollah flag on their home page. Matar's origins are very relevant, he comes from an area that supports a terrorist organization. In addition, his father not only came from South Lebanon, he returned several years ago to South Lebanon and Matat had visited him.[18] Matar radicalized in 2018 after he visited his father in South Lebanon.[19] --Smoking Ethel (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

lol, no we can ignore uses violating WP:ARBPIA though, nableezy - 10:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Fatwa

The fatwa issued by Ruhollah Khomeini was upheld by Ali Khamenei in 2005 and over 40 media groups such as Fars offered money for the murder. That should be noted somewhere that those are the people and organizations who indirectly ordered the attack. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-rushdie-idUSKCN0VV1TI --Con^spiration 08:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree. A background section that can be sourced from the parent article should be present. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The Background section should be expanded. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Are Shia Muslims obliged to follow the fatwa? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is obliged to follow any fatwa. nableezy - 15:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Can't someone like Ali al-Sistani override the fatwa? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A fatwa is a decree from any supposed "scholar" in Islam. There are tons and tons of contradictory fatwas. This is more about it representing a state (Iran). As policy of the state of Iran it would need Khamenei to "overturn" it. But as a legal ruling? Doesnt have any bearing on anybody who doesnt want to follow it anyway. nableezy - 16:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Now it is mentioned and linked in the intro. For me this is good enough. Thanks to the authors of the article! --Con^spiration 15:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

"Terrorism"

Wikipedia applies the term "terrorism" to religiously motivated violence based on speech:

1. Theo van Gogh

2. murder of Samuel Paty

3. Charlie Hebdo shooting

Islamic terrorism in Europe is a good reference.

Based on this, I've added "Part of Islamic Terrorism" to the infobox, and suggest other changes, like references to the Ayatollah Khomeini and Islamic Terrorism at the article end, and other context referenced by articles like Theo van Gogh, Samuel Paty. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia applies that to things that reliable sources do. You may not simply decide that this meets your criteria and then edit an encyclopedia article to that effect. nableezy - 01:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Financial Times groups it under its "Terrorism" section. Are you saying that it isn't Islamic Terrorism? DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

While there still isn't agreement, I've changed it to "Islamic extremism". However, the "Islamic Terrorism" article is better written and more appropriate for actual incidences of violence. DenverCoder9 (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Im sorry but you cant seriously think that the Financial Times including the topic terrorism as a "topic included in this article" to be the Financial Times reporting this to be an act of terrorism. Everything you put in an article has to be supported, directly, by a reliable secondary source. nableezy - 01:51, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, if the FT reports a story about an investigation against a politician and assigns it the subtitle "Corruption", that is good evidence for using the term "Corruption", even if the word is never used in the article body. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:41, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Nonsense, it needs to directly say that it was an act of terrorism. And if were just basing it off of "Related topics" at ft.com, their actual story on the stabbing doesnt include "terrorism". Not that this matters, as that isnt a source directly supporting anything in its text. nableezy - 12:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Like DenverCoder9 says, FT supports terrorism and it also obvious from the attack. --Smoking Ethel (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Smoking Ethel, obvious from the attack is a perfect example of No original research, which is a core content policy. Wikipedia editors summarize what reliable sources say, not what editors consider "obvious". Cullen328 (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It is too early to call this terrorism, either in categories or in any other way. Let's let others make that call. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, the accused's motive has not been reported yet as far as I know.[20]-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Premature?

My initial concern was clearly unwarranted, so I'm hatting this. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Given that this is an ongoing news event, created while Mr. Rushdie was in surgery, I question whether it may be premature. See WP:NOTNEWS. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC) I'm supportive of having an article on this, even if it's early. This is not original reporting, and the durability of this event, being the first time Rushdie has been seriously injured since the fatwa was issued, is very strong. Therefore, none of the problems WP:NOTNEWS identifies seem relevant here. - Fuzheado | Talk 21:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC) @Fuzheado I agree it is probably notable enough for an article, but currently this article does seem like a mere Wikipedia: content fork of Salman Rushdie#Chautauqua attack (2022) (currently mostly verbatim) so I don't see its necessity (maybe for WP:ITN?). I suppose the forking issue could be addressed with transclusion. But we don't know there will be much more info on the attack to include yet. Llew Mawr (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC) I too support such an article. It just needs a significant overhaul and expansion. Love of Corey (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC) This is clearly a notable event worthy of an article. The fact that it happened recently is irrelevant. Joe (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC) Actually, I believe that the article is positively relevant, because although Wikipedia is not intended to be a source of current news, the article was able to summarize the incident to me better than some of the top results for it did, all of which were published by journalistic organizations. BEEDELLROKEJULIANLOCKHART (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC) I still have my doubts, but at the current time I do not favor merger with Salman Rushdie, as was proposed below. Let's see what happens. He has been seriously injured, and clearly there will be repercussions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC) @Figureofnine I'm likewise happy to rescind my couched reticence at this article's existence for being a potential content fork, given its current length (no longer a stub as a result of more content being added from the charge sheet etc.. All but the lede and Background section are now predominately composed unique content. Llew Mawr (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Yes, I agree. My concerns about this article being premature were premature! Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration remedies

The banner at the top of the page indicates that Arbitration strictures are in effect for a portion of the article, and that if there is uncertainty about that it should be marked invisibly. Am I the only one confused by this? For example, which portion? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The material about Hezbollah. nableezy - 15:23, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I see. Rather obvious, but it didn't occur to me. Thank you for clarifying. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

daily mail interview

Think this is clearly covered by WP:DAILYMAIL, every part of it is from this Daily Mail piece. Our current consensus is The Daily Mail has a "reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism, and flat-out fabrication". nableezy - 18:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Times is not the Daily Mail, it is published by The Times. --SCNBAH (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Times says all of this came from the Daily Mail. And it links to the interview. nableezy - 18:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The Times has its own editors and they checked it themselves before they published it. They check everything before they put their name on it. --SCNBAH (talk) 19:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they checked and say this comes from the Mail. Ive raised the issue at RSN. nableezy - 19:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

You also completely misrepresented the Times, they say nothing about a girlfriend. Kindly dont make things up in our articles. Thank you. nableezy - 19:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• I think republication by The Times is sufficient to allow inclusion. While it originated in the Daily Mail, it was viewed as sufficiently credible by the Times to be permissable here. It removes the stain, so to speak. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be the position at RSN as well, so I just attributed it as the Times does to the MailOnline interview. nableezy - 19:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

attack section

Think it makes sense to split off his injuries and surgery and starting recovery to its own section. Would be useful to add longer term recovery when that happens there too, as logically it wouldnt fit in a section titled "attack". I just dont know what to call it, "Injuries and recovery"? "Rushdie's status"? nableezy - 12:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur. I think "Injuries and recovery" sounds fine, and if we have any RS about Reeves' current state, we might mention them there too. The proposed section might go well as a subsection in the Aftermath section. Joe (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"Priorities"?

"A lawyer attending the event said food and drink was prevented from being brought into the amphitheater, but there was no check for weapons."

Gotta get your priorities right, eh?

Seriously, do we know what kind of knife was used? CFLeon (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your sentiments, but this is a hot-button subject and we should try to keep our comments strictly to improvement of the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

(unhatting) Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Fine enough, maybe my comment was inappropriate (although hardly any more than some of the other comments that I've seen. But I did ask a serious question, which I will repeat: Do we know what kind of knife was used? CFLeon (talk) 08:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I'm unhatting as it is true you did raise a valid question related to the article. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Helpful Sources

This paper nicely aggregates events for the article, like reactions of public figures:

https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/us-news/salman-rushdie-attacked-live-updates-satanic-verses-author-stabbed-on-stage-in-new-york-liveblog.html

I'm not sure whether it's reliable, so I suggest finding a separate source if you use a quote. DenverCoder9 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ben Okri also seems to have written response to the stabbing and could be added to the sentence mentioning Graham Swift and Margaret Atwood as other Booker Prize winners. Unfortunately, he seems to have chosen the The Mail on Sunday to publish his response and, well, DAILYMAIL, so not exactly a helpful source. Here is the link to MailOnline if anyone wants to read and/or search for a secondary source. I can't find one. It says at the bottom that he is "a vice president of English PEN" so I suppose he must be an important man. --Gaois (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• And not long after writing the above I found a secondary source. --Gaois (talk) 20:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

JK Rowling inclusion

There is a currently a paragraph in the article which was marked with a relevance tag, but for which no talk page discussion was opened. The content in question is: "British writer J. K. Rowling received a Twitter message shortly after the stabbing of Salman Rushdie which stated "you are next". She shared screenshots and said that police were investigating the incident.^[relevant?]" What does the community think about inclusion? ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I tend to lean against inclusion. There is no indication yet that this was a credible threat. It's essentially just internet hate speech against a famous author. While Rowling has been regarded as promoting witchcraft by some, she is not a favorite target of Iran or fundamentalists (afaik, I guess) and there is no indication that the threat was connected in any real way, aside from some psycho being motivated to make the threat on the basis of the stabbing. Unless some greater significance is shown, I think it's mostly tagental. ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 18:10, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I strongly lean toward removal. Including it is, IMO, borderline ridiculous. It's a section on international leaders reactions, Nobel Prize in Literature winners reactions, organizations supporting free speech, and right now, the reaction of a nobody who doesn't like Rowling. Which one doesn't fit? The reaction of a nobody who doesn't like Rowling.--Jeff (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I read some more, and I think the problem here is JK Rowling's reaction is NOT given. JK Rowling's tweet, "Feeling very sick right now. Let him be ok." is a legitimate thing to include, as she is a world-famous author. I think the threat is completely tangential, but I wouldn't be too upset if it was included as part of the story around Rowling's reaction. Jeff (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the anonymous editor who removed the statement the first time. The JK Rowling story is not relevant for three reasons (which have already been mentioned but bear repeating):

1. Twitter threats against JK Rowling have been made for the last few years. They are not a response to the stabbing of Salman Rushdie. That one threat referenced this event is tangential. They would have happened regardless.
2. The threats do not come from religious fundamentalists, or any group remotely related to those who have threatened the life of Salman Rushdie. (Unless the Grand Ayatollahs are crypto-wokists. Who knew?)
3. The credibility of the threats are (as far as I know, but please correct me) not on the same level. While the threatened outcome is the same, the potential that JK Rowling would be physically attacked is seemingly much lower.

(On a personal level, I feel it is startlingly misjudged that a publicist for Rowling has passed this story to newspapers. It makes Rowling look very solipsistic. Whatever her travails with Twitter mobs, this story isn't about her.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.91.237 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's too tangential to be included. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

A celebrity seeking attention about some dumb message from a troll is completely irrelevant to this article and should be removed. DogsRNice (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

How can you say it’s from a troll? RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, seeking attention, just like the multitude of 'trans activists' online who rant about genital preferences being evil. It's all boring junk that exists in the social media sphere and is of no particular relevancy to the article.--SinoDevonian (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

No one is talking about trans people, for God’s sake. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Contacts with members of the Iranian IRGC

Please add:

"It was reported that intelligence officials in both Europe and the Middle East said Matar had current contacts with members of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps."

References:

• https://www.mena-watch.com/rushdie-attentaeter-hatte-direkten-kontakt-zu-iranischen-revolutionsgarden/
• https://www.vice.com/en/article/88qxvz/salman-rushdie-hadi-matar-revolutionary-guard 87.170.207.195 (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The first source is just a re-hash of the VICE article and cites it. The Vice Article quotes an anonymous intelligence official claiming that there is Iranian involvement, but Vice News is careful to point out that "There’s no evidence Iranian officials were involved in organising or orchestrating the attack on Rushdie. Security officials who confirmed the social media contact would not elaborate on the nature of the communications because investigations are ongoing. They would not disclose who initiated the contact, when it took place, or what was discussed." IMO if this is included then it should included with attribution and caveated until further evidence emerges. Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no concensus on the use of Vice. See WP:VICE. So we're on our own. I see a republication in the Jerusalem Post which might tilt in favor of use of the material. https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-714720 Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Matar is still covered by BLP, so Im not sure on Vice. I personally think its reliable enough, especially for a claim couched with wording as "intelligence officials said", but can also wait for some more sourcing. nableezy - 19:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I also think its reliable enough. Tradedia^talk 15:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm generally not a fan of these "anonymous intelligence official says X" kinds of stories but I'm also not totally against including it either Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Assassination attempt

Why are we not calling this an assassination attempt, which is what the previous attempt is called in Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The term "assassination" is typically reserved for national and political leaders. WWGB (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It's for the planned attack of any prominent public figure, typically with a political or ideological motives. Besides User:WWGB, why would this not be an assassination attempt, when the last one was (see Salman Rushdie#Failed assassination attempt_(1989)? Nfitz (talk) 07:40, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn’t Attempted murder of Salam Rushdie be a more suitable title then? RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Attempted murder is a crime, I think that would follow WP:DEATHS basically. If convicted for attempted murder then move this article, but until then I think stabbing is correct (even if it seems obvious that it was a murder attempt). nableezy - 15:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

This is obviously not true, see Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Assassination of Ataullah Shah, Assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, Assassination of Róbert Remiáš, Assassination of Hrant Dink, Assassination of George Tiller, etc. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 22:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think that "Stabbing of Salman Rushdie" makes the most sense as he is not a politician, but I would be willing to have a discussion about moving the page to "Attempted assassination of Salman Rushdie", but only once it is clear he will survive. "Attempted murder of" is not a prefix for any Wikipedia page, so I would be against naming this article as such. Liljimbo (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's hold off on renaming the article until we learn more about Rushdie's condition. Love of Corey (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It does not depend on Rushie's condition. It is both an attempted murder and an assassination attempt, regardless of whether he survives. DenverCoder9 (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Note if title is to ever be changed: Salman Rushdie#Failed assassination attempt (1989). This is obviously much more serious but "Attempted assassination of Salman Rushdie" may be an ambiguous title. --Gaois (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

This was an assassination attempt, he almost died. --SCNBAH (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

You need to examine sources, not just say how you feel. From what I see they mostly are not calling this an assassination attempt, but they do say he's lived under threat of assassination from the fatwa. Eg NYT: Mr. Rushdie had been living under the threat of an assassination attempt since 1989, about six months after the publication of his novel “The Satanic Verses.” only place uses the term, regularly just says stabbing. Same for NPR, same for BBC. I dont think the sources support calling this an assassination attempt, at least not yet. Will see if that changes over time. nableezy - 15:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

A Hezbollah terrorist tried to kill him because of his writings. It is an assassination attempt. --Smoking Ethel (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:OR and WP:A/I/PIA nableezy - 10:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Which is why the article has been placed in Category:Failed assassination attempts in the United States. WWGB (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)'

Agreed, AFAICT it is mostly nableezy who opposes this.

1. It's an assassination attempt, as well stated by Dunutubble.

2. It's attempted murder: nableezy - just because an attempted murder fails, it is still attempted murder. DenverCoder9 (talk) 06:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:DEATHS, for it to be a murder, or an attempted murder, requires a court to say so. nableezy - 10:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I propose "Failed Assassination of Salman Rushdie".

1. As discussed, "assassination" is appropriate.

2. "Stabbing" isn't entirely correct: he was also beaten and wrestled. DenverCoder9 (talk) 06:44, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support "Failed Assassination of Salman Rushdie" DenverCoder9 (talk) 06:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, which source supports this? nableezy - 10:42, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What about "Attempted assassination of Salman Rushdie"? Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 12:39, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Im not opposed to that on principle, but it needs some sourcing to demonstrate that this is how secondary sources are referring to it. What source calls this an assassination attempt? Wikipedia editors shouldnt be determining what is correct, only what the sources support. nableezy - 13:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

ABC called it an "attempted assassination." https://abcnews.go.com/US/author-salman-rushdie-attacked-speaking-event-york-state/story?id=88296873 However, I agree that there is no need to change the title until there is more sourcing. "Assassination" is a loaded word. Why do we need to use it right now? Isn't "stabbing" bad enough? We should revisit this down the road. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

My two cents:

1) We don't need RS calling this an "assassination attempt" in order to call it an assassination attempt. The sky is blue, dogs have tails, and this was an assassination attempt, and we don't need RS for any of those statements, or for any other matter of simple English, simple logic, or basic math, see WP:BLUE for more info. (Although, if someone questions the definition of the word 'assassination', I'll refer them to the assassination page, the first line and RS of which reads, "Assassination is the murder of a prominent or important person,")

2) With all of that said, we should not change the name of the article to something like "The Failed Assassination of Salman Rushdie" (or anything else for that matter). "Stabbing of Salman Rushdie" actually conveys much more information than the 'assassination' title. A failed assassination might involve a gunshot that missed, or a poisoning that didn't work, or any other number of things. We want as much information and as few words as possible in our titles, and "Stabbing of Salman Rushdie" conveys more information to the reader in fewer words than these alternatives.

- Joe (talk) 01:59, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

The whole point of WP:BLUESKY is that if this were on the order of the sky is blue it would be trivially easy to locate an abundance of sources that say it, like it is trivially easy to locate a ton of sources for the sky is blue. So yes, we do need sources. nableezy - 02:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go ahead and say "citation needed" for that. Nowhere does WP:BLUE say anything like "you don't need to cite things for which there are abundant sources." What WP:BLUE actually states is that it is not necessary to cite objects of common knowledge (like what assassination is), and that, "In fact, the Good Article criteria merely state that inline citations are required for "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons"." Since any common sense reading of the events described in the RS comport with this being a failed assassination attempt (e.g., the attempted murder of a public figure), we do not need RS saying the word, "assassination," to use the word ourselves. Restating a phrase with a synonymous phrase is fine on Wikipedia, and indeed, it's what we do most of the time.

It's a bit of a moot point though, don't you think? Considering we all agree we shouldn't change the article title. Joe (talk) 02:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

BLUE is about not citing common knowledge. And its using the definition found in style guides. Here is an example, Generally, common knowledge is information that someone finds undocumented in at least five credible sources. For example, writing is difficult,” is considered common knowledge in the field of composition studies because at least five credible sources can back the claim up. You cant decide that something meets some criteria and therefore youre going to include it in that group on Wikipedia. That is basic WP:OR. Now, there is a source for assassination attempt up above, so I suppose it could be called that once or twice in the article, but I do want to push back on the idea that well I think this meets this definition so Im going to decide thats the language we use. nableezy - 02:35, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Using synonyms for words is not OR. Moreover, apparently some RS even do use the word "assassination." What exactly are we arguing about? Don't we all agree that the title should remain as it is? Joe (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Yes we do, but this is a problem in a bunch of places in this article and talk page. Eg the is it terrorism, is it "Islamic extremism". Or, to take a less emotionally charged subject in the news, imagine an editor saying Anwar al-Awalki was killed without trial, that meets the definition of an extrajudicial assassination and so I will include that in the article. We just dont do that, what makes something not original research is somebody else saying it first. nableezy - 13:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

We can certainly say in the article, as prominently as necessary, that he has been under threat of assassination. That needs to be clear in the lead without replicating the language in the "background" section immediately below, though that is a style matter. However, until the reliable secondary sources refer to this as an assassination attempt, and in a widespread manner, I would be opposed to changing the title and to referring to as such in Wikipedia's voice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed (and I did exactly that in the lead a couple of days ago), but agree on all counts. nableezy - 14:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand why people want to call it an assassination attempt. I personally think it was. But what I think doesn't matter. People have to understand that. We don't have to do the heavy lifting. That is for others. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

ABC news is a reputable source.

nableezy has been opposing a number of reasonable moves supported by almost every other editor, all in the direction of greater sympathy to the attacker. DenverCoder9 (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

let's try not to personalize the discussion, please. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Um, all in the direction of fidelity to our policies actually. Nobody has done anything in the direction of greater sympathy to the attacker, and that is an unfounded personal attack. Please read and internalize WP:NPA, and comment on content and not on editors. Thanks in advance. nableezy - 17:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Sir in lead

Why are we including "Sir" in the lead sentence of the article? MOS:PREFIX says in general it should not be, and Rushdie's knighthood has nothing to do with this article. I know he was knighted, but he is also a naturalized American citizen and it just reads weird for any non-British reader. And most sources, including British ones such as BBC do not use Sir, they say Mr or his full name. nableezy - 23:12, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:SIR. It is used on the initial reference and infobox heading and is are optional after that. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

MOS:SIR applies to biographical articles; this article is about an event. WWGB (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

True, but I don't see a compelling reason not to follow the convention here as well.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The convention is to not use honorifics in non-biographical articles. nableezy - 13:34, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

This is an important life event of Sir Salman Rushdie. Wikipedia should respect and honour him with the his formal title. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to respect and honour things. It is an encyclopedia. WWGB (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Please review what Wikipedia is not. nableezy - 14:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

... wherein lies WP:BADIDEA. WWGB (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason not to include it. People who read this article should know he was knighted. In several articles where Ruhollah Khomeini is mentioned he is initially referred to as "Ayatollah Khomeini" and a few times as Sayyid Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini. Both are honorific titles. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Sayyid should be removed wherever it exists as an honorific too. nableezy - 14:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems you are the only one who objects to it being there and policy and practice seems to allow it as an option that requires consensus. There is no consensus to remove it and some consensus to keep it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I am against it too. That makes the simple vote count 3:2, which is no consensus. Per WP:ONUS, consensus is needed to include. WWGB (talk) 23:23, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

If he werent a naturalized American citizen and this didnt happen in America and most sources used "Sir" in their coverage of this then sure I could see a reason to include. But none of that is the case here, and this happened in America to an American, and source dont typically use Sir in their coverage of him, and there hasnt been a single reason to include it besides ones that are at odds with our purpose here. So why should it be included? nableezy - 00:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

“It just reads weird for any non-British reader.” I’m not British. I’m not even a native English speaker and it seems totally fine for me to read and understand it. RodRabelo7 (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any strong reason not to include it, so it seems to me this is just a matter of editorial preference. I favour including it. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Video

Hadi Matar
Accused of attempting to murder Rushdie, he appears handcuffed and dressed in a prison jumpsuit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJBE1rN3jko

If someone could add this to Hadi Matar section, it would surely help a lot the readers. 2804:14D:5C32:614F:D809:5E76:815A:F7A6 (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The video is non-free content, so it cannot be used in Wikimedia projects. - Fuzheado | Talk 17:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not right. I did nott mention uploading the video to Wikipedia, but rather linking it (exactly how I did, and I am sure I did not violate any of Wikipedia policies. Just read the code.)

If an image, 3D model, audio or video clip cannot be uploaded to Wikipedia, even under non-free use rules, then it may be appropriate to use to provide a direct link to the media file along with a description of the media.

— Template:External media

Seems like a dull routine judicial process. Also WP:MUG might apply as it presents the accused in a "disparaging light". Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2022

“ In the aftermath of the stabbing, the Foundation remained quiet and declined to answer the Associated Press. ” — § Response

Kindly clarify "the Foundation" as "the 15 Khordad Foundation", per the ref. There's a wikilinked mention of the entity in an earlier section.

Cheers,

- 2A02:560:582D:CE00:75A0:2629:82EB:98FE (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done Nythar^T.C 22:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Recovery

There have not been many news since 14. August so now it's one and a half month. Any news? Is he still in hospital? 2A02:8388:1600:A200:7F68:61BB:BDB:FB57 (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Title: Failed Assassination Attempt

Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempted_assassination_of_Ronald_Reagan DenverCoder9 (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)