Talk:Assassination of Qasem Soleimani/Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2020
In the Casualtiies subsection please link:  → Operation Vengeance 2606:A000:1126:28D:80CC:FB4F:9449:9FB1 (talk) 17:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2020
"President" is misspelled as "Persident" under the "In terms of agreement with Iraq" section. This ought to be rectified. 81.128.201.66 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no longer such text in the section. It may have been rewritten. – Ammarpad (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Purpoted death of Hashed al-Shaabi
[https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/us-president-donald-trump-ordered-killing-of-iran-guards-commander-qasem-soleimani-report/story-jVMuO36DuyashDcH31vvAO.html? hindustantimes.com] (archived here) affirms that "the strike, which occurred at Baghdad’s international airport on Friday in Iraq, also killed the deputy chief of Iraq’s powerful Hashed al-Shaabi paramilitary force". It seems that his death isn't referred by other journals on Google. At the moment, I think it can't be integrated yet into the current WP article.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 10:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hindustan Times states that as a fact, based on Agence France Presse reporting. Provided there was only one strike and provided that we know as a fact that Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis is a or the deputy chief of that militia, I think we can integrate it in the article. In fact it is currently integrated, in the first sentence of the section "Attack", and sourced to The New York Times and Axios . The latter source says "was reported dead". I couldn't verify the former source, but I think it's reasonable enough to include his death and his office held. Wakari07 (talk) 13:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

US asked for proportionate response to general’s killing, says Iran
This should be added into the article. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Switzerland’s envoy transmitted a foolish message from the Americans this morning" Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said.
 * If the US actually said that (which I doubt) it would have been incredibly stupid. To a) basically agree to accept retaliation but b) request that it be "proportionate" - who in their right mind would they say such a thing? I see no reason to believe that this message, or anything similar, was actually sent. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC) P.S. A Swiss official confirmed that the Swiss delivered a message from the U.S. to Iran. But I certainly don't think we can believe, or should report, the Iranian claim about what the message said. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , since we have a POTUS who thought it was appropriate to send a letter to Erdoğan that said "don't be a tough guy, don't be a fool", I don't think we can dismiss reports of the administration doing something stupid. I would like to see confirmation of the content of the message though. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. But seriously? To suggest a "proportionate" response to killing their top military leader, often described as the second most powerful person in the country? I hesitate to think about what kind of retaliation might be "proportionate" to that. Agree that we would need confirmation, not just the Iranian report of what the message said. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Spelling change
Some words have been changed as the spelling was in American English rather than British English and I feel that British English looks nicer to read. RyanPLB (talk) 13:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * English belongs to Americans! We invented it after all. NickCT (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't tell if you are joking or not. Nusent 15:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * RyanPLB, Please don't do that. See MOS:RetainLetUsNotLoseHearT 18:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just doing what I feel is inherently correct. How horrendous of you to insult people out there who do not wish to read things in an Americanised way. Just saying. RyanPLB (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, let's not police UK vs. US English. Nerd271 (talk) 00:32, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean, "Americanized." – Levivich 04:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Darling, you know for sure I don't mean "Americanized". Sorry to break it to you babes! ;) RyanPLB (talk) 09:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * American English This involves the United States, and Wikipedia policy clearly states that the choice between American, British, or other forms of English should reflect the country the article is about. The Brits might have invented Iraq, but the Americans have owned it since 2003.Michael E Nolan (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Funeral
While processions can be held in more than one place, a funeral can take happen in only one place as an individual can be buried in only one place at a time. This section does not distinguish between events in Baghdad and events in Tehran.Michael E Nolan (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem far-fetched or misleading to group the procession leading to a funeral under the funeral section. Juxlos (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Reference to Balad as a US base
Balad is being referenced frequently in the media and in this article as a US base with US military personnel on it. It is an Iraqi base with no US military personnel stationed there anymore. There are contractors there but no CJTF-OIR or other military members present. This should be clarified in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.26.178.60 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Date format for article
There are conflicting date formats being used throughout the article. I'm assuming we should stick with DMY, e.g. 3 January 2020, as the strike took place in Iraq and that is the popular date format there. I would love input from more experienced editors, though. Warpaltarpers (talk) 03:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Source clarification
As Nerd271 has noted that certain sources are marked as unreliable be WP:RS, I am reaching out to other editors to double check that Twitter is a reasonable/reliable source if coming from a credible individual. Due to the increased amount of people using Twitter to make statements about traumatic or important events, such as politicians and police, I am currently aware of a few articles if not more that use articles referencing the Tweet as a source or even the tweet itself for information or a reference. Is it completely banned from use as a source or is it only if the individual has not be verified as the individual the account is representing by Twitter? Thanks for any help if clarifying this for me. Leaky.Solar (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Please check that Wikipedia page. It has a list of frequently encountered sources on Wikipedia, with explanations for the various designations. Twitter should generally be avoided because it is a self-published source. Anyone can post anything on there. Unless you are actually quoting an notable and relevant person, it is best to avoid it. Nerd271 (talk) 05:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's pretty acceptable practice to quote certain obviously notable people (e.g. Trump, Pompeo, Javad Zarif) directly from their tweets because nobody is going to really dispute that their reactions are notable. But yeah certainly tread very carefully if it's used to reference something presented as fact. Juxlos (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for responding. I went back and reread the page and realized that as sleep deprived as I am I had managed to skip/blur through some sections such as the user-generated material and others. Will definitely keep it in mind thanks again. Leaky.Solar (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Article should be renamed to something more meaningful
like "2020 airstrike on Qasem Soleimani" soibangla (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just Soleimani. There were multiple people. ‍‍Telluride (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Soleimani is the main story, by far soibangla (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Had Soleimani had an upset stomach and missed the convoy, resulting in the airstrike only killing the other 8 and al-Muhandis, this article would've still existed under the same name. I think a redirect works for now unless in a week "assasination of Qasem Soleimani" becomes the way media refers to the incident by default. Juxlos (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * At least 10 people died, including prominent Iraqi paramilitary figure al-Muhandis. Naming the article after only one of the 10 victims just because contemporary Western media outlets focuses on the big name individual is silly. No specific name should be in the title in my opinion, and the current title sufficiently reflects the location and nature of the military operation. RopeTricks (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I'm fairly sure that in 10 years all media will still focus on Soleimani when it comes to this attack. Juxlos (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure but there's no telling what the PMU's Shia Iraqi militias and their devotees can do to avenge al-Muhandis and his legacy in particular, long term and short term, or the impact it will have on Iraqi society alone, yes, even in comparison to Iran's response. Good thing not all editors are dictated by source preferences and media tunnel vision for these types of events. RopeTricks (talk) 07:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

- There's an ongoing discussion in the section abvove to figure out what the right name is! Weigh-in there. NickCT (talk) 08:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

- Same comment to you. Weigh-in above. NickCT (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

This airstrike had only one target: Soleimani
As The New York Times has reported on January 5, the target for this attack was only Qassem Soleimani: "When Mr. Trump chose the option of killing General Suleimani, top military officials, flabbergasted, were immediately alarmed about the prospect of Iranian retaliatory strikes on American troops in the region. It is unclear if General Milley or Mr. Esper pushed back on the president’s decision. Over the next several days, the military’s Special Operations Command looked for an opportunity to hit General Suleimani, who operated in the open and was treated like a celebrity in many places he visited in the Middle East. Military and intelligence officials said the strike drew on information from secret informants, electronic intercepts, reconnaissance aircraft and other surveillance tools. The option that was eventually approved depended on who would greet General Suleimani at his expected arrival on Friday at Baghdad International Airport. If he was met by Iraqi government officials allied with Americans, one American official said, the strike would be called off. But the official said it was a “clean party,” meaning members of Kataib Hezbollah, including its leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Mr. Trump authorized the killing at about 5 p.m. on Thursday, officials said."

I think it should be clarified in the article somehow. Pahlevun (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Legality and assassination
As there are efforts to assess the legality of the killing, it would be better to discuss the wording and proper sources here rather than by reverting the article. So far the article (not the lead, of course, see WP:LEAD) can be expanded by something like: The Spectator called Soleimani's death an assassination.+ref. We can start with that and expand, if necessary. The question is where to put it. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It should be called what it is, an assassination. There are many RS that back this word.   . If a U.S. general traveling in Iraq was killed in a targeted drone strike by Iran, we would likely have no issues with calling it an assassination. WP doesn't represent any single country and doesn't have a political view. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See below &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw the RFC for a title change, my comment doesn't have anything to do with changing the title and I provided many RSs for the single word change. 71.136.189.245 (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Trump formerly accused Obama of plotting to wag the dog; include?
In the “Reactions” “United States” section we mention that some people have called this a wag the dog incident, “parallel to the bombing of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Sudan by president Bill Clinton during his own impeachment process, which had itself been seen as reminiscent of the contemporaneous film Wag the Dog.” Soibangla just added In 2011 and 2012, Trump asserted that President Obama would start a war with Iran to improve his reelection chances. I reverted it saying Not really relevant here; Obama did not in fact do anything, and he was not under impeachment. Soibangla restored it saying it is relevant to the immediately aforementioned Wag the Dog. I am bringing it here for discussion: is it relevant to mention that Trump in 2011-2012 claimed Obama would start a war with Iran to improve his re-election chances, even though Obama did not in fact do so? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, on doing some searching I find that this is getting widespread coverage  so I guess it should stay. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Are these videos in the Public Domain?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZc0psEVims https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTe59fezEZY Victor Grigas (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at C-SPAN copyright policy on their website it seems to be translatable to CC-BY-NC-SA. That's a no-go then. Juxlos (talk) 07:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * They are in the public domain, as they are from the senate floor. From the link above: Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain. That being said, they are undue here. ― Hebsen (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Now in the article Victor Grigas (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

US mainstream media reaction
Another aspect of this event is that the US mainstream media is treating it with a different tone than they did with President Obama's military strikes. They are portraying the target of the strike in a more sympathetic light and portraying President Trump's decision as emotional and counterproductive to peace efforts. 173.66.156.205 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine where you got the idea that US media are portraying the target in a sympathetic light. Even the Democrats who criticized the decision are in agreement that this was a bad guy. And all media reports note that he was responsible for hundreds of American deaths. There is debate about the TIMING of this action and the likely consequences, but I haven't seen anything sympathetic toward Soleimani himself. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Check the link I posted. CNN, the Washington Post, and the New York Times tried to portray the Iranian general in a sympathetic light. 173.66.156.205 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, they didn't. I did check the link; did you? It’s a Fox News article, primarily based on opinions from Joe Concha, a writer for The Hill appearing on Fox and Friends. Concha said that coverage would be different if Obama was president. For evidence he accuses the Washington Post of having published an obituary of Al-Baghdadi three months ago with a complimentary headline, and he cites a couple of recent tweets by a New York Times reporter (note: tweets are not reporting). Oh, and he cites a comment from opinion writer Jonathan Alter on MSNBC. That’s it. Nothing from CNN, nothing from the Times newspaper, nothing about Soleimani from the Post. From these few weak examples, Fox News comes up with the headline that "News media coverage of Soleimani strike reveals 'disturbing pattern' ", and a lead sentence about “mainstream media coverage”, even though literally nothing they cite for evidence was mainstream news media coverage. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a point? A suggested change or addition to the article? Zaathras (talk) 16:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with MelanieN, and just made a minor fix about it. I guess he is generally described as someone who built the terrorist empire of Iran, and of course the Iran itself is generally described as a theocratic dictatorship. My very best wishes (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Reporting of Trump assertion needs to be followed by statement saying no evidence given to back assertion
I have a sentence directly after the reporting of the Trump assertion which sought to justify the attack. This is for balance and neutral point of view (the assertion needs to be reported but no evidence given to back assertion also needs to be reported). Nerd271 has twice now removed this sentence with no good reasons given in their edit notes. I would welcome input from other editors. Thank you. Oska (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Putting that bit there sounds weird given the information available in the 'Prelude' section. Of course not all information is going to be available. We are talking about one part of an on-going military conflict. The article by and large should not be self-contradictory. Nerd271 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was good removal. The assertion that Soleimani had been planning further [terrorist] attacks on American diplomats and military personnel is pretty much obvious. And of course US and other countries used targeted assassinations (a classic terrorism tactics) against terrorist leaders for a long time, this is nothing special. The significance/difference of this case, however, is that Trump targeted a high-ranking Iranian military state official, which is an act of war against the Iranian state, just as the previous Iranian-coordinated attacks against US servicemen in Iraq were an act of war against the US. It is already an ongoing war between Iran and US. My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * @My very best wishes: Maybe that's obvious to you (we don't act based on the users' original research). Reliable sources should be respected here and I think Oska can restore the removed portion which is supported by a high quality source. -- M h hossein   talk 09:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree it is important to know what was exactly the evidence about the "imminent" attack by Iran-controlled forces. If something was published about it, this should be included. This is an important casus belli question for the war which is going to happen. My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Reactions article
Because every major politician in the US and Iran are reacting to this (and will probably see more as statements get drafted and people wake up), there should be a reactions article created before the reactions section get too big. I would make one but I'm on mobile. Juxlos (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s still quite small, so to avoid any disputes I think it’s best to wait. 5225C (talk) 09:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems some consider it too large already, and began removing content. WikiHannibal (talk) 12:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I expect more unrelated non G8 foreign ministries and tier 2 politicians to comment on this soon so it might be a good time for a split. Juxlos (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think the reactions section is reasonably compact and doesn't need to be split right now. Qono (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Having a new article on reactions seems unnecessary at this time.  Dig deeper talk 20:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's the best time to have something like this, before we need it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal
I suggest we now split out the reactions to a separate article. The impact of this event causes a lot of noteworthy reactions from al over the world. Right now this section makes up half the article. People below calls for it to be made more concise. We should rather split out the reactions, and then keep a concise summary here. This allows us to include more notable reactions without worry about it becoming undue. ― Hebsen (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I Support the split if other editors insist on not getting rid of the seemingly 60% of reactions and statements from so many uninvolved parties. The reactions section should be a short summary that only includes reactions from actually relevant/involved parties RopeTricks (talk) 23:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I Conditionally support to split articles into two articles in order to make readers more easily read about these articles per RopeTricks. But for me, financial markets reaction, which is how commodities and equities reacted as follows:


 * "Global oil prices rose more than four percent in the wake of the strike, pushing oil stocks (of BP and Royal Dutch Shell) on the London Stock Exchange up. Arms company stocks (of Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon) also rose in the wake of the event. US equity futures and Asian stocks reversed their gains for the day and investors moved towards "safe haven" assets such as gold, treasury bonds, and the Japanese Yen".
 * Should be also moved elsewhere to reactions articles in economy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.24 (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm generally against the inclusion of commodities' and stock prices. These are incredibly complicated, affected by a vast number of factors, and also have a good amount of noise. For instance XOM closed out Thursday (before the attack happened at around $70.90, closed yesterday at around $70.87; COP closed ~65.50 before the attack closed yesterday at ~66.50. BZ is up about $2 from when the attack happened, JPY March is up about .000005 from when the attack happened. If WTI shot over $100/bbl and the majors were all up 10%-20% or more then maybe but that's not the case.Alcibiades979 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose a split. It always happens in articles like this that we pile in lots of reactions at first, and then after a week or two we start to say "wait a minute, we don't need all these" and do a major trim. Right now we are in the adding-everything-everybody-said stage. In a week or two we will realize that we don't need to quote every country and every talking head, and we will cut out the fluff and leave only what Rope Trick called "reactions from actually relevant/involved -- MelanieN (talk) 00:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)parties."
 * Support maybe most individual reactions to this attack does not exacty have lasting impact, but they do show the trends. Maybe keep several of the key reactions (Iraqi parliament and PM, Ayatollah, Trump) in this page, though. Juxlos (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Other than the involved players, get rid of all the predictable bumf, especially 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike. What a waste of space! WWGB (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It has already become too much of the size of this article. Pahlevun (talk) 10:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It is true what MelanieN said but in political history I am an inclusionist; reactions of parties which seem insignificant can prove to be encyclopedic material in the years afterwards. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the section in the article - eliminate only the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike dreck. XavierItzm (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Currently about half the page is dedicated to this, and it's a fairly common practice such as with [The War in Gaza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reactions_to_the_Gaza_War_(2008–09)], Juan Guaido's assumption of the Venezuelan Presidency, etc. Alcibiades979 (talk) 15:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support to save space in the article and coincide with Reactions to the 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria and others. Andysmith248 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless there is some unusual or unexpected reaction Bwrs (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose we need to keep some perspective here. The perspective of time. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:37, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have not gone ahead and done this split, as there appears to be a rough consensus for it. Opposer said that the long list of reactions could easily be trimmed once things settle, so a separate article was not warranted. This is a classic inclusionist/deletionist discussion, that probably won't be settled today. ― Hebsen (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Support
Aside from the Headline, many sources use the term "assassination" in the lede or elsewhere in the text. Pahlevun (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree - As nom. It's the WP:COMMONNAME. NickCT (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with a move to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. This is a common name and is used by several reliable sources from various countries, these are a handful of the whole that have used it:
 * 1) by Reuters (NB: headline from a quote "Iran will take a crushing revenge for the assassination ... Iranian Defence Minister Amir Hatami said" WikiHannibal (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC))
 * 2) by Time (NB: other Time articles linked from this one call it killing 1, 2 WikiHannibal (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC))
 * 3) by The Hill (NB: called both assassination (3x) and killing (5x) in the article WikiHannibal (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC))
 * 4) by Forbes
 * 5) by Al-Jazeera
 * 6) by The Daily Telegraph
 * 7) by The Atlantic
 * 8) by CBS
 * 9) by CNBC
 * 10) by The Jerusalem Post
 * 11) by The Japan Times
 * 12) by The Independent
 * 13) by RT
 * 14) by Asharq Al-Awsat (NB: This article from October 2019 is not about the January attack. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC))
 * The proposed title doesn't cover the fact that another notable target - Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis - was killed in this event. Jim Michael (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - See my comment above about Governor Conally in the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. NickCT (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not a fair comparison, because John Connally wasn't killed & isn't known to have been an intended target. Jim Michael (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Mahdi wasn't the target though. So isn't it a good comparison? NickCT (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Was Soleimani the sole intended target? Were the others who were killed & injured merely collateral damage? Jim Michael (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - From what I've read, it seems they were collateral. In fact, Mahdi may have been unintentional. NickCT (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Good list! I'd add by NPR and  by New York Times. NickCT (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed Per reaons given by Pahlevun. Mr.User200 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly Agree* - current title is more American emphasis. 168.211.68.4 (talk) 22:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose Assassination is the murder of a prominent person or political figure by a surprise attack, usually for payment or political reasons. Assassination would imply Qassim Suleimani was a victim. However, Qassim Suleimani was designated a terrorist by the Obama administration. The attempt to label this military action as an 'Assassination' is an attempt by those who hate U.S. President Donald Trump to Assassinate his character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.253.101.117 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Though a few reliable sources do use "assassinated", far more (and the most reliable sources) use "killed". In Google News search results limited to the last 24 hours, "Soleimani assassination" has 7,710 results, "Soleimani killing" 4,900,000. So, "killing" would follow WP:COMMONNAME. Examples from highly reliable sources: CNN, Washington Post, Al-Jazeera, NYTimes, BBC, NBC News, Time, Fox News, AP News, The Guardian, Channel News Asia, Wall Street Journal, The Independent, NPR, Haaretz, USA Today, LATimes, Vox, Politico, Hindustan Times, India Today, the Hindu, The Times of India, Buzzfeed News, Slate, Reuters, Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
 * Also, "killing" is more neutral than "assassination", which implies treachery and political motivations; this was a military attack. This follows WP:NPOVTITLE. Qono (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I prefer 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike for the time being. Until the majority of political voices (not journalists) tend to calling it assassination or killing. Wiki articles are not news. Plus I think the list of sources is biased, not interpreted properly. I will write my comments on the first three I checked directly into the list, please excuse me. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Qono. "killing" is not more neutral, it is a general term and every article needs its jargon. This article includes an academic examination of the term "assassination" and its usage in military: —Pahlevun (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * From the Introduction of that article, "In the relatively small literature on the strategic rationale behind government directed killings of specific individuals, the term ‘assassination’ doesn’t often arise except in reference to the tactics of state oppression. Assassination commonly carries with it pejorative connotations of cowardice, subterfuge, and unlawfulness". As I read it, the author is arguing in favor of a value-neutral definition of "assassination", but acknowledges that this is not the existing definition of the word. Given that the article currently only has two CrossRef citations, I do not believe this definition has been accepted by the consensus of relevant literature. userdude 22:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose Other important figures died in the attack, so it is silly to call it an assassination of a single person when multiple died. Ultimograph5 (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Ultimograph. It's important to not forget that other notable figures were killed in this attack as well; the current lead image even recognises this by depicting al-Muhandis too. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk ·&#32;articles ·&#32;reviews) 18:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the word assassination is a WP:Contentious label and not appropriate for a WP:NPOV. TFSA (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * TFSA: "Assassination" is not among the words listed in WP:Contentious label, rather it is the technical standard in military jargon. Please see:
 * —Pahlevun (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose: This article is about the airstrikes themselves. The strike killed other important leaders and is bigger than just Soleimani, so naming the article after him alone is improper and misleading. RopeTricks (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least until the dust settles and journalists, politicians, and others start using one name. The JFK assassination is most definitely called the JFK assassination or similar. I don't think we can yet judge how people will refer to this airstrike/killing/assassination. Wikipedia is NOTNEWS, and should wait to mimic everyone else. Hydromania (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weakly oppose. Not opposed in principle, just a matter of timing. As others have said, wait till the dust settles. But I don't buy the argument against renaming because others died in the same incident. Soleimani was way ahead of Muhandis in notability, and as I understand it the others were subordinates of those two. It seems pretty certain Soleimani was the principal target, and that is how news outlets are mainly covering it. But further details may yet emerge I guess. FrankP (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:TFSA.  smileguy91  talk x my huckleberrying  20:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose Declaration of War aside, Operation Vengeance, which targetted Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in WWII was the same deal; only the technology has changed. (And not to put too fine a point on it, has Baghdad International Airport released a statement? What do they call it?) kencf0618 (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Weakly oppose I say move the Assassination aspect to its own airport aside from the airport strike itself. It allows this article to incorporate the other things going on in general and the assassination can be focused on like it does on Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I would give it more time to see how public figures refer to the event. I suspect the operation name may be used if and when it is revealed. userdude 22:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Given the definition of the word 'to assassinate', the proposal is inappropriate. Nerd271 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, current title is neutral, and is too recent to gauge if this action will be historically known as an assassination of a prominent figure or as a military operation. Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think this article is correctly titled as a raid or airstrike, not an assassination. We define assassination as "the act of killing a prominent person for either political, religious, or monetary reasons." But we also generally think of assassination as an in-person killing of one person only. So for example the articles about the deaths of John F. Kennedy, Abraham Lincoln, Archduke Ferdinand, Ghandi, etc. are all called “Assassination of…” They were attacks carried out by one person against another, bodily. But we don’t generally describe the targeted killing of a rival leader via military means as an assassination. For example, the death of Osama bin Laden is detailed in an article Killing of Osama bin Laden. The killing of Abu Bakr is detailed in an article called Barisha raid. Going further back, the American shooting down of Admiral Yamamoto’s plane is titled Operation Vengeance.


 * And more to the point - since Wikipedia policy says to use Reliable Sources - some sources are calling this an assassination but most are not. A Google search for Soleimani by itself produces 170 million hits. "Soleimani killed" brings up 78 million hits and "Soleimani killing", 80 million. "Soliemani assassination" gives only 16 million hits. "Assassination" is not, or not yet, the common name. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Assassination" is a heavily loaded term considering the existence of US executive orders prohibiting them. The Trump administration doesn't consider this an assassination, a view also expressed during the Obama administration w/r/t their policy of targeted killings. For this reason alone I disagree with this proposed move due to WP:NPOV. We shouldn't be endorsing a specific viewpoint that's under dispute in the title of the article, which is what calling it an assassination would do. Even if a majority of sources called this act an assassination I wouldn't support the move as the US government isn't a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. OpposeGrognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose As many have said before, wikipedia's definition of Assassination presupposes some personal gain on behalf of the killers. It could be argued either way whether President Trump made political gains or losses based on this action. However, Michael Pompeo also stated this morning on CNN that the killing of Soleimani was conducted in order to end the threat of an imminent attack against U.S. servicemembers in the region. Soleimani's case is unprecedented because he was not only an Iranian General but his role as commander in the Quds Forces was to support extraterritorial forces such as Hezbollah, which are considered terrorist groups by the U.S. and its allies. Due to the attack on the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and murder of an American contractor earlier this week, which were orchestrated by said groups, the killing of Soleimani comes across not as a sudden death but as retaliation against an enemy combatant. Amanda.Yaya99 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The article is about the airstrike, with broader impact than just the killing of an individual. WWGB (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for Suleimani's name to be in the title because he was not the only well known person killed in the airstrike, unless he was the target. Christian Kingsley (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Suleimani's name won't be appropriate in the title because he wasn't the only well known person killed in the airstrike, unless he was the prime suspect. Christian Kingsley (talk) 14:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Could I purpose "Airstrike on Qasem Soleimani"? It seems like a reasonable compromise. Marcuspkillian (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

New Title : Soleimani-Mahdi Assassination

 * Several people seem to object to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani on the basis that Qasem wasn't the only person assassinated. Can we get consensus to mention the two major figures assassinated?

Support

 * Support - Seems equally good. NickCT (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on him is Qasem Soleimani, so we should stick with that, I think. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Nay Closer to inclusive, but still discounting a lot of less-famous-but-real victims. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same reasons given for the "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani". Qono (talk) 20:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Again, discounting the other victims. Title is good as is. Ultimograph5 (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose For the same logic given for "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani". The situation and context is bigger than the two prominent figures killed and the article title should reflect that. The nature of the cause of death was a military operation, the same reason behind why Barisha raid isn't titled "Assassination of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi", unlike say Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand. In other words, I currently prefer the title to remain the way it is. RopeTricks (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Calling it an assassination would imply only one person was the target, which does not seem to be the case. This commander just happens to be the most famous. Also, this was a military operation. Like the others before me, I think the current title does just fine. Nerd271 (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, current title is neutral, and is too recent to gauge if this action will be historically known as an assassination of a prominent figure or as a military operation. Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike → Assassination of Qasem Soleimani – Seems like the more WP:COMMONNAME.

It seems like most sources are focusing on this event as an effort to assassinate Soleimani. Shouldn't we move this article to that page per WP:COMMONNAME? NickCT (talk) 14:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added this to Requested_moves/Technical_requests. NickCT (talk) 15:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think the current title is ideal, but I don't see most reliable sources calling this an assassination. "Killing" is used much more commonly. I think "U.S. killing of Qassim Suleimani" or "2020 airstrike against Qassim Suleimani" would more closely adhere to WP:COMMONNAME. Qono (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Doing a search engine test makes it look like "killing" is roughly as common as "assassination". Interesting that most US sources tend towards "killing", while non-US tend to use "assassination". I'm sorta ambivalent about which one we use, but I think "assassination" might be more percise. It explains what kind of killing was being done. NickCT (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , There may be something to the U.S./non-U.S. difference, but the sources that are most reliable and arguable the most international (NYTimes, AP, BBC, Al-Jazeera) are using "killing". A neutral Google News search for "Qasem Soleimani airport" also shows pretty clearly that "killing" is more common. I think "assassination" is also problematic because several people were killed and "assassination" implies only one person was targeted and killed. Qono (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Your link doesn't seem to work. I think what you'd want to do is compare ("Qasem Soleimani airport" killing) versus ("Qasem Soleimani airport" assassination). Saying you're doing a "neutral" search w/ a single term doesn't make sense, b/c it's still you counting the number of hits (which is subject to your bias), rather than letting Google count for you.
 * re "several people were killed" - Sure. But the main event seems to be Qasem's assassination, right? I mean Governor Connally was shot at the Kennedy Assassination. We still call it the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Not the "The Book Depository Shooting". NickCT (talk) 16:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry about the broken link. The point is that after searching generally for "Qasem Soleimani airport" shows that most of the top hits use "killing" and not "assassination". This is just one measure. Wikipedia's policy says that the common usage in "independent, reliable English-language sources" should determine the title, and as far as I can tell, "killing" is more common and more neutral as well (WP:POVTITLE). "Assassination" implies treachery and political motivations. This seems to be a primarily military-motivated attack. Qono (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - I agree with everything you're saying. I'm just asking whether you should be counting references to determine WP:COMMONNAME, or whether you should be letting Google (which likely isn't biased) do the counting for you.
 * I'm not 100% sure that assassination is necessarily treacherous, more than it's stealthy. Plus, assassination can be for military reasons. Check out our great article on Assassination! And yes.... I know Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. NickCT (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Simply counting sources has its shortcomings, we should be considering the usage by reliable sources and giving them due weight based on their reputation and readership. I've made a list and consolidated my arguments below. There's a link to Merriam-Webster that shows the treachery and politically-motivated implications of "assassination". P.S. You might want to add a move template to the top of this section to draw more attention to this conversation. Qono (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Right. But you're calling sources reputable and well read to confirm your own bias. For instance, you picked up on a NYT article that used "killing", but ignored NYT also uses "assassination. Google doesn't do that when it produces a count.
 * PS Will add the template. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm calling sources reputable based on the consensus of Wikipedia editors and the prevalence of those sources in Featured Articles and Good Articles and was neutral in my search query that resulted in the list below. I came across 2-3 uses of "assassination" among the 20+ sources I listed below. Regarding the NYTimes, if you look at their home page, "killing' and its variants appear 11 times, "assassination" 0. Thanks for adding the template! Qono (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - I take your point that if you look certain places you can see "killing" used more often. I just prefer methods that look over the whole sum of RS's, rather than just certain places. If I looked only at the sources I liked (e.g. the NYT homepage), how would I know I'm not cherry-picking to find the wording I want?
 * You didn't answer my point about assassination being "stealthy" rather than "treacherous". Can you find a source that defines assassination as "treacherous". Perhaps that's just you conception of the word? NickCT (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , My earlier explanation should show that I'm not cherrypicking sources. I'm using neutral wording in my query and the consensus of editors regarding which sources are reliable. The source that I linked to below in Merriam-Webster, which defines "assassinate" as "to injure or destroy unexpectedly and treacherously". Qono (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Hmmmmm..... It would seem you've opted for Webster's secondary definition. Do you see how that's cherry-picking? You literally picked a more obscure definition from several definitions to fit your conception. NickCT (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Both senses are applicable. The weaker figurative sense implies treachery. This is also captured by Century Dictionary: "Assassinate means to kill wrongfully..." In most dictionaries I've checked, the primary sense also usually emphasizes a political motive, which seems wrong given that the motive here is primarily military, as I've said. Either way, my NPOV argument is my secondary argument. The main thing is that "kill" is used far more often by reliable sources. Qono (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Agree that assassination is primarily political, but Soleimani was a pretty substantial political figure. It would seem the motive for the assassination/killing was both political and military. I think the way you're coming to your "far more often" conclusion is flawed. Search engine test could be helpful. NickCT (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ok, I don't think raw numbers of Google search results is the only way to go about it, but even given that measure "Soleimani assassination" has 9 million results, "Soleimani killing" 58 million. On Google News, it's 1.4 million to 12 million, again in "killings" favor. Qono (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - You didn't limit the time frame. Doesn't really make sense to look for the terms in articles from a month ago. Plus, you've got to go to the end of the list to figure out the number of unique hits. See the comparison I provided earlier. The count will obviously change as time goes on.... NickCT (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Fair enough, but even when limiting to the last 24 hours, it is 7,710 results vs. 4,900,000 again in favor of "killing". Qono (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Can you provide links? I'm getting 131 versus 120 when I try that. NickCT (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sure. Hopefully these links work: "killing" (~6M) vs. "assassination" (~9K). Qono (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Country X, orchestrates a fatal attack on a military commander of the country Y, on the soil of country Z, while neither are on war. What do you call it? Pahlevun (talk) 17:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I call it assassination but personal opinions of editors are irrelevant. WP:OR, etc.. WikiHannibal (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Nothing says the article title can't change with time. If it changes to killing tomorrow, so too we can change. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced that "majority of sources call it assassination". I also think article names should not change every day based on news headlines. Such intention makes this discussion a waste of time. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - I'm not sure a majority do either. Doing a search engine test, "killing" versus "assassination" looks pretty comparable in search engine testing to me. One seems more precise though. NickCT (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So when you wrote above that "A majority of sources call it assassination today.", that was a general sentence not related to today's today nor to this particular article? If that was so, I did not get it, sorry. In any case, I still think article names should not change every day based on news headlines. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I misspoke. I should have said "If a majority of sources...." I was just trying to say that common names can change, and we can change too. Agree we shouldn't change every day. But I think we should try to at least get it right on the first day! I know we're not news.... NickCT (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * User:WikiHannibal: Those links were examples to show that using this term is common, so commenting on them one by one would lead to a red herring in my opinion. Using the term "assassination" in the title would not be a personal opinion nor WP:OR when you have reliable sources. Qono argued that assassination is not a neutral word, and I provided a scholarly source that says otherwise. We even have Category:Military assassinations here. I'm not saying that any other naming would be wrong, but I believe that the straightforward and historic name for this event would be that. No one will remember Baghdad International Airport, the year 2020 or airstrike in future. Pahlevun (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that making a list of sources that call in assassination and not saying the rest (that the same sources also call it "killing", that they quote someone etc.) is a misinterpretation. As for the rest of your response, I did not comment on your discussion with Qono, nor wish I to do so. My concern is, and will be, only the list which looks impressive and can influence editors who are not careful enough to check the sources themselves. I am sorry I cannot say now what "No one will remember". WikiHannibal (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * -re "making a list of sources that call in assassination and not saying the rest" - That's a fair point, though we've also made a list that call it "killing". NickCT (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the items of the list list which was to support "assassination" call it "killing" as well. Or quote. Or are not related to the current attack, etc. The list is not objective but a misinterpretation of sources. WikiHannibal (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * re "Some of the items of the list list which was to support "assassination" call it "killing" as well" - And vice versa. NickCT (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Nick, above you said Doing a search engine test, "killing" versus "assassination" looks pretty comparable in search engine testing to me. That was not my result. I found that "Soleimani killed" (without quotes) brings up 78 million hits and "Soleimani killing", 80 million. "Soliemani assassination" gives only 16 million hits. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Hi Melanie. Thanks for weighing-in. Couple notes; 1) are you restricting your search to content written since the strike? If I ask for articles since then with the terms "killing" versus "assassination", I see roughly comparable numbers. 2) I think even if you find these terms are roughly comparable, there's a WP:PRECISE argument to picking assassination. "Death of MLK" and "Assassination of MLK" might be roughly comparable terms, but I don't think anyone would propose that it'd be OK to rename Assassination of Martin Luther King. NickCT (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Hi Melanie. Thanks for weighing-in. Couple notes; 1) are you restricting your search to content written since the strike? If I ask for articles since then with the terms "killing" versus "assassination", I see roughly comparable numbers. 2) I think even if you find these terms are roughly comparable, there's a WP:PRECISE argument to picking assassination. "Death of MLK" and "Assassination of MLK" might be roughly comparable terms, but I don't think anyone would propose that it'd be OK to rename Assassination of Martin Luther King. NickCT (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * To encapsulate the nature of the killing, "airstrike" and "assassination" are both insufficient -- airstrike sounds strictly military and wider-scale while assassination sounds strictly political and surgical. Furthermore, as many have pointed out, many important people died, and unlike the Death of Osama bin Laden (note the title), where multiple high-value targets were also killed, one was not so overwhelmingly instantly recognizable to the general public that any other casualties were an afterthought. I know of no poll to gauge public recognition of Solemani prior to this week, though one may come out after this week. Furthermore, in a month or a year, it may be that another of the casualties was the more critical political figure in the events to come. Tldr: it is too soon to say one figure here stands head and shoulders above the rest in consequence to world events in the past and coming months, and it is too soon to know to what extent the killing was political or military or something else in nature to ascribe it a proper word. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

- Governor Connally was shot at the Kennedy Assassination. We still call it the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Not the "The Book Depository Shooting". NickCT (talk) 18:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And like stated, it's an unfair comparison to make. We should have definitive, reliable sources which state that Soleimani was the sole intended target of the drone strike. If I'm allowed to speculate, it would otherwise seem extremely coincidental that the commander of the militia at the heart of this episode (December 2019 United States airstrikes in Iraq and Syria, Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad) just happened to be collateral damage in this strike. Therefore, it'd be wise to have definitive sources first. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 18:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess we could do something like "Solemani Mahdi Assassination". NickCT (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: Note that Time has today extensively used the word "assassination" on the headline:, , , , ; plus Financial Times has used "Soleimani assassination" for its live coverage page. Pahlevun (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for this move on the talk page, so I think a technical request may be inappropriate. There should be at least some discussion on this before the move. Qono (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You can always move this to the "contested move" section. Anyways, it seems there's consensus for a move, even if this move isn't the one we want. NickCT (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that the discussed move is politically controversial, it will surely be closed by an admin, who will have no problems moving the page anyway. Right now, a technical request is as useful as an ash tray on a motorbike. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyways, it seems there's consensus for a move, even if this move isn't the one we want. I see no evidence of that. In fact discussion above appears to be strongly opposed to either of the currently proposed moves. Future discussion might result in a tweak of the current name, but no move should be undertaken without discussion and consensus. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - When I wrote that, only a couple folks had weighed in and it seemed those opposed might want "Killing of" rather than "Assassination of". Looking back, I should of polled for what the "right" new title should be before making the move request. It seems clear to me that whatever the title should be, the current title is wrong as it seems to imply this "event" was an attempt to blow up an airport. I think we can all agree that that's not right?
 * Unfortunately, I think there's too much emotion surrounding the word "Assassination" and national pride for my initial proposal to carry. NickCT (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good point about putting "airport" in the title. Maybe just "2020 Baghdad airstrike"? I think you are right that we need a free-form poll to suggest possible titles, before narrowing it down to one. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What would you think about snow-closing the open "support-oppose" discussion, removing the "proposed move" tag, and starting a new discussion "suggested titles"? With all proposals to be listed at the top and numbered for discussion purposes? "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" as "Soleimani-Mahdi Assassination" would be two of the proposals. And maybe with no !voting as such, just discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - "2020 Baghdad airstrike" would definitely be more concise, and probably less misleading. But it still doesn't seem to make clear that the substance of this event was that one or more people got killed/assassinated. The notability of this event was the deaths that happened, right? Not merely that there was a strike.
 * Yes. Snow close please. My proposed title obviously won't succeed. Maybe I'll set up a poll tomorrow. I do like voting though. The problem is that there are going to be too many ideas on what the title should be. The discussion will be endless. Voting will tell us quickly which title there is most consensus for... NickCT (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. I have to go out, would you please ping previous discussants to the new subject? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. NickCT (talk) 06:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)