Talk:Assassination of Qasem Soleimani/Archive 4

Requested move 6 January 2020

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus in favour of moving the title. El_C 07:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike → Killing of Qasem Soleimani – The current title makes it sound like the airport itself was the target of the attack; the "Killing of Qasem Soleimani" is how this event is referred to by most reliable sources. Though others were killed, Soleimani's death is the main thing mentioned about this attack. Though "assassination" is sometimes used by reliable sources, perhaps four times as many sources use the more neutral term "killing". "Killing of Qasam Soleimani" follows Wikipedia's policy that titles should use recognizable names that are neutral, precise, concise, and descriptive and non-judgemental. Qono (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support renaming the article as "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" in line with other historical assassinations, e.g. "Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand" and "Assassination of John F. Kennedy". The term 'assassination' has been used by credible international media outlets such as BBC, DW and Al Jazeera in relation to the death of Soleimani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.210.212 (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as the nominator. Qono (talk) 03:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, I agree that the current title is ambiguous at best (the airport was not the target). Is there an official designation (i.e. "Operation [Whatever]"?   2606:A000:1126:28D:80CC:FB4F:9449:9FB1 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Operation of liquidation of Qasem Soleimani". M.Karelin (talk) 08:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as proposer. The current title is a bad title, as it is neither recognizeable, nor natural, and it conceals the ramifications of the killing behind technical precision. I would like to note that the killing/assassination discussion was expected, and will likely continue. And that is okay. We can always move it again, when things are more clear, and media are more settled on what they should call this. A move now would make a future discussion on killing/assassination much more focused. ― Hebsen (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to the title "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani", I just think the target's name should be in the title. More news organizations are beginning to use "assassination", and it can be said to be a more WP:PRECISE title. ― Hebsen (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This was not my preferred title, but given the clear consensus in the earlier discussion, I believe we should move to this title. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as per RfC above. Still prefer "assasination", but I guess it's a more loaded word. Juxlos (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neutral . The Google search link in the proposal has a date range of Jan 1–3; the event happened on Jan 3 and it's now Jan 6. The "About 3,000,000 results" figure on the top of the first page is unreliable. When clicking through the pages of actual search results to the end, you can see there are far fewer unique pages than that. Search results also vary from user to user and region to region. Here are some variations I tried, and the numbers I got:
 * Searching Google News, Jan 3–6, for soleimani assassination: "About 6,000,000 results" on the first page . But, at 10 results per page (default setting), it's only 12 pages of results, and on the 12th page, it says "117 results"
 * soleimani killing: 17 pages, 155 results
 * "soleimani assassination": 13 pages, 127 results
 * "soleimani killing": 16 pages, 150 results
 * intitle:soleimani+assassination: 13 pages, 124 results
 * intitle:soleimani+killing: 18 pages, 175 results
 * intitle:"soleimani assassination": 13 pages, 126 results
 * intitle:"soleimani killing": 15 pages, 145 results
 * For me, the results aren't showing that one is 4x more popular than the other, but that "killing" is only slightly ahead of "assassination". I still think it's too soon to make this decision and we should wait until one or the other pulls more clearly ahead. – Levivich 07:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - Once again, I don't think there's anything that says we can't have this conversation again in a week. If you agree that "Killing of..." is a better title than what we currently have, why not just change now, revisit later? NickCT (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think moving a page multiple times within the first couple weeks is inefficient and kind of disruptive, in the sense that it adds unnecessary complication to a page's history, and creates unnecessary work (to update backlinks, etc.), especially when you end up with redirects to redirects to redirects to the final title. Editors get fatigued from multiple discussions about the same thing. And this page has already been moved multiple times. I'm of the camp that the current name is fine until we have a clear common name. That said, I've changed by !vote to "neutral", because you're right, I don't really oppose "Killing of...", and even if it's not a "clear winner", it has more search results, so it seems there isn't much grounds for opposing that name in particular at this time (which is different from opposing a move in general, which is really how I feel). – Levivich 17:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - I take your point, and agree we shouldn't be moving stuff willy nilly. That said, for current events, more frequent movement may be warranted.
 * Do you really think it's all that much work to do a move. Bots take care of double redirects, no? What's a backlink? NickCT (talk)
 * By "backlink" I just mean an incoming link ("what links here"), and yes, bots update double redirects... it's not like the entire encyclopedia will break if we move a page too often :-) And yes, a current event article might necessitate moves as facts change on the ground. I just don't see a reason to move the page from a title that describes it accurately based on the year, location, and type of attack, to one that describes it in terms of who was killed. The technical aspects of frequent moves (like updating redirects) might be no more than an inconvenience or unnecessary use of automated resources, but I think the discussion, which uses up the very limited and precious resource of human editors' time, is the most "disruptive" part of an unnecessary or premature move request (or multiple such requests). Since the sources don't clearly point in one direction or another, what we get instead are pages and pages of discussion that amounts to little more than editors sharing their personal opinions about whether "assassination" or "killing" is the better term, and whether it should name just one of the victims or two of them. It's not so much the redirects, but the discussion, that's wasteful. However, I'm "neutral" because that ship has clearly already sailed :-) – Levivich 18:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support: The suggested title is much more recognizable and natural. Moreover, the current title is very long and descriptive, why not using such a more concise title in accordance with WP:TITLE? -- M h hossein   talk 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I also support moving to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. It was indeed an ordered assassination, not a simple form of killing. -- M h hossein   talk 07:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The current title is very long, because it is a name of Military operation. The article is about government's actions. 76.21.97.234 (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose: I believe  "2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike" is the proper title of the topic as per  Neutral point of view and reference data from ich.   Goodtiming8871 (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: The current title works as per WP:NPOV. Qasem Soleimani and al-Muhandis's killings were a part of a U.S. military operation, and the article should be titled as such. The current title tells you the general location (the airstrike was not at the BIA terminal, but just outside the airport, a major landmark, on an access road) and the nature of the event (an airstrike, part of a military operation featuring intelligence gathering, positioning assets, etc.), along similar reasons for why the Barisha raid article isn't titled "Killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi": It was a military raid in Barisha, like how this article is an airstrike in Baghdad. The current title should, for now, remain unless further developments in the region reasonably suggest a more Iranian-centric title to the point of rendering any non-Soleimani related details not even worth applying. RopeTricks (talk) 07:45, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weakly support: Certainly the most important thing about the airstrike (as well as the reason for it) was the killing of Soleimani. Even if almost as many sources call it an "assassination" as opposed to a "killing", the fact that there is ambiguity means Wikipedia should use the neutral term. I prefer "targeted killing" to "killing" or "assassination", as is more precise than "killing" and still neutral. userdude 07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is a Military operation, it is not a killing or assassination. 76.21.97.234 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The two are not mutually exclusive and the military operation was certainly aimed at killing/assasinating Soleimani. Juxlos (talk) 08:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I suggest another name - Qasem Soleimani's liquidation. In Google, there are a lot of article with such name. Because this is a result of Army's actions, the word "Liquidation" is best. Check in Google results (Qasem Soleimani's liquidation). M.Karelin (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Liquidation" in this context is a much less standard term and there may be a section of the audience that interprets it as the US melting down Soleimani into a weird goo. Juxlos (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Qasem Soleimani not the only casualty. 61.219.59.36 (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Is not just Soleimani but also Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis.Shadow4dark (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we extend this RM to also consider the title Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. I appears to be a suggestion that have support, also by looking at the numbers from the RFC, so it would be stupid to have another move request after this one, if there is not consensus for "Killing of Qasem Soleimani". ― Hebsen (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as per Qono and Mhhossein Trolligarch (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There were multiple targets for the airstrike. The airstrike succeeded in reaching multiple targets, including one.  It would be incorrect to name the entry after only one of the targets. XavierItzm (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose the airstrike was indeed targeting Suleimani, but also al-Muhandis and 8 other people.GreyShark (dibra) 12:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike is OK. Can be changed later, for example after its legality is determined. I hope we will not have a new discussion on the title every day. WikiHannibal (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ha! Yes. Please. Every day. NickCT (talk) 13:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support - Better than the proposed title would be Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, but the proposed title is better than the current title. NickCT (talk) 13:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment How about Death of Qasem Soleimani? It's the way Osama Bin Laden's death article is titled and is neutral on either grounds. Seloloving (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - That's a good suggestion. We had a long discussion about possible titles. We should have included that one. Anyway, at this point I think we're simply to trying to decide whether this title (i.e. "Killing of...") is better than the current title. We can always have another move discussion later. NickCT (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I apologize if I distracted from the vote itself. I only brought it up as it's a title no one else has proposed yet (I ctrl-f the Talkpage) and "Killing, Assassination and Liquidation" smacked of political overtones, not to mention the last one being overly superfluous, in my opinion. I feel my proposed title would serve to cover the the problem of additional casualties incurred in the strike like the Bin Laden raid, while focusing on the main target being the the Iranian commander himself. Seloloving (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * - No need to apologize. I also don't think "Killing of..." is the perfect title. The problem is, everyone thinks the perfect title is something different. If we look for everyone to agree on one title, the title will never change. At the moment, I think we all ought to look at the title under consideration and simply ask "is the proposed title better or worse than the current". I'm sure this discussion is going to get recycled in the near future, and at that point "Death of..." can be considered. NickCT (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If the Death of... format is used, I’d consider using Death of Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis. Soleimani was the most important person in this strike, but al-Muhandis was also important. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: Change the title to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and create a redirect from Assassination of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis to this article. Reasons: The WP:TITLE should be recognizable by someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area. The title should be natural, be a likely search term, and a title that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. The title should be Concise, no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Also, event naming conventions say, "If there is a particular common name for the event, it should be used even if it implies a controversial point of view." Soleimani was a top ranking state representant of Iran and his assassination by the US government aimed to influence the political decisions of the leadership of Iran. Xenagoras (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I just listened to The Daily from NYT who labelled their episode "The Assassination of General Qassim Suleimani" when the initial NYT reports across the board were largely referring to it as a 'killing.' It shows that RS may begin to reference this event using alternate language as it's properly processed by them. I agree with @Levivich that it's too early to make a move for any title rename at the moment. Sleath56 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, because it is the common name and I don't consider it to be more neutral than "killing". Plus, assassination is the word in the specialized military terminology. Pahlevun (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support I also think Assassination would be the most accurate, but would accept Killing especially if it meant (per) that we don't have this discussion every day for a while. It can always be changed again at a later date if a clearer view emerges. FrankP (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just like we have Death of Osama bin Laden and Barisha raid (Death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi), we can rename to "Death of Qasem Soleimani". Assassination is another thing, articles about Kennedy and Lincoln are called assassination. This is Military operation !! 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:1:D09B (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The word 'Assassination' may convey a connotation detrimental to the understanding of the article, as it was/is a military operation. The current title is slightly misleading, as it does not mention the names of those killed. Perhaps something like "2020 Baghdad Airstrike and Killing of Qasem Soleimani" would work, although that seems almost too wordy. There is a happy medium somewhere though.Mulstev (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What kind of connotation do you mean? That would not be "detrimental to the understanding of the article" since the "military operation" was in fact "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani". We need to respect the readers and using a wrong title would be "detrimental to the understanding" of the readers. -- M h hossein   talk 18:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: I prefer "Targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani." soibangla (talk) 18:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Compare - 1). Death of Osama bin Laden, 2) Barisha raid, 3) Assassination of John F. Kennedy, 4) Assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Assassination and Military operation are NOT the same things. 2620:10D:C090:200:0:0:1:D09B (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, According to the AP Stylebook, assassination is defined as “the murder of a politically important or prominent individual by surprise attack.” In other hands (as the first point) the Baghdad airport attack was planned for the assassination of Solaimani which has been confirmed by RSes including 1,2,3, 4, 5, 6, In other words, no other purpose is mentioned for the attack.As the second point, it was the surprise attack which was declared by Mary Ellen O’Connell, an expert in international law and the laws of war at the University of Notre Dame School of Law."  she said that "So the targeted killing of a high Iranian state and military official by a surprise attack was “clearly an assassination.”Saff V. (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose (1) He was not the only casualty, (2) This was basically not an assassination, as he was already in a theater of war. Ms96 (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Soleimani was killed at a civilian airport in a region where there was no war. Also, his country was not at war with his killers. Xenagoras (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter what type of airport it was?! Also, do the US and Iran have to be engaged in a war so that we consider Iraq a combat zone? Since it's already designated as so by the US government 1 2. Ms96 (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Soleimani was the main target of the strike, and it's his death that makes this airstrike notable. I'd also be OK with "Death of", as we have at Death of Osama bin Laden. --Slashme (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, this doesn't matter unless we are alleging a systematic bias or there is an overwhelming tendency toward one style. Neither exist in this case (unless someone thinks we have a specifically pro-IRI but anti-Al-Qaeda bias). --Calthinus (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'd rather not have it changed, personally. --Freekhou5 —Preceding undated comment added 21:01, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: I like the current title as far as NPOV, but 2020 is still young and if further fighting occurs, the existing name is not future-proof. Psu256 (talk) 21:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Killing of... as much better than the present title which is vague and misleading. My 1st preference is Assassination of... but I'm willing to go with the present proposal just to get rid of "Airport airstrike". --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I do not like the current name at all, but "killing" and especially "assassination" seem to violate BLP policy. They suggest intent by a living person or persons to intentionally kill a specific person for political or military purposes (with strong connotations of the wrongness of the act) when no such intents have been established by law. The American president maintains (according to this article) that this was an action to disrupt an imminent attack, and not an attempt to kill an individual. That would certainly be neither an assassination nor an illegal or unjustifiable killing, were it true. (That's the hump we've got to get over - to find RS to prove it not true. The POTUS still has a viable defense.) It would be a killing incidental to a military action, the intention of which was not specifically stated as killing one man. But until RS meeting the high standards of BLP clearly give killing this specific man as the intent of those who carried out the action, I think the proposed move is contrary to WP policy. Something like "2020 US Military attack on (whomever, wherever, or whatever group)" would be far more appropriate. It does not presume any illegal motives that would require BLP evidence to support an intentional killing or murder or assassination. Dcs002 (talk) 05:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I agree with the underlying logic of renaming the article to focus on Soleimani, the proposed language is far too loaded, especially given the intense controversy surrounding this event. Killing, targeted killing, assassination, or any language to that effect seems tantamount to taking a stance on the issue. On NPOV grounds, I believe that language should not be used. As some posters have suggested above, I believe that "Death of Qasem Soleimani", in the style of Death of Osama bin Laden, would be the best title moving forward. Astro000 (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sort of support with caveats The proposed title is certainly better than the current one, but as many people have cited, the Death of Osama bin Laden title format precedent should be kept. Additionally, the article would need to be restructured to be more about the killing itself instead of making the attack the primary focus of the article. I see why people feel like the title should be kept due to the present nature of the article, but I think that the death of Soleimani is a more notable subject of an article than airstrike itself.  pluma  ♫ '''♯ 05:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Everyone is talking about it, but the "Death of Osama bin Laden" is actually irrelevant ot this case. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Doesn't matter unless there is an overwhelming trend to the point of de facto policy, or if there is systematic bias involved -- I really doubt that we have a specifically pro-IRI but anti-all-other-Islamists policy. --Calthinus (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" per above. Davey2116 (talk) 07:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, since Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis leader of Kata'ib Hezbollah was killed as well. If it was just one high ranking dude (Soleimani) it would be one thing, but in this case there are two significant targets. Hippeus (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hippeus is spot on. al-Muhandis was (1) the founder and commander of a 25,000-strong militia which is considered a terrorist organization by Japan, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States.  (2) al-Muhandis himself was listed as a terrorist by the United States back in 2009.  (3) al-Muhandis was the Deputy Director of the PMF, a 150,000-strong military organization.  This was no 2¢ terrorist. XavierItzm (talk) 13:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: While there are many wikipedians support the renaming to killing of Qasem Soleimani, I suggested that this article should be split as well, with information regarding deaths of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis need to split to separate article, while former article will be named Assassination of Qasem Soleimani since it is more focused about itself. The former can be restructured to be focused about the assassination of him (Soleimani), while others like Abu Mahdi will mentioned in separated article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.67.42.19 (talk) 11:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I say call it either "Killing" or "Assassination", but I'm more in favor of calling it an Assassination at this point. LuvataciousSkull (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment with regard to "Assassination of:" There is an ongoing debate over whether or not the killing should be considered an assassination. See: The American authorities dislike the word “assassination”, because it implies a flouting of international and humanitarian law. … Barack Obama issued a report on the legal framework guiding the United States’ use of force (which had included a raid on Pakistani territory in 2011 without the local authorities’ knowledge to kill bin Laden). It says: “Using targeted lethal force against an enemy consistent with the law of armed conflict does not constitute an ‘assassination’.” Assassinations, it notes, are unlawful under an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan in 1981. It is not our place to pick a side in this debate . The killing's legality can be discussed in the article; the title must be neutral.
 * Comment: A decision on whether to use the word assassination should be based primarily on the merit of its own grammatical accuracy. The opinions of "American authorities" who ascribe a negative connotation to it through their own opinion do not matter just as Myanmar government denial of the Rohingya situation did not preclude that page being titled Rohingya genocide. Sleath56 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Assassination has a specific legal definition in American foreign policy guidelines; there is more than just a grammatical difference between assassination and killing. With regard to your comparison to the Rohingya genocide, if a state officially contests the use of the word "genocide", such as the Turkey and the Armenian Genocide as well, Wikipedia relies on inquiries by independent reliable sources to determine if an event meets the criteria of the word. Subsequently, denial of the Rohingya or Armenian genocides are now considered fringe theories. Per the Economist source, there are ongoing inquires into the legality of the airstrike. If independent reliable sources reach a consensus that the airstrike should be classified as a killing then I'll wholly support "assassination", even if American authorities maintain the fringe view that the killing was not an assassination. userdude 23:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging userdude 23:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * See also:. As long as there is a debate within reliable sources, the title must remain neutral. Legality can be addressed in the prose. userdude 01:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Beyond the topic of legality and this event's placement within the US' framework on assassination, which is nebulous and deserves its own discussion, the view I've stated which is that US government's opinion on 'assassination' is irrelevant in determining the title can elaborated as this: The argument that the title must be determined by the US' position of a 'legal assassination' is a false proposition in my view. Utility of the word 'assassination' would not construe an editorial position on whether or not the strike was legal in the US and domestic appropriation of that term to fit certain connotations is irrelevant and tangential. What in particularly relevant here is how the RS come to describe this, which as indicated in my earlier statement of personal position above is in a process of evolving especially in the currently developing peripheral situation along with the grammatical merit of the term. I believe moving titles to any conclusion is very premature at this time, but if the RS come to adopt 'assassination' as the predominant terminology of reference, discussions on 'domestic legality' or the US government's view are wholly immaterial to this decision on title. Sleath56 (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Assassination" has more meaning than just indicating domestic legality. See, for example, Economist:it implies a flouting of international and humanitarian law or NY Times: as with many politically charged labels, the word has taken on significance broader than any one meaning, shorthand for concerns that Mr. Trump’s decision to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani was unethical, illegitimate or dangerous. There is an ongoing discussion within RSs debating if the term "assassination" is accurate, and (per WP:NPOVNAME) until the point that the significant majority of RSs use the term "assassination" we ought to use the non-judgmental term "killing". userdude 22:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers for a reply. As I've iterated, it's my view that the utility of the term to determine a conclusion through any framework of 'legality' is an appropriation of its grammatical merit. Additionally, in the case of the Rohingya genocide, 'Devil's advocate' debates were doubtlessly held on RS with an ultimate objective of debunking and proving that the otherwise, which would to be charge it as a 'genocide', was within the journalistic repertoire. The existence of such debates on RS should not hold precedence in the case of determination over a term's ultimate adoption and ubiquity in parlance through the RS. I believe such was your assessment on the Rohingya comparative citation as well. To which I'd add an addendum that the example of that page determines such secondary appropriative utilities do not demonstrate an infringement of WP:NPOVNAME . As I've said, I don't at the present hold a view on the adoption of any alternative name as I believe the event which was exacerbated by further recent developments has not had a chance to settle in the RS as of this time. However, if the case presents itself that the RS adopt it as the predominant term, that along with the appropriateness of its grammatical merit take the ultimate primacy in a case of determination. Sleath56 (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your clarification, but I don't think it is correct to consider the two RSs I mentioned 'Devil's advocate' debates. Both publications appear to use forms of "kill" rather than forms of "assassinate": Economist NY Times. To reiterate the points I think we disagree on: 1) I argue that there is a substantive difference between "killing" and "assassination" (outside of legality). 2) I argue that, per WP:NPOVNAME, until a significant majority of sources use assassination, we ought to use the more neutral term killing. userdude 06:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" not killing per above.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per clear and blatant violation of multiple WP policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. – Alex43223T 01:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because other people died in the airstrike. Axedel (talk) 01:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I also agree with "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" with my basis being the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand which was heavily compared to this in international media. Riadse96 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "Killing of ..." but prefer Assassination of Qasem Soleimani per WP:CONSISTENT. It is clear he was the target even if there were other casualties. Even the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln had other failed attempts to assassinate Seward and Johnson. --- C &amp; C  (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support this specific proposal at this time as it is clearly better than the current title. I may be willing to move to a title including "assassination" in the future, as reliable secondary coverage emerges. Right now, most sources are "hot news and immediate commentary" which are OK for now, but as the article develops, we gradually need to use better sources. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, by far the vast, vast majority of news sources have called this event the "Killing of Qassem Soleimani". That's the WP:COMMONNAME, period. Also, there is a possibility that there could be another airstrike on the airport this year (let's hope not). So this name is not suitable.VR talk  07:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - concise, less long winded, and the airstrike really didn't have much to do with the airport. Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or Killing of Qasem Soleimani, either is fine. Sir Magnus (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for reasons others pointed out. The death of Qasem Soleimani is certainly an important consequence of the strike, however he was not the only casualty, and not even the only significant casualty. Fernsong (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Casualties not limited to Soleimani.Selfstudier (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support CourtlyHades296 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This was an assassination. Not saying so is obfuscation. Other casualties were collateral. --Calthinus (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Killing" gives an impression of killing someone for trophy hunting. I will support a move to Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. It was an assassination of a high profile official of a country on an official business in a third country. "Killing" in the title is inappropriate. Let me make it clear though that I do not like current title either but the word "Killing" for this killing is not a neutral term in my opinion. Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 00:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose the name Killing of Qasem Soleimani; Support the name Assassination of Qasem Soleimani or Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and al-Muhandis. This was a deliberate killing as stated clearly by Trump and other US senior officials. Others were killed, but Soleimani was the main target, so for brevity, Assassination of Qasem Soleimani would be a reasonable descriptive name. Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and al-Muhandis would also be a fair descriptive name, but would need sources showing that the US Trump/Pompeo decision to strike included the killing of al-Muhandis as a deliberate action. Boud (talk) 02:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because current title has better neutrality and is broad enough to cover the fact that Qasem Solemimani was not the only person killed. Perhaps we should rename this to the actual name of the operation, analogous to Operation Vengeance or Operation Wrath of God, once the name is publicized.  I oppose "assassination" because Sulemani was arguably a military officer killed on the battle field.  Calling this an assassination would be taking sides in hotly debated political controversy, a violation of neutrality.  Jehochman Talk 14:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Support the name "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" the most, but Killing of Qasem Soleimani is still a huge improvement over the current title. Militaries assassinate people often throughout history, and even military targets like Reinhard Heydrich, Yamamoto, etc. The fact that another person was killed in the strike is irrelevant; other people were killed in the assassinations of Bin Laden (Al Qaida members), al-Baghdadi (ISIL fighters), and Archduke Ferdinand (his wife). Both suggested new titles are short, concise, and WP:COMMONNAME, unlike the current title. TheNavigatrr (talk) 21:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. Loaded language. Also the phrase "death of ..." (vs "killing of...") is commonly used for other, similar deaths, like Death of Muammar Gaddafi, Death of JonBenét Ramsey, Death of Joseph Smith, Death of Benito Mussolini, Death of Jennifer Laude, Death of Phillip Walters.  Dig deeper talk 22:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Multiple (6-11) people were killed. It seems illogical to have multiple pages, each more or less identical, but with replaced. I think the existing airstrike title is best.ThomasHarrisGrantsPass (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: He is not the only significant person killed in the strike.--Sakiv (talk) 15:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: “Assassination” and “Killing” have ring of bias. They also seem to me to oversimplify the facts of the operation, which was a military airstrike amidst rising tensions between two powers. Would support “Death of”, but that also seems simplistic and might better be separate page or at least a sub-article.--Fythrion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: It strikes me that, while there is a backlash against the use of "assassination" (and even "killing"!) as biased, that it would mean taking sides, no one has said that the characterization of this as purely a military operation is how the United States would prefer it. Why is that not biased? And when are we going to create the article on the United States–Iran War in which this military operation occurred? WP Ludicer (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not biased because it was literally a military operation, using military equipment, conducted using military and intelligence assets, and the option to commence the operation was one of many military-based operations presented to Trump by military leaders. It wasn't a CIA drone or a CIA-led operation, but was led by the Pentagon and was a US Air Force drone. This was a military operation through and through and pretending that it is otherwise is a needless oversimplification, needlessly violates WP:NPOV, and is disingenuous to a global audience. Treating it as a military operation is the least biased option from what I see. There is no war between Iran and the U.S. There is no state of war, and no war has been officially declared by any governing body. This is only a crisis for now. RopeTricks (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is biased because it is permitting the United States to have precisely what it wants: having it both ways. It is simultaneously a military operation against a high-ranking member of another state's government, yet somehow not an act of war. It is absolutely absurd that there is no concern for the fact that, in a desperate attempt to avoid inflammatory terminology, Wikipedia is falling into the trap of permitting the use of euphemistic or ambiguous language ("airstrike" very much makes it sound like a legitimate military operation) that strongly favor one side of the controversy. Just because the regular military carried out the strike doesn't mean it was not an assassination. I would argue that it was objectively an assassination, though "killing" is probably the most neutral term. And as an aside, no war was officially declared in Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan or Iraq. Declarations of war are not made anymore. That doesn't mean there have been no wars since 1945. WP Ludicer (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The airstrike involved firing 4 separate missiles targeting 2 vehicles traveling in a convoy. 9 individuals were killed outside of Soleimani, multiple of who have been identified as leadership in Iranian-backed Iraqi militia groups, including one wanted by multiple nations for prominent terrorist acts since the early 80’s. The strike occurred amidst escalating, retaliatory attacks between Iranian-backed militia groups and U.S. forces over several weeks, on ground used recently by those groups attack U.S. backed forces through a similar means (rockets). U.S. state representatives had previously made multiple public admonishments of these groups, specifically threatening increasing U.S. military responses as early as December 13th. Despite this, the groups affiliated with those in the convoy directed an attack at U.S. embassy in Baghdad on Dec. 31, only after which the airstrike on the convoy was ordered. To call it a “The Killing of Qasem Soleimani” is an oversimplification, and seems to mislead about airstrike’s background and intent.--Fythrion (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There is general consensus that targeted killing by military forces is a form of assassination. Assassinations can be a part of regular or "hybrid" war. Would you suggest an "execution" instead? My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: best choice I've seen is "death of..." unless a general "airport strike" type name for the event solidifies as ubiquitous in time. "Killing" is accurate, but not consistent with other entries for similar events. "Assassination" implies unofficial military action, as nearly every act of war is a targeted, surprise killing. Also, I would note that the American legal definition of "war" is not of any relevance to this question. The US and Iran have been at war for many decades, and IMO, this event is one military attacking another military target that had previously engaged them in battle, regardless of who started the war.  Awhodothey (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: I agree, the main event is the killing of Soleimani, however "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani" it would be a lot more precise.Mhorg (talk) 07:27, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


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