Talk:Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad

Pro Iranian militia
Hi, Associated Press says: "Miltiamen" and CNN clearly states "Pro-Iranian militia". Being pro-Iranian doesn't mean they are Iranian. It means they support Iran. ‍‍Telluride (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources say Iraqi protesters and pro-Iran-backed. Don't combine two sources to imply something, not excplictly in the sources see WP:SYNTH. Also we use what most reliable sources say. Also, when you say pro-Iranian militia you mean these protesters are militia? thats not in the sources? Also if you mean that these people are supporters of the Iranian militia Ktai'b Hizbullah are not Iranian militia.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that they are not Iranian. Associated Press clearly says: "Militiamen breach US Embassy in Baghdad; Trump blames Iran". Washington post says: "These 3 pro-Iran militia leaders are provoking protesters at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad". ‍‍Telluride (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The source clearly says, protesters. The WaPo source name pro-Iranian-backed leaders who provoked protesters. It says that there were only three three influential men who lead Iranian-backed groups. You are ignoring all of what the source says and just say that pro-Iran militia attacked the embassy. Clearly not a NPOV.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I changed it  to "Iraqi Militiamen" as Associated press says: "Militiamen breach US Embassy in Baghdad; Trump blames Iran" and I stated that Kata'ib Hezbollah is an Iran-backed group as CNBC and multiple sources say ,but you reverted my edit again. Telluride (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are reading the title!. You are removing the solidly sourced description which is Protesters which all sources support and adding a description from titles and making WP:SNYTH. Sources say that there were only three people from the militia group who provoked the protesters.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Let me read titles for you "Protesters break into US Embassy compound in Baghdad, shouting 'death to America'" and the body says "Demonstrators shouting "Death to America!" smashed their way into the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad on Tuesday as protests intensified following U.S. airstrikes that killed 25 fighters of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq."--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not just the title. There were both militiamen and protesters. Associated press: "Angered by deadly airstrikes targeting an Iran-backed militia, dozens of Iraqi Shiite militiamen and their supporters broke into the U.S. Embassy compound in Baghdad" ‍‍18:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * CNN
 * Indepandent
 * Abcnews
 * Let's review what you want to say, you want to say that those who attack the embassy were the militiamen not the protesters but all the sources say they were the protesters even if they were provoked by pro-Iranian militias. You are removing any word of "protesters". This is obvious biased, unreal, unsourced description.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Your third source says Kata'ib Hezbollah is an Iranian-backed militia, but you still reverted my edit about that. There were both "Pro-Iranian protesters" and "Iraqi Shiite militiamen." These are the exact words from multiple sources. ‍‍Telluride (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

, you are again making WP:SNYTH. What you wrote is Pro Iranian militia' attacked the embassy. All sources call them protesters, we go with what sources say. We don't combine A and B to imply C.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop cherry picking. From your own sources, first one (CNN): 'The pro-Iranian demonstrators were mostly from Iraq's Popular Mobilization Units (PMU), a coalition of predominantly Shiite militias. Formed in 2014 to fight ISIS, the PMU were recognized under a 2016 Iraqi law as an independent military force that answers directly to the prime minister." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.114.138 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * who is cherry-picking me or you? Most sources call them protesters not "pro-Iranian militia".--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Exact words from reliable sources
The attackers were Iraqi miltiamen and Iraqi pro-Iran protesters. Also, Kata'ib Hezbollah is Iran-backed. Exact words from reliable sources:


 * France24 and Associated Press:‌ "Iraqi militia fighters and their supporters" and "Shiite militiamen and their supporters"
 * CNBC: "Supporters of Iran-backed militia"
 * CBS News: "Pro-Iran protesters"
 * WSJ and Financial Times: "Supporters of an Iran-backed militia"
 * CNN: "Hundreds of pro-Iranian protesters" "...demonstrating against American airstrikes on an Iran-backed militia group in Iraq"
 * NY times: "The airstrikes targeted an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia, Kataib Hezbollah"
 * ABC News: "Hundreds of protesters, fomented by pro-Iranian militias"
 * Jpost: "The protests were led by Iranian-backed militias."
 * NY Post: "supporters of an Iranian-backed militia"
 * CNBC: "The Iraqi supporters, many dressed in military apparel"
 * AFP: "a mob of pro-Iranian demonstrators" Telluride (talk) 14:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 January 2020
Trying to fix the url with refill tool. Attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 15:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The brief protection has been lifted. El_C 15:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Iraqi protestors
Referring to them as pro-Iran protestors may push a seemingly biased and generalized narrative when all of the protestors are ethnic Iraqis at the end of the day. They should just be considered Iraqi-protestors. I don’t think any country is pro-their nation’s fighters getting bombed eh? Something to consider for the editor. JasonMoore (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Deaths reported?
Could someone please add to the article how many deaths were reported with this attack? I can't find much about it online Apeholder (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The embassy attack? It says at the top of the page that no deaths or serious injuries occurred, unless someone has a more recent source saying otherwise. If you mean the drone strike that occurred in the aftermath, that would probably be better covered on its own page. --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

"Assassinated" vs. "killed".
I feel that in this context, where many sources refer to it as an assassination and the US has unambiguously said they were targeted specifically, "killed" is a WP:WEASEL word in context - it potentially gives the reader the impression that Qasem Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis were killed as unintended causalities, which is absolutely not what the sources say. If we were going to use killed (which some sources do use, sure) we'd have to add additional wording to make it unambiguous that they were intentionally targeted, which seems clunky when "assassination" is widely-used and fine as well. --Aquillion (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Also see the RFC here, whose eventual outcome may be relevant even if it's not strictly binding on this page. --Aquillion (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The word "assassinate" is ascribed to killing a person of notoriety. By its definition it is more accurate in this instance than "kill" because it has more subordinate information/detail. "Kill" does not inherently mean the attack was targeted at the individual in question (it was), "kill" does not suggest the target was of notoriety (it was). End of debate. --Stono rebellion (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2020 (UTC)