Talk:List of assassinated people

Died as a result of assasination attempt (indirectly)
Would an individual be considered to be assasinated if he was attacked, stabbed, survived the stabbing, then died later as a result of hepatitis contracted from a blood transfusion following the stabbing? This incident did happen, namely to Edwin O. Reischauer. The incident is recounted in Douglas Starr's "Blood: An Epic History of Medicine and Commerce" ISBN 0-688-17649-6 (though not yet on Wikipedia) For additional sources, read here and User:Orville Eastland


 * I actually added someone who had that very thing happen to him - Hugh II of Le Puiset, who was attacked and stabbed, survived, but never really recovered and died a few months later. It's customary to call it an assassination because it was probably an assassination attempt, at least. Maybe it should be removed though...I don't know. Adam Bishop 21:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * In the US, I believe it is customary for an assault to be classified as murder if the injuries indirectly lead to the person's death within one year of the attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.125.93 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Biggie and Tupac
Notorious BIG and tupac, assassinated??

I think Chris Rock said it best -- Martin Luther King, assassinatd. Malcom X, assassinated. Now I like biggie and I like tupac, but school is going to be IN on their birthdays.

I think we should probably take those out.

Raul654 02:12, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Notorious BIG, Tupac, and John Lennon should all be removed. They were murdered NOT assassinated.

I would agree in principal, but Lennon, at least, is always refered to as "assassinated" in the media.

Can't recall the last time I heard it called the Lennon "murder". 66.3.106.4 (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Re-formatting suggestion, part the one
I suggest adding dates and placing them in chronological, rather than alphabetical, order. Fisk

It's not even in alphabetical order. This list is in no order whatsoever. -- Zoe

This is in order of the year when the person is assassinated. What is wrong with that? -- Taku 04:03 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think that it should be presented in both Alphabetical and Timeline Order, and that all attempted assassinations that failed should be included, as many of these assassinations are related across eras as well as within eras. The engine should also allow to group them by location as well as issue. dormantideas 15:00 Jan 30, 2012 (EST/DST)  —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC).

Re-formatting suggestion, part the two
Trying to bring some structure to the list, but it seems to keep mutating out of coherence. What I wanted to do was to separate the assassinations of heads of state/government from various other politically motivated assasinations. Also the Japanese political assassinations were so numerous that it seemed to warrant its own headline. The present sorting per annum ought to be maintained unless replaced with a better system. /Mic

Deathdate of John Paul I, Catholic Pope
Mic, since you insist that John Paul I died in 1981, you should change the corresponding article as well. Fisk 10:27 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't contend the date of demise for John Paul I. / Mic 10:40 Mar 13, 2003 (UTC)

Definition of assassination, part the one
I think there ought to be some distinction here between assassination and good honest murder. I mean, Marvin Gaye was killed by his own dad. How can that be termed an assassination? Deb 11:21 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * I'm curious of how you make the distinction that Marvin Gaye doesn't belong here but John Lennon does? / Mic 13:19 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)


 * They both don't belong here. Both were murdered. The trouble is you get their fans telling us otherwise. Iam 22:27, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Re-formatting suggestion, part the three
Since the title is "List of assassinated persons", I think the list of people who survived assissination attempts should be moved to List of people who survived assassination attempts. Any objections? -- Stephen Gilbert

David Kelly
David Kelly might not fit in the list of verified assasinated people, but doesn't it at least fit in the suspicious circumstances section? &#1499;&#1505;&#1497;&#1507; Cyp 08:59 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)


 * Why is it suspicious? It was a suicide. I'm not convinced it was anything else. Wikipedia should not engage in conspiracy theories. Iam 22:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Re-formatting suggestion, part the four
Added Thomas Hindman, moved the dates to right after the name, some were at the end, some were at the beginning. Some entries have been added out of annual order so I resorted some of them. 11 Aug 2003

Re-formatting suggestion, part the five
Sorry Docu, but if you can't deal with an edit conflict properly, I revert. Do your changes again without reverting mine. --Wik 19:55, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * My 2nd edit fixed that -- User:Docu


 * No it didn't. --Wik 20:02, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Would you wait two minutes till I'm done? I did it step by step to make it easier to follow. There are 2-3 changes in Africa I missed, but no use reverting all, if you don't bother checking the others. --User:Docu


 * Well, you're doing it wrong. You keep reintroducing errors I corrected hours ago. --Wik 20:30, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually I tried to do it just before Jdforrester started ;-)


 * What has Jdforrester to do with it? This started after his last edit. --Wik 21:00, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I should be done by now. Eventually, with the diffs, I would have found the changes. Which changes did I miss? --User:Docu


 * Enough. You're doing it all wrong by trying to repeat my changes. You just have to start from my last edit and repeat your changes (by hand, not by copying from your old revisions). --Wik 21:00, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * At which step starting from 1378223 weren't you able to follow the changes? -- User:Docu


 * What do you mean with "follow the changes"? Right with your "Africa" edit, you started reintroducing errors, e.g. Mpinga Kasenda, who I had removed for a reason (he wasn't assassinated). --Wik 21:13, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * You forgot to mention this in the summary field when you removed him from the list. The summary field is for this. Please check  for "reintroduced errors". There should be just two (spelling in Iranian names). -- User:Docu


 * I kept your versions for these three. Sorry about Kasenda, I assumed you had lost him. Feel free to simplify the current format, but please don't just reverse edits. -- User:Docu


 * Just because I don't mention something in the summary is no reason for you to revert it. You shouldn't complain about reverting edits, when you started it! If you thought I made a mistake you should have mentioned it here on the talk page first. You also reverted my edit on Burundi (both assassinations were in 1965). --Wik 22:09, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

James Connolly
Connolly was executed, not assassinated. Why is he here?

Exile

Tupac and Biggie revisited
I removed Tupac and Biggie. There is no evidence that the motives for their assassination were political, nor were they particularily important political figures. I am undecided about John Lennon: he was a political figure for the counterculture, although the motives of his assassin were not political. Biggie and Tupac belong on the List_of_murdered_people. Mprudhom 04:29, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I agree with moving Tupac and Notorious Big, but the same should be done for Selena, that Houston socialite and the other famous people who were murdered, not assassinated. Perhaps someone who knows how to do it (I don't) can take care of this. Italo Svevo


 * I changed the structure of the list slightly. To me it reflects better the current content and John Lennon can be listed under US, as his assassination is likely to be considered non political assassination.-- User:Docu


 * At the time of his death was John Lennon still a political figure? He had dropped out of public life for a number of years to concentrate on his family. The peace movement he was a part of in the 60s had long since died out in the 70s after the Vietnam War ended. I would still say his death was murder not an assassination. Iam 22:34, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry you have it completely wrong. JOHN LENNON'S DEATH WAS CONSIDERED AN ASSASSINATION.  He was considered a political figure BECAUSE of his peace activism and other affiliations such as the fact that he financed a rally that was intended to disrupt the Democratic National Convention.  The Nixon administration continually tried to remove him from the United States because of his anti-war stance.  Nixon was a hawk, Lennon a leading dove.  This is a political stance.  Other murdered musicians such as Tupac Shakur and Notorious B.I.G. are not considered assassinations because their deaths were considered the results of a personal feud.  Also, Lennon had NOT dropped out of public life at the point of his assassination.  That was in the mid 70s, and he had well returned by the time of his death in December 1980.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.234.164 (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Anna Lindh and the nature of assassination and this page
I put Anna Lindh back. Olaf Palme is listed, and his murder has never been solved, so unless you think we should remove both of them, which I don't agree with at all, they should both stay and we should assume that nearly every politician killed in office will be a political assassination. Note that the royal family of Nepal was listed, and they were killed by one of their own members, as were many of the ancient emperors. We don't need to be so technical. 68.116.64.92


 * There is a difference between a murder never being solved and, as is the case with regard to Mrs. Lindh, investigations not having gone on for long enough to give a verdict - that is, although we don't know that someone has been killed with a political motive if noone has been sucessfully convicted of the crime &c., we could cite them as an assassination if it is widely assumed to have been as such (and, of course, correct this assumption if it is later proven to be unfounded).
 * With regard to the 9 members of the Nepalese royal family, that the killing was perpetrated by one of their relatives has no bearing on whether their killings were 'assassinations' per se; it is assumed that the killing was indeed political, however, so we keep it.
 * And why don't we need to be 'technical'?
 * James F. 12:23, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The list contains several persons who were killed by "lunatics" without apparent political motives. For a murder to be called an assassination it suffices that the victim is a prominent person (regardless of the killer's motive). --Wik 12:54, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, if everyone else thinks that that's a suitable inclusion requirement for this page, I'll accede :-)
 * James F. 13:18, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Gees. You shouldn't accede all that easily; takes half the joy out of my carefully mastered evidentiary presentation...


 * Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language: "To kill by secret or surprise assault. [...goes on to refer to character assasination, but not much else]"


 * The Modern Guide to Synonyms (originally also a Funk & Wagnalls endeavour, the authority here though is not in that reputation (or lack of same), but in the compiler, S.I Hayakawa): [as compared to "kill", "butcher", "dispatch", "execute", "massacre", "murder", "slaughter" and "slay"]...Assassinate is a specific form of murder in which someone kills a public figure, usually a political leader, for whatever reason: [...]


 * The Random House Dictionary of the English Language: "to kill suddenly or secretively, esp. a politically prominent person; murder premeditatedly and treacherously. [...then goes into the figurative uses such as "character assasination"]


 * The Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition) repeats and repeats again well past my boredom threshold the phrase (substitute "murder" for "kill" a few times) "To kill by treacherous violence.". None of the definitions in OED address motive at all. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 14:29, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

Short entry
The entry for Stephen Knight is just limited to his name. Who was he? -- User:Docu


 * An investigative journalist, who died in a bizarre downhill skiing accident. He was investigating some organisatorial connections of the MAFIA at the time. (That is just about all I know about his death; that it was considered fishy by some. Hence added him to the list.) He wrote a rather naive "expose" of the freemasons titled The Brotherhood, but that was ages ago... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 12:50, Sep 13, 2003 (UTC)

Yi Han-yong
North Korean defector gunned down in Seoul, 1997, supposedly in retaliation for the more recent -- and much more prominent -- defection of Hwang Jang Yop.

Should be added.

Also as "Ri Han-yong" and "Lee Han-yong". Wiki inconsistent on spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.3.106.4 (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yamamoto
Since Isoroku Yamamoto was shot down by enemy forces during declared war, does this really count as an assassination? -- Ortonmc 22:10, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * See above for an elucidation as to the 'real' meaning of the term 'assassination' :-)
 * Seriously, I would consider individual targetting of people assassination, even if they are the 'enemy' - had he just happened that have been shot down, that would have been normal warfare, but that his position was known from SIGINT and used to track down and kill him, I think calling his killing an assassination is quite justified.
 * James F. 22:31, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Would you consider Uday & Qusay Hussein to have been assassinated, on the same theory? -- Ortonmc 21:37, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * No, they were, I suppose, killed whilst resisting (miliary) arrest by the occupying force (as war had been declared over by the US, they weren't killing the enemy); however, as the idea was to arrest them, and they got killed in the resulting gunfire, I'd be hesitant to cite them as assassinations per se...
 * James F. 23:35, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I think "Died under suspicious circumstances" might be a useful compromise here... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 04:56, Sep 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sounds appropriate, I suppose.
 * James F. 13:37, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * But isn't "suspicious circumstances" for people whose deaths actually were suspicious, as in we don't really know how they died? In this case we do know how they died. I don't think it was really an assassination either, though... Adam Bishop 22:07, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Hmm. What about 'killed in contentious legal circumstances'? Rather a mouth-full, I'd suggest. Does anyone actually think we should keep them here, however?
 * James F. 00:35, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Odai Hussein turned his gun on himself (self-inflicted gunshot wound in the head) rather than be captured, so that would count as a suicide rather than assassination or murder. Since both were armed and fired at US soldiers when told to surrender, it definitely can't be classed as an assassination.


 * We can't possibly know the real circumstances of their deaths. The official U.S. version can not just be taken at face value. --Wik 06:12, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Patrice Lumumba was executed, not assassinated.

He was assassinated. Claiming otherwise is ignoring the entire context of the event. --Sesel 14:46, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Upon seeing the definitions listed above for assassinations and also seeing that Yamamoto is listed (and i believe he should be there was an entire mission for the specific purpose of doing this) I have begun to add certain other people such as Baitullah Mehsud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.105.102 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Wellstone
Why is he listed as a suspicious death? His biography article does not cast any suspicion of sabotage, and just because he died in an aircrash shortly before an election doesn't make it suspicious. His aircrash is hardly in the same category as that which killed the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi in 1994. Pending a serious objection I will remove him from the list. Dbiv 15:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I live in Minnesota, and many people here suspect foul play. Also, see ISBN 0975276301. I do not necessarily support the claim that he was deliberately targeted, but there is evidence of official misconduct. --Sesel 18:52, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * From the publisher's description of the above-named book: "In the wake of the crash, 69% of Minnesotans blamed a 'GOP Conspiracy' for Wellstone’s death." --Sesel 18:54, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That opinion poll is not really relevant - note "in the wake of the crash", which can only mean "shortly after the crash" and before any inquiry had been conducted. Likewise, a general suspicion of foul play would not be enough. Any unnatural death of a popular political figure is likely to give rise to such suspicions - witness the theory that Hugh Gaitskell's sudden death in 1963 was the result of a Soviet conspiracy, which has been round the UK a few times. Perhaps the entry should be changed to say "theorized by James H. Fetzer to have been assassinated - see American Assassination ISBN 0975276301."? Dbiv 19:29, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Table of Contents
The table of contents is way too long. I think that we still should sort it by the nation of assassination, though, since there are many more additions which could be made here. I think that we just need to put a tag in here and manually write nicer one. I've tried, but my attempts don't look to good on the preview page. Anyone else want to attempt it? --BaronLarf 00:43, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * I seriously think that if this list gets too long (and its starting to get that way) we should seriously consider deleting "red links" ie. links to non-existant articles. Unless there is an article on the assassinated person dont bother to list it. Megan1967 08:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * TOCright works well (IMHO). -- User:Docu


 * Wintceas: IMHO the right side TOC is more functional, but it looks ugly.


 * Aren't long TOCs rarely beautiful? -- User:Docu

Abed Hamed Mowhoush
I've added a brief biography on this man, I really don't consider him to be assassinated, it was an accidental death arising from a beating (Or possibly a murder), but definitely not an assassination. If there are no complaints, I'll be removing him from the list later this week once I've inserted a few more calls to him, so he's not an orphan page

Assassinations and murder
Perhaps there should be a list of "famous people who were murdered". This would resolve the problem. (The former Polish Prime Minister murdered a number of years ago would be included here.)

A "list of suspicious deaths" would become (a) very long very fast, and (b) quickly snarl itself up in claims of POV etc. Jackiespeel 17:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Salvador Allende
I'm going to go ahead and be bold and add him to the list... even though his page allows for the fact that his death may have been a suicide, the circumstances in which it took place (a millitary assault on his presidential palace) make it at the very least an de-facto assassination in my book. ZacharyS 03:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Reverted removal of Salvador Allende from list because no reasons were given. I agree with ZacharyS that his death was (at the very least) a result of the coup, if not an actual murder.  Therefore, it fits the page definition of assasination ("important people who were murdered, usually for ideological or political reasons"). Govus 06:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Filiberto Ojeda Ríos
Does he really belong here? i'm not saying the FBI did the right thing, but does this fit in assassinations?Daemon8666 21:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course it does! It is almost universally regarded as an assassination by Puerto Ricans. If going into a man's mountain hideout on the primary national holiday, shooting him repeatedly, and then denying access to medical personnel while the man bleeds to death isn't an assassination, what is? — Sesel wa  23:18, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, just wanted to be sure it wasn't someone having fun; i wasn't familiar enough with the situation to edit it out, so I wanted to put it to the community.Daemon8666 16:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Addition: Can you call the FBI killing of a man wanted in conjunction with a robbery an assassination? It was not necessarily politically motivated, although it is possible it was.Daemon8666 16:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It happened on the anniversary of the Grito de Lares, Puerto Rico's most important indigenous holiday. Of course it was politically motivated. — Sesel wa  21:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Does this mean we get to include David Koresh too? According to the Catholic church, every day is at least some Saint's birthday, and the ATF killed him. Koresh was at least as important to his followers. Daemon8666 21:47, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Update: Per the articcle directly related to him, I am removing it from this list. See discussion under Talk:Filiberto Ojeda Ríos for clarification.

J. Edgar Hoover
What is Hoover doing on this list? Taking him off until someone substantiates this. Daemon8666 16:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it for the time being Daemon8666 16:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Killed Hoover in the article. His own article does not record any foul play, and there is not mention of this elsewhere. If it is found to be tru it can be added. Daemon8666 16:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Time, Nationality and Location
Lord Cavandish was English and assassinated in Dublin which was part of the United Kingdom. Lord Mountbatan was English and assassinated in Ireland. At the moment Lord Cavandish is in the Irish section and Mountbatan in the UK section. This does not seem consistent.

Also what about time. Why is there a section for the USSR (BTY why former is there a current USSR? Do we write the former Roman Empire?) Many of the people listed in these lists are placed in a nation state which did not exist when they were assassinated.

For example Germany did not become a nation state until the 1870s so should all the people assasinated in Germany before that date be in the Germany section? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ceauceşcu
I think the death of Ceauceşcu was an assassination. Pasqual's talk (ca) 20:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Death of Kurt Cobain
Was the death of Kurt Cobain considered like an assassination or like a murder? Pasqual's talk (ca) 22:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Anna Lindh
Anna Lindh was not assassinated. Her death was a result of psychological imbalance, and for no political reasons. Therefore deleted this:
 * Anna Lindh, (2003), Swedish foreign affairs minister

Louis XVI
King Louis XVI was executed by the French Republic, not assassinated. I believe he was convicted of high treason by the Legislative Assembly in December 1792 and executed in January.

Deaths under suspicious circumstances
JFK should be included in this list, especially since you have already referred to Oswald as the "alleged" assassin.

Chen Lu
The article lists a Chen Lu as having been assassinated in 1939. However, the link points to a figure skater who was not born until 1976, and by all accounts, is still alive. Anyone know enough about this to fix it? --Sns 06:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton
does he count?

I would say no. Remember it is not a list of murders (which can also be debated regarding Hamilton due to modern definitions vs definitions within the time period) nonetheless it is not an assassination given the definition that we have been using on this page so far —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.107.81 (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

He died as the result of an agreement between himself and another party. So his death wasn't really an assassination, it was something of a half-killing and half-suicide-by-proxy. 198.151.130.15 (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Name change
This page should really be titled 'List of assassinations by country', comments? sbandrews (t) 19:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the current name of the article is all right, since it includes most of the famous people who were assassinated in history. -Pika ten10 (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

major changes needed
The current format for the list is absurd considering its length and likely expansion. The articles sub-divisions should be changed from countries to periods in history, there is no sense in dividing by country when countries are so transient. Secondly its length demands that the article should then be split into separate lists based on specific periods.Nwe 17:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Confusing...
What is the qualification for the people who will be posted with their names in this article??? Will we include those who survived assassination attempts??? Furthermore, where will we include the names of those assassinated, in the country where they are killed or where they are born? For example, three Romans are in the Germany section, and Sir Henry Gurney was included in the the Malaysia section.

Kindly please include those qualifications in the introduction part of the article. -Pika ten10 (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

ken saro wiwa
Unless we use the terms execution and assassination interchangably (which I dont' think we should) Wiwa shouldn't be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.255.143.104 (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?
I mean no offense to the individuals who took so much time compiling this list, but isn't this incredibly pointless? Attempting to create an exaustive list is simply futile, given how ridiculously broad the category is, which only makes this list fairly arbitrary. Seriously, off the top of my head I can see a rather gaping hole in that every single assassination carried out by the IRA during the Michael Collins era is absent. There is also Reinhard Heydrich, chief of the Reich Security Main Office, a rather important NAZI figure who was assassinated-an event with obvious historical importance. And that's just off the top of my head and I don't have very much knowledge on the subject to begin with. If you are honestly going to draw this so broad as to include assassinations of police chiefs or samurai killings in fuedal Japan, the list will only ever serve to demonstrate how pointless it is to even attempt such a list. Wouldn't it make more sense, and indeed wouldn't serve an actual purpose, if this list were broken down into categories (e.g. 'Assassinations of Heads of State,' 'War Time Assassinations,' 'Religious Based Assassinations,' etc.)? I mean as it stands it doesn't exactly serve much of a purpose with everything thrown together like it is. It would be like having an article labled "Every Political Crisis Ever" and then throwing every nation into the mix and including every war, every insurgency, every fixed election, every time a politician had an affair that went public, and so forth. There it would be much more helpful for those looking for such information to be able to find "American Political Crises" or "Modern European Conflicts" and the like. Again, I mean no offense, but I just thought it would be useful to raise the possibility that you are all spending a lot of time on an article that will always be hopelessly incomplete and entirely lacking useful orginazation of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 06:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keeping inside the criteria.
At the top of the article, we defined an assasination as this:

"This is an list of persons who were assassinated; that is, important people who were murdered, usually for ideological or political reasons. This list does not include executed persons."

However there can be many "assasinated" people that were simply murdered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.103.133 (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Details of circumstances here?
The basic details of this list are the individual's name, year of death, and title or reason for notability. The inconsistent inclusion of circumstances (e.g. perpetrator, alleged perpetrator, etc.) includes speculative, possibly POV content. As such, it belongs on the individual's mainspace page, not on this list. Though I'm an Inclusionist, I support adherence to basic criteria and I feel any details here, besides the three facts noted in my opening sentence, are out of place here. I'd appreciate some discussion here. -- Deborahjay (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Kurt Eisner
Why is Kurt Eisner listed twice, as an victim of assasination in Germany as well as in Austria? He was a german citizen and Minister of Bavaria/Germany, I can't see any relations to Austria. --87.166.82.177 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I have started to cleanup this list by removing all entries that are redlinked/unlinked and do not have a reference or another linked article that says the person was assisnated. Have to go for now, will continue to work on it later. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I finished what I think is an initial cut through the article. I also removed the list of suspicious deaths.  If another list needs to be created then someone can create it, but lede of this list says it is a list of assassinated people so I removed it.  A new name 2008 (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Starting on second cut through list. Removing names that the linked articles do not describe nature of death as assassination.  A new name 2008 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Re List_of_assassinated_people - Is it factual?
I think this article is meant to discuss the assasination of real people. I believe most of the people listed under this section are biblical characters who may or may not have existed or been asassinated. It would seem that section is presenting biblical text as fact and thus probably fails WP:V. I motion to delete the entire section. Anyone want to second my motion? NickCT (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I agree. Maybe move to List of mythological assassinations? ;) Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Gareth, I'm no expert on this, but I think that there is reliable information for at least of couple of these characters actually existing. I'm a bit hesitant to just blanket delete/move the section b/c we may move something that deserves to be there. NickCT (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with NickCT (talk); I changed the subsection header from "Biblical" to "Alleged Biblical Characters"; would that be satisfactory (or something similar to that)? I think it might be better to leave them here, given the valid point that Nick raised, but put in something that says "alleged" or something like that.  But that's just my opinion. - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ecjmartin - Thanks for trying to find a resolution, but I think the whole "alleged" thing is not the right way to go. By that logic we might include a whole bunch of people who some people alledge were assisinated (if they actually existed at all.  I think the bottom line is that there is either good RS to confirm that someone lived and was assasinated or there is not. NickCT (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. Eglon and Sisera are legendary, and Holofernes is a fictional character.  The rest are generally considered to be historical, although only some of them have attestation outside the Bible (Pekah is definitely attested; I'm not sure of the rest).  Simon Maccabaeus was not only a historical figure, he doesn't even appear in the Bible.  Most historians consider Samuel and Kings to be historical sources.  It is pushing a very strong POV to say that the later kings of Israel and Judah are "alleged Biblical characters," much less Simon Maccabaeus.  One can find many serious scholarly accounts of the divided kingdom period that take the historical record of the Book of Kings seriously and consider it a mostly reliable historical source.  john k (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what everyone else thinks here, but I could accept John K's solution. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Organization
The organization of this article is totally puzzling. Is it listing people by the country they were from, or the country they were assassinated in? Mostly it seems to be the latter, but then Alexander I of Yugoslavia is listed under Yugoslavia, rather than France, so I have no idea. The article intro doesn't explain it, but the sections themselves imply it's the location of the assassination - "Assassinations in Africa," and so forth. In addition, I think I agree with the earlier commenter that it would be better to organize this chronologically, rather than by country. john k (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Completeness
This list seems to generally strive for completeness (obviously not yet reaching it), but for some reason the list for the US isn't complete at all, and guides us to another article. The section for the US seems to largely exclude politicians, but Lincoln is there. john k (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

John McCarthy Roll
Based on the existing evidence, John McCarthy Roll was a bystander in an assassination attempt on Gabrielle Giffords. He randomly decided to stop by without any planning so no one knew he was going to be there. He was not the target of the assassination attempt. Does he really make the cut for this page? If so, what about the other five bystanders killed in the same incident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.125.93 (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Tazewell Tyler
Why is he included on this list? I've checked the New York Times archives, and his death notice says nothing about assassination. There also seems to be no mention elsewhere on the web. Pixelarian (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it, since the article does not mention anything about his manner of death.  GB  fan  20:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Operational definition of "assassination"
What's the difference between an assassination and an execution? 198.151.130.16 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Assassination" of Osama bin Laden
After reviewing the recent edits I've noticed I wasn't the only one to make this change; so I suppose it's time to have a little talk about it. The sister page on assassination on wiki defines it as:

An assassination is "to murder (a usually prominent person) by a sudden and/or secret attack, often for political reasons."[1][2] An additional definition is "the act of deliberately killing someone especially a public figure, usually for hire or for political reasons."

Assassinations may be prompted by religious, ideological, political, or military motives. Additionally, assassins may be prompted by financial gain, revenge for perceived grievances, a desire to acquire fame or notoriety (that is, a psychological need to garner personal public recognition), a wish to form some kind of "relationship" with the public figure, a wish or at least willingness to be killed or commit suicide in the attack.

The collective news sources and Associated Press seem to all agree that this attack was "sudden", so sudden in fact that the announcement by the president came at nearly 3am (EST). I understand that under certain circumstances it would be imperative for a military branch to act on intelligence information, but that then leads us to our next point; "or military motives". It was fully admitted

Lest we forget the whole reason the U.S. targeted Osama bin Laden? Due to his claim of responsibility for the attacks of 9/11 we were seeking "revenge for perceived grievances" and now the man is dead and buried at sea. Osama is not sitting in a prison cell in his native country awaiting a proper execution.

Once Obama received notice of the mission being accomplished, the president conveyed to the public via a televised event that Osama bin Laden was dead. Now I can't speak on the inner workings of someone else's mind, but such a prompt display made at such an hour could convey "a need to garner a personal/public recognition".

There is little doubt that Osama bin Laden was a public figure of importance. Not only to al-Quida and Hamas, but to the world at large. Some positive, most negative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruhne (talk • contribs) 14:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to add from the same page the section on targeted killing:

Targeted killing is the intentional killing–by a government or its agents–of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention.[30] Note that this is a different term and concept from that of "targeted violence" as used by specialists who study violence. Ibrahim Nafie, writing in Egypt's Al-Ahram Weekly in 2001, criticized the U.S. for agreeing with "the Israeli spin that calls ... its official policy of assassinating Palestinian leaders 'targeted killing.'"[31] On the other hand, Georgetown Law Professor Gary Solis, in his 2010 book entitled The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, writes: "Assassinations and targeted killings are very different acts".[30] The use of the term assassination is opposed, as it denotes murder, whereas the terrorists are targeted in self-defense, and thus it is viewed as a killing, but not a crime.[32] Judge Abraham Sofaer, former federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, wrote on the subject: When people call a targeted killing an "assassination," they are attempting to preclude debate on the merits of the action. Assassination is widely defined as murder, and is for that reason prohibited in the United States.... U.S. officials may not kill people merely because their policies are seen as detrimental to our interests.... But killings in self-defense are no more "assassinations" in international affairs than they are murders when undertaken by our police forces against domestic killers. Targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government to fall outside the assassination prohibition.[33] In The Impact of 9/11 and the New Legal Landscape: The Day That Changed Everything?, the point is made that "There is a major difference between assassination and targeted killing.... targeted killing [is] not synonymous with assassination. Assassination ... constitutes an illegal killing."[34] Similarly, Amos Guiora, Professor of law at the University of Utah, writes: "Targeted killing is ... not an assassination", Steve David, Johns Hopkins Associate Dean & Professor of International Relations, writes: "there are strong reasons to believe that the Israeli policy of targeted killing is not the same as assassination", Syracuse Law Professor William Banks and GW Law Professor Peter Raven-Hansen write: "Targeted killing of terrorists is ... not unlawful and would not constitute assassination", Rory Miller writes: "Targeted killing ... is not 'assassination'", and Associate Professor Eric Patterson and Teresa Casale write: "Perhaps most important is the legal distinction between targeted killing and assassination".[35][36][37][37][38] Targeted killing has been used by governments around the world, and become a frequent tactic of the United States and Israel in their fight against terrorism.[30][39] The tactic can raise complex questions and lead to contentious disputes as to the legal basis for its application, who qualifies as an appropriate "hit list" target, and what circumstances must exist before the tactic may be employed.[30] Opinions range from people considering it a legal form of self-defense that reduces terrorism, to people calling it an extra-judicial killing that lack due process, and which leads to more violence.[30][33][40][41] Methods used have included firing a five-foot-long Hellfire missile from a Predator or Reaper drone (an unmanned, remote-controlled plane), detonating a cell phone bomb, and long-range sniper shooting. Countries such as the U.S. (in Pakistan and Yemen) and Israel (in the West Bank and Gaza) have used targeted killing to kill members of groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas.[30] In early 2010, with President Obama's approval, Anwar al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be approved for targeted killing by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).


 * I should also mention in the main article Targeted killing, right or wrong, bin Laden is listed as an example of a "targeted killing". --Racerx11 (talk) 21:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * And there is this source which echos several news reports I have read saying although assassination is illegal under US law, Osama bin Laden was killed in "self defense". Self defense here in the sense that they are removing a person (a threat) known to, and who indeed has admitted to having committed terrorism against the US, and therefore the killing was "legal" as far as the US is concerned. Racerx11 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just now realized the latest edits have left him on this page. The more I think about it "targeted killing" is probably more appropriate. To address your points, Osama bin Laden was not killed because of political differences. He was killed because he claimed responsibility for a terrorist attack that resulted nearly 3,000 deaths and 6,000 injuries in addition to other attacks attributed to him. I can hardly see calling this "revenge for perceived grievances". I mean the boastful admission of killing 3,000 on your soil, a "perceived grievance"? I don't think so.
 * I also disgree with the "sudden" take you have on this. He has been on the FBI's Most Wanted Fugitive list since June '99 and has been on the Most Wanted Terrorist list since at least October '01 according to sources in his article. To "kill or apprehend" bin Laden has been the central goal of the War on Terror the U.S. has waged for nearly 10 years. This is not sudden. It took far too long.
 * As for President Obama's motives to "garner personal/public recognition", yes of course that's an incentive for any politician, but not fair to hang that on every great thing a President does as his only motivation.
 * My opinion, the definition of assassination just doesn't fit this case at all. Conversely, the description of "unlawful combatant" as "a person taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise" in Targeted killing seems to fit Osama bin Laden quite nicely. With all due respect Ruhne, I am reverting your edit. Racerx11 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Respect given and thanks for the revert. I appreciate the time you took to clarifying this. I know this would seem repetitive, but could we place shortened explanation of 'Target Killing' on this page for future circumstances seeing how this may resolve any further actions or questions by others?
 * I'd like to make some side clarifications. Nowhere on the FBI terrorist most wanted page has it or does it indicate or imply he's wanted killed. This is however a statement that was made after the effect in the speech by president Obama. If you have another source that was implied, I'd be interested in seeing it. (p.s. This is just my own private research at this point, my ideals of placing him on assassinated list is on indefinite hiatus.)

(hopefully i'll learn the quad tilde soon ;)) 68.186.24.220 (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC) (uuuhg) Ruhne (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be glad add a short explanation for "targeted killing" on this page. Good idea. I should have some time soon to take care of that. I don't know if there was ever a dead or alive implication attatched to the FBI's Wanted List. That phrase was actually from the quote "I don't think that we can finally defeat al-Qaeda until he's captured or killed," said by General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afganistan in 2009. I paraphrased it under the assumption——and my own personal belief——that this was the general sentiment or belief among those involved in the War on Terror.
 * The respect is to you. I don't how long you have been editing as an anon, but when someone with a new account makes a good-faith edit, I feel we should try to give a reasonable explaination to that user if we plan to revert it. I probably should have shortened that post of mine though and been more welcoming. Thats why I sent you the Welcome message. It was a standard template (I know, so impersonal). But the thing about signing your comments is included in those welcome templates. I guess because it's something commonly overlooked by new users. I still forget to do it sometimes. It's really not that big of deal. Just a good idea and good habit to get into. Keep editing and be bold. --Racerx11 (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, on the targeted killing explanation.--Racerx11 (talk) 00:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * im

Raul Reyes
Using the same rationale of the Osama Bin Laden case, I will remove Raul Reyes from this list. For those who do not know, Reyes was the #2 Commander of FARC, a known Terrorist Organisation, and his killing was conducted by the Colombian Government in a military operation. Like Bin Laden, a substantial reward for his capture or killing was offered. This was a targeted killing of an enemy combatant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedalonso (talk • contribs) 04:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Important," When???
Recently, the name of a murdered person was removed from this list (for the second time, now), because the individual doing the removing (and I give them full credit for acting in good faith) was convinced that this person (a priest in Algeria, I believe) was "not important" when he died, but only "became important later." First of all, we have no possible way of knowing how "important" the murder victim was at the time of his death; obviously, whoever killed him thought he was "important" enough to murder him! But laying aside this question, which can never be definitively proven one way or the other (as "important" is such a subjective term, anyway), we ought to consider that the victim is "important," today. Since "important" as used in the opening of this article is never actually defined in terms of then, or now, or both, I think there's a much better case for leaving this gentleman's name in, than for removing it--with all due respect to my collegue who evidently believes otherwise. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I have removed the term "important" in the opening to this article; it really isn't needed here, anyway... - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Since the word important has been removed from the introduction, then my objection to including this priest vanishes. It does represent a new problem who should be included in this list. There were 490,000 intentional homicides in 2004 in the world, a good percentage of these would be assassinated. They cannot all fit on this page. 8digits (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Excellent change, 8Digits. Perfectly-worded, now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 15:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we should make a convention where as well other wise we double up for example if a Syrian born in Egypt is assassinanted in Germany, should he be listed in Egypt, Syria or Germany. The convention here appears to be where he is assassinated 8digits (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC) 8digits (talk)


 * Sounds like a good idea to me. - Ecjmartin (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for no comment on my last edit.
I rarely make edits and thought i would have an opportunity to make a note about what i did when i clicked "save". Since that didn't happen, i'll just leave this note here. I found this page with an entry completely out of order (somebody in 2004). So i decided to edit it. While i was at it, i saw that some entries just had years, but no dates, so i added dates to them if there was more than one entry for the same year. But, i now realize that i made a mistake. I alphabetized MILK before MOSCONE because it was the same date. But, (duh!), MILK was, in fact assasinated after MOSCONE. So, i'll go fix that now. Sorry for the verbosity. Just trying to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trio (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Libya
Were the deaths of Gaddafi family members really "assassinations"? They don't seem to fit wiki's own definition very well.  Waleswatcher  ( talk ) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

George Polk
I added George Polk to the Greece section. His killing clearly meets the criteria for the page, as it was obviously politically motivated and he was a public figure of importance. He was trying to interview the communist general Markos Vamvakaris while the Greek government was claiming he had been killed. Also, most historians specializing in Greece, the Cold War, and the Balkans agree that the motive for his killing was the fear that his criticism of US aid to the highly violent and repressive Greek government was jeopardizing their funding and support from the west. BigLou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.210.190.15 (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Notification of merge discussion
I've made a proposal, at Talk:List of assassinations and assassination attempts, to merge this page with that one to create a single list of assassinations. If anyone wants to comment, please do so at that page, rather than here, so as to keep the discussion in one place. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)