![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The page claims that there was no evidence for this claim, however it appears that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that this could have been the case. Iranian authorities “facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11,” and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard sought closer ties to Al Qaeda after the bombing of the USS Cole. According to a report by the US government, “Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Laden’s return to Afghanistan,”. It’s certainly a possibility that Soleimani was involved in this contact due to his role in the Iranian government as a source of funds for extremist groups. Therefore I feel like the wording on the page that Pence’s claim was “without evidence” was a tad bit harsh because he does show contact between Iranian authorities and Al Qaeda and Soleimani was often involved in interactions between the Iranian government and Islamic extremists Thrawn0504 ( talk) 22:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Alcibiades has already trimmed this ridiculous paragraph, which actually read like the title above (fake news, much?) until about an hour ago, but in my opinion the whole thing needs to go. Face it: so far, this is a non-event in economic terms. The Financial Times, for example, has today a whole article on how this is an economic nothingburger . Sample quote: "The price of Brent crude oil topped $70 a barrel on Monday, just shy of September’s $71.95 peak after a drone attack on Saudi storage facilities. Of note is the fact that oil is back near the top of its range that has sufficed for the past year. But the $86-a-barrel peak from October of 2018 remains some way off for now." [1]. Who cares about the stock price of Northrop Grumman? Just get rid of the whole thing. XavierItzm ( talk) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
User:WikiHannibal. [1] It's OK that you consider the phrasing not good, but you are confusing a fact with "opinion/speculation". The source explains thoroughly that Popular Mobilization Forces were created in 2014, and since 2016 joined the Iraqi Armed Forces by laws enacted by the Council of Representatives of Iraq, so it was only used to support a fact: Kill personnel of the PMF, means killing of official Iraqi servicemen. Rephrase it, instead of removing it. Pahlevun ( talk) 22:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
User:WikiHannibal. About this [2], the source says "A strategic framework agreement signed in 2008 between Washington and Baghdad called for close defense cooperation to deter threats to Iraqi “sovereignty, security and territorial integrity” but prohibited the United States from using Iraq as a launching point for attacks on other countries." So yes, that counts. Pahlevun ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If there is a problem with letter and spirit, the headline is "United States Killed Iraqi Military Official and Iraqi Military Personnel in the Two Recent Attacks", and it is very rigorously stating it as a fact. Pahlevun ( talk) 10:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, concerning the discussion above, I removed two sentences with quite separate meaning, and Pahlevun commented on them separately, so it would be best to keep the discussion separate.
1) At present our article says "Under Iraqi law, killing of al-Muhandis and other PMF members by the United States is a deliberate attack on military personnel and officials of Iraq, since PMF is legally incorporated into the Iraqi security forces by a series of laws and Prime Ministerial orders." I do not contest that "PMF forces are officially Iraqi military forces." However, the source says: "it is hard to interpret the operation, if deliberately targeting him, as anything other than the assassination of an Iraqi government official." I see a substantial shift in what is in the source, and what wiki says. Can you see it as well? Crispin is careful not to say what wiki says. "It is hard to interpret" means it is not completely impossible to interpret it in some other way; his "if deliberately targeting" [al-Muhandis] means he is not sure the attack was a deliberate attack on-Muhandis. The sentence is based only on this source, and it misinterprets it. A better source is needed or it has to be removed. WikiHannibal ( talk) 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
2) Regarind the second sentence, "A mutual agreement signed in 2008, prohibits the United States from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi territory.", my point was that Iraq did not (in the source) claim the US violated this agreement; the source is a debate ragarding "Some legal experts questioned whether Trump had the legal authority to target Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government", without any official statements. So the sentence was out of context. But I think I have since read an Iraqi Foreign ministry statement which calls it violation of this agreement, so I hope someone will add it into the article later. WikiHannibal ( talk) 13:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Things shall be moving very fast now, so I've created The January War (Trump's War being unavailable). Have at it! kencf0618 ( talk) 00:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
We have "On 5 January 2020, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution to expel all foreign troops from its territory." It would be informative to change to "passed a non-binding resolution" to clarify that the Iraqi government has not yet taken the step of formally telling the US to leave. I haven't edited in years so I'm reluctant to make a change myself. Opinions?
Random citations:
https://www.businessinsider.com/iraqi-parliament-passes-resolution-to-end-us-troop-presence-2020-1
Nuts, now I've forgotten how to sign my post. Like this?: CouldOughta ( talk) 04:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Nailed it!
You can see it 'Aftermath' section, Turkey was included in other countries (non-middle east) sub-section, but in Indonesian Wikipedia equivalent of this article Serangan Bandar Udara International Bagdad 2020, Turkey was included in "other countries (in Middle East)" sub-section. Is Turkey in Middle East? If so, can someone move Turkey reaction to other Middle East countries sub-section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.12 ( talk) 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
XavierItzm - Looking at this edit;
It's not clear to me that the secondary source provided in the body of the article actually supports this statement. The article says "sanctions were imposed on three Iranian commanders of the Revolutionary Guards including Soleimani for supporting the Assad regime". It doesn't say he was sanctioned for being a terrorist. NickCT ( talk) 15:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change it from teh bagdad airstrikes to kiling of Qasem Soleimani i would also like a add a few more minor details Aropet16 ( talk) 14:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sakura Cartelet
Talk 20:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)This change was wrong and undiscussed. This wording should not be reintroduced without consensus. It is against Wiki guidelines, WP:BOLDAVOID and WP:REDUNDANCY. Stating that the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike was an airstrike near Baghdad International Airport in 2020 is absurd. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Surtsicna: You have twice reverted me for putting the opening sentence into the standard format for articles. Boldavoid and redundancy have nothing to do with it, majority of articles are started in this way ie (article name in bold) is (say what it is). Kindly put it back the way it was originally. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the comments by a random CNN reporter due to inordinate weight afforded to them - as these personal comments/opinions (i.e. not even CNN's official stand) were given the same weight as an official analysis/statement from the Pentagon. Personal opinions, especially from non-notable sources, should be given less weight compared to organisations publishing official analyses or statements (e.g. official government source, think tank or policy institute). -- 219.75.84.203 ( talk) 18:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Current lede sentence: The 2020 Baghdad airport airstrike refers to a.....
or
Proposed lede sentence: The 2020 Baghdad airport airstrike (also referred to as the Killing or Assassination of Qasem Soleimani) refers to a......
WikiHannibal - Regarding this edit; you know, we could solve this whole darn titling debate, if we simply included everyone's title in the lead. This doesn't seem overly cumbersome to me. Lots of articles use this kind of lede intro (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section). Also, tad disingenuous of you to ask "by whom?" in your edit summary. You've been involved in the discussion above. You know by whom. NickCT ( talk) 15:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to edit this sentence and delete references to Osama and al-Baghdadi: "Unlike Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Soleimani felt comfortable operating in the open and was not hard to find." I realize that both al-Baghdadi and Osama were killed in US operations, but this comparison also makes it seem as if Soleimani were a terrorist such as this. He was an adversary of the US, but he was also a Major General in the Iranian army and given his status this comparison is disingenuous and demeaning. It's also worth pointing out that he was an enemy of the two of them. 93.38.67.230 ( talk) 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The current version put forth by RopeTricks works for me. Nerd271 ( talk) 06:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just because people are enemies does not mean they cannot be compared. As another example, Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham (RN) and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (IJN) fought on opposites sides and spoke different languages, but can still be compared (in fighting styles). Nerd271 ( talk) 17:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Levivich:, @ Nerd271: - Solemaini himself was listed as a terrorist by the European Union [1] and was on U.S. terror watchlists. The body he led (the Quds) is considered a terrorist organisation by Canada, [2] Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, [3] and the United States. [4] Given the multilateral assessment that Solemaini was a terrorist, there is no problem whatsoever in comparing him to other dead terrorists such as those from the Islamic State or Al Qaeda. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
The lead mentions 9 other "passengers". I assumed that these were in an aeroplane that had been attacked, only much later discovering that they were in cars. All very confusing. Nigej ( talk) 15:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
IDK if this could be useful?
Victor Grigas ( talk) 20:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The page claims that there was no evidence for this claim, however it appears that there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that this could have been the case. Iranian authorities “facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11,” and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard sought closer ties to Al Qaeda after the bombing of the USS Cole. According to a report by the US government, “Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Laden’s return to Afghanistan,”. It’s certainly a possibility that Soleimani was involved in this contact due to his role in the Iranian government as a source of funds for extremist groups. Therefore I feel like the wording on the page that Pence’s claim was “without evidence” was a tad bit harsh because he does show contact between Iranian authorities and Al Qaeda and Soleimani was often involved in interactions between the Iranian government and Islamic extremists Thrawn0504 ( talk) 22:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Alcibiades has already trimmed this ridiculous paragraph, which actually read like the title above (fake news, much?) until about an hour ago, but in my opinion the whole thing needs to go. Face it: so far, this is a non-event in economic terms. The Financial Times, for example, has today a whole article on how this is an economic nothingburger . Sample quote: "The price of Brent crude oil topped $70 a barrel on Monday, just shy of September’s $71.95 peak after a drone attack on Saudi storage facilities. Of note is the fact that oil is back near the top of its range that has sufficed for the past year. But the $86-a-barrel peak from October of 2018 remains some way off for now." [1]. Who cares about the stock price of Northrop Grumman? Just get rid of the whole thing. XavierItzm ( talk) 16:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
User:WikiHannibal. [1] It's OK that you consider the phrasing not good, but you are confusing a fact with "opinion/speculation". The source explains thoroughly that Popular Mobilization Forces were created in 2014, and since 2016 joined the Iraqi Armed Forces by laws enacted by the Council of Representatives of Iraq, so it was only used to support a fact: Kill personnel of the PMF, means killing of official Iraqi servicemen. Rephrase it, instead of removing it. Pahlevun ( talk) 22:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
User:WikiHannibal. About this [2], the source says "A strategic framework agreement signed in 2008 between Washington and Baghdad called for close defense cooperation to deter threats to Iraqi “sovereignty, security and territorial integrity” but prohibited the United States from using Iraq as a launching point for attacks on other countries." So yes, that counts. Pahlevun ( talk) 22:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
If there is a problem with letter and spirit, the headline is "United States Killed Iraqi Military Official and Iraqi Military Personnel in the Two Recent Attacks", and it is very rigorously stating it as a fact. Pahlevun ( talk) 10:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi, concerning the discussion above, I removed two sentences with quite separate meaning, and Pahlevun commented on them separately, so it would be best to keep the discussion separate.
1) At present our article says "Under Iraqi law, killing of al-Muhandis and other PMF members by the United States is a deliberate attack on military personnel and officials of Iraq, since PMF is legally incorporated into the Iraqi security forces by a series of laws and Prime Ministerial orders." I do not contest that "PMF forces are officially Iraqi military forces." However, the source says: "it is hard to interpret the operation, if deliberately targeting him, as anything other than the assassination of an Iraqi government official." I see a substantial shift in what is in the source, and what wiki says. Can you see it as well? Crispin is careful not to say what wiki says. "It is hard to interpret" means it is not completely impossible to interpret it in some other way; his "if deliberately targeting" [al-Muhandis] means he is not sure the attack was a deliberate attack on-Muhandis. The sentence is based only on this source, and it misinterprets it. A better source is needed or it has to be removed. WikiHannibal ( talk) 13:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
2) Regarind the second sentence, "A mutual agreement signed in 2008, prohibits the United States from launching attacks on other countries from Iraqi territory.", my point was that Iraq did not (in the source) claim the US violated this agreement; the source is a debate ragarding "Some legal experts questioned whether Trump had the legal authority to target Soleimani on Iraqi soil without the permission of Iraq’s government", without any official statements. So the sentence was out of context. But I think I have since read an Iraqi Foreign ministry statement which calls it violation of this agreement, so I hope someone will add it into the article later. WikiHannibal ( talk) 13:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Things shall be moving very fast now, so I've created The January War (Trump's War being unavailable). Have at it! kencf0618 ( talk) 00:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
We have "On 5 January 2020, the Iraqi parliament passed a resolution to expel all foreign troops from its territory." It would be informative to change to "passed a non-binding resolution" to clarify that the Iraqi government has not yet taken the step of formally telling the US to leave. I haven't edited in years so I'm reluctant to make a change myself. Opinions?
Random citations:
https://www.businessinsider.com/iraqi-parliament-passes-resolution-to-end-us-troop-presence-2020-1
Nuts, now I've forgotten how to sign my post. Like this?: CouldOughta ( talk) 04:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Nailed it!
You can see it 'Aftermath' section, Turkey was included in other countries (non-middle east) sub-section, but in Indonesian Wikipedia equivalent of this article Serangan Bandar Udara International Bagdad 2020, Turkey was included in "other countries (in Middle East)" sub-section. Is Turkey in Middle East? If so, can someone move Turkey reaction to other Middle East countries sub-section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.35.12 ( talk) 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
XavierItzm - Looking at this edit;
It's not clear to me that the secondary source provided in the body of the article actually supports this statement. The article says "sanctions were imposed on three Iranian commanders of the Revolutionary Guards including Soleimani for supporting the Assad regime". It doesn't say he was sanctioned for being a terrorist. NickCT ( talk) 15:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change it from teh bagdad airstrikes to kiling of Qasem Soleimani i would also like a add a few more minor details Aropet16 ( talk) 14:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sakura Cartelet
Talk 20:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)This change was wrong and undiscussed. This wording should not be reintroduced without consensus. It is against Wiki guidelines, WP:BOLDAVOID and WP:REDUNDANCY. Stating that the 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike was an airstrike near Baghdad International Airport in 2020 is absurd. Surtsicna ( talk) 13:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Surtsicna: You have twice reverted me for putting the opening sentence into the standard format for articles. Boldavoid and redundancy have nothing to do with it, majority of articles are started in this way ie (article name in bold) is (say what it is). Kindly put it back the way it was originally. Selfstudier ( talk) 13:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I've removed the comments by a random CNN reporter due to inordinate weight afforded to them - as these personal comments/opinions (i.e. not even CNN's official stand) were given the same weight as an official analysis/statement from the Pentagon. Personal opinions, especially from non-notable sources, should be given less weight compared to organisations publishing official analyses or statements (e.g. official government source, think tank or policy institute). -- 219.75.84.203 ( talk) 18:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Current lede sentence: The 2020 Baghdad airport airstrike refers to a.....
or
Proposed lede sentence: The 2020 Baghdad airport airstrike (also referred to as the Killing or Assassination of Qasem Soleimani) refers to a......
WikiHannibal - Regarding this edit; you know, we could solve this whole darn titling debate, if we simply included everyone's title in the lead. This doesn't seem overly cumbersome to me. Lots of articles use this kind of lede intro (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section). Also, tad disingenuous of you to ask "by whom?" in your edit summary. You've been involved in the discussion above. You know by whom. NickCT ( talk) 15:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to edit this sentence and delete references to Osama and al-Baghdadi: "Unlike Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Soleimani felt comfortable operating in the open and was not hard to find." I realize that both al-Baghdadi and Osama were killed in US operations, but this comparison also makes it seem as if Soleimani were a terrorist such as this. He was an adversary of the US, but he was also a Major General in the Iranian army and given his status this comparison is disingenuous and demeaning. It's also worth pointing out that he was an enemy of the two of them. 93.38.67.230 ( talk) 05:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The current version put forth by RopeTricks works for me. Nerd271 ( talk) 06:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just because people are enemies does not mean they cannot be compared. As another example, Admiral Andrew Browne Cunningham (RN) and Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto (IJN) fought on opposites sides and spoke different languages, but can still be compared (in fighting styles). Nerd271 ( talk) 17:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Levivich:, @ Nerd271: - Solemaini himself was listed as a terrorist by the European Union [1] and was on U.S. terror watchlists. The body he led (the Quds) is considered a terrorist organisation by Canada, [2] Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, [3] and the United States. [4] Given the multilateral assessment that Solemaini was a terrorist, there is no problem whatsoever in comparing him to other dead terrorists such as those from the Islamic State or Al Qaeda. XavierItzm ( talk) 15:32, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
References
The lead mentions 9 other "passengers". I assumed that these were in an aeroplane that had been attacked, only much later discovering that they were in cars. All very confusing. Nigej ( talk) 15:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
IDK if this could be useful?
Victor Grigas ( talk) 20:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)