| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2024 Kerman bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
| WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article 2024 Kerman bombings, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | A news item involving 2024 Kerman bombings was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 January 2024. |  |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of the 2024 Kerman bombing page were merged into 2024 Kerman bombings on 3 January 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
.svg){kind=small} |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | On 6 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Kerman bombings. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
We still don't know if its a terror attack or explosion, let's try and wait and see and try to be as neutral as possible. Homerethegreat ( talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources now reporting it as a bombing.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a series, it's twin explosions. Homerethegreat ( talk) 13:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources? I saw BBC etc.. say blasts or explosions
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reuters,
[1]. Most references updated.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- You erased info! On Kerman deputy governor saying it is a terror attack, make sure to restore info you've accidentally removed that is relevant. Homerethegreat ( talk) 13:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- BBC also calling it a bombing now
[2]
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, good, but make sure to not add unsourced info in such events. It's important to not accidentally misinform. Homerethegreat ( talk) 13:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- You've removed several sources by the way too... Please be mindful...
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Yedioth Ahronot one...
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the infobox I understand because of the time issue (makes sense), but in other places some were removed.
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed Yediot for a more comprehensive ref. Most of the current reports are a copy of each other, there is no point in adding excessive citations as it just makes it more difficult to verify what is included.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Np, did you restore the info on the deputy governor?
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I've restored this.
Ecrusized (
talk) 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Great! Homerethegreat ( talk) 14:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I've restored this.
Ecrusized (
talk) 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Np, did you restore the info on the deputy governor?
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed Yediot for a more comprehensive ref. Most of the current reports are a copy of each other, there is no point in adding excessive citations as it just makes it more difficult to verify what is included.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the infobox I understand because of the time issue (makes sense), but in other places some were removed.
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Yedioth Ahronot one...
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reuters,
[1]. Most references updated.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Based on what I could find, this incident is the deadliest terrorist attack in Iran since the Cinema Rex fire in 1978. Should this be added to the lede citing the Category:Terrorist incidents in Iran? Ecrusized ( talk) 15:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Parham wiki ( talk) 15:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't the wikipedia is not a source template apply here?
Borgenland (
talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Probably does, however. I've done a fair bit of research online, and I think it's unlikely for a terrorist incident with 100+ fatalities to go unreported. The highest one I found preceeding this attack is the
Haft-e Tir bombing of 1981.
Ecrusized (
talk) 15:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Cited it in see also. But for the lead I used the Iranian Revolution as a reference.
Borgenland (
talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good.
Ecrusized (
talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I forgot, it’s also what the citation I used said. Borgenland ( talk) 17:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good.
Ecrusized (
talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Cited it in see also. But for the lead I used the Iranian Revolution as a reference.
Borgenland (
talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Probably does, however. I've done a fair bit of research online, and I think it's unlikely for a terrorist incident with 100+ fatalities to go unreported. The highest one I found preceeding this attack is the
Haft-e Tir bombing of 1981.
Ecrusized (
talk) 15:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it's notable and due :). Homerethegreat ( talk) 16:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I also added Cinema Rex fire in See also. Just unsure how to describe it like what I did in Haft-e Tir. Borgenland ( talk) 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, of course Stephan rostie ( talk) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- where it says "...making it the deadliest such incident in the country since 1979." could look better as "...making it the deadliest such incident in the country since the foundation of the Republic in 1979.", I think. 31.221.208.203 ( talk) 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this, should it be in lead or in body? I think since it does not seem to have been presented with evidence in the sources and due to current conflict that it is best to keep it in body. Homerethegreat ( talk) 18:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think until there are international reactions by Western countries, we should wait with putting the blame in the lead in order to ensure the text is as neutral as possible. Homerethegreat ( talk) 18:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
An editor @ Stephan rostie: is adding the fact that the deaths included civilians and children. Personally I'm not at all convinced that this is relevant. Seems to me that these words are in danger of being WP:NPOV, where we're somehow meant to think it's a worse terrorist act because civilians/children were victims. Nigej ( talk) 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, @
Stephan rostie:. Please do not change the lede to civilians/children. I've seen reports of IRGC and police officers being reported among the fatalities.
Ecrusized (
talk) 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Ecrusized If your entire point to not use the word “civilians” is that there was a handful of iranian police then no problem, we can use “people” instead, but may i know why omit children deaths as it is mentioned in all other similar articles ? Like for example (just for example) the
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel ? What is the reason behind omitting children deaths ?
Stephan rostie (
talk) 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Though I haven’t seen reports claiming any “iranian police” deaths or mentioning any name. In fact, I actually saw the opposite, like Arash azizi for example stated that all the death was exclusively for children and civilians only, can you share with us these reports than mentions the names of the killed iranian police or any thing ? Stephan rostie ( talk) 23:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Ecrusized If your entire point to not use the word “civilians” is that there was a handful of iranian police then no problem, we can use “people” instead, but may i know why omit children deaths as it is mentioned in all other similar articles ? Like for example (just for example) the
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel ? What is the reason behind omitting children deaths ?
Stephan rostie (
talk) 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Nigej All articles that have such terrorist attacks or incidents include children and civilian victims and mention them, may i know why exactly do you want to omit the death of children in this attack ? Stephan rostie ( talk) 23:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @[[User:Nigej|Nigej] As Stephen states, articles regarding alike incidents, have surely included children, civilians and at times even women and elderly. It cannot be non neutral, when it is in fact.. factual Readernlistener ( talk) 00:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Nigej Futhermore, it is indeed relevant, though I understand your statement is your individualistic view and not at all objective. I do understand you do not think it would be a " worse act cause of civilian deaths", though according to the most agreed definition it has to affect civilians. To which to inform people most proper, it should surely inform who was among the victims - wouldn't it be quite different if it was purely "terrorist organisation leaders" or purely "young children" killed ? According to your statements, maybe it wouldn't be relevant, that paramedics were killed as well ?
- In regards to informing the people ofc
Readernlistener (
talk) 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- (reply to the above three comments) Indeed we could mention women/elderly/animals/disabled people/etc/etc. Any random terrorist act like this is likely to affect all these groups. People know that. We shouldn't be mentioning a specific group unless that group was affected out of proportion to what our readers might expect. Clearly if a high proportion of the victims were children (say) then we should mention it, but we've currently no indication that that is in fact the case. If a high enough proportion were paramedics (significantly more than might be expected) then that should be mentioned in the article, and if really significant, in the lede too. I'm just against mentioning random groupings for no reason.
Nigej (
talk) 09:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Nigej Not at all what I said, though if you were to read it now it contains "death of 3 paramedics" which is not a high proportion of what would be expected in such an attack. So according to you, these should not be mentioned. Anyway, I still strongly feel and I know that according to countless other articles this one should include "Civilian deaths" Readernlistener ( talk) 14:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- (reply to the above three comments) Indeed we could mention women/elderly/animals/disabled people/etc/etc. Any random terrorist act like this is likely to affect all these groups. People know that. We shouldn't be mentioning a specific group unless that group was affected out of proportion to what our readers might expect. Clearly if a high proportion of the victims were children (say) then we should mention it, but we've currently no indication that that is in fact the case. If a high enough proportion were paramedics (significantly more than might be expected) then that should be mentioned in the article, and if really significant, in the lede too. I'm just against mentioning random groupings for no reason.
Nigej (
talk) 09:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This articles puts the number of casualties at over 200, citing one single source, while pretty much all major news outlets (NYT, CNN, BBC, Guardian, FT) put the number at around half that. Hairer ( talk) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- As I write the BBC says 95. IMO it would be better to use the lower number until we have multiple reliable sources for the other.
Nigej (
talk) 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above - I've put it at 103+ killed and 211+ wounded per The New York Times' story, which appears to have been updated from 95 as I was preparing to edit the article. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Hairer: I have not seen any sources that indicate the casualties were anywhere near as low as 100, which is roughly the number of fatalities. VQuakr ( talk) 09:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- It’s already 84 as per official sources.
Borgenland (
talk) 09:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. My reading of sources indicates that 84 is not a controversial number. Some sources are slightly higher but not significantly so. We should delete the POV hatnote and the "disputed" template, which are indicating a problem when there isn't one.
Nigej (
talk) 09:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Every figure was based on Iranian reports. Al Mayadeen seems to be the first to report 211 fatalities (external link), which was picked up by Israeli media. Later figures were revised to 95 and 84. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the source link provided for the death toll of 89 people. The site sometimes gives a "403 Forbidden" error. Let's replace the link with a more functional and reliable resource.
Atakhanli (
talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the
Associated Press reliable enough?
Borgenland (
talk) 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is a problem with the site ("403 Forbidden" error). Interestingly, I can't find any other source either. CNN or BBC have no headline on this information.
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.barrons.com/news/iran-lays-to-rest-victims-of-is-twin-bombings-72be528b
- Sourced from AFP today. But this says 85. Borgenland ( talk) 13:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Try this link.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-mourns-slain-islamic-state-claimed-suicide-blasts-106124012. also wired from AP.
Borgenland (
talk) 13:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-
This link also states that there are 89. Thanks.
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The attack killed 89 people, state TV said, raising an earlier toll following the deaths of several of the wounded." Should we then reduce the number of wounded?
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if all the deaths were previously wounded and the difference in range is not much of a significance in my opinion (a difference of within 5). Also unsure if this will change yet gain. Borgenland ( talk) 13:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The attack killed 89 people, state TV said, raising an earlier toll following the deaths of several of the wounded." Should we then reduce the number of wounded?
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-
This link also states that there are 89. Thanks.
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is a problem with the site ("403 Forbidden" error). Interestingly, I can't find any other source either. CNN or BBC have no headline on this information.
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the
Associated Press reliable enough?
Borgenland (
talk) 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. My reading of sources indicates that 84 is not a controversial number. Some sources are slightly higher but not significantly so. We should delete the POV hatnote and the "disputed" template, which are indicating a problem when there isn't one.
Nigej (
talk) 09:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
France 24 wrote that Iranian media say that Israel carried out the bombing, however, Israel has not yet confirmed this 86.55.48.220 ( talk) 13:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- the
Islamic State claimed responsibility
Von bismarck (
talk) 20:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, the link to Iran–Israel proxy conflict should be removed and replaced with a link to ISIS. 208.87.236.202 ( talk) 20:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader:, this bombing took place in 2024, not 2023... Ecrusized ( talk) 22:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted the page move, partly due to that title being wrong. X2023X ( talk) 01:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- My bad - I deserve a trout for that. Still though I believe a year belongs. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
208.87.236.202 ( talk) 00:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Responsibility section includes the Iranian government's false claims against Israel. It's not important enough to be in the lead or ibox. X2023X ( talk) 01:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) claimed responsibility for the attack, not ISIS-K (Afghanistan-based branch). Even though the U.S. claimed they had "indisputable intel" that it was ISIS-K. Either way it was the Islamic State, but that's pretty weird.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/5/irans-raisi-promises-retaliation-at-funeral-for-victims-of-twin-bombings 47.152.121.236 ( talk) 02:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include information about the national day of mourning for the victims of the attacks in the "Aftermath" heading? Atakhanli ( talk) 16:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 23 January 2024. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed. |
- 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. Assessing the discussion per WP:NOTVOTE lens, although in terms of numeric superiority, there are a lot of supporting votes, these do not offer much beyond the nomination statement which is based on WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:NOYEAR. However, it has also been pointed out that WP:NOYEAR requires a historical perceptive, which this event being recent is hard to assess upon on. This also brings about the point of a move to one without the year being WP:TOOSOON. The argument for over precision is also countered by the point on if the event's notoriety is sufficient enough for it to be recognisable to the readers who are not familiar with the subject area. – robertsky ( talk) 00:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
2024 Kerman bombings → Kerman bombings – No year is needed to disambiguate this event as described at WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:NOYEAR. I don't see that a common name has emerged in English-language media for this event, but news articles tend to reference either Kerman or Soleimani, and of the two we're better off identifying the event by location. VQuakr ( talk) 18:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra ( talk) 23:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Closing statement (closure withdrawn)
|
|---|
|
Not counting the nominator, commenters were split support/oppose 9/2, with an alternative option also proposed. Although the opposition presented several arguments against the move, I find that these were dismissed satisfactorily by the the support !voters. Remember that consensus is neither a vote, nor does it require unanimity.
Once credible media outlets and other reliable sources have settled on a WP:COMMONNAME, further discussion will likely be in order. Time will tell the long-term significance of the event, and hopefully a consensus regarding the applicability of WP:NOYEAR will develop. Thank-you. 🌺 Cremastra ( talk) 23:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
- Support. The year morbidly implies that another bombing will happen again. Borgenland ( talk) 23:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, and wait per WP:TOOSOON. Would be more open to supporting a rename if we give it some time to wait and see if the no year title becomes the standard reference. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 01:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support no other bombing in that area with a wikipedia page and the proposed new title redirects to the current title Sebbog13 ( talk) 08:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree. Nigej ( talk) 10:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above. Parham wiki ( talk) 10:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support until another bombing happens there's no need for year WispyClouds ( talk) 10:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – There is no requirement to adopt the shortest possible unambiguous title, whereas adding the year greatly increases clarity while keeping it concise. WP:NOYEAR doesn't really apply here: I doubt a year or two down the line 'Kerman bombings' will be as notorious and recognisable as e.g. the Chernobyl disaster mentioned in the guideline. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 11:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- There literally is such a requirement in policy:
titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.
I see zero benefit to retaining the year in this case, and WP:NOYEAR certainly does apply. VQuakr ( talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)- Yeah ok, but the policy also says that
Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria
, such as recognizability. You see zero benefits in retaining the year? such as that it gives the reader at a glance the historical context of the event? An event that is far from as historically recognizable as e.g. the French revolution or other similar year-less events. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 09:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)May sometimes
, but not in this case. No benefit beyond any other unnecessary disambiguator like adding "Iran" or "Soleimani". Recognizability also suggests we exclude the year, since someone familiar with the subject area will understand what the topic is without it. VQuakr ( talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah ok, but the policy also says that
- There literally is such a requirement in policy:
- Comment - I see someone's created 2023 Kerman bombings, presumably by mistake, which personally doesn't inspire too much confidence that the "2024" will be at all useful. Nigej ( talk) 12:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree. kheyzaran ( talk) 14:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
CommentRecommend I'm concerned both "Kerman bombings" and "2024 Kerman bombings" are insufficient for people searching for the page. Maybe something along the lines of "Qasem Soleimani Commemorative Ceremony Bombings" or "Qasem Soleimani memorial bombings" would be better? After some reflection, I've changed my comment to a recommendation. I'm convincedbased on theby the essay (not a policy) WP:CRITERIAORDER (whosethat argues that the main criteria is recognizability) and descriptive titleguidelinesthat it is more important to focus on Soleimani given the focus of English-language news sources. too_much curiosity ( talk) 19:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Toomuchcuriosity: are there any other bombings near Kerman that could cause confusion? Otherwise the same WP:OVERPRECISION concern in my nom applies. Our standard for recognizability is
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
. Someone familiar with the subject will know where Kerman is and of the bombing. Redirects are cheap and easy to add at plausible search strings, though. VQuakr ( talk) 19:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)- A redirect could certainly work. My only concern is that because it is too soon to have an agreed upon set of names for the event, it is better to disambiguate with a descriptive title per
WP:QUALIFIER.
too_much curiosity (
talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unless there's another bombing that could cause confusion, WP:QUALIFIER suggests we use the shorter title formulation of Kerman bombings since no additional words are needed to disambiguate and that title is plenty to be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject.
VQuakr (
talk) 09:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- My comment doesn't have to do without disambiguating this event with another bombing. It has to do with being more descriptive until there is a consensus title is reached among news sources. See the descriptive title subsection of WP:QUALIFIER. My concern is that many articles (such as one by AP) don't mention Kerman until the 3rd paragraph, mostly because Kerman isn't a super well known city in the English-speaking world.
- Per the guideline [t]he title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize, I strongly believe that many more people will recognize the bombings as pertaining to Soleimani's memorial and not the city of Kerman. Someone familiar with the bombing may not know where it took place.
Per WP:CRITERIAORDER, the most important criteria is recognizability. Conciseness is the least important criteria.This is an essay I mistook for a policy. Sorry everyone! I still strongly agree with the essay. too_much curiosity ( talk) 18:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)- Nice
WP:UPPERCASE. That's an essay; it's one editor's opinion not policy or guideline.
VQuakr (
talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Whoops, my bad... sorry about that. Fixing my edits above. too_much curiosity ( talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nice
WP:UPPERCASE. That's an essay; it's one editor's opinion not policy or guideline.
VQuakr (
talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unless there's another bombing that could cause confusion, WP:QUALIFIER suggests we use the shorter title formulation of Kerman bombings since no additional words are needed to disambiguate and that title is plenty to be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject.
VQuakr (
talk) 09:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- A redirect could certainly work. My only concern is that because it is too soon to have an agreed upon set of names for the event, it is better to disambiguate with a descriptive title per
WP:QUALIFIER.
too_much curiosity (
talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Toomuchcuriosity: are there any other bombings near Kerman that could cause confusion? Otherwise the same WP:OVERPRECISION concern in my nom applies. Our standard for recognizability is
- Support - per nomination, I can't find any sources mentioning 2024. Vyvagaba ( talk) 21:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Since there are no other Kerman bombings on Wikipedia, I believe that the date of 2024 should be removed. Antny08 ( talk) 16:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per WP:NCWWW, "the title of the article should contain" a description of "[w]hen the incident happened". The exception to that guideline is WP:NOYEAR, which applies only "when, in historic perspective," a year isn't needed. Clearly we can't say anything with historical perspective about an event that happened less than two weeks ago, and the year is not so well known that "the event is easily described" without it. I would just default to the usual practice (again per WP:NCWWW) of including the year, which makes the title more recognizable for readers. As I've said before, if editors disagree with WP:NCEVENT's guidance on this issue (as many apparently do), we should resolve that through a global-consensus RfC rather than debating it again at each individual RM. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Most notable bombings in Kerman since ever. Per nom. Jebiguess ( talk) 00:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:NCE says to do when-where-what, unless "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it.". That doesn't seem to be the case here. The event is not of such a massive notoriety that it will instantly be WP:RECOGNIZEable by a short name, and including the year is always useful for readers, to help them identify what exactly the article is about. See Talk:2016 Munich knife attack and Talk:2021 Hualien train derailment for other discussions along this line. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few days ago there was mention in the article, under the Reactions section, of a couple of people claiming the attack was a false flag attack, one of them was Masih Alinejad. It seems that mention of these claims have disappeared from the article since IS admitted responsibility. Is there a reason mention of these claims have been removed, other than that they obviously make the claimants seem callous and opportunistic? 76.37.130.17 ( talk) 23:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- If any RSes are reporting on claims that it was a false flag it should be included, but I haven’t seen any do so. The Kip 04:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Citing the edit summary:
- paragraph on false flag, tweets and low-quality sources don't establish due weight for a mention.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_Kerman_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=1193606034
-
Borgenland (
talk) 13:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- To expand on my removal, the relevant policies are
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:FRINGE. This theory would need significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources in order to merit mention.
VQuakr (
talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- It didn't who is going to cover it in Iran? Baratiiman ( talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- To expand on my removal, the relevant policies are
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:FRINGE. This theory would need significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources in order to merit mention.
VQuakr (
talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, is this a regular bombing (someone planted something) or a suicide bombing? Because it is confusing that sources in Iran have been giving out detailed accounts of bombs left somewhere before suddenly saying it was a suicide attack. (see details throughout the article). Borgenland ( talk) 07:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- C-Class Serial killer-related articles
- Low-importance Serial killer-related articles
- Serial Killer task force
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- C-Class Suicide articles
- Low-importance Suicide articles
- Suicide articles
- C-Class Explosives articles
- Low-importance Explosives articles
- C-Class Iran articles
- Mid-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- Low-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- Closed move reviews
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2024 Kerman bombings article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
| The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
|
| WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article 2024 Kerman bombings, along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
| The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
|
| A news item involving 2024 Kerman bombings was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 3 January 2024. | |
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
|
| This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The contents of the 2024 Kerman bombing page were merged into 2024 Kerman bombings on 3 January 2024. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
|
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
| On 6 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Kerman bombings. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
We still don't know if its a terror attack or explosion, let's try and wait and see and try to be as neutral as possible. Homerethegreat ( talk) 13:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reliable sources now reporting it as a bombing.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a series, it's twin explosions. Homerethegreat ( talk) 13:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Which sources? I saw BBC etc.. say blasts or explosions
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reuters,
[1]. Most references updated.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- You erased info! On Kerman deputy governor saying it is a terror attack, make sure to restore info you've accidentally removed that is relevant. Homerethegreat ( talk) 13:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- BBC also calling it a bombing now
[2]
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, good, but make sure to not add unsourced info in such events. It's important to not accidentally misinform. Homerethegreat ( talk) 13:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- You've removed several sources by the way too... Please be mindful...
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Yedioth Ahronot one...
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the infobox I understand because of the time issue (makes sense), but in other places some were removed.
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed Yediot for a more comprehensive ref. Most of the current reports are a copy of each other, there is no point in adding excessive citations as it just makes it more difficult to verify what is included.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Np, did you restore the info on the deputy governor?
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I've restored this.
Ecrusized (
talk) 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Great! Homerethegreat ( talk) 14:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. I've restored this.
Ecrusized (
talk) 14:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Np, did you restore the info on the deputy governor?
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed Yediot for a more comprehensive ref. Most of the current reports are a copy of each other, there is no point in adding excessive citations as it just makes it more difficult to verify what is included.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- In the infobox I understand because of the time issue (makes sense), but in other places some were removed.
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Yedioth Ahronot one...
Homerethegreat (
talk) 13:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Reuters,
[1]. Most references updated.
Ecrusized (
talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Based on what I could find, this incident is the deadliest terrorist attack in Iran since the Cinema Rex fire in 1978. Should this be added to the lede citing the Category:Terrorist incidents in Iran? Ecrusized ( talk) 15:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes Parham wiki ( talk) 15:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Doesn't the wikipedia is not a source template apply here?
Borgenland (
talk) 15:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Probably does, however. I've done a fair bit of research online, and I think it's unlikely for a terrorist incident with 100+ fatalities to go unreported. The highest one I found preceeding this attack is the
Haft-e Tir bombing of 1981.
Ecrusized (
talk) 15:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Cited it in see also. But for the lead I used the Iranian Revolution as a reference.
Borgenland (
talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good.
Ecrusized (
talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I forgot, it’s also what the citation I used said. Borgenland ( talk) 17:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good.
Ecrusized (
talk) 16:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Cited it in see also. But for the lead I used the Iranian Revolution as a reference.
Borgenland (
talk) 15:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Probably does, however. I've done a fair bit of research online, and I think it's unlikely for a terrorist incident with 100+ fatalities to go unreported. The highest one I found preceeding this attack is the
Haft-e Tir bombing of 1981.
Ecrusized (
talk) 15:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes it's notable and due :). Homerethegreat ( talk) 16:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I also added Cinema Rex fire in See also. Just unsure how to describe it like what I did in Haft-e Tir. Borgenland ( talk) 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, of course Stephan rostie ( talk) 17:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- where it says "...making it the deadliest such incident in the country since 1979." could look better as "...making it the deadliest such incident in the country since the foundation of the Republic in 1979.", I think. 31.221.208.203 ( talk) 20:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding this, should it be in lead or in body? I think since it does not seem to have been presented with evidence in the sources and due to current conflict that it is best to keep it in body. Homerethegreat ( talk) 18:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think until there are international reactions by Western countries, we should wait with putting the blame in the lead in order to ensure the text is as neutral as possible. Homerethegreat ( talk) 18:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
An editor @ Stephan rostie: is adding the fact that the deaths included civilians and children. Personally I'm not at all convinced that this is relevant. Seems to me that these words are in danger of being WP:NPOV, where we're somehow meant to think it's a worse terrorist act because civilians/children were victims. Nigej ( talk) 21:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, @
Stephan rostie:. Please do not change the lede to civilians/children. I've seen reports of IRGC and police officers being reported among the fatalities.
Ecrusized (
talk) 21:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Ecrusized If your entire point to not use the word “civilians” is that there was a handful of iranian police then no problem, we can use “people” instead, but may i know why omit children deaths as it is mentioned in all other similar articles ? Like for example (just for example) the
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel ? What is the reason behind omitting children deaths ?
Stephan rostie (
talk) 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Though I haven’t seen reports claiming any “iranian police” deaths or mentioning any name. In fact, I actually saw the opposite, like Arash azizi for example stated that all the death was exclusively for children and civilians only, can you share with us these reports than mentions the names of the killed iranian police or any thing ? Stephan rostie ( talk) 23:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Ecrusized If your entire point to not use the word “civilians” is that there was a handful of iranian police then no problem, we can use “people” instead, but may i know why omit children deaths as it is mentioned in all other similar articles ? Like for example (just for example) the
2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel ? What is the reason behind omitting children deaths ?
Stephan rostie (
talk) 23:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Nigej All articles that have such terrorist attacks or incidents include children and civilian victims and mention them, may i know why exactly do you want to omit the death of children in this attack ? Stephan rostie ( talk) 23:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @[[User:Nigej|Nigej] As Stephen states, articles regarding alike incidents, have surely included children, civilians and at times even women and elderly. It cannot be non neutral, when it is in fact.. factual Readernlistener ( talk) 00:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Nigej Futhermore, it is indeed relevant, though I understand your statement is your individualistic view and not at all objective. I do understand you do not think it would be a " worse act cause of civilian deaths", though according to the most agreed definition it has to affect civilians. To which to inform people most proper, it should surely inform who was among the victims - wouldn't it be quite different if it was purely "terrorist organisation leaders" or purely "young children" killed ? According to your statements, maybe it wouldn't be relevant, that paramedics were killed as well ?
- In regards to informing the people ofc
Readernlistener (
talk) 00:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- (reply to the above three comments) Indeed we could mention women/elderly/animals/disabled people/etc/etc. Any random terrorist act like this is likely to affect all these groups. People know that. We shouldn't be mentioning a specific group unless that group was affected out of proportion to what our readers might expect. Clearly if a high proportion of the victims were children (say) then we should mention it, but we've currently no indication that that is in fact the case. If a high enough proportion were paramedics (significantly more than might be expected) then that should be mentioned in the article, and if really significant, in the lede too. I'm just against mentioning random groupings for no reason.
Nigej (
talk) 09:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Nigej Not at all what I said, though if you were to read it now it contains "death of 3 paramedics" which is not a high proportion of what would be expected in such an attack. So according to you, these should not be mentioned. Anyway, I still strongly feel and I know that according to countless other articles this one should include "Civilian deaths" Readernlistener ( talk) 14:26, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- (reply to the above three comments) Indeed we could mention women/elderly/animals/disabled people/etc/etc. Any random terrorist act like this is likely to affect all these groups. People know that. We shouldn't be mentioning a specific group unless that group was affected out of proportion to what our readers might expect. Clearly if a high proportion of the victims were children (say) then we should mention it, but we've currently no indication that that is in fact the case. If a high enough proportion were paramedics (significantly more than might be expected) then that should be mentioned in the article, and if really significant, in the lede too. I'm just against mentioning random groupings for no reason.
Nigej (
talk) 09:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
This articles puts the number of casualties at over 200, citing one single source, while pretty much all major news outlets (NYT, CNN, BBC, Guardian, FT) put the number at around half that. Hairer ( talk) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- As I write the BBC says 95. IMO it would be better to use the lower number until we have multiple reliable sources for the other.
Nigej (
talk) 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed with the above - I've put it at 103+ killed and 211+ wounded per The New York Times' story, which appears to have been updated from 95 as I was preparing to edit the article. Ed [talk] [OMT] 22:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ Hairer: I have not seen any sources that indicate the casualties were anywhere near as low as 100, which is roughly the number of fatalities. VQuakr ( talk) 09:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- It’s already 84 as per official sources.
Borgenland (
talk) 09:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. My reading of sources indicates that 84 is not a controversial number. Some sources are slightly higher but not significantly so. We should delete the POV hatnote and the "disputed" template, which are indicating a problem when there isn't one.
Nigej (
talk) 09:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Every figure was based on Iranian reports. Al Mayadeen seems to be the first to report 211 fatalities (external link), which was picked up by Israeli media. Later figures were revised to 95 and 84. Ecrusized ( talk) 10:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the source link provided for the death toll of 89 people. The site sometimes gives a "403 Forbidden" error. Let's replace the link with a more functional and reliable resource.
Atakhanli (
talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the
Associated Press reliable enough?
Borgenland (
talk) 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is a problem with the site ("403 Forbidden" error). Interestingly, I can't find any other source either. CNN or BBC have no headline on this information.
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- https://www.barrons.com/news/iran-lays-to-rest-victims-of-is-twin-bombings-72be528b
- Sourced from AFP today. But this says 85. Borgenland ( talk) 13:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Try this link.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/iran-mourns-slain-islamic-state-claimed-suicide-blasts-106124012. also wired from AP.
Borgenland (
talk) 13:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-
This link also states that there are 89. Thanks.
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The attack killed 89 people, state TV said, raising an earlier toll following the deaths of several of the wounded." Should we then reduce the number of wounded?
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if all the deaths were previously wounded and the difference in range is not much of a significance in my opinion (a difference of within 5). Also unsure if this will change yet gain. Borgenland ( talk) 13:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- "The attack killed 89 people, state TV said, raising an earlier toll following the deaths of several of the wounded." Should we then reduce the number of wounded?
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-
This link also states that there are 89. Thanks.
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, but there is a problem with the site ("403 Forbidden" error). Interestingly, I can't find any other source either. CNN or BBC have no headline on this information.
Atakhanli (
talk) 13:35, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the
Associated Press reliable enough?
Borgenland (
talk) 13:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. My reading of sources indicates that 84 is not a controversial number. Some sources are slightly higher but not significantly so. We should delete the POV hatnote and the "disputed" template, which are indicating a problem when there isn't one.
Nigej (
talk) 09:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
France 24 wrote that Iranian media say that Israel carried out the bombing, however, Israel has not yet confirmed this 86.55.48.220 ( talk) 13:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- the
Islamic State claimed responsibility
Von bismarck (
talk) 20:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
- In that case, the link to Iran–Israel proxy conflict should be removed and replaced with a link to ISIS. 208.87.236.202 ( talk) 20:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@ InvadingInvader:, this bombing took place in 2024, not 2023... Ecrusized ( talk) 22:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted the page move, partly due to that title being wrong. X2023X ( talk) 01:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- My bad - I deserve a trout for that. Still though I believe a year belongs. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 01:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
208.87.236.202 ( talk) 00:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Responsibility section includes the Iranian government's false claims against Israel. It's not important enough to be in the lead or ibox. X2023X ( talk) 01:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant) claimed responsibility for the attack, not ISIS-K (Afghanistan-based branch). Even though the U.S. claimed they had "indisputable intel" that it was ISIS-K. Either way it was the Islamic State, but that's pretty weird.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/5/irans-raisi-promises-retaliation-at-funeral-for-victims-of-twin-bombings 47.152.121.236 ( talk) 02:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include information about the national day of mourning for the victims of the attacks in the "Aftermath" heading? Atakhanli ( talk) 16:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
| This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 23 January 2024. The result of the move review was Closure endorsed. |
- 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. Assessing the discussion per WP:NOTVOTE lens, although in terms of numeric superiority, there are a lot of supporting votes, these do not offer much beyond the nomination statement which is based on WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:NOYEAR. However, it has also been pointed out that WP:NOYEAR requires a historical perceptive, which this event being recent is hard to assess upon on. This also brings about the point of a move to one without the year being WP:TOOSOON. The argument for over precision is also countered by the point on if the event's notoriety is sufficient enough for it to be recognisable to the readers who are not familiar with the subject area. – robertsky ( talk) 00:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
2024 Kerman bombings → Kerman bombings – No year is needed to disambiguate this event as described at WP:OVERPRECISION and WP:NOYEAR. I don't see that a common name has emerged in English-language media for this event, but news articles tend to reference either Kerman or Soleimani, and of the two we're better off identifying the event by location. VQuakr ( talk) 18:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. 🌺 Cremastra ( talk) 23:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Closing statement (closure withdrawn)
|
|---|
|
Not counting the nominator, commenters were split support/oppose 9/2, with an alternative option also proposed. Although the opposition presented several arguments against the move, I find that these were dismissed satisfactorily by the the support !voters. Remember that consensus is neither a vote, nor does it require unanimity.
Once credible media outlets and other reliable sources have settled on a WP:COMMONNAME, further discussion will likely be in order. Time will tell the long-term significance of the event, and hopefully a consensus regarding the applicability of WP:NOYEAR will develop. Thank-you. 🌺 Cremastra ( talk) 23:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) |
- Support. The year morbidly implies that another bombing will happen again. Borgenland ( talk) 23:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, and wait per WP:TOOSOON. Would be more open to supporting a rename if we give it some time to wait and see if the no year title becomes the standard reference. InvadingInvader ( userpage, talk) 01:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support no other bombing in that area with a wikipedia page and the proposed new title redirects to the current title Sebbog13 ( talk) 08:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree. Nigej ( talk) 10:27, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above. Parham wiki ( talk) 10:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support until another bombing happens there's no need for year WispyClouds ( talk) 10:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose – There is no requirement to adopt the shortest possible unambiguous title, whereas adding the year greatly increases clarity while keeping it concise. WP:NOYEAR doesn't really apply here: I doubt a year or two down the line 'Kerman bombings' will be as notorious and recognisable as e.g. the Chernobyl disaster mentioned in the guideline. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 11:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- There literally is such a requirement in policy:
titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.
I see zero benefit to retaining the year in this case, and WP:NOYEAR certainly does apply. VQuakr ( talk) 19:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)- Yeah ok, but the policy also says that
Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some other naming criteria
, such as recognizability. You see zero benefits in retaining the year? such as that it gives the reader at a glance the historical context of the event? An event that is far from as historically recognizable as e.g. the French revolution or other similar year-less events. -- Deeday-UK ( talk) 09:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)May sometimes
, but not in this case. No benefit beyond any other unnecessary disambiguator like adding "Iran" or "Soleimani". Recognizability also suggests we exclude the year, since someone familiar with the subject area will understand what the topic is without it. VQuakr ( talk) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah ok, but the policy also says that
- There literally is such a requirement in policy:
- Comment - I see someone's created 2023 Kerman bombings, presumably by mistake, which personally doesn't inspire too much confidence that the "2024" will be at all useful. Nigej ( talk) 12:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support Agree. kheyzaran ( talk) 14:32, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
CommentRecommend I'm concerned both "Kerman bombings" and "2024 Kerman bombings" are insufficient for people searching for the page. Maybe something along the lines of "Qasem Soleimani Commemorative Ceremony Bombings" or "Qasem Soleimani memorial bombings" would be better? After some reflection, I've changed my comment to a recommendation. I'm convincedbased on theby the essay (not a policy) WP:CRITERIAORDER (whosethat argues that the main criteria is recognizability) and descriptive titleguidelinesthat it is more important to focus on Soleimani given the focus of English-language news sources. too_much curiosity ( talk) 19:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Toomuchcuriosity: are there any other bombings near Kerman that could cause confusion? Otherwise the same WP:OVERPRECISION concern in my nom applies. Our standard for recognizability is
The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
. Someone familiar with the subject will know where Kerman is and of the bombing. Redirects are cheap and easy to add at plausible search strings, though. VQuakr ( talk) 19:47, 7 January 2024 (UTC)- A redirect could certainly work. My only concern is that because it is too soon to have an agreed upon set of names for the event, it is better to disambiguate with a descriptive title per
WP:QUALIFIER.
too_much curiosity (
talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unless there's another bombing that could cause confusion, WP:QUALIFIER suggests we use the shorter title formulation of Kerman bombings since no additional words are needed to disambiguate and that title is plenty to be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject.
VQuakr (
talk) 09:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- My comment doesn't have to do without disambiguating this event with another bombing. It has to do with being more descriptive until there is a consensus title is reached among news sources. See the descriptive title subsection of WP:QUALIFIER. My concern is that many articles (such as one by AP) don't mention Kerman until the 3rd paragraph, mostly because Kerman isn't a super well known city in the English-speaking world.
- Per the guideline [t]he title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize, I strongly believe that many more people will recognize the bombings as pertaining to Soleimani's memorial and not the city of Kerman. Someone familiar with the bombing may not know where it took place.
Per WP:CRITERIAORDER, the most important criteria is recognizability. Conciseness is the least important criteria.This is an essay I mistook for a policy. Sorry everyone! I still strongly agree with the essay. too_much curiosity ( talk) 18:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)- Nice
WP:UPPERCASE. That's an essay; it's one editor's opinion not policy or guideline.
VQuakr (
talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Whoops, my bad... sorry about that. Fixing my edits above. too_much curiosity ( talk) 18:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Nice
WP:UPPERCASE. That's an essay; it's one editor's opinion not policy or guideline.
VQuakr (
talk) 18:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Unless there's another bombing that could cause confusion, WP:QUALIFIER suggests we use the shorter title formulation of Kerman bombings since no additional words are needed to disambiguate and that title is plenty to be recognizable to someone familiar with the subject.
VQuakr (
talk) 09:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- A redirect could certainly work. My only concern is that because it is too soon to have an agreed upon set of names for the event, it is better to disambiguate with a descriptive title per
WP:QUALIFIER.
too_much curiosity (
talk) 01:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- @
Toomuchcuriosity: are there any other bombings near Kerman that could cause confusion? Otherwise the same WP:OVERPRECISION concern in my nom applies. Our standard for recognizability is
- Support - per nomination, I can't find any sources mentioning 2024. Vyvagaba ( talk) 21:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support - Since there are no other Kerman bombings on Wikipedia, I believe that the date of 2024 should be removed. Antny08 ( talk) 16:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Per WP:NCWWW, "the title of the article should contain" a description of "[w]hen the incident happened". The exception to that guideline is WP:NOYEAR, which applies only "when, in historic perspective," a year isn't needed. Clearly we can't say anything with historical perspective about an event that happened less than two weeks ago, and the year is not so well known that "the event is easily described" without it. I would just default to the usual practice (again per WP:NCWWW) of including the year, which makes the title more recognizable for readers. As I've said before, if editors disagree with WP:NCEVENT's guidance on this issue (as many apparently do), we should resolve that through a global-consensus RfC rather than debating it again at each individual RM. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- Support. Most notable bombings in Kerman since ever. Per nom. Jebiguess ( talk) 00:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:NCE says to do when-where-what, unless "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it.". That doesn't seem to be the case here. The event is not of such a massive notoriety that it will instantly be WP:RECOGNIZEable by a short name, and including the year is always useful for readers, to help them identify what exactly the article is about. See Talk:2016 Munich knife attack and Talk:2021 Hualien train derailment for other discussions along this line. — Amakuru ( talk) 22:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few days ago there was mention in the article, under the Reactions section, of a couple of people claiming the attack was a false flag attack, one of them was Masih Alinejad. It seems that mention of these claims have disappeared from the article since IS admitted responsibility. Is there a reason mention of these claims have been removed, other than that they obviously make the claimants seem callous and opportunistic? 76.37.130.17 ( talk) 23:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
- If any RSes are reporting on claims that it was a false flag it should be included, but I haven’t seen any do so. The Kip 04:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- Citing the edit summary:
- paragraph on false flag, tweets and low-quality sources don't establish due weight for a mention.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2024_Kerman_bombings&diff=prev&oldid=1193606034
-
Borgenland (
talk) 13:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- To expand on my removal, the relevant policies are
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:FRINGE. This theory would need significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources in order to merit mention.
VQuakr (
talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- It didn't who is going to cover it in Iran? Baratiiman ( talk) 15:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
- To expand on my removal, the relevant policies are
WP:WEIGHT and
WP:FRINGE. This theory would need significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources in order to merit mention.
VQuakr (
talk) 19:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to be clear, is this a regular bombing (someone planted something) or a suicide bombing? Because it is confusing that sources in Iran have been giving out detailed accounts of bombs left somewhere before suddenly saying it was a suicide attack. (see details throughout the article). Borgenland ( talk) 07:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia articles under general sanctions
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- C-Class Crime-related articles
- Low-importance Crime-related articles
- C-Class Serial killer-related articles
- Low-importance Serial killer-related articles
- Serial Killer task force
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- C-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- C-Class Suicide articles
- Low-importance Suicide articles
- Suicide articles
- C-Class Explosives articles
- Low-importance Explosives articles
- C-Class Iran articles
- Mid-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- C-Class Terrorism articles
- Low-importance Terrorism articles
- WikiProject Terrorism articles
- Closed move reviews