Major General James G. Blunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Requested move 8 January 2020

Original Request

NO CONSENSUS
When this move request was proposed, the title of the original article was "2020 Al Asad airbase strike," which was obviously not an appropriate title. The new title of the move request seemed more appropriate and less vague, which is the reason for the early supports; since the original article's title has changed since then, the consensus has also changed, which is why I am closing this specific discussion while keeping the discussions below open. | abequinnfourteen 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

2020 Al Asad Airbase strike → January 2020 attack on American military bases – Moscow Mule added a merge request to the main page, to merge this page into January 2020 attack on American military bases. We only need a single article. | abequinnfourteen 01:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A note to anyone joining the discussion: this was originally a discussion to change the title from 2020 Al Asad Airbase strike. This title was created before it was known that two bases were attacked. Hebsen went ahead and boldly changed the title to 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq, as they were unable to change the title to January 2020 attack on American military bases for a technical reason. userdude 22:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but prefer January 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces for future-proofing. userdude 22:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be a bit more clear: This actually started as a request to merge two articles, one placed at 2020 Al Asad Airbase strike, and one placed at January 2020 attack on American military bases. I merged into the first to preserve the most history, and then could not change to the latter title. My rename to the current title was because everyone agreed that 2020 Al Asad Airbase strike was not appropriate anymore, and the other title had room for improvement, as the opposes below shows. The currently proposed title has been stuck here since then. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This is best covered in the main article.- MrX 🖋 01:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly merged into this article, which is the most developed. I would say we need to move the page to the other name, as there now is another base also. ― Hebsen (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hebsen, Why not just develop the article covering the multiple attacks? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a technical move, as I am not allowed to move over the other page ― Hebsen (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This appears to be a much larger attack. TheEpicGhosty (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge 2020 Al Asad Airbase strike into January 2020 attack on American military bases. Why a page move request when the latter already exists? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I merged into this one, as it had more content and a larger contribution history. I cannot move, as the other article have history. A page mover or administrator is needed. ― Hebsen (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Believer, since the latter exists only as a redirect. I'm not sure what the policy is on "moving a page to a target page that has been previously merged to the page that needs to be moved," but I am also not sure if a simple copy-and-paste move would be sufficient. Hebsen boldly did the merge; should you revert the merge to let the proposed merge above happen? | abequinnfourteen 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Abequinn14, Right, I don't think Hebsen should have redirected, but I'm not going to spend too much time worrying here. I think the article covering the multiple sites should just be expanded. *shrug* ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another Believer, should I make this back into a move request? | abequinnfourteen 01:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Never mind, let's just see how this goes. | abequinnfourteen 02:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I kind of did what I felt was right in the moment. Perhaps the other solution was better, I dunno. Didn't really think about that I would not be allowed move the page back when I did it, to be honest. I think I will keep out for now. Edit conflicts are hell. ― Hebsen (talk) 01:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hebsen, Yeah, all good. I guess I'm a bit lost about what we're trying to do here as well. I'll just step back and let this play out. The joys of editing articles about current events! ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to January 2020 Iranian attack on military bases in Iraq – This should be accurate and unambiguous. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not taking an opinion on the naming, as a Page Mover, I can do the page move once there is consensus, but I did undo the technical request for a page move that Hebsen requested. Once there is a requested move discussion, I can't just move the page based on that request, so this discussion has to play out. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not move, keep title as is - "American military bases" is kinda expansive, don'tcha think? I mean, was the American military base in Regensburg attacked? What about Rota? For that matter, Camp Lejeune? No? What? Ahhh... because the attack was only on U.S. forces in Iraq! Look, the title needs to narrow it all down to Iraq, else, just call it, "someone attacked someone", and be done with it. XavierItzm (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - suggested names make the title vague and do not provide sufficient description to identify the event.
    5225C (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Title would exaggerate the severity of the event, making it seem like all American bases were attacked. Wikipedia is not meant to mislead. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 19:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — The term "American military bases" may be misleading, as it could imply American-owned bases or American sovereign territory were attacked. CentreLeftRight ✉ 19:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reason as Kirbanzo above explained. Xenagoras (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose to renaming I think the current title is satisfactory and there's not much of a need to change it. I'm not passionately against any of the proposed titles, but adding "January" seems like it would be preemptive disambiguation when the current title is specific enough that disambiguation is unnecessary. The proposed title is also less accurate, as these were technically not American airbases. I'm also generally against using operational codenames in article titles (despite how many articles currently use operational titles, I consider them to have inherent POV concerns and I'm not alone in that view)  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 20:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose January 2020 attack on American military bases - this title is very ambiguous at best, where are these bases? - not in "America"; who owns the bases? - according to Al Asad Airbase the lead states it is at least jointly an IAF base. — xaosflux Talk 23:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose January 2020 attack on American military bases - this title is very misleading. These are Iraqi bases, with areas leased to American forces. Keep the current title.
  • Oppose. The current title is more descriptive. Octoberwoodland (talk) 07:17, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the current title is more accurate. Axedel (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Iran might still do more missile attacks, so it is better to keep the title as it is.Catfurball (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not understand why the suggested title omits naming Iran. Is that a point of contention? It shouldn't be. Admittedly, the current "U.S. forces in Iraq" is more ambiguous than "American military bases in Iraq" would be, but even here the suggested new title omits "in Iraq" altogether, so I cannot recommend any part of it.--Adûnâi (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Original article name is best, esp since it mentions Iraq. Proposed move is vague. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current title describes what happened without any confusion relating to attacks in other countries. Andysmith248 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The world does not revolve around god dam America. These where not "American Bases" Evidence > https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/08/suleimani-assassination-two-us-airbases-in-iraq-hit-by-missiles-in-retaliation These where Iraq Bases, not US bases, Iraqi Bases holding US & Coalition Forces. So change the title to apply reflect that please. You wonder why people dislike America, it's not all about you. Change the title to "2020 Iranian attack on Iaqi Bases holding US & Coalition Forces in Iraq, or 2020 Iranian attack on Iaqi Bases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hironeiden (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you support moving the title to something else.  Also, the existing title reads Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq. It doesn't say US bases.  Maybe if you didn't huff and puff on your monitor screen you could see what you're typing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The preferred title January 2020 attack on American military bases isn't that attractive and I suggest to keep the prevailing title without changing. Abishe (talk) 03:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It doesn't make much sense to make the page title over-inclusive. What if some bases in Afghanistan are attacked? What if bases are attacked by Syria? The suggested name just would not be specific enough if we are focusing on just the Iranian missile attacks on Al-Asad and Erbil following Suleimani's death. Also the bases are used by America and owned by Iraq, so they are not American. MrCheese76 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed title leaves out the perpetrators, and "American military bases" is both vague and inaccurate. Havradim (talk) 03:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Early discussions collapsed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

Consolidate discussion.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


Is "American military bases" the right term? Are they (still) American and not Iraqi with an American presence? --Neez (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neez, Perhaps this is better to ask at Talk:January 2020 attack on American military bases? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears the the Al Asad base is a Iraqi base, that is being run by the US. So right now it is theirs in a sense. About naming, I am not quite sure what is the right one eventually, but the current one might prevent editors from including content from the attack on the other bases. I must say, I kind of like "Operation Martyr Soleimani". This is an Iranian attack, after all, with a easy understandable name, and it seems that name operation-name style has been used on a number of military article. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment, it quickly provides the background of Soleimani's death, but I haven't seen any RS's refer to the attack as "Operation Martyr Soleimani", only acknowledge that it is the Iranian name. userdude 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Why not just expand the target article?

Consolidate discussion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


Why not just expand the target article, January 2020 attack on American military bases, which covers the multiple sites? The 2020 Al Asad Airbase strike article is just about the one site. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: You're the only editor there, and the edit history is here. WP:BEFOREMOVING: "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content". Instead of starting and maintaining another article, you should've redirect it here. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Triggerhippie4, Ok, I'm back from a quick break and see how things have developed. I think the various tags on various pages confused me about what we were trying to accomplish. You've redirected the other article, which is fine. I'm hoping we can just speedily remove all the merge/move tags for now? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're waiting for technical move over a redirect. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
👍 Like ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Better name needed

Consolidate discussion. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


"January 2020 attack on American military bases" isn't good. It doesn't even mention what country the bases are in (and they are not necessarily "American" bases). Perhaps "2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq" - too wordy, perhaps. "2020 Iranian missile attack"? Rmhermen (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bold of you to assume this will be the only such attack in 2020. userdude 02:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just wait until the whole conflict becomes U.S.-Iranian War?47.137.185.72 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have been bold again and moved this to "2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq", because it seem everyone agrees "2020 Al Asad Airbase strike" was not a good name. I guess we we should continue the discussion on what the best name for this article should be. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with userdude that it needs to be more specific than 2020 iranian attack. January 8 attack could work, it's yearless but so is September 11 and November 22 (not necessarily equating them - just pointing to precedent). TwoEvenPrimes (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Proposed titles

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: moved to Operation Martyr Soleimani. Based on the discussion of the editors involved, consensus has been reached to rename the article to Operation Martyr Soleimani per WP:COMMONNAME at this time, pending what happens in the near future. (closed by non-admin page mover) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 07:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Please add your suggestions below:

  1. 2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq (current title)
  2. 2020 Iranian missile attack
  3. Operation Martyr Soleimani
  4. January 2020 Iranian attack on military bases in Iraq
  5. 2020 escalation in the Persian Gulf crisis – (as a subpage of 2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis and parent article to 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike.)
  6. 2020 Iranian missile strikes against airbases in Iraq
  7. January 2020 Iranian strikes in Iraq
  8. January 2020 Iranian missile strikes
  9. 2020 Iranian attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq
  10. January 2020 Iranian missile Strike on Iraqi and US forces

Procedural signature for RM bot, without which this shows as "Time could not be ascertained" at WP:RM. Dekimasu 16:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • The current title does not work. There may be more retaliation or additional attacks by various means in January.. Operation Martyr Soleinami with a date added to the title puts boundaries around the scope of article and sets it up properly as an article covering a specific action within the larger context of escalation/de-escalation that will occur in the coming weeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctustison (talk • contribs) 03:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current one is fine for now, but we should be ready to move to another name soon, if another appears to be better. Also think "Operation Martyr Soleimani" ― Hebsen (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC) Will stay neutral for the time being. ― Hebsen (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the suggested "January 2020 Iranian attack on military bases in Iraq"? TwoEvenPrimes (talk) 02:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added it to the list. Fine by me. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current title (2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq), after some more time have passed and I have put more thought into this. I think that U.S. should be mentioned in the title, as they were the target, and that is what makes this attack so significant. When that is said, we cannot say "airbases" or "military bases", as they are really Iraqi bases, as pointed out by others. So I think "U.S. forces" are the best description. We can leave out "missiles", and we can leave out "January", but not 2020, Iran or Iraq. And so we have the current title. With regard to "Operation Martyr Soleinami", I have not seen that being used widely in english-language media reports, and in addition it has some inherit POV problems, which also speaks against using it. ― Hebsen (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current title is much better than the previous one but I think calling it "U.S. forces" is not good enough. Iraqi forces were as much if not more at risk of casualties. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is meant to only cover the event today, then the title is way too vague and should be changed. If this article is meant to be expanded upon and catalog all FUTURE attacks in January, then the current title is fine. RopeTricks (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Martyr Soleimani seems more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizen125145 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the operational name has some appeal since it is precise, but unfortunately a title that includes "martyr" looks like WP:POVNAMING. It would be better to stick to a more descriptive title, unless the operational name becomes the most common name used in reliable sources. "January 2020 Iranian attack on military bases in Iraq" seems the best of the above, but it might be helpful put missile in the title, since "attack" is not very specific. (for comparison: 2018 missile strikes against Syria, Syria missile strikes (September 2018)) Forbes72 (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Names of Operation are usually very POV. E.g. Operation Valiant Strike has the term "valiant" in it. They almost always glorify the country taking it.VR talk 07:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good example of when the POV name is the main name repeated in the sources. Currently in the article, the only source that uses "Martyr Soleimani" in the title is Twitter, so we have more neutral alternatives. I favor #6, but #4 is also an improvement over the current title. Forbes72 (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Operation Martyr Soleimani" is the most precise. There is a very strong chance of another Iranian attack this year, so this title will be obsolete fairly quickly.VR talk 07:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Martyr Soleimani sounds good to me, same as all military operations. Sir Magnus (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Martyr Soleimani meets long-standing Wikipedia practice. Or maybe it should be "Failed Operation Martyr Soleimani"? I mean, the whole thing yielded no results. XavierItzm (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current title (2020 Iranian attack on U.S. forces in Iraq). The current title explain everything. The proposed title which includes "martyr" does not meet any criteria of NONPOV as per WP:POVNAMING. --Nicola Romani (talk) 13:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When you talk about a person that some sources called him a martyr and some sources just killed one, yes if you choose martyr for the title it is against the WP:POVNAMING, but now the original name of the operation is "Operation Martyr Soleimani" which doesn't violate that policy!Saff V. (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, WP:NONPOV it is why on Wikipedia we have titles like Antony of Padua instead of Saint Anthony of Padua (even if 98% of sources use the prefix Saint) or why we counts years using Common Era instead After Christ or Anno Domini (even if ironically it starts from His birth). --Nicola Romani (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong. In titles we use the commonly recognizable titles and we have prefix Saint like in Saint Peter etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. MOS:HONORIFIC + MOS:SAWW + WP:NONPOV. --Nicola Romani (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Martyr Soleimani is better considering the situation and precedent. Even if it failed to meet objectives (which I imagine only Iranian higher-ups know) it should still be named that, as a lot of failed operations still become titles. Juxlos (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • #4 and #6 are the only accurate titles. These were not American bases. They were Iraqi bases, where some Americans and other coalition forces are stationed. In fact I came to this page because I saw how inaccurate the current title is. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • January 2020 Iranian strikes in Iraq or #4 and #6 are the most accurate descriptions of what happened. January 2020 Iranian strikes in Iraq is much shorter while still including the month, meaning we can make future articles without renaming this one again. Current title is not good, Martyr Soleimani is not a name people will think of using and it makes Wikipedia appear biased towards the Iranian side. TheNavigatrr (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per the above arguments.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • January 2020 Iranian missile strikes or #6 or #3 Option #1 is inaccurate because Iraqi forces also came under attack; #2's date is too vague, and it being in the singular minimises the geoscope; #4 sounds like it might have been a ground-based attack when it was not; #5 is not specific enough; #7 leaves out the all-important word "missile" which is central to the nature of these attacks. An added benefit to the above suggestion is that it may be possible to include a paragraph about Ukraine International Airlines flight 752, which in the end might turn out to have a direct connection with these strikes. Havradim (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existing title is fine -- It mentions Iraq and US forces, which includes, bases, airports, personnel, etc, allowing for any near future developments. While some Iraqi forces were attacked, the bulk of the Iranian attacks involved US, forces, etc, and was prompted by the US military death of Soleimani. If we try to mention every lesser aspect involved in an article title, we will have a title that looks like a sentence. Easy math. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 8, January 2020 Iranian missile strikes – Concise, unambiguous, and focused on the perpetrators. — JFG talk 16:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Martyr Soleimani is the most precise title. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 or Option 4. While the bases themselves were not solely American, it is clear that the target of the attack was U.S. forces. The attack was in retaliation for a U.S. operation, and the Iraqi PM was given forewarning. As for "2020" vs. "January 2020", I see no reason not to keep it as "2020" and change the title if/when another attack occurs. userdude 00:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Martyr Soleimani as WP:POVNAMING asked:" If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased", the plenty RS sources including washingtonpost, theguardian,al-monitor, time, jpost, alaraby, support "Operation Martyr Soleimani" that is Widely used. M1nhm (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of your sources, only Al-monitor, and The New Arab calls it that name. Time calls it "Operation Martyr Qasem Soleimani", which is almost the same. The Washington Post and The Jerusalem Post note that the Iranian calls it "Operation Martyr Soleimani", but does not call it that in their own voice. And The Guardian quote Iran from saying that it was done "in the name of martyr General Qassem Suleimani". Reporting what the Iranian name is, is much different than using it. This name has not be widely used in Enghlish-language sources, and have a very little user recognition. ― Hebsen (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Martyr Soleimani It is common to choose the exact name of the operation for instance see Operation Eagle Claw, Operation Kaman 99, Operation Kaman 99 and so on! When the operation has a precise name why should we say such an attack on such a base in such a country?Saff V. (talk) 08:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 9. Wikipedia already is too fragmented. Let's not make it even more so. RopeTricks is on the right track, but doesn't go far enough. The title of this article should be broad enough to allow for inclusion of any similar attacks which might occur later in 2020. "Attacks" is more accurate, even if no more of them occur, since two bases were targeted and the missiles were launched in two waves. Ubzerver (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option 3. There seems to be growing support for option 3, and no interest in option 9 at this time, so I am changing my vote. If subsequent, similar attacks occur, then we can change the title to option 9 and let option 3 be the name of a section. Ubzerver (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current title for now. I came here from 2020 Baghdad International Airport airstrike looking for inspiration and now I am spoiled for choice. I am thinking one title perhaps ought to be the mirror of the other so I quite like "2020 U.S. attack on Iranian forces in Iraq" in case the current title is kept here.Selfstudier (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion 1 or Opinion 4 are the most accurate ones. "Operation Martyr Soleimani" is POV and not used in the majority of English-language sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox for Erbil Attack?

Can someone work on that please? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheEpicGhosty (talk • contribs) 01:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TheEpicGhosty, But do we want separate infobox template for each site, or a single infobox template covering all attacks? ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty Reports

There are conflicting reports made by US officials of Iraqi casualties. Those are denied by Iraq officials, that indicate no single Iraqi have died by the missile attacks. There are reports of 32 US soldiers dead and 60 wounded and 6 aircraft destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:E840:2D7E:706F:82C2:6C28:D68A (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to those reports? I cannot find anything verifying what you say. ― Hebsen (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you certain that's what Iran's media (I assume) reports? Or is it reporting about the stampede? Juxlos (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be highly skeptical about anything Iranian state media reports, and how would they know anyway? 47.137.185.72 (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its been confirmed, the casualties reported above are false and are attributed to Iranian state media disinformation apparently.JackTheBestBoss) 04:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reports are from Iranian media, but are attributed to an unknown source within IRGC. To my knowledge, US officials have not reported casualties yet. Also, Fars News claims almost 80 killed and 200 injured, not 104. That "104" refers to Fars News's claim that IRGC is ready to attack to 104 bases/strategic positions of the US in case of a retaliation for Iran's attack on US forces. Ahmadtalk 08:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were a Fars News source for a casualty-claim, but when I send it through Google Translate, it only stated that 2 US "terrorists" were killed. Was the information in the source after all, or can you provide another source for the 200 injured claim? ― Hebsen (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hebsen, Google Translate does not translate it correctly. I think that's because of "Eastern Arabic" numeral it uses. You can try to change Eastern Arabic numbers to Arabic and try again. This is the edited text: "وی گفت: مطابق گزارشات دقیق منابع ما در منطقه تا این لحظه دست کم 80 نظامی آمریکایی کشته و حدود 200 نفر زخمی شده اند که زخمی ها بلافاصله با بالگرد از این پایگاه بیرون برده شده اند.", which Google Translate translates correctly. I don't know why, but formatnum: doesn't convert numeral systems here, so I had to change them manually. However, you can compare "۸۰" and "۲۰۰" with their English equivalents ("80" and "200") using File:Numeral Systems of the World.svg and confirm the result, in case of any doubts.
P.S: About the word "terrorists", that's because of Iranian Parliament's decision that lists all Pentagon (and, I think, United States) military forces as "terrorists". Since Fars is a state media, I think it's normal for it to use the word "terrorists", in accordance with the Parliament's decision. Ahmadtalk 08:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed unconfirmed report of 80 killed (from Reuters published on JPOST) as the report has already been pulled from the Homepage of JPOST site and is neither seen on their breaking news page. Reuters site does not report the same news. Share the link and explain why we should post this propaganda and misinformation into our article. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:52, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DBigXray, I oppose adding it to the infobox for now, but I think it's okay to add it to the text of the article as Iranian media's claim. Of course, we can wait for some time to see if IRGC and/or Iranian officials make any clear(er) statement or not, but I think this has already been published on several Iranian sources, such as Fars, Tasnim, YJC and Mehr. Ahmadtalk 08:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Iraqi officials have added on their statements on that there were neither American nor Iraqi casualties resulting from the strikes.[1]

References

  1. ^ Rubin, Alissa J.; Fassihi, Farnaz; Schmitt, Eric; Yee, Vivian (2020-01-07). "Iran Fires on U.S. Forces at 2 Bases in Iraq, Calling It 'Fierce Revenge'". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2020-01-08.
  • Ahmad252, As per the recent reports From Iraqi military officers, no American or Iraqi died. So unless we have international media saying something. I say we wait. Better to be late than be found propagating false propaganda and misinformation that can fire up riots and conflict. DBigXrayᗙ 09:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I could find this from Associated Press, that includes the "at least 80 killed" claim, but this seems to be fairly old. The true number is pretty much unknown, and many sources estimate it to be zero. Less than ten minutes ago, for example, I heard that there has been no casualties, according to French officials. So, the "80 killed" number is somehow conversational at this point, I guess. Ahmadtalk 09:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes, the figure of 80 dead is turning out to be a wrong estimate from someone in Iran. But it is still too early to say anything. For now we should just wait.--DBigXrayᗙ 09:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update of Iran claim

The claim that 80 U.S. personnel was killed was made shortly after the attack. It is now clear that no-one actually died. Have Iran changed its claim since then? They have already said it was not their intention to kill anybody. Ahmad252, you seem a particularly good person to ask. ― Hebsen (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hebsen, I don't think so. The latest statement I'm aware of is made by Amir Ali Hajizadeh, at a press conference, claiming that "tens have surely died and injured and transported by a C-130 plane" (see [1]). However, he didn't present a clear number at the press conference, and said that the exact number will be known later. I think this statement is more "official", because it's clear that the commander of AFAGIR has made the statement, not an unknown person within IRGC. Ahmadtalk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intraday Security Prices

I understand the desire to include Security prices, such as Oil prices. It's just that what these do on an hourly basis is not particularly notable. This is further complicated by the hour they are traded at, and the volume. What's more is that these are affected by a myriad of factors, not just singular events, making their usage even more problematic. A full article could be written on what happened in the oil markets today, but this is not the place for an encyclopedic article on oil pricing. Alot of times journalists will attempt to compress complex price movements in to articles online, these are generally fairly worthless, attempting to make sense of complex events through singular focus on specific events, I mean this generally but also specifically in regard to the CNBC article. The Iranian response was incredibly underwhelming for traders who were watching the straights of Hormuz. And if you search around now you'll find a slew of articles including from CNBC about why traders were infact bearish about the response, which they'll talk about until prices go back up again.Alcibiades979 (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC) +1 --204.14.236.153 (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is saying "temporarily" so I don't see the harm: "These reports on Twitter temporarily caused a rally of U.S. and Brent crude oil futures." Bus stop (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WTI February reached that high on 75,000 contracts in the post market over 90 minutes; nothing for a $3.00 price swing. For comparison in the 5 minutes after a weekly EIA report volume can reach 30-40,000 contracts in 5 minutes. If you're desperate to buy something and the supply is low, for instance in the aftermarket, prices rise quickly due to low liquidity, but this isn't indicative of the assets true value in high liquidity times, just what a few traders desperate for contracts are willing to pay in the aftermarket, and depending on their leverage and exposure these may very well now be ex-traders, hehe; see LTCM. Over the next 22 hours volume increased to over a million contracts for CLG20 shelling the price to a low of $59.15 for that day <- that was indicative of market sentiment. But even a million CLG20 contracts in 24 hours are irrelevant to this article, because this did not happen in a vacuum. If oil markets were tight, for instance, this all may well have raised prices, if so many bulls hadn't gotten burned after the Abqaiq attacks the results also could have been different. As soon as Javad said Iran's retaliation had concluded, and no one was hurt, it was good game, I couldn't buy puts fast enough. Alcibiades979 (talk) 09:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

Move the line "The attacks caused no casualties" before the line stating that the attacks were planned to cause no casualties. 2604:2000:69D9:B800:85D2:C98A:8BAF:C44 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

attacks / local time

Two references (Nr. 26, 27) are given for the claim that the attacks took place between 1:45 and 2:15 a. m. local time. I'm sorry, but if one reads this sources (The Independent and Al Jazeera, respectively) there can only be found an information of 1:30 - at Al Jazeera. And that's quite a different thing ! --129.187.244.19 (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any mention or reports as to US missile defense capability (or lack thereof) during this attack?

While there is a great amount of detail as to the number of missiles fired by Iran at US targets in Iraq during this event, there seems to be a complete lack of information or "curiosity" (in this wiki article and in the media in general) as to whether or not there is or was any capable anti-missile defense systems in place or operational by US forces to counter the Iranian bombardment. Was any such defense system in place? Was it activated? Did it deter or destroy any inbound Iranian missiles? Or perhaps there are no system capable of such a defense (at least not in the possession of US forces)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.74.108.212 (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Martyr_Soleimani