Jump to content

Talk:2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request

[edit]

In the intro and other casualties, where it mentions the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, please add Iranian (I.e. “the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps”). Since this attack took place in Lebanon, it’s important to note that the IRGC is part of the Iranian Armed Forces. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:8155:A751:3DBB:848E (talk) 03:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is common knowledge, I believe, that IRGC refers to Iranian corps; additionaly the article has been wikilinked, so I don't see any reason to include "Iranian" here. I am not closing this and would let another editor do so. The AP (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: per TheAstorPastor. M.Bitton (talk) 11:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word "assassination"

[edit]

I have recently replaced the several instances of the word "assassinate" and its variants (the adjective "assassinated", the noun "assassination", etc) with variants of "kill". The problem is that it is a word that introduces bias: an assassination is the murder of a public figure, and a murder is a killing that is both intentional and unlawful. And given that this public figure is a terrorist leader, killed during explicit military hostilities, saying that it was unlawful can be controversial at best. "Kill", on the other hand, only means to take a life, and does not include any criminal or unlawful intent in the definition, so it is a better and more neutral word to use. See for example here.

The change was reverted, citing WP:FALSEBALANCE, which is meaningless here. This is not about a mainstream and a fringe view, this isn't even about opposing views, but about Words that may introduce bias. The previous RM is meaningless as well, because the main point in discussion was whether the article should be about the bombings in general or the death of Hassan Nasrallah in particular.

And I found it a bit strange that a reference used multiple times used the tag "Israel assassin", I change it to something less provocative, and that was reverted as well. Just because the <ref name="name" /> is invisible to readers does not mean it can be used for flamebait. Cambalachero (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero, you'll note I specifically changed the name of the reference because you flagged it, after I otherwise reverted the article. In all likelihood, I think it received that name because someone couldn't be bothered to write out "Israeli assassination" in full every time (it was probably me!) rather than out of any malicious intent.
Re: "assassination", this is a term used in multiple other, related articles on Wikipedia, and it's also used in a list of killings specifically attributed to Israel here: List of Israeli assassinations.
"Assassination" is not included in the list of words that introduce bias, either; though, incidentally, "terrorist" is (which you use to justify "killing") at MOS:TERRORIST. (It's also mentioned in the article Loaded language, whereas "assassin" isn't.)
According to our page on assassinations: Assassination is the willful killing, by a sudden, secret, or planned attack, of a person—especially if prominent or important. It may be prompted by political, ideological, religious, personal, financial, or military motives. Assassinations are ordered by both individuals and organizations, and are carried out by their accomplices. Acts of assassination have been performed since ancient times. A person who carries out an assassination is called an assassin.
There's no mention of murder here, as opposed to killing. However, I note that many "assassination of..." pages have it in their short description while some don't. That suggests to me that it's a matter of taste how individual articles describe their specific assassinations. "Assassination" in itself doesn't imply, in my view, anything other than a killing of a high-profile individual, as per the above description.
I actually favoured not using "assassination" in the title because of the "collateral damage" involved, but it was very popular nevertheless. I'd be keen to hear what others think? Lewisguile (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WTW is clear in the lead: "The advice in this guideline is not limited to the examples provided and should not be applied rigidly. If a word can be replaced by one with less potential for misunderstanding, it should be". It does not matter is if they didn't specifically mention a certain word, as long as it can be explained how that word introduces bias, which I just did. And just because a word is used in other articles does not mean it's fine if the discussion was never held in the first place, see Wikipedia:Silence and consensus. Cambalachero (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did, and I disagreed with you that it showed bias, citing my reasons as you did. Bias can also occur via omission/removal (why is this assassination so objectionable to label as such? for instance). Let's see what others have to say. Lewisguile (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add, it's the WP:COMMONNAME for his specific killing too. Across sources both left and right, and more or less obviously biased:
Etc. Lewisguile (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Killing" is pretty common in headlines as well, maybe more so, e.g. Reuters WaPo CBS Al Jazeera CNN NPR just to name some big ones. If we look at article bodies, many sources use both words at some point, making it a bit hard to compare.
As with the related RM discussion, my position is it's not entirely clear that "assassination" fits precisely, considering the various definitions (I cited one by Schmitt); "killing" seems ideal since there's no question about its applicability. — xDanielx T/C\R 21:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to switching it if multiple people feel it's inaccurate. I got the feeling (perhaps incorrectly) from the RM that many people wanted that word in there, though? (I personally voted against it for the title.) Lewisguile (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]