Talk:Assassination of Ali Khamenei

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Requested move 1 March 2026

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 for now. It's clearly an assassination (according to the discussion below), so the move rests on the prevalence of assassination in WP:RS, and consensus is clear that for now, it's used commonly enough to justify keeping this title. I suggest revisiting in a year or so to see how the common name for this event has evolved (or not). We have no WP:CRYSTAL ball, so for now the current consensus of "assassination" holds; we'll see in 2027 how history remembers this event. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 18:39, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

---

Assassination of Ali Khamenei → Killing of Ali KhameneiKilling of Ali Khamenei – Per above discussion. Assassination is a term that carries significant negative imputation. Longstanding consensus supported by numerous discussions is that it is not used in wiki-voice unless the term is being widely used within independent reliable sources. Ad Orientem (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose it was an assassination and the attack was specifically targeting him and was successful, so the current naming is appropriate The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support for consistency with other similar articles Surachit (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose. He was definitely assassinated not only by definition, but also sources call it this way, so can't be "original research". This requested move is laughable. Yacàwotçã (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Strongly oppose sounds biased. "Assassination" is 100% accurate. I support @Yacàwotçã's point that "He was definitely assassinated not only by definition, but also sources call it this way". Also consistency with Charlie Kirk, JFK, MLK, Lincoln, and more (as stated wonderfully by @Cfls). Plus "killing" sounds less like it was a military leader and more like a civilian. "murder (an important person) in a surprise attack for political, military, or religious reasons" -- definition of assassination. The Ayatollah was eliminated/killed/whatever for, at the very least, "political reasons", not to mention "military". Still, I don't like that we're calling it "murder" (per the definition), but killing sounds worse and few other non-Iran sources are referring to it as "killing". Several Western news sources are calling it an "assasination". Also, I will note that the Ayatollah had a previous assassination attempt. Avishai11 (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Strongest Oppose per @Avishai11. It was an assassination no more no less, just because it doesn't seem like an assassination, it was a political and targeted killing against the snake's head, Ali Khamenei which seems to match the definition of an assassination. shane (talk to me if you want!) 17:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - per others who strongly oppose, and also according to Merriam Webster, an assassination is "murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons : the act or an instance of assassinating someone (such as a prominent political leader)". This is clearly an assassination. Here's the link. I also don't see how "killing" is any less negative than "assassination" It's just that "assassination" is the right term to be used here WhatADrag07 (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose – This is similar to the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani. It was a successful targeted strike against a head of state; calling it an assassination is appropriate. Slothwizard (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Support for consistency Vectorange (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Support because it's the wording being used in most RS and is most consistent with other similar Wikipedia entries. TruεRατιο (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

But Gaddafi's killing wasn't an assassination, it was the execution of a prisoner. Guettarda (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Support for consistency.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  16:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support for consistency Waypoint47 (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Title consistency with Assassination of Charlie Kirk, Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., Assassination of Abraham Lincoln, among many other articles. This is a targeted attack, at least according to United States and Israeli officials. Cfls (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  In the cases you cited, almost w/o exception the secondary sources covering the topics referred to them as assassinations. That is not the case here. We go with what the sources say. Anything else is inserting our own point of view. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment.

On the 'consistency' debate:

1. I pointed out four high-ranking officials that were killed in strikes, using the phrasing "Killing of" in the title. Two of those had formal discussions on their talk pages that affirmed such wording.

2. There are many more journalists that I didn't mention who were killed in strikes that use "Killing of".

3. It's roughly equal between "Killing of" and "Assassination of" in similar titles, so there is no consistency to be created by choosing either side because we haven't set a clear precedent.

4. Additionally, almost all of the talk page consensuses for "Killing of" move requests that were mentioned in opposition to the proposed move cited the common name standard; see below.

On the 'common name' debate:

Just over half of the sources I found mentioned "assassination". Nearly all mentioned "killing", and many that used "assassination" once used it as the primary term. That should be enough to establish a common name and recognizable title.

On the 'precision' debate:

WP:PRECISION merely requires that a title "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article"; in fact, it explicity warns against going beyond that standard. The phrasing "Killing of" is unambiguous enough to identify the subject as the death of an individual; no differences here.

Other relevant points:

There are at least two relevant essays here: WP:ASSASSINATION and WP:DEATHS. The former explicitly suggests using a common name standard when deciding whether or whether not to use "Assassination of" in a title, so even if consistency was an issue here we should probably still have relied on the common name.

It is not a "double standard" to move to "Killing of"; such a name is used as the common name in reliable sources, while, for example, the death of JFK is consistently referred to as an assassination. Additionally, the common name support for "Killing" isn't just from 'sources affiliated with the perpetrators'; most of the coverage is from independent outlets. It's also not just from Western sources either, because other sources like Iran International consistently use "Killing of" as well.

We should not say that "it meets the definition of assassination" and call it a day; there is much more to consider as explained above, and there is no way to apply the "purely based on definition" neutrally without getting so specific that the title goes against the principles laid out in WP:AT. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose because assassination is the correct wording for the death of people like Ali khamenei and formal.

A$ianeditorz (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Assassination is more reserved for important figures. TheSwagger13 (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Support for consistency and the fact that unlike other assassinations, this was carried out by a bomb that destroyed not only him but everything around him also. Other assassinations cited (like the Assassination of Charlie Kirk) was carried out by a gunman. GuestyMC (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@GuestyMC Please see Assassination of Qasemm Soleimani. Avishai11 (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - A targeted attack towards an influential person is an assassination. CMBGAMER 2018 (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - It's better to stay neutral in the wording, unless backed by reliable sources. They seem to have deemed it a killing, at least for the time being. The argument "but it was an assassination" is not very convincing; It is basically WP:OR. — xo Ergur (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Support - First off he was killed with a number of ariel bombs which killed him and everyone around him, desolating the entire palace/compound, that is not an assassination.

Even if this was done with a gun as is often associated with assassination we do not use this characterization for Killing of Osama bin Laden or any other major leader. If this were a plot in which the United States used small explosives without the intent to just kill Khamenei similar to Operation Valkyrie, I would agree. However this was, as per THIS ARTICLE, this was a decapitation of the government through an attack on numerous state officials and other parts of the military apparatus.

We characterize an assassination by a small scale targeted attack perpetuated and planned by one person or a small group of people. This is a full scale military and government operation in which the US and Israeli governments targeted government officials one of which was Khamenei. AML KING (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: I am going to stop discussing here as I believe I went a little over the 1,000 word limit. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 01:48, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Oppose This was the targeted killing of a head of state. If that doesn't meet the definition of assassination, then I don't know what does. Pristino (talk) 07:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Leaning Oppose, Assasination via airstrike meant that it was extensivly planned and implements. I'd pick Assasination over Killing simply because it fits this logic. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - While the naming of this article is currently subject to political consideration outside of Wikipedia, within the editorial bounds here it is primarily a question of NPOV (not necessarily consistency). The "killing of" phrasing, while certainly accurate, omits the primary factor of the act as an explicit and thoroughly planned and outlined "decapitation" strategy. Khamenei wasn't killed incidentally in a strike that just happened to occur at that time and place, he was specifically targeted. "Assassination" is the accurate and informative term to use within the context of the military strategy of the decapitation as an aims to eliminate the leader at the top of a governmental hierarchy (relevant sources: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-leadership-killing/ https://www.vox.com/politics/481307/khamenei-killing-world-leaders-assassination https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/03/politics/khamenei-killing-us-assassinations-cia-iran-analysis https://archive.is/fdWcE https://archive.is/nTEia). This distinction is also relevant within the context of US law which bans assassinations that was also discussed after the assassination of Qasem Soleimani. In other words, a killing isn't always an assassination, but an assassination is a specific type of killing. Both terms have been utilized in the coverage of Khamenei's death, nevertheless they've not been used interchangeably, their usage is dictated by the journalist's/analyst's focus on the specificity of this event. Further, it should be noted that inconsistencies between other Wikipedia articles are the result of editorial discretion of a multitude of contributors rather than those of outside sources and that we should be careful not to assume standardization based on precedent alone. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:15, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:09, 2 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strongly oppose, citing precedent. There's Admiral Yamamoto, whose article title sidesteps the issue, but whose article otherwise says "killing," correct; the Sheikh Yassin case, while titled "Killing," immediately refers to the incident as an "assassination" in the lede; Emir bin Laden was killed in an operation ostensibly conducted to bring him in, and thus his killing was sort-of incidental, rather than expressly an assassination; Brotherly Leader Gaddafi was captured and lynched; Mullah Mansur's demise is similarly titled, as is Dr. al-Zawahiri's, as is Shukr's.

Now, one might argue that only the Admiral and the Brotherly Leader were government officials, but this seems irrelevant, as precedent in the States appears to be that one needn't hold office to be assassinated (see: el-Hajj el-Shabazz, Rev. King, Mr. Kirk) (don't see: Mr. Thompson).

Then, there's the preponderance of evidence to the contrariwise: there's der Führer, who had attempts on his life during the war by the Poles and the Brits, explicitly labelled "assassination attempts," dispelling this notion that one cannot be assassinated in wartime; similarly, when Reichsprotektor Heydrich was "bumped off" by the Čechoslováci during the war, it was an assassination; every time the CIA tried to "whack" El Comandante, these were "attempted assassinations;" when the Grand Ayatollah had an attempt on his life, this was an "attempted assassination."

Finally, there's Mullah al-Musawi, Chairman al-Rantisi, Sardar Soleimani, Deputy Chairman al-Arouri, Chairman Haniyeh, Mullah Nasrallah, Al-Sharif, the journalist, and Abu Obeida, all of whom were assassinated in ways not particularly dissimilar to the Grand Ayatollah.

Thus, I vote "no." Mátyás Rákosi (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

First of all, Nasrallah was not confirmed to have been killed via an airstrike, which is the reason you call many of the other killed 'not particularly dissimilar'. There are a similar amount of people with both titling styles that were killed in airstrikes, and discussions on many of those articles cite common name. Additionally, Yassin's prose using "assassination" does not outweight the discussion on the talk page that reached a consensus that reliable sources support the word 'killing' in the title. I am not claiming that 'wartime assassinations' are not assassinations. I am claiming that we should not be distracted by trying to remain consistent in an area of Wikipedia where there is seemingly no consistency. We should focus on the common name of the incident, which is 'killing'. Arguably, doing this follows precedent more than trying to rely on article titles from earlier, since it remains consistent with the invocation of WP:COMMONNAME in similar discussions ratherthan attempting consistency through an ostensible majority or minority of those sources used a term in the title, which relied on those common name justifications. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong oppose for the sake of being consistent with similar assassinations. The argument of "some sources say he was killed yet fewer sources say he was assassinated" is moot. When somebody is assassinated, that person is killed. All assassinations are killings but not all killings are assassinations. The fact of the matter is that Khamenei's death was an assassination. That's not even debatable. He and like 40 other members of the Iranian government were deliberately struck with missiles. This something known as a "targeted killing" which is a form of an assassination. This is not original research, this is what our sources are saying. He was deliberately killed. There is not a debate there. Mentioning bin Laden or Gaddafi is a terrible point because those are not very similar whatsoever. Bin Laden's mission was intended to be an arrest in the case he surrendered, but he did not. While Gaddafi was beaten to death by a mob. I just don't see the similarities. I do however see similarities with the assassination of Qasem Soleimani... which is not labeled "killing of."

Overall point is that "assassination of" is more precise than "killing of", the latter of which implies the event may have been incidental and not explicitly the intentions of the airstrike. MountainJew6150 (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:23, 1 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Oppose, Ali was killed on purpose by the idf SantiagoEdits (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• bin Laden was killed during an operation ostensibly designed to capture him; Gaddafi was captured and summarily executed; Qasam Soleimani, I think you'll find, was assassinated by a US drone, in not a dissimilar case to the present one, where assassination was ordered by a foreign nation. Mátyás Rákosi (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri? That one seems to be similar as well as noted earlier, but is labeled "Killing". Also take a look at Killing of Ahmed Yassin, which even had a discussion on its talk page. Constistency is a problem, but neither way fixes it as for now. Broader discussiona re required for such questions. Right now we must follow precedent in COMMONNAME as choose 'killing' accordingly. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:47, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Also see Killing of Fuad Shukr. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support:

On the common name issue.

Some sources I found that have used "assassinated":

The New York Times

The Hindu

Forbes

Al Jazeera

Jerusalem Post

South China Morning Post

The Times of Israel

Haaretz

Time

The Independent

Note that these sources often use 'killing' as well.

Some sources I found that don't use "assassinated":

NPR

NBC

The Hill

The Guardian

CBS

Politico

The Wall Street Journal

The Economic Times

I would say that since almost all of the sources that use 'assassination' also use 'killing', and thag a similar number of sources I found don't use 'assassination' at all, than going by WP:COMMONNAME we should use 'Killing' in the title. Also, while there are examples of 'assassination' being used in targeted killings similar to this one, 'killing' seems to be fairly consistent with other article titles such as the Killing of Muammar Gaddafi and Killing of Osama bin Laden. Therefore, I believe moving to "Killing of Ali Khamenei" would be proper here. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 16:48, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I was happy to see someone posted this sort of a list.

However, then I clicked through e.g. to the Guardian, and it was some ongoing "blog" coverage link only. When you do a site:theguardian.com khamenei Google search, you get a much more mixed picture, with e.g. this March 1 obituary saying ...has died aged 86 in a large-scale air attack on the country..., and this March 1 article saying The assassination of Iran’s supreme leader...

Likewise for NPR, there's also a March 2 article with the title including ...the assassination of Iran's supreme leader.

Likewise for NBC News, there's also this March 4 article that says ...the assassinated supreme leader's second son...

Likewise for WSJ, there's also this March 2 editorial board opinion where the top image caption says ...leads to the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei...

So I don't think this research was thorough enough to be determinative. --Joy (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

But why Muammar Gaddafi and Osama bin Laden rather than events that are similar to the one in question? Wouldn't it make more sense to go for consistency with Assassination of Qasem Soleimani and Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh? ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 16:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that there are similar cases of targeted killings that use 'Assassination' in the title. Strictly going for consistency via the most similar articles then yes, it would be better to keep it as 'Assassination'. This is why I was wanting to have a broader discussion about when to use 'Assassination' in the title, so that we could set a clear precedent for future articles. However, in this case, such a precedent does not seem apparent to me. We have articles like Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri and Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, both very similar in circumstance but with different title phrasing. Since it is hard to find a precedent here I am relying mostly on the sources. It was about half and half in using the word 'assassination', but 'killing' was used supplementary to 'assassination' in nearly all of the articles that used it. Given this, and the fact that 'assassination' has more of a negative imputation than 'killing' as stated in the nomination, I decided I would support this move. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:10, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Assassination is a neutral connotation no? The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Both of them are different circumstances. Osama was killed in a raid which may or may not have had him captured if he wasn’t killed, while Muammar gaddafi was captured and lynched durning a war which would be KIA, with Khamenei it was targeted airstrike The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Right. But where does 'assassination' begin and 'killing' end? As I said previously, we still don't have a satisfactory precedent. You could say that if it was a targeted killing, we should use 'assassination', but there's Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri. Also, the Killing of Osama bin Laden was planned overwhelmingly to result in his death. I wouldn't be opposed to setting a new precedent where we separate targeted killings, assassinations by private individuals and other assassination-adjacent cases titularly, but with the muddy boundaries between using 'assassination' and 'killing' in Wikipedia precedent and the lean towards the primary use of 'killing' in sources, I would still suggest 'killing' over 'assassination'. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:25, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Well assassinations are a subcategory of killings, so there isn't a line between where one begins and the other ends. All assassinations are killings but not all killings are assassinations. As for Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri it doesn't seem like there has been any serious discussion held on that talk page about the title of the article. Perhaps it should be called an assassination, or perhaps the fact he is mainly known as simply a terrorist rather than an active political figure (or both, they're not mutually exclusive) might be an argument for not changing it. The Killing of Osama bin Laden, despite his death being known as a likely outcome of the operation, was not the most successful outcome of the operation as capture was the fist choice. An assassination on the other hand doesn't have capture as a goal. I agree it's a bit of a mess but the best we can do is at least keep the most similar articles consistent with each other. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 18:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

What I meant was there should be a clear boundary between using 'killing' and 'assassination' if reliable sources split. For Osama bin Laden, it was framed as "kill-or-capture" to comply with international law; however, mtuliple officials labelled it as a 'kill operation', and the SEALs were only authorized to capture if there was a clear surrender. Also, one thing I would like to point out is that a lot of the articles being cited for "consistency" relied some upon 'assassination' being a common name for the subject's death. What I would suggest, if we want to make something consistent, is to first see if there is a common name; if there is no clear common name, then how about splitting articles into 'targeted killings' to separate deaths like Khamenei's from 'killings' by private citizens, and 'assassinations' for significant individuals killed by private individuals in furtherance of a political goal? ('Targeted killings' is also gaining some traction in sources such as CNN, NYT and LA Times). Once again this is why I think we should have a broader discussion on this so we won't have to repeat these similar discussions again and again. Right now, the common name still seems to be 'killing' since assassination is used significantly less when mentioning the death of Khamenei. For now I'm sitcking with 'Killing of' until we get a broader consensus on how to resolve the consistency issue, which wouldn't necessarily be fixed by keeping the name as-is. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

As @Maltazarian said, an assassination is a subcategory of killing. If it can be called an assassination, there's no reason to make the title less specific. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support for consistency with Killing of Muammar Gaddafi and Killing of Osama bin Laden. Imo it is more similar to those killings/'assassinations' than to those of Kirk, Kennedy, King and Lincoln, since the latter were all killed (officially) by lone gunmen, not in an act of warfare by a foreign country like Gaddafi and Khamenei. Apricotjam (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Gaddafi's killing was the execution of a prisoner, not an assassination. As for Bin Laden, the US claimed it was a "kill-or-capture mission", which is fundamentally different from an assassination. Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm leaning Oppose here. I do see the argument that "assassination" carries negative connotations, but let's be honest here so does "killing", which comes with the territory of being terms used to describe ending someone's life. You can't really get around that. With that said I think we should venture to be consistent with other articles, as other's have said. In other words, this article should be titled in the same way we describe similar events. Some people whose deaths come to mind are Qasem Soleimani, Hassan Nasrallah and Ismail Haniyeh, all three being killed by either Israeli or American airstrikes. For these we have Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, 2024 Hezbollah headquarters strike and Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. Nasrallah's article title isn't applicable here, but the article itself consistently refers to it as an "assassination" rather than a "killing", and it's opening line is:

On 27 September 2024, Hassan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hezbollah, was assassinated in an Israeli airstrike in Beirut.

So in the end I agree with other editors that the title should be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, but as there seems to be pretty clear precedent for calling events of this kind "assassination" I oppose the move, contrary to what others have done. I'm at a bit of a loss as to why this is, so if any of those editors could explain their reasoning it would be much appreciated. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 16:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Assassination states that an assassination is "is the willful killing, by a sudden, secret or public attack, of a person—especially a prominent or important one—typically for political or ideological reasons" Khamenei was a head of state(a prominent person) and was willfully and publicly killed by Israel for (at least in part) a political/ideologial reason- to lead to the overthrow of the regime. Sources seem to be 50/50 on using the term. 331dot (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, the fact of the matter is that this was a warfare operation. It had a specific goal that was immediate, as part of a war effort, rather than something hoping to stoke or inspire. If Israel and the United States had taken out Khamenei in the hopes of inspiring a new Iranian Revolution, then left, Assassination would be proper; since the war continues, it should be Killing as part of regime change. PickleG13 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 21:27, 1 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• I would agree with "assassination of" if this was just the targeted killing of Khamenei, but he was killed in the context of a war along with many others. That's why I think "killing of" is more appropriate. TruεRατιο (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree; it follows with other articles like Killing of Osama bin Laden or Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri that were part of broader conflict. This case, with airstrikes across Iran and retaliation from the nation, rather than a single strike as we saw with some of the articles using 'assassination', would fit 'killing of' under that framework. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 17:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - naming this as a killing downplays this over the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, and the definition of this as an assassination perfectly meets the criteria, even if most sources call it a "death" or a "killing"; most reliable sources reporting on this are perpetrator-linked. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's an opinion. We go with what the sources are saying. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Many of these sources are western-orientated; and even if they're reliable, they have some degree of bias. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Of course, everything has bias, but that does not mean it gives anyone the authroity to say you are less biased and make the decision yourself. It is unfortunate that we do not have that many reliable Iranian sources to use on Wikipedia (NPPSG lists only one), but we must work with the reliable sources that we do have. Per WP:RS, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective," and in WP:COMMONNAME, "English-language media outlets" are listed as "[useful] in determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used". So yes, while I would be fine with more Iranian or just non-Western viewpoints on the topic, right now this is the best we can do. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. It was a targeted assassination. Killing implies that it could have been accidental, which it certainly was not. And just because the assassins were state actors and used massive military force doesn't make it any less of an assassination. We have to focus on truth and not really care if the truth steps on someone's toes. Jhertel (talk) 17:16, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  The "precision" guideline only requires up to identify the subject of the title so that it will not be mistaken for another topic; it does not require that we detail the circumstances of said subject in the title itself. If that were the case we would fail on conciseness. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:59, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If "killing" implies that it could be accidental, why does you doesn't change Killing of Osama Bin Laden or Killing of Muammar Gaddafi? JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 18:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe they should be, but we're talking about this article in front of us. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose targeted assassination. Killing would be oversimplification, downplaying the actual incident. Ahammed Saad (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, why are so few reliable sources using that term? We go with what the sources say, not our own opinions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Well actually the WP:CRITERIA for article names are recognizability, naturalness, precision, concision and consistency. All assassinations are killings, but not all killings are assassinations, so the fact some sources are saying "killing" does not mean they're actively stating it's not an assassination. The fact other reliable sources do specify it further by calling it an assassination while none are stating it isn't an assassination is sufficient for us to decide to use assassination in the title, and for the sake of consistency we should do so as both names are essentially tied in the other criteria. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 17:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

That is an appeal to ignorance fallacy. Also, you could argue even stronger for the other way; almost all sources mention it as a 'killing' at least once, and around half don't mention it as an 'assassination' at all. Also, WP:PRECISION is only necessary to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article," which killing already does pretty clearly; I thinkwe can agree that there were no other times that Khamenei was killed. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:04, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't call that an appeal to ignorance fallacy. I'm saying it's true because there are sources calling it an assassination and no sources arguing against that. It would be an appeal to ignorance if I argued that it's an assassination only because no sources argued against it. Also I know what WP:PRECISION says, which is why I said they were tied in criteria other than consistency. I'm not using it as an argument for "assassination". Funnily enough if anything I'd argue the other way around due to the 1981 attempted assassination. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 18:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Recognizability and precision, in relation to article titles, matters as much it distinguishes the article's subject from other subjects and makes the article's subject unambiguous. Both "Assassination of Ali Khamenei" and "Killing of Ali Khamenei" fulfill this role of being totally distinct from any other article because Ali Khamenei was only killed once. Bausen Slaw (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Which is why I said they were tied in criteria other than consistency. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 18:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Not different from Assassination of Qasem Soleimani Braganza (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support "Killing" makes more sense for the title rather ":assassination" Rager7 (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Proposal is poorly construed referencing us editors to read another disucssion rather than putting in the arguments in place ("Per above discussion"). It them seem a bit ideologically driven by arguing "Assassination is a term that carries significant negative imputation.", well states do commit at times acts that carries significant negative imputation, as it seem to be case here. Then it reads "Longstanding consensus supported by numerous discussions" but does not list them or provide any evidence this consesnus exists. I may change my vote if propper arguments are presented. This seems rushed. Prxtxnitx (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Assassination is defined as a killing of a prominent person. There's no reason to make the title less specific. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 18:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Other than the common name and consistency debate, you do bring up a point about specificity. However, WP:AT states that you shouldn't get more specific than what is needed to unambiguously define a subject, which is clearly met with either title. Additionally, if you support a specificity approach, maybe you would accept "targeted killing"? It's more specific as well and mentioned in some reliable sources. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 20:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Assassination is defined as "the willful killing a prominent official, often for political or religious reasons. The strike on Ali Khamenei perfectly meets this criteria.

NesserWiki (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose – Arguments for consistency are unavailing since several articles about bombing strikes are named similarly. See Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Assassination of Abbas al-Musawi, Assassination of Anas Al-Sharif, Assassination of Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, Assassination of Abu Obeida, Assassination of Saleh al-Arouri. OP claims "Assassination is a term that carries significant negative imputation". This is immaterial as a killing of the head of state of another nation is inherently a negative thing. In any case, some have argued, during the debate about WP:DEATHS, that "killing" also has a negative imputation. (No shit! In both cases, killing or assassinating people is generally bad but not always.) It is not Wikipedia's fault if we simply describe the event accurately and precisely. As many people have shown above (including those that support a move), assassination is often used to describe the event just as often as killing. There has been no convincing argument made that assassination is not the common name and that killing is. At the end of the day, the English Wikipedia basis its decision on this question on WP:AT. There is a strong case that the current title is the most recognizable, consistent, natural, concise and (most relevantly) the most precise name for this subject. The aggressors (US and Israel) have been adamant and clear on their objective of assassinating Khamenei for the purpose of destabilizing his government in the hopes of effecting "regime change". The bombing particularly targetted him at his compound with the express goal of assassinating him as a political leader. Therefore, "Assassination of Ali Khamenei" is the perfect title for this article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:55, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Ehhhhh ElhamHusey (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per all the oppose comments above. WinKyaw (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong oppose rename of "Assassination of Ali Khamenei" due to Assassination of John F. Kennedy. Keep the term "assassination". Calling the murder of JFK "assassination" and at same time calling the murder of Ali something else like "killing" (bordering on eupheminism) constitutes a clear Double standard. Also relying on sources affiliated with the perpetrator ie USA violates WP:NPOV. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Support RS are almost universally using ‘Killing.’ Many of the oppose votes involve original research and novel redefinitions, to say nothing of independent analysis. There is clear precedent for 'Killing' (notably, Osama bin Laden). Wikipedia must reflect RS, which means adopting 'Killing' without delay. Dr Fell (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Support: Killing is more commonly used in reliable sources. This event is different from JFK or Charlie Kirk or other political assassinations. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

How is it different? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:28, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Those didn't require (declared) government-level involvement or resources. The term "assassination" is typically used for much smaller scale (declared) resourcing and involvement. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Because it was death by airstrike and not death by gunfire as in the case of Kirk or JFK. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 18:10, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

So? It was the death of a prominent de facto head of state; I don't think perpetrator-affiliated sources are reliable on this matter. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Really? If that is so wouldn't the nuance in WP:RSP be superfluous? Multiple Israeli sources there are listed as reliable for the conflict over there; the news websites that don't use "assassination" are listed there as reliable with no explicit exceptions for times when the American government is involved in an action. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, for precision, above. JayCubby 19:37, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  The precision standard from WP:AT usually only requires the title to "unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". Both titles are not ambiguous as to what we're talking about; somebody can't die twice. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:40, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Support: "killing" is far more WP:NEUTRAL, is most commonly used in RS, and is consistent with articles such as Killing of Osama bin Laden. Alpacaaviator (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Sources connected to the perpetrator are not reliable in this particular matter. Taylor 49 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Nonsense. WP:RSP.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  01:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment. I would like to bring attention to these three examples of 'Killing' being used: Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Killing of Ahmed Yassin, and Killing of Fuad Shukr. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 19:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but they have no relation to notable killings nor were they leaders of countries. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Killing of Akhtar Mansur as well. And what do you mean by 'notable killings'? One of them founded Hamas, on of them led al-Qaeda, and one of them was a Hezbollah commander. They were obviously intentionally done in furtherance of a political goal as well. They were also drone/airstrikes, similar to Khamenei's circumstances. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 20:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I also am confused by the new mention of being a "leader of a country"; none of the cited examples uses by the proponents of keeping the title as is were national leaders either, and you could argue that the ones I just listed are about as close as their examples (e.g. founder of Hamas, and leaders of the Taliban and al-Qaeda). Additionally, there are many Palestinian journalists whose death articles use "Killed by", and Coffeeandcrumbs cites one of them in their examples of consistent use of 'Assasinated by'. After looking more closely it definitely seems that there is no consistent precedent and we should rely on reliable source wording (most sources use 'killed') like was done in all of the other discussed articles for justification. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 20:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

These are valid counterpoints, because unlike Gaddafi or Bin Laden, these are clearly assassinations as well. But I'd argue they should be renamed, rather than this article. Guettarda (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

An assassination does not only apply to leaders. However, assassinations are almost always politically motivated. The fact that he is a political leader makes clear that the motivation was political instead of some other motive, hence, assassination. In any case, my mention of his role as a leader was only in refuting the OP's suggestion that assassination has a negative imputation. I was saying of course it has a negative imputation. Killing the leader of another nation without cause is generally a bad thing. A fact that seems to have suddenly alluded white europeans like Trump. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - It was an assasination. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: As most have already said above exhaustively, this was a deliberate, targeted killing of a sitting head of state and therefore, by definition, an assassination; “killing” is broader and less precise. For consistency with established titles (e.g., Assassination of John F. Kennedy), using a different term is just a poor attempt at double standards and euphemism, and not to mention, reliance on perpetrator-affiliated sources to justify that shift would hamstring WP:NPOV. Numerous mainstream reliable sources explicitly use “assassination.”(See the sources provided below) StarkReport (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Assassination seems more appropriate, and stating we should do it based on wording it exactly the way the majority of RS do (even if they don't disagree on either way) seems to violate MOS:JARGON. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm disabling notifications for this channel due to the large amount of messages. If you need me in this channel, please ping me. Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose for consistency with Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Assassination of Abdel Aziz al-Rantisi, Assassination of Hashem Safieddine, Assassination of Saleh al-Arouri, Assassination of Abbas al-Musawi, and other articles on similar targeted killings.--Tulzscha (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  How about supporting for consistenty with Killing of Ismail al-Ghoul, Killing of Fuad Shukr, Killing of Ayman al-Zawahiri, Killing of Akhtar Mansur, Killing of Ahmed Yassin, Killing of Ahmed Abu Mutair, etc. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 22:59, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  Other stuff exists. All of these deaths are different and these are apples-to-oranges comparisons, so all these "consistency" rationales are poor arguments whether they're in a support !vote or an oppose !vote.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's practically what I meant. See my other comments here, I've talked about how there isn't a clear consistency argument to be made from either side. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 23:53, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  I suppose the real question (which can't be answered here) is whether we should call assassinations "assassinations". IMO, we should, but I think it's especially true for the targeted killing of a head of state. Even one we don't like. Guettarda (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong Support Consistent with Killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and generally sounds much more accurate: Khamenei was not assassinated in any traditional sense (e.g., shot, stabbed, poisoned, etc.), he was killed, even if deliberately, in an essentially indiscriminate bombing. In English—at least in my view—it sounds bizarre to say "X was assassinated in a bombing" or "Y assassinated X with a bomb" or anything of the sort. NipponGinko (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  support This is the only convincing case for support I've read here. most assassinations are more precise than this seems to have been. AP and Reuters both describe this killing as part of the wider campaign against Iran which has killed numerous others. Quiltlover1997 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose it was an assassination clearly.--فيصل (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. This was a classic targeted assassination, and numerous WP:RS cited by posters above have called it such. — The Anome (talk) 23:00, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support as following the sources. Using Assassination strikes me more as politically based rather than factual in this instance, and violates NPOV. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see how using perpetrator-affiliated sources are reliable in this specific case. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  What do you mean by "perpetrator-affiliated"? UserMemer (chat) Tribs 01:36, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Perpetrator-affiliated sources" are sources originating from the country that started the strikes. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 01:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:ARBECR. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:39, 2 March 2026 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

• Just because sources can come from a country involved doesn't mean they were made by the country's government. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 18:16, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  I never said that they were state-sponsored, but by the looks of it, these news sources (whether reliable or not) will certainly downplay or defend the strikes. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Alright. JPPEDRA2 ^{why not?} 18:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  That does not take away from their reliability here, although it relates to independence. Still, all sources have some bias, and I would like if we had more solidly reliable non-Western sources available (only one reliable Iranian source listed at WP:NPPSG); however right now this is what we must work with. As stated in Wikipedia:Independent sources, if a source "strongly approves or disapproves of something, but it has no connection to the subject and does not stand to benefit directly from promoting that view, then the source is still independent." I do not see any evidence of American news sources strongly or certainly approving of the term since some do use 'assassination'; additionally, there is not a direct beneficiary link or solid connection from sources like The Guardian or NPR to the Israeli government (which launched the strike that killed Khamenei), and many of those sources have a generally disfavorable view thereof. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:37, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak support, largely along the lines of what Dennis is saying just above, although I'll add that "assassination", while the weaker choice between the two, is not incorrect. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support As it's nearly universally called a killing in sources, and only described as an assassination some of the time. The specific votes that are relying on the definition of assassination and our determination that it is an assassination are poor policy-based arguments as they constitute WP:OR. As opposed to the opposes who are making the argument that they feel reliable sources are supporting assassination enough, which are policy based. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeCrumbs (talk • contribs) 01:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support War is hell, viable military targets cannot be "assassinated," only neutralized, eliminated, or killed. Most reliable sources to not use the A-word, as noted by others above. Zaathras (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  This is an important distinction, but although I support the move, I don’t agree with your argument. The U.S. has not declared war with Iran, making this a targeted killing; an extrajudicial political assassination.  Ved havet 🌊 (talk)  01:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Support renaming, similar to Killing of Osama bin Laden. Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 03:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose The death of Khamenei was a planned, targeted assassination. Thriley (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support I initially opposed because: I would think "assassination" has associations as a stereotype with the/a lone troublemaking bad individual i.e. an assassin is a singular nobody in the world who has killed someone who really is important (just my own expression of an idea of an opinion, but has connotations which are derogatory of the act) - but the fact is that the basic definition is simply that it is the killing of a head of state or VIP official (c.f. oed for example) is simply the basic place in the lexicon "assassination" has and those devaluing immoral permutations aren't necessarily applicable. Killing:assassination (whichever is used) is a type of mental filing system where it is possible to quickly and efficiently find related subjects=informations by the key word and so seek out more information via that word. Subsequently I support as "is there a word which was used before "assassination" became a lexiconal word in the 11th or 12th century" iask britannica "The word assassination is derived from Nizārī Ismāʿīliyyah, a religio-political movement that arose in the late 11th century within the Ismāʿīliyyah branch of Shiʿi Islam." has implicit applications which aren't relevant and although the word "assassination" seems (I presume it's usage is) very much absent of that original semantic the fact that it could be confusing to see the connection with Shiʿi Islam and also could be seen as inflammatory by any extreme militant org. viz "European Crusaders ("military campaigns launched by the papacy between 1095 and 1291 against Muslim rulers for the recovery and defence of the Holy Land"=quote of the :w: article) heard and misinterpreted legends about the early Nizārīs and then brought these stories back to their home countries." - it isn't necessarily the case that the word etymologically originating in the Crusader campaign contra Muslims is the reality here and it isn't verbatim proven by any source - though it does seem to be a similar occurence (the suggestion of he nuance of meaning with the original meaning (but there being no reality of the nuance) isn't the intelligent option) - the semantic isn't here applicable. Another support is: in the case of the usage of the word "assassination" it is the one target which is dead - but in this situation other family members died at presumably the same time instance - so the variation of the reality of deaths would be like in the Killing of Osama bin Laden; which as much as I understand has been "killing" since the 1st edit: 2 May 2011 if that article is "k." then no precedence for choosing "a." here.Cattenion (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  See Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, and assassination of Ismail Haniyeh. How is an assassination of a leader of a country less important than that of a commanders and leaders of organizations? The vast majority of sources (even if typically reliable) that call his death a killing are perpetrator-related, pro-western, and since they are linked to the perpetrator country, those sources (even if typically reliable) aren't reliable for this specific topic. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 06:31, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  My argument doesn't consider the usage in sources because taking a count of the usage numbers has no value if all that number represents is a numerous error of people who use one of either word without the full consideration of the complete semantic in each word and how the choice of either should be made - which is a liberty available within wikipedia - to more accurately determine the validity of usage so that a secure and satisfactory application is made - that a word is used so as humans we exist (cogito ergo sum). Cattenion (talk) 06:44, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not really. See WP:RSP, which tells you when certain sources aren't reliable. Politico, NPR, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, and others that don't use 'assassination' are listed as reliable without exception for being 'perpetrator-affiliated'. Plus, simply being established in a particular country that was involved in a killing does not take away its independence with relation to that topic. Unlike when the killing was unconfirmed and all of the sources were drawing from one Israeli report, these sources are using their own terminology independently. The missile that killed Khamenei was launched by the Israeli government, not the American news sources. Plus, multiple of the American and Israeli sources do refer to the death as an assassination; this should be enough to diminish any claims that 'they're only calling it a killing because they're American sources'. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 14:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and its similarity with killing of Osama bin Laden. Sun8908 _Talk 06:41, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Osama's killing wasn't necessarily done in an armed conflict, nor was he killed in an airstrike. His death is very different from how Khamenei died; Khamenei was assassinated in an airstike, was assasinated in an armed conflict, and was assassinated while being the de facto head of state of Iran. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 06:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Both articles include information "others died" except that "assassination" usage must include the death of a head of state etc singularly - so stating A. in the title then detailing others dead isn't possible. Cattenion (talk) 06:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support on the grounds that the killing, even targeted, of any political or military leader in a military action should not be termed an assassination; a much closer comparison is to those listed under Category:Deaths by airstrike during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. MisfitToys (talk) 10:15, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support. I don't really think you can refer to it as an assassination and it isn't referred to in reliable sources as an assassination. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Many reliable sources claim the incident as an assassination

  https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2026/3/2/ayatollah-ali-khameneis-assassination-will-likely-backfire-here-is-why

  https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/iran-ayatollah-khamenei-killed-us-israel-strike-succession-crisis-school-children/article70690628.ece

  https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-888335 TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  As a quick note, and I know that many of these results may be unreliable, but when filtering to see how many hits "assassination" got in the 'News' section of Google, I found 79,100 hits; "killing", while filtering out "assassination", got 30.2 million hits. "Killed" got 49.3 million results when filtering out "assassination". Of course, many of these may not be reliable, as mentioned in GNUM (inactive proposal but relevant), and a lot of them may come from repeat websites. Note that even though there is a big disparity, as mentioned in [["What a search test can do—and what it can't" this is with low confidence and many results may not actually be there. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 18:05, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  I can't help noting that the second and third articles don't use the word assassination in the article text; it appears only in the headline and photo captions, which are editorial additions often designed as clickbait. MisfitToys (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was a deliberate and planned out attack that was the culmination of months of planning. Unlike something like Gaddafi's death, which was a death by mob violence, this was a targeted killing. -- Susrage (talk) 10:13, 3 March 2026 (EST)
• Oppose An Assassination is still an Assassination, regardless of the method used. Also, let's hope this isnt the start of World War Three. UWMKEgypt (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Support for consistency. --skarz (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. This was an assassination, a "sudden, secret or public attack" as the assassination article summarises the term. Comparisons with the Gadaffi or Bin Laden don't hold up - Gadaffi's killing was the execution of a captive, while the mission against Bin Laden was described as a "capture or kill" mission. Whether you believe them or not, it's a far less clear-cut case. Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

• STRONG SUPPORT — Khamenei was killed during a military action, killing him and close associates, including Defense Minister Aziz Nasirzadeh and IRGC Commander Mohammad Pakpour and Senior advisor Ali Shamkhani, not to mention the entire staff and destruction of the entire building. The simple term of assassination tends to negate those things and implies that his was the only death. It was a strategic strike to eliminate the nerve center of the Iranian military. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  A "targeted strike" is a euphemism for an assassination. It's a type of assassination that's (arguably) permitted under the rules of war. As for the deaths of Nasirzadeh, Pakpour, Shamkhani and others - they were either targets (and thus also assassinated) or they were "collateral damage" (another hideous euphemism). Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - "assassination" is an accurate term - the attack was specifically targeting Khamenei. "Killing" is very non-specific and could imply an incidental or accidental death. "Targeted killing" would be closer, but per WP:EUPHEMISM, the article should use precise terms. "Assassination" is also a neutral and objective descriptor; it only gains pejorative weight with the metaphorical term "character assassination", which does not apply here. Cnbrb (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Not at all accurate. The idea of assassination overshadows the targeted deaths of Khamenei's high command and entire staff, which Israel knew full well would occur.   On that note perhaps the article should be renamed The death of Khamenei.     Khamenei. was killed during multiple strikes across Iran. He died as a result of an overall military action, regardless if his death was one of the objectives. -- Btw, an accidental death is not a "killing". — Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Do you have any sources suggesting that the deaths of Khamenei and other high-ranking officials were "accidental"? Most sources either use the term assassination or killing, and their deaths have been widely reported as decapitation strikes.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:35, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

  Straw man. I never claimed anyone's death was "accidental". As said, Khamenei's death was part of an overall military strike on Iran, with numerous objectives. Again, to simply put all this under the umbrella of the "assassination of Khamenei" would be to dismiss the fact that this was a military operation that also took out Iran's top military commanders and numerous other objectives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  I mean... you did say -- Btw, an accidental death is not a "killing" after arguing against both "assassination" and "killing," preferring the alternative title "the death of Khamenei." I don't think it's a strawman to say you suggested this death was accidental and not a killing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  Gwillhickers did say it was a "strategic strike to eliminate the nerve center of the Iranian military," and they never said it was 'accidental'. I am assuming that he noted 'an accidental death is not a "killing"' in response to Cnbrb's !vote, not as a suggestion of an accident, in which Cnbrb suggested that 'killing' count imply an accident. UserMemer (chat) Tribs 01:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Weak support but only on the usage of the sources. I must concede that since the sources were provided, I do feel that COMMONNAME centered arguments. If it weren't for the usage of the word Killing, I would give the edge to the Oppose side, the reasoning as to which mirrors that of Cnbrb. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 20:02, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Numerous reliable sources are terming this an assassination, there is not a strong argument that killing is any more of a COMMONNAME than assassination. While consistency is one aspect of article naming policy, the "consistency" argument is unconvincing WP:OSE whataboutism here as the examples used are not analagous.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:29, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Not very true: Nearly all the major news sources do not use the term Assassination:

• New York Times: Iranians Take to the Streets to Celebrate Khamenei’s Death
• BBC: Watch: Moment Iran's state TV announces Supreme Leader has been killed
• FOX: Iranians celebrate worldwide after supreme leader is killed in Israeli strikes
• ABC Large crowd rallies in Westwood, celebrating Khamenei's death and calling for Iranian freedom
• Iranians at The Hague celebrate US, Israeli air strikes
• NBC: Khamenei's death met with public mourning, quiet celebrations as regime's opponents wait for an opening
• CBS: Iran's Prince Reza Pahlavi says "this is our chance" after Khamenei's death
• Reuters: In polarised Iran, Khamenei's death triggers celebrations and grief: : Khamenei killed in US-Israeli attack
• BBC: Iran's Supreme Leader killed in joint US Israeli strikes
• Aljazeera: World reacts to killing of Iran’s Khamenei by US, Israel forces
• LA TIMES: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who ruled Iran with iron grip, killed in strike, Trump says
• The Jerusalem Post:Israel kills Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in Tehran strike
• Associated Press: Some celebrate in Iran after supreme leader’s death
• The Boston globe: Iran’s supreme leader killed in major attack by US and Israel

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't accurate. UserMemer's list from earlier in this discussion showed several major outlets, including outlets found on your list here, using the term "assassination."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It's far more accurate than the sketchy assessment offered thus far. 'Some' of these sources may have used the term "Assassination", but as pointed out above, they also use terms like 'death' "killed" etc. I suppose we could go on comparing lists, so obviously other factors must be considered, that being the death of Khamenei was only one death among other top Iranian military officials and many other military personnel. Are we going to refer to all the deaths as an "assassination", or as deaths that occurred in an overall military strike? Many deaths were intended. A mass "assassination"?? Nonsense. it was a military action where all the deaths were intended.. "Assassination" more than suggests that the whole affair was aimed at Khamenei. Obviously it was not. Khamenei was killed, among many others, during a virtual military war.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

-- Gwillhickers A substantial number of authoritative, mainstream outlets including Israel's own The Jerusalem Post and some of those above have explicitly used the word “assassination” or “assassinated”:

• The Jerusalem Post: When the details of Supreme Leader Khamenei’s assassination come out, jaws will drop - analysis
• The Independent: Months of CIA tracking and a rare window of opportunity: How the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei unfolded
• Aljazeera: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s assassination will likely backfire. Here is why
• Telegraph: How the US pulled off the assassination of the century
• Dawn: Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei assassinated in US-Israel strikes
• Foreign Policy: Iran Is Built to Withstand the Ayatollah’s Assassination
• Middle East Monitor: China denounces assassination of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei
• NDTV: Iran Enters Survival Mode After Assassination Of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
• The Globe and Mail: Shia Muslims, militias grapple with uncertainty after Khamenei’s assassination
• Ommcom News: ‘Khamenei’s Assassination May Not Ensure Regime Change, Cause Global Economic Fallout’
• Global News: Iranian-Canadians hopeful following assassination of supreme leader
• Wion News: ‘Gone in 60 seconds’: How MOSSAD and CIA executed the assassination of Ali Khamenei
• Rising Kashmir: Congress condemns “targeted assassination” of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
• Aaj English TV: Iran’s presidency vows retaliation after Khamenei assassination
• Pakistan Today: Govt urges calm as nationwide protests leave 19 dead after Khamenei assassination
• Tovima News: Moscow Condemns Khamenei’s Death as ‘Cynical Assassination’
• Vox: The killing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could usher in a new age of assassination(Sub-heading)
• CBC: Country plunges into uncertainty after cleric's assassination by Israel and U.S.(Sub-heading)
• Times Now: Ayatollah Khamenei Assassinated: Middle East Conflict Latest Updates

This is merely the tip of the iceberg. While these use the term in their headlines, scores of other articles use the term in the body within their reporting, even if they keep it out of the title. Given the demonstrable prevalence of the term in reliable sources, the only logical and policy-consistent position is to oppose. StarkReport (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

The terms "killing", death" "assassination", etc are occurring in the sources all around, so as I've indicated to another user, we simply can't go by our preferred news sources in determining the best term to use for our article -- other factors must now be considered. As said, Khamenei's death happened during an overall military strike to neutralize Iran's military leadership and infrastructure.The idea of "assassination" more than suggests that the entire military strike was aimed at Khamenei's death -- obviously it wasn't. .His death occurred in the middle of a virtual war. The idea of "assassination" totally ignores that big picture. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

But it can be argued that the airstrike on his compound specifically targeted him only no?

Other strikes in tehran covered other aspects under Operation Genesis such as SEAD, destruction of Ballistic missiles and Shahed drones 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

All the deaths that occurred were intentionally targeted. We can't single out one death and call it an "assassination". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC).

Also, given all the varied terms used by the sources, the idea of "assassination" is obviously the stuff of opinion. Otoh, Khamenei's death is a simple fact, above any opinion. In all fairness the tilte should read, The Death of Khamenei, allowing the readers to form their own opinions, rather than having a specific opinion fed to them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support - I really don't think a Huge Military Missile Strike launched by a US military and kills Ali Khamenei ordered by President Trump counts as an Direct Assassination. There's most likely be a number of people included his own family were killed inside that hotel where he was at. I think actual Assassinations be like one person or bit more victims that were targeted by actual Assassins (either hired or do their own thing) murdered them in cold blood similar to the real confirmed Assassination events that happened to Brian Thompson, Charlie Kirk, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., etc. I agree that "Killing of Ali Khamenei" sounds better because there was no confirmed Assassins are involved of murdering Ali Khamenei in that Hotel. I do think "Assassination of Ali Khamenei" would be sounded more like an Assassin had murdered Ali Khamenei on the spot instead of an entire Hotel got wiped out by a Military Missile.DigiPen92 (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Strong support RS overwhelmingly using "killing" as noted in many posts above. In many cases, where RS have used "assassination" the same sources have more often used "killing". Some sources cited as RS are not in fact RS but highly subjective sources in specific states. Oppose votes here seem more to do with unsupported opinion rather than reason and WP policy. Final admin decision will, I presume, weight RS. Emmentalist (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose most reliable sources of uninvolved countries have described it as assassination. For example, The Daily Telegraph has described it as "the assassination of the century" , The Independent covered it in detail recently and titled it as "Months of CIA tracking and a rare window of opportunity: How the assassination of Ayatollah Khamenei unfolded" , SBS News and ABC News of Australia described it as "assassination" , . Even before strikes, reliable sources described the plan to kill him as "assassination" and even Israel governemnt described it as its objective . In 2025, media reported that the Trump has ruled out Khamenei "assassination" and Israel said that he avoided "assassination" by going underground . J Weekly recently titled its coverage of the event as "Khamenei long obstructed peace for Israel. But his influence was waning before his assassination" . The Hindu of India described it as assasination . I think there is enough in reliable sources of uninvolved countries that this was not just killing. So I agree with oppose !voters here. BookishReader (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per evidence of use by sources calling it an "assassination" above and this comment by Coffeeandcrumbs on the characteristics of this event. S5A-0043🚎^(Talk) 09:30, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency with other similar article titles. Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 14:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. Many RS refer to this as an assassination, and even if not all do, they do not deny that it was one, so there is no real disagreement between them as to whether this qualifies as an assassination. Furthermore, they are not trying to come up with a title for a wiki article each time when they use some verb to describe the event. Inasmuch as some do avoid the term, it is probably in order to avoid its negative connotations rather than due to disagreement about its accuracy, and we are not obliged to copy such stylistic or emotive choices; what we are obliged to reproduce from reliable sources is their factual claims (the NYT may call it 'the purging of the Earth of the evil monster Ali Khamenei' and this would not inhibit its status as factually reliable in the Wikipedia sense - which would not mean that we should copy that language). Re the claims of a POV effect - not calling something an assassination when it clearly was one also has a POV effect; using just 'killing' strikes me more or less like 'the putting down of the mad dog Ali Khamenei'. Assassinations can be and often have been executed by a bomb that also kills other people, sometimes a significant number thereof; some assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler were like that. As for the argument that it was a military action and part of warfare - the original distinction between assassinations and combat was not that only the latter serves some military purpose, but that combat is conducted on the battlefield, while assassinations take place far from the battlefield. The distinction arose at a time when killing an enemy head of state in their residence was only possible by sending an assassin, ditto for a general far behind the front lines, and this remained the case until quite recently. The fact that technology has recently come to allow doing these things with rockets from a large distance does not change the essence of the act and does not not give every location on the planet the status of a battlefield. --Anonymous44 (talk) 14:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A 'battlefield' is usually charcterized as something of a war zone, wheteher it be in a field, wooded area, or various types of neighbohoods. As soon as the military stepped in and conducted major military operations, the areas and locations in question became a battlefield, or war zone, if you prefer. As you unwittingly suggested, "assassinations" do not occur during battle, regardless if it's a suprise attack with deaths and destruction occurring only on one side of the fence. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Being killed in a war attack is not an assassination. The difference to the assassination of JFK is obvious. And that Ghadaffi wasn't assassinated doesn't mean that Chamenai was. Str1977 ^(talk) 15:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - it was an assassination and the attack specifically targeted him, so the current naming is more precise than a simple 'killing'- a term that could apply to anyone and could convey various levels of intent from accidental to premeditated; the deceased in this case being not just 'anyone', but a head of state... Yadsalohcin (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  All the deaths that occurred during this war action were intentional. Were they all "assassinations"? The intentional deaths that occur during a major military action are not considered "assassinations". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  He did not die in a battle... Braganza (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support as it is consistent with other articles on similar topics (such as Killing of Osama bin Laden) Pr0m37h3u$ 15:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Support - I'm usually arguing for "assassination" in these assassination versus killing debates, but I feel a little differently in this case, primarily for two reasons. 1) After glancing at sources, "killing" seems to be the WP:COMMONNAME (only a handful of sources seem to opt for assassination), and 2) Most definitions of "assassination" would tell you that it's the act of killing someone by surprise or suddenly. I don't think there was really any surprise that Israel/USA were trying to kill Khamemei. I think they pretty much stated that as an objective of the military action. NickCT (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
• I've voted already but so many of the oppose comments are just subjective opinion that makes no effort to analyse the RS. I don't doubt good faith, but if Wikipedia isn't about a proper reflection of RS we may as well just give in and use AI. Emmentalist (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:NOTAVOTE. Consensus determines the outcome, not the majority or number of surveys. ^NeoSyria\Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:57, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose, per many of the sources linked above. While not universal, it appears the majority of the non-American sources use "assassinated", while most of the sources that use variations of "killed" are American sources which have motivated reasoning to try and soften the nature of American military action at the best of times, much less under this regime. Additionally, this was, objectively, an assassination. Even if the person who was assassinated was generally loathsome. I also doubt very much that if a foreign power had acted to kill an American president, there would be any debate on whether it is an assassination or not. Resolute 00:19, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  BBC and Reuters have used other terms besides "assassination". As mentioned there are a multitude of sources using a variety of terms, so it would raise NPOV issues if we were only to select those sources that used a given favorite term, be it 'killing' or 'assassination'. Therefore other factors must be considered, that being this was a major military strike, with many targeted objectives. We can't single one casualty and call it an "assassination". Besides, the idea of "assassination" is generally understood as someone being killed in the same manner as JFK or Martin Lither King. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Support - Based on WP:COMMONNAME. Any source that I can provide is redundant as it is very likely covered above. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Consistency with other wiki articles on similar topics Lacanic (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Support Per consistency with other articles and with the language used in sources.- Andrei (talk) 07:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment — Personally, I feel like "assassination" implies singling out a target (ie. head of states, celebrities, etc.). I'd also like to mention Operation Vengeance, an article with similar themes (targeted attack on a single person, Yamamoto in this case, for military purposes). It's an interesting alternative to consider should there be a specific name for this operation. —Opecuted (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Between all the sources provided by everyone in this discussion, I am seeing 30 unique sources using Assassination and 15 unique sources for Killing linked to by editors in this discussion.

How I arrived at this count

Assassination

1. The Jerusalem Post
2. The New York Times
3. The Independent
4. Al Jazeera
5. Telegraph
6. Vox
7. CBC
8. Forbes
9. The Times of Israel
10. Haaretz
11. Time
12. The Hindu
13. South China Morning Post
14. Foreign Policy
15. Dawn
16. Middle East Monitor
17. NDTV
18. The Globe and Mail
19. Ommcom News
20. Global News
21. Wion News
22. Rising Kashmir
23. Aaj English TV
24. Pakistan Today
25. Tovima News
26. Times Now
27. The Daily Telegraph
28. ABC Australia
29. SBS Australia
30. Jweekly

Killing

1. The Hill
2. The Guardian
3. CBS News
4. Politico
5. WSJ
6. NBC
7. PBS
8. NYT
9. BBC
10. ABC7
11. Reuters
12. Al Jazeera
13. LA Times
14. Jerusalem Post
15. Boston Globe

• I did not count all of BookishReader’s sources under “assassination” (Axios, Reuters, and the Jewish Chronicle) because it felt unfair to count sources that were from before this event.
• I did count the Politico article UserMemer linked to under "killing" even though it used neither term when I checked because they linked to a live feed which had already changed, so I am simply trusting that it said “killed” at the time.
• I did not count The Economic Times article that UserMemer linked to under "killing" because it seems they accidentally linked to a completely unrelated article about the 2025 “ET MSME Awards.”
• I also did not count Fox News because it is an unreliable source that cannot be used here.
• A few sources in Gwillhickers’s used neither assassination/assassinated/assassinates nor killed/killing/kills after checking, and so were not counted towards either list
• Sources that were found on both lists (e.g. the NYT) added to the count for both
• However, multiple articles from the same outlet using the same term do not count (e.g. Gwillhickers linked to 2 different BBC articles that said killing, but that doesn’t mean the BBC gets counted twice)

So why are so many support !votes per COMMONNAME / per the RS?

So far, among sources that editors have decided to link to, "assassination" has it 2:1. While I am skeptical that this definitively means that "Assassination" is and always will be the COMMONNAME, at the very least, that shows that there is not a strong COMMONNAME-based argument for moving away from "assassination" and towards "killing." Other arguments being made on both sides, e.g. !votes based one's own personal interpretation of what is and isn't an "assassination" & the other stuff exists arguments being made in the name of "consistency" are much weaker.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Many of the sources you've listed under "assassination" I've never heard of before and do not compare in terms of reliability compared to the New York Times, BBC, NBC, etc. But for the same of argument, let's assume that the entire list is of equal standing. Okay, apparently you're suggesting that we take a vote and determine the COMMONNAME thusly.   Won't work. We don't know how many other sources are not included in your particular list. Further, there are too many occurrences of both killing and assassination for anyone to be claiming what is 'the' common name here. Therefore, as I've mentioned several times, we have to consider other factors, and the major factor is that all the deaths occurred during military battle operations, regardless if all the objectives were selected. We can not single out one death and call it an assassination, as, given all the different sources, that would invoke NPOV issues.
Obviously the idea of "assassination", all things considered, is really an opinion. Therefore we should use more neutral terms like Death of Khamenei, or, The killing of Khamenei, basic terms which are above any particular opinion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Okay, apparently you're suggesting that we take a vote and determine the COMMONNAME thusly. No, that is not what I am saying. there are too many occurrences of both killing and assassination for anyone to be claiming what is 'the' common name here That is what I am saying. I am arguing that it should not be the case that so many support !votes are "per COMMONNAME."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:49, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Then you agree that we must determine the proper term...how? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

By waiting for the dust to settle and seeing how this event is termed in hindsight. The way it is termed in reliable sources matters much more than our personal opinions, but if reliable sources are using both, then we should leave it as-is until that changes. Right now, we can either say that it is a wash or that assassination is more common, but we certainly can't say that "killing" is clearly preferred.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Waiting for the dust to settle?  Anything that occurs from here on will not factor into Khamenei's death. We must consider NPOV issues, realizing that, again, there are simply too many sources using different verbs. Subsequently we must use a basic term that's above any opinionated term, and let the readers form their own opinion as to whether Khamenei's death was an "assassination", rather than feeding them a specific opinion, which is what's happening now with the current title.  JFK's and MLK's deaths were clearly and undeniably assassinations..We can not say the same about Khamenei's death. Saying so, regardless if half (+ -) the sources say as much, would be entirely misleading, with many average readers wondering if Khamenei was killed in the same manner as JFK, rather than in the midts of a sweeping military operation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You've made your arguments and I've made mine, any further back-and-forth between the two of us would just be us repeating ourselves and creating clutter.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Strong support: To get back to the topic at hand, the definition of assassination (indeed, the one that we use on the English Wikipedia page for assassination!) is to kill a prominent figure "for political or ideological purposes". This does not include military purposes, nor is the death of Yamamoto considered to be an assassination (confer Zhang Zuolin, who was killed by the Japanese for political reasons). Thus, as a military strike, using military assets, for military purposes only, must, for our purposes, be considered a killing. Also, of course, verifiable sources state that this is a killing (vide The New York Times, et al.). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  It should be noted that the assassination article you link to has a § As a military and foreign policy doctrine section, which lists the assassination of Qasem Soleimani (which was done through a military strike, using military assets, for military purposes only).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment: Reading all the replies in this discussion from start to finish, in my observation, supporters hinge on selective COMMONNAME claims and a narrow, outdated view that assassinations must resemble John F. Kennedy’s case, but RS widely use "assassination" for targeted killings of political leaders even within military operations. "Assassination" or "Assassinated" appears extensively across independent, non-Western, and even perpetrator-linked outlets alike. On consistency, I agree with many that "Assassination of Qasem Soleimani," "Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh," and several other airstrike-based targeted killings of political figures use "Assassination of," which is the directly analogous precedent here.

The fact it occurred during a broader strike does not negate that Khamenei was a deliberate political target. This wasn't a fishing trip; it was a hunt for the one specific shark that everyone knows by name. I'm convinced that the current term will be used extensively for posterity.(WP:10YT....) StarkReport (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Khamenei was (much) more of a military target than a "political" one. If the issue was just over politics Khamenei and his top military commanders would still be alive. Khomenei had a long history of sponsoring terrorism throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. He was appealed to on numerous occasions but obfuscated and simply refused to yield one inch.That he was responsible for the brutal killing of thousands of Iranian protestors, his own people, last month confirmed the fact that this individual was a complete tyrant and that if he ever got his hands on a nuclear weapon he would certainly use it. The idea of "assassination" only holds so far as to say that his death was indeed intentional, but that's about it. He was a military objective and he, along with his top commanders as such were taken out in one fell swoop, along with many other military objectives. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, With respect, you’ve been here for a long time and know much better than I do, but I still have to stress that everything you just wrote is precisely why “assassination” is the correct term. You’ve just described a prominent political leader who was deliberately and specifically targeted for political and ideological reasons; that is the textbook definition of assassination, full stop.

Now whether he was a tyrant or a nuclear threat("months away from atom bomb since 1979...."), you're basically arguing "he deserved it, therefore it wasn't an assassination"; that's not a naming policy argument, that's a moral judgment and is heading into advocacy territory.

Even as of now, the U.S. wants to choose the next political leader which proves that this was political from the start, not just some purely military adventure. StarkReport (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

"Precisely"? Everything I wrote overall favors the military objective argument. Yes, now that Khamenei is gone it is wise to replace him with more sane leadership, which is a future military consideration. Yes, Trump wants to lend oversight, which is a compelling argument, but it will nonetheless be Iran's final decesion. Again, if there was no military threat associated with Khamenei no one would be making any effort to replace him in the first place.The military threat was the  major consideration.  Ergo, it takes more than an intentional effort to kill, which characterizes all such military efforts, to be calling this war casualty an "assassination". As said, calling this an "assassination" would be entirely misleading and would overshadow the major fact that this was a country-wide military operation to remove an imminent threat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

"A country-wide military operation to remove an imminent threat". Yes, that's the Trump administration's line (one among several justifications they've offered) mainly because it's the only scenario under which it is legally permissible for the POTUS to launch a military operation without the consent of Congress. It is far from clear that there was any "imminent" threat at all.

You're not even trying to be neutral here. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, an 'imminent' threat.  Khamenei's continued sponsoring of terrorist org's has materialized in many deaths, often on a massive scale. Hamas was a proxie of Iran, as well as Hezbollah, both of whom received hundreds of millions of dollars annually in funding, weapons, and training from Iran-- with no end in sight. As for the nuclear threat, we can forever haggle over how far off in the future that threat would have materialized, but I think it can be safely said, that if left unchecked, it would have soon enough. As for neutrality -- having an article title that uses a controversial and highly contested and opinionated title is far from neutral. Whereas, simply using the neutral term Death or Killingwhich are basic facts, can not viably be challenged with opinion, allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions, rather than having a controversial opinion foisted upon them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I am going to restate my take I gave in another part of the discussion.

If this was an attack solely on his life done in a completely covert way by the CIA alone and similar to Operation Valkyrie in execution, I would 100% agree that this should be called an assassination.

However it was a series of indiscriminate strikes on military compounds and the palace in which Khamenei was killed.

Moreover if you don’t buy that argument, even in events where by firearm leaders are killed we do not call them assassinations. As seen with the Killing of Osama Bin Laden. AML KING (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: This was the murder of a prominent public figure in a planned attack, the textbook definition of an assassination. – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support per the sources cited above. Per consistency. And per the fac this was a coordinated military campaign, not covert targeting. TrueCRaysball ^💬|✏️ 04:13, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  "Assassination" may not be suitable for military purposes because "Assassination" stands for criminal cases, such as Shinzo Abe and Charlie Kirk. In Chinese Wikipedia, we concluded that this article decided to name "阿里·哈梅内伊之死" (Death of Ali Khamenei). Sinsyuan✍️TW→GA 10:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Hebrew uses he:ההתנקשות בעלי ח'אמנאי uses Assassination i think. Braganza (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe that assassination is the more fitting and correct title than killing to describe the murder of a world leader. ARandomShyGuy (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Assassination seems to fall under WP:COMMONNAME as multiple editors have shown above. The precedent of Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Abbas al-Musawi, etc shows that we can't restrict the term to mean purely non-military actions. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 08:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. It clearly meets the definition of assassination and per WP:COMMONSENSE it should be the article title. I personally would wait for academic sources to cover this topic and see which term they are using. For now, I agree with StarkReport - Support !voters are cherrypicking examples (and calling for consistent titles) but a similar case can be made for "assassination" title by cherrypicking examples. Veldsenk (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  If one reads COMMONSENSE carefully, it's easy to see that this  essay  makes for a two-way street, and can just as easily be used to support Death, or Killing, given that Khomenei's death was only one facet of an overall military effort to neutralize Iran's military capacity, from the top down.. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  You have a right to your opinion, but it is clear that you have crossed 1,000 words limit. So I'd recommend to strike down some of your comments to avoid violation of WP:ARBCOM instructions:

  All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict are urged to keep their comments concise, and are limited to 1,000 words per discussion. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. Veldsenk (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yes, rules are rules. Don't have a word counter at hand. Bowing out... -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - I'm unconvinced by the argument that the term "assassination" carries any more negative a connotation then "killing". This was a decapitation strike intended to spark a regime change, so the current title is accurate & as Vanilla Wizard demonstrated above, supported by reliable sources. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment — The targeted killing article and its Talk page discuss whether that term is a euphemism mirroring the pejorative "assassination". The most specific relevant category for the present article is currently named Category:Military assassinations, which is a subcat of Category:Targeted killing, which is a subcat of Category:Assassinations. This category hierarchy seems a bit sloppy; in particular deciding which articles go into "Targeted killing" and which into "Military assassinations". TL;DR: Wikipedia has been inconsistent in handling this question since before the targeted killing of Khamenei. jnestorius^(talk) 10:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose based on sources presented current tile is common name14:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Just close this discussion already. Great Mercian (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Assassination is what occurred. Just like the Assassination of Soleimani, the key objective in killing the Supreme Leader is a decapitation in order to remove someone in leadership and command. TheFloridaMan (talk) 01:27, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Sources say "assassinated". Guz13 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose per Vanilla Wizard. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 18:13, 9 March 2026 (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.

New image to be added to infobox

I think this picture is perfect for this article. Since it looks like funeral picture. I ask wikipedians to support me to add this picture to the infobox. Sincerely, Gawain (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I support it. Acratopotes (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

This does seem more appropriate, and there are other assassination articles which use images of memorials for the infobox (e.g. Assassination of Benazir Bhutto, Assassination of Andrei Karlov). Hsnkn (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Not for financiers of international terrorism, no. Zaathras (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Unhelpful. WP Ludicer (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"28 February 2026" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 28 February 2026 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 9 § 28 February 2026 until a consensus is reached. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 20:08, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2026

Jasperhello (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Not done for now: Which particular image are you referring to? Discourses on Livvy (talk · contribs) 02:15, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

https://x.com/trbrtc/status/2027703248887427576 Jasperhello (talk) 05:26, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Change Khamenei's image to the satellite image of his office that got popular hours after his assassination