Talk:Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus: Difference between revisions
→Structure wording better for near future changes: new section |
→Requested move 2 April 2024: '''Oppose''' |
||
Line 157: | Line 157: | ||
:'''Oppose''' to provide greater clarity as to who caused the attack. The proposed title is less clear and given the unfortunately short attention spans of many would cause confusion or even misattribution of the attacks. [[User:Amyipdev|Amyipdev]] ([[User talk:Amyipdev|talk]]) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
:'''Oppose''' to provide greater clarity as to who caused the attack. The proposed title is less clear and given the unfortunately short attention spans of many would cause confusion or even misattribution of the attacks. [[User:Amyipdev|Amyipdev]] ([[User talk:Amyipdev|talk]]) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
||
:'''Oppose''' It's almost beyond doubt who and what the perpetrators and targets are respectively. -[[User:Masssly|-Masssly]] ([[User talk:Masssly|talk]]) 15:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Structure wording better for near future changes == |
== Structure wording better for near future changes == |
Revision as of 15:49, 7 April 2024
![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered. |
![]() | A news item involving Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 5 April 2024. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
More precise title
On the basis of an article like United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, probably the most clear parallel to this event, the title of this article should be moved to the more precise Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus vel sim. per WP:PRECISE. Dylanvt (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Tennisist123 removed this post from the Talk Page, which is a major violation of Wikipedia policy, and frankly disgusting behavior. I've readded it now. Furthermore, Israel has officially admitted to the bombing. Dylanvt (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- I have apologised to Dylanvt separately and shared how I had mis-understood the Talk page with him. I am still learning all of the (very numerous) etiquette rules. My account is clearly relatively new and would appreciate some WP:AGF. I want to have a discussion on this topic but thought it had moved to the editing description fields.
- Can you please share the source that Israel has officially admitted to the bombing? I see that the BBC and NYT are still running with 'Iran accuses.' Tennisist123 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The NYT source includes Israel's justification for why they did it: "Israeli officials said the building was an outpost of the Revolutionary Guards, making it a legitimate military target."
- While this NYT article states: "Israel’s bombing of an Iranian Embassy building in Damascus, which killed senior Iranian military and intelligence officials, is a major escalation of what has long been a simmering undeclared war between Israel and Iran", not saying anything about "claims" or "allegations". Dylanvt (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Your first point is still not sufficient in my opinion. Just because Israel has said something could be bombed, does not mean that they have bombed it. Motive alone is insufficient.
- Your second point is a link to a news analysis article sharing the personal analysis of a single expert, not editorial content. If you want to change the title to 'Steven Erlanger accused Israel,' I am supportive. Here is an article explaining what News Analysis is. "When an article is primarily analytical, a label of "News Analysis" appears near the top of the article... They are not editorials." https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/college/faculty/coll_mono_know.html Tennisist123 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- The AP's newest headline on the topic today still leads with Iran blames. You have yet to provide evidence while counter evidence continues to mount. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts @Dylanvt:. https://apnews.com/article/iran-syria-israel-hezbollah-gaza-damascus-f7a1af3a9fc67de1962d4f1589d7e9f0 Tennisist123 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is an alleged Israeli bombing. The title of the article should not be defining facts that have yet to be established.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please make sure to voice this in the move request below. @Monopoly31121993(2) Tennisist123 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, this is an alleged Israeli bombing. The title of the article should not be defining facts that have yet to be established.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 2 April 2024
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus be renamed and moved to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus – I think the article being retitled to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus by User:Dylanvt is not appropriate. I suggest moving it back to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus:
- Is not a concise title (WP:Concise)
- If you look at List of attacks on diplomatic missions you'll see that a good portion of articles are named by a year, mission attacked, bombing, location of mission or year, attack, mission attacked, location of mission format. Very rarely is the assailant named in the title like it is in United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade.
- Israel is suspected/accused of the attack. The lede doesn't even mention this like 2023 Damascus airstrike. Currently, it only mentions Iran blaming the United States (and Israel in the infobox). So I fail to see how this is WP:Precise. Huge number of news sources are still running with Iran accuses. I can also see this becoming an issue later down the line and used for justification in future contentious titling arguments. It would be best to avoid that.
I suggest we move it back to the original title of 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus or 2024 airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to maintain a sense of consistency and accuracy. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Support I agree with this suggestion @Classicwiki:. Dylanvt has not provided new sources that justify the change. See above on the Talk page for his 'supporting' sources and my critique. Tennisist123 (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Removed, non-ECP user commenting on ECP page move request. Ecrusized (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)- This comment was added before the page was ECP locked. Uncool Ecru sized109.159.166.128 (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Zinderboff(talk) 18:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per all the reasons provided by nom. --GnocchiFan (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Query, why is this rm even necessary? Surely an admin could move the article back as undoing vandalism? Abductive (reasoning) 20:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I prefer a title that includes the fact that the airstrike was Israeli. It could be moved to 2024 Israeli airstrike on Iranian consulate in Damascus. Current title also seems fine to me. Ecrusized (talk) 20:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: It was an Israeli airstrike and it stays by the fact to keep it so. 2A02:3036:274:3B80:4CCA:9931:FEA4:E93B (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Removed, non-ECP user commenting on ECP page move request. Ecrusized (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: Looking at the List of attacks on diplomatic missions, most of the perpetrators weren't polities like Israel. I would say that if we were to remove the perpetrator from the name (which I oppose), we should make it clear that Iran wasn't the perpetrator. Perhaps "2024 airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus", which is more consistent with other articles. Again, though, I think including the perpetrator is significant, especially in this case. BappleBusiness[talk] 22:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is widely accepted (and actually undisputed) that the bombing was by Israel. No need to remove or change anything.
- Oppose as per above and because the title '"2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus"' suggests that it was an Iranian attack against whatever consulate in Damascus instead of an attack against the Iran embassy by Israel, as acknowledged by all major international media and Israel itself. MaeseLeon (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above. Skitash (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: Title is clear and precise, with no problems + per above. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Diffrent suggestion: move to Assassination of Mohammad Reza Zahedi. The main buildind of the embassy was not hort, so bombing of the embassy is missliding. useing consulate isnt beter, since thet makes it seem like it was in a separate are from the embassy and not the next buildind over. +, Zahedi and the rest were not diplomets, and there the center of the story.Pen Man (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Crossing out the comment due to ARBECR restrictions in force on this page. — kashmīrī TALK 20:48, 3 April 2024 (UTC)- Only in very dystopian, post-international law speak can demolishing the entire consular services wing of an embassy be whittled down into a mere "assassination" - aside from being a clear POV framing. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus does not imply that Iran carried out the attack. Consulates are buildings, they can't attack anyone. Also the "fact" that Israel carried out the bombing, although widely alleged, is not established by evidence provided by Iran or Syria. The title should not be including an alleged perpetrator.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- NYT, Axios, WP, AP - all finger Israel in own voice. Who's denying it? Iskandar323 (talk) 19:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
So what? We already know the consulate isn't performing the attack, because that would be a "consular airstrike".Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus does not imply that Iran carried out the attack. Consulates are buildings, they can't attack anyone.
- The problem is that "consulate Iranian airstrike" is grammatically forbidden, or at least unnatural. Thus "Iranian consulate airstrike" becomes idiomatic for both "an airstrike on an Iranian consulate" and "an Iranian airstrike on a consulate". Context (including that "buildings...can't attack anyone") is insufficient to distinguish between the two.
- Moreover: Iran is famous (in English-language sources, anyways) for attacking a diplomatic facility. Context-dependence here effects the incorrect interpretation. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Note: My third bullet point was about the article at that exact time point in time. New information and statements have been made since then. Clearly Israel has made more comments about the strike. Obviously, the article on Wikipedia has changed as well.
- My main point was about how it should follow the precedent of other articles as I mentioned in the second bullet point. See 2013 Iranian embassy bombing in Beirut as another use case example. See also, World Central Kitchen drone strikes. That attack happened on the same day as this airstrike (1 April 2024). Note how the title doesn't mean WCK conducted the drone strike. Additionally how the article isn't titled something like Israeli drone strike of World Central Kitchen.
- I just know leaving the current title will led it to be justification in future contentious titling arguments, where things are not as easy to discern. This is why I suggest going with a simple title that follows previous naming examples.
- Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- As noted above, it is exceptionally rare for embassies to be directly targeted by state actors, so the emphasis here is arguably warranted. I believe the last such event was the United States bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, which does indeed frame it in the same format. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per the majority of sources listed. Also, while Consular Sections at embassies are often called consulates, the bombed building was still part of the Iranian Embassy complex. The perpetrator has also been named in multiple sources and itself has not denied involvement. Finally, I'm unconvinced that "airstrike" would be better than bombing. — kashmīrī TALK 20:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- I'm ok with bombing as well. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: Title representative of sources. selfwormTalk) 02:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Reuters calls it an "Israeli strike"
- selfwormTalk) 14:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose per the above. RamHez (talk) 05:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support per above, airstrike is better than bombing as not every bombing is an airstrike. FortunateSons (talk) 09:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Move to Israeli airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus We should remove the date (per WP:NOYEAR as there is no other Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus), and should change "bombing" to "airstrike" (as that is actually what happened). As per above, the rest of the article title is fine. Gödel2200 (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- This is also ok. The year is non-essential, and airstrike is potentially more precise, though it is not a big deal - a bombing it is; just of the aerial variety. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I actually think this is better. The year is superfluous per NOYEAR. Dylanvt (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- I like it, too. — kashmīrī TALK 19:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I like this too. waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC). Crossing out as: I like the WP:NOYEAR suggestion, however prefer Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus as stated below. waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)- Yes, this seems fine. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: being 'concise' does not mean removing pertinent information. Sometimes a title is longer than 6 words but still concise.Orangesclub Crossing out the comment due to ARBECR restrictions in force on this page. (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)- Support: Should follow the WP:Concise and general pattern. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose The suggested title is confusing, which word is described as Iranian, the "airstrike" or the "embassy"? The current title is certainly longer but much clearer in my opinion. Terbofast (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose or Move to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus: Per above reasons, mainly since it shows the reader immediately that the bombing was Israeli, and per WP:NOYEAR suggestion by Gödel2200. waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC), edited waddie96 ★ (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support: Should follow the WP:Concise and general pattern. Additionally, the airstrike being carried out by Israel is a claim by Iran, and Wikipedia is not in place of pushing claims by one side without actual verification, there is a lot of misinformation, propaganda, and misleading information in relation to Israel and Iran. The title cannot make such a claim in wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- In CNN ref 1 "Four unnamed Israeli officials acknowledged that Israel carried out the attack” and that "the US’ assessment was that Israel had carried out the airstrike.” Therefore, I’d say it’s more than a 'claim' by just Iran that the bombing was carried out by Israel. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- This needs to be looked at in the wider context of reporting on the issues in the area and that not all previously accepted reliable journalism is actually reliable. Also the current sources in the article state "claimed by Iran".
- This is not my OR this is other sources stating the unreliable nature of media reporting Vox, Africa News, NPR
- PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- In CNN ref 1 "Four unnamed Israeli officials acknowledged that Israel carried out the attack” and that "the US’ assessment was that Israel had carried out the airstrike.” Therefore, I’d say it’s more than a 'claim' by just Iran that the bombing was carried out by Israel. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: I agree that the current title could be more concise, but the suggested title may be misleading, not only it does not clearly state the perpetrator, but who the victim is also not abundantly clear. While some iconic events like The Iranian Embassy siege don't need neither the year nor the perpetrators in the title, this event is more similar to this article: February 2024 United States airstrikes in Iraq and Syria which clearly states the year, the perpetrator and the targeted areas.
- Additionally, addressing some people's claims that Israel may not have been the perpetrator, IDF themselves took the credit for this airstrike [1][2]. LatekVon (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- Propose alternative 2024 airstrike of Iranian consulate in Damascus. While I do not agree with point 3 of nom, I do find WP:CONCISE a good point. I also agree with LatekVon's question on the nom's clarity. NasssaNser 07:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose: in bombings by individuals or small relatively unknown groups, WP:COMMON, referring to the event in a conversation, would be something like “when the embassy got bombed (by a terrorist group)”, but when it’s a well-known actor like Hamas or Israel, we say “when Israel bombed the Iranian Embassy”. Just as we do for the October 7 attacks. The event’s importance is not that the building “got bombed” but rather that Israel bombed an Iranian Embassy.Keizers (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose alternative, the building was part of the Iranian Embassy, not a standalone consulate. — kashmīrī TALK 08:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose/propose alternative: "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus" is misleading, as it suggests that Iran performed the airstrike. "2024 airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus" is insufficiently concise and uses the wrong preposition: a better title would be "2024 airstrike on the Iranian Damascus consulate". Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose alternative, the building was part of the Iranian Embassy, not a standalone consulate. — kashmīrī TALK 08:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: my last here as it looks like oppose/alt is going to be the path forward as of now. Would like to point out 2024 attack on the Mexican embassy in Quito as another contemporary article. Not saying apples to apples here, but still an example of state acting on another state's diplomatic mission. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 21:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose Well, the current title is pretty clear who did the bombing. I think the proposed one is too ambiguous and you don't know if it was Israel or ISIS or the FSA from just the title alone. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Support change , I mean guys there is a really big mistake here in understanding! The building is not the embassy building! It's a building next to the embassy building, I mean just look at the pictures, you can see the fence of the embassy does not include the bombed building but encloses the embassy compound, so the building is just next to it but not part of the embassy. Also consulates are always in different cities to the location of the embassy building! If Italy has an embassy in Cairo it would have a consulate in Alexandria but Italy wouldn't have a consulate in Cairo. So this is a big mistake. Titlt should be: 2024 Israeli strike of Iranian building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus. I know the name sounds bad but it's accurate. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Revert to status quo. It's possible there are better titles than "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus", but the most important aspect is whether we refer to it as a consulate or an embassy, as that is the part that could result in us violating WP:NPOV. Reliable sources consistently refer to this as an airstrike on the consulate; searching for "Airstrike Damascus", of the first ten results:
- Sky News; "Embassy" - "suspected Israeli airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Syria."
- SBS; "near Iran's Embassy" - "attack near Iran's Embassy in Damascus, assumed to be by Israel"
- Al Jazeera; "consulate" - "Israeli fighter jets fired missiles at the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital Damascus earlier this week"
- CNN; "consulate" - "The airstrike destroyed the consulate building in the capital Damascus" "The consulate building, which includes the ambassador’s residence and is located next to the Iranian Embassy, is considered sovereign Iranian territory. "
- AP; "consulate" - "An Israeli airstrike that demolished Iran’s consulate in Syria"
- Iran International; "embassy" - "The European Union on Wednesday called for restraint after an airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus killed seven Revolutionary Guards."
- ABC; "consulate" - "after a suspected Israeli air strike on Iran's consulate"
- The Guardian; "consulate" - "Israeli war planes destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus"
- Reuters; "consulate" or "embassy compound" - "at its embassy compound in Damascus", "which destroyed a consular building adjacent to the main embassy complex"
- VOA; "consulate" - "that destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria"
- Six sources use "consulate", two use "embassy" including one whose reliability is unclear, and the other two use other terminology; it would be inappropriate for us to do differently. BilledMammal (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Consulate is a name traditionally used for the offices occupied by an embassy's consular section; however, those offices are still a part of the embassy. — kashmīrī TALK 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's more complicated than that - but the only thing that is relevant here is that reliable sources consider "consulate" more accurate, and I don't see any bases for us to reject their assessment. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sources repeat it one after another; usually after agency reports; that doesn't mean we should blindly copy them when incorrect and when we have plenty of correct sources. — kashmīrī TALK 09:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Diplomatic and consular premises: UN [3]
- Consular Section: Kazakhstan MFA [4], South African MFA [5], Iran MFA [6] (they know best what was located there)
- Embassy: The Atlantic Council [7], The Telegraph [8], TRT [9], RFE [10] (also consulate), Bloomberg [11], DW [12] and many others. Your claim that only two sources use "embassy" is plainly incorrect. — kashmīrī TALK 09:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- My claim is that of a relatively random sample of ten articles about this incident, only two used "embassy". Without knowing your methodology, we have no way of knowing whether your sources are a representative sample - what was your methodology?
- Further, reviewing your sources, they don't say what you claim they say:
- The Atlantic Council - "embassy annex"
- The Telegraph - "consular building" and "embassy"
- TRT - "embassy", but considered unreliable for this topic at WP:RSP
- RFE - "consulate" (only uses "embassy" in the headlines, which are unreliable per WP:HEADLINES)
- Bloomberg - "embassy"
- DE - "consulate" (only uses "embassy" in the headlines, which are unreliable per WP:HEADLINES)
- BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- The consular mission in a capital is an embassy. An embassy provides consular services, which means it can have a dedicated consular wing/building that can be referred to as a 'consulate', but is still part of the embassy compound. The efforts by some media outlets to label this as a strike on a 'consulate' instead of the embassy is quite clearly an attempt to diminish what is an egregious violation of the Vienna convention on diplomatic missions, and this sidestepping language is a disservice to their readers, as it would be to ours were it replicated here. Calling this a strike on an embassy is just calling a duck a duck; replacing this with 'consulate' is shenanigans. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- I couldn't express it better. — kashmīrī TALK 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's not our place to decide that reliable sources are incorrect; we don't WP:RGW. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- This falls into the category of WP:COMMONSENSE. Capitals have embassies; other cities have consulates. That a handful of sources seem to be confused about this is neither here nor there. No need to pander. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's more complicated than that - but the only thing that is relevant here is that reliable sources consider "consulate" more accurate, and I don't see any bases for us to reject their assessment. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Consulate is a name traditionally used for the offices occupied by an embassy's consular section; however, those offices are still a part of the embassy. — kashmīrī TALK 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose to provide greater clarity as to who caused the attack. The proposed title is less clear and given the unfortunately short attention spans of many would cause confusion or even misattribution of the attacks. Amyipdev (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose It's almost beyond doubt who and what the perpetrators and targets are respectively. --Masssly (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Structure wording better for near future changes
The Aftermath section currently states:
The United States is anticipating a significant Iranian attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8–12.
I would ask that this be changed to make it easier to keep the structure of the sentence when conditions change. This type of present-tense wording does not work well in my view in the encyclopedic format. Instead, something like this could be written:
Initial U.S. intelligence anticipated a significant attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8-12.
This would allow for later expansion of the paragraph as events develop. For instance, if Iran were to attack the Knesset building on April 10, the section could expand to:
Initial U.S. intelligence anticipated a significant attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8-12. On April 10, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched airstrikes against the Knesset building...
I see this change as semi-minor; I would've made it myself but I don't yet have extended-confirmation privileges. Amyipdev (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- Start-Class Arab world articles
- Unknown-importance Arab world articles
- WikiProject Arab world articles
- Start-Class Death articles
- Low-importance Death articles
- Start-Class International relations articles
- Low-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Start-Class Iran articles
- Unknown-importance Iran articles
- WikiProject Iran articles
- Start-Class Israel-related articles
- Unknown-importance Israel-related articles
- WikiProject Israel articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- Start-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- Start-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- Start-Class Post-Cold War articles
- Post-Cold War task force articles
- Start-Class Palestine-related articles
- Low-importance Palestine-related articles
- WikiProject Palestine articles
- Start-Class Syria articles
- Unknown-importance Syria articles
- WikiProject Syria articles
- Requested moves