Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oshwah (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 15 April 2024 (Adding {{pp-vandalism}}). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Add belligerents

Since the US and the UK are shooting down drones they should be added 2A02:3100:5E50:FE00:E00D:4ED6:3FF8:30AE (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
from a quick search: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/14/us-and-uk-forces-help-shoot-down-iranian-drones-over-jordan-syria-and-iraq Notnotmysql (talk) 00:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced Background section

The Background section focuses in an extremely WP:UNDUE way on the October 7 attacks and on Hamas, describing them in gruesome detail, while making little mention of the more direct background (the Israeli missile strike) that led to the confrontation. One or two sentences discussing the context (October 7 attacks and Israel-Hamas war) should be fine, but having several paragraphs give it a weight that isn't in the reliable sources and are not needed as immediate background, while the recent escalation of tensions between Iran and Israel could be more elaborated upon. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I've tried to remove some of it but every time I get an edit conflict. AusLondonder (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest the "Background" section should only discuss in-depth the missile strike and any other events directly connected by WP:RS consensus to the current strikes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be fixed already, thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing, and aiming to keep it simple and succinct so that this does not become a battleground Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "gruesome detail" do you mean "lies"? Before it was edited, it read like an Israeli PR release. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:C057:A3A3:66EE:A4B (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change to sentence case

As it is, the article is not in sentence case as strikes is not a proper noun. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is due to the article being moved 3 times in 10 seconds, stopping the old name without capital S being used. Lukt64 (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy move per MOS:MILTERMS and WP:MILNAME. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy move: completely uncontroversial BappleBusiness[talk] 21:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ICBM missiles"

The claim in the article that there are ICBMs heading towards Israel doesn't seem substantiated by the source. Not all missiles are ICBMs. There are less than 1000km between Iran and Israel and ICBMs have a range of over 5000km. 109.101.157.168 (talk) 21:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I removed it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Speedy move to smaller case strike. reopening this discussion for 'in' vs 'on'. – robertsky (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel → 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel – No need to capitalize the word strikes. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, shouldn't it be "on", not "in"? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a native English speaker here, but there are the pages 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Iraq and Syria and 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I think in is preferred in those cases because the strikes targeted non-state actors in those countries and not, say, the regular armies of the countries. As a native U.S. English speaker, strikes on seems to imply the latter, but this could be semantics. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy move although the page already exists as a redirect to this article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is left up to technical requests. Lukt64 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page has been listed at WP:RM/T requesting that the undiscussed moves are reverted. AusLondonder (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Yemen, WikiProject Iran, and WikiProject Islam have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy move to sentence case, we can get consensus for "in" vs "on" later. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy move to revert back to the proper, correct version with the lower case. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Speedy move to correct sentence case (lowercase S), and 2. the correct preposition "on" (instead of "in" - which would only be correct if they were launched from Israel, which is not the case. Widefox; talk 21:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the correct title for the other two pages mentioned above? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support speedy move: completely uncontroversial BappleBusiness[talk] 21:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Page has since been moved to 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel, which has also updated the requested move template above, giving it a misleading appearance. Please note that comments prior to 22:00 UTC were not necessarily opposed to the current name. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SaintPaulOfTarsus, there are two different pages that uses the preposition "in" instead of "against"... See Category:Drone strikes conducted by Iran. Should we move those two pages? RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rod Rabelo: My intention was to simply point out that when you started the discussion, the article title was 2024 Iranian Strikes in Israel. It is now 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel, but the requested move template now reads It has been proposed in this section that 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel be renamed and moved to 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel, which was not the discussion when the comments above were made. Regards SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please continue the discussion on reaching consensus for which preposition to be used in the article title at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024. – robertsky (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add commanders and leaders in lists

add names of Iranian president etc GeopoliticalSphygmomanometry (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Leader is the de facto leader of Iran, is there any evidence that the President is in charge of the operation? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not be 'have yet to reach Israel' instead of 'are yet to reach Israel' ?

73.72.101.57 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to log in when I made this, fuck. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks anyway BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can get it oversighted. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have reached Israel. Air raids sirens in Tel Aviv right now PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 22:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

i do not know how to add pictures to Wikipedia i have some footage that can be added as Pictures of the drones in Israël Basedenverist on tiktok (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:UploadWizard PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a picture no permission

I have added a picture of a Iranian suicide drone in Israel shot down can't upload in wiki page cuz no permission Basedenverist on tiktok (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just upload random images you find. You need the copyright permission PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 22:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the picture file Lukt64 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iranian_drone_shot_down.jpg PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 22:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that's how copyright works. You can ask the person who took the picture to release it under a matching license (as CC BY-SA, not just "to use on Wikipedia" because of licensing shenanigans), or find/upload another picture whose creator released under a permissive license. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upload image?

Should we get some non-free images on the page, especially the images of the ground explosions, such as in the Nevatim Airbase or should we wait for free images to get upload? PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 23:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be for real, who is gonna copyright strike wikipedia? Lukt64 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a reason why we can't use any copyrighted image and {{fair use}} has strict conditions of use. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We simply cannot use any non-free image unless it fully complies with WP:NFCI, which is stringent by design. Cullen328 (talk) 05:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Israeli bombing of the embassy?

That’s it MoMoChohan (talk) 22:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, these are two separate events. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Although the attack led on from the Damascus embassy bombing, it is not the same event and should not be merged. YAM (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, Israel–Hamas war, and Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present)

The "part of" parameter in military infoboxes tends to get a little out of hand, but these strikes are currently classified as "part of" four larger conflicts, those being the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, the Iran–Israel conflict during the Syrian civil war, the Israel–Hamas war, and the Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present).

I do not believe these strikes could reasonably be considered part of a proxy conflict as one party in the conflict is directly striking the other party. I also find that these events have a tangential connection to Syria and little bearing on the internal civil war going on there. The latter two I find reasonable.

Please discuss. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the Syrian civil war has anything to do with this, but the other conflicts do. It is known that Hamas and Hezbollah are proxies of Iran as per Iran–Israel proxy conflict. Iyzn127 (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They're not themselves proxy strikes but they are part of the proxy conflict as they signal an end to it. Similar to how the dissolving of the Soviet Union is an end to the "Cold War". I do agree, though, that this has almost nothing to do with the situation in Syria and that the mention of the Syrian Civil War should be removed from the infobox.
JBrahms (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navy

Is the navy also supposed to be added because I'm pretty sure their also going to get involved to shoot down the drones Basedenverist on tiktok (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a source says they have, they will not be added. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNN has said the United States air defence is getting involved in this So in strength a USA air defence maybe? Basedenverist on tiktok (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide URL links to your sources SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add France and the US to the list of belligerents

France and the US are involved in the conflict as per WSJ reports: here and here Screen111 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The US one was linked twice. Is France also involved? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, here it is https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-iran-strikes-live-coverage/card/france-deploys-navy-to-defend-israel-fwknZbgcf2sGhKZdTlye Screen111 (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh shit. Well, guess we go in the list of supporters now... Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iran attacks U.S. bases in Iraq

OSINT sources say U.S. Forces at Erbil International Airport and Al-Asad Airbase in Western Iraq are under attack. Let's wait for better sources for confirmation Anime King (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please link when making "OSINT says" statements :) RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Jordan be listed as a supporter in the belligerents?

Jordan is listed here because Jordan stated they will shoot down any Iranian missiles that go through their airspace, but is that not just how closing your airspace works? Several other countries closed their airspace and I don't know that this meaningfully counts as Jordan offering Israel support. I get listing the US because the US is actually defending Israel, but it seems like Jordan is just enforcing the closure of Jordanian airspace?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, closing your airspace is just a routine thing and isn't actual involvement. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference I added[1] states that Jordan has opened its air space to Israel to allow shooting down the oncoming drones. --Z 23:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Airspace closure pertains to civilian aviation. Military hardware flying through your airspace to get to someone else is another matter. Too, Jordan and Israel have a peace treaty which covers this sort of thing. kencf0618 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan is reported to have actively shot down drones that invaded their airspace. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/jordans-air-defence-ready-shoot-down-any-iranian-aircraft-that-violate-its-2024-04-13/ 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 11:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cyprus has activated its ESTIA Plan, and among other airlines Royal Jordanian (flag carrier) and Wizz Air (Hungarian ultra low-cost carrier) have diverted there. kencf0618 (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first attacks have hit

Should we add this or wait for a source? PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 23:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your file doesn't work, but yes wait for a source. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do these?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AZ0X0BTSMEFbdyLmbPj5mR6CTv_y6Ez9/view?usp=sharing,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n7kGLp-b_hiTK9T-2tTOq_GLmZZXvUe5/view?usp=sharing,
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oGFVZZd2zbKJODcYaZSHwQaTjnvh4nzP/view?usp=sharing PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 23:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for now wait for a reliable source to report. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Blasts heard above Israel after Iran launches drone attack – live". The Guardian. April 14, 2024. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not downloading from whatever website this is, I expect better sources will catch up in a few minutes. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should wait as that is considered just a WP:primary source. --Z 23:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's the Guardian source form a few minutes ago. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Units involved

USAF and RAF in the units involved section? DontForgetJeff (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name of operation

I believe the name of the operation is “Operation True Promise” not operation truthful promise (a desperate name for an operation in the Middle East in 2006) can this be changed? Bobfroglog12321 (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some also say Faithful Promise. Maybe add a note with the other names PalauanLibertarian🗣️ 23:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

US, UK: Support or full belligerents?

As I've seen edits moving back and forth over this: should the US and UK be added as full belligerents in the infobox, or only as providing support? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full surely, as they have air units actively intercepting UAVs. That is a full involvement with lives potentially at risk. DontForgetJeff (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chaotic Enby According to Sky News, USAF and RAF manned jets shot down many Iranian drones over Iraq. "Support" is used for mere military equipment supply rather than personnel. Llew Mawr (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the targets of the attacks, so not sure if they would be full belligerents. --Z 23:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While they are not the main belligerent (Israel), they are actively shooting down drones which makes them co-belligerents. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem listing them provided we have sourcing to support that they've had an active role. AusLondonder (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all media calls it Operation True Promise

It is Operation True Promise, not Operation Truthful Promise (more generally referring to a 2006 even in the Middle East). Please change it to Operation True Promise to clear this up as this is how it is being described by the IRGC which is their official title for these events. Bobfroglog12321 (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iron dome

Why is Iron dome specifically listed, Arrow 3, David Sling, Iron Dome but specifically a2a missiles have been used to shoot down the majority of the drones. It is very out of place in the infobox, in my opinion and should be removed. 80.217.100.31 (talk) 00:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well someone requested it be added not too long ago but I will change it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions from Poland and coverage in TVN24, Polsat News, TVP Info

1. Why is reaction from the Council of Ministers (Poland), Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Poland), Prime Minister of Poland, President of Poland and other government institutions of Poland? 2. About What is describing the coverage of the current news from Palestine by TVN24, Polsat News and TVP Info? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.183.212 (talk) 00:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not every statement from every country from every institution needs to be covered. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with @Flemmish Nietzsche.
This is an act of war made by Iran. International response is a common practice in these types of articles.
+ UN is involved and the general secretary of the UN has made a statement regarding the attack. SpringKay (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
? except for the israeli embassy attack, every statement from every country from every institution WAS covered. 138.255.255.14 (talk) 10:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artesh involvement?

The infobox claims that the Artesh (Iran's conventional army) took part in the attacks alongside the IRGC, do we have any sources for this? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was one but it was heavily biased in its wording. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2024

2024 Iranian strikes in Israel → ? – The previous discussion was on moving 'Strikes' to 'strike' version, and it was speedy closed by me as there is a speedy consensus on that matter. However, what had been raised in that discussion is which proposition to be used in the article title.

Opening this discussion as a continuation of the earlier discussion. Further discussion on whether to have the year removed from the title per WP:NOYEAR to be carried out in a separate subsection below. – robertsky (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is worth noting that many of the strikes were against targets in the occupied territories, which are not Israel, so any title that implies the strikes were confined to Israel will invariably be a gross violation of NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Disagree. Iran leaders stated that the purpose of the attack is to damage military facilities inside Israel and targeted Israel itself as an entity (Source) The fact that these missiles missed their target and hit the West Bank/ Jordan / Iraq and etc doesn't mean that the attack wasn't targeted onto Israel. SpringKay (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the bare minimum, there were targets struck in the Golan Heights, which is occupied territory, not Israeli territory. So no need to blur the details. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preposition: 'in' vs 'on' vs 'against'

Between the article creation and the previous requested move discussion, the following occurred: a discussion of whether to move the article from 'on' to 'in', and also while the discussion was ongoing (for 3-4 hours or so), it was also moved to 'against' (and earned two separate RM/TR requests to revert), therefore there are three possible titles here:

  1. 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel
  2. 2024 Iranian strikes on Israel
  3. 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel

Please input your comments on which proposition to use below. – robertsky (talk) 01:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 - The title was fine before as 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel and I don't think it needs to be changed to anything else. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "against", accept "on", oppose "in". Amyipdev (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 because this is part of the Israel-Iran proxy conflict. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on" or "against" Option 1 causes unnecessary confusion with "in", but I don't have that strong of an opinion between option 2 or 3. Gödel2200 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "against" or "on". Oppose "in". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche, @Amyipdev, @Gödel2200, @Blaylockjam10, just noting that 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Iraq and Syria and 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan follow the same pattern, using the preposition "in". RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem w/using “in” is that some of the projectiles were shot down before they reached Israel. I don’t believe the other strikes you mentioned had projectiles that were shot down in other countries. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "against" or "on". Oppose "in". Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in the contrary to 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Iraq and Syria and 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan where the strikes took place only in pakistan or only in sytia,iraq here a major part of the strike took place outside of israeli borders so "against" or "on" seems to my to by more accurate then "in" Anticonstitutionnel (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a different title entirely, 2024 Iranian attack on Israel. This seems shorter and more to the point than "strikes". This was a direct attack by Iran on Israel. I would prefer keeping the year since past incidents of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict like the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid can also be considered Iranian attacks on Israel. Ecrusized (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "on"; oppose "against" and "in". As for "attack" vs "strikes"; this was clearly a major attack and is described as such by RS but I oppose changing "strikes" for now until the dust settles. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suppprt against. Oppose in / on as it is not clear. SpringKay (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3: "against"; oppose "on" or "in", which imply that the strikes were geographically confined to Israel, when a large part occurred against Israeli forces in the occupied territories – the latter are still "against" Israel as an entity, without being on Israel or in Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3, but also WP NO YEAR. --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3: "against". Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3: "against" per above. Spiderpig662 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 or 3. In English, "Strikes in" has a meaning that is inconsistent with what occurred. "Strikes in" is never or almost never used to describe attacks by one entity against or on another entity, no matter the location of some of all portions of the attack. Holy (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 or 3. Many missiles and drones were destroyed outside the Israel territory. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOYEAR

Since the Israel against Iran page got NOYEAR'ed, this one should too. (I was not in favor of NOYEARing the other one, but nonetheless it should still be done for consistency...) Amyipdev (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't see an instance where someone could mistake it for any other israel-iran conflict and thus the year serves no purpose. Although I guess the question now is whether it's Iranian strikes on or against Israel. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Putting this as a subsection of the requested move discussion above. – robertsky (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there consensus at this point on NOYEAR? Amyipdev (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WP:NCEVENTS calls for the year of the event in the majority of cases, with NOYEAR applying only to historically unique events (i.e. September 11 attacks). The year is a useful indicator for the reader and keeps it WP:CONSISTENT with other articles in this set. Pilaz (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; year helps keep things in perspective. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is the only one. --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; WP:NOYEAR states, "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it" (emphasis added). We do not have historic perspective. And for the reasons Ecrusized articulated. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Yemen, WikiProject Islam, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Lebanon have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If not for the recency of this event, if I heard the title of this article, I wouldn't know what year or specific event it referred to—and while I'm not an expert, I've casually followed events of this sort, especially in the realm of military history, for many decades. I also think that the "lack of historic perspective" argument applies. Holy (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No historic perspective and not enough context in the title without it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other titles

Iranian attack on Israel

I think the name Iranian attack on Israel is better. This is an attack like never before. In addition, this is an attack with different types of weapons (assuming we will find out later that there was also a cyber dimension and the like). Galamore (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was originally a separate slightly earlier section (see Special:Permalink/1218980236#Name change that grew organically. Shifting here because it makes no sense to have separate primary discussions on name changes. – robertsky (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but this should probably be a move discussion Lukt64 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because someone just forwarded the article without waiting for further opinions.Galamore (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There have been previous strikes on Israel by Iran, so for now let's leave it with the current name. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. Iran didn't strike Israel from its own terrority before.
(Source) SpringKay (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in not calling it anything like Iran-Israel war. Calling it that when all of this could be over a week from now makes no sense to me. Poklane (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "assuming" is pure WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't have its place here. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL isn't relevant. This is not speculation, rumors or any kind of violations stated in the guideline. SpringKay (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(assuming we will find out later that there was also a cyber dimension and the like) is absolutely speculation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. What was this "attack" a response to?
Don't bomb embassies. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:C057:A3A3:66EE:A4B (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was a retaliation to the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, so the appropriate term would be "strikes." "Attack" also seems a biased term towards this situation and would be inappropriate per WP:NPOV. Christophervincent01 (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support
As it is an historic event and the first time ever Iran attacked Israel from its own terroity. SpringKay (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons already stated. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the intent of Iran sending missile's into Israel was not to disstory anything, it is for a show of force, and to deter Israel from future boming of Iran's embassys.
We also did not call the Israel air strike on Iran's embassy a attack, we called that a boming, and that was done with intention of as some would say to neutralize the embassy and the people inside
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus Ricemaker313 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this comment as it is misleading. The purpose of tje Iranian attack was to destroy military bases inside Israel and kill soldiers as a revenge against the killing of their commander. Both attacks had an intention to destroy, kill and neutralize army men. SpringKay (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : Hello, I created this page yesterday using the terms '2024 Iranian drone attack on Israel'. If I used the term "attack", it's because I'm not completely fluent in English, and in French, the term is broader. However, it wasn't a POV, as within the same framework, I didn't attribute the strikes to Iran and used the conditional for this attribution until other contributors deemed it appropriate to update, which I, of course, followed. Regarding the date 2024, which seems to be the issue, I preferred to specify the timeframe for the page to be more precise, and mainly because I was unaware if such confrontations between these two countries had occurred before. Since it appears from this discussion that it's the case, as the messages above state, it's clearer to keep the term '2024' for now. As for the question of 'bombings', 'strikes', etc., I don't have a clear position.AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must state that the name we kept for many of the pages where I worked used the yearly date, even if they were the first, for example : 2023 Turkish drone shootdown or 2023 Tours bombing AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be vague and factually incorrect. An attack can take many forms, such as a cyber attack, or a verbal attack.
“Iranian strikes” is a better term to describe what happened, as this phrase conveys a conventional military strike. YAM (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, This is perfect, no need to change. Grabup (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on User talk:Christophervincent01's argument. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User talk:Christophervincent01's argument seems sufficient to me. Kakurokuna (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation True Promise

Operation True Promise was added into the list of the possible titles by @Babaz at Special:Diff/1218895859 for consideration. – robertsky (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End of proxy war

In the Iran–Israel proxy conflict the article reads “This is the first direct military confrontation between the two countries since the beginning of the Iran–Israel conflict.” Would this end the proxy war as its open warfare? See more detailed talk page. LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The manifold proxy war is definitely over. What the Iran-Israel conflict is now... Well, to coin a phrase it is "the longest now". kencf0618 (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of yet, I wouldn't consider it an end, since the Al-Asad Airbase retaliation for the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani didn't lead to an "open warfare" between the United States and Iran. But this is still recent, nobody knows about the possible escalations that could follow suit. Christophervincent01 (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is always controlling. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"32 Injured or treated for anxiety" figure

I see that "1 injured" was changed to "32 injured or treated for anxiety" and feel like that's confusing and inappropriate. It makes no distinction between serious wounds and anxiety treatments.

Not trying to downplay the significance of the anxiety attacks that many in the area no doubt suffered from and checked themselves into hospitals for, I can sympathize as I myself struggle with terrible anxiety and require medication to manage it, I can't imagine how terrifying it must have been to be in their situation. But there's an obvious difference between suffering from potentially nearly fatal wounds and having an anxiety attack. Combining them into a single figure instead of listing them separately is less informative.

But it's also WP:SYNTHESIS. The first source only talks about the 1 injured. The second source says "About 31 people were treated for anxiety or injuries." Meaning the 1 confirmed to be physically injured shouldn't be added to the 31 because it looks like the 31 figure already counts the 1 confirmed injured. We could change 32 to 31, but my preference is to just list the 1 injured. At least then we know exactly how many are confirmed to be injured instead. The NBC News source that lists 31 "treated for anxiety or injuries" muddies the waters and should be avoided.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 02:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like there was only one real casualty, the one injured you mentioned, and the rest were just minor injuries from heading to shelter when hearing the sirens. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is adding people with anxiety attacks in the "Casualties and losses" part of the infobox truly pertinent though? Looks like a joke, quite frankly... RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's no figure yet as far as I know that separates "anxiety attacks" from actual injuries. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed mention of “anxiety” from the infobox: frankly, it did not belong there not only on grounds of non-notability, but moreover due to this ambiguity in the sources. I would argue that self-inflicted injuries are irrelevant in face of the priority that reporting *direct* injuries and casualties takes. ‒overthrows 09:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add info re Apr 13 seizure of container ship

"Commandos from Iran's paramilitary Revolutionary Guard rappelled from a helicopter onto an Israeli-affiliated container ship near the Strait of Hormuz and seized the vessel Saturday in the latest attack between the two countries." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/as-tensions-with-israel-rise-iranian-forces-seize-a-container-ship-near-strait-of-hormuz 75.91.175.71 (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That exists as a seperate article,Iranian seizure of the MSC Aries. That's why it isn't listed here M Waleed (talk) 09:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Should there be an new article for strikes in Iran if Israel responds by directly hitting targets in Iran? PopularGames (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, but that hasn't happened yet so let's not speculate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In such an event, it would definitely warrant a new article (and a subsection here directing for further) and may need to have a parent. But one thing at a time. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3 Deaths

There is a dispute among editors (see this discussion & this edit summary) currently about whether to include the 3 Jordanian deaths from the airstrikes.

The dispute in question is the following being in the casualties section of the infobox: 

*At least 3 Jordanians killed by missile debris of intercepted missiles by Jordanian Air Force.[1]

References

  1. ^ "Incoming reports of 3 Jordanians having been killed by missile debris falling over the capital city Amman" (Post on 𝕏). 𝕏 (Formerly Twitter). Poland: Visegrád 24. 13 April 2024. Archived from the original on 14 April 2024. Retrieved 14 April 2024. Incoming reports of 3 Jordanians having been killed by missile debris falling over the capital city Amman

Can others please discuss this addition as it has been reverted twice. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs an extra source since other editors had flagged it as dubious. Preferably a proper website. Borgenland (talk) 05:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, and I haven't been able to find any other source mentioning this, which you would think would happen by now if it were true. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Visegrad 24 is cited by other sources including CNBC and the Times of Israel. No RSN discussion has occurred regarding its notability. The dubious claim was also my own edit soley due to it being Twitter-based. Twitter-based RS is actually allowed with a perfect example being BNO News, which is almost entirely a Twitter-based RN news organization. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to use the stylized 𝕏 character, and we already have a perfectly fine {{cite tweet}} template. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 06:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Jordanian deaths should be added as spillover. We have done this for spillovers on other articles. Although it needs a reliable news source, not someome on social media. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of injured civilian

Users keep adding back that the injured civilian in the attack is an Israeli Bedouin. What does it matter? It's not like Iran deliberately chose them nor this is an ethnic conflict. The information is entirely irrelevant and should be removed. Linkin Prankster (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While Iran may not have deliberately chose them it is important to note that the person injured was not an ethnic Israeli. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is it important? It adds nothing and the ethnicity doesn't matter. Israeli Bedouin are also Israeli citizens under the law and this isn't an ethnic conflict. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's important because Israeli bedouins are Arabs and there was an article not long ago that said while Israel takes the Jewish people to bomb shelters during Hamas' rocket attacks, they deliberately leave the bedouin Arabs unprotected in the deserts under falling Hamas rockets, and sometimes the IDF directly bombs these Arab bedouins.Crampcomes (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning clearly is a violation of NPOV. We cannot base this on some article long ago which you aren't even linking. And this isn't a place to condemn Israel or any side for that matter, even Iran. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to note that the person injured was not an ethnic Israeli. And also Wikipedia is not about what you think or feel. It's about what the reliable sources say, and reliable sources mention that the injured person was a bedouin.Crampcomes (talk) 07:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is an ethnic Israeli? Bedouins are civilians of Israel. Israel doesn't just consist of Jews. Wikipedia isn't about what anyone thinks or feels, but your reasoning is a violation of NPOV. This isn't a place for condemning Israel, it's irrelevant to the topic. And you still haven't linked the article you cited. I'll have to add a NPOV tag. Linkin Prankster (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try it again. Reliable sources say the injured was a bedouin that's why we say that the injured was a bedouin. In Wikipedia, per Wikipedia policy, we don't include what you think or feel.Crampcomes (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not news, WP:NOTNEWS. Just because a detail was considered important enough by some news sites, doesn't mean it's important for an encyclopedia. The detail contributes nothing. Your reasoning also includes allegations by you of discrimination by Israel of Bedouin Arabs in matters of rocket shelters, suggesting this is a neutrality violation. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the solution here is to state that she lives at a "Bedouin village", not to state her ethnicity, since it is the most accurate interpretation of the reports. As you can see from the image in the article Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel, in contrast to other Israelis that have a concrete shelter or at least a house made out of concrete, the girl probably only had a wriggly tin roof to protect her from the shrapnel (which is what usually harms civilians). So the reader can infer from this information that a strong shelter is important. I also think that the ethnicity information is relevant, since in the eyes of some of many readers (e.g. those who think that Iran is acting on an anti-Semitic basis), they think such information is important. But we don't have accurate info on her ethnicity. Lainad27 (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated later on that it was in a Bedouin village, but maybe that could also be put earlier Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That will still be OR, as it is being added based on an assumption that the village is probably unrecognized. We have no proof if it is recognized or unrecognized. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just say "Jew" if that is what you mean. 185.182.71.28 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a fake. There are Bedouin serving in idf in Gaza. Israel doesn’t “take” people to shelters. They go by themselves. 46.210.18.243 (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
according to the israeli policy in matter of IDs the nationality distinct from the citizenship is wrighten on the ID and although israel recognizes many nationalities like jew arab arameen ect israeli is not recognized as an nationality so there is no ethnic israelis but rather israelis from jewish,arab, nationality Anticonstitutionnel (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely untrue. Israeli ID cards don't record ethnicity but their status: whether one is an Israeli citizen, permanent resident or temporary. Israeli ID cards only included the ethnicity of the bearer upto 2015, no longer. Linkin Prankster (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is untrue. The ethnicity section is empty since 15-20 years ago. And in new IDs it's altogether removed David tm (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as ethnic israeli, israeli is a crizenship that covers ethnic jews, ethnic Arabs, and others. It is not an ethnicity. Chafique (talk) 09:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second that Bedouin isn’t relevant here and should be removed Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bedouins are Israeli citizens just like Jews, Arabs, Druze and so many more. Greetings from an Israeli-Arab in behalf of equality to all Israel haters in wikipedia. Lilijuros (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lilijuros ? I agree with you just having “Israeli” is enough and that Bedouin is not relevant and implies nothing Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is not relevant wether the victim was an israeli ashkenazi or israeli sephardic or israeli druze or israeli bedouin or israeli christian. Chafique (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an ethnic conflict. 2A01:36D:118:88AA:1856:C49:DC3E:75E3 (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an ethnic conflict at all? Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an ethnic conflict. It's not even a religious conflict (as many Muslim states aren't on side of Iran and some Arab states support or are neutral to Israel). It's at best a national conflict. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. On the October 7th attack page there is no mention of the ethnicity of those who've been kill or wounded, even though there were Muslims and Bedouins that have been killed. Iyzn127 (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason why it can be of matter, is since Iran is trying to portrait themselves as a protector of muslims in conflict with Israel.
Other than that, the girl is full blown Israeli, no matter the ethnicity. David tm (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnicity of the child is mentioned in the main body of the article, I don't think it needs to be explicitly stated in the infobox. Angusgtw (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've searched high and low about this issue. Apparently there's no relevancy to the girl's ethnicity. She was reported to be sleeping when she was hit by the shrapnel. So even if her town/village is recognized or had a shelter, she wouldn't be able to reach it. [2] We should avoid including the injured civilian's ethnicity solely on assumptions that she is suffering from the same plight of some other Israeli Bedouins. Linkin Prankster (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then could someone change it? The "Bedouin" title has still remaind. Lilijuros (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Spillover of Hamas-Israel War"

Introduction to the article states this event was a "Spillover of Hamas-Israel war".

This event has nothing to do with that war, as it is a direct response to Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus.

Trying to connect this event to Hamas Israel War damages Wikipedia neutrality.

I suggest to remove this statement from the introduction. SpringKay (talk) 08:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli bombing was itself a consequence of Iranian involvement in the Israel Hezbollah conflict, so it is a part of the spillover of Israel Hamas war M Waleed (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your claim, and I agree that the bombing was a consequence of the Israeli- Hezbollah conflict. However, Hezbollah's involvement is part of the general Iran–Israel proxy conflict and it is not specific to the Hamas-Israel war. SpringKay (talk) 09:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The recent escalation of Israel Hezbollah came as a spillover of Israel Hamas war M Waleed (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2024 (2)

Iraq officialy supports Iran for the attack Kerosene3 (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 11:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be summarised

The lead is supposed to be a readable summary of the article (like this), not a selection of statements that actually belong in the body. Moreover, an average reader of this English article doesn't know what many of the terms in the lead such as "Houthi", "Bedouin", "Popular Mobilization Forces" or "David's sling" signify. --Z 11:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

@האופה: Please self-revert as this is worthy to mention that the attacks endangered other countries as having been stated by Jordan and also the UK. :[3] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@האופה: You are on a 1RR violation spree and are ignoring the talk page and adding that to the recency of your account and 500 edits gaming, it will not look good at AE. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recency? Gaming? what is this all about. I'm here 6 months already and has hundreds of edits. Also, where is exactly the 1RR violation spree? I'm editing this article as everybody else does. Please stop casting aspersions. Let's work together to improve the article HaOfa (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@האופה: Read WP:1RR and note that you already have four violations: [4], [5], [6], [7]. Please bring yourself into compliance by self-reverting, otherwise editing sanctions would be taken at WP:AE.
Also this edit [8] does not reflect reliable sources, so please remove this unnecessary attribution as well. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

casualties

Well the Iranian source reporting some casualties at nevatim airbase 44 IDF KIAMamen67 (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's the link of the source? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/iraninarabic_ir/status/1779460518954127548?t=VeLNxtKPDdYlcT6rucEwRg&s=19 Mamen67 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw that is per iran Mamen67 (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 2024 Iran–Israel conflict

The number of sub articles for Israel-Hamas war is getting out of hand again. The article 2024 Iran–Israel conflict should be merged into here for the time being. Note that no such thing as 2024 Iran–Israel conflict has been reported by reliable sources. Ecrusized (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It covers the Iranian Seizure of MSC Aries and the attack on embassy, so I don't think it needs to be merged M Waleed (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Iranian Seizure of MSC Aries can be moved to Red Sea crisis and the attack on embassy already has an article. Seems like unnecessary splitting to me.Ecrusized (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ship thing was a petty response to Israel, sources say. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, it should be merged into 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel, but the name should remain as the 2024 Iran–Israel conflict for broader information. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is a duplicate, and the ship incident can be covered in the background section. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with M Waleed, seems like this is specific and the other page seems a bit more broad. Merger doesn’t make too much sense. - FellowMellow (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from author) This covers the embassy attack, the in between tensions, the ship seizure, and the Iranian attack. I think I should also add the Hezbollah attack in, which was said to be to overwhelm Israeli air defenses. Iran retaliated in different ways, and this article is more broad. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging unnecessary page here. The embassy attack has its own page, and the ship seizure is already described here in the background section. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If, and im not trying to crystal ball here, but if Israel hypothetically attacked Iran back, would that warrant this page staying? Personisinsterest (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the request to merge is premature. See how the conflict develops; if the latest attack remains the only major incident then there may be grounds to merge, but for all we know this could be the beginning of a wider conflict with other noteworthy incidents / engagements.Anvib (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This article serves as the background to 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel. The newer article can also be further developed and continue to go through name changes if required and situation develops. Either way there shouldn't be two articles for the same topic. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are at least 3 actual events in the "conflict" not including proxy actions and we're only in April. There is a conflict here, not to say a war. The event here is one of the biggest attacks in Israel's history. There is no doubt that a separate article is needed. Eladkarmel (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have striked my opinion based on this comment, which is a very good point. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Concurring with @Eladkarmel, this is an ongoing conflict containing several separate events over a span of weeks. Discussion of a merger is premature. Jokojis (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with the rest in that merging the pages now would be unnecessary and premature. Additionally there is likely to be further developments in the conflict that would go in the Iran-Israel conflict article anyway. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging. 2024 Iran–Israel conflict is a good overview article and complementary to the individual articles. Boud (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a specific event within the Iran-Israel conflict, much as the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip page is separate from the Israel–Hamas war page. This is the first direct attack that Iran has launched on Israel, it is more than notable enough to warrant its own article. Altorespite 🌿 18:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This article is about a specific event within the greater conflict, a conflict which is not even over yet. GranCavallo (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with everything the nominator said but a merger makes no sense. I think we should delete the conflict article. Yeoutie (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you delete the conflict article you would take some of it and merge it into another (presumably this) article. That's what a merger is. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But no information of that article should or could be merged into this one. That article is, in effect, a summary of three separate articles and includes no novel information in the body. Yeoutie (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They are two different events. One begins on April 1 and is continuing. The other begins on Apr 13 and ends on Apr 14. GoldWitness (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Eladkarmel and Altorespite. This is the first direct confrontation between two major regional powers, following decades of tension. Even if nothing else happens it will be studied and written about for decades and is undoubtedly notable enough for a separate article. Jamedeus (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Eladkarmel, Altorespite, and Jamedeus. --Bill3602 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose–Per Eladkarmel, Jamedeus, and Altorespite. A direct confrontation between two major regional powers that has drawn international attention as well as the direct involvement of nonregional powers, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and France makes this notable enough for a separate article. Random123games (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reasons given by Jamedeus.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 00:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose—this article, currently named 2024_Iranian_strikes_in_Israel, is about one particular swarm attack by Iran against Israel. This saturation attack was militarily unprecedented in breadth, size, mix of weapons systems (and, also likely, in military defensive response by multiple nation states in coordination). It deserves to be a separate article on the military attack/battle. It should not be conflated with the broader issue of two nation states in conflict, which has been big this year (2024) and has been going on for decades. N2e (talk) 01:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Let's wait for now. ~ HAL333 01:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisim by "world leaders"

ho are these "world leaders" exactly? Does that mean Israeli allies? --Z 15:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC "Result"

What should the result section of the infobox say? Leaving out some possible options here, other suggestions are also welcome.

  1. Iranian operational failure. This appears to be the widely reported conclusion. 99% of the aerial objects have been reportedly intercepted, without any Israeli casualties and only minor damage sustained at one airbase.
  2. Iranian partial operational failure. Another similar result, with partial for minor impact.
  3. Successful Israeli defense. An alternative
  4. Israeli Victory. Another alternative
  5. Iranian Victory. Since Iran claimed victory

Discuss. Ecrusized (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say to leave it with what both sides "claim" was the result, or go with option C as it seems the most neutral. Saying just "victory" or "failure" seems too one-way and should have "partial" in front of it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an opinion website, Wikipedia writes facts. If Iran's operation failed, as it is widely reported. There is absolutely no reason to include that "Iran has claimed victory". Nazi Germany might have claimed victory in the aftermath of WW2, but that's not what the article for World War 2 says in its result. Ecrusized (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and while you may be right about the claim part saying it is a "complete Iranian failure" seems to be a bit of an overstatement. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it an overstatement? 99% of their missiles were shot down. Ecrusized (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think it would be realistic for Iran to assume that many of their projectiles would get through Israel's defenses, and there was some damage to military bases. As I said in my first comment saying it is a "successful Israeli defense" would be better as it does not say any side explicitly "won" or "lost". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean technically what youre saying here is original research which isnt allowed on wikipedia but even if we go with your statement, then what was irans goal? They get some of their highest ranking officers killed only to then go and waste millions of dollars sending rockets and drones at Israel to cause absolutely no significant destruction or casualties whatsoever? So basically they just wasted money and time for the fun of it? ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue about the questionable rationality of Iran's leadership. My only point was that saying it is a "complete Iranian defeat" or failure can be misinterpreted, and it should only say either claims of the result or that it was an Israeli defensive success. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s definitely not an overstatement. The current details placed in the results section is neutral. If you wish to take out Iranian operational failure away, then Iranian operational success can’t be there either. What I placed at the moment is what both sides claim. FellowMellow (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard and probably too early to say in terms of victory/failure. Maybe it's better to put {{Infobox military operation}} here and simply say that "X objects struck"?--Oloddin (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Victory claimed by both sides" given that both Iran and Israel assert that they have successfully inflicted significant damage or successfully repelled the attacks, respectively, according to RS[9]. "Iranian operational failure" and "Israeli defensive success" can be listed below in bullet points. This mirrors the case in 2014 Gaza War, where no decisive winner was identified. Skitash (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the infobox rules ““this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much””
By the looks of that we should Omit the parameter for now. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is It does a good job of showing the standings of both sides, which is important here as both disagree on the outcome of the strikes and whether it was a victory or not. Genabab (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B doesn’t make too much sense to me, but the minor damage part makes sense. However, I’m not sure if partial would be the right word. “Majority” or “Overall” makes more sense.
D and E (depending on the context that will be used), it can only be written (as claimed).
A and C should be there (as part of the Israeli and US claim), while for the Iranian claim, it should be the opposite (meaning what I placed before).
Support The main focus though should be:

Victory claimed by both sides - FellowMellow (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omit the parameter per LuxembourgLover, it's impossible to sum up the situation and conflicting claims in one or two words. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One injured or two injured?

A 10-year-old Bedouin girl was seriously injured by shrapnel from an interception in the Arad area,[1][2] and a seven-year-old girl was critically injured.[3]

Are they the same person?Crampcomes (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've found it seems to be two different Israeli arabs who were injured. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Updated the article. Crampcomes (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, they're probably the same person. I didn't find any article that mentions more than one girl injured. As it seems newer articles say that the girl is 7 and older ones say she's 10, I assume they didn't know the exact age when this was first reported. Iyzn127 (talk) 23:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article that was updated Sunday [10] calls the seven year old girl "the only person in Israel who sustained significant injuries".
It's apparent that it is just an instance of the wrong information being put forth. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Первая кровь: во время иранского обстрела тяжело ранен мальчик". Детали. 13 April 2024. Archived from the original on 13 April 2024. Retrieved 13 April 2024.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Arad was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "Iran launches retaliatory attack on Israel with hundreds of drones, missiles". Reuters.

MFA of Uruguay condemned the attacks

In light of the dangerous regional escalation of the conflict in the Middle East and the recent attack against Israel, Uruguay condemns the use of force by Iran and regrets the worsening of the conflict, as well as the consequences it could have for the tragic humanitarian situation and civilian casualties in the region.

We are in constant contact with our embassies in the region assessing the development of events, and our consular services remain at the disposal of the Uruguayan community that could be affected.

Uruguay condemned Iran's attack on Israel; the Ministry of Foreign Affairs remains in contact with the embassies in the region Accuratelibrarian (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's necessary to include the statement from Uruguay? If so, state exactly what should be added. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? The article mentions Javier Milei's statement, but it omits the positions of other countries in the region that have also expressed their views. In any international conflict, it's important to present the statements of all countries that have done so, whether they condemn or support the attacks.
Uruguay's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has condemned Iran's use of force in and expressed concern over the potential worsening of the region's humanitarian and civilian situation. Accuratelibrarian (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Background synthesis

There is material in the background section on the broader conflict that is being supported by sources that predate the subject, rather than being based on material presented as background by relevant sources. Some of this was removed earlier today, but the same or similar material has been re-added. The background should only be based on material that RS on the subject present as background, not on what editors think the background is (WP:OR). Iskandar323 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first part of the background is selective rubbish making a simplistic caricature of a complex history (read Gareth Porter's 2015 article, for one). What is totally lacking as background is a clarification of Iran's explicit defense of its actions in the UN in terms of Israel's violation of the Vienna Conventions on embassies and consular buildings, which are 'inviolable', and which Israel, with an equivocation, chose to break in bombing Iran's embassy in Damascus (as a good many nations recognize, even implicitly the US) (it is a particular bee-in-the-bonnet of Netanyahu since 1990s that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, and under his helmsmanship, disruption of any attempts to bring Iran has been constant, and I say that without any sympathy for that Islamic regime). Iran even telegraphed in advance what it would do, allowing the US to directly warn Israel, nothing like a surprise strike. See generally thisNishidani (talk) 22:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Particular base that was hit

Iran claims that the Israeli air base that was hit was of importance to them because it was where the Israeli air force attacked the Iranian embassy in Syria, that should be included since it is significant to this whole thing Mauzer's random BS (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Romania's stance regarding the attack

Romania's president Klaus Iohannis condemned the attack in the strongest terms and mentioned that he stands in solidarity with the people of Israel.

Source: https://twitter.com/KlausIohannis/status/1779371047365558542 Rapiteanu (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Estimated economic cost of less than USD 0.1 billion for the attack"

Or so it says in the infocard, under "casualties and losses". It goes counter to the source, which claims more than 1 billion. Dieknon (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it cost Israel about $1 billion to defend against the strikes, the cost for Iran was estimated at less than 10% of that. The info in both columns matches the ref. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotefarm

Hello, I'm writing because we're dealing with WP:OQ in the final sections of the article. I suggest that we streamline a significant portion of the reaction section by abbreviating it and grouping countries that issue joint statements, for example, with phrases like: 'Finland, Costa Rica, N, N... have condemned these strikes.' This would be better than a massive quotefarm in my opinion. AgisdeSparte (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

−
The operation were intentionally limited to keep it as a retaliatory attack against the Israeli attack on Iranian consulate.
+
The operation was intentionally limited to keep it solely a retaliatory attack against the previous Israeli attack.

Grammar fix and slight rewording (under the assumption matters don't escalate to the point of nullifying the entire sentence). 2603:8001:4542:28FB:9D2F:AAA5:1666:BD6F (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC) (Send talk messages here)[reply]

 Already done This sentence has been revised since the request was opened and the grammar issues are no longer present. Jamedeus (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add US Navy to list of units involved

The US Navy was involved in shooting down missiles launched from Iran to Israel the units from the United States Navy, which were involved were two Arleigh Burke class destroyers with fighter jets from the USS Eisenhower Nimitz aircraft carrier 96.60.168.239 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Iranian_strikes_in_Israel&oldid=1218985271"