Jump to content

Talk:2024 Iranian strikes against Israel

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

Requested move 14 April 2024

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel as stronger consensus lies with the use of the word against in the event. Also no support was found for removing the year from the title and other alternative titles couldn't generate consensus.(non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 09:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]
This sort of logic doesn't make sense to me. Israel certainly has military assets present in the Golan Heights and will readily admit so, as it does as well in the West Bank. The fact that Iranian strikes were targeting Israeli assets in territory not internationally recognized as Israeli doesn't mean that they weren't targeting territory or assets de facto controlled by the Israeli state. Halfadaniel (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also not calling the strikes in Golan Heights strikes against Israel would mean they're on/against Syria, which just doesn't make sense. GH is de facto Israeli territory. ~50% of the population of the Golan are Israeli Jewish settlers. Any strike on the Golan is targeting Israeli infrastructure and thus is a strike on israel. Same thing for West Bank. It's targetting Israeli infrastructure even if the territory is not recognised as Israeli territory. Also strikes hitting Iraq/Jordan as Halfadaniel pointed out were strays and were still targetted onto Israel. For example, during the Russo-Ukrainian war missiles reached Poland. That doesn't mean Russia launched missiles against Poland TianHao1225 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only missiles that landed landed at the Nevatim airbase in the Negev desert... This is undisputed Israeli territory.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/15/israel-ballistic-missiles-iran-military-bases-nevatim-negev/ Tennisist123 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion was moving "Strikes" to "strikes", rather than to "strike", I believe? I mention this because there may be further strikes by Iran on Israel later in the year, and it's not clear whether this article would include those, or if they would get their own articles. I think clearest would be to include the full date, so this article is specifically about the missile and drone attack on the one day, which I think would be 14 April 2024 (starting in the early morning hours local time). Warren Dew (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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]

@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]
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]
  • Strong support 2 (on), support 3 (against). 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. "On" reads better to a native English-speaker. Holy (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support “on”, and oppose “in” or “against”. “In” does not make sense in this situation, and “against” is a bias tone and therefore is not neutral. Antny08 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for "against" or "on". Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "on" or "against", oppose "in" as I think it makes things very unclear as to whether attacks took place in or outside of Israeli territory. Halfadaniel (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3, The current title makes the most sense, however a different title using that from #1 could be used as “2024 Iranian Drone Attacks in Israel” would make more sense Republic of Selmaria (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "in", opposed "on"/"against". Precisely the strike was against three discrete military bases that were directly engaged in the bombing of the Damascus consulate. "2024 Iranian strike on Israeli military bases" is a bit much though, and this title "in" makes it clear that it was in Israeli-controlled territory, including occupied Golon Heights. Would also support "2024 Iranian retalition for Israeli consulate-strike" or something similar because of added precision. "On" or "against" seems to vaugely imply to me a greater attack on Israel as a whole, rather than a targetted operation. Jdftba (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "on" or "against". The word "in" is misleading - only some of the missiles went into Israeli airspace, and it suggests that the attacks were launched from within Israel. – Asarlaí (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "against" or "on", as in does not take height for the fact that some of the strikes were in the occupied Palestinian/Syrian territory, not just Israel. Luna Wagner (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "on" More accurate and consistent with 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran. Keivan.fTalk 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOYEAR

[edit]

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]
Support As per above, I can't think of any other Iranian strikes that would require year specification, so NOYEAR applies here. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I 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. The year also allows readers to find the article more easily. Ecrusized (talk) 09:30, 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]
Oppose. Far too generic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a conflict that has been ongoing since the Iranian Revolution and includes numerous attacks and conflicts (people rightfully bring up the 2006 Hezbollah raid as an example). If there was some positive identifier of "direct" strikes, rather than proxy strikes, maybe this would work but I don't like that title either for other reasons. Halfadaniel (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a unique event. If another one happens, it might be right to change.Galamore (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just find it vague. Having it there causes no harm anyways. Not to mention that removing it would break the consistency with 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran. Keivan.fTalk 13:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other titles

[edit]

Iranian attack on Israel

[edit]

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]
Comment The appropriate title was 2024 Iranian strikes on Israel, the page has been repeatedly moved without discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 21:23, 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]
Support This was a direct attack by Iran on Israel, something which happened for the first time in history. It will likely be remembered as such for many years. I disagree with Christophervincent01's argument that this was a retaliation, and therefore not an attack. Most western officials consent that this was a disproportionate response by attack for the bombing of its embassy. Israel did not directly attack Iran, but Iran did directly attack Israel. Ecrusized (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most western officials are diplomatically allied with Israel and hostile to Iran, so it's not surprising that they would blame Iran here. Whether Israel bombing the embassy constituted a direct attack or not is disputed, and a position shouldn't be taken in the title in one way or another. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a step up the escalatory ladder, but that's not what we're here to discuss. Did Iran attack Israel? Yes. Ecrusized (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was literally replying to the arguments you made, so I am confused about why you say that's not what we're here to discuss. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The title is descriptive. If we are to elaborate in the title based on our opinion; then it may just as well be called: Iranian retaliatory response against Israel. Or Iranian defence against Israeli aggression. Let's not do that. ~~~~ Xullius (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think this one is the best. The three proposed titles with different prepositions are better. I like "on" or "against", although "against" is slightly better.
Waterard water?(talk | contribs) 00:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation True Promise

[edit]

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]

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.

The article [6] doesn't say 84% of munitions were intercepted

[edit]

it says 84% of the ballistic missiles were intercepted and all but one drone and no cruise missiles hit their target, please change it

Edit request 21 April 2024

[edit]

Description of suggested change: Remove the "1 C-130 transport aircraft damaged" from the infobox

Diff:

−
* 1 [[Lockheed C-130 Hercules|C-130]] transport aircraft damaged ‹›ref name="ABC-2024a" /‹›
+

The cited source has been refuted [1]. 47.148.126.19 (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * it has begun... 22:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Insufficient evidence for the preemptive closing of airspaces

[edit]

This article currently claims twice that multiple countries (Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Kuwait, and Israel) closed their airspace before the attack and notably in anticipation of the attack. I'm not convinced this is actually the case.

First off, it is widely claimed that the attack happened at 20:00 GMT on the 13th[1] although Wikipedia itself only claims "around midnight". The source for Lebanon[2] however was posted at 00:15 GMT on the 14th and claims that the airspace would be closed from 01:00 GMT to 07:00 GMT on the 14th. This seems like a fairly clear case of Lebanon closing their airspace after the attacks already began rather than as a preemptive measure.

There are also articles around the time of the attack that claim countries like Iraq[3] closed their airspace in response to the attacks rather than preemptively.

I couldn't find any reliable sources[4] for it in this specific case but GPS jamming prior to the attack would explain the borderline cases and it has been used as a tactic in this conflict zone.[5] Specifically this also covers the far stronger references to air force high alert from Egypt and Syria as reactive rather than preemptive.

So with that said I'd propose removing references to preemptive language in the two places it currently exists: "To prepare for the attack" and "Several countries in the Middle East[note 3] closed their airspace a few hours before Iran launched a standoff attack against Israel around midnight on 13 April."

  1. ^ https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/14/iran-attacks-israel-with-over-300-drones-missiles-what-you-need-to-know
  2. ^ https://www.mtv.com.lb/en/news/local/1438394/lebanon-closes-its-airspace-to-all-aircraft
  3. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/iraq-says-it-is-closing-its-airspace-as-iran-launches-attack-on-israel/
  4. ^ https://aviationsourcenews.com/incident/jordan-to-temporarily-close-airspace-to-all-flights/
  5. ^ https://www.npr.org/2024/04/22/1245847903/israel-gps-spoofing

Null Reject (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

I suggest redirecting the article to the April 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel, considering that another Iranian strike against Israel is imminent. Alhanuty (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If another set of strikes do actually happen, the title of this article will quickly be changed, but right now any title change just from a "presumed" strike is purely WP:CRYSTALBALL. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the missiles move, the title moves. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Iranian_strikes_against_Israel&oldid=1239436497"