Talk:April 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Strength

add Iron Dome on Israëls strength side cuz that's what their using to counter them Basedenverist on tiktok (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-Houthi involvement not supported by ref

This sentence has been added a few times to the article: "Hezbollah and Iranian-backed groups in Iraq, Syria and Yemen also launched rockets towards Israel." [1]

However, looking at the context, it is clear that it's in reference to the broader Hamas-Israel war (not this particular drone strike).

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"No casualties have been reported"

Last line in the April 14th paragraph makes that claim but there are reports that a 10 year old Bedouin boy was injured https://twitter.com/i24NEWS_EN/status/1779286755855757674 2A01:73C0:501:DAC:0:0:C22:56C3 (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

It's already in the article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 April 2024

Request to change refs to resolve the on Biden's quote calling "the intercepted attacks a win".

Proposed change:

Biden called the intercepted attacks a win for Israel.<ref>https://nypost.com/2024/04/14/world-news/biden-tells-netanyahu-us-will-not-engage-in-offensive-against-iran-calls-saturday-a-win-for-israel-report/</ref>{{bsn}}

and

<ref>{{Cite news |title=Scoop: Biden told Bibi U.S. won't support an Israeli counterattack on Iran|url=https://www.axios.com/2024/04/14/biden-netanyahu-iran-israel-us-wont-support|access-date=14 April 2024 |website=Axios}}</ref>

to:

Biden called the intercepted attacks a win for Israel.<ref name="Axios U.S. won't support">{{Cite news |title=Scoop: Biden told Bibi U.S. won't support an Israeli counterattack on Iran|url=https://www.axios.com/2024/04/14/biden-netanyahu-iran-israel-us-wont-support|access-date=14 April 2024 |website=Axios}}</ref>

and

<ref name="Axios U.S. won't support"></ref>

This resolves the {{bsn}} by using a ref that already exists in the article, from a [reliable source].

Thanks & feedback appreciated. NicheRef (talk) 07:08, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, the citation was duplicated but I changed it to a named cite. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Consulate NOT Embassy

WP:ECR ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The citation given even states consulate NOT embassy - change to be accurate. 2600:1700:4410:9460:B4B8:1BAD:25C4:7362 (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC) The consulate is located in the embassy compound in Damascus. This has been made clear on the article of the Israeli airstrike. Linkin Prankster (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC) That is still not the embassy - your own citation states consulate and so then too should the article - nothing needs to be made clear when the appropriate language (again your own citation uses it) is used 2600:1700:4410:9460:B4B8:1BAD:25C4:7362 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Why *in* and not *against*?

Don't understand it 84.110.218.178 (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Scroll up to Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel#Requested move 14 April 2024 to see the discussion about fixing that. Boud (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 14 April 2024

Description of suggested change: "Prime MInister" -> "Prime Minister" when referring to Justin Trudeau under "Other Countries". Just a small copyedit request.

Diff:

−

Prime MInister

+

Prime Minister

Rovenrat (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 12:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Archive link

Resolved

For some reason, an archive link was not added to the talk page template. Anyone able to fix?

• Talk:2024 Iranian strikes against Israel/Archive 1

---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Fixed. Error was due to a page move that wasn't reflected in the archives page. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, marking as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

 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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

Support speedy move per MOS:MILTERMS and WP:MILNAME. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 21:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Support speedy move: completely uncontroversial BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

---

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)

Also, shouldn't it be "on", not "in"? Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Support speedy move although the page already exists as a redirect to this article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is left up to technical requests. Lukt64 (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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)

Support speedy move to revert back to the proper, correct version with the lower case. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

What would be the correct title for the other two pages mentioned above? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Support speedy move: completely uncontroversial BappleBusiness^[talk] 21:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Add commanders and leaders in lists

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Appears to be fixed already, thanks a lot! Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Unless a source says they have, they will not be added. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Please provide URL links to your sources SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

The US one was linked twice. Is France also involved? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Oh shit. Well, guess we go in the list of supporters now... Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Units involved

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

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)

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

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)

The first attacks have hit

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

Your file doesn't work, but yes wait for a source. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yes, but for now wait for a reliable source to report. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

We should wait as that is considered just a WP:primary source. --Z 23:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There's the Guardian source form a few minutes ago. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

They are not the targets of the attacks, so not sure if they would be full belligerents. --Z 23:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Do you have a source for that? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

WP:CRYSTAL is always controlling. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Forgot to log in when I made this, fuck. BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, thanks anyway BurnerAcountOneThousandAndOne (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You can get it oversighted. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 04:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

They have reached Israel. Air raids sirens in Tel Aviv right now PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 22:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

Probably, but that hasn't happened yet so let's not speculate. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

You cannot just upload random images you find. You need the copyright permission PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 22:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the picture file Lukt64 (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iranian_drone_shot_down.jpg PalauanLibertarian^🗣️ 22:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Be for real, who is gonna copyright strike wikipedia? Lukt64 (talk) 23:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

References

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Not every statement from every country from every institution needs to be covered. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

? 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)

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)

 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

The recent escalation of Israel Hezbollah came as a spillover of Israel Hamas war M Waleed (talk) 12:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Yes, closing your airspace is just a routine thing and isn't actual involvement. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The reference I added[2] states that Jordan has opened its air space to Israel to allow shooting down the oncoming drones. --Z 23:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Just say "Jew" if that is what you mean. 185.182.71.28 (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I second that Bedouin isn’t relevant here and should be removed Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

It is an ethnic conflict. 2A01:36D:118:88AA:1856:C49:DC3E:75E3 (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not an ethnic conflict at all? Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. [9] 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)

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

Criticisim by "world leaders"

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

Merge with Israeli bombing of the embassy?

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

No, these are two separate events. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

casualties

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

What's the link of the source? Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 14:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/iraninarabic_ir/status/1779460518954127548?t=VeLNxtKPDdYlcT6rucEwRg&s=19 Mamen67 (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw that is per iran Mamen67 (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

One injured or two injured?

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

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

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)

Thank you. Updated the article. Crampcomes (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Here's another source explaining the mixup.

https://edition.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-13-24/h_e628a16a8fdec64b8b8593ea2ac09f6d David O. Johnson (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it, it's been changed by now. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

References

"Name" section

In the "Name" section: in the absence of other sources doing so, is it synthesis for us to list a few previous incidents of al-wa'ad al-sadiq connected to Hezbollah/Iran and then come to the conclusion that this is a name carrying a symbolic undertone for the Axis of Resistance? Please discuss. Arabic and Persian speakers especially welcome. Thanks SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, coming to the conclusion that it carries an undertone is WP:OR if that undertone isn't described in the sources. Listing other incidents sharing the same name might already be OR, but coming to conclusions about any symbolic undertones definitely is. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

If you provide a source it will be added. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what source 96.60.168.239 has, but the US Naval Institute is reporting Navy involvement, but not from the USS Eisenhower. --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 03:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge 2024 Iran–Israel conflict

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Not merged. WP:SNOW Ecrusized (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

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)

The ship thing was a petty response to Israel, sources say. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support this is a duplicate, and the ship incident can be covered in the background section. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Have striked my opinion based on this comment, which is a very good point. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose per Eladkarmel, Altorespite, and Jamedeus. --Bill3602 (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• Oppose per reasons given by Jamedeus.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 00:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• Oppose Let's wait for now. ~ HAL333 01:53, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - This attack is very notable, as it is Iran's first direct attack of Israel without using its proxy. We should wait and see if there are any further developments:PatrickChiao (talk)

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.

Ammo used is not eqipment losses

It is a misuse of the Template:Infobox military conflict's "casualties" parameter which covers casualties and equipment losses to include cost of ammunition. Injecting an original interpretation (see WP:OR) of cost of ammunition as equipment losses to imply that Israel has suffered worse "losses" makes the whole article highly non-credible. I have removed this from the infobox. —Alalch E. 13:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Reason for censors

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Iranian_strikes_in_Israel&diff=prev&oldid=1219001614&title=2024_Iranian_strikes_in_Israel&diffonly=1 Baratiiman (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The words you inserted did not appear to be in the articles when I ran a translation into it. Not the first time you’ve been flagged for such items in addition to your incoherency in making sentences, which other editors have raised in your talk page and raises doubt on the veracity of whatever information you add on the grounds of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Borgenland (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

To be specific, you made false assertions of Iran threatening to make more direct attacks on Israel based on clickbait headlining when the source specifically failed to mention the word direct throughout the article and falsely conflated support for Israel as anti-regime sentiment when nothing was mentioned. Borgenland (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's any consolation to you, I have been charitable enough to make your grammatically challenged paragraph readable to the rest of the community. But I will not hesitate to revert future insertions if they do not fit the standards expected of this encyclopedia whether in terms of veracity or readability. Borgenland (talk) 07:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: you misinterpreted this article [[11]] to make it appear like a newspaper was shut down by the Iranian government when the only thing mentioned was a criminal investigation had been opened. No wonder your edits get reverted but the fact that this happened again raises suspicions on whether you are deliberately manipulating sources for some POV. Borgenland (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Adding map in infobox

Infographic of Iranian strikes on Israel

Should this be added in the infobox? It's already in the article. M Waleed (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Added. It is a good visualization. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's a bad representation, especially since it's showing missiles being launched at Israel from Yemen in areas which are not even controlled by the Yemeni AnsarAllah/Houthi movement and shows Yemen as being entirely controlled. Also why are the UAE and Kuwait greyed out? RamHez (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Its a map by Israeli government and the areas of Yemen shown are not directly controlled but have Houthi presence,.you can see a BBC visualisation of that I can provide the link if you want to M Waleed (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-68395173

For example this one M Waleed (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

For UAE and Kuwait, I don't know but that's how Israeli government showed, I guess they aren't notable enough that might be the reason M Waleed (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@M Waleed Is this definitely from the Israeli government? I'm not finding this image anywhere besides on Wikimedia & don't see a direct link to the government source on The Commons page. Can you provide it? Thanks! Referencer12 (talk) 16:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Here are multiple X sources reporting it as being released by Israel

• https://twitter.com/theinformant_x/status/1779608788367999277
• https://twitter.com/IsraelWarRoom/status/1779587047654563966
• https://twitter.com/L_Team10/status/1779590221731901690
• https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1779605688315982101

M Waleed (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The second and third links you provide reveal that this map is "for illustrative purposes only". SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated this image for deletion on copyright grounds now, so you might want to pick a different image. I doubt this would pass WP:NFCC either (since it's replaceable). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 16:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what is the dashed line that extends to the east of Israel over Jordan? If it is something like the range of defense systems, it may be useful information to mention in the article if the line is still present in the replacement image. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a suitable replacement image , there's one by WSJ and some others but they don't show the pathway of the attack only beligrents and direction of the swarm unlike this which shows the direction of all projectiles M Waleed (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The lines on this map are not the actual paths taken by the projectiles. This image is only for illustrative purposes, see bottom right corner of full image: 1 2. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I was actually referring to the dashed line that makes an arc from the northeastern to southeastern tip of Israel over Jordan. The meaning of this line is not made apparent in the image, though I would not be surprised if it has something to do with defense systems. - ZLEA _T\^C 07:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Non neutral map, it shows all the occupied territories as part of Israel. Gaza, WB and GH. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's non neutral as it's released by IDF M Waleed (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why that justifies having a non-neutral map, especially one made by one of the involved belligerents. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I've written the IDF as to the copyright status of the infographic and whether it is, in the English sense of the term, illustrative. (I did not inquire about the nominal placements of the launch sites.) The timestamp is 22:00, and it's the last in the series. https://www.idf.il/en/mini-sites/the-iranian-attack-real-time-updates/ (P.S. It's not protected by copyright, as per https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%94_%D7%94%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C_(2024)#/media/%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A5:Infographic_released_by_Israeli_government_of_Iranian_strikes_on_Israel.jpg)kencf0618 (talk)

• Remove from article. Bad map. A rough and abstracted illustration of Israel being attacked from various directions. But it looks like a map that could be accurate; however, the information carried to the viewer is wrong. The depicted firing positions and trajectories are not real, and the territory control of attackers is not real either, it's completely abstracted. Having nothing is better.—Alalch E. 14:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Analysis/reaction

"Iran attack shows Israeli deterrence policy ‘shattered’, Netanyahu critics say" [12] [13] [14]

Surely this should be prominent in both the Reaction and Analysis sections. To be fair, I don't see this in analyses from RS (although I haven't done a proper search) although the Guardian article refers to analysts. Personally this seems to have been Iran's goal with the operation (rather than causing casualties), and should be taken into consideration when evaluating its success/failure. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

pinging @Susmuffin, ZxxZxxZ, and Pristino: as they've contributed the most characters Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not analysis, it's a reaction of an opposition leader. —Alalch E. 14:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Well then it should certainly be in reaction section. The Guardian article says analysts have come to the same conclusion. Surely this warrants its inclusion in the analysis section. I’m sure there are RS that include it their analyses but I don’t know where to look. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The analysis is incredibly biased at the moment (mainly with the position of certain points) Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The Guardian article does have some analysis actually. Especially about how the attack was choreographed, and how the outcome might have been different if it had been a surprise attack. —Alalch E. 16:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I shouldn't have edited whilst we were talking, if you're able to add to/edit my entry into Analysis section, I'd really appreciate it, although I'm happy to do it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, I'm very pro-editing while talking. I agree with your addition. I think that the link to Nuclear weapons and Israel#Doctrine isn't correct because the source is not specific about nuclear deterrence when discussing deterrence, it's about deterrence in general. —Alalch E. 16:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah probably just link to deterrence theory. It's a common critique that nuclear deterrent can't deal with salami slicing tactics, which is what this attack and proxy attacks look like, but yeah I haven't seen anyone talk about nuclear deterrent specifically. Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

See here. Not only Israel has lost deterrence, but it is Iran who is deterring Israel from making further actions. That is unless Israel will retaliate stronger. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that probably deserves inclusion followed by the Guardian entry in a/the second paragraph after the Economist analysis as it is more 'big picture' Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

So there’s a summary of that article which the Guardian entry reinforces Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Summarization proposal

• @Arkon: you made this revert and wrote in the edit summary that "This looks like too much, smaller bites on the talk page please?" How do you want the text to be summarized? Ghazaalch (talk) 04:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Iron Shield

Hello WeatherWriter. There's more support for "Iron Shield" than "Operation Iron Shield" in the sources.

• Secondary source
• Official announcement

I propose that we change it back to "Iron Shield".

References

—Alalch E. 14:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

In the Yahoo News agency piece (from UPI), the sequence of words "Operation Iron Shield" exists but the sentence starts with the word "Operation", and it should be read as "Operation 'Iron Shield'" because when the source refers to the operation in its own voice it says "IDF's "Iron Shield" defense strategy". Not "IDF's "Operation Iron Shield" defense strategy". —Alalch E. 14:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sources for "Operation Iron Shield":

• IDF public statement

Secondary Sources:

• [15]
• [16] — Quote from IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Herzi “"Operation Iron Shield proved the strength of our iron-clad cooperation. I want to thank all our international partners who stood up to Iran's aggression," he said, adding that the attack had "created new opportunities for cooperation" in the Middle East.”

I would also argue the official IDF tweet statement that says “Iron Shield”- the official name of the interception and thwarting operation”. It was an operation and sources, even IDF, describe it with “operation” before “Iron Shield” or “operation” after “Iron Shield”. Weird situation, but sources, even IDF conflict on it. Let’s wait for others to chime in about it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't take the first source listed seriously (5townscentral.com). Not saying it's an unreliable source as an outlet but the published web content is obviously not a piece of journalistic work and is just sharing a video. The other source does not say "Operation Iron Shield" in own voice, it conveys a quote which starts with the words "Operation Iron Shield", but it should be read as "Operation 'Iron Shield'" as I have explained above where the same quote is carried by UPI which uses "Iron Shield" in own voice. The word "Operation" is capitalized because the sentence starts with it. It isn't a part of the proper name. Not saying that "Operation Iron Shield" is totally wrong, but on balance, there is more support for "Iron Shield.—Alalch E. 14:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• @Ecrusized: If you could drop your thoughts here, it would be much appreciated. Reason for the ping was that in this large removal edit (16k+ bytes), you removed the Israeli operation name from the infobox title, which was added and not challenged prior to that removal. The only thing in challenge was whether it was “Operation Iron Shield” or just “Iron Shield”. Either way, it would be nice if you could re-add it (as a self-reversion) if it was an accidental removal or drop your thoughts in this discussion about why it was removed without discussion. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what I've reverted there, I've restored an old revision by Alalch E. since users agreed to have the military operation infobox instead of the military conflict one, and that old revision included it. You can revert parts of by changes without problem. I'm pretty sure this shouldn't be 1RR or other policy wise problem given my consent. Ecrusized (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Gotcha! Given the large edit, I was thinking it was probably an error, but with CTOPS, it is always best to check. Thanks for clarifying that! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

WeatherWriter: I'm going to change to "Iron Shield" because I've demonstrated already above that there is stronger support for "Iron Shield", and on balance, weighing sources for how well they fare as reliable sources, there is more support for "Iron Shield". This has been sufficiently discussed between you and me and every little point of disagreement doesn't need to involve a whole group of editors. Any comment? Cheers—Alalch E. 10:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"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)

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)

• There are significant problems with such info. The expenses on the Iranian sides - who made this estimate, and how it was obtained? The cited sources do not say it. Such estimate would be very difficult to make because Iran does no by these weapons on markets, it developed them. No one knows the costs of such development for Iran. On the Israel side - this is obviously an incorrect info because at least half of the drones and missiles were shot down not by Israel, but by USA (e.g. [17]). In fact, almost all drones were shot down outside of Israel. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. This content was really bad. See also #Ammo used is not eqipment losses. —Alalch E. 13:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This is also a doubtful approach what to count. Consider large missiles hitting a number of apartment buildings with people like in Ukraine. That was prevented. My very best wishes (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 18 April 2024

Description of suggested change: Please change the sentence in the Background section where it says that the Aest will retaliate as none of the sources provided said so, only that the West warned Iran.

Diff:

−

In the weeks following the attack on the consulate, the United States, France, Germany and the United Kingdom all warned Iran not to attack Israel, stating that such an attack would be a major escalation and could lead to a military response by the West against Iran.

+

In the weeks following the attack on the consulate, the United States, France, Germany and the United Kingdom all warned Iran not to attack Israel.

Svenurban (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done After reviewing the citations I agree that this is unverified and likely WP:OR. I have removed this claim, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Both Embassy & Consulate are protected - fence is irrelevant

Description of suggested change: Under Background, r.e. disagreement over whether the compound was part of the embassy compound or not is irrelevant as both embassies and consulates are protected under the same Vienna conventions. The text should be either removed or changed to reflect this fact.

Diff:

−

ORIGINAL_TEXT

+

CHANGED_TEXT

Jdftba (talk) 06:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Iran reported the building was part of the embassy compound, while Israel maintained it was a building used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and located outside the fenced compound of the embassy.[47][48]

Iran reported the building was part of the embassy compound, while Israel maintained it was a building used by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and located outside the fenced compound of the embassy.[47][48] Both embassies and consulates are protected under the Vienna convention and attacking either is considered a serious breach of international law.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template.

There seems to be a lot of debate about this at the moment. My limited understanding is that the Vienna conventions only apply to the host country (in this case Syria) and not to third parties like Israel. Jamedeus (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 18 April 2024

Description of suggested change: Remove the ethnicity of the wounded child. An archived discussion has concluded that the ethnicity of the wounded kid shouldn't be mentioned in the article, and this change was reverted.

Diff:

−

1 Israeli Bedouin child critically injured by shrapnel

+

1 Israeli child critically injured by shrapnel

Iyzn127 (talk) 20:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I reviewed the talk discussion and there seems to be consensus that this is not relevant. I have removed it again, thanks. Jamedeus (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The "Iranian public" reaction section

I've done some basic editing to this section (or sub-section) to try to restore a bit of NPOV, noting that we're simply relaying what the Economist has published, but there's still a significant underlying problem with this section relying far too heavily on this one single Economist article. I don't doubt that some people in Iran have opposed or mocked their government's actions, but we don't really know if this is a majority of the Iranian people, a large minority, or a small minority. So ultimately more sources are needed to flesh out the extent to which Iranians opposed or supported their government's actions this past weekend. -Helvetica (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I tried to solve the problem by summarizing the contents.Ghazaalch (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. That article should have made more concrete examples rather than just speculate. Borgenland (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

User:האופה, I reverted the controversial content and ask you to build consensus here first if you insist on restoring the content.Ghazaalch (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

The template clearly states: "For operations that resulted in combat, it can be used as an auxiliary template to the (infobox military conflict)." There was clearly combat.. so why was this changed instead of added? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You are totally right. The original infobox should be restored HaOfa (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think so too. The original infobox obviously provided more information. BlackShadowG (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, I would think that infobox military conflict would be for something considered a "battle" or more of a direct conflict, and something where the focal point is on the conflict rather than the launching of the conflict, where in this case it is primarily the operation (True Promise) that is highlighted rather than the defensive maneuvers of the US and Israel to shoot down the projectiles. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia says the criteria on which template to use is whether there was combat; and there was undeniably combat between the missiles and drones on one hand, and a coalition of air forces and navies on another hand. What exactly are you disagreeing about and based on what? Makeandtoss (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm saying that if this article's main subject was the the actual deterrence of the strikes on Israel rather than the strikes themselves the military conflict infobox would be fine, but since this is primarily about Iran's launching of the strikes (thus an operation) infobox military operation should be used. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not; it's clearly about both as there is mention of the air defenses. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Makeandtoss and @האופה. The original infobox had much more relevant info. Considering that the article addresses two primary operations, both the Iranian attacks and the air defense campaign, both should be represented in the infobox. Galamore (talk) 08:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Request to administrator to resolve WP:TALKFORK

I am requesting that this section be closed because it duplicates the ongoing RfC: #RfC "Result"; see in particular the section #Alternative / supplemental proposal—Alalch E. 09:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 18 April 2024

Information that was distributed on Twitter by dubious accounts was simply inserted into this article and described as fact.

1: “Dimona was struck by Iran” is shoddy. Included is a gif in NIR (Near Infrared) to show the built up of the area in question over the last month.

2: The untrue claim that Israel claims a C-130 was damaged is ridiculous: https://twitter.com/manniefabian/status/1779943849244123626 Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

This WP:RS says that a C-130 was damaged. Obankston (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It is simply wrong to say that Israel claimed it when they do the exact opposite: (https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-contrary-to-report-no-cargo-plane-was-damaged-in-iranian-attack-on-nevatim-airbase/) Mgfdhsrhe (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Separate article for retaliatory strikes

News has come in that Israel recently launched their expected retaliation against Iran's retaliation. This was initially added as a section of this article but I split it off into a new article at least for now. Should this remain so or should that be a section of this article? Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Good work! Indeed, this should be a separate page. Hence, [18]. My very best wishes (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see Special:Diff/1219728467 with the edit summary of restore, this is brief enough per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and israel vowing to retailate, to delay the rafah offensive, meeting of the war cabinet, and Netanyahu's statements are all the aftermath of this event and are vital facts in this article. In other words, what you did not remove leaves too little for a reader of this article. —Alalch E. 13:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Unilateral reformatting of the lead

@Galamore: Hi, per MOS:REFERS "for topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence". I tried to edit the lead so it conveys the most notable and interesting portions on the top. My edits were followed by modifications by User:Makeandtoss [19][20][21] and etc. But you simply undid the changes. The edit summary you used ("We can't use the Iranian operation name as the name of this article, this is a violation of NPOV") does not seem to be true. I mean what NPOV issue do you think it creates? --Mhhossein ^talk 20:11, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

This is not so much an issue of POV as an issue of style. Such opening (your version) would be appropriate if the title of this page was Operation True Promise. But it is not. The title is the "2024 Iranian strikes in Israel". Hence, the previous (consensus) version of the first phrase was better. Yes, we can say in the lead it was an Iranian code name of the operation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

source not mentioning wikipedia claim

in the damage section its written that there is damage to the dimona nuclear centre and the source [6] doesnt mention the dimona nuclear center or the city of dimona itself Kwangila (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it was allegedly a target, but there is no info it was damaged. Moreover, I am not sure that source [6] qualify as RS. The information about damage was widely reported in secondary English language RS, and we should use them. My very best wishes (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

POV pushing

@פעמי-עליון: Please self-revert your repeated insertion of contested material that does not accurately reflect the body nor RS [22]. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I’ve removed the sentence since the information we are trying to convey is already there two sentences later in a less confusing form; you’re right that it’s inaccurate (although I wouldn’t classify it as POV pushing, unless there is context outside that single edit), but they’re right that it sounds like the coalition joined the Iranian attacks. BilledMammal (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand how is this POV pushing blame assumes good faith. The sentence "A coalition of several countries joined the operation" sounds like they joined the one who launched the operation while they actually joined Israel to defende itself. No need for such serious blame only because my word choice wasn't ideal.

Is "A coalition of several countries helped Israel shooting down the incoming projectiles" better? פעמי-עליון (pʿmy-ʿlywn) - talk 14:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reaction in South America

Can somebody add the following to international reactions: In referrence to the attacks Chilean chancellor Alberto van Klaveren condemned the escalation of violence in the Middle East and condemned the use of force, whie remining of Chile's concern for civilian lifes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guayuru (talk • contribs) 10:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How is it an overstatement? 99% of their missiles were shot down. Ecrusized (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

> what was irans goal

Well we don't know, and it's not for us to determine, we defer to RSes. But I can think of a number of goals that were completely or partially met:

• force Isreal to spend $1 billion on interceptions
• prove they have the capability to perform this level of attack
• overwhelm Israel's air defences
• damage a small number of Israeli air bases
• etc

Because we don't know Iran's goal we need to remove this section of the info box. Timtjtim (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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[23]. "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)

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)

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)

Victory claimed by both sides/Inconclusive it was a big victory for Iran in the sense that it set a new precedent without provoking escalation, basically salami tactics. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

All are misleading as clearly not only Iran and Israel were involved; keep as is. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The appropraite result should be succeseful defence of Israel from aerial projectiles. The issue is ongoing and very much dynamic. Hashanda (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No it isn’t, this operation is completed. You’ve wrongly assessed Iran’s goals. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Omit the parameter/Inconclusive, per the template guidelines. No clear operational goals here: just a medley of competing propaganda. Tactical/strategic outcome has not at this point been discussed in depth by academically published subject-matter expert sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Do not omit the parameter. This is based on what is claimed by both sides, which is legitimate. It’s not impossible. - FellowMellow (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the omission option. The event is too dynamic and opinions are divergent. Some say Israel thwarted the projectiles while some others say Iran exercised its power. Why should the infobox necessarily be deterministic on this matter? --Mhhossein ^talk 22:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Omit the parameter for now. The precise extent of the attack is not fully known yet. Israel has now admitted that at least 9 missiles did hit targets, which is significantly more than the "99% interception rate" that was initially claimed. Even if can be said that Israel or Iran took an operational victory, it's unclear whether this represents a "political victory", which is likely the much larger consequence (for an example of an article like this, see Tet Offensive), and is only going to be revealed as time goes on. Jokojis (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Omit the Parameter Specifically regarding labeling this as a "failure", that would require operational goals. Even if Israel intercepted 100% of Iran's drones and missiles, it cannot be labeled a "success" or "failure" without listing Iran's operational goals, and whether they failed them? From what I understand, Iran's goal was to attack Israel, without a specific objective of killing particular people or destroying particular buildings. Based on this, how can someone say it was a failure? For the same reason, it cannot be labeled a "success" or "victory", either. For comparison, look at May 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrikes, where that article also doesn't refer to airstrikes as successful or failure.-JasonMacker (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment Do not omit the parameter. This is based on what is claimed by both sides, which is legitimate. - FellowMellow (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not what the info box guidance says though. Do you have a good reason to disregard that guidance in this case that doesn't rely on propaganda (from either / both parties)? Timtjtim (talk) 13:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That’s not accurate. The main focus is both sides claimed victory. However, in bullet points, it also says what each of the sides said, which is important. I’m not sure why you would disregard that. - FellowMellow (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Omit the parameter, or link to a separate section per LuxembourgLover. It is premature in this situation to indicate the outcome of the situation with the basic terminology. Each outcome is problematic:

• Iranian failure: The purpose of the strike was primarily retaliatory, and retaliation occurred. If this was all what the attack purposed to be, then the fact that a majority of Iranian missiles failed to reach their targets is superseded by the outcome of the primary objective, which was to demand satisfaction. This would need to be elaborated in the article, but cannot be fit into a few words in an infobox.
• Iranian success: It is true that the strike did not significantly impact Israeli materiel, and the strike cannot be said to have succeeded in this aspect. Again, a few words in an infobox will not do.
• Israeli victory: The word "victory" is too strong to apply to Iron Dome defense systems, and implies more effort on Israel's part. In other words, I'm not sure that the standard operation of anti-air defense systems constitutes victory.

I don't believe we have to place the template "x victory/x failure" in all situations, especially when considering how unsure the future significance of this article is in the coming years. Speaking long-term, elaboration in the article is the best option. ‒overthrows 15:22, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 or 4, per sources. Saddam Hussein also claimed victory in the Gulf War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  That’s the most illogical reasoning I’ve heard. From a game theory perspective it can be seen as an Iranian ‘victory’ Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• C (Successful Israeli defense). 99% (or slightly less) of interception is an unusual success rate. How did they manage such number? This is not a miracle and was explained here (it says that over 100 Iranian ballistic missiles were simultaneously flying). The attack by Iran was very serious, with intention to inflict significant damage [24]; although some analysts argue it was also a reconnaissance by combat to probe the Israel defenses and adjust their tactics during the next and probably much bigger assault. Not "D" because this is merely a successful defense, not a victory. My very best wishes (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  It was to set a new precedent (direct attack on Israeli territory) without provoking further escalation. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So, they have made the unprecedented escalation to not provoke further escalation? This is hilarious. My very best wishes (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

An attack on an embassy is akin to an attack on that country's territory, it wasn't an escalation Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

So, shooting 170 drones, over 30 cruise missiles and more than 120 ballistic missiles in response to 6 missiles by Israel was not an escalation? My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Giving 5 hours warning to Israel's formidable air defence system and to allied air forces meant there was little likelihood of casualties, which was not the case in Israel's attack. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

That is not what analysts from ISW says on this subject. They say [25]: "The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.", etc. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "significant damage" is too ambiguous here. Damage to military bases would be different to civilian settlements imo, but I respect that analysis.

This [26] is what I think was closer to Iran's goal. The article says some analysts think along the same lines, and Lapid would've consulted analysts. We'll see whether less recent analyses warm to this point. Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, of course the "Israeli deterrence policy was shattered", as this and other sources are saying. How can they restore their deterrence? Only by making a much bigger retaliation strike in return. This is not de-escalation of anything. Basically, this attack by Iran was an open and de facto declaration of war; there is no deterrence after that. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

you're massively oversimplifying this, it's all pure game theory, each side simulates war games. Iran knew that this outcome couldn't be followed by a further escalation (without being a miscalculation on Israeli-American part). Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

see salami slicing tactics Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Except that the strike by Iran was not an example of the salami slicing/boiling frog tactics. Quite the opposite. It was bold, to say the least. "Iran knew that ...". ??? This is impossible to predict, but one can safely assume that any significant response by Israel would require a careful planning and time. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I am just saying what my impression is, I’m not an expert. I’ve seen sources say the US is expecting/urging Israel not to retaliate significantly, and I assume Iran understands why the US is doing that (adhering to realism here). Tbh I’m surprised the US isn’t jumping at the chance to drag Iran out somewhat legitimately, I can only assume it’s due to upcoming election and partisan fears or something I’m not aware of Alexanderkowal (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree the salami was cut quite thickly and it’s not a good example Alexanderkowal (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Change infobox type. See #Alternative / supplemental proposal.—Alalch E. 09:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Alternative / supplemental proposal

Should the infobox be changed from Template:Infobox military conflict to Template:Infobox military operation (see this revision for an illustration)?—Alalch E. 09:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. The correct infobox for this topic is the military operation infobox, because this was a military operation, and the contents of the article can be summarized better using that infobox.—Alalch E. 09:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes absolutely the correct one, this was an operation that was part of a conflict.

Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• No While this was indeed a military operation instead of a conflict, I like the military conflict infobox better since it includes Iran's proxies. As well as the countries that came to Israel's aid (US, UK, France and Jordan).
  Ecrusized (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Iranian proxies can be included and are included in the illustration linked above. They are the parties who launched the operation. The reader's question is: Whose operation? A listing of providers of defense assistance to Israel doesn't belong in an infobox (it belongs in the article's prose) in this article about the military operation, because those parties did not conduct the military operation. In addition, a list of all the military equipment used in a military operation in an infobox is silly stuff. Let's open our minds to the idea how weird it is to list all of the rockets, planes, et cetera used in a military operation in an infobox. Let's also quickly grasp the fact that listing twenty political figures of Israel, United States, UK, France, and Jordan is completely ridiculous clutter that is of zero usefulness to a reader who wants the most important facts about this topic immediately. That's what an infobox is for. For quick vital facts. Political leadership of France and Jordan are not quick facts, they are quick "WTF" prompts. Using the correct infobox for this topic fixes all this. —Alalch E. 10:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  @RadioactiveBoulevardier: I am notifying you of this section as an extension of our conversation on my talk page so that you have a chance to provide a substantive rationale for your edit which precipitated this section. Substantive rationale as in "using which infobox is better for the article". As you have made a significant edit with respect to the topic of the discussion but did so only in your capacity as an apparent content moderator of Wikipedia and someone who is telling editors to "Get consensus", I don't know your opinion in advance. Thanks.—Alalch E. 10:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes On the second thought, this does seem like a better design. Ecrusized (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, avoids the unclear "outcome" parameter and allows for a more nuanced and accurate presentation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes this is what the infobox should have been in the first place, and as such it is more fitting and avoids the "outcome" dispute. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 12:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes Comment. That was a single military operation, but the "military conflict" is also an acceptable template, and it may be even better for reasons stated by others below. My very best wishes (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

No did anyone read the military operation infobox? "For operations that resulted in combat, it can be used as an auxiliary template to the (infobox military conflict)." There was clearly combat.. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I read it. Can be used as an auxiliary template to the military conflict infobox when the military conflict infobox is used. When the military infobox is not used it can't be used as an auxiliary template because a template can't be an auxiliary template of a template which is not used. The documentation doesn't say "For operations that resulted in combat, you should not use primarily this template but should instead use the military conflict template; however you may add it as an auxiliary template to that template". That's the meaning that you're seeking, but that meaning is not the intended meaning. Some military operations result in combat, some don't. That is not determinative for which template to use. Consensus is determinative. MOS:INFOBOXUSE says The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article. The operation infobox is better for the above stated reasons and many editors agree about this. See an example of this infobox used in an article about a military operation involving Israel, which military operation involved combat: Operation Focus. —Alalch E. 22:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes (actually proposed it earlier). Oloddin (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes presents more information clearly and prevents the outcome discussion in addition to it being an operation. Yeoutie (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

No, it was a combat with two sides participating. As @Makeandtoss rightly shows below, "For operations that resulted in combat, it can be used as an auxiliary template to the (infobox military conflict)." The change happened too fast without this discussion reaching a conclusion and against Wikipedia policy. HaOfa (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a clear majority in favour of the change. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

and against Wikipedia policy I see you are a new editor so please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, WP:SNOW, which applies here. Ecrusized (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

That’s isn’t formal policy but yeah Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

• Yes. The nature of the event and the contents of the article are much better represented by the operation infobox. — Goszei (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, because it leaves out the countries that helped Israel thwarth the attack. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

  I do think there should be mention of this in the first paragraph of the lede Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not in the infobox, as is usually done? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it’s a downside of choosing the operation info box but on balance the operation one seems better/more suitable for reasons already stated Alexanderkowal (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, I'm with @Mikrobølgeovn on this one. Plus, let's not forget there were two operations involved: one Iranian and the other, led by Israel, Jordan, and Western forces. Using just one infobox that only shows the Iranian side seems biased. Let's revert to the original infobox; the vote's not done yet. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 07:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, let's not revert to the wrong infobox. This was an Iranian operation, the sources when they discuss the events discuss primarily the Iranian operation, the article as a whole is about the Iranian operation, the primary subject of the article is the Iranian operation. The actions of Israel, allies, and Jordan don't constitute a military operation in and of itself, it is not an independent undertaking issuing from Israel's agency, but is a set of defensive actions made necessary by the Iranian operation. There are three short paragraphs about the "Iron Shield", one of them one short sentence long. The Israeli operation does not even include all of the defensive actions of other countries. Therefore, understanding this from the lens of "two operations" is misleading, and does not summarize the article correctly. There is no problem of bias. —Alalch E. 09:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If we go by this sweeping definition, we would have to replace a ton of infoboxes, wiki-wide. What happened last week was essentially a battle, and there is no reason to give it special treatment. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's a battle, why doesn't the article say it's a battle? (It was not a battle.) —Alalch E. 21:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, the new infobox focuses too much on the Iranian attack and ignores the crucial counter-operation that involved so many countries and described as historic in many sources. The old infobox had all the right information, now it is just biased. Since the article talks about both the Iranian attacks and the air defense campaign, the infobox should include both. I don't see a real consensus above me so the original one should be restored. Galamore (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The old infobox was a joke. —Alalch E. 09:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus and it was changed perhaps quicker than in other articles due to the recency of the topic. In order to change to the conflict one I think there needs to be a clear consensus the other way. Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the reasoning for more immediacy on perceived improvements is because this article’s topic is receiving the peak of its attention/searches now and this is set to decline in future Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment @Galamore, ElLuzDelSur, and Mikrobølgeovn: there is a separate article on the 2024 Iran-Israel conflict, which this operation is/was a part of. This topic was not a conflict and shouldn't have the conflict info box. Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added 'IDF and allies' to infobox Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

with a page link to the section on the defence provided by allies Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why this fear of listing all the belligerents, as is normally done? This is really bizarre, to be honest. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 16:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a constructive comment, we’re making a binary choice. Both have downsides, the operation is on balance better for this article for reasons already stated. Alexanderkowal (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

No. {{Infobox military conflict}} clearly provides more information than {{Infobox military operation}}, such as the commanders on the Israeli side, Israel's allies, and the weapons used by both sides.(Special:Permalink/1219227919) We can't remove information just to use a more "appropriate" looking Infobox. BlackShadowG (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

See my comment above Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Choosing which infobox to use can never be construed as removing information from the article because all of the information in an infobox is already information included in the article. Choosing which infobox to use is precisely about which infobox is functionally more appropriate in terms of which information should be made visible in the infobox format, so it's truly about the more appropriate looking infobox. —Alalch E. 12:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

^'more appropriate seeming' Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes: Obviously an operation, not an entire conflict. Wrong original pick. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

No The infobox "military conflict" better suits the subject as it was a combat between two sides. If we only use the operation infobox it means this article is only on the Iranian attack, so we will have to create another article on the defense operation (Iron Shield). Better to use the military conflict infobox to cover the entire event instead, including the two operations.Eladkarmel (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

So should the 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran have the conflict info box as well? If you look above there was a lot of febrile discussion about who won this ‘conflict’ and the operation info box avoids that. Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The two strikes were as day and night. While the Israeli strike took place within minutes, hours passed between the start and end of the Iranian attack, during which it was opposed by a coalition of countries. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Taking a stroll down the arbitrary logic lane are we? How many minutes does a drone have to fly for for an operation to turn into a conflict then? I suggest we avoid such bizarre contortions and just stick with the normal common sense of a single, planned offensive = an operation, per normative military terminology and WP:COMMONSENSE. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about the Iranian operation - unless we intend to merge this article with the Israeli counter-attack. Marokwitz (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No - this is a military conflict involving two (or more) sides. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_operations_involving_Israel "" [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Israel_Defense_Forces_operations "" [4]: https://bing.com/search?q= ""

• Yes. This was an operation, not a full-scale conflict. In other words, it was an operation within a broader and older conflict. The 'military operation' infobox allows for a more precise representation, as seen in similar articles like Operation Focus and other military operations involving Israel. Also, I think concerns about bias and omission of key details can be addressed by careful curation of the infobox content, in line with WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE and WP:NPOV. The concerns that it leaves out countries aiding Israel can be mitigated by including those details within the military operation infobox. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

satellite imagery

You guys forgot about satellite imagery Mamad0303 (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Are you aware of imagery that complies with Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Identifying_usable_images? Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit request 21 April 2024

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 [27]. 47.148.126.19 (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 14 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 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)

---

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)

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: 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• Support "against", accept "on", oppose "in". Amyipdev (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• 3 because this is part of the Israel-Iran proxy conflict. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• "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)
• Support "against" or "on". Oppose "in". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

• Support "against" or "on". Oppose "in". Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Suppprt "against". Oppose in / on as it is not clear. SpringKay (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• Support 3, but also WP NO YEAR. --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support 3: "against". Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support 3: "against" per above. Spiderpig662 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Support "in" for consistency with previous attacks by Iran this year. See 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Iraq and Syria and 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan. Borgenland (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support "against" or "on", oppose "in", regardless of where the strikes landed they were against the entity of Israel and the geographic 'in' is probably unsuitable. MrBoy632 (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Support "on" as per the tranche above. This is geopolitical, no matter how many attempted strikes. Intent matters. kencf0618 (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
• Support for "against" or "on". Whether the Golan is occupied territory or part of Israel is a matter of disagreement. Claims that it is simply occupied territory rather than disputed territory is itself a non-neutral position. But the article should not implicitly endorse either way what the status of the Golan is. Against and on both avoid this issue. Note that the fact that some systems missed and hit outside what everyone agrees with as Israel is not a relevant consideration arguing for "against" since the intent was clear. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support "against" or "on", though I do prefer "against" more, but "on" is ok too. Using "in" sounds like the Iranian strikes were launched in Israel. Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 23:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  When I read this article's name for the first time, I was confused on why the preposition 'on' was used. 'On' or 'against' are better prepositions Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 00:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support "on" as most usual English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

  Support for "against" or "on." Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

• 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)
• Support for "against" or "on". Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Support for "on". "On" is better than "against" or "in" in my opinion. That School Editor 101 16:57, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose "in" as it might sound like Iranian people are performing a strike action for peace or government intervention.

• 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)

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)

Support "on" More accurate and consistent with 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran. Keivan.f^Talk 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Comment: Putting this as a subsection of the requested move discussion above. – robertsky (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Is there consensus at this point on NOYEAR? Amyipdev (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Oppose; year helps keep things in perspective. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Support, this is the only one. --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose No historic perspective and not enough context in the title without it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Far too generic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Support This is a unique event. If another one happens, it might be right to change.Galamore (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

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.f^Talk 13:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Support but this should probably be a move discussion Lukt64 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Because someone just forwarded the article without waiting for further opinions.Galamore (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

This is not true. Iran didn't strike Israel from its own terrority before.

(Source) SpringKay (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

Oppose The "assuming" is pure WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't have its place here. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose for reasons already stated. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Oppose, This is perfect, no need to change. Grabup (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, based on User talk:Christophervincent01's argument. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose User talk:Christophervincent01's argument seems sufficient to me. Kakurokuna (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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.

Insufficient evidence for the preemptive closing of airspaces

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 although Wikipedia itself only claims "around midnight". The source for Lebanon 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 closed their airspace in response to the attacks rather than preemptively.

I couldn't find any reliable sources 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. 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."

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

Redirect

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)

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)

When the missiles move, the title moves. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I would also support this now, since it seems like Iran has just launched strikes at Israel again (October 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel). Procyon117 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 1 October 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: page moved. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

---

2024 Iranian strikes against Israel → April 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel – Well, there's been two attacks this year. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Procyon117 (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Jbbdude (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment - It seems Fuzheado has already moved the article. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.