Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Requested move 14 April 2024

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

The previous discussion was moving "Strikes" to "strikes", rather than to "strike", I believe? I mention this because there may be further strikes by Iran on Israel later in the year, and it's not clear whether this article would include those, or if they would get their own articles. I think clearest would be to include the full date, so this article is specifically about the missile and drone attack on the one day, which I think would be 14 April 2024 (starting in the early morning hours local time). Warren Dew (talk) 05:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: It is worth noting that many of the strikes were against targets in the occupied territories, which are not Israel, so any title that implies the strikes were confined to Israel will invariably be a gross violation of NPOV. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Disagree. Iran leaders stated that the purpose of the attack is to damage military facilities inside Israel and targeted Israel itself as an entity (Source) The fact that these missiles missed their target and hit the West Bank/ Jordan / Iraq and etc doesn't mean that the attack wasn't targeted onto Israel. SpringKay (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the bare minimum, there were targets struck in the Golan Heights, which is occupied territory, not Israeli territory. So no need to blur the details. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of logic doesn't make sense to me. Israel certainly has military assets present in the Golan Heights and will readily admit so, as it does as well in the West Bank. The fact that Iranian strikes were targeting Israeli assets in territory not internationally recognized as Israeli doesn't mean that they weren't targeting territory or assets de facto controlled by the Israeli state. Halfadaniel (talk) 19:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also not calling the strikes in Golan Heights strikes against Israel would mean they're on/against Syria, which just doesn't make sense. GH is de facto Israeli territory. ~50% of the population of the Golan are Israeli Jewish settlers. Any strike on the Golan is targeting Israeli infrastructure and thus is a strike on israel. Same thing for West Bank. It's targetting Israeli infrastructure even if the territory is not recognised as Israeli territory. Also strikes hitting Iraq/Jordan as Halfadaniel pointed out were strays and were still targetted onto Israel. For example, during the Russo-Ukrainian war missiles reached Poland. That doesn't mean Russia launched missiles against Poland TianHao1225 (talk) 18:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only missiles that landed landed at the Nevatim airbase in the Negev desert... This is undisputed Israeli territory.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/15/israel-ballistic-missiles-iran-military-bases-nevatim-negev/ Tennisist123 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

  • 3 - The title was fine before as 2024 Iranian strikes against Israel and I don't think it needs to be changed to anything else. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "against", accept "on", oppose "in". Amyipdev (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 because this is part of the Israel-Iran proxy conflict. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on" or "against". Option 1 causes unnecessary confusion with "in", but I don't have that strong of an opinion between option 2 or 3. Gödel2200 (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "against" or "on". Oppose "in". Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Flemmish Nietzsche, @Amyipdev, @Gödel2200, @Blaylockjam10, just noting that 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Iraq and Syria and 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan follow the same pattern, using the preposition "in". RodRabelo7 (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My problem w/using “in” is that some of the projectiles were shot down before they reached Israel. I don’t believe the other strikes you mentioned had projectiles that were shot down in other countries. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "against" or "on". Oppose "in". Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in the contrary to 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Iraq and Syria and 2024 Iranian missile strikes in Pakistan where the strikes took place only in pakistan or only in sytia,iraq here a major part of the strike took place outside of israeli borders so "against" or "on" seems to my to by more accurate then "in" Anticonstitutionnel (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer a different title entirely, 2024 Iranian attack on Israel. This seems shorter and more to the point than "strikes". This was a direct attack by Iran on Israel. I would prefer keeping the year since past incidents of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict like the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid can also be considered Iranian attacks on Israel. Ecrusized (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "on"; oppose "against" and "in". As for "attack" vs "strikes"; this was clearly a major attack and is described as such by RS but I oppose changing "strikes" for now until the dust settles. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppprt "against". Oppose in / on as it is not clear. SpringKay (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3: "against"; oppose "on" or "in", which imply that the strikes were geographically confined to Israel, when a large part occurred against Israeli forces in the occupied territories – the latter are still "against" Israel as an entity, without being on Israel or in Israel. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3, but also WP NO YEAR. --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3: "against". Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3: "against" per above. Spiderpig662 (talk) 19:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support 2 (on), support 3 (against). In English, "Strikes in" has a meaning that is inconsistent with what occurred. "Strikes in" is never or almost never used to describe attacks by one entity against or on another entity, no matter the location of some of all portions of the attack. "On" reads better to a native English-speaker. Holy (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 2 or 3. Many missiles and drones were destroyed outside the Israel territory. My very best wishes (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Support "on" as most usual English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for "against" or "on." Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support “on”, and oppose “in” or “against”. “In” does not make sense in this situation, and “against” is a bias tone and therefore is not neutral. Antny08 (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for "against" or "on". Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "on" or "against", oppose "in" as I think it makes things very unclear as to whether attacks took place in or outside of Israeli territory. Halfadaniel (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3, The current title makes the most sense, however a different title using that from #1 could be used as “2024 Iranian Drone Attacks in Israel” would make more sense Republic of Selmaria (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "in", opposed "on"/"against". Precisely the strike was against three discrete military bases that were directly engaged in the bombing of the Damascus consulate. "2024 Iranian strike on Israeli military bases" is a bit much though, and this title "in" makes it clear that it was in Israeli-controlled territory, including occupied Golon Heights. Would also support "2024 Iranian retalition for Israeli consulate-strike" or something similar because of added precision. "On" or "against" seems to vaugely imply to me a greater attack on Israel as a whole, rather than a targetted operation. Jdftba (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "on" or "against". The word "in" is misleading - only some of the missiles went into Israeli airspace, and it suggests that the attacks were launched from within Israel. – Asarlaí (talk) 09:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "against" or "on", as in does not take height for the fact that some of the strikes were in the occupied Palestinian/Syrian territory, not just Israel. Luna Wagner (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "on" More accurate and consistent with 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran. Keivan.fTalk 13:04, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOYEAR

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

Support I don't see an instance where someone could mistake it for any other israel-iran conflict and thus the year serves no purpose. Although I guess the question now is whether it's Iranian strikes on or against Israel. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Putting this as a subsection of the requested move discussion above. – robertsky (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per above, I can't think of any other Iranian strikes that would require year specification, so NOYEAR applies here. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I prefer keeping the year since past incidents of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict like the 2006 Hezbollah cross-border raid can also be considered Iranian attacks on Israel. The year also allows readers to find the article more easily. Ecrusized (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there consensus at this point on NOYEAR? Amyipdev (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, WP:NCEVENTS calls for the year of the event in the majority of cases, with NOYEAR applying only to historically unique events (i.e. September 11 attacks). The year is a useful indicator for the reader and keeps it WP:CONSISTENT with other articles in this set. Pilaz (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; year helps keep things in perspective. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this is the only one. --Nicola Romani (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; WP:NOYEAR states, "Some articles do not need a year for disambiguation when, in historic perspective, the event is easily described without it" (emphasis added). We do not have historic perspective. And for the reasons Ecrusized articulated. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 19:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Yemen, WikiProject Islam, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Lebanon have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If not for the recency of this event, if I heard the title of this article, I wouldn't know what year or specific event it referred to—and while I'm not an expert, I've casually followed events of this sort, especially in the realm of military history, for many decades. I also think that the "lack of historic perspective" argument applies. Holy (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No historic perspective and not enough context in the title without it. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Far too generic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a conflict that has been ongoing since the Iranian Revolution and includes numerous attacks and conflicts (people rightfully bring up the 2006 Hezbollah raid as an example). If there was some positive identifier of "direct" strikes, rather than proxy strikes, maybe this would work but I don't like that title either for other reasons. Halfadaniel (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a unique event. If another one happens, it might be right to change.Galamore (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just find it vague. Having it there causes no harm anyways. Not to mention that removing it would break the consistency with 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran. Keivan.fTalk 13:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other titles

Iranian attack on Israel

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

Note: This was originally a separate slightly earlier section (see Special:Permalink/1218980236#Name change that grew organically. Shifting here because it makes no sense to have separate primary discussions on name changes. – robertsky (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support but this should probably be a move discussion Lukt64 (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because someone just forwarded the article without waiting for further opinions.Galamore (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There have been previous strikes on Israel by Iran, so for now let's leave it with the current name. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not true. Iran didn't strike Israel from its own terrority before.
(Source) SpringKay (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as in not calling it anything like Iran-Israel war. Calling it that when all of this could be over a week from now makes no sense to me. Poklane (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "assuming" is pure WP:CRYSTAL and doesn't have its place here. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 21:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL isn't relevant. This is not speculation, rumors or any kind of violations stated in the guideline. SpringKay (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(assuming we will find out later that there was also a cyber dimension and the like) is absolutely speculation. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 12:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. What was this "attack" a response to?
Don't bomb embassies. 2607:FEA8:A4E5:6A00:C057:A3A3:66EE:A4B (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The appropriate title was 2024 Iranian strikes on Israel, the page has been repeatedly moved without discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This was a retaliation to the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, so the appropriate term would be "strikes." "Attack" also seems a biased term towards this situation and would be inappropriate per WP:NPOV. Christophervincent01 (talk) 05:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support
As it is an historic event and the first time ever Iran attacked Israel from its own terroity. SpringKay (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons already stated. Alexanderkowal (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the intent of Iran sending missile's into Israel was not to disstory anything, it is for a show of force, and to deter Israel from future boming of Iran's embassys.
We also did not call the Israel air strike on Iran's embassy a attack, we called that a boming, and that was done with intention of as some would say to neutralize the embassy and the people inside
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_bombing_of_the_Iranian_embassy_in_Damascus Ricemaker313 (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object to this comment as it is misleading. The purpose of tje Iranian attack was to destroy military bases inside Israel and kill soldiers as a revenge against the killing of their commander. Both attacks had an intention to destroy, kill and neutralize army men. SpringKay (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose : Hello, I created this page yesterday using the terms '2024 Iranian drone attack on Israel'. If I used the term "attack", it's because I'm not completely fluent in English, and in French, the term is broader. However, it wasn't a POV, as within the same framework, I didn't attribute the strikes to Iran and used the conditional for this attribution until other contributors deemed it appropriate to update, which I, of course, followed. Regarding the date 2024, which seems to be the issue, I preferred to specify the timeframe for the page to be more precise, and mainly because I was unaware if such confrontations between these two countries had occurred before. Since it appears from this discussion that it's the case, as the messages above state, it's clearer to keep the term '2024' for now. As for the question of 'bombings', 'strikes', etc., I don't have a clear position.AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must state that the name we kept for many of the pages where I worked used the yearly date, even if they were the first, for example : 2023 Turkish drone shootdown or 2023 Tours bombing AgisdeSparte (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be vague and factually incorrect. An attack can take many forms, such as a cyber attack, or a verbal attack.
“Iranian strikes” is a better term to describe what happened, as this phrase conveys a conventional military strike. YAM (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, This is perfect, no need to change. Grabup (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, based on User talk:Christophervincent01's argument. Peleio Aquiles (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User talk:Christophervincent01's argument seems sufficient to me. Kakurokuna (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support This was a direct attack by Iran on Israel, something which happened for the first time in history. It will likely be remembered as such for many years. I disagree with Christophervincent01's argument that this was a retaliation, and therefore not an attack. Most western officials consent that this was a disproportionate response by attack for the bombing of its embassy. Israel did not directly attack Iran, but Iran did directly attack Israel. Ecrusized (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most western officials are diplomatically allied with Israel and hostile to Iran, so it's not surprising that they would blame Iran here. Whether Israel bombing the embassy constituted a direct attack or not is disputed, and a position shouldn't be taken in the title in one way or another. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly a step up the escalatory ladder, but that's not what we're here to discuss. Did Iran attack Israel? Yes. Ecrusized (talk) 09:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was literally replying to the arguments you made, so I am confused about why you say that's not what we're here to discuss. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 09:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The title is descriptive. If we are to elaborate in the title based on our opinion; then it may just as well be called: Iranian retaliatory response against Israel. Or Iranian defence against Israeli aggression. Let's not do that. ~~~~ Xullius (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation True Promise

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

RfC "Result"

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

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

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

Comment I would say to leave it with what both sides "claim" was the result, or go with option C as it seems the most neutral. Saying just "victory" or "failure" seems too one-way and should have "partial" in front of it. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an opinion website, Wikipedia writes facts. If Iran's operation failed, as it is widely reported. There is absolutely no reason to include that "Iran has claimed victory". Nazi Germany might have claimed victory in the aftermath of WW2, but that's not what the article for World War 2 says in its result. Ecrusized (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, and while you may be right about the claim part saying it is a "complete Iranian failure" seems to be a bit of an overstatement. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it an overstatement? 99% of their missiles were shot down. Ecrusized (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think it would be realistic for Iran to assume that many of their projectiles would get through Israel's defenses, and there was some damage to military bases. As I said in my first comment saying it is a "successful Israeli defense" would be better as it does not say any side explicitly "won" or "lost". Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean technically what youre saying here is original research which isnt allowed on wikipedia but even if we go with your statement, then what was irans goal? They get some of their highest ranking officers killed only to then go and waste millions of dollars sending rockets and drones at Israel to cause absolutely no significant destruction or casualties whatsoever? So basically they just wasted money and time for the fun of it? ShovelandSpade (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to argue about the questionable rationality of Iran's leadership. My only point was that saying it is a "complete Iranian defeat" or failure can be misinterpreted, and it should only say either claims of the result or that it was an Israeli defensive success. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s definitely not an overstatement. The current details placed in the results section is neutral. If you wish to take out Iranian operational failure away, then Iranian operational success can’t be there either. What I placed at the moment is what both sides claim. FellowMellow (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
> 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)[reply]
  • It's hard and probably too early to say in terms of victory/failure. Maybe it's better to put {{Infobox military operation}} here and simply say that "X objects struck"?--Oloddin (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support "Victory claimed by both sides" given that both Iran and Israel assert that they have successfully inflicted significant damage or successfully repelled the attacks, respectively, according to RS[1]. "Iranian operational failure" and "Israeli defensive success" can be listed below in bullet points. This mirrors the case in 2014 Gaza War, where no decisive winner was identified. Skitash (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per the infobox rules ““this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much””
By the looks of that we should Omit the parameter for now. LuxembourgLover (talk) 18:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is It does a good job of showing the standings of both sides, which is important here as both disagree on the outcome of the strikes and whether it was a victory or not. Genabab (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
All are misleading as clearly not only Iran and Israel were involved; keep as is. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No it isn’t, this operation is completed. You’ve wrongly assessed Iran’s goals. Alexanderkowal (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
B doesn’t make too much sense to me, but the minor damage part makes sense. However, I’m not sure if partial would be the right word. “Majority” or “Overall” makes more sense.
D and E (depending on the context that will be used), it can only be written (as claimed).
A and C should be there (as part of the Israeli and US claim), while for the Iranian claim, it should be the opposite (meaning what I placed before).
Support The main focus though should be:

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Option 1 or 4, per sources. Saddam Hussein also claimed victory in the Gulf War. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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 [2]; 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)[reply]
    It was to set a new precedent (direct attack on Israeli territory) without provoking further escalation. Alexanderkowal (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That is not what analysts from ISW says on this subject. They say [3]: "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)[reply]
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 [4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
see salami slicing tactics Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I actually agree the salami was cut quite thickly and it’s not a good example Alexanderkowal (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Yes absolutely the correct one, this was an operation that was part of a conflict.
Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
Yes On the second thought, this does seem like a better design. Ecrusized (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Yes (actually proposed it earlier). Oloddin (talk) 01:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
There was a clear majority in favour of the change. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
That’s isn’t formal policy but yeah Alexanderkowal (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose, because it leaves out the countries that helped Israel thwarth the attack. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think there should be mention of this in the first paragraph of the lede Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not in the infobox, as is usually done? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The old infobox was a joke. —Alalch E. 09:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've added 'IDF and allies' to infobox Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
with a page link to the section on the defence provided by allies Alexanderkowal (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
See my comment above Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
^'more appropriate seeming' Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: Obviously an operation, not an entire conflict. Wrong original pick. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
No - this is a military conflict involving two (or more) sides. Hogo-2020 (talk) 06:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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 [5][6][7] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Edit request 21 April 2024

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 [8]. 47.148.126.19 (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2024_Iranian_strikes_in_Israel"