Talk:Iran–Israel war/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Copying material from June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran

@Rafi Chazon: I do not believe that it's useful to copy material from June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran as you did here [1]. Both articles should serve different purpose and should not just simply repeat one another. Especially given that the outcome of the current AfD is not clear yet, i.e. whether this article will be kept or merged with June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran). JBchrch talk 09:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The merge has already gone ahead. Lewisguile (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Merging and reorganising in lede

As I hit publication on a reworking of the lede (to incorporate some material from the prior two articles and to reorganise the information), I realised multiple editors were working on this article at the same time. Please let me know if I've accidentally overridden something from a simultaneous edit, as I had to resolve the conflict manually. Lewisguile (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Lower right photo in infobox has an inappropriate name

"Original Description: The Zionist Regime's Terrorist Attack on Tehran"

Do I even need to explain why that's not okay? Even if the uploader entered that as the description, our readers should see a more neutral description when they load the photo. Chutznik (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done – Thanks for pointing this out, JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 19:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran"

This is a quote from Trump's social media earlier today. "We" is an admission that the US is a belligerent. The US should be in the infobox here. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

This seems premature. Trump's ideological inclinations against Iran do not make the U.S. a belligerent; there's no indication of any U.S. involvement with regard to "complete and total control of the skies over Iran", and there's in fact no indication it's anything other than an example of Trump speaking loosely and often dishonestly, on social media -- a well-documented phenomenon. In any event, the infobox is supposed to be a summary of critical information from the article body; if the article body doesn't support a conclusion that the U.S. is a belligerent with the appropriate degree of detail and reliable, independent sourcing then the infobox shouldn't either. To my knowledge, that's not the case; the only U.S. involvement I'm aware of is from defensive anti-ballistic missile batteries (MIM-104 Patriot and THAAD), which hardly supports a claim of belligerency. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:46, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 17 June 2025

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 moved. Closing the discussion per WP:SNOWBALL, taking also into account the wish of the proposer to have a speedy discussion. JBchrch talk 20:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Iran–Israel War → 2025 Iran–Israel conflict – The page June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel has been merged into this one. This article now covers both Israeli and Iranian attacks. Request a speedy discussion to quickly adjust the title accordingly. I think it's too early to call it a "war" so "conflict" should be fine. Ecrusized (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: Original nomination is for June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. With the articles merge, and the article title question from the AfD unresolved, the RM discussion may continue. – robertsky (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose as it's a full scale war. Now it refers to the war between these two entities. Moreover, this is the title majority news media use. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. We need to tweak the article to cover the expanded scope, following the merge, but this makes the most sense and avoids NPOV issues. Oppose with comment: Following the merge, my original comments no longer apply. The current title is acceptable, although if it's usually named "Israel–Iran War" in the RSes, as the prior discussion seemed to suggest, let's go with that instead. Lewisguile (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Strong Support, makes sense following the merger My original comment does not apply as the merger has taken place, either of war or conflict would suffice but a slight support towards "war" as RSes have reported it, as pointed above𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:49, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Note that the article Iran–Israel War also exists, so the two should probably be merged, whatever the title. --woodensuperman 11:09, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: The above comments are moved from Talk:June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. – robertsky (talk) 11:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 12:00, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose From the previous deletion vote and arguments, I found the argument that the term "war" should be used rather convincing. From what I saw, the keep vote for the article was also centred around the argument that this is indeed a war. Cheers! KiltedKangaroo (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I'd advise you all to have a look at the reliable sources listed in the discussion. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 12:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose I think we should be using Israel–Iran War instead as it seems to be commonly referred to as elsewhere (as both sources used to call it a war refer to it on this very article). Both Israel and Iran have also referred to this conflict as a war at various points. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It's already starting to be called a war by media such as the NYTimes and the BBC (e.g. on this link) Cscescu (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It's just batshit crazy to suggest that this is not a war. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 12:16, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Please review the notes left by robertsky. This is technically a move discussion from June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran to 2025 Iran–Israel conflict. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per RSs presented at AfD ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 12:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment/Note: Pinging Ecrusized, AimanAbir18plus, Lewisguile, M Waleed, Woodensuperman, and Achmad Rachmani. The article has been moved/merged since you have commented. You might want to review the new name and decide if your comments still apply. --Super Goku V (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I changed it to oppose since the topic of the RM has been changed. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I am fine with either conflict or war. Ecrusized (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this got super complicated. I was in the middle of editing the Israeli strikes article too. Oh well! One article definitely makes more sense. Lewisguile (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I know. I have had a headache for over an hour now from trying to figure things out and from adjusting things. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: per [2]. If the Iranian government is publicly treating this as an attempt to wage war according to reliable sources, we should do the same until evidence proves others. WP:THEREISNORUSH. The article could be renamed to 2025 Iran-Israeli crisis although we already have a closely related page covering that at Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present). Fantastic Mr. Fox 12:43, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

We have 2024 Iran–Israel conflict too, which is also currently at WP:RM. --woodensuperman 13:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Support - As per nomination. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

The discourse in Israel refers to this unequivocally as a war.

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/2025-06-16/live-updates-857862

https://www.ynet.co.il/news/blogs/article/bjmkrzrmlx

https://mobile.mako.co.il/news-military/f239747af17c5910/Article-32718cd968a7791027.htm

https://www.hidabroot.org/article/1210966 Dazzling4 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous deletion discussion. Multiple sources were provided there that support "war". Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per other editors. It's not necessary to classify a conflict as a "war" by both party's official declaration. Ahammed Saad (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - Time [3], Foreign Policy [4], Reuters [5], The Economist [6] amongst others have all referred to it using the word "war". This is not exhaustive, and there are also counter-examples (e.g. also The Economist (title calls it war but text calls it conflict)[7]). So I'm not saying that "Iran-Israel War" is the WP:COMMONNAME, but given this is an unfolding situation, the preponderance of mentions might shift between "war" and "conflict" multiple times in coming days and weeks. We shouldn't change the name each time this happens, therefore we should leave this as it is for now and revisit the issue if necessary when coverage is more stable. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Wait whether historians view this as a short conflict, or a longer war, is yet to be seen ElectronicsForDogs (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - As mentioned by other editors, this conflict has been described as a "war" by several credible third party sources including Time and Reuters. MrGreen1163 (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: per other editors. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - per above. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 16:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose - war is the most appropriate terminology here. --Dynamo128 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Change article title to Iran–Israel war per WP:CAPITALIZATION. As a reference, "war" in the Gaza war article title is not capitalized. Vataxevader (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. Skitash (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: per other editors. TheFloridaMan (talk) 19:26, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 19:44, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment Im not really opposed to "war", altho it has been stated in sources, but it is a bit premature. However, if we are going to do this, it might make sense to include the earlier strikes in 2024. Metallurgist (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose, It has been described as a war by several reputable sources, reflecting the sharp rise in casualties and widespread destruction of infrastructure. Unlike previous confrontations, the current situation marks a significant escalation. MordukhovichAleakin (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2025 (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.

Mistake in title

I don't even agree with the current title but at the very least "War" should not be capitalized. Nythar (💬-🍀) 21:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thirty Years' War, Yom Kippur War (aka, 1973 Arab–Israeli War, Fourth Arab–Israeli War), Vietnam War. It's capitalized because it's a specific conflict, not "an Iran–Israel war" but "the Iran–Israel War". Not sure I agree with the title myself but the capitalization is appropriate. WP Ludicer (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not for us Wikipedians to determine. Which sources are capitalizing "war"? Which sources are referring to this as a war? Why was the RM above left open for only 10 hours? Didn't even have the chance to notice it. Nythar (💬-🍀) 22:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

There's no clear evidence that this will be referred to as the Iran–Israel War yet though; the name is just used for now because it's a war between Israel and Iran. Even if there had been a prior war between Israel and Iran, the media would still describe it as Iran–Israel war due to the lack of an alternative term for now. So, lowercase war is more appropriate as the current usage of the term is more representative of an Iran–Israel war, even if it is currently the only one. VoicefulBread66 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

In addition to @VoicefulBread66's comment above which I agree with, MOS:AT says "Capitalize the initial letter (except in rare cases, such as eBay), but otherwise follow sentence case (Funding of UNESCO projects), not title case (Funding of UNESCO Projects), except where title case would be used in ordinary prose." So far the sources I've seen describe this as a war have done so without capitalisation. I think it's entirely possible that this will change in the future but for now we should move to Iran-Israel war. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Persian Opposition

There is an insurgency in Iran supported by Israel. Insurgents targeted some regime officials. I think this should be added in Infobox, what's your opinion comment below. Thanks... Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

What opposition and or insurgents? also give source that they are Israeli backed. JaxsonR (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

here is the source. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

it doesnt say which group, only mossad. and mossad is already in the box. JaxsonR (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I think there should be "Republican insurgency in Iran" article just like the ones in Afghanistan. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

"Republican"? Braganza (talk) 07:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Article length

This is WAY too long at 250k+. The background neeeds to be the first to be trimmed and more cutting can entail the reactions, separate details for both attacks too.Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, maintenance template should be removed. The raw size is meaningless, as we have hundreds of references. Xtools says this article is 9,403 words long, which is in line with WP:SIZERULE—at least for a developing article about an ongoing armed conflict in the Middle East. Besides, is it really the priority right now to work on this right now? to the point where it's appropriate to disrupt user experience by putting a maintenance template on the article? I really do not think so. Additionally, a lot of work has gone into merging and unifying various related sub-pages (in line with broad consensus), so it's normal to have a bit of a fat article at this stage.JBchrch talk 08:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

We can start trimming it into separate pages or some sections (background defo needs to be cut).

I'll try and start with one section to majorly cut it.Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The size of the background is absolutely fine to me. Keep in mind that this is an armed conflict in the Middle East: things are complex, and it's useful to the reader if they are explained properly. Many readers come here primarily to understand why the conflict has erupted. JBchrch talk 09:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The "problem" is that, since it's a recent conflict, almost all sources will be web sources, which significantly increases the byte size. The background is important to understanding how this came to be, cutting it seems silly. Wowzers122 (talk) 11:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

US response should not be trimmed and collapsed

In a series of edits [8][9][10][11], Sportsnut24 removed the US and German reactions from the visible body of the article (permalink to prior version), deleted a substantial portion of the US-related content, and placed what remained in the collapsed list of international reactions. I strongly disagree with this approach. The US reaction and involvement is absolutely central to the understanding of this conflict, so it should be immediately accessible in the body of the article, and surveyed in detail. I suggest to restore the "United States" section exactly as it was in the permalink above. JBchrch talk 08:49, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It is redundant. The EXACT same content (and a few that i moved down) was written twice.

At any rate, while the usa may warrant attention, why is grmany so special?

Per above, I'm going to create a spinoff and then put highlights here. The article is way too WP:LONG for readability.Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

It's not the same, as it seems to me like you have removed content. Also, think about the reader: is it important for the reader to have easy access to the US response and involvement in order to understand the conflict? Yes. Do we serve this purpose by placing it in a collapsed list of assorted international reactions in alphabetical order? No. I have no specific views on Germany. JBchrch talk 08:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, sorry there might have been something that was accidentally removed. I'll just go back through it and add what was removed. I'll move it to Responses to the Iran–Israel War and have a snapshot here. It's also 90k in just that page alone. For here, more emphasis on the 2 parties and usa, with mentions of the variety and protests.Sportsnut24 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with spinning off the list of international reactions and keeping a snapshot of the US reaction here—thanks. JBchrch talk 09:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I've done the move. Just working on the trim here.Sportsnut24 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done

Just going to look through what i may have removed.

@Sportsnut24: You write "done", but this is not what was discussed. You did not leave any substantial part of the US response in this article, you spun off the "Analysis" section in your secondary article without prior discussion, and you did not reinstate the US-related content that had been removed in your secondary article. Should I question your good faith? I am going to wait to see if anybody wants to use their 1RR revert or I'll use mine to revert back to something much closer to the permalink above. JBchrch talk 10:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Which one was removed. I added usa to this part as you wanted.

The extra emphasis on the usa vs. all other states is: "Notably, Trump praised the initial attacks and ordered support to Israel. He also threatened Iran's head of state would be an easy target for assassination. Secretary of State Marco Rubio had initially stated that Israel had "acted independently," but that was later contradicted by Trump as having known about it."

Also analysis was because of space and BOLD. Go ahead and change if you want, but then remove it from the other article.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Ah, the secondary contnt. Yes, sorry got busy with other stuff in the move. Going through history to add it there now. Give me 5-10. Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:25, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

These links need to be fixed. FOUND THE ones and doing it: [12][13][14][15].Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

germany done. Look through both the differences in trump and it was DOUBLE added. Further, it is trimmed here and still given more emphasis than ANY other ntity, including the UN.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Background section having old sources that precede the war

As with the past article June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran that was merged into the article, there are content cited to old sources from years before that could not have mentioned this war. The purpose of the background section is not to litigate or illuminate the entire history and conflict between Iran or Israel (references in the background section dating to 2010, 2013, 2017, 2024, March 2025 which I will remove shortly). The purpose of the background is to summarize what reliable sources discussing the war identify as the background to the war. As such, please try to use content and sources from after the start of the war in the background. Thanks. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 June 2025

Restate the following: "Israel possesses nuclear weapons" from "Background". It has not officially been confirmed as to whether Israel possesses nuclear weapons of their own. Provide ambiguity or remove the passage (i.e. "It is widely believed that Israel possesses nuclear weapons." 207.144.243.130 (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The above edit request was originally posted at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection § Current requests for edits to a protected page in Special:Diff/1296192330. — Newslinger talk 15:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

 Done freesucrose (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the request, that absolutely needed correction. CVDX (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Title

What is happening now is an unprovoked attack on Iran by Israel. Until there is clarity on what, if any, imminent threat there was to Israel that would justify this attack, it remains an unprovoked attack. It is too early to call it a war. There is no fighting as such, just constant bombing by Israel and retalitory bombing by Iran. This is even less of a war than the early stages of the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine, that was then called a Russian invasion, not a war. At least then there was actual fighting. My comments here are neutral. Calling it a war is not neutral because it minimises what is an unprovoked attack. So, for the time being, the title should be changed and only put back to 'war' if an actual war develops. Time will tell. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

As of now, there is broad consensus among editors to frame this as a war/conflict: see Talk:Iran–Israel_War#Requested_move_17_June_2025, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran–Israel War, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel. JBchrch talk 09:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. A comment though - I would not include any source from Israel, and possibly America, that calls it a war. Those sources are not independent. All Israel would benefit from calling it a war because it minimises what has happened - an unprovoked attack under international law. I would put much greater weight on sources from the UN and other generally accepted neutral bodies.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, but again this is not the consensus. Per WP:RSP, there are plenty of reliable, independent and unbiased US and Israeli sources. Both countries have substantial freedom of speech and freedom of the press so that's not surprising. UN sources are WP:PRIMARY and will typically be treated as less reliable than international journalism, see also WP:TIERS. JBchrch talk 10:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

"substantial freedom of speech and freedom of the press" is an opinion and POV. Why should they get credence in a neutral article?Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

We are not on the mainspace, so I don't have to comply with NPOV in my personal contributions to discussions. Separately, if you want to change the site-wide consensus about the reliability of the sources listed in WP:RSP, the appropriate venue would be WP:RSN. JBchrch talk 11:48, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Discussions? It's about the content ont he main page.

Further, where did I say about "site wide" source. You merely said usa/israel. There are plenty o others that are also reliable.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:55, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Khamenei himself has called it a war, as have many other non-western commentators. JasonMacker (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

We wouldn't use him as a source. To determine which title is more appropriate we should be using reliable sources. Nythar (💬-🍀) 14:21, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

The thing is, we cannot take a stand on anything. We are only reflecting what WP:RS say. If the media calls it a war, we'll call it a way, notwithstanding whatever context is behind it. That's the policy CVDX (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - what RSSs say. My point was that calling it a war doesn't properly describe what has happened, not at this point in time at least. How is Pearl Harbor described? A war? Attacks and invasions come first and the war follows. That distinction here is not properly made. About sources - every source must be judged in context. The NYT must not be used just because it is the NYT but whether it is reliable in a given situation. Usually it will be reliable but in this case we should take a closer look. I still think the NYT is reliable for this article, but not as reliable as on a story not involving the USA. A simple way around this is the way we describe something. We just say, for example, "the NYT reports that..." rather than state something as fact. IMO, newspapers as RSSs are frequently misused because they often do not state something as a fact, a point editors often miss. If this article's title stays as a war then I think the unprevoked nature of the Israeli attack should be made clearer. BTW, I am not taking a stance on this, one way or another. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2025

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. WP:SNOW close per policy and near-unanimous consensus. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Iran–Israel War → Iran–Israel war – Per MOS:AT and WP:NCCAPS, the title should be in sentence case, and so ‘War’ is incorrectly capitalised. This war is not yet analogous to e.g. World War Two or the Gulf War in that at the moment ‘Israel–Iran war’ is primarily a definite description rather than a proper name (in which case WP:NCCAPS permits non-initial capitals). WP:NCCAPS should modify the application of WP:COMMONNAME because some publications use title case for titles; in this case, non-scientifically, the first few results for me other than ‘…conflict’ and instances of title case use sentence case. This point is independent of the right ordering of Iran/Israel, whether ‘war’ should be ‘conflict’, and so on; sentence case dictates that ‘war’, ‘conflict’, etc should be in lower case. Docentation (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nythar @WP Ludicer @VoicefulBread66 and @Samuelshraga discussed this above. This is also listed at the technical moves page, where I’d thought this point so anodyne as to be uncontroversial. Docentation (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Support. I went through some of the sources invoked to support "war" in the title at the AfD. Though not all sources call it a war, those that do (that I've seen) use sentence case. Some editors at various fora around this and predecessor articles objected to "war" and preferred "conflict" - I think there's no point establishing a WP:COMMONNAME when the situation and coverage is still emerging every day. Hopefully after this RM - whatever the outcome - we can leave the title as is until a clearer picture of how sources are treating this has emerged. Samuelshraga (talk) 13:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support for now even though I don't support calling this conflict a "war." It is too early to conclude that "Iran–Israel War" is the common name used for this conflict, so I'd prefer to uncapitalize the term "War". Nythar (💬-🍀) 14:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: the name is perfectly in line with the Iran–Iraq War which is correctly capitalized on Wikipedia. If you think it will not be referred this way long term, since we cannot make predictions, I think it's best to just wait in that regard. --Dynamo128 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by correctly capitalized? Clearly according to Wikipedia policy (WP:NCCAPS) ‘Iran–Iraq War’, as a (common) and proper name, is distinct from ‘Iran–Israel war/conflict’, which is not currently a proper name and therefore takes sentence case. That’s not a prediction. On the other hand, treating it as a proper name before sources generally do so—as you seem to suggest in analogising the Iran–Iraq War—does seem to be a prediction.

On being ‘in line’ with other article titles: see WP:CONSISTENT—‘[t]o the extent that it is practical’, consistency should apply. But (1) it’s not obvious that they need to be consistent—one is a proper name, another a definite description; and (2) even if WP:CONSISTENT does apply to the two articles and so gives some reason to prefer ‘War’, WP:CONSISTENT is a general rule that appears to give way to more specific prescriptions, such as WP:NCCAPS. Docentation (talk) 14:39, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. It's way too early to analogous this conflict with wars such as Iran–Iraq War. As with Gaza war, this conflict's war should not be capitalized. FujaFula (talk) 15:11, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - As per Dynamo128. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 17:10, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Strong support per nom. "War" is a descriptive term at this point, and not a very good one for a sporadic series of back-and-forth strikes or attempted strikes over the course of days or weeks. "Iran–Iraq War" is far, far from being established by widespread usage as a proper noun. Holy (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nominator and others. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Support Our article naming policy is terrible, but it is pretty unequivocal that "War" should be decapitalized absent a sufficient showing of reliable sources indicating it's widely being capitalized as a proper name.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:22, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom, haven't seen any news sources refer to this title exactly, but it seems to be the best descriptor. Angusgtw (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

There's always "conflict", but I don't mind "war" here. CVDX (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Support as I agree that it's way too early to capitalize it as if it were a proper name. CVDX (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2025 (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.

References

Help locating additional sources

I'm posting this here to hopefully gain some additional help and support on the List of airstrikes during the Iran–Israel war, which I have been maintaining nearly by myself for a week. If anyone wishes to help locate more sources and/or more information regarding the various airstrikes and the damage they caused, it would be greatly appreciated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:24, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Could not verify that Iran claimed to have shot down 5 F-35s

I can only find the claim that ONE F-35 was downed at https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/6/18/live-israel-iran-attacks-continue-trump-demands-unconditional-surrender?update=3783154 Apologies if it is there, it's kind of hard to navigate. I have added the failed verification tag.CVDX (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

That is confirmable. We have three listed in June 14 per source, one listed in June 16 per source, and one listed in June 18 per source. As for what I am saying is confirmable, it is that Iran has claimed that they have shot down five F-35s. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. I see someone (you?) added the ref and removed the tag. CVDX (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Israel's stated aim

The lead of Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn't include Russia's stated aim that Ukraine was a neo-Nazi state developing nuclear weapons.

The lead of Iraq War doesn't include the US's stated aim being Iraq's supposed possession of WMD.

The lead of Japanese invasion of Manchuria doesn't include Japan's stated aim of self-defense.

We shouldn't be advocating a belligerant's stated aim here either.

Proposed change:

−

The Iran–Israel War is an armed conflict between Iran and Israel that began on 13 June 2025 with Israeli attacks on dozens of targets with the stated aim of stopping the expansion of Iran's nuclear program.

+

The Iran–Israel War is an armed conflict between Iran and Israel that began on 13 June 2025 with a [[surprise attack]] by Israel on dozens of targets across Iran.

Uhoj (talk) 19:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

If anything, I suggest something alone the lines of The Iran-Israel war is an armed conflict between Israel and Iran that has been fought since 13 June 2025., per numerous precedents such as Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, Iran–Iraq War and, more remotely, Iraq War and Soviet–Afghan War. I do not support adding the surprise attack in the first sentence, per the precedents at Six-Day War (Israeli surprise attack) and Yom Kippur War (Egyptian surprise attack). JBchrch talk 20:18, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Uhoj. --Dynamo128 (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Disagree. In the first case it's one of the various arguments Russia has made against the Ukraine and it's not a major reason.

Second case Im not reading into because this conversation may be over in under an hour honestly.

Third case was propaganda and effectively a secondary reason.

Israel isn't carrying propaganda here, I mean, yeah, everyone does, but Iran IS actively looking to develop nukes. The state whose intention is to wipe Israel off of the map isn't enriching uranium for civilian purposes only and others have given sources. This was the primary reason, not a secondary reason, not propaganda, but the casus belli De Leonibus Emiliano (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, it looks like the lede currently used is based off of the one made by the AI/ChatGPT.

Given that, maybe we should use the lede from the last revisions of June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran in its place and go from there? --Super Goku V (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

How about opening with something like this?

The Iran–Israel War is an ongoing armed conflict between Iran and Israel. Active hostilities broke out amid poor relations between Iran and Israel, negotiations over Iran's nuclear ambitions between Iran and the United States, and a shift in the strategic balance in favor of Israel resulting from successful attacks on the Iran-led Axis of Resistance. Israel launched a surprise attack on dozens of locations across Iran starting on 13 June 2025 with the stated aim of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities. The opening hours of the war involved targeted killings of Iranian leadership and nuclear scientists, airstrikes on nuclear and defense facilities, and destruction of Iran's air defenses. Iran retaliated by launching missiles at military sites and cities in Israel.

Going for pyramid style here by introducing the broad strokes first and then discussing things like names of operations and military units further down in the article. Uhoj (talk) 02:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I would be fine with that. I will note though that in the last few hours, the lede has changed significantly enough that the only LLM concerns I have are with fragments of the June 13th section and those seem to have been resolved enough as well. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

My primary issues with this intro are:

• WP:Redundancy, see Lazesusdasiru's excellent edit here: The lede of this article now starts "The Iran Israel war is a war between Iran and Israel. The War started amid the two countries who are at war not getting along very well." all of that is implicit in the title.
• Passive constructions "hostilities broke out" is not a construction that should be used in pretty much any armed conflict, you wouldn't say "hostilities broke out" in Ukraine, or Iraq
• If the purpose of this edit is to deal with the issue of including Israel's Stated aim in the lede; it doesn't do that. It's there just like before, just punted slightly later because of padding
• I don't really like the "targetted killings" euphemism, personally. If you're going to write about assassinations, call them that. That's true in general, but probably especially true when it involves the assassination of political scientists and academics, or military leaders killed in their homes.

That said, on the third point; I actually don't have any issue with including Israel's stated aim in the lede anyway. Of the examples cited above, most of them actually do include something similar in the lede. The Iraq war includes the US pretext (WMDs), the Ukraine war article includes the Russian pretext (demands about NATO membership, claims of supporting the "independent" Donbass republics, the term Special Military Operation), so including the Israeli pretext for their initiation of hostilities seems on topic for me! As for whether it should be in the very first sentence, I'm not sure, but I don't think it's a good reason to pad out the intro with fluff to avoid that either (so I won't)

Things I do like about the above intro: yeah there really is no good reason to start with the Code Names of operations and granular detail of strikes either, that's putting the cart before the horse. And in general I agree with the Pyramid Style approach too. I'll try to synthesize something that takes the best of both approaches. For now I will leave the "stated aim" sentence in, for reasons previously outlined (and because the current intro includes it also), if someone else wants to nix that, well, that's the way this works. I imagine it'll all be unrecognisable in a day or 2 probably anyway, hopefully converging on something better than either of us have written, such is the iterative collaborative nature of this place... Tomatoswoop (talk) 03:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Tomatoswoop Nice! I really like the direction you and Lazesusdasiru took this. It's a shame the context you included about the Axis of Resistance, the Middle East Crisis, and the JCPOA withdrawal got cut. I had considered including some about Natanyahu's political and legal troubles, but don't understand that well enough and so decided it was a job for someone else. Other factors which seem important are the successful Israeli invasions of Syria and of Lebanon. And we definitely need something in this article about Iran's apparent nuclear hedging to directly address Israel's stated aim. I believe Iran's hedging, in particular, should trickle up to the lede. Uhoj (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Iranian commanders for this war

Why list Mohammad Bagheri (general), Hossein Salami and Amir Ali Hajizadeh as commanders for this war when they were killed before this war even started, and their assassinations were one of the reasons why this war started. Crampcomes (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Iran-Israel war or Israel-Iran war?

I've only ever seen sources call this the Israel-Iran war, but some erroneously believed we have a policy stating that wars should list the belligerents in alphabetical order. No such policy exists and alphabetical order is never mentioned at WP:Naming conventions (events). I think the move discussion that resulted in the order being swapped was flawed as most supporters only seemed to comment on the spacing, capitalization, or dash in the title. Following sources is policy, but following the alphabet is not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

The only policy that I'm aware of that should be relevant is WP:COMMONNAME - and every reference I see says Israel-Iran, not Iran, Israel. I've never heard of it being alphabetical before - which is plainly not true. See Sino-Japanese War, Soviet-Finnish wars, Italo-Ethiopian War, Spanish–American War, Spanish–American War, Mexican–American War, etc. This seems like a very simple policy-based correction, so presumably no move debate is necessary. Can someone just do this? Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Agree with changing to Israel-Iran. Thanks for pointing out that there's no alphabetical convention. Uhoj (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Support per COMMONNAME EvansHallBear (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

#Requested move 20 June 2025. Family27390 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI The international relations project suggests alphabetical order for its many articles about bilateral relations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Help placing sentence

I moved and rewrote a sentence about Palestinians being excluded from bomb shelters so it wouldn't be so prominent (since there's only one source cited). But I don't know where that sentence belongs, and I probably didn't put it in the right spot. If anyone has a better idea, please go ahead and move that sentence to a more appropriate paragraph/section. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

I would expand it to On 17 June, Al Jazeera reported that some Palestinians were excluded from Israeli bomb shelters; there has been no confirmation, subject to later information; I believe that either location is fine. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

References

Status of Esmail Qaani

I invite those of you who are following these events to chime in at Talk:Esmail_Qaani#Death? regarding whether we should consider the man dead or alive. (Pinging Bill Williams). JBchrch talk 20:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Could someone chime in on Ali Shamkhani as well? I've responded to an edit request on the talk page there to reflect his death per WP:MOS guidelines. There are reliable sources on the article stating he has died, but I came across a source of unknown origin saying he hasn't. Should I self-revert? Aleain (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

All sources say Qaani is dead so his article must reflect that, while Iranian sources claim Shamkhani is alive and the article now reflects that. Bill Williams 14:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you bring these sources? Shadow4dark (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Three of the sources mentioned in the Esmail Qaani article are secondhand reporting of the New York Times.

Middle East Eye: [16]

The Times of Israel: [17]

The Jerusalem Post: [18]

It took me a minute, but I was able to find the original New York Times reference that was added to the Esmail Qaani article; it's a live blog, so the search option is probably easiest.

"Two senior Iranian government officials said Gen. Esmail Ghaani, the Quds Forces commander in charge of the country’s proxies in the Middle East, had been killed. General Ghaani replaced Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who was killed in a U.S. strike in 2020." [19]

I don't think we've had confirmation from Iran, so it's a big question mark.

The IDF has stated that he is still alive, FWIW. [20] David O. Johnson (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Bombardment by Iran section first paragraph

Is the first paragraph of this section supposed to represent June 13th? If so, can we give it an appropriate subsection header? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

It appears to be the case, so I've added it in. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks!⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Gaza genocide article link and broader context issues in Background section.

Does the so-called consensus on the Talk:Gaza genocide that the word "genocide" should not be used in Wikivoice also extend to completely excluding the article link from the See also section? Because that would be a first. I agree with @EvansHallBear that The result of the RfC was that we can't yet say that Israel is committing genocide in Wikivoice. That doesn't provide free rein to start removing any reference to the Gaza genocide article from infoboxes, templates, and see also sections. Yet another user, Berchanhimez, has removed even the mention of it from the See also section from this article. Given that we have an entire dedicated article on Gaza genocide, based on exhaustive reliable sources that use the term, it seems relevant for readers seeking broader context, especially considering the close connection between the Gaza conflict and the present Iran–Israel war.

Also, why are the serious allegations of genocide not mentioned in the Background section of this article? It deserves brief contextual mention, as it is highly relevant to the motivations and rhetoric of both parties in the Iran–Israel conflict.

Lastly, is FDD’s Long War Journal, which has been described as a blog, considered a reliable source on these highly contentious issues between Israel and Iran? I'm skeptical of it. StarkReport (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

As to why it isn't mentioned... because it's not background to this conflict. This conflict was brewing long before the terrorist incursion into Israel and the following military activities by Israel. And it would've brewed and happened regardless of that. In other words, this is not related in any way, much less is it important "background". The strikes Israel made on Iran would've happened regardless of their activities in Gaza - and there is no indication in reliable sources that their activities in Gaza caused any change in their calculus as to if and/or when to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The onus is on you, the one proposing it be added, to justify that beyond just your personal opinions.

That also explains why it should not be in the see also section. The see also section is not a substitute for things that shouldn't be in the article just because they're tangentially related. Your desire to push the genocide article in anywhere possible is very close to clear POV pushing. You try to avoid this by making claims of "the close connection between the Gaza conflict and the present Iran–Israel war". Yet you do not do anything to explain this "close connection", nor provide any reliable sources making this "close connection". One party being in common between them does not mean there is a "close connection".

I'll also note that you referenced my behavior in this post without so much as a ping or message. Had I not been watching this page, or had I been busy (like I have been most of this week) and not had time to notice this post specifically, I would have had no idea my edit was being questioned. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:SEEALSO, One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. As far as close connection, Al Jazeera's live blog discusses both the ongoing Gaza genocide and Israel–Iran war in once place.

Your continued accusations of POV pushing against anyone that disagrees with you are also getting a bit tiring. I see nothing in StarkReport's edit history to justify that. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

My point is that this isn't even tangentially related. It's two separate conflicts, both of which have been going on separately long before the current events and are completely separate. If anything Gaza war may merit linking in the see also section here. But the alleged genocide in Gaza has literally 0 relation to this conflict whatsoever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Gaza war is already linked to in the second paragraph and Gaza Strip famine is linked later in discussing Israel using war with Iran to distract from it's "actions in Gaza". There is also the IDF warning Iranians to contact the Mossad to avoid the same fate as Gaza and Lebanon. The connections are clearly there. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

To the war, sure. To the alleged genocide? No. Like I said, the war article may be merited for see also even if it's mentioned in the article already. You have made zero connection between this and the alleged genocide. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

That the Gaza Strip famine is potentially genocidal is discussed at length here Gaza genocide#Starvation and blockade. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

That does not relate to this article/topic at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Maybe go back and re-read the article.

In the weeks leading up to Israeli attacks, its government faced international pressure over the high risk of famine in Gaza and killing of civilians. Even Israel's allies in Europe had become critical of the starvation in Gaza, and the EU had announced it would reconsider its free-trade deal with Israel. Political scientists stated that the attack on Iran provided a distraction from Israel's actions in Gaza. Nesrine Malik said the attack was an attempt by Israel to bring a Europe alienated by Israel's action in the suffering in Gaza back to its side. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see literally no reason that they would go out of their way to ping you (who they point out they agree with) and not also ping me while still referencing my edit by name. It's very difficult to AGF when someone goes out of their way to ping someone they agree with while also in the same exact post not pinging someone they disagree with, even though they reference their edits/views in their post. The only viable answer is that they pinged you intentionally because they knew you'd show up to support them here, and didn't ping me because they were hoping I wouldn't see this discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

That struck me as odd too, but they aren't usually an active participation in PIA topics and I haven't seen an established pattern of aggressive editing or talk page behavior. If it's any consolation I was intending to ping you but you beat me to the comment. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Amnesty International (June 2025): In a strongly worded statement, Amnesty warns: “The world must not allow Israel to use this military escalation to divert attention away from its ongoing genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, its illegal occupation of the whole Occupied Palestinian Territory and its system of apartheid against Palestinians.” Amnesty directly connects the Israel–Iran war with the ongoing Gaza genocide, warning against allowing the escalation to mask ongoing human rights violations in Gaza.[21]

2. New Lines Institute (2025): Describes Israel’s strikes on Iran as "a dangerous escalation against the backdrop of the war in Gaza” and notes that the conflict with Iran is “further complicating vital Gaza ceasefire negotiations"[22]

3. Columbia University Prof. Hamid Dabashi (2025): Argues that Israel’s attack on Iran was partly intended to divert international attention from the “genocide in Palestine.”[23]

4. Atlantic Council Experts (2025): Features first-hand reporting from Gaza, where civilians express fear that the Israel–Iran war will “distract from the ongoing starvation and slaughter of civilians in the Palestinian enclave,” showing the perceived intertwining of both conflicts.[24]

5. The Daily Star (June 2025): Argues that Israel’s military escalation against Iran is occurring alongside and is politically linked to what it terms Israel’s “genocidal policies” in Gaza, with Western governments enabling both through diplomatic cover and military support.[25]

6. Al Jazeera (June 2025): Reports that as the world focuses on Israel’s war with Iran, violence against Palestinians has sharply increased. Israel is described as “sustaining its genocidal war in Gaza” while simultaneously expanding deadly military raids, lockdowns, and collective punishment across the occupied West Bank. The Al Jazeera report quotes human rights researchers warning that the Israel–Iran war is being used to intensify the oppression of Palestinians while global attention is diverted.[26]

This is not merely "personal opinion" or "POV-pushing" as you so desperately tried to suggest. To me, the relevance between both conflicts is common sense; if that seems like "POV-pushing" to you, then I’m sorry. I can't help you there. But it’s very interesting that you went to the effort of expunging even the mere mention of the "Gaza Genocide" from the "See also" section. If that is not POV-pushing, then I don’t know what is. StarkReport (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, no. That's not evidence of it being a related topic. Otherwise every single current event is a related topic to every other current event that happened to occur near in time, because many current events "distract" from other current events. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez, This is just an attempt to brush off intricate political realities into mere coincidence of timing. Your argument incorrectly assumes that the connection being presented is merely based on simultaneity, which is not the case. The link between the Gaza conflict and the Israel–Iran war is repeatedly identified by multiple independent, reliable sources: including Amnesty International, The New Lines Institute, Columbia University experts, Atlantic Council reports, Al Jazeera, and others.

There is no coincidental distraction, but deliberate political exploitation of one conflict to shield actions in another according to the reliable sources.

And WP:SEEALSO does not require direct causation. It can include articles that topically connected and relevant for readers seeking broader context even if one is not a direct cause of the other. Removing all mention of such relevant, sourced context itself creates a POV imbalance. StarkReport (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Those sources are heavily invested in calling out the alleged genocide in Gaza. So of course they're going to make such claims.

I stand by my statements that this war is not "topically connected" just because they happened in temporal proximity. There has been no connection other than "we want people to focus on this thing, so we're calling this other thing a distraction from that thing to try and force people to keep focusing on the thing we want them to".

Further, you mention "broader context" - there is no broader context other than that a few organizations have called this a "distraction" from that. Which is already covered in the article. Lastly, there was and is a consensus that it should not be called a genocide in wikivoice - including a "raw link" to that article without context. So if it is readded, it cannot just be added as the link to the article without something before/after it clarifying that it is alleged. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 07:34, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

The general consensus at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#WP:WIKIVOICE and article names was to use the article title in the See also section. Gaza genocide seems related to me and isn't already linked to in this article, so I don't see why it should be excluded. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

You're free to ask for that thread to be formally closed or an RfC on the matter, but that was definitely not the "general consensus" at that thread. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Yemen

Yemen (Houthi) is not a part of this war. They have been firing a missile or two at Israel from time to time since the start of the Gaza war in support of Hamas. Even the US here is listed under "Supported by". Yemen is playing a far lesser role in this conflict than the United States. Crampcomes (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I agree, either they should be removed, or Jordan, the UK, and Germany need to be included as well for their missile defense aid (as well as mid-air refueling, possibly hosting Israeli aircrafts in RAF Cyprus bases, intelligence sharing) to Israel. BasilLeaf (talk) BasilLeaf (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

jordan was acting in self defense of its own airspace, and didnt actually give aid to Israel; everything else i fully agree with. JaxsonR (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

This Article Should Be Renamed Fourth Gulf War

The following discussion 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.

---

Trump has basically said that the US is at war with Iran, so lets just call it what it is, the fourth gulf war Trajan1 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Find people actually calling it the "Fourth Gulf War" and we'll change the name, not until then. BSMRD (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

No one is calling it that yet. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Once such a name becomes mainstream, as WP:COMMONNAME requires, then sure. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 01:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

In addition to the other replies, this article already has the redirect Third Gulf War, for some unclear reason. I don't see why we would skip from the second to the fourth. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted it back to the Iraq War redirect. No evidence this conflict is the fourth Gulf war. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 01:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't name events. Sources do.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely not; at least, not now. No sources call it that yet, and we can't and don't get in front of sources. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:18, 22 June 2025 (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.

Merge proposal

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.

Opposed. Closing per WP:SNOW, oppositions are overwhelming. JBchrch talk 12:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

---

I propose merging American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and what existed at June 2025 United States strikes on Iran into Iran–Israel war. Currently, I don't see the need to have a separate article(s) about the United States striking Iran when there is a good amount of overlap with Iran–Israel war. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Support merge You're absolutely correct. There is nothing really useful that won't fit in a couple of paragraphs here. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

I reverted the "SNOW" closure of this as not based on PAG and ignoring PAG based reasons to merge as have been represented here. This discussion should be allowed to proceed so that discussion can continue. The "oppose" !votes have not been based on PAGs at all. We are not a news ticker, and we are under no obligation to keep a separate article where it can be covered in another article (this one) when there is no PAG based reason to do so. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez I wholeheartedly agree with this and am very surprised by the opposition so far.

This is a classic case of WP:RECENTISM where every breaking news item gets its own article (or sometimes multiple conflicting articles). The American strikes on Iranian nuclear sites article has very little content on the actual strikes themselves and is mostly just background and a running log of American politician reactions, which are of limited encyclopedic value. Despite how significant the event seems right now, there is not enough content so far to justify a separate article. EvansHallBear (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Support merging as well. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: This is a major development with clear notability and wider implications such as the possible entry of more Iranian proxies and attacks on U.S. interests. It warrants its own article for now. Skitash (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per Skitash. -- Brad (talk) 01:28, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

For now? Would you be willing to clarify that? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose - A new page is required in my view for what is clearly a new era. This article will grow considerably. Jusdafax (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  That's not how it should work. Material that isn't WP:DUE here isn't due in a sub article either. The material should be added here first, with WP:DUE discussions as needed. Then if there is an article size concern, a split can be proposed. This is going about it completely backwards. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. This remarkable development will probably, in the hours and days to come, be regarded as a turning point in the Middle Eastern and Iran-Israel conflict. Although, realistically, a wait and see approach would probably be best, considering we don't know what the direct implication of this move is. --WellThisIsTheReaper ^Grim 01:35, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Wait lets see if it goes any further than this

freesucrose (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - Once a few days or weeks go by I suspect we'll get much more information on the prelude, planning and actual impact of the strikes, which would definitely require an article (not to mention the reactions/response that this individual operation will surely generate). Hsnkn (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose at least for now, as this is a notable enough action that readers will likely want to find information on this specifically, as opposed to the overall history of the Iran-Israel war. I think we should leave it separate for a few days/weeks until it becomes clear whether this becomes an insignificant enough action to warrant merging, but right now, it is being discussed in a manner noteworthy enough for its own separate page. What I think the presence of this page does make clear however, is that there needs to be a better overview page (an outline, perhaps?) of the various articles pertinent to this conflict, as this page has a rather long title and is (I would argue) hard to find. --Nerd1a4i (talk) --02:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - Top international news story in RSs. I am aware that we are WP:NOTNEWS but the significance of this (independent from the overall war) will doubtlessly be major. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 02:06, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strong support Veritasphere (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Veritasphere: Why do you strongly support? This isn't a vote, it's a discussion. - Sebbog13 (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. At least for now.--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 02:32, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose - The American strikes are significant enough for their own article. It was not a minor event. Swinub★ 02:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Mixed: I support a merge in principle but am concerned with how large the article may become if the war drags on. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

That can be resolved in the future. If there is so much due weight information in this article that an article size concern arises, then a split can be considered at that time. That is not a reason to accept a separate/split article at this point though. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Notable in its own right. WWGB (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose. For reasons others have stated, the United States striking Iran is a notable event in its own right independent of the Iran-Israel war context. --Lucky102 (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose- It is a significant event in its own right and would be worthy of its own page. Furthermore, developments and reactions in the coming days from Iran and the international community regarding this attack need to be considered. Lf8u2 (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and move to US intervention in the Iran–Israel war, making it consistent with US intervention in the Syrian civil war. Emma Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:05, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:39, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a highly significant and notable and massive attack carried out by the United States (not Israel) and it means that the US is now at war with Iran. It is a world historic event that will be studied for generations to come. Cullen328 (talk) 05:18, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose It is a singularly notable event in itself and does not need to be merged into the article for a larger conflict. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:38, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose This is an attack carried out by a previously external party (the US, not Israel) which has brought the US into the conflict; an attack which is very significant as such, and shouldn’t be only relegated to the Iran–Israel war page. Similar US intervention, such as the 2017 Shayrat missile strike, have their own page. DavFaithid (talk) 11:46, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Oppose It is a US attack on Iran, not Israel, which could have retaliation and have another article. Farcazo (talk) 11:53, 22 June 2025 (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.

Source list

Adding sources from discussion. I recommend opposers to contribute to the Current title list.

Any editor is welcome to add new sources to these lists below. CNC (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed title

Israel–Iran war

• Think-tanks: Institute for the Study of War, Institute for International Political Studies, Middle East Institute, Atlantic Council
• Western: Sky News, The Independent, France24 (2), Financial Times, Deutsche Welle, Bloomberg, Associated Press, Seattle Times, NPR, Reuters, BBC, NBC News, The Guardian, TIME, CBC News, The Nation, The Hill, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Conversation, Axios, CBS News, Politico, Channel 4, Evening Standard, New Zealand Herald, Jewish News, PBS, Euractiv, Business Recorder, Huffington Post
• Israeli: Times of Israel, (2), Jerusalem Post, Haaertz (2), Israel Hayom
• Middle Eastern: Al Jazeera, Middle East Eye, Middle East Monitor, Al-Monitor, The National, Gulf News
• Asia: Times of India, Economic Times, Hindu Times, First post, NDTV, Mint, CNBC TV18, Indian Express, New Indian Express, Express Tribune, Hindustan Times

---

• The first of these links (Sky News) does not use the phrase "Israel–Iran war". Instead it starts "Israel-Iran live: Iran and Israel exchange attacks". This puts Israel first in the first clause and then puts Iran first in the second clause. This does not seem to be significant evidence for the proposed title. Spot-checking others, I'm not convinced this is a solid sampling but nit-picking the entries would get tedious. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out have updated, they were previously referring to the live blog as Israel–Iran war, but it appears to have changed for whatever reason. Nitpicking is otherwise fine and encouraged, live blogs change are not good sources to be using in the first place either. The reality is from searching for the RS that I could think of (feel free to challenge me), they all use the proposed title. The fact that so far there are only a handful of sources using the current title speaks volumes, it's not enough sourcing for it remain. CNC (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Current title

Iran–Israel war

• International: United Nations News
• Western: BBC France24, The Economist, Reuters, DW, Business Recorder, The Guardian, NPR, Huffington Post
• Asian: Hindustan Times, NDTV, Gulf News, Times of India, Indian Express, The Express Tribune, Daily Sabah, Economic Times

Striked per WP:DAILYSABAH. CNC (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

---