Talk:Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus

NPOV violation

Longhornsg this edit was clearly a WP:NPOV violation. RS agree the object of the attack was an Iranian diplomatic building in Damascus. That is also why the name of this article is "Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus". For you to mention a very tiny POV in the first sentence is a gross violation of WP:UNDUE. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Here are some sources that debunk the Israeli narrative, and show that it is a WP:FRINGE narrative and needs to be carefully handled.

First, the number of RS that say the building was Iranian consulate is overwhelming: The Guardian, BBC News, CBC/Reuters, Le Monde, Chatham House, AJ, etc

Second, France24 did an investigation into Israeli claims[1]. It concluded "A number of pro-Israeli social media accounts [claim] the embassy wasn’t hit in the strike. They claim that the building that was hit belonged to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps, which would mean it was not a part of the diplomatic compound. However, an analysis of the images shows that the building hit by the Israeli strike belongs to the Iranian consulate, which is indeed part of the embassy." Also consider CNN[2]: "The consulate building, which includes the ambassador’s residence and is located next to the Iranian Embassy, is considered sovereign Iranian territory."

VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I've added Israeli claims to the second paragraph of the lead along with counterclaims that this was indeed a consulate.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

What an absurdly WP:TENDENTIOUS interpretation of the edit and a blatant misreading of WP:NPOV. I did not remove the mention that it was a consulate. What I did do was restore NPOV by adding Israel's view, properly attributed, that it was a diplomatic facility used as cover to house military activities by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Qods Force. Anyone even remotely familiar with this topic knows that this kind of dual-use facility (military infrastructure disguised as civilian or diplomatic) is standard. Israel has explicitly claimed that the building was used for IRGC operational purposes, and that Iran was exploiting diplomatic protections to shield IRGC personnel. That’s not a fringe view. It's their stated position (of course, backed by the history in this topic area). Eight IRGC members were killed in the strike. That alone strongly supports the characterization of the facility as a military target.

Now, in what world is the view of the very state actor that carried out the strike somehow not a "significant view"? The idea that Israel’s position is irrelevant or undue violates the most basic interpretation of WP:NPOV, which states that neutrality means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is what WP:RS do. You don't have to agree with Israel's view. But per policy, you absolutely do have to represent it. I expect Israel's full contention -- that this is was a dual-use facility used by the IRGC -- be accurately and fairly represented. Adding a tag until this is addressed. Longhornsg (talk) 01:00, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

What you added was that the "Israeli military claimed was neither a consulate nor an embassy". I can't find many reliable sources that assert this building was neither a consulate nor an embassy. Pretty much every RS on the topic calls it either an embassy or a consulate. Adding a fringe view, with in attribution, doesn't make it any less fringe. Adding "some believe the earth is flat" in the first sentence of spherical earth would be a violation of UNDUE even though it is attributed.

Secondly, the presence of military officers at a consulate does not negate it being a consulate. Perhaps you can read military attache. Or you can read "Israel, while not officially acknowledging responsibility, argued that the Iranian ambassador’s residence was not really a diplomatic venue but “a military building … disguised as a civilian building.” As such, to Israel it was a perfectly legitimate target. But by this logic, nearly all embassies would be seen as fair game. Almost by definition, the vast majority of embassies – particularly of the larger countries – are populated with significant numbers of military and intelligence personnel."[3]

Thirdly, I want to distinguish between two questions: whether Israel attacked a consulate and whether Israels attack was legitimate under international law. For the former question, RS overwhelming agree the answer is a unequivocal "yes", but debate can be had over the latter question.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 13:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Missing word

"Numerous countries and international organizations condemned the attack, many argued that the violated international law" The what? The attack? Maybe replace "the" with "it". 82.2.111.160 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 19:36, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

Background

"In February 2022, Israel was accused of having assassinating an Iranian commander in Tehran." -

Should be "accused of assassinating" or "accused of having assassinated"

Also, much of this section seems to be tied to specific periods by the use of "have" / "has" - e.g. Syrian Civil War -

"With the onset of the Gaza war in October 2023, Israel has increased the intensity of its attacks on Syria."

Perhaps remove "has" - the meaning is the same, and this will not violate the policy of not tying timed phrases to the present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:When#Time_phrases_tied_to_the_present

82.2.111.160 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Combatants

More WP:TENDENTIOUS editing by @Vice regent. In what world is "7 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) soldiers, 5 Iran-backed militiamen, one Hezbollah fighter, and an military advisor" not 14 combatants? So if 3 sailors, 3 Marines, and 3 Airmen are killed, we shouldn't say "9 soldiers"? WP:SKYBLUE Longhornsg (talk) 01:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

The word combatants is problematic because I'm not sure there was an "armed conflict" (that's a legal term) between the countries prior to the bombing. Are there RS that use the term in relation to the bombing? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 02:01, 17 June 2025 (UTC)