Jump to content

Talk:June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Extended-protected page
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 13 June 2025

June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran → 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran – There has been no other Israeli strikes on Iran in 2025. Therefore by convention it should be moved to just 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran. If there is a break before more strikes are launched later in the year, then it would be moved back. DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 11:46, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There could be other strikes, so I think we should wait until at least the end of this month to decide. DCAllStar (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too soon. We don't know where this is going. Lova Falk (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - No other strikes have taken place this year, so no disambiguating month is needed in the title. Because strikes may happen later in the year is irrelevant right now per WP:CRYSTAL and if further strikes do occur, then we can revisit it at a later time. Yeoutie (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It fits better and new years first strikes. Still ongoing by the way. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support- We can always come back later to revise and Operation Rising Lion may even extend. TheFloridaMan (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too soon. --skarz (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the title should be reasonably concise. --Deinocheirus (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NCWWW. Yeshivish613 (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per Yeoutie's comments. –Aaronw1109 (talk) (contribs) 18:10, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tankishguy :)(: (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose but not because I oppose the reason that’s listed.
Actually, both countries are targeting each other at the moment, with dozens of iranian missiles entering israel and some hitting their targets. Meaning this isn’t solely an “israeli attack on iran”. Perhaps “2025 Iran–Israel strikes” 88.238.37.182 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is some possibility of Israel conducting strikes on Iran later this year, so until it can be definitely be said that this conflict is over, the current title should be kept.
NesserWiki (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Currently, these are the only strikes that Israel has taken against Iran, and per WP:CRYSTAL, we cannot predict if more strikes will happen. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Support per nom.--Surv1v4l1st ╠Talk║Contribs╣ 19:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom - PunjabiEditor69 (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support - appears clumsily worded as of now AlbusWulfricDumbledore (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose considering Iran just said that it sees the attacks as a declaration of war we need to wait and see if this escalates, handling it by now would be too soon it hasnt even been a day Eva The Lefty (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I didnt look too deep, but the attacks/strikes/whatever last year didnt seem to have a similar proposal at first in April, but I could be wrong. I would say keep it for now, but not against revisiting it in January. Metallurgist (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the April 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran page only gained its current title after the October strikes, via this edit on 25 October; until then it was known as 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran. Yeoutie (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok thanks. That explains why I couldnt find a similar discussion. In this case, the page was already created this way, just as that was created that way, so I still think to keep it as is until details change, but I would be upset over a move. Metallurgist (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and as per comments by Yeoutie regarding the possibility of future strikes being WP:CRYSTAL and if further strikes do occur, it can be revisited again. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 21:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - quite simply, too soon. Lf8u2 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Too soon to tell if it may escalate into more strikes Guy141 (talk) 22:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Iran–Israel war – Since it has clearly turned into an open conflict. Svartner (talk) 23:04, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too soon yet. — Hamid Hassani (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's possible that more strikes could happen later this year. StormHunterBryante5467⛈️ 01:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:TOOSOON. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also procedural note that this can only be moved by an admin whilst it appears on the main page (WP:MPNOREDIRECT). estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:33, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative This article could be titled, "2025 Iranian-Israeli War" (listing countries alphabetically) since it is ongoing, and tit-for-tat at this point. It could also be named Operation Rising Lion. While there are multiple alternative names, I'm going to defer to consensus. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Calls for a textbook application of WP:TOOSOON. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 03:03, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose They can still do strikes later in the year. Rager7 (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Looking at Category:Airstrikes during the 2024 Iran–Israel conflict, it seems that we're better off disambiguating by month. Keivan.fTalk 04:12, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too soon. UnilandofmaTalk 09:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other relevant discussions currently taking place:
JBchrch talk 14:50, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, after reading the above comments, my views are split. On the one hand, the supports felt that this might be the only airstrike in 2025, but since the future might be unpredictable, I will align with the opposes; as far as the event continues, there might plausibly be another set of strikes later this year, and so moving this title to the proposed target is a bit too soon and would necessitate another move discussion should this strikes reoccur. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, my oppose is weak due to the application of WP:CRYSTAL in regards to the future strikes, but I have no objections to the move being made. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative. I think it should be changed to 2025 Iranian-Israeli War. EntropyReducingGuy(We can talk, but I reply with intended delay)💧♾️➡❄️📚 11:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative, second Original - All the statements from Israeli officials have made it clear that this is going to be going on for a long time, that they're going to continue expanding their targets, and that they're not going to let Iran rebuild. This isn't just a couple "strikes"; the goal is to overthrown the Iranian regime. This is a war. Let's not use euphemisms. BUT: lacking agreement on this alternative, I would at least support the original proposal. -- Rei (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose / Alternate - Since we don't know what we don't know, and Iran has struck back (repeatedly) in the current conflict, the original and proposed titles are insufficient. A more general title 2025 Israel - Iran Conflict (or Conflicts if applicable) would be an example preferred title. T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 13:01, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — too soon. We may want to combine this article with Iran's retaliation. Time will tell how best to handle this. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose same
freesucrose (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request 13 June 2025

Description of suggested change: Why did the section about reactions from Iranian diaspora and opposition dissappear?

Diff:

−
ORIGINAL_TEXT
+
CHANGED_TEXT

193.180.124.230 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Skitash (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do know what you mean, and I don't know why it disappeared, but I have added it back in. Lova Falk (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with inserting that unnecessary section. The views of individual exiled figures and foreign politicians of Iranian descent may be notable in other contexts, but selectively highlighting only a few pro-strike voices while omitting other diaspora condemnation violates WP:Balance. As it stands, the current version comes across more as advocacy (WP:NOTADVOCACY) for critics of the country. A broader consensus should be established first; until then, this section should be removed.
The standard in conflict-related articles is to include only domestic reactions, international responses from states, and statements from relevant organizations. StarkReport (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You’re the only one who seems to disagree at the moment, and yet you went ahead and deleted the whole section. Meanwhile, multiple editors have restored and added to the section numerous times per WP:BALANCE. You'll need to reach consensus before removing it, even if you, respectfully, WP:DONTLIKEIT.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree as well for the reasons he stated, which are obviously more than just WP:DONTLIKEIT. Furthermore, per WP:ONUS The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content; Please get this consensus if you insist on including it — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 21:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I agree with the onus for consensus, but StarkReport's point is "omitting other diaspora condemnation". The onus is on you/Stark to find diaspora condemnation, and not doing so doesn't entitle you to remove the section per WP:BALANCE. Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding a diaspora condemnation point per WP:BALANCE.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:41, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you're proceeding with breaking 1RR?? — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 21:59, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out to me, but I don't believe it falls under 1RR as they're not pure reverts. On the second edit, I added content per WP:BALANCE, which you had requested, and I made note of here on the talk page. Please educate me if I'm wrong on the matter. Regardless, the section has been truncated by others now.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a reminder/clarification: This article and its talk page have been designated as a WP:ARBPIA subject. Therefore, as an active arbitration remedy, the following restriction is in place: "You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours (except in limited circumstances)." Here is how a revert is defined on Wikipedia. (Personally, I am not going to review if it is a problem or not as I am unsure of all of the details of what this is about and what has happened, so I am leaving it to you and the others to determine what happened. If you agree that you reverted twice, then you should self-revert.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:24, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
he did lol
21:42, 13 June 2025
21:14, 13 June 2025 — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 10:25, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See above.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Lova Falk: It seems StarkReport and now The Cheesedealer have, without consensus, removed the Iranian diaspora section that you and many other editors have added. Thoughts on its inclusion? Seems to me it would fit per WP:BALANCE, and the consensus so far based on numerous editors keeping / adding to it would be to keep it in the article.--Ronnnaldo7 (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support inclusion of diaspora responses, but the section needs to be condensed. It's a bit of WP:QUOTEFARM at the moment. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The logical question we should be asking is: what is the need for this section? Does it contribute anything meaningful to the article, especially when it centers around a handful of cherry-picked, high-profile exiled opposition voices? The Iranian diaspora has left the country for a wide variety of reasons (economic, political, religious, educational, etc.), yet this section gives undue focus to just one segment. It only makes sense in the context of anti-regime activism, which I may sympathize with, but let’s be honest: Wikipedia is not the place for such advocacy..
As others have noted, this article falls under ARBPIA restrictions. In such contexts, extra care is required to avoid advocacy, undue focus, and editorial battleground behavior. If there is genuine consensus for a brief summary of diaspora responses across a broad spectrum of opinion, not just opposition figures, it could be folded into the existing "International" or "Organizations" section. But creating a separate, spotlighted “diaspora” section, particularly when its content is selectively quoted and lacks encyclopedic balance, makes Wikipedia resemble an opinion piece blog.
Another user, @Uhoj, even thanked me for removing it, indicating at least some consensus against its inclusion. StarkReport (talk) 09:16, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added the NIAC statement in to the diaspora section to provide a little more balance. Theoretically, Iranian diaspora reactions are relevant but the 3 sources in use at the moment are extremely biased. If sourcing can't be improved with WP:RS, I'd support deletion. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

War

Re title, Financial Times is calling it a full-on war as of June 14 edition: https://x.com/FT/status/1933622939435319432 Brycehughes (talk) 01:47, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would merit a separate page as this article and the June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel detail the strikes specifically. Unless the community forms a consensus and merges the two into a single page, then a retitling can happen. Keivan.fTalk 04:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Israel – Iran war now exists Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:34, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times analysis (start 3:20) says this attack is not the start of a new war, but the escalation of a war that was already going on since the 2023 October 7 attacks. Israel has been fighting a multi-front war since then (Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Iran). During those 20 months, the Iran-Israel component of the war has become more out in the open and public - the June 2025 battle is a culmination of the past 20 months, and could continue for more rounds. "It's not a new war breaking out, it's an old war reaching some kind of climax and we are about to see how that climax unfolds in the coming days and weeks". -- GreenC 02:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Move

I think merging June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel into June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran, and then renaming the June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran to June 2025 Iran–Israel strikes would be better. (Just like 2025 India–Pakistan crisis)

Both articles cover the same conflict, so a unified title better reflects the situation. ~Raihanur (talk) 11:08, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. In the past, the strikes happened one after another and ended after one-two launches, but this time they are happening in parallel and have not ended for two days. Now it really looks like a mutual and prolonged exchange of strikes. Personally, I think that the best option would be to call it the Iran-Israel war, but it is too early to give such a name, because it could all end at the stage of mutual strikes.  PLATEL  (talk) 11:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We do already have Israel – Iran war, in fact Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:43, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to redirect to last year's exchange. Riposte97 (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: they are launching reciprocal strikes. Definitely a single article. Hauskasic (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support they belong together. Lova Falk (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support the merge. Uhoj (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait not opposed in principle, but I would wait for a few weeks before doing that, we don’t want to be overtaken by events FortunateSons (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed my tag or a potential new article on retaliation. Clearly wiki has no idea about how geopolitics.Sportsnut24 (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think the only reason they are separate is because of the strikes last year, but these differ in one major aspect: timing. The April and October strikes occurred over a period of less than 24 hours with days between the responding country's retaliation. 2025's strikes differ as these have now not only extended to 2 days and counting, but they have an overlapping timeframe now. I think it's confusing to readers to have to switch between articles to see the course of this conflict. Yeoutie (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Editors - This merge and move has already been proposed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel so further discussion should likely take place there. Yeoutie (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that AfD is a better place for this discussion per the comments I left on the AfD.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:01, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Yeoutie: This is a bit mistaken. There is a proper move discussion above. I believe this section is more for discussing a potential merge and a name change following the move, which is a bit different. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other relevant discussions currently taking place:
JBchrch talk 15:06, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might support this, since both strikes are directly related and presenting the together and in order makes sense, but also maybe wait for a little while, since this is all very recent and I haven't clearly made up my mind yet. Plus, as shown above, there are currently several discussions about the future of those exact articles that are also currently ongoing, the results of which might even contradict this one. Piccco (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right now I'm leaning more towards waiting and seeing what happens before committing to merging any pages into each other. As of right now I think it's best to keep the 2 pages about the strikes separate as they're separate events, and it's far too soon to know if this is the beginning of a much wider conflict like an all-out "Israel – Iran war". Maybe that article could be kept but renamed to 2025 Iran-Israel conflict which currently is a redirect to the article about Israel's strikes on Iran. Too soon to say, really. Discussing what to do with all these pages and reaching consensuses and moving bytes around from one article to another and merging and redirecting and renaming would almost certainly take multiple days, and who knows how different the situation might look a few days from now. We might take one stance today based on the current situation and our current expectations of what's likely to happen, but we might feel completely differently depending on how much it escalates or de-escalates.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From the range of policy expert sources I’ve seen, including Foreign Affairs and The Economist. It’s clearly a war. I believe the article the editor above mentioned is a strong candidate to cover it. KiltedKangaroo (talk) 19:48, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I look at it is that if it is in fact an all out war, then the Israel-Iran war article will be dramatically expanded with information on the battles of that war, so we'd probably want to keep these pages separate from what would be the main article per WP:SPLIT to make sure the war page won't become too long to navigate comfortably. And if it's not a war and nothing more happens, then the page about the war is just a content fork with an erroneous name. Either way, I don't see a scenario where merging all the contents of these two pages into that page and turning them into redirects is the right move.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per above.VR (Please ping on reply) 01:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - obviously related/in response to each other. People would plausibly be looking for Iran counterstrikes in this article.
WFUM🔥🌪️ (talk) 02:17, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SCO-india

The SCO unanimously condemned israel (india had reservations). That is HIGHLY notable on a huge gopolitical level. [1]Sportsnut24 (talk) 13:28, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So hugely I don't what what "SCO" is. kencf0618 (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shanghai Cooperation Organization.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:37, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we understand what is happening?

The article is paralyzed due to the creation of multiple articles in a short period of time. The two events are related, and the reader has to go to both articles to read about what is happening at the same time! Hauskasic (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is usually what happens when a large incident occurs. Users trying to make multiple articles that might be WP:POVFORKed which wastes not only the readers' time but also the editors' time. I suggest that all improvements be made to only one article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 05:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

60 Iranians killed in a single bombing alone

A single bombing apparently killed more than 60 Iranians, including 20 children.[2] This seems like a significant attack and I wonder if it should be spun out into its own article. The attack itself has been verified by the NYT[3], while the casualty figures come from local sources. The aftermath images can also been seen here[4].VR (Please ping on reply) 01:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VR: In high-casualty conflicts, thinking of list of Syrian civil war barrel bomb attacks, it's not practical to make an article for each so they are recorded in a list. Encourage this be done as a way to track the war's carnage. This is something humanitarian NGOs often do. Because Iran is so inaccessible open-source intelligence will play an important role and Wikipedia could be part of that effort. -- GreenC 03:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that these numbers are all sourced to Iranian state media, only, and our article needs to be clear about their source—I'm unable to find a shred of independent corroboration. Ekpyros (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the link about the NYT verified that a 14-story residential building had its apartments "ripped open". Such a tall building must house hundreds. So the claim that it killed 60 isn't WP:EXCEPTIONAL at all. France 24 has interviewed[5] Iranians on the ground who have reported civilians being killed, including "young children".VR (Please ping on reply) 09:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yemen bombing

Israel conducted an assassination attempt in Yemen targeting a senior Houthi official, should it be added here? 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 02:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, right? See my post here Special:Diff/1295654030/1295659073. June 2025 is a battle in a larger multi-front war that began October 2023. If there was an article about this war, it would be obvious where to place these disparate events that are actually all connected. Yemen (Houthis) + Hezbollah + Hamas + Iran vs. Israel -- GreenC 03:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present) could be renamed as such to reflect this 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 03:34, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Criticism of Gaza war" section should be removed

The "Criticism of Gaza war" section is misplaced, unsourced, and misrepresents the sources it does cite. The only sources supporting anything like "Many analysts believe that a war with Iran would allow Benjamin Netanyahu to distract countries from Israel's conduct in Gaza" are obviously biased and come nowhere near meeting the reliability standard for such an extraordinary claim: an Afghani paper, a Moroccan paper that describes Israel as an "apartheid state", and the pitiful London Standard, a shell of its former self—none have any consensus as to reliability. The obvious implication is that Netanyahu is striking Iran to distract from criticism of Gaza or because he's politically concerned with an election that isn't being held—absurd and totally unfounded claims. Nothing in the Guardian article suggests anything of the sort—it simply notes that the Iran conflict has lessened the pressure of criticism regarding Gaza. Anyone who knows the slightest thing about Netanyahu knows he has been pushing to end Iran's nuclear ambitions for three decades. Criticism of the Gaza War is so incidental to the topic of this article that it's embarrassing to see it included, even as "Background"—where, remarkably, it takes up as much space as the section on "Iran's nuclear program" itself. It's obviously meant to impute bad motive to Israel's decision to strike the Iranian theocracy's nuclear sites. This kind of anti-Israeli bias is poisoning our encyclopedia. Ekpyros (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section is sourced and none of the sources appear to be unreliable. Just because a source describes Israel as apartheid, doesn't make it unreliable. For example, Amnesty is listed as "generally reliable" at WP:RSP even though it describes Israel as apartheid. Also, Associated Press, which is perhaps the biggest news source in the world, published "For Netanyahu, the operation distracts attention from Israel’s ongoing and increasingly devastating war in Gaza, which is now over 20 months old."[6] VR (Please ping on reply) 10:30, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing seems reasonable given the information attributed to them. Boud (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ekpyros What is the relationship between the paper being Moroccan or Afghani and its credibility? — 🧀Cheesedealer !!!⚟ 13:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libya

@Qhairun Why did you remove Libya? Per the Wikipedia article of the GNU, the UN recognizes the GNU as Libya's legitimate government as of May 2025, so in my opinion it should be listed. Just putting "Added info" in your edit summary is not enough. Underdwarf58 (talk) 07:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, after I published my edit of the protests, I just didn't realized that for some reasons, removed the Greece and Libya part. I deeply apologized for my actions and I have zero intentions of removing them in the first place and I only intended to publish about the anti war protests in London. Again, I apologized for the mistake. Qhairun (talk) 07:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine. Just be careful next time. Underdwarf58 (talk) 08:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UNDUE weight at locations

The current listing at June_2025_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran#Locations suffers from WP:UNDUE weight. We have damage that is sourced to nothing but posts on x.com or the opinion of ISW (without any corroboration). Yet an airstrike that destroyed a 14-story building, that killed dozens of Iranians, and is widely reported by many sources is much further below. WP:DUE requires we give prominence to content in proportion of its coverage by RS.

Here is the coverage that covers what appears to be the deadliest attack during the June 2025 strikes on Iran: United Press International[7], New York Times[8][9], EFE[10], Washington Post[11], Al-Ahram[12], Daily Finland[13], Arab News[14].VR (Please ping on reply) 10:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the attack on IRGC headquarters killed Salami and possibly other high ranking officers thus seem more significant than the attacks on nuclear sites, where the damage is fairly uncertain.VR (Please ping on reply) 12:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Background framed

In the reading of the Background it seems to me framed around the views of one side, specifically when describing the Irán politics vs the Israel politics. Certainly the Islamic State of Iran has remarked Israel as an illegitimate "Zionist regime" and important politicians/Ayatollah has been supporting a "hate speech against Israel", but other countries of the region a well. During the Islamic State of Iran have been several phases and there were different approaches to Israel. Regarding the denial of Holocaust several presidents of Iran did the opposite: Rouhani comments to CNN: "... in general, I can tell you that any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime the Nazis created towards the Jews as well as non-Jews is reprehensible and condemnable. Whatever criminality they committed against the Jews, we condemn". Also during the Mohammad Khatami government there were more movements for conciliation rather than confrontation with western countries, even Israel. The current president Masoud Pezeshkian is also considered from the "conciliation" part of the Iran politicians and actually he supported "restarting discussions with the United States over the nuclear program of Iran, vowing to revive the agreement Iran reached with the U.S. and other world powers in 2015."

I think we should write this in more mild words, so as not to lose a historical perspective. For example, if for the background we quote recent articles or during more conflictive times, we may lose the historical perspective needed in a ‘background’. Otherwise we are just replicating war propaganda of either side. At this moment how the background is written it seems to justify Israel attacks on Iran and possible responses of Iran. AyubuZimbale (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the statement "The weakening of Hamas and Syria has allowed the new Lebanese government to exercise sovereignty for the first time in forty years while the Iran backed Syrian regime fell in late 2024.[1]" ,even when given a source that I can't read ,can be seen as a propaganda after Lebanon war by Israel without a better context and further references. AyubuZimbale (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on both counts. Lebanese internal politics look irrelevant. And Iran's reformist leaders have implicitlt supported Israels right to exist in the 67 borders[15].VR (Please ping on reply) 17:04, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your writing of an airstrike in Lebanon is somewhat off structurally (similar to VR's observations), and to a lesser extent grammatically, hence my removal for reasons of incoherence. Borgenland (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On my side I am happy to remove all references to Lebanese internal politics and recent attacks of Israel to Lebanon capital, the one of other editors and mine. However, I just reverted the delete to foster the debate about the avoid of framing the background to either side. My concerns are also about the limitation to sources after 13-June-2025, as this open the door to just replicate propaganda of either side and not consider long-term relevant analysis. I added the airstrike and the additional analysis of the Lebanon to avoid a framing on one side interpretation. Delete all this paragraph is fine for me. AyubuZimbale (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As expected many improvements from different editors regarding what is commented here have been removed, even when this talk section to discuss about framing issues has been created before any editing of the background of the site under discussion here. I also note that despite some comments of TouchedWithFire, all the edition in the background section that has been restored has been done also after a contact to different editors in their talk pages as well as the section here included. On the other side other editors removed content without a contact even when talk attempts were done, invitation to discuss and this section has created to achieve an agreement AyubuZimbale (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cook, Steven A. (13 June 2025). "Israel Is Going for the Death Blow on Iran". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 13 June 2025.

WP:WINARS

Calling out whoever cited Wikipedia in [16] as a blatant violation of WP:WINARS. Borgenland (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AyubuZimbale trying to foment a debate does not excuse you from restoring non-reliable sources as you did here [17]. Borgenland (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Please don't use the word blatant is a bit aggressive and not necessary. Instead of talking about ‘blatant violation’, I'm sure there are other ways to comment on it for whoever added this wikipedia quote.
(2) I agree that the reference is not appropriate, and I didn't insert it, instead I open a debate, I write to you and other editors asking for opinion. As I thought it was not appropriate.
(3) If you read my edits and my contributions on the discussion page you will notice that I was critical of the addition of this source, but instead of removing it outright, I opened a debate in the hope that the other editors could raise their views on the source. I apologise to you as my first approach to these issues was consensus and debate.
I kindly encourage you to release better on the real situation rather than mechanical disapprovals, although I know you have good intentions and a practical approach. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note if you read my reply to you above (before your last edit, written in the section about the background framed), I would realise that I agree on the removal, so your statement was a bit outdated, I guess. AyubuZimbale (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a timing issue. I was on mobile then so things don’t ring immediately. Borgenland (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International law

This was a section initially added by me and then improved by other editors. However, after our work it was removed by an editor, then I decided to revert it, as it is not fair to completely remove a section that more than one editor was working on without any discussion. I kindly ask for a discussion before completely deleting the work done by other editors, also because the section reasonably complied with all Wikipedia Rules.

After my initial revert to foster a debate on the page, other different editor has also decided to full remove the full section, again without any consideration to the editors that work in the section (of a topic with a strong impact on the media), or my comments asking for a discussion about it.

I will give some time here to the different editors involved to reply this concerns, and I encourage to those who deleted full section to be a bit more kind and talkative about it. AyubuZimbale (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked, most of this material already seems present in the article. I don't mind a new subheading for this particular element, although is there anything else in particular you think is missing and should be included? In this instance, I think you were reverted for breaking the 1RR (normally, it's a 3RR, so that may be where the confusion comes in). However, if the text was developed with other editors, it makes sense to tag them here and we can restore your prior version if there's consensus to do that. Lewisguile (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Responses trimmed

As always with articles like this, the Responses section had grown to epic proportions, making it unwieldy and WP:UNDUE. As with other articles in this topic, I have trimmed the responses to the main actors (Iran and Israel), with the UN, NATO, and the US. The last is there solely because of the US' awareness of the attacks beforehand, but could also be removed if others feel strongly about this. This should cover the broad strokes without having to list every single country that makes a comment here. Lewisguile (talk) 22:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. The article had been lagging when I edited last night. I will be checking if some mention of third country evacuations are due, given that we have a large migrant population there. Borgenland (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel with June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran

I suggest merging June 2025 Israeli strikes on Iran and June 2025 Iranian strikes on Israel into a single article titled 2025 Iran–Israel conflict or 2025 Iran–Israel war.

These strikes are part of the same conflict and are directly linked in timeline, context, and consequences. Splitting them causes unnecessary duplication and disrupts coherence.

A relevant precedent is the 2025 India–Pakistan conflict, where Operation Bunyan-un-Marsus and Operation Sindoor were merged into one article to better reflect the integrated nature of the events. Veritasphere (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: this is the same conflict/escalation/event, from two different perspectives. At this point, there do not appear to be any length concerns. They should be merged into a single article. Melmann 05:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Esmail Qaani

Is there a consensus as to the whereabouts of the Quds commander? The NYT claims he is dead, but Israel either has not confirmed this or says he is still alive. Given an apparent lack of consensus or official confirmation on both sides, should his name be removed from the list of deceased commanders? CapeVerdeWave (talk) 05:21, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2025_Israeli_strikes_on_Iran&oldid=1295846110"