Talk:Israeli airstrike on the Iranian consulate in Damascus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 1

More precise title

On the basis of an article like

WP:PRECISE. Dylanvt (talk) 03:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Tennisist123 removed this post from the Talk Page, which is a major violation of Wikipedia policy, and frankly disgusting behavior. I've readded it now. Furthermore, Israel has officially admitted to the bombing. Dylanvt (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have apologised to
WP:AGF
. I want to have a discussion on this topic but thought it had moved to the editing description fields.
Can you please share the source that Israel has officially admitted to the bombing? I see that the BBC and NYT are still running with 'Iran accuses.' Tennisist123 (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The NYT source includes Israel's justification for why they did it: "Israeli officials said the building was an outpost of the Revolutionary Guards, making it a legitimate military target."
While this NYT article states: "Israel’s bombing of an Iranian Embassy building in Damascus, which killed senior Iranian military and intelligence officials, is a major escalation of what has long been a simmering undeclared war between Israel and Iran", not saying anything about "claims" or "allegations". Dylanvt (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Your first point is still not sufficient in my opinion. Just because Israel has said something could be bombed, does not mean that they have bombed it. Motive alone is insufficient.
Your second point is a link to a news analysis article sharing the personal analysis of a single expert, not editorial content. If you want to change the title to 'Steven Erlanger accused Israel,' I am supportive. Here is an article explaining what News Analysis is. "When an article is primarily analytical, a label of "News Analysis" appears near the top of the article... They are not editorials." https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/college/faculty/coll_mono_know.html Tennisist123 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The AP's newest headline on the topic today still leads with Iran blames. You have yet to provide evidence while counter evidence continues to mount. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts @Dylanvt:. https://apnews.com/article/iran-syria-israel-hezbollah-gaza-damascus-f7a1af3a9fc67de1962d4f1589d7e9f0 Tennisist123 (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, this is an alleged Israeli bombing. The title of the article should not be defining facts that have yet to be established.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Please make sure to voice this in the move request below. @Monopoly31121993(2) Tennisist123 (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Deathcount

We rely on two sources heavily, the Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-bombs-iran-embassy-syria-iranian-commanders-among-dead-2024-04-01/ and Barrons https://www.barrons.com/news/iran-media-say-death-toll-rises-to-13-in-syria-consulate-strike-206cdb18

They disagree on death count; Reuters at 8 and Barrons at 13. Opening the discussion so we ensure the article is consistent throughout. Tennisist123 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I did not remove the word "suspected", but it is clear that it was an Israeli attack and there is no dispute about it. Also, what you're are changing here is the initial description of the article since it was created. Its crystal clear that its done by Israel, especially when countries are condemning this act against Israel, its clear what's happening here. Farnaj57 (talk) 13:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that this was an Israeli strike, but that is not the standard we are arguing against. If you can send me a tier 1 source that has directly reported that Israel did it, not that Iran claims Israel did it, I will happily support your edits to remove 'suspected' and 'accused' and make the article more direct. Unfortunately, as it stands now, we do not have the evidence to make those claims ourselves. Over the next few days, I am sure we will get these articles and can make the edits then. Is this agreeable to you? Tennisist123 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The is no problem with the word "suspected", I thought you were saying that we don't have an exact number of deaths. If the problem is the death count, then I'll add a "according to the Iranian media", deleting the part "Iran holds Israel and the United States of America responsible for the attack" since I'm mentioning the Iranian media, and leave the rest as it is, agree? Farnaj57 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I am sorry I misunderstood your message and yes, it looks like we were speaking at cross purposes. I do not have a strong opinion either way on the number of deaths, was just flagging originally that we had two different numbers referenced in the article. Happy to do with 13 with a disclaimer that Iran media reported it. My strong opinions were about assigning blame beyond the qualifier of 'Iran accuses' as that is all I can find well supported in the press.
What does the discussion about the deaths have to do with 'Iran holds...' clause. I do not see how these are linked and I think this is independently important as the language opens up the possibility that Iran's response could be against either US or Israel. We won't know until something happens though. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Its all good, and about that part: its already mentioned in the "Domestic Reactions" section, there is no need for it to be mentioned twice. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok take a look at the tweaks I just put in now and let me know if you are happy? Tennisist123 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your edits have misspellings, what is "Iraian"? and the part mentioned twice has not been deleted, let me do it my friend, if there is a discussion, raise it here before changing. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the typo. I must disagree with your argument that the statement 'Iran holds Israel and US responsible' is redundant and therefore needs to be removed. The summary section is intended the summarise the key information of the article below it. So in some sense it is all redundant. The conversation we should be having is whether that information is important enough to make it into the summary. I believe it is as it is the closest we can get to blaming Israel in the beginning (with the sources we have today) and sets the stage appropriately to connect this event with whatever will happen next. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm saying remove it because its partly mentioned down there. Ok look, what if I move that part entirely to the "Domestic Reactions" section? becuase it is indeed a reaction, it blongs to that section, not at the very top. In this way, it is not completely removed and will exist. Good now? btw, you removed the part "suspected" again lol Farnaj57 (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah which suspected do you mean?! Clearly I keep missing it as I am not intended to edit that. The previous edit I did was to add your preferred language around Iranian media (even if I typed too fast and spelled it wrong). Tennisist123 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Nothing, the article's title was renamed to "2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus" and it seems that it was definitely the work of Israel, now there is no way to use the word "suspected", forget it. You didn't answer my qustion? Farnaj57 (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes I saw that was done but I am not sure the press has crossed the precipice to make that change and have asked Dylanvt to share the new press that jsutified that edit.
Why do you not think that Iran holding Israel and US responsible is not one of the key takeaways from the event that is worth including in the summary? To me it is so I want to hear your reasoning. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
It is a key takeaway, I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying here... I never said remove that part entierly, I've said its better to move it into the "Reaction" section. Farnaj57 (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Let me summarise what I understand your position to be so you can confirm or clarify?
Currently we say 'Iran holds Israel and US responsible twice. Once in the summary and once in the reaction section. We should only say this once in the reaction section."
If that understand is right I disagree and argue that we do say it twice and we should continue to say it twice as it is an important enough take-away to be included in the summary in addition to it's normal place in Reactions. Tennisist123 (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and I also disagree. That part was the same from the beginning until you changed it. I say that sending a letter by Iran to the UN is a much bigger deal than accusing America/Israel, which Iran always does, does this justify mentioning it twice? Definitely not. What's the solution here then? Farnaj57 (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
The solution is easy; we can combine them. Take a look at this sentence below here.
"Iran holds Israel and the United States of America responsible for the attack and has sent a letter to the UN Security Council saying it 'reserves its legitimate and inherent right to respond decisively'.
Tennisist123 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
If you like this compromise, why don't you add it to prevent my fat fingers from getting the best of us with another typo.
Tennisist123 (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
You know what, it doesn't even matter, people are rapidly changing stuff while we're talking here, so what's the point lol. Let's finish this discussion and get over it. Farnaj57 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed lol. At least we tried :)
Tennisist123 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Similarly, the national condemnations are only evidence of the fact that the nation blames Israel, we cannot make the logical leap ourselves on wikipedia. We must wait for it to be reported.Tennisist123 (talk) 14:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Tennisist123 (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Move to

WP:NOYEAR. It's possible that "airstrike" is more precise but there isn't consensus to make that change; a second RM might be useful if people want that. Mike Selinker (talk) 01:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus → 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus – I think the article being retitled to 2024 Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus by User:Dylanvt
is not appropriate. I suggest moving it back to 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus:

I suggest we move it back to the original title of 2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus or 2024 airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus to maintain a sense of consistency and accuracy.

ping me. 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 10:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Support: As it appears, the perpetrator is not mentioned in the titles of articles regarding attacks on embassies. For the sake of both consistency and conciseness, naming the perpetrator in the title itself is not useful. ―Howard • 🌽33 21:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The example of
Iskandar323 (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
That article is the only example which is presented. There is also the 2024 raid on the Mexican embassy in Ecuador which doesn't mention that the perpetrator is Ecuador in the title. In any case, why should specifically state-on-state attacks mention the perpetrator in the title, while those perpetrated by non-state actors aren't mentioned? In addition, when attacks are state-on-state but do not focus on the attack of a diplomatic mission, then the perpetrator isn't usually mentioned (for example: Bombing of Dresden, Attack on Pearl Harbor, Raid on the Medway). ―Howard • 🌽33 22:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • I agree. Both titles work for this. I think it's important to include the fact that the airstrike is Israeli, since removing it kind of seems to remove that link between the airstrike and the country itself. Werkwer (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    The issue with Ecrusized's title is it goes back to considering this a consulate and not an embassy. This was an embassy. If someone bombed a truck at an embassy you'd still say they bombed the embassy - having a building part of the embassy compound get blown up is still the embassy. Damascus is the capital and any degradation of such is not reasonable or informative. Amyipdev (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with your statement, however I disagree that it is a degradation to the capital itself. It was a mere mistake on my behalf for not looking into the technical language. Werkwer (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is widely accepted (and actually undisputed) that the bombing was by Israel. No need to remove or change anything.
Stephan rostie (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per above and because the title '"2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus"' suggests that it was an Iranian attack against whatever consulate in Damascus instead of an attack against the Iran embassy by Israel, as acknowledged by all major international media and Israel itself. MaeseLeon (talk) 06:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Note: My third bullet point was about the article at that exact time point in time. New information and statements have been made since then. Clearly Israel has made more comments about the strike. Obviously, the article on Wikipedia has changed as well.
My main point was about how it should follow the precedent of other articles as I mentioned in the second bullet point. See
World Central Kitchen drone strikes
. That attack happened on the same day as this airstrike (1 April 2024). Note how the title doesn't mean WCK conducted the drone strike. Additionally how the article isn't titled something like Israeli drone strike of World Central Kitchen.
I just know leaving the current title will led it to be justification in future contentious titling arguments, where things are not as easy to discern. This is why I suggest going with a simple title that follows previous naming examples.
ping me. 20:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
As noted above, it is exceptionally rare for embassies to be directly targeted by state actors, so the emphasis here is arguably warranted. I believe the last such event was the
Iskandar323 (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose: being 'concise' does not mean removing pertinent information. Sometimes a title is longer than 6 words but still concise.
    ARBECR restrictions in force on this page. (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Should follow the
    WP:Concise and general pattern. Additionally, the airstrike being carried out by Israel is a claim by Iran, and Wikipedia is not in place of pushing claims by one side without actual verification, there is a lot of misinformation, propaganda, and misleading information in relation to Israel and Iran. The title cannot make such a claim in wikivoice. PicturePerfect666 (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    In CNN ref 1 "Four unnamed Israeli officials acknowledged that Israel carried out the attack” and that "the US’ assessment was that Israel had carried out the airstrike.” Therefore, I’d say it’s more than a 'claim' by just Iran that the bombing was carried out by Israel. waddie96 ★ (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    This needs to be looked at in the wider context of reporting on the issues in the area and that not all previously accepted reliable journalism is actually reliable. Also the current sources in the article state "claimed by Iran".
    This is not my OR this is other sources stating the unreliable nature of media reporting Vox, Africa News, NPR
    PicturePerfect666 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose: I agree that the current title could be more concise, but the suggested title may be misleading, not only it does not clearly state the perpetrator, but who the victim is also not abundantly clear. While some iconic events like The Iranian Embassy siege don't need neither the year nor the perpetrators in the title, this event is more similar to this article: February 2024 United States airstrikes in Iraq and Syria which clearly states the year, the perpetrator and the targeted areas.
Additionally, addressing some people's claims that Israel may not have been the perpetrator, IDF themselves took the credit for this airstrike [1][2]. LatekVon (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Non-EC user
  • Oppose/propose alternative: "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus" is misleading, as it suggests that Iran performed the airstrike. "2024 airstrike of the Iranian consulate in Damascus" is insufficiently concise and uses the wrong preposition: a better title would be "2024 airstrike on the Iranian Damascus consulate". Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: my last here as it looks like oppose/alt is going to be the path forward as of now. Would like to point out
    ping me. 21:17, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Well, the current title is pretty clear who did the bombing. I think the proposed one is too ambiguous and you don't know if it was Israel or ISIS or the FSA from just the title alone. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 04:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Support change , I mean guys there is a really big mistake here in understanding! The building is not the embassy building! It's a building next to the embassy building, I mean just look at the pictures, you can see the fence of the embassy does not include the bombed building but encloses the embassy compound, so the building is just next to it but not part of the embassy. Also consulates are always in different cities to the location of the embassy building! If Italy has an embassy in Cairo it would have a consulate in Alexandria but Italy wouldn't have a consulate in Cairo. So this is a big mistake. Titlt should be: 2024 Israeli strike of Iranian building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus. I know the name sounds bad but it's accurate. ElLuzDelSur (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Revert to status quo. It's possible there are better titles than "2024 Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus", but the most important aspect is whether we refer to it as a consulate or an embassy, as that is the part that could result in us violating
    WP:NPOV
    . Reliable sources consistently refer to this as an airstrike on the consulate; searching for "Airstrike Damascus", of the first ten results:
    1. Sky News; "Embassy" - "suspected Israeli airstrike on Iran’s embassy in Damascus, Syria."
    2. SBS; "near Iran's Embassy" - "attack near Iran's Embassy in Damascus, assumed to be by Israel"
    3. Al Jazeera; "consulate" - "Israeli fighter jets fired missiles at the Iranian consulate in Syria’s capital Damascus earlier this week"
    4. CNN; "consulate" - "The airstrike destroyed the consulate building in the capital Damascus" "The consulate building, which includes the ambassador’s residence and is located next to the Iranian Embassy, is considered sovereign Iranian territory. "
    5. AP; "consulate" - "An Israeli airstrike that demolished Iran’s consulate in Syria"
    6. Iran International; "embassy" - "The European Union on Wednesday called for restraint after an airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus killed seven Revolutionary Guards."
    7. ABC; "consulate" - "after a suspected Israeli air strike on Iran's consulate"
    8. The Guardian; "consulate" - "Israeli war planes destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus"
    9. Reuters; "consulate" or "embassy compound" - "at its embassy compound in Damascus", "which destroyed a consular building adjacent to the main embassy complex"
    10. VOA; "consulate" - "that destroyed the Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria"
  • Six sources use "consulate", two use "embassy" including one whose reliability is unclear, and the other two use other terminology; it would be inappropriate for us to do differently. BilledMammal (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Consulate is a name traditionally used for the offices occupied by an embassy's consular section; however, those offices are still a part of the embassy. — kashmīrī TALK 08:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    It's more complicated than that - but the only thing that is relevant here is that reliable sources consider "consulate" more accurate, and I don't see any bases for us to reject their assessment. BilledMammal (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Sources repeat it one after another; usually after agency reports; that doesn't mean we should blindly copy them when incorrect and when we have plenty of correct sources. — kashmīrī TALK 09:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Diplomatic and consular premises: UN [3]
    Consular Section: Kazakhstan MFA [4], South African MFA [5], Iran MFA [6] (they know best what was located there)
    Embassy: The Atlantic Council [7], The Telegraph [8], TRT [9], RFE [10] (also consulate), Bloomberg [11], DW [12] and many others. Your claim that only two sources use "embassy" is plainly incorrect. — kashmīrī TALK 09:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    My claim is that of a relatively random sample of ten articles about this incident, only two used "embassy". Without knowing your methodology, we have no way of knowing whether your sources are a representative sample - what was your methodology?
    Further, reviewing your sources, they don't say what you claim they say:
    1. The Atlantic Council - "embassy annex"
    2. The Telegraph - "consular building" and "embassy"
    3. TRT - "embassy", but considered unreliable for this topic at
      WP:RSP
    4. RFE - "consulate" (only uses "embassy" in the headlines, which are unreliable per
      WP:HEADLINES
      )
    5. Bloomberg - "embassy"
    6. DE - "consulate" (only uses "embassy" in the headlines, which are unreliable per
      WP:HEADLINES
      )
    BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    The consular mission in a capital is an embassy. An embassy provides consular services, which means it can have a dedicated consular wing/building that can be referred to as a 'consulate', but is still part of the embassy compound. The efforts by some media outlets to label this as a strike on a 'consulate' instead of the embassy is quite clearly an attempt to diminish what is an egregious violation of the Vienna convention on diplomatic missions, and this sidestepping language is a disservice to their readers, as it would be to ours were it replicated here. Calling this a strike on an embassy is just calling a duck a duck; replacing this with 'consulate' is shenanigans.
    Iskandar323 (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    I couldn't express it better. — kashmīrī TALK 11:34, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    It's not our place to decide that reliable sources are incorrect; we don't
    WP:RGW. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    This falls into the category of
    Iskandar323 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed, that's the rough idea. Granted, sometimes (albeit very rarely) embassies are not located in the capital city, or consular sections are located in another part of the city than the main embassy complex, or there are only honorary consulates but no embassy in the country. But a typical setup, and one in place in the Iran/Syria instance, is the one you described. — kashmīrī TALK 11:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose to provide greater clarity as to who caused the attack. The proposed title is less clear and given the unfortunately short attention spans of many would cause confusion or even misattribution of the attacks. Amyipdev (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Not Extended Confirmed
Oppose It's almost beyond doubt who and what the perpetrators and targets are respectively. --Masssly (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I wouldn't say "almost". It's extremely clear who the perpetrators and targets are. Amyipdev (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose. I was looking for this article, and didn't know its title, so I searched "2024 Israeli" and it showed up. The current title is much more natural than the opening proposal (or NasssaNser's alternate proposal). Concision shouldn't come at the cost of making the article harder to find. Also, I suggest creating a redirect at "2024 Israeli strike on[...]", so that (equally natural) partial query gets autocompleted too. Also agree with kashmiri's reasoning above on "embassy" > "consulate". DFlhb (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the title is clearly written. I was originally more in favor of "consulate" although I agree with kashmiri as well, and would also note that "bombing" is more
    WP:NOYEAR. Aquabluetesla (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Move to
    WP:BLUE that this was done by Israel, the year is not needed (concise) due to it being a unique and harrowing event, airstrike is more precise than bombing, and consulate is misleading due to it being adjacent to the embassy (itself coming within an inch of being destroyed). "Bombing of the embassy" does not work because only the adjacent building was actually bombed/destroyed, whereas the complex in its entirety can be said to have been struck. Havradim leaf a message 02:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note: WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Israel, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Arab world, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Syria, WikiProject Death, and WikiProject Military history/Post-Cold War task force have been notified of this discussion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: the proposed title is potentially misleading, as if Iran has bombed itself. The suggested change of "embassy" to "consulate" is a bit of an obfuscation; the consular building was part of the embassy compound, so the present title is correct. See for example: Debris is cleared away after an Israeli attack on the Iranian embassy compound in Damascus, Syria, on Monday. (Ravid, Barak (1 April 2024). "U.S. tells Iran it "had no involvement" in Israel strike". Axios.) The only worthwhile change would be to remove "2024" as no prior strike on the embassy has occurred. --K.e.coffman (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current title is clear and sound. Cfls (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. Assuming that current info on the page is correct (i.e. an Israeli airstrike destroyed the Iranian consulate annex building adjacent to the Iranian embassy in Damascus) the building was not Iranian embassy. Hence the title is misleading and should be changed as suggested or to something else. My very best wishes (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Hello User:Mike Selinker. Thanks for your decision above. Could you please revisit it a bit as it seems to have a few issues. Firstly, it's a consulate and not embassy. Second, there are just allegation that it was done by Israel and we are stating it as a fact in the article's name. Please let me know if I should write it in some other place (and please feel free to move/update/delete my comment) but I'd appreciate your assistance here. Thank you. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Structure wording better for near future changes

The Aftermath section currently states:

The United States is anticipating a significant Iranian attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8–12.

I would ask that this be changed to make it easier to keep the structure of the sentence when conditions change. This type of present-tense wording does not work well in my view in the encyclopedic format. Instead, something like this could be written:

Initial U.S. intelligence anticipated a significant attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8-12.

This would allow for later expansion of the paragraph as events develop. For instance, if Iran were to attack the Knesset building on April 10, the section could expand to:

Initial U.S. intelligence anticipated a significant attack on U.S. or Israeli assets as soon as the week of April 8-12. On April 10, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps launched airstrikes against the Knesset building...

I see this change as semi-minor; I would've made it myself but I don't yet have extended-confirmation privileges. Amyipdev (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Amyipdev (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Excessive reactions

Does this article really need to include so many reactions of uninvolved countries? I would suggest removing all countries except Israel, Iran and Syria from domestics, and US, Russia and China from internationals. Ecrusized (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2024

. ›

In Background, change "Syria is crucial ally of Iran" to "Syria is a crucial ally of Iran". 98.118.9.141 (talk) 23:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Liu1126 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Article name

The article name is misleading. There are allegation by Iran that the strike allegedly was done by Israel. However it was not confirmed. Let's not try to present biased assumption at the name of the article. We are not RT or Al Jazeera here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Change “embassy” to consulate. The building was annexed to the consulate not the embassy building. As per Hamas, “ On its Telegram channel, Hamas said Tehran was exercising its "natural right" and was carrying out "a deserved response to the crime of targeting the Iranian consulate in Damascus and assassinating a number of Revolutionary Guard leaders there." https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/live-blog/rcna147738 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Renamed. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Addition of Indian reaction to incident

I request addition of India's reaction to the incident. cited news: https://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-concern-attack-iran-embassy-syria-9251595/ 110.235.217.42 (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Legality

The page says... "According to Aurel Sari, a professor of international law at Exeter University in the United Kingdom..." and then states Sari suggests the strike was illegal. This quote came from a source that says experts largely agree the strike IS LEGAL under international law.

So while the citation is correct the addition to the page itself is misleading readers. Either remove the quote or include something that states that experts largly believe the strike is legal. MStern918 (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Forget it. It's been extended protected. The biased ones are in charge now. 82.16.148.165 (talk) 82.16.148.165 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

UK response to the attack could be added

Moved: was at

Talk:Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus

See statement to the UNSC from the UK ambassador.

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-uk-is-deeply-concerned-about-the-potential-for-escalation-in-the-middle-east-and-calls-on-all-parties-to-reduce-tensions-uk-statement-at-the-un-s Scorchgider (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Consulate NOT embassy in title

Israel bombed an annexed building to the consulate NOT the embassy. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/2/attack-on-iran-consulate-in-damascus-what-do-we-know

change title to reflect facts 2600:1700:4410:9460:B4B8:1BAD:25C4:7362 (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not done like that. You need to start a
move request. Trasheater Midtier🐉(talk) 10:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The rules explicitly state to begin in the talk and have a discussion before escalating to a move. 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
please direct me to the previous discussion in “talk” about the title. Thank you. Wordsmatter101 (talk) 12:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I found the previous move request. Thank you and sorry for the confusion on my part. 2600:1700:4410:9460:781B:F543:D1D8:1AE2 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The Consulate is part of the Embassy complex so no, this is correct.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/02/world/europe/interpreter-israel-syria-embassy.html Alex.Wajoe (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
“ Embassy – The diplomatic delegation from one country to another. Consulate – A building that supports the embassy in its host country. Mission – A diplomatic representation to an international organization. Mission also refers to an embassy or a consulate.” They are not the same thing. 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The citation you provide calls it an embassy complex that is synonymous to consulate not embassy. 2600:1006:B155:A779:CC0A:B2DB:F28E:CD6D (talk) 12:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support removing "Embassy". Oppose renaming it "Consulate". The nature of the building in question is disputed, and our article should clearly state that. I've seen no source acknowledging that dispute and definitively establishing that it was a diplomatic building, let alone the "Iranian Embassy" proper. Indeed, the source cited in our article for the claim that "two civilians" were killed clearly states, with emphasis mine: "The woman and her son lived on the fourth floor of the targeted four-storey building, the first two floors of which are rented by the embassy while the third is a home for the Iranian ambassador." Needless to say, embassies don't pay to rent floors of their own embassy building, neither to host military meetings nor for their ambassador's residence—and they certainly don't allow non-employees to use the embassy building as a residence. Even more damning, the source describes the 4-story structure as a "building attached to Iranian embassy"—quite clearly distinguishing it from the embassy itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekpyros (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Before folks spend a lot of time typing supports and opposes, anything title-related should probably go through the
    WP:ARBECR should be enforced in the new talk page section. So this section might not be a good spot to discuss the title. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. Wikidata Q125472080. Archived
    from the original on 1 April 2024.

Page move(s)

Just noting that I have reverted this page back to its original title (minus the year) per

WP:RMUM
, which is that the article should have been reverted procedurally. However, given that the discussion above was "no consensus", other than the question of whether to remove the year, the status quo ante original title of Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus has been restored rather than the alternative proposed title of Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus.

As there has been a lot of confusion about this, and this was a purely procedural move reverting a previous bold move, I would not be opposed to a fresh RM within the near future starting from this title to ascertain if there actually is any consensus to move in some other direction. For now, the move protection remains in place and it should only be moved via a fresh RM.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused by this. We have an RM with a clear, bolded outcome, and an article that is sysop move protected. The article should go to the title specified by the closer of the most recent RM (Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus) until there is a new RM or a move review. Would you be willing to self revert? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're confused, as I have explained the point of this above? The close on the RM said "The only consensus for a move here is
WP:NOYEAR". Thus without any consensus, the article has been reverted to its prior title. The closer didn't say there was a consensus in favour of the Israeli bombing of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, only that there was a consensus to remove the year. In such scenarios, the lack of consensus is always taken to mean the article reverts to its original title, not that it retains whatever title it had at the start of the RM. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@
WP:RMUM
, and that's a crucial detail in determining the right way forward.
@Mike Selinker: regarding your close above, please could you answer the following questions and maybe clarify these in the close?
  1. Per
    WP:THREEOUTCOMES
    , was the result of the RM discussion intended to be no consensus or was it intended to be consensus against a move? In this case this is a crucial detail, as the result of a no consensus would be to revert to the status quo ante, while consensus against would result in this title being retained.
  2. On a more precise point Mike, you mentioned that It's possible that "airstrike" is more precise but there isn't consensus to make that change. But again, this is framed the wrong way round. "Airstrike" was the original and default framing so if there isn't a consensus, then it should revert to that.
Once we have some clarity on these points, then either we can restore the status quo ante, or if in fact Mike says there was consensus against a move, then Billed Mammal and others can decide whether they wish to move to a move review. Cheers, and hopefully we'll be able to move forward constructively soon. In future it would be a good idea for discussions like the one above to be procedurally closed before they chew up so much editor time because it creates a lot of confusion!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Rather than wikilawyering the old close, or pursuing the move review option, it may be faster and also a more accurate gauge of consensus to just hold a new seven-day RM. Up to y'all though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I missed this conversation. When I closed it, I meant that there was no consensus for a change from the current title, other than removing the year. There seems to be general agreement in the media that Israel bombed the building. However, there is a reasonable statement above that it is a _consulate_ rather than an embassy, so I think it should be opened up for a rename discussion again to change "embassy" to "consulate."--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    Hi @
    WP:THREEOUTCOMES concept, this distinction is crucial here. The current title was arrived at via an undiscussed move, so it does not have the privelege of remaining the title automatically, unless a consensus in the RM determined that it should do so. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    Based on their comment on their talk page, I think they’re saying that there was no consensus in general. BilledMammal (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    I definitely think you should open a new RM rather than debate my intent. There was no consensus in the discussion for anything except
    WP:NOYEAR. There is obviously considerable interest in reopening the discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Mike Selinker: you keep repeating that same line, without actually answering the question that's been asked multiple times. If it's no consensus, then it goes back to the original title, that's the rule. But if you saw a consensus against moving then it stays where it is. It's that simple. The reason we're debating you intent is because you haven't yet said what your intent was. Sorry to be blunt, but all we need from you is an answer so that editors can move on and/or consider the next steps for what to do here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • There was no consensus to make a change of any kind from
    Iranian consulate airstrike in Damascus, it was specifically NOT my intent to do that. If the consensus is to want that to be the result of my no-consensus close, though, then an admin should overrule me and move the page to that title. I am totally fine with that result. What I hope we can stop doing is wikilawyering this to be a referendum on my actions and get about to a new RM for a name on which people can find consensus. (Especially on the issue of embassy vs. consulate.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:46, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2024

. ›

Suggest minor change

change:

this likely means that the embassy was a legitimate target

to:

this probably means that the embassy was a legitimate target

Reason: "likely" is an adjective and not an adverb. Although frequently used as though it were an adverb, owing to the presence of the letters l and y, "likely" is only an adjective. The sentence as it stands is therefore grammatically incorrect. YorickJenkins (talk) 13:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary, likely can be used as an adverb. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 13:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Date error

"On 13 April 2014, the IRGC Navy boarded the Portuguese container ship MSC Aries"

Should say 2024. Shouldn't be a controversial fix, already has the right date on the linked wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_seizure_of_the_MSC_Aries


I think this is the right place to post suggested edits, but my apologies if not. 68.196.246.4 (talk) 14:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for noticing! :) --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Corroborating a Claim made in One Source

Hi,

I just want to flag this. I read the SOHR articles (sources 4 & 5); it mentions 2 civilians were killed. I could only find one other article mentioning killed civilians. I also read an AP article, a BBC article, a Guardian article, an Al-Jazeera article, and a CNN article and none of these articles mention dead civilians (the AJ article says all the victims were combatants).

I understand source 5 (SOHR) was published on April 3rd. The one other article that mentions killed civilians, an F24 article, from April 3rd cites the SOHR figure. All of the other articles are from April 1st, but many were updated on April 2nd. Why haven't other news sources updated their reports since April 3rd? If we cannot find sources to corroborate the claims of the SOHR, should the claim be taken down? Or is sufficient that F24 republished the fact from the SOHR? What is the standard here?

Thank you,

HABH_8128 Helpandbehelped 8218 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Telepolis

@ZxxZxxZ: In this edit you added a paragraph attributed to Telepolis; however, Telepolis does not appear to be a reliable source, instead frequently publishing conspiracy theories. Do we have a reliable source comparing it to the 1999 bombing? BilledMammal (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Iranian_consulate_in_Damascus/Archive_1&oldid=1224647866"