Talk:Operation House of Cards

Should the title mention only Syria and Israel, but not Iran

@Doodoo Bo: It is not clear that this has been a clash between Israel and Iran. The only source for this claim is Israel itself while Syria has stated that Iran was not involved. And Iran has not commented on this yet. Such a big claim needs far more clear evidence. Should be moved to a title not referring to Iran. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support the only claim that Iran is a belligerent was from Israel, which attacked Iranian bases in Syria whilst occupying the Golan Heights. In other words, it's a highly problematic violation of NPOV to simply go off of what only one side of the conflict declares. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

According to Iran, Iran does not have any military bases on Syria, so what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Do you actually suggest sticking to Iranian narrative and call it a neutral point of view? Facts are facts and the facts are that Iran has fired rockets towards Israeli soil, and did it from Syria. Calling it a conflict between Israel and Syria will be wrong and not factual. Doodoo Bo (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Your link only holds a bunch of claims from Israel that they've targeted iranian posts, some syrian claims on damage to syrian posts, and a bunch of support and condemnation from countries that aren't directly involved in the incident. The only thing in there that could be a "fact" is the SOHR's claim that "the strikes killed at least 23 military personnel, including Syrians and non-Syrians", and even then I'd rather have the claim itself.

Sticking to one "narrative" only because the other option is "Iran's narrative" is in no way neutral, and neither are supported by actual facts. That said, the only "fact" in all this is that Iran attacking Israel has become the predominant narrative, which I'd say should indeed be reflecetd on the title. 78.30.16.102 (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose The United States, United Kingdom, Germany and France also accused Iran.--יניב הורון (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Reuters front page item was Israel strikes Iranian targets in Syria after rocket fire. Iranian/proxy presence in Syria is not denied - it is quite a public thing. The two main sides, so far, in the exchange are Israel and Iran. The United States and European states referrred to Iran, not Syria.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Every reliable source I've seen says Iran. For example BBC's headline is "'Israel-Iran' fight flares in Syria". The New York Times's headline is "Israeli Jets Hit Dozens of Iranian Targets in Syria". Same for EVERYBODY else. OtterAM (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  For now, no one – other than Israel and those citing Israel– can say Iran has fired those rockets for sure (2). Iran itself has denied its involvement in the attacks (1). The other sources you referred to all cite Israel itself for this. Israel's efforts to claim this are quite understandable, but accepting that as a fact here and putting it in the title would be a clear-cut violation of WP:NPOV. What is clear here, on the other hand, is that a few rockets were fired at Golan heights from Syria, and Israel attacked a couple of targets in Syria too. Anything further is not far from mere speculation for now and cannot be in the title. See WP:EXCEPTIONAL too @OtterAM:. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 22:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  Iranian presence in Syria is far from exceptional - Iran openly supports Syria and has said it has sent forces - many times.Icewhiz (talk) 03:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Icewhiz That is another story. clash means a two-sided confrontation. Yes, Israel has probably targeted Iranian bases in Syria but it is far from clear who has fired those 20 something rockets/shells into Golan heights (And no one other than Israel and those citing Israel have said that was Iran). And please do not remove the neutrality tag while discussion is ongoing.Mensis Mirabilis (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  I would argue that the 20 katushas were irrrelevant militarily, however here is a non-Israeli source reporting Putin warned Iran not to fire - Sources to Asharq Al-Awsat: Russian Warning Ahead of Iranian Missile Strikes... So, this is well beyond Israeli sources. Asharq Al-Awsat is not known to be aligned with Israel in general.Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Nowhere in that article says Russia has stated Iran has fired those shells. It is clearly original research to draw this conclusion from that article. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 12:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Mensis Mirabilis: I moved the title to "May 2018 Israel–Iran incidents", so will you kindly remove the POV tag? Whether it's Iran or Syria we mention in the title doesn't change the fact that the former was involved in an "incident". Fitzcarmalan (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks Fitzcarmalan, the current title is more neutral. (I removed the tag.) Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Its a FACT confirmed by every external sources including Russian sources, that the conflict was primarily between Israel and Iran. This question is nonsense.Tritomex (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support Iranian involvement is an Israeli claim. The western media are only repeating it. Emesik (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Its not only Israeli claim, The Iranian involvement is confirmed by official Russian government [1], American [2], German [3], British [4], EU[5], Bahrein [6], French [7] governments, Arab medias, NGOs....or by other words it seems to be confirmed by everyone related, beside Iran.Tritomex (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Involvement of Iran looks pretty clear. If all of this is inside Syria (including Golan Heights), the word Syria should be in the title, however.--Carwil (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The Iran involvement verified by numerous WP:RS--Shrike (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support The Iranians have denied their direct involvement and stated they were not behind the rocket strike.

RedSparrow1 (talk) 21:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose – while I don't see any dispute (except from Iran itself) about the rockets, the rockets are really not the point. Even if the rockets were fired by Martians, Israel retaliated against Iranian targets, and this is not based on an Israeli statement, but sources like the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Denial of involvement by Iranian official

Abolfazl Hassanbeigi, Vice Chairman of Iran's National Security Council has denied Iran was behind the missile attack on Israel:

https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5256495,00.html

I think this should be included in the article.

RedSparrow1 (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Fox news report in the lead

I'm skeptical about including this sentence in the lead, "...the initial missile attack was conducted without knowledge of the Syrian government" with this citation to the Times of Israel [8], which is itself merely citing Fox News. -Darouet (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly noteworthy, if this is correct, that the SAA claimed a foreign attack they in reality had nothing to do with; such behavior is typical of terrorists, not state armies or governments. 188.67.94.247 (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, officials and media lie every other week about whether they've been attacked / are attacking. Russian/Syrian/Iranian/Chinese media disbelieve American/Israeli/western claims, American/Israeli/western media disbelieve Russian/Syrian/Iranian/Chinese claims, and to quote Thomas Paine and my Syrian friends observing the conflict, "for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

The point is that Fox isn't a particularly reliable source, and if they make an explosive and unsubstantiated claim, it shouldn't appear in the lead. -Darouet (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And to top it off Fox's backing is presented as "Fox News has learnt that the European sources have been told..." [9] (at 2:00). Can we get one of those european sources? 78.30.16.102 (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Fox is neither reliable nor neutral, and I'm especially skeptical when their reporting states that Fox News heard that some other sources heard that x happened as that's essentially a he-said-she-said claim allowing them to frame it however they'd like to. Sources like that shouldn't be used on Wikipedia period, much less in the lead of an article covering a contentious subject. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:31, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Fox News twitter post not sufficient for lead

@OtterAM, EkoGraf, and Mhhossein: as three regular editors who've edited here recently — and you Otter removed attribution to Fox News — can you find independent confirmation beyond this article [10] which attributes the statement to this twitter post [11]? I have looked and haven't found it yet, perhaps I just haven't looked long enough. -Darouet (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I would be more careful about the lead. This is not a matter to be included without consensus. Support removing it from the lead. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding quoting IDF twitter releases

Some contributors have deleted refs to IDF twitter statements, I urge them not to as these tweets are official statements.

RedSparrow1 (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Official statements can be taken into account only of they're reflected in reliable sources. See WP:TWITTER. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Not correct. IDF spokeperson statements, via twitter, are a WP:PRIMARY source - and are definitely reliable for saying the IDF said something.Icewhiz (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

And that's why you can't use that PRIMARY source for interpretation of a video. You need reliable sources to say what the video was showing. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Flayer: Why did you revert without participating in the talk page discussion? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I was unaware of the discussion. Flayer (talk) 13:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Flayer:Thanks for the response. You'd better check the TP before making such reverts though. Anyway, your revert restored materials for which we need reliable source(s). In fact we need reliable sources to write what those videos were about. Could I ask for a self revert? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The IDF tweets that I looked at did not mention the content added to Wikipedia such as the claim that the military vehicles were being operated by the Syrian Army, and the second "source" was an unverified Twitter user that simply retweeted that same IDF tweet and added his opinion. Use a reliable, neutral, and secondary source. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 15:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Han shot first?

The article starts by stating that "Iranian forces in Syria launched 20 rockets against Israeli army positions" on 10 May. However, as can be seen in the "background" section, on 8 May "Israeli air strikes targeted Syrian army positions in the southern Damascus area of Al-Kiswah, killing 15 people, including 8 Iranians", immediately after Trump scrapped the deal with Iran. Shouldn't that be mentioned as the starting point of the incidents? That shows Iran was actually retaliating against Israel's strikes, which did a lot more damage. aditsu (talk) 05:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Does WP:RS that discuss it make such connection?We could also say that Iran send an armed drone before.--Shrike (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought it's quite obvious when you look at the timeline. Do you need an actual source to make the connection between two already-accepted facts? I have a source, but I don't know if TYT is considered reliable enough on Wikipedia. And the drone was in February, wasn't it? Lots of things happened since then, and this article is about the May 2018 incidents. aditsu (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you had multiple sources (and articles rather than videos) Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

ARBPIA

I request this article be tagged under ARBPIA. RedSparrow1 (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Iran is not an Arab country, so nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict. This article is under 1RR WP:GS/SCW sanctions, which are community imposed since 2013.GreyShark (dibra) 10:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 June 2018

Current: "called the attacks a Israeli aggression on Syrian territories" Recommend: "called the attacks an act of Israeli aggression on Syrian territories" Reason: Minor copyedit Z3a1 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done--Sakiv (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Outdated article - 32 missiles were fired

see:

BenjaminKay (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Israel shot first

This article states that the Iranians shot first, which is inaccurate. I am pretty sure, like many others, that Israeli shelled the Baath City, before Iranian/Syrian forces retaliated, prompting further strikes by Israel. Some sources claim that the Baath City shelling was a preemptive by Israel against a local Hezbollah cell. --Virtualerian (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Virtualerian: Do you have reliable sources supporting what you said? --Mhhossein ^talk 10:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and not only that, I was awake when the shelling started, and I remember the reports of Israeli strikes on Quneitra countryside being covered, before the retaliation/shooting on the Golan began. For one, this is a quote from the BBC:

"The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based monitoring group, confirmed that rockets were fired towards the occupied Golan. But it said the attack came after Israeli forces bombarded Baath, a town in the demilitarised zone."

Later, both Hezbollah and the Iranians confirmed involvement. --Virtualerian (talk) 12:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done [12] Thanks for the source. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 24 July 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below, with a few caveats. First, since the previous title was a descriptive title (WP:NDESC), the fact that the proposed title receives more Google hits is not in and of itself an indication that the title should be changed--descriptive titles and common names are dealt with separately in WP:AT. On the other hand, it is not clear that the previous title would have been more recognizable, or that using the Israeli name of the operation is inherently a WP:NPOV issue if reliable sources employ that title. This is particularly the case if the article focuses on the Israeli operation. Since this was a recent event, it may be worth revisiting this issue in a few or several months in order to determine whether the WP:COMMONNAME argument remains compelling. Dekimasuよ! 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

---

May 2018 Israel–Iran incidents → Operation House of Cards – Google news hits clearly favors "Operation House of Cards" over amorphous year/month+country permutations. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is actually the POV of Israel. See this source: "dubbed by Israeli military planners as “Operation House of Cards,”... --Mhhossein ^talk 13:59, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

  Is there a better name? An Iranian or Syrian name? We often use the codename of the attacking side in such operations - as they tend to become the COMMONNAME, as here.Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose keep it recognizable please In ictu oculi (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Notable name is preferable, The Six day war is also Israeli terminology also Yom Kippur War etc. Sokuya (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Lots of events like these are known by their codenames, as should this one. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Current name is too vague, there have been many incidents between Israel and Iran in Syria. See for example Operation Outside the Box (previously Operation Orchard) for a similar case.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The article should be focused clearly on the Israeli action, and it mainly is already. It's this Israeli action, together with its causes and its consequences, that is the notable topic here. Andrewa (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• @Dekimasu: Please notice that the article is meant to cover the 'May 2018 Israel–Iran incidents' while 'Operation House of Cards' is a part of a larger incident. The new title does not cover the incidents prior to Israeli attacks. That's why out of 47 the sources in the article only one of them use the term ([13]). Also, I would like to ask you carry out an online search for 'Operation House of Cards' to see the poor results which are not strong enough for making such a change. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

The request was open for three weeks, and we do the best we can with the comments that are made. Here, the comments appear to favor a narrower scope of the article focusing on the Israeli operation (it seems that incidents prior to the Israeli attacks could still be covered as background). I see a Telegraph article in a news search, but at any rate, while a close is to some extent an evaluation of the arguments made over the course of a discussion, the result of the discussion here was fairly clear. As above, I'd suggest revisiting this later on rather than renegotiating the current discussion. Dekimasuよ! 19:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This is not a COMMONNAME for the incident, nor there are enough reliable sources using the term (can you name 3 independent reliable source for it?). Just one comment favors a narrower scope. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Here are several IRSes - [14][15][16][17][18][19].Icewhiz (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I see the closure. Timesofisrael, Jpost and Ynetnews are certainly NOT independent sources. National interest uses it as "Dubbed by Israeli military planners as “Operation House of Cards,”. " Israelis did an operation, but the article should not cover only that operation. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

ToI, JPost, and YNET are most certainly independent sources - unlike some other countries, these outlets have complete freedom in regards to their editorial and publishing policy. As does the Telegraph in the UK. I'm not sure about al-Araby (also UK based, but funding), however they are most certainly not in Israel's favor to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Those Israeli sources speak for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with Mhhossein, again, Icewhiz you should read this.---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Israeli journalism is free and is generally of a high standard (in regards to non-tabloids), and the Telegraph is most definitely not Israeli.Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, so if these sources' claims are right, then why don't you find other sources from uninvolved countries to support what they say ?---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I pulled these rather at random (which would account for the Israeli press hits, as obviously this was of interest to the Israeli press which also has decent English translations) - finding RSes calling this "House of Cards" is far from difficult. In the set above we have besides the Israeli press, the Telegraph (UK), National Interest (US), and al-Araby (UK based, but Qatari funded, and founded by Azmi Bishara who is most definitely not on friendly terms with Israel) - which are not based in "involved countries" (not that this would be a criteria for an innocuous detail such as a name).Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Fine, thank you.;)---Wikaviani^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, the Israeli operation is just part of a larger incident. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:43, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Result

Icewhiz: The quote in the source you used for your revert says:

"Dubbed by Israeli military planners as “Operation House of Cards,” it was the most extensive aerial assault by the Israeli Air Force (IAF) in Syria since October 1973. Whether Jerusalem’s impressive military success translates into a political triumph will be determined by how Tehran responds going forward, but there is little doubt Iran suffered a major setback in a week already full of monumental disappointments."

How have you interpreted this POV by Brodsky to say that Israel were victorious in this military conflict? --Mhhossein ^talk 13:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

We have a RS, in a feature, calling this in its own voice - impressive military success for Israel and Iran suffered a major setback. Per the template documentation (Template:Infobox military conflict) - we use one of two results - This parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The National Interest is clearly describing an Israeli military victory by saying "impressive military success".Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

You're engaging WP:OR by interpreting the above quotes as "victory". "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and What you are saying is at best lending undue weight to a POV. You're advised to respect WP:ONUS and don't restore the disputed phrase unless there's consensus over it. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:RS trump an editor's assertion of POV. Calling a one-sided bombing operation a victory for the bombing side is hardly extraordinary, and parsing "impressive military success" to "victory" (per the infobox documentation) is hardly OR.Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

There are issues both with OR and the undue weight lent to the source (to be more precise, POV of the author). What's your criteria for defining the victory here? --Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"Military success" (all the more so "impressive military success") is equivalent to "victory" when dealing with a military operation. What's my criteria? That would be OR - I'm following the sources - but I'll humor you as this is a rather obvious result for this simple case of a limited 1-day military operation - it seems that Israel suffered no casualties whereas forces in Syria suffered some casualties and damage - which is clearly a one-sided result. Of course - 1 day military operations usually mean close to nothing in relation to the long term result here (e.g. the wider Israel/Iran proxy conflict or the resolution of Iran/Syria/Israel) - however this article is on this one day, not the wider conflict.Icewhiz (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. I would not relay on these quotes to conclude "victory". I was not actually asking you to analyse the case, though you already know that the causalities are mentioned in the infobox. One can hardly determine a victor for such a one day military operation. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) It's a RS saying it in its own voice. Short battles and operations are routinely assigned victors (on Wikipedia) when it is clear - per the sources. For instance - see these battles the allied side won in Vietnam - Battle of Trà Bình, First Battle of Loc Ninh, Battle of Binh Ba, Battle of Long Khanh.Icewhiz (talk) 12:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Basically Israel didn't suffer casualties nor material damage, while Iranian infraestructure in Syria was severly beaten. Yes, we should rely on sources stating it was an Israeli victory, at least on the tactical level.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 12:23, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

The find reliable sources saying Israel was victorious, without the need for making original research and interpretations. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:49, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Btw, the articles you mentioned have no citations for the results! --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

And one of them is a GA.... IIRC - you don't have to source the infobox if it is sourced in the article body (same as the lede) - the infobox is a summary of the article body - however, for contentious (particularly recent event contentious) - such sourcing is prudent for reaching editorial agreement (heck - we're arguing this even given a clear source - :-)).Icewhiz (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

...and you can hardly find sources in their bodies. Anyway, no that's not a clear source as I said above. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a very clear source - impressive military success for Israel and Iran suffered a major setback... it's about as clear as it gets.Icewhiz (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we have a case of refusal to WP:get the point. How should we proceed now?--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Icewhiz:...and I told you that those quotes does not mean victory. May be you're going to do OR. @יניב הורון: try to cooperative in a constructive manner. Find a reliable source explicitly saying Israel was victorious. --Mhhossein ^talk 18:20, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A straight forward paraphrase is not OR, however - I simoly put the language the source uses in order to allay any OR concerns.Icewhiz (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox military conflict asks us use either "X victory" or "Inconclusive" and it prohibits using "non-standard statements...or contradictory terms". I told you that, besides OR, your are lending undue weight to this POV by using it in the infobox. Maybe you need to give it another try to find a concrete source. Btw, "impressive military success" does not necessarily mean 'victory'. Victory in what? capturing a strategic point? re-capturing it?...etc? --Mhhossein ^talk 04:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the incident could let to victory for either sides. In fact, this was not a face-to-face conflict although fire was exchanged. --Mhhossein ^talk 04:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I brought up the infobox documentation. After you claimed OR (on rather sketchy grounds - victory being a clear summary of impressive success for A, and major setback to B) - I stuck to the language in the source. So - you are not objecting due to OR anymore. An editor's opinion on possibility of victory for a 1 day battle is irrelevant - we have multiple short battles with a victory result - per the results of the battle (in this case - significant damage to forces in Syria, no casulties to Israel). The source provided is a high quality source - dislike of what the source is saying is not a viable editing rationale.Icewhiz (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Icewhiz. Also, this looks like another case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT by Mhossein to me. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I have not put aside the OR issue. That other stuff exists, proves nothing here. However, there might be reliable sources explicitly saying one side had been victorious in a 1 day battle and I asked you to find such a source. OR and UNDUE has nothing to with the quality. Btw, please avoid "dislike" accusations and instead find reliable sources for your claim. @HistoryofIran: Don't hound me anymore. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You can ask users neutral to Israel-Iran incident for their comment. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:30, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

At this point we have a single editor against multiple editors (4 per my count), claiming that the result of a battle is UNDUE, and that impressive success for A, and major setback to B - either summarized to victory or left in this manner as the source - is OR. Neither of these arguements hold weight. And one would expect a single editor to recognize consensus is against them.Icewhiz (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I would like to undeline some points that apparently are gone unnoticed. The source used to claim an "Israeli victory" is The National Interest, since this bimonthly US magazine is published by the Center for the National Interest, a Washigton D.C based public policy think thank it's all but a reliable independent source under WP:NPOV when it comes to an Israel-Iran skirmish in Syria. Interestingly, when i looked for independent sources claiming an "Israeli victory", i found none. I checked numerous articles from the BBC : [20], the Independent : [21], France info [22] etc ... none of them claim any side's "victory". The question is : if Israel won such an "impressive success" during this skirmish, why can't we find numerous sources reporting it ? I think we're not here to promote Khamenei/Rohani or Netanyehu/Liberman's propaganda and have to stay neutral. cheers.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

The National Interest is a serious publication. The News reports you are linking to are from the morning after the strike - too soon to assess anything. You need to look at later sources. For instance - Asharq Al-Awsat - which provides independent confirmation of Iranian casualties here, and here - [23] - says "Still smarting from the latest Israeli attacks on its positions in Syria, Iran is deeply divided on how to respond" ... "Declaring victory after a major setback is one of the old tactics of the Islamic Republic." ... "Thus, without protection from the air, Iranian forces and their Lebanese mercenary allies are left as sitting ducks for Israeli air strikes and missile launches." ... "In the last two Israeli attacks, an estimated 50 Iranian personnel have been killed. Tehran authorities have tried to divert attention from the losses by forbidding public ceremonies in honor of “martyrs” or media coverage of the burials. ". Israeli officials described the strike as a success. Iranians have been in denial or silent - with an occasional "we'll respond at the appropriate time". Later in-depth coverage clearly supports this result.Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Be it a serious publication or not, we don't lend undue weight to such things. Likewise, we don't commit OR. I don't know what you are seeking by those quotes. So what? Btw, Asharq Al-Awsat sometimes tells lies when it comes to reporting about Iran. See this one for instance. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you're kidding me, right ? i told you that according to me, the National interest is unreliable since it's US owned and you provide a Saudi owned paper ??? just as if Saudi Arabia was neutral toward Iran ! Please dude, be serious. Why can't nobody find a true reliable independent source like BBC, France info, the independent etc ... ? and by the way, i live in western Europe and i've never heard or read in any serious media that this skirmish was an "Israeli success" or an "Israeli victory".---Wikaviani (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Rejecting US, Israeli, and it would seem loosely Saudi affiliated papers in London.... That is a broad brush not rooted in RS policy.Icewhiz (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should read WP:RS more carefully, especially this. Moreover, your inability to provide an independent neutral source here only shows that the "Israeli victory/success" is not reliably supported. don't get me wrong, i'm not here to impose my POV, a quick look at my edits will show you that, i just want you guys to provide a neutral independent source. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 18:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

If no neutral third-party sources support the outcome of this operation as an Israeli victory then it should not be presented as a result. EkoGraf (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ekograf, the attack took place but it was a limited one, not decisive. To consider it a Israeli Victory without a proper support is BIAS.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2018

Please add Category:Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War to this article--31.154.96.164 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It's my understanding that the word involvement may seem like a loaded term to some, as it can imply meddling of an unwarranted or unnecessary kind. My limited knowledge of this article's subject means that the application of that meaning in the category section may strike some as premature at best, and unwarranted itself at worst -- so I'm reluctant to make this change. There are already categories listed here which mention spillover from the Syrian civil war which has application here I believe.  Spintendo  02:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Casualties and losses

It should directly say that the casualty claims are made Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (a one person organistaion with little neutrality and legitimicy).

HegelLife (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

See WP:CLAIM. We generally use say. The reader may judge the reliability of the source by looking at the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights article. (and I'll note that in many cases - we simply don't have other estimates or other estimates are worse - this is an "all bad sources" situation).Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit to 'Background' section --- small grammatical revision

The sentence is currently 'On 30 April 2018, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran to pursue a program of nuclear weapons development.[18][19]'

There's clearly an error in the structure, specifically, the part that I've set to bold & underlined. It should be changed to 'of pursuing' to correct it.

(This is a minor edit, which doesn't change the sentence's meaning.) 0scorpion0 0scorpion0 01:06, 29 April 2023 (UTC)