Talk:2024 Iran–Israel conflict

Polsat News described about reaction of the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the next description: There are no large tourist groups there, nor are there any large pilgrimage groups, so none of our compatriots were harmed in this attack - said Paweł Wroński, spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on Polsat News on Sunday, when asked about the Iranian attack on Israel. Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Andrzej Szejna said that if the conflict escalates, we are ready to evacuate Polish citizens at any time. (https://www.polsatnews.pl/wiadomosc/2024-04-14/atak-na-izrael-ministerstwo-o-polakach/)

2024 Iran–Israel conflict → 2024 Iran–Israel crisis – As the Al-Asad Airbase retaliatory strikes by Iran, against the United States, in retaliation for the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani didn't lead to a conflict, "conflict" would be an inappropriate title as of yet, per WP:CRYSTAL. Christophervincent01 (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 05:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Support Yeah, 'crisis' seems like a more accurate description of what's going on here. And CNN,1, Politico 2, The Guardian 3, NYT 4, USA Today 5, and others refer to it as such. Most refer to it as 'Middle East crisis', but we can be more specific. Personisinsterest (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Listing it as a crisis until Israel decides (or declines) to make a move is probably the best option. Some Hecking Nerd (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. 1. The sources provided by user above describe it as "Middle East crisis" or "Iran crisis". These are generic media terms used for ease of understanding made from the perspective of U.S./U.K.; it's not a specific term for the events that transpired, and adding "2014" and "Israel-" to it doesn't make it so; it just makes it more semantically awkward. 2. Nominator cited Operation Martyr Soleimani, but this isn't a correct precendent; that article never named the Operation as part of a "crisis" except for a link to 2019–2021 Persian Gulf crisis which has in fact been deleted and left as a redirect. The deletion discussion for that article has good arguments on why using the "crisis" to describe a series of events has its own WP:CRYSTAL issues. It presumes an ongoing problem that requires defusing or else might need to war. It's not necessarily less CRYSTAL-y than the simple description "conflict". Ceconhistorian (talk) 10:07, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

stricken by User:Philipnelson99 per WP:ARBECR]Oppose Changing the article's namespace is just not necessary at this moment. It was said Israeli war cabinet plan to respond to Iran under 24 hours. Let's hold on and watch. Caleb Ndu (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Support the term crisis accurately describes the content of the current situation. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Wait per D.S. Lioness, yes it is a crises, but we should wait to see what happens in the next few days LuxembourgLover (talk) 17:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Support but this is no longer a crisis which already escalated to a confrontation a step before a direct conflict. Nicola Romani (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that confrontation is the best way to describe this. What people are failing to realize is this beyond a crisis. Israel attacked a sovereign nation’s embassy, that nation responded with the largest drone attack in history combined with cruise and ballistic missiles. This is the first confrontation of this nature between the two nations 2601:153:880:35A0:3906:5F6D:5958:EBF3 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Support: the term conflict is better reserved for direct engagement. As of right now, the term crisis better represents the tit-for-tat strikes. Also, crisis is used over conflict in the news per User:Personisinsterest. --Pithon314 (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose for two reasons. First, the two countrise just have exchanged significant air strikes, i.e. 2024 Iranian strikes in Israel and 2024 Israeli strikes on Iran. This is a de facto war already. Yes, this may be not a full-scale war, i.e. Iran only used less than 10% their missiles, but still an ongoing war. Secondly, there is the ongoing Israel–Hezbollah conflict (2023–present). One can argue this is already a ground war of Israel with Iranian proxy forces, and not just proxies: they have been created by Iran and subordinated to Iran, pretty much like "pro-Russian rebels" were subordinated to Russia in Ukraine after 2014. My very best wishes (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose This is beyond mere crisis at this stage, as both countries officially attacked each other in armed retaliations, amounting to a casus belli (even if no further escalation follows). Brandmeister^talk 19:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be worth mentioning that only 1 out of the Israeli casualties was injured by the attacks and the rest were just treated for anxiety The ultimate editorxyzyazz (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Nevatim airbase is spelled Netavim. Also it is incorrect to state that the missiles "Hit multiple cities in Israel". In reality they only hit bases and cities were not targeted. The ultimate editorxyzyazz (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)