Talk:2026 Iran war/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Multiple image template?

Can I add images using the multiple image template? Since this is such a sensitive topic that gets a lot of traffic, I wanted to get some input rather than just making changes on a whim. It will be much more modern and compact for the infobox. Acratopotes (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Acratopotes: Nothing stops you but at the moment this article is very long, so I'm not sure that would be an uncontroversial change. See also here: Talk:2026_Iran_war#Image_collage_in_infobox.

If you're unsure whether it would pass muster, you could create one on a personal sandbox (your User:Acratopotes/sandbox page or a new one) and link here when you are done with a draft. 🔥Komonzia (message) 01:44, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion of Islamic State – Azerbaijan Province in infobox

Do we include the IS cell of Azerbaijan in the infobox given their confirmed affiliation to the IRGC plot against infrastructures in Baku? VitoxxMass (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@VitoxxMass Source? Avishai11 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Check the 6 March section of the article VitoxxMass (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree that they should be included in the infobox, given it's sourced information. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Praxeria: What was your reason for removing this information from the infobox, when it is sourced in the article content? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:03, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

We need to fix the article length

The article is already over 12K words, and it keeps getting longer and longer, largely due to people adding WP:UNDUE material. I've also been contested for some of the trims I've been making, with people requesting I post on this talk page before every trim I make to the article, which would make it harder to prevent the article from getting larger and larger. How can we keep the article at a normal length? Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, you have several options which can be taken in tandem. You can propose a WP:SPLIT, follow WP:BRD and continue with your trimming, and/or wait for the initial spate of editing to die down. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 21:16, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Well, I did propose that we merge the 1. Impact and 2. strikes and casualties sections, with nobody responding, does that mean the consensus is for me to go ahead and do this?

Also do you have advice for what I should add in the edit summary whenever I trim/move content to other articles that would cause the least number of problems? It should be concise because it's likely going to happen many times. Perhaps "WP:BRD"?

Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The situation is quickly evolving and it might be the case that people are simply missing the section. I would assume the lack of engagement to be tacit consensus for things that aren't moves, merges of articles, etc. Merging sections is fine, though you might run into a lot of edit conflicts, and I don't think that this particular proposed merge is warranted. If anything, the hostilities and impact sections ought to be individually condensed.

Your actions are eminently defensible, and perhaps linking BRD in the summary might help.

You do not need permission to edit the article, especially when unchallenged. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 00:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have suggestions for what part/s could be split then? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm still posting updates of what I'm doing at #Trimming and summarizing as the article grows. People demanding that you ask permission to edit the article are just causing problems. An edit notice corresponding to Template:Most appropriate article could also help, or at least it would be something to point to when people ask why their bloat is being rewritten. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

An edit notice corresponding to Template:Most appropriate article could also help one already exists in this talk page however; is there any way to make it even more prominent or something? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe inline comments? for example:

<!-- ones like these -->

If you notice hotspots of "adding more info because I found it on the Web or saw it on TV" then you can put an inline comment there to remind people to direct detailed additions to the most appropriate article. The comments are visible in the Visual Editor too (I made a real one as well as the example in my own comment above). 🔥Komonzia (message) 00:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Where would these go? In the beginning of the article perhaps? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe the end of the Lead section. But it should go where you notice these edits tend to happen if you do notice that. 🔥Komonzia (message) 00:49, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is pretty much happening throughout the entire article. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I've requested an editnotice: Template talk:Editnotices/Page/2026 Iran war 🔥Komonzia (message) 01:28, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult @Thebiguglyalien update: a third user went to my talk page and "warned" me of the same thing again and also accused me of WP:BLANKING. They seemed particularly upset by the fact I wrote WP:BRD in my edit summary. This is really getting frustrating. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Make sure that the content is still preserved, and describe in your edit summary where it's preserved. While you're not "blanking" the article, that might not be clear if your edit summary isn't detailed. For reference, these are some of my larger edits: Special:Diff/1342242150 and Special:Diff/1341820538. Also make sure you don't remove the existence of the fact entirely. If there are a couple paragraphs about XYZ in a child article, there should probably be a couple sentences about XYZ in this one (give or take). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:29, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Although almost none of my edits (if any) are nearly as large as the two you showed me for example... mine are often just a bunch of smaller, separate edits. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikieditor662, if I may, I don't think BRD is sufficient for an edit summary. Perhaps "trim; BRD". Otherwise, the impression that other editors get that you're making bold edits, but to what purpose no one knows. I concur with TBUA above. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 05:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

You said Your actions are eminently defensible, and perhaps linking BRD in the summary might help. so I got confused, but yeah, perhaps in every edit summary I should just state that I'm moving it to a different article. Or maybe I should have a pre-made message I can copy and paste for every edit summary or something. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Specific parts

@Sr L please be careful to only include the most important material onto this article, as it is way too long already. For example, I believe the current consensus is to just simply state whether each country supports/opposes/mixed/condemns the attacks or Iran's retaliations, rather than go into specific detail for each of them (unless there's something significant else to add), and I would propose that you self-revert edits such as this one . Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I added that information as part of the lack of European unified concensus in their Mobilization during the Iran Conflict, but If it's unnecesary, I will revert it and move to the Reactions to the 2026 Iran war. Sr L (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Sr L Thank you! Although, do you mind explaining why you removed this from the article?

Larijani stated that the U.S. must "pay the price" for the war with Iran, to which Trump responded saying he couldn't care less.

Do you think it's UNDUE? If so, I thought it may be significant as it relates how both sides view each other and to how long the war may last.

Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't remove that part, I've only moved information of the European movilization to "Reactions to the 2026 Iran war". Another editor have erased that part at the same time I was moving. Sr L (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Another editor have erased that part at the same time I was moving. do you know who? Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

UAE strikes Iran

The United Arab Emirates has carried out its first strike on Iran since the start of the war, targeting a desalination plant in Iran, per Israeli media. Ecrusized (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The Jerusalem Post is the same source that reported a Kurdish offensive and Qatari strike, the first of which was debunked and the second of which never truly confirmed, I think we should wait at least some hours or a day for new reliable sources to come up before adding the UAE to the infobox, given precedents. VitoxxMass (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

As expected, yet another fumble by Jerusalem Post: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-889231 VitoxxMass (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

can someone remove UAE, my editor infobox page is glitching. VitoxxMass (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

map inaccuracy - UAE

This map seems inaccurate. There is no pin on Fairmount the Palm (in Palm Jumeirah in Dubai) despite being one of the first strikes. There is some mixed reports on whether it was debris or a direct strike but Western media seems to lean towards a Shahed drone strike. There is also no pin on Jebel Ali Port, there should be at least 2 pins on Dubai Airport, and pin 56 seems to be a random location but correct me if I'm wrong. Some clarity on what counts would be great - some impacts seem to be from debris from interceptions. But still, there should be way more. the UAE published the number of drones and missiles that come in each day and the number of the ones which impact the land are far higher than the number currently represented in the map. jolielover♥talk 11:35, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Those locations can be added to Template:2026 Iran war map. That being said, there have been thousands of strikes on a similar number of targets in this war, the map couldn't possibly show all of them. I think its just showing cities or provinces which have been targeted in general. Ecrusized (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The talk page for the template redirects to here. Anyway there are still some strikes missing e.g. Fairmont. Dubai the city essentially entirely overlaps with Dubai the Emirate, so one pin on the entirety of it is underplaying it. I think notable attacks on infrastructure should be listed; if by chance the precise coordinates of some strike on a desert with nothing gets reported, that doesn't need to be included. jolielover♥talk 11:45, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree on adding notable attacks on infrastructure, I've added these 3 locations, also I believe pin 56 is Al Minhad Air Base. Ecrusized (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. At one point at the beginning a pin was just on some random coordinate so I was wondering if it was the same thing. I'm not too familiar with how maps work, is it possible to add some alt text/caption for each pin with the name of the thing hit? jolielover♥talk 11:53, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yes, this can be done with "description":, the locations are currently only described with "name": which is only visible in code, but this can be converted to appear when the pins are clicked. Ecrusized (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Pins should be clickable now. Ecrusized (talk) 12:01, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Strikes on Basra also is missing. VitoxxMass (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Added the strike on Rumaila Oil Field and Basra Airport. Ecrusized (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox Map

• Change Hatay to Dörtyol.

• Altun Kupri is not Kurdistan region, it's part of the central government.

• Cyprus, Akrotiri -> Akrotiri, UK.

Beshogur (talk) 12:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Map can be edited in this page: Template:2026 Iran war map. Ecrusized (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Done. Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Splitting the Regional mobilizations section

This article is far too long, and a new section was recently added, mainly discussing the situations in Cyprus and Azerbaijan. I think most of these belong in (a) separate article(s). Should this be done? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

If it's a single article, I imagine it would end up looking like List of attacks during the 2026 Iran war, but for preparation and defensive actions. Alternatively, we already have regional articles like 2026 Iranian strikes on Azerbaijan; we could split off the content there and rename the page Azerbaijan in the 2026 Iran war, letting us cover a country's events more broadly and in more detail. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:22, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

we already have regional articles like 2026 Iranian strikes on Azerbaijan; we could split off the content there and rename the page Azerbaijan in the 2026 Iran war, letting us cover a country's events more broadly and in more detail. is there consensus for this or should we wait longer for other inputs? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

In case of moving the information to other article, I suggest to rename the article "List of attacks during the 2026 Iran war" to "List of attacks and defensive mobilizations at the 2026 Iran war" (and then include such regional mobilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean, Red Sea, Caucasus, Persian Gulf, etc as a consecuence of the attacks in Non-belligerent and Neutral countries). Or to move them to the Economic impact of the 2026 Iran war in the part of Regional and geopolitical impact (althoguh would be necessary to rename the article into "Economic and Geopolitical impact of the 2025 Iran War") Sr L (talk) 04:47, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Since all three of us agree the article should be split but aren't sure where, would you be okay with moving it to a separate draft/article in the meantime and bringing discussions over there towards where it should go? Or something like that? It could help simplify things for readers or those of us trying to figure out where we're at in terms of article size. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: this has been moved to Draft:2026 Iran war intelligence where this can be farther discussed. Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Jonathan Taplin in WP:ROLLINGSTONE

@TheJoebro64 and @BootsED, I wanted to discuss the inclusion of Rolling Stone as a source in this article. In my recent edits, I used this article to support the claim that some analysts have identified this war as an act of imperialism. I don't think I was aware of the existing reliability discussions around Rolling Stone prior to this content dispute (I may have read about it in another context and forgotten), but I reviewed the RFC about its reliability after seeing your reverts. I accept the general consensus put forth by editors in that discussion, but I would note that the reasoning put forth in the RFC seems to caveat the sort of use that we see in this article. From @Mikehawk10's comment: The reason that I go with an Option 3 rather than a deprecation is that it probably is fine for the fact that X person holds Y political position. But I'd never use it for controversial facts... (my emphasis)

It seems to me like the use of this specific Rolling Stone article would be permissible (perhaps just in the body, rather than the lead?), given that it is only being used to support the claim that some analysts believe the war to be an act of imperialism, and that Taplin has some credentials as an author, scholar and journalist independent of the outlet he published the piece in.

I would add that the particular claim Taplin makes is not based on controversial facts. Here's quote I included with the citation: Trump campaigned on the promise that the United States would stop policing the world, that the era of regime change and open‑ended intervention was over. Now we have invaded Venezuela, kidnapped their president, and Trump tells us we “are going to run the country for a long time,” as if Venezuela were a failed subsidiary being placed into receivership. Next up was Iran, with a New York Times banner headline proclaiming, “Trump Calls for Overthrow of Government.” The idea that the United States will “run” or administer another sovereign nation, even “temporarily,” ought to trigger every alarm that still works in Washington.

Taplin's interpretation of the facts might not be universally accepted, but it doesn't have to be, because the claim we seek to support here is that person X believes Y. Furthermore, the position that the Trump administration is more openly embracing imperialism has seen increasing mainstream acceptance recently, with the New York Times, Le Monde and La Chaîne Info criticizing US neo-imperialism. Le Monde Diplomatique has a helpful overview tracking this rhetorical shift on the part of the Trump admin and its detractors. I think the Taplin piece is useful because it connects this increasingly popular generalized conclusion to the still fresh war in Iran. What do you all think? Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 21:43, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me like the use of this specific Rolling Stone article would be permissible (perhaps just in the body, rather than the lead?), given that it is only being used to support the claim that some analysts believe the war to be an act of imperialism, and that Taplin has some credentials as an author, scholar and journalist independent of the outlet he published the piece in. Such descriptions appear more suitable for WP:MREL, whereas WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS is WP:GUNREL. Also, this information may be WP:UNDUE, and the article is far too long already. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the dueness of the material, I think that bigger picture consequences of developments in the war are more important than minutiae of what happened, which there is plenty of still to be trimmed and spun off into child articles. So personally, I would prioritize removing that kind of thing. If it's just a question of overcitation, I would partially agree with you in the sense that this one will soon become undue. The FT released an article on the background to the war that makes moot all the arguments about SYNTH regarding the history of belligerent relations from a few days ago. As soon as a GREL source can be used to further develop this material, Taplin can be swapped out if needed. I think it would be prudent to have multiple citations for imperialism by analysts in addition to critics, as it is a key counterargument to the attackers' justifications in the war. It just so happens that at the end of Week 1, what I've been able to find to support this includes the FP article and the Rolling Stone piece, published by an author without documented reliability issues in a source that is generally but not necessarily contextually unreliable. Seems like a solid edge case for inclusion to me. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I think as long as you attributed the statement or made it clear in the body that some have described it as an act of imperialism it would be fine. I know there are better sources out there that describe it as an act of imperialism, so you would probably be better off using one of those instead of the Rolling Stones in the first place. BootsED (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Islamic Republic"

@ConflictFan Why you are constantly adding "Islamic Republic" to the infobox? How does this make sense when all of it's counterparts are only mentioned by common name? "Islamic Republic" indeed is a state polity and that's Iran, and there's basically no improvement in such addition cause there is no homogenous rebel counterpart of this regime (like DPR Korea and Republic of Korea), so adding "Islamic Republic" doesn't actually carry any weight at all, this is not a civil war. And most importantly, most sources used in this article say use "Iran", not "Islamic Republic of Iran" or "Islamic Republic" describing the polity. If the regime had fallen, then we can add "Islamic Republic" to specify; for example, Ba'athist Syria was always written "Syria" in infoboxes of the articles related to the regime's external conflicts, but after the regime fall, all were replaced with "Ba'athist Syria". Ahammed Saad (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Ahammed Saad. There is in fact a counterpart of this regime in Washington DC (IPP lead by RP, whose name was called by millions in January) -- they are just not militarily involved so that's why they aren't included in the infobox (though the Persian-language page does feature the opposition in its one). I get the point you're trying to make, but it must be pointed out that the war is against the Islamic Republic (political and military targets + their sources of income) and not the Iranians who are caught in the crossfire. It used to be "Islamic Republic of Iran" in the infobox but I am changing it to just be "Iran (Islamic Republic)". Yes, many use the short name "Iran" to refer to the IR in this conflict, so that's why I am not reverting it to the full official name. Readers will understand the nature of the conflict if they read the body text, but the first thing they will see is the infobox and it's the goal of the infobox to reflect what's said in the body text. Using the name "Iran (Islamic Republic)" best reflects this situation. Regards, ConflictFan (talk) 16:16, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not my point. Islamic Republic of Iran is a state polity, obviously IPP isn't that. By international law, the war is waged against the state of Iran breaching it's sovereignty, no matter whatever description the US provides. Iranian regime similarly claims that they are against the Zionist regimes not the Israeli Jews, but "Israel (State)" never used for any Iran–Israel confrontations. And above all, most sources solely use "Iran" to refer the polity, I think any attempt to establish a description other than the state's common name will override the sources. If their really had been any homogenous state opponent of the Islamic Republic of Iran like the DPRK and ROK or PRC and ROC, than I hadn't opposed it. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@ConflictFan A user has removed the term from the infobox and I request you to not add the term again before this discussion ends. Ahammed Saad (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose, its clear wiki policy to use just "Iran", IPP is in no way a "counterpart". Doeze (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"IPP" lead by "RP" is not a government-in-exile, but a political and economic plan. It is in no way a "counterpart" in any meaningful sense. JasonMacker (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

"Defense actions" is inappropiate in in Infobox

All the countries in the Gulf persued defensive actions and warfare, not merely the Europeans who mobilized their navies to defend Cyprus. VitoxxMass (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to propose something like this:

Defensive actions:

• • Azerbaijan
  • Bahrain

  • Iraq
    • Kurdistan Region
  • Jordan
  • Kuwait
  • NATO
    • Turkey
    • United Kingdom
      • Akrotiri and Dhekelia
  • Oman
  • Qatar
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Syria

  • United Arab Emirates

European mobilization in Cyprus:

• • France

  • Greece
  • Italy
  • Netherlands
  • Spain

Ahammed Saad (talk) 14:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Not all countries who have been attacked by Iran have taken defensive action. Azerbaijan and Oman did not intercept the missiles and drones launched at their civilian infrastructure. While the missiles targeting NATO air base in Turkey where intercepted by a US Navy destroyer. So "defensive actions" would be an incorrect title. Ecrusized (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

If they are direct allies of the United States and host US military assets, then there shouldn't be a "defensive actions" qualification. They are active belligerents by allowing their territory to host combat operations against Iran. To focus only on their interception of missiles and not the fact that they allow the United States to use their territory to conduct war is a violation of NPOV. This is the standard used in pretty much every article that covers war. And if they don't host US military assets, then just put them in a third column as a combatant3, with horizontal bars separating them if they are operating independently. JasonMacker (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

For a similar comparison, note how the Russo-Ukrainian war (2022–present) does not list Belarus with this "defensive actions" qualifier. It is listed as a combatant because its territory was willingly used as a place for Russia to engage in military actions. JasonMacker (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Delete "the stated goal" in the first paragraph of the lead

The stated goals are already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. Repeating the US and Israel's justifications for the strikes in the second sentence of the article, before even mentioning that Iran has retaliated or the conflict has escalated into a regional war, is extremely questionable under WP:POV. Doeze (talk) 18:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Doeze the reasoning behind the war is incredibly important, and yet, Iran's retaliation should be noted, but only briefly if it's in the first sentence/paragraph. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:10, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662 The actual reasoning is opaque. Using all the stated reasonings so early is not good for article POV. Doeze (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@Wikieditor662 The actual reasoning is opaque. Using all the stated reasonings so early is not good for article POV. Doeze (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The actual reasoning is opaque that itself is important and should be stated. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Trimming the articles listed under "farther"

Multiple sections have a farther information: under them, in which multiple articles are listed for each section. Because the article is already too long, I think there should be one max section, which links to an article that is the most relevant for that section (for example . Also, Template:Further says It is typically used at the top of a section, when the topic of that section is covered in more detail by another page., which implies it's designed for one page. Do you all agree? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Rework "Iran nuclear issue" in background to "Middle East nuclear weapons issue"

It seems like reasonable background to link Israel and nuclear weapons, the Middle East nuclear weapon free zone proposal, and potentially Nuclear weapons of the United States. Current framing is POV issue as it ignores the Iranian side's impression of Israeli nuclear weapons and motives for nuclear technology. Doeze (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to mention this, though it may be a difficult needle to thread in giving appropriate weight. Are you suggesting the subheading be changed or the section be rewritten? Be WP:BOLD, especially if you have a source contemporary to the conflict that discusses it —BrechtBro (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Accidental reverted removal of UNDUE content?

@Monk of Monk Hall it seems that you, probably by accident, undid some of my removals of UNDUE content in this edit you made . If this was an accident, could you please restore the shortenings? This article is far too long already Thanks. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:18, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that was another edit conflict. The only change I'm trying to make is to the lead, changing the sentence about US management of Iranian natural resources to a few words. I'll attempt to self-revert and redo the edit. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Bipartisan group declaring the strikes legal?

The lede is overstating things that insinuate widespread support on legality not just from Republicans but also from democrats. The source it uses (The Hill) doesn't say a clearly identified bipartisan group declared the war as legal. It just says largely Republicans argued the president has authority under the War Powers Act. Only a handful of democrats agreed. To call that as bipartisan support on war being legal is not only over stating it, but misrepresents the source. Simply it does not mention any bipartisan group endorsing the legality of the strikes. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

See also section

I removed Jimmy Carter's engagement with Ruhollah Khomeini from the See also section for being weirdly selective, but someone's restored it. Why are we highlighting specifically the Carter administration there and not, e.g, the 1980 October Surprise theory or Correspondence between Barack Obama and Ali Khamenei or any other similar article? (Not to say we should also add those—none of those makes sense in this section).

Also curious about the restoration of 2026 Cuban crisis and 2026 Afghanistan–Pakistan war. The latter makes so little sense to include (it's a different war between different actors in a different region) that I'll go ahead and remove it again pending discussion. The Cuban crisis could be argued to be connected via "US imperialism" or something, but without threats of military intervention at the scale of Greenland crisis I, again, don't see how it's related enough to include here Placeholderer (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the omission of these articles. TheAlienAdventures (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Someone else has removed Greenland (which I think is a reasonable removal), but I'll go remove Cuban crisis and Jimmy Carter pending further discussion Placeholderer (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@PeerBaba Inviting you to elaborate the reasoning for this change Placeholderer (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Trimming and summarizing as the article grows

As the article hits 9,000 words, the details are getting way too granular for the coverage of what's becoming a full scale war, and it's becoming difficult to navigate. We need to decide what's undue and/or can be moved into sub-articles.

• "Background" and its issues are being discussed at #Possible WP:NPOV violations in this article again.
• "Hostilities" should summarize the nature of the conflict instead of giving a WP:PROSELINE of every time anything happened; a lot of what's currently there would fit nicely in Timeline of the 2026 Iran conflict.
• "Strikes and casualties" should be handled the same way as the "Hostilities" section.
• "Impact" is fine at the moment and if anything should be a larger part of the article since that's where the significance comes from.
• "Reactions" is the subject of a few discussions here describing it as undue. It has been duplicated at Reactions to the 2026 Iran conflict, and a lot of the redundant information can be removed from the main article. Most of the international reactions section could be summarized in one or two paragraphs saying who supported what.  Done Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A good change would be to move "Hostilities" to Timeline of the 2026 Iran conflict. "Strikes and casualties" is useful to have a quick look at every country, military base, and territory that has been hit. Guz13 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Shortly after I began that timeline—basically with the decapitation strike—an actual timeline appeared in the Jewish Journal which covered the first attacks on Israel with minute granularity. There have been a lot of bullet points since, so I'd say that... hostile actions are already being cataloged? Are we going to cover every damn drone? Etc. kencf0618 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The content should definitely be tidied up a bit in the timeline, and I have no objection to removing minor details. List of attacks during the 2026 Iran conflict also exists and we might want to consider whether some of the timeline info can fit there. The problem is that editors are adding every last tidbit of news they can find in the main article at a high rate. We've reduced it by a few thousand words in this process already, and it's still over 10,000 words and growing. Right now the highest priority is to get everything manageable and keep the main article readable by moving content to relevant subarticles. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've made more large trimmings, and now it looks like there isn't one section that can be almost entirely trimmed; yet the article is still too long. It seems the next step/s would be smaller changes in higher amounts throughout the entire article rather than fewer but larger changes. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Why are we still doing daily updates to this page instead of using a timeline page? This is supposed to go on at least four-six weeks so this page will grow and barely be able to load. Guz13 (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2026 (UTC)–

There is already a timeline page: Timeline of the 2026 Iran war, and I think I might agree with you, that putting it as a timeline in this article may be unnecessary. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Support moving "Hostilities" and "Reactions" largely into the articles you've mentioned. I agree with Guz13 though that "Strikes and casualties" would still be useful to stay in this article, but it could still maybe do with some leaning down. I'm expanding "Impact" a bit now. MolecularPilot^Talk 06:44, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Strong Support for Summarising the reactions and additional content transfer to reactions Page. Only question is how do we develop the Economic impact page so that it can stand alone? 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest moving most of the "Disruption of international trade and geopolitical impact" section to Economic impact of the 2026 Iran conflict, leaving a few paragraphs in the main article to summarize the overall picture without the need for level-four headings. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:35, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

👍 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Ill have it cut and moved to the page, if you can write a good summary for it 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:38, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

done some non critical parts of that, just cleanup works left, other parts I think require debate 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. Please feel free to check out the suggestions I made for specific parts that perhaps could be cut out. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Update: I'm condensing the daily sections as they come in, I've got 1–3 March shrunk down and mostly moved over to the Timeline article. I have no objection to further condensing or moving of minor details, especially if it can shift toward a summary of what changed that day instead of a list of strikes. There's still a "Kurdish militias" section under 3 March that needs a better home—it's useful info, but it's not actually about 3 March. I haven't touched 28 February, but I suspect it will remain the largest subsection since so much happened that day. Also note that I've put the section size template at the top of the talk page so we can see exact numbers. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

👏👏👏👏 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

All right, I've condensed 4 March, and I moved info about Kurdish rebellion under "Impacts" though it could still use some work. The main sections that need attention are Background and Prelude (now there are two of them!). Together they make up nearly 2,000 words of the article's 11,000. The background/prelude really should be the bare minimum necessary to understand the topic, based on what sources about the conflict generally consider essential context. After that, the biggest priority is 28 February. Like I said above, it's probably going to be longer than other days, but it's still very detailed in a way that detracts from it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I don't really see the problem in theory with the background and prelude being around 20% of the article overall... what parts get trimmed should depend more on what is WP:DUE and significant enough to be in this article (and I've removed a bunch of information from there already). Also, I proposed earlier to combine the impact and strikes/casualties sections, perhaps that would help us shorten it even more. Wikieditor662 (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The section for 28 February is done. I think I managed to cut its size almost in half without losing any of the main points. I preserved the detailed descriptions and quotations by moving them to the timeline article. At this point there's no egregiously long section in the article (I still have my reservations about background/prelude), but a lot of it could still be copyedited to say the same thing in fewer words. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien and yet the article is still over 12K words long. I think the biggest problem with the word length of the article is large amounts of editors adding UNDUE material. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

It looks like people have gotten bored of adding every last missile to the description of hostilities. I updated the timeline with 6–8 March, and the main article didn't really have much that warranted removing. It's at around 10,000 words now, and I suspect that's about where it's going to settle. Depending on how long this goes on, we might start talking about consolidating daily sections to weekly or possibly monthly ones. The impact section needs a lot of clean up, but we won't know what the appropriate length will be until afterward. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Maybe; and I hope to bring this article to GA status one day. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

I support :

- Further summarizing reactions; we should seek sources that synthesize the list-style material we have there now, and could also consider moving lists of countries to a note to improve readability.

- Trimming the prelude, particularly the military buildup.

- Summarizing hostilities; Thank you @Thebiguglyalien for your work preserving this material on the timeline page.

- Intelligence should probably be worked on in a draft space for now, and may need a thematic change to fit into the article as that is a pretty broad and subjective heading.

My main concern is preserving the elements currently in the lead: Background, summary of hostilities, and the most important things that people have said about the conflict. I think that pretty much covers the most important things the reader needs to know. As the impact becomes clearer, there will likely need to be another paragraph for that. The best way to ensure that key citations aren't fragmented across spinoff articles would be to ensure that they are in the excerpted portions of those article, so they can technically remain in the body of this one. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I've created Draft:2026 Iran war intelligence and moved the section over to there. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

I'd also like to note the new 2026 Iran war#Regional mobilizations section, it likely needs heavy trimming as well. Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

HRANA's data is inaccurately presented

This page keeps citing HRANA's count as a valid total for Iranian deaths in the war. The org itself never even presents their count as such and in fact straight-up says that it's not. I don't know if this is a result of some editors trying to frame a narrative or just no one actually reading their reports past the headline. All of them, including the latest, contain (among other qualifiers) the following text: "It is believed that military casualties are significantly higher than the figures reported in these reports. However, due to the sensitive nature of military information and the limited access of human rights groups and media to locations where military forces are present, this section largely reflects reports of senior officers or military personnel who were present in urban areas." If a death is not allowed to be verified by the Iranian state [which blocks access to NGOs] AND in an urban area AND [sometimes] of a certain rank, it doesn't count for their list. By definition, HRANA's count excludes the vast majority of places where soldiers would actually die (both on Iranian soil and on ships - 43 warships have been struck and HRANA has access to 0 of them), and the vast majority of ranks soldiers hold. Which should be contextually obvious - the confirmed toll of 1,205 civilians, 187 military, and 316 unidentified, if taken as an actual total, has a ratio out of proportion with basically every modern air war ever waged (the Gulf War air campaign to give a random comparison had 3,000 civilian and 12,000 military deaths, Operation Inherent Resolve in Iraq was 7,000 civilian and 70,000 military deaths, the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was ~1,000 military and ~500 civilian deaths, the 2001 campaign in Afghanistan was ~2,000 civilian and ~10,000 military deaths, etc.).--Nihlus1 (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Iranian claims of 650 US deaths

The following discussion 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.

---

Users have repeatedly added to the infobox unverified claims from deprecated sources such as Tasnim and small, unreliable and questionable sources (who quote Tasnim anyway) in order to add the claim that Iran has killed 650 US military personnel.

While it is fine to have in the article itself, it is abundantly clear that this should not be added to the infobox, even if we mention that it is a “claim” made by Iran because it gives the claim, which originates from questionable sources, undue weight against reliable sources that are not reporting this claim or are outright debunking it.

We didn't list the death of Ayatollah Khamenei until official and reliable sources confirmed it and I do not see why we wouldn't hold the claim of mass combatant deaths to the same standard. Conversely, we are not taking Trump's word that we've completely destroyed Iran's navy and all of their air defenses and we wouldn't allow "Per United States: Iranian Navy and IRGC Navy Destroyed, All of Iran's air defenses destroyed" to the infobox because it comes from an unreliable source and is not verifiable. PaulRKil (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

@PaulRKil There is absolutely zero non-Iranian state-owned news agencies evidence of any sort proving "650 deaths". I concur with your view. We probably need an admin or someone to fix this permanently. I don't want this to become an edit war. Per CENTCOM, NYT, WSJ, NPR, etc., only 6 U.S. servicemember deaths have occurred yet. Have you seen multiple users doing this or just 1-2? Avishai11 (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

At least one is engaging in edit warring but @Thebiguglyalien already warned them. PaulRKil (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason to reject Times of India as a source for Iran's claim Placeholderer (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

It only says that an IRGC commander made this claim. It neither verifies or substantiates the claim. It is just reporting on it.

Again, we were rejecting claims of the Ayatollah’s death even when AP and Reuters were picking up the story, which neither of them are doing in this case. PaulRKil (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in the Khamenei discussion—was that an issue of saying "Khamenei was killed" or of saying "the US/Israel said Khamenei was killed"? There's a far lower barrier to saying the latter, which the "Per Iran" section is equivalent to Placeholderer (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

"TOI has had a poor reputation for fact-checking and its use should be evaluated with caution." (WP:TIMESOFINDIA). I don't know if we can trust them for such a large claim. See: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-888652. This appears to prove it incorrect.

Also can one of you @PaulRKil @Placeholderer send me the link to the ToIndia article? Avishai11 (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Article here. Fact-checking isn't relevant here. Anyone can verify the fact that Iran is claiming this number of deaths via the Tasnim article. ToI is just a big, independent (as opposed to Tasnim) news source that covers the claim Placeholderer (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

That doesn’t change the fact the claim is completely unsubstantiated and has no merit. PaulRKil (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Basically saying the same thing as Raihanur below, but this is a question of reporting what Iran claims, which is notable information in its own right; it's not about whether or not the claims are correct Placeholderer (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Exactly which line in the Jpost article "proved it incorrect"? I'm not saying the 650 figure is correct, that's not even the point. The issue is whether Iran claimed it, which they clearly did. And if they did, there's nothing wrong with including that (with "per Iran"). — Raihanur (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It would only make sense it include it if there was ambiguity or plausibility; if the claim is refuted (as per RS like WP:JERUSALEMPOST), then we'd be putting a debunked claim in the infobox just because the IRGC made it. I agree that the claim itself is notable, but I disagree that it belongs in the infobox. 9ninety (talk) 04:43, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

JPost is saying "oh those deaths did not happen", rather than saying "this claim wasnt ever made by Iran". They provide the details that where this claim was made.

We are absolutely not going to add only those figures that we think are surely more correct. Instead we are supposed to add all of the available claims of involved parties. Koshuri ^(あ!) 13:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

only those figures that we think are surely more correct Except, we have RS reporting that the claim is false; not disputed, but false. We don't have to make that judgement. That doesn't mean the claim isn't notable, but it does mean it is WP:UNDUE in the infobox due to prominence of placement. It should be mentioned in the casualties section in prose, not in the infobox. 9ninety (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable to me Placeholderer (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

And me as well. I should have specified that I am okay with the claims being written in the article itself, but it should not be added into the infobox. PaulRKil (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It is not for you to decide which claim is false and which one is not.

You can invoke the "false", "debunking" factor only if the claim has been made by an independent reliable source which are presented as facts. "Iranian claims" are not being presented as facts. Zalaraz (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

They are if they are being prominently placed in the infobox. PaulRKil (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

In which policy on the whole of Wikipedia is it written that if something is placed in an infobox, then it is a fact, and if it is in the article, then it isn't? — Raihanur (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

And you're going fully off point, like totally. The whole argument is about "whether Iran claimed it", not "whether Iran killed 650 soldiers. — Raihanur (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Per @9ninety placing it in the infobox, even as a claim with only questionable sources verifying it, gives it undue weight due to prominence of placement. It is more fit for within the article. PaulRKil (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that an infobox is meant to summarise key elements from an article. It does not need to agree with your belief. Zalaraz (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@PaulRKil I absolutely agree that we must get this out of the infobox until an independent news source confirms this in some form, at least. We can and should put it in the main article just clearly labeled as "per Iranian state-owned media, and has been strongly denied by CENTCOM" or something. Avishai11 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• I agree with above that the only possible concern with this figure was if Iran really made it. Jerusalem Post confirms they made the claim, as such the inclusion can have no sincere objections anymore. Zalaraz (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  Al Jazeera has confirmed Trump made the claim that the entirety of Iran's Navy and Air Force has been destroyed. I don't think that should be added to the infobox for similar reasons. PaulRKil (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  If you are against including Iranian claims because Tasnim is state-owned and unreliable, why are then the US and Israeli claims of 1000-1500 Iranian military personnel killed included in the infobox? The only source given is Jerusalem Post, which, in this case is not an independent source, as it states that the information was provided by an „Israeli source“. Wikipedia guidelines clearly says that The Jerusalem Post „should be treated with caution when making extraordinary claims regarding the Israeli–Palestinian conflict“. Balthasar144 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  I personally don't like the 1000-1500 range but the range is roughly consistent with casualty figures released by other parties within Iran such as the Red Crescent, and by Iran though I will note that the 1000-1500 claim specifically mentions military personnel. If JPost was reporting 10,000 military personnel killed or if Iran was claiming that only 20 people were killed so far, it would certainly warrant more scrutiny because those are clear outliers like how Iran's claim that the US has suffered 650 casualties is inconsistent with the 6 KIA and 18 WIA by US officials. PaulRKil (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  I don‘t see how it should be consistent with other parties within Iran. Red Crescent says that approximately 800 people died including at least 180 civilians. HRANA says 1000 civilians have died so far, and 800 additionaly deaths are under review for classification. As HRANA is a non-profit organisation based in Virginia it could be seen as a reliable source. I would suggest including both the claim of US+Israel and Irans claim, or neither. Balthasar144 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  And just to add, Tasnim is a deprecated source whilst Jerusalem Post is not. PaulRKil (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Remove This claim should be removed from the infobox. It's an obvious domestic propaganda narrative from a collapsing regime, that sounds like a Baghdad Bob statement. Ecrusized (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

  The United States military heavily documents its casualties and is generally quite transparent unless it comes to circumstances relating to sensitive covert operations. If that many American soldiers were killed, there would've been so much noise around their deaths Randomuser335S (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

The rationale for removing it seems pretty clear cut, the info box isn't to amass any and all absurd claims about casualties. The number is blatantly untrue, leaving it in as just "per Iran" gives the false impression that Iran's claim has equal weight as that of the other numbers. As of now no reliable source gives credence to Iran's casualty claims. XeCyranium (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• Remove It's ridiculous people are even considering putting this in with the blatant obvious Iranian propaganda they put out, no matter what you think of the US government right now they are 100% still truthful with military casualties, you can't hide them from the families (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Infobox are no substitutes for reading the article, though unfortunately that appears to have become the case. We as editors can indeed decide what to include and disclude per discretion (Wikipedia:Editorial discretion). While we can present Iranian claims, here we have an extraordinary claim from a "semi official" news outlet sourced to a commander. Not only is the claim dubious but so is the claimant. Remove I say as well. Gotitbro (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

What makes you think that "here we have an extraordinary claim" only from Iranian side but not Israel+US? It is absurd to doubt only one side. See WP:JDL. Shankargb (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, as clearly stated it is questionable to list this as an official claim as well. Tasnim is not the Iranian government's spox nor is a random IRGC commander. If anything I would recommend blanking all casualty/losses from the infobox (including US/Israeli), infoboxes should never substitute for a reading of the article. Gotitbro (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I would support blanking the casualties/losses as well. Just like 2025 India–Pakistan crisis... — Raihanur (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• An estimate coming from an involved belligerent is still an estimate and should be included in infobox. Whether it is correct or not, it should be discussed on the relevant section with reliable sources. Shankargb (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
• Keep it. Those seeking removal are presenting a classic case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. I dont find any sense in those seeking removal by merely claiming "I just dont want to believe this" while presenting every claim by the US and Israel as is. THEZDRX _{(User) | (Contact)} 03:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is not a policy or content guideline in the way WP:RS or WP:V is. It literally says "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community." PaulRKil (talk) 13:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Another irony is that the infobox currently includes the IRGC's claim that two radars were destroyed. One of the sources is from NDTV and the other is from The Times of India. And interestingly, we also have a source from The Times of India for the 650 claim. One should be added, but the other shouldn't? This is just a classic case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT... ("Iran Claims 650 US Personnel Killed & Wounded, Fires 700 Drones As War Spreads Across Region". The Times of India.).. — Raihanur (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT is a humorous essay. Stop linking it as if its a Wikipedia policy. And that essay doesn't even have anything to do with editors objections. This is simply a non-sensical claim that lacks all evidence and credibility. WP:V Ecrusized (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  "This is simply a non-sensical claim that lacks all evidence and credibility. WP:V" ... You are mentioning WP:V and ignoring WP:STICKTOSOURCE. I've provided a source from TTOI above. And given the reason as well. — Raihanur (talk) 10:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  The Times of India does not independently verify the claim, it just re-reports the claim made by the IRGC General that originated in Tasnim while not explicitly stating it comes from Tasnim. The second sentence of WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE explicitly says "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it."

  I am not saying it doesn't belong in the article at all, just that it simply does not merit being in the infobox alongside the other casualty figures. PaulRKil (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

  Rainhanur, no one doubts Iranians have made such a outlandish claim... It's that no one takes their claim seriously. WP:VNOT Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion, Ecrusized (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Iranian claims

I want to open a fresh discussion here with a simple question: Should Iran's claims, of both 650 U.S. casualties and radar losses be included or not? I oppose the inclusion of all Iranian claims in the infobox based on the lack of evidence, and the fact that U.S. military does not hide its casualties, and the number given by Iran is so ridiculously high that it’s clear this is a propaganda narrative aimed at its domestic audience. Ecrusized (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose per the reasons I’ve stated above. PaulRKil (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion in infobox. This claim is not remotely recredible nor plausible. The body of the article can mention this claim with proper framing. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:38, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose There is absolutely no independent confirmation of the Iranian government's numbers. As such, they should be taken as unreliable for obvious reasons. NesserWiki (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support with attribution The claim that the United States does not hide its casualties is unproven. We should certainly always attribute casualty claims made by any party but, if we will trust the United States and Israel's claims enough to include them then, to remain neutral, we should do the same with Iran's claims. Frankly we should not trust any of them. So if we must include these claims they should be handled the same and they should be attributed in all cases. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• I agree. We should include both the US/Israeli claims and Irans, or neither. Recently an Isareli claim was included in the infobox which states that more than 3000 military personnel were killed in Iran until now, with the only source given being an Israeli source, Ynet. With only aproximately 1000-2000 people killed in Iran in total, the claim is clearly not being realistic. Moreover, the source says it is an estimate made by an Israeli official. All this shows clearly that the claim is unfounded and for its domestic audience, just like Iran‘s claim about US casulaties. I personally am for removing both claims. Balthasar144 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Support inclusion per Simonm223. MiasmaEternal☎ 21:15, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support inclusion, already said many things above. Besides those, if one claim is being added, why not the other? And I agree with Balthasar144, too. It is better to remove both than include only one. 2025 India–Pakistan conflict is a recent example of removing the casualties/losses from the infobox. — Raihanur (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Include either: 1. Claims for both columns; 2. Only independently verified losses; or 3. No losses in the infobox. Anything other than only having claims from one set of parties Placeholderer (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose the inclusion of the claim about the U.S. casualties as I find that extremely hard to believe. Such a loss would be a huge deal for sure, and there is no way CENTCOM could hide that information even if it wanted to. Support the inclusion of the claim about the destruction of the radars as it is supported by at least some third-party evidence. We just might not get any official confirmation because details about U.S. military communications systems are highly classified. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose the inclusion, the claim is totally ridiculous and implausible, it's impossible for the US to hide such a large number of casualties, it's just sheer propaganda, akin to the F-35s allegedly downed in the 12 day war ᚃᚔᚠᚓᚱᚅ Wyvern (♠️💛) 00:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose It is well known that Iranian pro-government propaganda outlets are repeating the drastically inflated numbers of US casualties. Its a part of there propaganda regiment. We also know that Indian media outlets are a tad sensationalist, for example look at what these same sources put out on YouTube. So using them as sources outside of Indian/Hindi wikipedia is probably not a good thing. We are using them as the sources citing Iranian claims as if they are true and that is why they should not be trusted. My own Instagram feed is flooded with pro-Iranian propaganda accounts using AI videos to purposely mislead people about what's actually going on. Independent and reliable media confirmed 6 American soldiers killed, not 650. Let's not make this a place for government propaganda in a war that is partially being fought online through propaganda. Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

"So using them as sources outside of Indian/Hindi wikipedia is probably not a good thing." There is no Indian Wikipedia, if a source is unreliable on Wikipedia it should not be used in the entire project period including the Hindi Wikipedia.

Though note that even these sources do not voice the claims as their own and properly attribute them. But as I note above these are barely official claims (from a random IRGC commander in an unofficial media outlet). Gotitbro (talk) 04:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose- Propaganda by Iranian government to make their supporters feel satisfied and mislead people.. If such high number of deaths really happened, the pentagon would have announced it. + IRGC claim of 650 US troops killed or wounded proven false. WinKyaw (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Remove both (Iran and US/Israel) We can do without the claims of either party and simply list what has been verified by RS. Avoiding propaganda pitfalls by either side. Including claims by one side and rejecting the other (however unfounded) would be very clearly an NPOV vio. Gotitbro (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion of the casualties claim in the infobox, per my earlier comments, since the claim is refuted by RS. Supporters of its inclusion have accused opposers of JUSTDONTLIKEIT (despite citing RS), and have brought up the inclusion of US and Israeli claims. This is false equivalence; the US and Israeli claims, to my knowledge, have not been refuted by any RS. The Iranian claim isn't just disputed, it is patently false. The claims are still notable, but they are UNDUE in the infobox. The claims about the radar losses should be included per @Ixfd64. 9ninety (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Ixfd64. The radar site destruction has corroborating sources, while the 650 casualties claim is hardly believable. DiodotusNicator (talk) 04:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the 650 killed or injured. Distractingly preposterous. Embyarby (talk) 06:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose the inclusion unless Iran comes forward with evidence or the US admits to it. Guz13 (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  I agree, but where is the evidence that 3000 Iranian military personnel were killed? The only evidence given is an unofficial Israeli source. I would add „disputed“ under the Israeli claim, just like under the Iranian one. Balthasar144 (talk) 07:21, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Mostly Oppose for the sake of credulity. You couldn’t cover up that many deaths in the US. I’m sorry. Maybe a handful, but 650 without boots on the the ground? Not a chance. That said, it can be kept there just to show Iranian claims. Even if it’s so absurd that no sensible person would buy it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 17 Adar 5786 07:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support, with the caveat that it be tagged as disputed. I think it's frivolous, would be impossible for the US to hide that many, but if we're including Israeli claims on Iranian casualties we should include Iranian claims on US casualties with a note of the unreliability of the source Claire 26 (talk) 09:24, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  That would be misrepresenting what our RS (JPost) say — it's false, not "disputed". 9ninety (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Remove both as both sides have exaggerated casualties of the enemy side and denied/stayed silent on their own casualties. Removal of Iran only will be very biased. Ahammed Saad (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment, let us present Iraian claim as very breif, with actual death list shown as US/Neutral claims backed by RS 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Support inclusion as long as it is attributed as being an unverified claim. The Iranian claims hold as much water as the American claims given that they're both conflict parties so including one and omitting the other would be undue. Removing both would also be an option but that would be silly as that part of the infobox would be empty then. Laura240406 (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I am curious of Israel & US claims are a fact here but Iranian ones are considered unverified + asked to be removed. For me, I don't trust any of those sides. Per NPOV, both should be included as claims. Beshogur (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support. Obvious case of NPOV. I don't believe the number is not a reasonable reason to avoid inclusion. It is a war, neither side has any reason to be totally honest. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
• Support inclusion: If we believe Trump, why not Iran? Trump is known for making deliberately false claims. Per above, NPOV. Maybe it's true. Maybe it's not. But if Iran says this officially, it is not unreliable per se. Why should I (non-American) believe your American sources? --CoryGlee 17:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

  General Comment - Your nationality and the national origin of sources are both irrelevant (the argument is also nonsensical given America isn’t a hive-mind). The only matter of relevance is whether the source in question has a history of reliability or not. Donald Trump is known to exaggerate and lie about… I think just about everything? Hegseth as well. Iran’s government is the same. Thus, you need to seek out known reliable sources and see what the bulk of those sources say.

  
  

  I will say, however, that if you cannot put aside personal biases about an otherwise known reliable source being American, it may be best to bow out of editing the article. Trying to maintain an NPOV is always best. Even when we don’t like something. Otherwise, we do a disservice to readers seeking knowledge. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5786 21:18, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

The radar losses are now credible: https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/05/middleeast/radar-bases-us-missile-defense-iran-war-intl-invs ACasualEditor97 (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I would be surprised if Iran hadn’t damaged something expensive by now. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 19 Adar 5786 21:08, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Support including it, there is literally no reason whatsoever we should include US's stats but exclude Iran's. This is a war, both sides will make claims whether true or not. See WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE for more info. HarvardJock (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. As per above. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose in the infobox, not really opposed in the casualties section as a claim. I am not sure how to phrase this, but anti-Western entities in that region have a frequent habit of making exaggerated claims like this, going back decades (my Egyptian friend insists they decisively won the Six Day and Yom Kippur wars and caused enormous Israeli casualties). I was tempted to include Russia in this, but while they are known to make things up, its not quite as bad. As for the equipment destroyed, that has no business being in the infobox anyway. ← Metallurgist (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  as opposed to Western entities that always say the truth and nothing but the truth

  the anecdotal evidence of your Egyptian friend also isn't really a strong argument Laura240406 (talk) 15:04, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

  I seem to recall Iraq making a similar claim shortly after the 2003 U.S. invasion. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The spokesperson for Khatam al-Anbia Central Headquarters (the wartime headquarters of Iran) has said that 21 US troops were killed and with 200 other casualties. As far as I can see this is an official claim. Moreover it is a more probable number than the other claim. Maybe we could put that claim in the infobox and remove the other one. Here is the link to the article: https://www.tasnimnews.ir/en/news/2026/03/07/3534125/over-200-us-forces-killed-injured-in-iranian-strikes-spokesman. As it is an article from Tasnim News it is still unreliable. Balthasar144 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: I generally am in favor of including opposing figures, but this one is so disproportionately off base that it comes across more like propaganda than figures. If literally every Iranian strike reached its target, this number would not be this high. BOTTO _(T•C) 15:48, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose: per nom. --HistoryofIran (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Obvious propaganda shouldn't be included in the infobox. It's giving undue weight to unreliable/uncredible sources. Needs to be removed. Chuckstablers (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Reiterated Comment: Look, Western media sources are a bajillian times more reliable than terrorist-owned Iranian sources but IMHO, there is no harm done including Iranian sources, because we already know who might telling a more truthful or factual story (usa obviously) as compared to showing their own Migs being shot down and claimed as f15s, a truly magnificent and fanciful story. 4-RΔ𝚉🌑R-01𝕏 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion in the infobox. The Iranian government is known to be unreliable with casualty counts in conflicts it is involved in, such as in their domestic protests recently (per The Guardian). Their claims should be, at most, mentioned in the body of the article with attribution. --DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 19:40, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose clearly pure propaganda with not a single RS backing it up. The United States military does not hide its casualties and there is no world where there is any merit to this claim. It has no place in the infobox. President Loki (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose including the casualty counts (650 kia is fantastical), support including the claims on material losses as those are more realistic The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 09:31, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose Not credible by any metric. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
• CommentI just think it’s a little wild that most votes here have been cast on the basis of “the fact that U.S. military does not hide its casualties.” How can you just throw around the word “fact” like that, on Wikipedia of all places? What? It’s not in the interest of any military ever to broadcast their loses accurately during a conflict. Own loses will always be underreported and enemy loses will always be overestimated. This feels like a repeat of the discussion at the beginning of the Ukraine War page, which ended in the removal of casualty numbers entirely from the infobox for a while.Ironmatic1 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. As others have said, the claims are not credible at all. Sciophobiaranger (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support - American and Israeli figures havent been verified as well, so why are they allowed to be preserved? We cannot use editor's POV to remove particular official figures unless you propose removing all of them. Wisher08 (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

  Comment Wikipedia regularly treats some sources as more reliable than others- this is hardly unique to this article. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 04:09, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, pretty much. Not all sources are equal. Iranian state media has been a slew of misinformation since before most of us were born. You (talking in third person, not to you specifically) would have to be living under a rock to take Iranian state media seriously when it says that 650 US troops (yet with no ground invasion) are dead. That figure is 72 times larger than the number reported by the sources that have long been deemed most credible by Wikipedia. Not to mention, the US' media is not owned by the United States like Iran's media. The US' media is much less prone to this near comedic level of bias. MountainJew6150 (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Closing discussion

It's been 5 days and most people in this discussion oppose the inclusion of the "650 deaths" claim, so I'm not sure if there's much point in keeping this discussion going much longer especially as it looks bad to have the "[disputed – discuss]" in the infobox long-term. Time to close this discussion section and remove the claim? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Close & remove the claim. WinKyaw (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support Both closing the discussion and removing the claim.

NesserWiki (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Close and remove the claim. PaulRKil (talk) 12:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Obligatory WP:PNSD mention. A close that only addresses the Iranian claims from this poll without considering, e.g, the issue of including US/Israeli claims is missing the point Placeholderer (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

The point is that the 650 deaths claim has been confirmed false by RS; it isn't about whether the claims are Iranian or US/Israeli (which is a strawman argument that is being overstated), it's about the credibility of the claim. Most of the oppose voters supported the inclusion of the other Iranian claims about radar losses, which are credible. We have to take into account WP:UNDUE. 9ninety (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that supporting some degree of nominal consistency is a "strawman argument" Placeholderer (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

It's a strawman in the sense that it's ignoring the question of whether a refuted claim, regardless of its origin, belongs in the infobox where it is prominently placed. 9ninety (talk) 04:22, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

The "keep both" argument answers that question with "yes", though I prefer "keep independent claims only" Placeholderer (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

(Though I'll clarify that I do hesitate over actually considering the 650 count an "official" claim if it really hasn't been pushed outside that one Tasnim article. That's honestly my main WP:DUE concern in this) Placeholderer (talk) 12:11, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Support only if both claims are removed. Balthasar144 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Support closing the discussion and removing the Iranian claim. BOTTO _(T•C) 03:07, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would you remove only the Iranian claim and not the US/Israeli one? Balthasar144 (talk) 07:03, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Because, as countless users have said before in this discussion, a multitude of more reliable sources have reported on the American and Israeli claims of casualties which is not the case in the Iranian claim that 650 US soldiers have been killed. Please stop with the circular argument. PaulRKil (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I don‘t see your „multitude of more reliable sources“. I only see ONE Israeli source that states that an Israeli official said that 3000 Iranian military personnel were killed. If you can provide a reliable source by a third party, I would be most grateful. But more importantly, the discussion is not about the unreliability of the sources. I know that Tasnim is IRGC-owned and unreliable. But, if the content of the claim is unreliable has nothing to do with this discussion. After all, we are writing „Per Iran“. What we are discussing here is, if we should include claims about casualties by a party directly involved in the conflict that would have an interest in exaggerating the opponents casualties. As every combatant has this interest, we could take it for granted that both claims are anywhere but near the truth.

And just to comment on what you just said: Iran said that 650 US soldiers were casualties, not necessarily killed. Balthasar144 (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Do any of those figures originate from a deprecated source? No. Are any of the additional sources being used to back those claims actually just re-citing the original claim made by said deprecated source? No. Are the numbers of deaths of Iranians claimed by Iran and then cited by Israel/US sources grossly misaligned? That could be argued but when the range offered by Iran is 1200-1700 casualties and the US/Israeli claim for Iran is 3000, that is nowhere near as egregious as claiming 650 US Servicemember killed or injured when the US has only reported the deaths of 9 with 20 injured.

I feel like the issue for many is that this boils down to the perception that we are being biased toward Iran or that we are "pro west" when that is not the case as we have also not included equally ridiculous claims made by President Trump in the infobox like the claim that the entirety of the Iranian Navy has been destroyed, that every Iranian leader is dead, that their government has collapsed, or that all of their air defenses and assets have been destroyed. We are treating those with equal scrutiny as we do with every other claim being made by both sides. PaulRKil (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

If you are treating those claims with equal scrutiny, why not remove both claims about the casualty number?

Iran does not claim that it suffered 1500 military casualties. It states that there were about 1500 civilians killed. The only thing Iran says about its military casualties is that ~100 sailors died and ~50 were wounded when the US sank one of its ships. I know that the Iranian claim is far away from the truth (as I explained above), but just to comment on what you just said: The proportion between the Iranian claim for their own casualties and the Israeli claim for Iranian military casualties is about 1/20 (150/3000). The proportion between the Iranian claim for US casualties and the US claim is about 1/23 (29/650).

And as you didn‘t answer my question, I must repeat it: would you be so kind to provide at least one reliable third-party source that makes the same claim about Iranian military casualties? Balthasar144 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Why would you remove both? Oh, wait -- we both explained our separate rationale to death in the previous discussion, so getting into this now is pointless. BOTTO _(T•C) 12:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Close and remove the claim per the clear consensus. 9ninety (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Support closing and removing the claim. DiodotusNicator (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Support closing the discussion and removing the claim from the infobox. --DannyC55 (Talk ★ Contributions) 16:08, 11 March 2026 (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.

RFC: Inclusion of the Iranian claim of 650 US casualties in the infobox

The following discussion 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.

---

The source reports that Iranian officials have claimed 650 American casualties. Editors disagree about how this combatant’s claim should be handled in the infobox.

Should this particular claim be included in the infobox?

• Option 1 – Include the claim in the infobox with attribution (e.g., "per Iran")
• Option 2 – Do not include the claim in the infobox, but mention it in the article body with attribution.
• Option 3 – Exclude this particular claim entirely.

PaulRKil (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Bad RfC the discussion is not just about, in a vacuum, including a claim which originates from a Deprecated Source and has not been independently verified (which, dare I say, is not a neutrally worded summary). It's about how to treat casualty claims from both sets of parties in the infobox. Placeholderer (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

My opinion is unchanged from above: Include either: 1. Claims for both columns; 2. Only independently verified losses; or 3. No losses in the infobox. Anything other than only having claims from one set of parties Placeholderer (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Note: I've un-archived this from being prematurely closed and archived Placeholderer (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

I also felt that was a strangely rushed archiving to be honest. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 17:45, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Bad RfC: The discussion is about whether Iran's claim should be included, there's nothing to do with this source. There are many reliable sources now available confirming that Iran made this claim. Most "oppose" argued that "the claim seems fake, it's impossible to hide, it doesn't appear real, Iranian propaganda, etc." — Raihanur (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, but bad RfC The following has been addressed. I am open collapsing this comment as it is no longer relevant to the RfC.
and you should probably reword (before discussions get going) or withdraw it. It's not really neutrally worded and it doesn't properly explain what the options are. Include or don't include "the claim" in what way? It's one thing to include the claim by writing "x–650 deaths^[1][2] and have [1] cite WP:RS for a report on x and [2] cite a claim leading back to a deprecated source for 650 casualties, which nobody would reasonably accept. It's another thing to write "x (American claim)^[1]_<break> 650 (Iranian claim)^[2]" with [1] again going to WP:RS but with [2] also going to WP:RS who are reporting that the Iranians are claiming something as evidenced by the deprecated source claiming it.

The RfC also groups being in the infobox and article together, which compounds the negative effects of the other problem. For example, I am opposed to including the claim at all in the infobox, and I'm opposed to including "x–650" anywhere in the article, but I would be fine with including the fact that the Iranians claimed 650 casualties somewhere in the body text of the article.

It's asking a lot of editors to sit down and think about all these nuances themselves, and I find it likely that we will get a faulty consensus from people saying "Include" or "Don't include" alongside a mess of people trying to nuance their responses but in different ways from which no consensus can be gained. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 20:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

That is not to say the RfC shouldn't be made. I think you are perfectly justified in making an RfC for this. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 20:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 Placeholderer (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have reworded the RfC to address the issue of neutrality and clarity and I apologize for that first version.

@Placeholderer: @Raihanur: Respectfully, my discussion, and this RfC, is about whether the claim that Iran has killed or wounded 650 American service members should appear in the infobox. I did not expand the scope of the discussion beyond that and RfCs work best when they are focused on a specific point of disagreement. The discussion and this RfC will remain focused on this point of disagreement and I welcome a broader discussion of how all casualty claims should be handled if further discussion warrants it. PaulRKil (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I have struck and added to my previous response accordingly. As nobody had given any opinion yet other than about how the RfC should look I see no to object to it going ahead as normal. ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 22:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

No way is this a "policies and guidelines" matter, see WP:RFCCAT. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2026 (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.

Ukraine

I added Ukraine to the defensive only, citing the source given under Hostilities. Then, I gave it the name ukraine-counter to avoid duplicate citations, but now someone deleted that part and the reference is gone. Fixes? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 21:11, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK What did you want to add? ← Metallurgist (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist Under "defensive only" I want to add the Ukraine flag and Ukraine, along with this ref: <ref name="ukraine-counter">{{Cite news |date=4 March 2026 |title=Ukraine sending experts to Middle East to help counter Iranian drones |url=https://thehill.com/policy/defense/5768104-zelensky-announces-aid-middle-east/ |access-date=5 March 2026 |work=[[The Hill]]}}</ref> or . VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 02:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK are there any more sources on that? It would help to have a few. The first thing you want to do is establish it in the body somewhere. Once it has coverage in the body, that supports inclusion in the lede and/or infobox, depending on the content. ← Metallurgist (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist It used to be in the body with that source but got removed. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 20:45, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It could have been in a place that didnt make sense. Ill look into it and see if theres is a better place for it. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK see if you can find some other sources for it. the more we have to work with, the better ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist OK, I have this: VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:33, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately NY Post is not accepted as a reliable source here. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Oh I forgot about that. I confused it with NYT. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:37, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Is Reuters fine? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

If so, VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:38, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@VidanaliK Reuters yep. The direct Reuters source would be better than MSN. Ukraine is mentioned under 2026_Iran_war#International. As of right now, there doesnt seem to be much we can add beyond that. There isnt even really much of a developed section on the use of drones. So we are kinda stuck for now. If Ukraine ends up playing more of a role in the war as time goes on, it could be expanded. Israel-Ukraine relations might also merit an inclusion. ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist I'm just talking about the infobox, adding Ukraine to "defensive only", "countered strikes" or something like that. They've definitely been playing a role in the war so far as has been shown by the sources. VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:51, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

They are playing a supportive role, not directly defensive. I think there is another section on the talk page talking about that part of the infobox. You can try and develop consensus there. @VidanaliK ← Metallurgist (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Metallurgist What part of the talk page? VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 00:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

References

Impact of Iran participating in the 2026 World Cup due to war

The escalating conflict in the region has cast serious doubt on Iran’s participation in the 2026 World Cup, with FIFA yet to confirm their status for the tournament. Meanwhile, Iraq has formally requested a postponement of their intercontinental playoff match scheduled for March 31 in Mexico, citing severe logistical challenges caused by ongoing airspace closures and visa delays. How can we include this in the article. Thanks cyrfaw (talk) 11:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

That would go under the "Impact" section i think, but I think this conflict would impact Iranian sports generally speaking more widely, so (maybe?) a new "Sports" section could do, but I'm too busy to add it at the moment. n.h.huit, 化けの花 15:14, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

 Done Already placed in the Impact section but needs expansion for now. Signing off until tomorrow. Thanks --cyrfaw (talk)

Is there any certainty that there will be an impact? This strikes me as a bit TOOSOON unless they formally pull out. The Iraq bit seems fine tho. Yet to confirme status doesnt really mean anything. Overly speculative right now.← Metallurgist (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Agree, it's too speculative to be notable at the moment. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

WP:TE: Iran's "destruction of Israel" rhetoric

@Ruzhiner, you have added material to the background section at least three times (1, 2, 3) concerning the Iranian government's rhetoric around the "destruction of Israel as a Jewish state". I explained in a prior talk page discussion that I consider this material to be undue in this section of the article, which should focus on the material relations between belligerents prior to the conflict. As I explained in my previous comment, both sides of this conflict are anti-each other and have called for one another's destruction in a variety of ways. It would be more concise and neutral to simply state that Iran has led an Axis of Resistance...

Focusing on actions instead of rhetoric ensures that the material in the background section is relevant and unbiased. Rhetoric and its interpretation is highly contentious and subjective, but opposing sources can more often agree on material facts. Furthermore, I find the sourcing you've used to support this material to be insufficient. While relatively recent, it does not directly connect Iranian rhetoric to this war as a cause of it, nor do any of the post-2/28 sources I've read. Age concerns aside, the source you've used is highly polemical, seemingly exclusively blaming Iran for the entire decades-long conflict with Israel. That's one perspective on things to be sure, but it's a contentious perspective that doesn't belong in a section where we don't have the space to get into contested claims. Finally, the author is employed by the Naval Postgraduate School -- a belligerent in the conflict. He is therefore not fit to serve as a representative of independent opinion on the causes of the war and its prelude. For these reasons, I am removing the material. Please engage in discussion and seek consensus if you wish to advocate further for the inclusion of this content. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monk of Monk Hall I would add that the essential information is also conveyed by "...adopted a hostile posture towards the US and Israel." which is much more concise, and that the link to Iran-Israel relations there is not a very useful navigational aid, considering all the othee context. —BrechtBro (talk) 20:23, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Oppose changing. I think we can use quotes from senior Iranian leadership, such as (and this is just a very brief search):

Commander Hassan Hassanzadeh (Tehran IRGC): On February 24, 2026, he stated, "We promise that... Israel be destroyed... will be fulfilled".

Mohammad Reza Naqdi (Senior IRGC Advisor): In November 2025, he warned that the next war would not end until Israel is "completely erased" or "completely destroyed".

The Ayatollah, while he was still alive, frequently said things like: "[Israel is a] cancerous tumor" that "must be wiped from the map immediately" and "remov[ing] the Zionists" to make room for the "real Palestinians".

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: called for Israel to be "wiped off the map" in 2005.

Maybe "senior Iranian leadership have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state" is better? Thoughts, @BrechtBro @Monk of Monk Hall @Ruzhiner? Avishai11 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

That sounds like a "hostile posture" to me, which sums it up. It's undue weight and would require rehearsing the entire history of the Israel-Palestine conflict to put such statements into context in a background section. I think the way the subject is currently handled under Israeli and American leaders' statements on their aims does a lot of work to cover this. Contemporary sourcing of Iranian statements about the war could be included in the appropriate secrtion (not background)? Perhaps a hatlink to an article like Iran–Israel relations, or some other way to point there and be helpful for readers to find their way to more on the subject, but maybe that's a little broad as a hatlink. —BrechtBro (talk) 23:44, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This is exactly the right approach. We can't include these statements in the background because we can't contextualize them there. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the "as a Jewish state" might be problematic since those statements just show the intention of destroying Israel but they're not something like "we will destroy the Jews" or something along those lines Laura240406 (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Have you read the source? we don't need to invent anything. The quote was there:

• Ostovar, Afshon (2024). Wars of Ambition: the United States, Iran, and the Struggle for the Middle East. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-19-094098-0. "The simmering conflict between Iran and Israel, which is driven by the Islamic Republic's aim of destroying Israel as a Jewish entity, fuels the Palestinian crisis, and reverberates across the region and beyond, also features heavily and is the focus of the book's latter section. [...] Iran sought ... an end to America's dominance and to Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Those had been Iran's goals since the 1979 revolution ...". Ruzhiner (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

I think one sentence saying this is a must. Currently the background gives a few sentences for why Iran and the US are hostile to one another, but there's nothing about Israel. I support @Avishai11 position above: "senior Iranian leadership have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state". Ruzhiner (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Your reasoning doesn't engage with any of the arguments against inclusion presented by other editors here. Your assertion that material is needed explaining the hostility between Iran and Israel is perhaps fair, however if a sentence is needed to explain this, it should also focus on material rather than rhetorical reasons for the hostility, such as Israel's alliance with the former Iranian monarchy.

In addition to rhetoric being insignificant compared to action, the source you present to support the language proposed by @Avishai11 is decidedly partisan; there is a better source in the section that states that Israel and Iran do not have diplomatic relations and openly contest the other’s moral right to exist.

If rhetoric should be included in the background section at all (I do not think it should), it should not be a one-sided, decontextualized inclusion of Iranian rhetoric. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

@Monk of Monk Hall I am not "decidedly partisan". In fact, my views are not as you think they are. My point is that Israel does not contest Iran's "right to exist". Find sources proving otherwise and I will agree. Avishai11 (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

I said that the source presented by Ruzhiner is partisan, not that you are. The source currently in the article, from the Harvard Kennedy School, says that Iran and Israel openly contest the other’s moral right to exist. There you go. Monk of Monk Hall (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Casualties and nationality

The casualties are listed as per the place of death

Shouldn't there be a separate column for the nationalities of those who died ?

In the Gulf countries, so far, most of the deaths are foreign nationals Varoon2542 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)