Talk:Iran–Israel war#Requested move 18 June 2025

Both Jordan and the USA have participated in shooting down Iranian missiles.

America especially, since it has 3 THAAD missile systems stationed in Israel manned and operated by ~100 US soldiers. In both cases, these countries have gone beyond what they can do as non-belligerents by directly intervening through attempting to block Iranian missile strikes on Israel. Genabab (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Sources btw:

:https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-air-defense-systems-naval-destroyer-help-down-iranian-missiles-fired-at-israel/

:https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/israel-iran-strike-conflict/card/jordan-intercepting-missiles-and-drones-in-its-airspace-23iXgh6DDeFb2FHgM2WC

:https://apnews.com/article/iran-israel-strikes-us-troops-973bc18970689bac42d82342bd29f601 Genabab (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::The US has evidently done much more than just defend Israel. The full quote above is "We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran. Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn't compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured "stuff."" Onceinawhile (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Your comment

::I have added the U.S. to the belligerent list, as, besides the RS above, List of airstrikes during the Iran–Israel War notes the U.S. shooting down Iranian airstrikes in Iraq. I will wait on discussion before adding Jordan, but the U.S. has plenty of sources on its' defensive involvement. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:32, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|WeatherWriter}} the footnote that says {{tq|The United States has participated defensively only}} is evidently underplaying their involvement. See the tweet quote immediately above. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:Shooting down airstrikes in a defensive capacity does not make someone a belligerent. Period. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:49, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

It should be noted that [https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e249#:~:text=1%20Belligerency%20is%20the%20condition,withstand%20or%20punish%20an%20aggressor. Belligerent] has a specific meaning in international law, and this isn't it. Defensive involvement may create a "state of armed conflict" between two nations under the LoAC (or may not), but that is not the same thing as being a belligerent nor a state of belligerency. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:The known US involvement here – funds, arms, strategy, intelligence, support units, but without Americans themselves being "in the battlefield" or launching any missiles, is known as Co-belligerence. It is of course possible that some US units stationed in Israel have launched the US-provided missiles. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::If you can point to examples of reliable sources indicating explicitly that the U.S. is a "co-belligerent" using that terminology, it might be helpful; otherwise this is simply unusable original research and synthesis.⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:14, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::No absolutely not, unless they are directly involved in the fighting they aren't belligerents. This was discussed heavily on articles like the Russian invasion of Ukraine article in which arm/training suppliers were not listed as belligerents. Des Vallee (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Being involved in a conflict even within the support section is a major inclusion. Des Vallee (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Des Vallee Ok but this isn' just arming or training. It is direct involvement in the war by shooting down Iranian missile attacks. Genabab (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Genabab}} In articles like Red Sea crisis states like Jordan were not included as belligerents because they aren't directly involved in the conflict, this is the same situation. Des Vallee (talk) 01:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Think of it like this, say Ukraine sends drones to bomb some place in Russia, and some other country attacked these drones and stopped them from attacking Russia, that would be belligerent action as they are taking military action in this war. That is why America is in....

::::::Furthermore, did Jordan shoot down Houthi missiles? Genabab (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yes Jordan did shoot down Houthi missiles [https://allarab.news/saudi-arabia-shoots-down-houthi-missile-from-yemen-heading-towards-israel/ 1], moreover when missiles enter Romanian airspace on way to Ukraine they are shot down by Romania, that doesn't mean Romania is in any way a belligerent, and neither are included in the infobox for that reason. Des Vallee (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Firstly that article lists Saudi Arabia, not Jordan (and Saudi Arabia is listed as a belligerent in the Red Sea Crisis).

::::::::> moreover when missiles enter Romanian airspace on way to Ukraine they are shot down by Romania

::::::::I don't think any of these missiles entered American airspace at any point.... Genabab (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::not main belligerents, however freesucrose (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{outdent}}

{{ping|Genabab}} Jordan is confirmed as having shot down Houthi missiles during the Red Sea Crisis [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/jordan-backlash-over-role-downing-iranian-missiles-heading-israel 1] and [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-iran-saudi-arabia-jordan-1.7176154 2]. Des Vallee (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I readded the "Supported by" section as for those 3 in support of including the US and Jordan, 2 have stated they are under the support category, or not a main belligerent, and the rest oppose any inclusion of Jordan or the US as a belligerent, but it is more correct if they are included to have it be under a support section. Des Vallee (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::I think “minor involvement” would be a better title as supporters have been deprecated from belligerent infoboxss, in the case of the USA this minor but direct involvement being shooting down Irani missiles The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 05:19, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yemen is on there and germany did have re-fueling aid too ovr jordan. Possibly even uk as lammy din't deny the support.Sportsnut24 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Houthis did fire missiles alongside Iran so there is direct involvement, however its still up in the air wether they are doing these missile strikes alongside Iran or just continuing their pattern of firing one missile in a while over the course of the past year The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:@Des Vallee.... These sources talk about *Iranian* Missiles being shot down. Not the Houthis... Genabab (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think it depends on whether the shooting down of Iranian missiles was specifically to protect/help Israel, or if it was because a hostile object entered their airspace/flew near where their troops are located. Wowzers122 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::@Wowzers122 Important to remember 100 Us Soldiers are currently in Israel operating THAADS. Genabab (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Genabab}} No the cbc.ca article mentions strikes from Yemen. Des Vallee (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Also want to point out Jordan has denied being involved in the conflict, stating they are only shooting down missiles believed to be potentially hitting them, so they should be removed. Des Vallee (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Des Vallee It just says "Saudi Arabia and Iran continue to fight a proxy war in Yemen, and the latter's support of militant groups including Hamas and Hezbollah vexes countries throughout the region, Israel among them. " Genabab (talk) 15:08, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{ping|Genabab}} It mentions general action in the Red Sea [https://www.iiss.org/research-paper/2024/12/navigating-troubled-waters-the-houthis-campaign-in-the-red-sea-and-the-gulf-of-aden/ here details it quite effectively, that being involved does not equate to being a belligerent] {{tq|reflection of the fact that their own ships have not been attacked and that the Houthis’ solidarity with the Palestinians is popular with the populations of many states in the region.}} Regardless of this, Jordan's actions are not involved. With the article Russian Invasion of Ukraine [https://www.newsweek.com/russia-romania-drone-law-shoot-nato-2074475 Romania often shoots down missiles that enter it's airspace], the exact situation as in Jordan. They are still not listed as a belligerent. Des Vallee (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::> It mentions general action in the Red Sea

::::::@Des Vallee Where? All this source says aboit Jordan is "while ports in Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Sudan have also been affected. "

::::::That is literally the only mention of Jordan in there....

::::::> Romania often shoots down missiles that enter it's airspace,

::::::The crucial difference is that Romania does not shoot down missiles entering Ukraine. Only drones entering Romania. The clear intent with Jordan shooting down missiles from Iran is that they are aimed at Israel. Not Jordan. Genabab (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::jordan stated they are not involved, and the missiles wen through jordanian airspace. thats why they shot them down freesucrose (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Agreed. Des Vallee (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|Genabab}} That's original research, Jordan claims to only be shooting down missiles that could potentially him them, Romania intercepts any missile intended for Ukraine, Romania don't shoot down missiles if they feel it will land in their territory, they shoot down anything. Des Vallee (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::There are a few reasons why I think the sources you're citing don't line up here but that's another matter for me as I'm fine with not including Jordan. But America should stay, since they're going out of their way to shoot Israeli missiles. Genabab (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Going to comment to expand on what I said above. Belligerent: {{tq|A belligerent is an individual, group, country, or other entity that acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat.}} (emphasis added). Assisting purely defensively (such as shooting down missiles) is not "in a hostile manner" at all. Acting to defend does not make someone a belligerent. If anything it may make them a "party" to the conflict. But definitely not a belligerent. It would be a huge NPOV violation to add any party other than Israel and Iran to the conflict at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::As it stands, the edit is over if America should be included under Supported By. This is depreceated but not banned, but if America's role is significant enough then it ought to be included under supported by.

::Shooting down Iranian missiles, including through American soldiers operating THAAD's inside of Israel is far more significant than just giving weapons and bombs to Israel and crosses over into a legitimate case for supported by Genabab (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Hi, sorry to jump in, I came here from the [discuss] tag in the infobox. There seems to be a disagreement regarding the role of the United States, and whether it is passive or active, but I don't think there's any uncertainty regarding their supporting role overall. Plenty of sources mention it quite clearly. For instance, [https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-857725 The Jerusalem Post] notes that "American forces have been operating in the air, at sea, and on land to counter what Israeli military sources described as a sustained Iranian response to Israeli strikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and military leadership." I had a look at other articles that use the military conflict infobox and found some that include supporters or allies in the belligerents section, such as the American Revolutionary War, the Dirty War, the Spanish–American War, and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, to mention a few, so there is a precedent. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iran%E2%80%93Israel_War&diff=1296159777&oldid=1296159437 moved and rewrote a sentence] about Palestinians being excluded from bomb shelters so it wouldn't be so prominent (since there's only one source cited). But I don't know where that sentence belongs, and I probably didn't put it in the right spot. If anyone has a better idea, please go ahead and move that sentence to a more appropriate paragraph/section. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 06:52, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:I would expand it to {{tqq|On 17 June, Al Jazeera reported that some Palestinians were excluded from Israeli bomb shelters;{{Cite web|url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/17/not-for-you-israeli-shelters-exclude-palestinians-as-bombs-rain-down|title=‘Not for you’: Israeli shelters exclude Palestinians as bombs rain down|date=17 June 2025|website=Al Jazeera}} there has been no confirmation}}, subject to later information; I believe that either location is fine. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 14:20, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

I invite those of you who are following these events to chime in at Talk:Esmail_Qaani#Death? regarding whether we should consider the man dead or alive. (Pinging {{u|Bill Williams}}). JBchrch talk 20:02, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

:Could someone chime in on Ali Shamkhani as well? I've responded to an edit request on the talk page there to reflect his death per WP:MOS guidelines. There are reliable sources on the article stating he has died, but I came across a [https://www.intellinews.com/iranian-supreme-leader-s-advisor-ali-shamkhani-not-dead-386194/ source of unknown origin] saying he hasn't. Should I self-revert? Aleain (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::All sources say Qaani is dead so his article must reflect that, while Iranian sources claim Shamkhani is alive and the article now reflects that. Bill Williams 14:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you bring these sources? Shadow4dark (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Three of the sources mentioned in the Esmail Qaani article are secondhand reporting of the New York Times.

::::Middle East Eye: [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-strikes-iran-who-killed-military-chiefs-nuclear-scientists]

::::The Times of Israel: [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-head-of-irans-elite-quds-force-killed-in-israeli-strike/]

::::The Jerusalem Post: [https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-857636]

::::It took me a minute, but I was able to find the original New York Times reference that was added to the Esmail Qaani article; it's a live blog, so the search option is probably easiest.

::::"Two senior Iranian government officials said Gen. Esmail Ghaani, the Quds Forces commander in charge of the country’s proxies in the Middle East, had been killed. General Ghaani replaced Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who was killed in a U.S. strike in 2020." [https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/12/world/israel-iran-us-nuclear#6579b2e0-37d1-5652-a742-9c5fcb2cb0e8]

::::I don't think we've had confirmation from Iran, so it's a big question mark.

::::The IDF has stated that he is still alive, FWIW. [https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/artc-idf-iranian-eliminated-chain-of-command-qaani] David O. Johnson (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Yemen (Houthi) is not a part of this war. They have been firing a missile or two at Israel from time to time since the start of the Gaza war in support of Hamas. Even the US here is listed under "Supported by". Yemen is playing a far lesser role in this conflict than the United States. Crampcomes (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:I agree, either they should be removed, or Jordan, the UK, and Germany need to be included as well for their missile defense aid (as well as mid-air refueling, possibly hosting Israeli aircrafts in RAF Cyprus bases, intelligence sharing) to Israel. BasilLeaf (talk) BasilLeaf (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

I've only ever seen sources call this the Israel-Iran war, but some erroneously believed we have a policy stating that wars should list the belligerents in alphabetical order. No such policy exists and alphabetical order is never mentioned at WP:Naming conventions (events). I think the move discussion that resulted in the order being swapped was flawed as most supporters only seemed to comment on the spacing, capitalization, or dash in the title. Following sources is policy, but following the alphabet is not.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:The only policy that I'm aware of that should be relevant is WP:COMMONNAME - and every reference I see says Israel-Iran, not Iran, Israel. I've never heard of it being alphabetical before - which is plainly not true. See Sino-Japanese War, Soviet-Finnish wars, Italo-Ethiopian War, Spanish–American War, Spanish–American War, Mexican–American War, etc. This seems like a very simple policy-based correction, so presumably no move debate is necessary. Can someone just do this? Nfitz (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with changing to Israel-Iran. Thanks for pointing out that there's no alphabetical convention. Uhoj (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support per COMMONNAME EvansHallBear (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:#Requested move 20 June 2025. Family27390 (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:FYI The international relations project suggests alphabetical order for its many articles about bilateral relations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Does the so-called consensus on the Talk:Gaza genocide that the word "genocide" should not be used in Wikivoice also extend to completely excluding the article link from the See also section? Because that would be a first. I agree with @EvansHallBear that {{tq|The result of the RfC was that we can't yet say that Israel is committing genocide in Wikivoice. That doesn't provide free rein to start removing any reference to the Gaza genocide article from infoboxes, templates, and see also sections.}} Yet another user, Berchanhimez, has removed even the mention of it from the See also section from this article. Given that we have an entire dedicated article on Gaza genocide, based on exhaustive reliable sources that use the term, it seems relevant for readers seeking broader context, especially considering the close connection between the Gaza conflict and the present Iran–Israel war.

Also, why are the serious allegations of genocide not mentioned in the Background section of this article? It deserves brief contextual mention, as it is highly relevant to the motivations and rhetoric of both parties in the Iran–Israel conflict.

Lastly, is FDD’s Long War Journal, which has been described as a blog, considered a reliable source on these highly contentious issues between Israel and Iran? I'm skeptical of it. StarkReport (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:As to why it isn't mentioned... because it's not background to this conflict. This conflict was brewing long before the terrorist incursion into Israel and the following military activities by Israel. And it would've brewed and happened regardless of that. In other words, this is not related in any way, much less is it important "background". The strikes Israel made on Iran would've happened regardless of their activities in Gaza - and there is no indication in reliable sources that their activities in Gaza caused any change in their calculus as to if and/or when to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. The onus is on you, the one proposing it be added, to justify that beyond just your personal opinions.{{pb}}That also explains why it should not be in the see also section. The see also section is not a substitute for things that shouldn't be in the article just because they're tangentially related. Your desire to push the genocide article in anywhere possible is very close to clear POV pushing. You try to avoid this by making claims of "the close connection between the Gaza conflict and the present Iran–Israel war". Yet you do not do anything to explain this "close connection", nor provide any reliable sources making this "close connection". One party being in common between them does not mean there is a "close connection".{{pb}}I'll also note that you referenced my behavior in this post without so much as a ping or message. Had I not been watching this page, or had I been busy (like I have been most of this week) and not had time to notice this post specifically, I would have had no idea my edit was being questioned. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:00, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::Per MOS:SEEALSO, {{tq|One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics}}. As far as close connection, [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/6/19/live-israel-attacks-iran-security-agency-trump-mulls-joining-conflict Al Jazeera's live blog] discusses both the ongoing Gaza genocide and Israel–Iran war in once place.

::Your continued accusations of POV pushing against anyone that disagrees with you are also getting a bit tiring. I see nothing in StarkReport's edit history to justify that. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::My point is that this isn't even tangentially related. It's two separate conflicts, both of which have been going on separately long before the current events and are completely separate. If anything Gaza war may merit linking in the see also section here. But the alleged genocide in Gaza has literally 0 relation to this conflict whatsoever. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Gaza war is already linked to in the second paragraph and Gaza Strip famine is linked later in discussing Israel using war with Iran to distract from it's "actions in Gaza". There is also the IDF warning Iranians to contact the Mossad to avoid the same fate as Gaza and Lebanon. The connections are clearly there. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::To the war, sure. To the alleged genocide? No. Like I said, the war article may be merited for see also even if it's mentioned in the article already. You have made zero connection between this and the alleged genocide. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That the Gaza Strip famine is potentially genocidal is discussed at length here Gaza genocide#Starvation and blockade. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::That does not relate to this article/topic at all. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:54, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Maybe go back and re-read the article.

::::::::{{tq|In the weeks leading up to Israeli attacks, its government faced international pressure over the high risk of famine in Gaza and killing of civilians. Even Israel's allies in Europe had become critical of the starvation in Gaza, and the EU had announced it would reconsider its free-trade deal with Israel. Political scientists stated that the attack on Iran provided a distraction from Israel's actions in Gaza. Nesrine Malik said the attack was an attempt by Israel to bring a Europe alienated by Israel's action in the suffering in Gaza back to its side.}} EvansHallBear (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Furthermore, I see literally no reason that they would go out of their way to ping you (who they point out they agree with) and not also ping me while still referencing my edit by name. It's very difficult to AGF when someone goes out of their way to ping someone they agree with while also in the same exact post not pinging someone they disagree with, even though they reference their edits/views in their post. The only viable answer is that they pinged you intentionally because they knew you'd show up to support them here, and didn't ping me because they were hoping I wouldn't see this discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:28, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That struck me as odd too, but they aren't usually an active participation in PIA topics and I haven't seen an established pattern of aggressive editing or talk page behavior. If it's any consolation I was intending to ping you but you beat me to the comment. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::::1. Amnesty International (June 2025): In a strongly worded statement, Amnesty warns: “The world must not allow Israel to use this military escalation to divert attention away from its ongoing genocide against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, its illegal occupation of the whole Occupied Palestinian Territory and its system of apartheid against Palestinians.” Amnesty directly connects the Israel–Iran war with the ongoing Gaza genocide, warning against allowing the escalation to mask ongoing human rights violations in Gaza.[https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/israel-iran-urgent-call-end-reckless-military-action-and-protect-civilians-amid]

::::2. New Lines Institute (2025): Describes Israel’s strikes on Iran as "a dangerous escalation against the backdrop of the war in Gaza” and notes that the conflict with Iran is “further complicating vital Gaza ceasefire negotiations"[https://newlinesinstitute.org/strategic-competition/regional-competition/real-time-new-lines-analysis-israels-strike-on-iran/#:~:text=The%20Israeli%20strikes%20on%20Iran,further%20complicating%20vital%20Gaza%20ceasefire]

::::3. Columbia University Prof. Hamid Dabashi (2025): Argues that Israel’s attack on Iran was partly intended to divert international attention from the “genocide in Palestine.”[https://www.newarab.com/news/conversation-hamid-dabashi-israels-war-iran#:~:text=HD%3A%20The%20primary%20objective%20of,in%20the%20rest%20of%20Palestine]

::::4. Atlantic Council Experts (2025): Features first-hand reporting from Gaza, where civilians express fear that the Israel–Iran war will “distract from the ongoing starvation and slaughter of civilians in the Palestinian enclave,” showing the perceived intertwining of both conflicts.[https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/twenty-questions-and-expert-answers-on-the-israel-iran-war/#:~:text=The%20prevalent%20fear%20in%20Gaza,what%20an%20%E2%80%9Cend%E2%80%9D%20looks%20like]

::::5. The Daily Star (June 2025): Argues that Israel’s military escalation against Iran is occurring alongside and is politically linked to what it terms Israel’s “genocidal policies” in Gaza, with Western governments enabling both through diplomatic cover and military support.[https://www.thedailystar.net/opinion/views/news/livestream-genocide-gaza-the-war-iran-3920896]

::::6. Al Jazeera (June 2025): Reports that as the world focuses on Israel’s war with Iran, violence against Palestinians has sharply increased. Israel is described as “sustaining its genocidal war in Gaza” while simultaneously expanding deadly military raids, lockdowns, and collective punishment across the occupied West Bank. The Al Jazeera report quotes human rights researchers warning that the Israel–Iran war is being used to intensify the oppression of Palestinians while global attention is diverted.[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/6/19/israel-escalates-war-on-palestinians-as-world-attention-shifts-to-iran]

::::This is not merely "personal opinion" or "POV-pushing" as you so desperately tried to suggest. To me, the relevance between both conflicts is common sense; if that seems like "POV-pushing" to you, then I’m sorry. I can't help you there. But it’s very interesting that you went to the effort of expunging even the mere mention of the "Gaza Genocide" from the "See also" section. If that is not POV-pushing, then I don’t know what is. StarkReport (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, no. That's not evidence of it being a related topic. Otherwise every single current event is a related topic to every other current event that happened to occur near in time, because many current events "distract" from other current events. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:56, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:The general consensus at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#WP:WIKIVOICE and article names was to use the article title in the See also section. Gaza genocide seems related to me and isn't already linked to in this article, so I don't see why it should be excluded. EvansHallBear (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

::You're free to ask for that thread to be formally closed or an RfC on the matter, but that was definitely not the "general consensus" at that thread. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Why list Mohammad Bagheri (general), Hossein Salami and Amir Ali Hajizadeh as commanders for this war when they were killed before this war even started, and their assassinations were one of the reasons why this war started. Crampcomes (talk) 00:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|Israel–Iran war}}

:Iran–Israel war → {{no redirect|Israel–Iran war}} – It's about time to be drawn a conclusion whether Iran–Israel war or Israel–Iran war. Family27390 (talk) 01:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support: More sources put it this way. Darwgon0801 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - As per Darwgon0801. Thegreatrebellion (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - The term Israel–Iran war violates Wikipedia naming conventions and is deeply misorganized. Ir should be put before Is. Despite this, many sources label Israel first then Iran. Additionally, there is zero evidence both names are the WP:COMMONNAME. Nevertheless, CNN and other news sources labeling it as such isn't stopping me from opposing that. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 06:31, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• "Many sources use that name" (the definition of WP:COMMONNAME). You then say "there's zero evidence". So which is it? If there's not that evidence, why did you claim that there is that evidence in your clearly POV comment? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :CNN and the bunch of other news sources are just some reporters and that does not justify they represent the commonname. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 06:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::You need to re-read WP:COMMONNAME, because it literally says {{tq|it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources}}. As you said, "many sources label the Zionist state first then Iran". So your statement "strongly" opposing this is actually a statement in support of it, regardless of your personal beliefs. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{tq|So your statement "strongly" opposing this is actually a statement in support of it, regardless of your personal beliefs}} This has nothing to do with personal beliefs, regarding a two-state solution or a one-state solution. FYI I do, indeed, support the two-state solution. Sure, i'll re-read WP:COMMONNAME, but however, it seems like you're only saying that I "support it" by opposing it strongly to swap an oppose for a support count for the closure. Freedoxm (talk · contribs)
• :What naming conventions. Can you link them - other than CommonName. Nfitz (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Obvious support. The vast majority of sources are listing Israel first. It's not our place to question why or to try and "fix" what we perceive as a wrong the sources are making. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Reaffirming I still support this even given the arguments below. I also disagree that we should consider "Israel-Iran conflict" to be irrelevant. While not as relevant as if that was the proposed title, it does still contribute to the fact that in the vast majority of English language reliable sources, Israel is placed before Iran. Whether this is because of pronunciation/flow reasons, or because of bias in the sources - that's not our place to try and decide. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I just checked the major news sites: Al Jazeera and DW both have "Israel-Iran conflict". BBC News has both ""Israel-Iran conflict" and "Iran-Israel conflict". NYT has "Israel-Iran Conflict". France 24 has "Israel-Iran War". The Economist has "Iran-Israel war". The only detail they seem to agree on is the use of a hyphen as punctuation. We shouldn't rush to change this again until there's more uniformity. One technical issue that vexes me is that title changes disrupt the [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2025-05-20&end=2025-06-19&pages=Iran%E2%80%93Israel_war pageview stats]. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :To counter per !vote below, Iran–Israel conflict and Israel–Iran conflict sourcing should be discounted. That'd be a discussion for the disambigious page in question, given the ambiguous nature of such titles. CNC (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Andrew D. and Freedoxm.Veritasphere (talk) 07:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. It should be written alphabetically "Iran–Israel war" because it used lowercase 'w' for "war" like in Saudi–Yemeni war (1934). Unless used uppercase 'W' as per WP:COMMONNAME, then it could be "Israel–Iran War" like in Soviet–Japanese War. EdhyRa (talk) 07:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :{{tq|should be written alphabetically}} according to whom? There is no policy anywhere on Wikipedia that says we must place the combatants in a war in alphabetical order. And the WP:COMMONNAME argument has nothing to do with whether the 'W' should be capitalized, which is entirely independent from whether to list Israel or Iran first. DecafPotato (talk) 09:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Talk:Iran–Israel war#c-Andrew_Davidson-20250620092700-Vanilla_Wizard-20250619171400 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:34, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::The linked article explicitly mentions it's a suggestion; I would follow WP:COMMONNAME here. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::In addition to what Tidjani said, the page is referring to the typical bilateral relations articles (like Canada–United States relations), not for wars. Heythereimaguy (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I think according to naming conventions, as per WP:CONSISTENT. If it used lowercase 'w', it written alphabetically like an english word. If used uppercase 'W', then it has a popular/common name, then it use that name eventhough it reverse. Slightly out of example, like American Civil War used uppercase 'C' and 'W', while Syrian civil war used lowercase 'c' and 'w'. Honestly, I prefer "Israel–Iran War", but my argument based on current page title which is used lowercase 'w', then it should be "Iran–Israel war" just for a consistency. EdhyRa (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Why, @EdhyRa do you say it should be alphabetically - rather than following policy. We seem to have more wars that are the reverse of alphabetical! Sino-Japanese War, Soviet-Finnish wars, Italo-Ethiopian War, Spanish–American War, Spanish–American War, Mexican–American War. And your Soviet-Japanese example. Nfitz (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::All of those use uppercase 'W', then it's okay if it reversed. If used lowercase 'w' then it alphabetically, with the exception for Song–Đại Việt war, probably because Đ (D with stroke) outside Latin I guess. For Soviet-Finnish wars, it used 'wars' cause it's a collection of war, probably because their singular war were Soviet-Finnish War and Second Soviet–Finnish War, which used uppercase 'W'. But, probably it just mistitle cause it still used - instead of –. The correct title should be "Finno-Russian wars", or "Finnish–Soviet wars" in my opinion. EdhyRa (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and wait per @Andrew Davidson since it's too early to determine a name now 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I submitted this RM because this page was about to be moved without any RM per mentioned above discussion. Family27390 (talk) 09:03, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per Iran-Iraq War. --Dynamo128 (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support - As per Darwgon0801. Quake1234 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per EdhyRa. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose as per arguments above. I've seen more sources rn use "Iran–Israel war" than "Israel–Iran war" FujaFula (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kalpesh Manna 2002 (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose, there's no WP:COMMONNAME really per above. Man, we really need a policy in Wikipedia to settle these things without fears of violating NPOV. I believe that what Andrew brought in the discussion above about WP:INTR would be a good basis for that. — 🧀Cheesedealer ^!!!⚟ 12:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support per current sourcing of WP:COMMONNAME, and if in the future the common name changes, then another RM can resolve this. I'm not finding any sources describing this as Iran–Israel war as titled, but instead Israel–Iran war; [https://news.sky.com/story/israel-iran-live-trump-tehran-tel-aviv-netanyahu-nulear-latest-13382979 Sky News], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/recep-tayyip-erdogan-israel-iran-turkish-friedrich-merz-b2773876.html The Independent], [https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250620-%F0%9F%94%B4-live-israel-iran-war-europe-us France24], [https://www.ft.com/content/4e1526c6-da58-48a0-9d39-bb86e2bc965b Financial Times], [https://www.dw.com/en/israel-iran-germany-france-uk-seek-diplomatic-solution/live-72979030 DW], even [https://www.timesofisrael.com/defense-minister-warns-hezbollah-to-stay-out-of-israel-iran-war/ Times of Israel]. This doesn't include refs to Israel–Iran conflict that discuss the war, or which there are plenty, which subjectively applies to broader context per disambig, and would be a discussion for that disambig name rather than this articles title. I'm referencing this as the arguments above regarding Iran–Israel conflict should be disregarded as not relevant to this RM. Also, do editors opposing this proposal have sourcing for the current title even? I only checked a handful of pages but couldn't find any and above links are what appeared {{small|(from a UK-based IP search worth noting)}}, maybe there is older sourcing not sure. CNC (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Note: WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Israel, and WikiProject Military history have been notified of this discussion. CNC (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :It's not difficult to find sources which use the current title: [https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250620-iran-israel-war-latest-developments Iran-Israel war: latest developments]; [https://www.economist.com/leaders/2025/06/19/where-will-the-iran-israel-war-end Where will the Iran-Israel war end?]; [https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/very-bad-decision-if-hezbollah-joins-iran-israel-war-says-us-official-2025-06-19/ 'Very bad decision' if Hezbollah joins Iran-Israel war, says US official]. Publications don't seem consistent so it may depend on the writer. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :: Thanks for providing, I didn't search with quotations to see what predominantly appeared tbf, maybe that's why. I've lowered the strength of my support, but based on numbers of sources provided so far, I'll stick with supporting the proposal for now, unless others can provide more sourcing on either side. Ideally a table of sources would provide a better insight for such an proposal. CNC (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support as per the reasons CNC list above. Tidjani Saleh (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per above there has been no clear WP:COMMONNAME established. Because of that we should default to current status quo based on alphabetical order (which I understand is not a required rule we must adhere to, but when sources use both orderings interchangeably, it makes sense to default to it). Yeoutie (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support although it may not have reached WP:COMMONNAME status yet, more sources use Israel–Iran war than vice versa. Per WP:CRITERIA, we should strive to use the most recognizable title. I don't see any policy justification for using alphabetical order until there is a common name. EvansHallBear (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support as the editor that raised the issue prior to the RM being initiated, and per CNC's sources list. I'll add to that list:
• # [https://www.france24.com/en/middle-east/20250618-%F0%9F%94%B4-israel-iran-war-live-hypersonic-missiles-used-in-latest-attack-on-israel-says-iran-s-revolutionary-guard France24: Israel-Iran War Day 6: Iran fires new missile salvo after Israel targets Tehran]
• # [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/un-chief-calls-for-diplomacy-as-israel-iran-war-rages/ar-AA1H6OiN Bloomberg: UN Chief Calls for Diplomacy as Israel-Iran War Rages]
• # [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/erdogan-vows-to-boost-turkeys-missile-production-as-israel-iran-war-escalates/ar-AA1H611H Associated Press: Erdogan vows to boost Turkey's missile production as Israel-Iran war escalates] (This article can also be found on the [https://www.seattletimes.com/business/erdogan-vows-to-boost-turkeys-missile-production-as-israel-iran-war-escalates/ Seattle Times]
• # [https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/2025-06-20/live-updates-858410 Jerusalem Post: Israel-Iran War Live Updates]
• # [https://www.npr.org/2025/06/20/g-s1-73686/up-first-newsletter-california-national-guard-trump-israel-iran-war NPR: Court backs Trump's control of National Guard. And, the latest on the Israel-Iran war]
• # [https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-top-diplomat-rubio-discussed-022725474.html Reuters: US top diplomat Rubio discussed Israel-Iran war with key partners]
• # [https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c994v4gm9jmt BBC: Israel-Iran Live Updates]
• # [https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/guterres-urges-give-peace-a-chance-in-israel-iran-conflict/ Times of Israel: Guterres urges ‘give peace a chance’ in Israel-Iran conflict]
• # [https://www.nbcnews.com/world/middle-east/live-blog/israel-iran-live-updates-trump-two-week-deadline-us-action-uk-eu-talk-rcna214040 NBC News: Israel-Iran conflict live updates: Fresh attacks as Trump sets two-week deadline for U.S. action]
• # [https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/jun/20/israel-iran-war-live-updates-geneva-talks-trump-khamenei-latest-news The Guardian: Israel-Iran war Live Updates ... Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations on Friday urged all parties in the Israel-Iran conflict to protect civilians and said restraint was vital to prevent further escalation.]
• # [https://time.com/7296139/china-iran-israel-us-weapons-mediate-war-peace-oil-diplomacy/ Time: ‘If Middle East Is Unstable, World Will Not Be at Peace’: How China Views the Israel-Iran War]
• # [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-monitor-iran-backed-cells-trump-weighs-strikes/ CBS News has a whole tab on their site called "Israel-Iran news"]
• :For what it's worth, Israel-Iran war is 2:1 Iran-Israel war in [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=Israel-Iran%20war,Iran-Israel%20war&hl=en Google searches] as well.
• :I just don't agree that it's a wash and both names are being used equally or that it's still too early to say there's an emerging common name. It's true that this is still a new event, but it's very clear which name is being used more in reliable sources. Almost all major outlets seem to have settled on Israel-Iran.
• :As for the alphabetical order thing...
• :I take a lot of issue with the alphabetical argument. There is no policy that we should be using alphabetical names. That's not a thing. I appreciate Andrew's good faith rationale that WikiProject International Relations suggests alphabetical order for bilateral relations pages, but there's several things wrong with using that as an argument in this discussion. For starters, at least as of writing this, this page is not even in the scope of WikiProject International Relations; they're not one of the listed WikiProjects, and based on that project's listed scope, it is correct for this page to not list them. That recommendation is for "X country - Y country relations" pages, not events. Local WikiProject-level established norms are fine as long as they don't contradict policies. Bilateral relations pages aren't the sort of pages where you could ever expect there to be a common name, so WP:INTR coming up with their own way of doing things for those pages is fine. But COMMONNAME is policy, and Wikipedia-wide policies always take precedence over local WikiProject recommendations. If for some reason every source referred to Austria-Zimbabwe relations as Zimbabwe-Austria relations, and this could be demonstrated to be true, COMMONNAME would override that WikiProject guideline.
• :To reiterate: a lot of the oppose !votes' rationale seems to be that a non-policy recommendation from an unrelated WikiProject for an unrelated type of article should override COMMONNAME, which is an actual policy. That's not a very good argument.
• :Sorry for failing to keep it concise, the TL;DR is that the proposed name is the one that's used more in RS while main argument for the current name is a nonexistent policy.
• : Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:27, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::TOI and the Jerusalem Post are biased and violate WP:NPOV. I think it's best for people replying to exclude these two. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 17:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::While I've had my issues with these sources in the past, current WP:RS/P consensus still has them in the green. Also, regarding your edit summary {{tq|"zero reason for a fellow editor to remove and silence my concerns"}}, I don't think Berchanhimez purposefully removed your reply in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIran%E2%80%93Israel_war&diff=1296550833&oldid=1296550771 this edit], these things just happen sometimes when lots of people are editing the same page at the same time.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Ok, thanks. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Personally, finding that TOI and Jpost (who I agree are heavily bias) both use Israel-Iran strengthens the nom. Ie it's not just the left to right-leaning sources using this proposed title, it's also from Israeli sources. If someone were to provide some middle eastern sourcing, Al Jazeera and such, then it'd be a full house (left to right, pro to anti-Israel, roughly speaking). I'm not one to find MREL sources matching GREL as a contradiction, as it's further confirmation of accuracy. I get that TOI and Jpost aren't considered marginally reliable, but if they were categorized as such, the argument stands. CNC (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Al Jazeera uses [https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/israel-iran-conflict/ Israel–Iran conflict]. Middle East Eye uses some variation of [https://www.middleeasteye.net/topics/israel-attacks-iran Israel's attacks on Iran] (which is more precise but less neutral). The Nation uses [https://www.thenation.com/podcast/world/amprestnews-06202025/ Israel–Iran war] EvansHallBear (talk) 20:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Al Jazeera has also regularly uses [https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/6/16/what-would-an-israel-iran-war-mean-for-the-global-economy Israel-Iran war] on closer inspection. Same with [https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/khamenei-assassination-could-draw-hezbollah-into-iran-hostilities-say-sources Middle East Eye] and [https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20250620-israeli-defense-minister-warns-hezbollah-against-joining-israel-iran-war/ Middle East Monitor]. There is broad consensus among sources that this is correct. CNC (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Haaretz uses both but Israel-Iran war seems more common [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-20/ty-article-live/israel-downs-iranian-drones-near-dead-sea-reports-of-idf-attack-in-northern-iran/00000197-8b15-d6c0-a1b7-eb35333f0000] [https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/haaretz-today/2025-06-15/ty-article/.highlight/game-on-how-the-israel-iran-war-is-exposing-outsiders-repellent-enthusiasm-for-death/00000197-73d9-d3ff-a7bf-77d99ab70000] EvansHallBear (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and wait: per Abo Yemen. Alphabetical is best for now. Let's wait for more sources. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• {{small|Note - I've just gone through and tried to fix all the MOS:LISTGAP problems by changing everything to be leading with an asterisk (bullet point) and removing blank spaces in the discussion. While it's of course a limitation of the software how it handles lists, please everyone remember that something as minor as whether we use an asterisk or a colon causes issues for those members of the community that use screen readers or some other forms of assistive technology. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 17:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)}}
• Support per Vanilla Wizard. In fact, I'll add to the list:

:{{ordered list|start=13

| [https://www.aljazeera.com/tag/israel-iran-conflict/ Al Jazeera's article tag is called "Israel-Iran conflict"]

| [https://www.cnn.com/world/live-news/israel-iran-conflict-06-20-25-intl-hnk CNN: Live Updates: Israel-Iran conflict]

}} Heythereimaguy (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::I'll add another:

::[https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/20/world/israel-iran-trump NYTimes: Israel-Iran Conflict]

::WSJ uses both Israel-Iran and Iran-Israel. Heythereimaguy (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Skitash (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Please see arguments above your comment. Yes, the vast majority of sources do put Israel first, but no, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the commonname. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 18:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tq|"Yes, the vast majority of sources do put Israel first"}} That is what it means for a name to be the common name. From WP:COMMONNAME: {{tq|"it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable, English-language sources)"}}  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:05, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::What about the arguments above? Many news sources are non-local and do not represent the commonname. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 19:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::We go by English-language sources, not sources local to a particular country. The BBC isn't "local" to me because I'm American, but it's nevertheless an English-language source and so it counts when determining the WP:COMMONNAME. Same goes for TOI, Al Jazeera, France24, etc.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:AND. --MikutoH ^talk! 18:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Wouldn't COMMONNAME override this? Heythereimaguy (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I've just read both policies. I think it definitely would. --Universal Life (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't believe AND even applies, because the first sentence of that section makes clear {{tq|two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article}} being the basis for it. There is not two or more concepts/topics here. It is one topic that merely involves multiple identifiers (the two countries involved). However, even if it does apply (or is supposed to), I agree with others above that this should generally be superseded by COMMONNAME. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:00, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Support Normally, I would support "Iran-Israel war" due to the alphabetical order (WP:AND). However, the policy clearly states that we use alphabetical order unless a different order is more commonly used — as in Electrical resistance and conductance. I've personally almost always seen the order "Israel-Iran" on the news. So, I went to the Google of a Chrome, where I've never searched or typed anything about this war before (I know Google results can be misleading for establishing COMMONNAME, but it can be helpful to have some idea generally. And I wanted to see, whether the proportional difference between the number of results was anything significant). And here are the results:
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iran-Israel+war%22+-Wikipedia "Iran-Israel war" -Wikipedia]: 26,400,000 results
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel-Iran+war%22+-Wikipedia "Israel-Iran war" -Wikipedia]: 79,500,000 results
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iran-Israel+conflict%22+-Wikipedia "Iran-Israel conflict" -Wikipedia]: 33,500,000 results
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel-Iran+conflict%22+-Wikipedia "Israel-Iran conflict" -Wikipedia]: 93,900,000 results
• :: And when I include other search term variants, the commonname preference in reliable English media becomes clear.
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iran-Israel+crisis%22+-Wikipedia "Iran-Israel crisis" -Wikipedia]: 259,000 results
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel-Iran+crisis%22+-Wikipedia "Israel-Iran crisis" -Wikipedia]: 2,970,000 results
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iran-Israel+tensions%22+-Wikipedia "Iran-Israel tensions" -Wikipedia]: 2,900,000 results
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel-Iran+tensions%22+-Wikipedia "Israel-Iran tensions" -Wikipedia]: 4,710,000 results
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iran-Israel+hostilities%22+-Wikipedia "Iran-Israel hostilities" -Wikipedia]: 38,200 results
• : [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel-Iran+hostilities%22+-Wikipedia "Israel-Iran hostilities" -Wikipedia]: 101,000 results
• :: I think while raw hit counts aren't determinative for COMMONNAME per se, imho the consistency and the big proportional difference suggests that "Israel-Iran" is the more natural and common form in reliable sources. So, yeah I think we should also say "Israel-Iran" --Universal Life (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::Y'all need better google-fu. If you restrict hits to within the past month (to rule out references to earlier conflicts, etc.), you get [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iran-Israel+war%22+-Wikipedia&sca_esv=f7661461505a9ca6&sxsrf=AE3TifP224axIcP0StEIVktJbjuMvVbIBA:1750450870938&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjwuO_S6YCOAxUxFhAIHbwKGssQpwV6BAgHEAo&biw=1661&bih=947&dpr=1 6 million hists for "Iran-Israel war" -Wikipedia] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel-Iran+war%22+-Wikipedia&sca_esv=f7661461505a9ca6&sxsrf=AE3TifNb_EqqsSWIMykr1qacGlr0aN5I7Q:1750450894388&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:m&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju34be6YCOAxWuGhAIHWpxLRoQpwV6BAgEEAo&biw=1661&bih=947&dpr=1 10.8 million for "Israel-Iran war" -Wikipedia]. While the latter is still more common, it's not to the extent that WP:COMMONAME obviously applies. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::This would apply to the commonname of articles such as Iran–Israel proxy conflict for historical context, or 2024 Iran–Israel conflict if referring to the recent background. It's impossible that the hits prior to this month is for this article, it's content and scope, given they predate this war. Aside from the odd crystal ball article that predicted this. CNC (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::: To be honest, I forgot to time-limit the search. However, I don't think those values above are useless, I think they do show a trend of 3:1 natural use of "Israel-Iran" over "Iran-Israel" in the English language - an information that could be helpful in determining this title as well, if other factors are not enough in establishing COMMONNAME. Isn't it? --Universal Life (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Not useless though, applicable to the two aforementioned articles. If there is to be consensus here, they could be worth moving to more accurate titles as well, pending secondary source research etc. CNC (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::::[edit-conflict] Dear Parsecboy, I also agree that Google hits per se aren't enough to establish COMMONNAME. However, we have to consider that because the war is just a week old, 1) it's very difficult to reliably establish commonness and 2) a common name for such a recent event might not be established yet (Within 3 weeks, the war might be called XYZ and then we would rename to XYZ). Still, we have to call it something... and don't you think an approximate 3:1 ratio between "Israel-Iran" and "Iran-Israel" as seen above establish that "Israel-Iran" is more natural and common form in English? Just my two cents --Universal Life (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comment immediately above this !vote. There's no apparent common name as far as I can determine, and some of the search queries used to justify the idea that Israel-Iran is more common are fundamentally flawed (as I pointed out above). For example, the Google Trends search cited above by Vanilla Wizard is also problematic, in that they filtered only for US searches; when one remembers that there is a world outside the US, one sees that the terms are used [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=Israel-Iran%20war,Iran-Israel%20war&hl=en much more closely]. Parsecboy (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :It seems Google Trends filters to the USA for me by default because of my location so I missed that, but even then, both the trends you linked to & the google hits you provided still show the proposed name is more common (and 10.8 : 6 is a fairly significant difference IMO). If we had to pick one name or the other (which is ultimately what this discussion is about), all indications are the proposed name is the better one to pick.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::Generally, when determining common names from search results, less than 2:1 is not sufficient; we usually want to see an order of magnitude in favor of one over the other (and preferably more than that). At least that's my experience clerking at WP:RM years ago. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::{{ping|Parsecboy}} If you'll notice below, it already is a 2:1 in favor of Israel-Iran (rather than the opposite) - regardless if you look at general search results or news only. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:28, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose per Andrew. There doesn't seem to be a clearly established common name. I've seen it referred to as both the Israel–Iran war and the Iran–Israel war. If there isn't a widely used version, I think going with alphabetical order is the most reasonable option at the moment. I'm not sure if there's any other standard we should follow in cases like this. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment — Here is the time-limited version of the Google Search, conducted in the same Chrome browser where I haven’t clicked a single result or read anything related to the conflict (so prior behavior couldn't influence the results): 1) [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iran-Israel+war%22+-Wikipedia&sca_esv=df20c8600aa448fe&tbs=qdr:m "Iran-Israel war" -Wikipedia]: 5,910,000 results (limited to past month) 2) [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel-Iran+war%22+-Wikipedia&sca_esv=df20c8600aa448fe&tbs=qdr:m "Israel-Iran war" -Wikipedia]: 11,000,000 results (limited to past month) 3) For the past year, the trend is the same: 14,600,000 vs 31,100,000. 4) [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Iran-Israel+war%22+-Wikipedia+site%3Anews.google.com&sca_esv=df20c8600aa448fe&tbs=qdr%3Am "Iran-Israel war" -Wikipedia site:news.google.com]: 5 results in Google News, last month 5) [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Israel-Iran+war%22+-Wikipedia+site%3Anews.google.com&sca_esv=df20c8600aa448fe&tbs=qdr%3Am "Israel-Iran war" -Wikipedia site:news.google.com]: 39 results in Google News, last month. One might check Ground News also, for cross-source headline counts. I’m not a paid user, but if someone is, that could offer further unbiased insight from reliable outlets. Anyhow, as far I can see, the pattern is consistent, and while not overwhelming in general search, it is overwhelming in Google News. Taken together, that’s sufficient to override alphabetical default, especially since the primary goal of Wikipedia titles is recognisability, not neutrality-by-symmetry. In cases where there's a clear lack of usage preference, alphabetical symmetry offers a neutral fallback, as in India–Pakistan relations. But, I don't think there's a clear lack of usage preference here. (I wish there were!) --Universal Life (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a descriptive title, so go with alphabetical. Srnec (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• : It's not a descriptive title. As far as I know, descriptive titles in WP are those created by WP users, such as List of wars involving Iran, in contrast with natural-language titles, such as World War II. --Universal Life (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I call it a descriptive title beacuse it is not a name. "World War II" is a name, hence the capital letters. Recent events, like this one, don't usually have clear names. Thus, titles are descriptive. But they are descriptions based on reliable sources. If RS verifies that it's a war and the main combatants are Israel and Iran, then either this title or the proposed one are valid descriptions, provided we don't capitalize it like it's a proper name. We should order the combatants alphabetically because it is a neutral criterion. Srnec (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Comment - Looks like this may not even be moved at all, since over 55% of people participating oppose this move (mostly with there being no COMMONNAME, alphabetical ordering, and per WP:AND. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia makes decisions based on consensus in the community, which is affected by the strength of arguments in the discussion, not via a simple vote. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:37, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• ::I never said it was a WP:VOTE. Freedoxm (talk · contribs) 23:39, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::My response was more directed at the {{tq|since over 55% of people participating oppose this move}} part, since it sounded like a WP:VOTE argument. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
• :::RMs usually last about a week unless there's reason for early closure, typically WP:SNOW. This one is looking like it'll have to play out for a bit, and I don't envy whoever ends up closing it. Not all !votes here are equally policy-based (some are even WP:JUSTAVOTE) so weighing the strength of the !votes will probably be necessary.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose – The current title is consistent with other articles such as Iran–Israel proxy conflict and Iran–Israel relations. In the title, "war" is not capitalized; it is not a proper noun. I've seen both names used, but at this point there’s no WP:COMMONNAME. Slothwizard (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support per alphapetical sort of ascending order

:QalasQalas (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Zero reason or rationale for the change, and it was originally created as "Iran-Israel" so I see no point in diverging from it. I'm also not buying that it's the WP:COMMONNAME either, plenty of sources use both. Sophisticatedevening🍷^(talk) 01:36, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :It was originally created as Israel-Iran but the order was swapped in an RM where discussion mostly focused on the hyphen.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:48, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
• :Do you have any counter to the massive number of English language sources from around the world that were shown above to be using the proposed title? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 02:27, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:Support, per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. As per above, Israel—Iran seems more widely used than Iran—Israel. 2018rebel 02:26, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Is the first paragraph of this section supposed to represent June 13th? If so, can we give it an appropriate subsection header? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:It appears to be the case, so I've added it in. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks!⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)