Talk:February 2018 Israel–Syria incident

does this incident rate an article??

This should just be noted in a more general article - merge it. This stuff goes on all the time between Israel and Syria. 104.169.16.173 (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

First Israeli jet shot down since 1982, and first direct Iranian action against Israel (it was an Iranian drone, not Syrian). Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

More details

Could you/anyone add which weapon used to downed F-16? Also under "Casualties and losses", add what are those 3 SAM batteries. --AntanO 06:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Look at the Hebrew article, it say SAM batteries as S-200 (missile). So, the same missile downed F-16 as per S-200 (missile)#Syria.--AntanO 06:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with going into more detail, but that is more appropriate for the main body of the article, not the infobox which should not be clogged up with excessive information. EkoGraf (talk) 09:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

page moved

I was bold and moved the page to "February 2018 Israel–Syria–Iran incident" because this title includes the three involved parties. OtterAM (talk) 09:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm OK with that for now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 09:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Main involved parties are Israel and Syria, and it's where the incident occurred. Also, to list three countries in the title is clumsy, and you did it not in alphabetical order, by the way. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 11 February 2018

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

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move to the requested title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

---

February 2018 Israel–Syria incident → February 2018 Israel–Syria–Iran incident – The requested title involves the three countries that are involved in the incident. The incident involved Israeli airspace, Syrian airspace, an Iranian drone, Israeli aircraft, Syrian and Iranian bases, and Syrian antiaircraft missiles. Thus, all three countries need to be included in the title per WP:NPOV. By the way, the media doesn't seem to have come up with a unique name for this event yet. OtterAM (talk) 10:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Idea is right. But incident happened in Israel and Syria territories. The article and inbox clearly indicates about Iran's role. Iran involvement in 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict is accepted, but we cannot say it as 2014 Israel–Gaza–Iran conflict. --AntanO 10:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the analogy quite works with the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, because in that case Iran wasn't directly one of the combatants. Here Iran was directly involved through the drone and because their forces in Syria were targeted. OtterAM (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a logical point too. Let's see other users opinions. --AntanO 11:19, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, see above. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 10:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Iran claims they are not involved. This could change, but including Iran in the title now would be embracing Israel's POV. Thundermaker (talk) 11:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Per others. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. The RQ-170 drone copy was clearly Iranian - as reported by several non-partisan RS. Iran was also clearly in the rhetoric following the attack. Note that the incident also involved Jordnanian territory (the drone entered via Jordnian airspace) and possibly Lebanese (for missile overflights, not aircraft this time) - but Jordan was not involved in any shooting (AFAIK). Given the extremely complex situation inside Syria (with several different state and non-state actors present in the country) - merely stating the country due it its territory being the launch/target point is misleading.Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Keep it practical and focus on the main locations of this incident; also keep it neutral by not embracing a one-sided POV. Historically, wars/battles/incidents are not described by every single possible combatant. Imagine if we called the Korean War the "Korea-China-American-United Nations War" or Vietnam the "Vietnam-Cambodia-Laos-America-UN War". Utterly ridiculous to even try.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose: Per User:AntanO. Saff V. (talk) 11:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Is there any proof that Iran was involved, other than Israeli claims? If not, why is Iran mentioned now in the title? Emesik (talk) 14:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Although the first clash between Israel and Iran as part of the proxy conflict, it is still an incident between Israel and Syria, given the fact Iran is working in Syria as part of the Syrian Civil War. It seems reasonable to me to treat Iran here as one of Syria's allies.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 08:43, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

---

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

Alleged F-15 damage

We're currently retaining this report - إصابة مقاتلة F15 إسرائيلية ثانية وهبوطها اضطرارياً - which is the sole outlet reporting on this in a way that doesn't seem terribly RSey. This claim isn't really being repeated (OK - Southfront repeated this - sourced to them). As far as I can tell, the Israeli unit involved was flying F-16Is (and probably firing Delilah (missile) - which is not deployed from F-15s). I suggest we remove this claim all together - it simply isn't being repeated by any outlet of note, and the al-Arabiya reporting is in itself dodgy (the claim is in the title and in the first sentence - but nothing further in the al-Arabiya article which doesn't have a reporter in the byline - it is العربية.نت (arabic.net)).Icewhiz (talk) 09:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Other then Arabiya (a semi-verifiable source) nobody else has reported on this. EkoGraf (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Israel–Syria incident is more relevent

I don't understand why it is called Iran-Israel incident. The incident mostly took place between Syria and Israel and within their territories. If an Iranian drone was involved this is irreverent. Should it be called a USA-Russia incident since it involves a US F-16 and Russian S-200 missiles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabolisk (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

This actually should be Iranian-Syria-Israel conflict. Since Iran was controlling the drone, Syria operate the air defense systems and Israel Air fighters. Assafn (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

wording and information wrong, and said twice

This part is citing a opinion piece from Haaretz, its information is incorrect, "first time israel and iran....since the 1979 revolution" is wrong, and the first sentence doesn't seem like wikipedia material. It should be removed from the article, if we use diffrent opinion pieces or "analysis" then we can get a wide range of views for this article, since this is a encyclopedia, someone should remove this part or at least fix it up. This part is also in the lead and in the strategic significance part, so at least remove it from the lead and fix it up in that part.

"This incident is extremely unusual, as it is the first time Israel and Iran confronted each other directly since the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the begining of the Iran–Israel proxy conflict" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon551055 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This was actually news reporting and not opinion. My own 2 cents is that this is probably the first Israeli acknowledged Israeli military vs. Iranian military/IRGC (actual IRGC forces, not advisers) incident - I don't think Ha'aretz was too far off, though I would've phrased it differently.Icewhiz (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Misc

@Expectant of Light: that lead became convoluted - it didn't read well. Also, I don't think PressTV is a good source to cite - far more mainstream outlets cover Iranian POV. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 12:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Feel free to paraphrase the lead to make it more coherent. As for PressTV claim, I found it an interesting detail and it's been mentioned widely in other Iranian sources, so thought it warrants inclusion as per NPOV--Expectant of Light (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I noticed you had reverted instead of improving the content. Can you explain why PressTV is not reliable even for covering Iranian POVs? --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

PressTV is not generally reliable, however it should be reliable for statements of the Iranian regime.Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please note my recent change. I changed the lead according to Reuter's narrative. Reuters, like most other sources, don't cite Israeli claims as fact. The narrative starts with citing the downing of the Israeli aircraft then moving on to mention the Israeli claims. --Expectant of Light (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It depends - breaking news reporting tends to do that when you have claims from one side. However we should prefer later sources covering this, which are starting to appear.Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I couldn't be more subtle about my editing because I was on mobile. I was even struggling with shift being an aspiring caps lock. While I would say that PressTV could be used to cover some internal Iranian affairs, I think that, if a more mainstream source exists, we should use it and not cite PressTV. It just doesn't look good to be citing a government propaganda channel, no matter how appropriately. I'd personally prefer a direct citation of the Iranian MFA to a PressTV citation, as, although Primary, PressTV is essentially a primary source masquerading as a secondary in this instance. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 14:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wrong drone picture

The Iranian drone described in this article as a "Saegheh" is actually a "Simorgh".

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2018/02/13/sentinels-saeqehs-simorghs-open-source-information-irans-new-drone-syria/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas602 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The Simorgh (rocket) is also rocket. Bellingcat is saying Saeqeh for the drone. Our article on the drone is using Saegheh (UAV) - which I think is the same thing, just a variant transliteration. Bellingcat does raise some questions on the identification of the particular drone shot down with various drones (similar in shape) in one-off Iranian displays.Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Weapon used

@Arado: - while defensenews (and just about ONLY them) said this - this is actually unlikely (see for instance here - [1]). The jet downed was flying over the Galilee and controlling a missile striking Tiyas Military Airbase which is some 250+ kms away (this we do know - in fact the IDF said the crew was focused on controlling a weapon ([2] [3]). A Spice (bomb) has a gliding range of up to 60kms (and this would be under optimal conditions - very high initial loft and speed) - well outside of the range described (even if the jet sprinted back). This is probably a Popeye (missile), Delilah (missile), or some other air-launched cruise missile. I would omit this all together - but if we leave it - leave it attributed to defensenews.Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Was it really an Iranian drone?

I've looked through the sources and it seems that "Iranian drone" is just a claim of the Israeli military. No confirmations from other source, no proof. And this source shows aerial imagery beside a drone photo, while even a 5 year old kid can recognize their shapes don't match at all.

My proposition is to attribute that claim strictly to the Israeli military unless proved. --Emesik (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That image does not seem to be of the drone that Israel shot down. You can check for yourself here. Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Despite the OR here, most reputable sources are saying it was Iranian in recent coverage.Icewhiz (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The Iranians themselves do not deny it, they only say it didn't enter Israeli air space: "Iran and Syria on Saturday denied that an unmanned drone Israel said it shot down violated the Jewish state’s airspace, calling Israeli allegations “lies” and saying the drone was on a regular mission gathering intelligence on Islamic State."--Bolter21 (talk to me) 11:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've tagged the article over this concern. The wording of the article tries to say that the Iranian drone is a fact. --Mhhossein ^talk 13:49, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Not true. It's clearly attributed to Israel: "The aircraft was part of a larger Israeli aerial dispatch which Israel said was sent in response to detection of an Iranian drone spying on Israel... Iran dismissed the Israeli allegation of Iranian drone incursion into Israeli territory as "ridiculous"... etc". If you feel the article needs more attribution regarding the alleged Iranian drone, you are welcome to make the necessary edits.--יניב הורון (talk) 22:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. Our current use attributes each use of the drone. However, given that later many RSes use "Iranian drone" unattributed - e.g. Haaretz[4], al-araby[5][6], and the BBC[7] - we should consider if attribution is still necessary or whether we should just say "Iranian drone" as many RSes are doing.Icewhiz (talk) 07:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

You have a good point. After all, usually the Iranian government denies everything (Israel, on the other hand, doesn't deny nor confirm in some cases). We shouldn't have to use "alleged" or "reportedly" all the time just because the ayatollahs don't want to take responsibility for their actions around world, specially when most reliable sources report this as fact, not just an "Israeli claim". Nevertheless, for the sake of peace I'll leave the attribution alone, which makes the POV tag baseless.--יניב הורון (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Iranian denial may be something worth mention somewhere with due weight (per whatever lasting coverage it receives) - however whether to attribute or not attribute the claim is a question of what WP:RS do - if later sources use this unattributed, then it is what it is.Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Icewhiz: Can you show me my violation of 1RR? You're not going to use Isreali sources to push their POV, clear enough? The article needs to be NEUTRAL. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

  On your talk (off-topic here). As for Israeli sources, they are RS and some of them are quite opposed to the Israeli gvmt (for instance - Haaretz). However I presented a rather balanced panel above - al-Araby, BBC, and Haaretz.Icewhiz (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)