Talk:2026 Iran war

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Should the infobox be uncollapsed?

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.

---

In the § RfC about the label for countries struck by Iran discussion closed by Iseult, Iseult mentioned that there was negligible discussion about the collapsability of the others section. Two options:

1. Collapsed (status quo)
2. Uncollapsed

VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Comment - Why is this even a discussion? Jason's proposal, which ended up winning the RfC, does not involve a list that can be collapsed, but a link to a separate article discussing the war's impact. ZionniThePeruser ^{( talk with me | read up on me )} 19:47, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Iseult Could you clarify what you mean by "Option D" in the close? If you meant the wikilink version then this discussion is moot Placeholderer (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Placeholderer, this is the first I’ve read about Jason’s proposal being wikilinked. Going back through the RfC, Jason makes no mention of such a link; in the thread below, they don’t bring it up.

Zionni’s citation is to a talk page archive which I don’t think is linked in the RfC itself either. Well, this is what happens with insufficient RfC workshopping. In any case, Jason’s proposal by no means ‘won’ the RfC. It’s the flimsiest of temporary solutions until discussion can clarify matters. As I wrote in my close, there was no consensus for option D. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 21:44, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I directly mentioned what I meant in the conversation in the RfC:

My intent with Option D, "Others" is not that it serves as a label for countries the way "Attacked by Iran" currently does, but rather the actual word "Others" which can be a wikilink to an article (Impact of the Iran war) explaining the circumstances of various countries impacted by the war. That way, there will no longer be any edit warring regarding specific countries being added or removed from the infobox, and editors will be freed to discuss all countries and how they have been impacted, without needing to justify inclusion in the infobox. And, the infobox will not be cluttered by a bunch of countries that are clearly not directly involved in this war the way Iran, Israel, and the United States are (From here).

The problem with the RfC was that it was initially presented as a binary choice of just changing the label to "Attacked by X" or "Defensive only." I expressed my disapproval in my first comment. The main thing I'd update with what I wrote is that I'm okay with it linking to a section of this article, or some section of another article, rather than a new article. JasonMacker (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah. I absolutely missed that in my, like, six rereads. It was buried several replies deep and not mentioned in your !vote. I don’t think it’s reasonable for respondents to have seen that.

But let’s split the baby. The operative word is can, so the wikilink is optional. I did not understand option D to include a wikilink and don’t see indications in the RfC above that many D-!voters did either. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:21, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

That was a clarifying comment. My initial comment made it clear that my intention was something similar to the World War I article's infobox. The basis of my point is that too many countries have been impacted by this war, and so, just like ww1, we should not try to place every impacted country in the infobox, even with collapsible lists. JasonMacker (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I see. I also see that several !votes cited your argument, so those might be counted as support for a wiklink. The trouble continues though with a distortion of your option D in the addition to the RfC options and subsequent misunderstandings of it through that addition (e.g. the proposer of this RfC). What a mess. One workshop could have worked all of this out.

Let me think about how to go about this. In the meantime, I’m open to suggestions. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 22:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the close, this was more complex than I realized, at least we're moving forward. At Middle Eastern crisis (2023–present), this is handled with a wikilink to Axis of Resistance and footnotes following "other..." (not seeing a discussion there about the "self-defense only" label...), and while I supported JasonMacker's proposal in spirit, I don't support it in practice because I don't believe we have good targets for such WLs yet.

It seems to me there was at least a weak consensus for "others..." given that the overlap in argumentation for both D and E. In the spirit that perhaps I should have stuck to my guns that the previous RfC was not ready for primetime, it seems this new RfC is also jumping the gun by not identifying the scope of the question at hand, which is how, if at all, they are to be listed, of which collapsed vs not collapsed is just one subset of options, just like the label question, and these differences need to be parsed out for participation to be clear otherwise we'll keep seeing comments going for an option that is about the larger question, rather than the narrower one. —BrechtBro (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

We should not get hung up on what the correct WL is. It's a fundamental question of whether the infobox should only directly mention the main belligerents, like in the World War I infobox (and others, such as Korean War), or should it try to list everyone, like in the Kivu conflict infobox (and even that infobox isn't exhaustive, and offers a WL to a full list). If the answer is yes, only main belligerents should be directly mentioned then the others can handled accordingly, whether it is through a single wikilink, or with a footnote that provides multiple wikilinks, or multiple wikilinks, or multiple footnotes, some combination of these, or something else. Asking what the appropriate WL is, or whether other countries should be in a collapsible list, misses that main point.

The main point is that per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, "An infobox is unsuitable for nuance or detail and should generally avoid prose or prose-like statements. If information cannot be simply stated in an infobox without explanation or qualification, it probably doesn't belong in the infobox." The nuance of exactly how much each Persian Gulf country has been affected, whether they host US forces or otherwise allowed the US to use their land, sea, or airspace for combat operations, whether they activated their air defenses, etc. etc. is exactly what needs to be excluded from the infobox. This conflict, the Iran war, is primarily between Iran and the Axis of Resistance, and Israel and the United States; the infobox should clearly represent that. Listing a whole bunch of countries whose only claim to fame is that they host US bases and got attacked, despite themselves stating that they want to stay out of the conflict, is useless clutter for an infobox. JasonMacker (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely missed that For the record I did the exact same thing :[ Placeholderer (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

@Placeholderer and JasonMacker: I see two options. Either we scrap the first RfC, still reading consensus against options B, C, E, and no subtitle, or I'll try to magic my way into an option D variation bartender. If bartender, the interim solution will most likely end up as option A, which is identical to scrapping. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 23:51, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

I think the RfC might need to be scrapped/treated like a "no consensus", but I'm not confident in that. I do think there'll probably need to be a dedicated discussion on whether or not to keep the other countries listed under Belligerents (maybe three options: list; link; don't list or link).

Thankfully this is, I'd say, a pretty low-stakes issue as far as infoboxes go. Though there does seem to be consensus below against collapsing Placeholderer (talk) 01:46, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

In my view, scrapping the RfC or reverting to the original status quo option A would be the least good way forward. Any variation of D, collapsible, uncollapsible, "Others" linked to a section or article if/when one exists, is far less problematic than option A was, and option B would have been. A separate discussion/RfC about whether to have the Others list at all sounds more productive than relitigating "Why not Option A", which was opposed by a majority of participants. entropyandvodka | talk 01:57, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Well, seeing as wholesale removal has been brought up yet again below, we might be in a situation where consensus can and will change through a series (ugh) of clarifying RfCs.

Thanks, entropy and Place, for your comments. They are well-taken. I will ask that, in the future, when we have discussions with heavy non-veteran editor participation, that we all be more willing either to advocate for workshops or for the listed options to be accurate. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 02:11, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

I have to say, as someone who participated in that RfC and supported option D, I did not support a wikilink. I was not aware of anything like that as it was not part of the options listed by the RfC, and no attempt was made by the RfC to indicate that the proposal had been edited or that D referred to Jason's suggestions. I'm not really comfortable with the idea of having my support for D taken as support for the wikilink as I haven't even considered the matter. I would not be surprised if others felt the same. I have understanding that it may be frustrating for some of the editors involved here, but it would honestly be highly inappropriate to consider people supporting D to be anything other than "D. Others" and whatever the comment(s) they made during the RfC discussion says. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 02:53, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

That was a problem with the RfC, where the OP didn't formulate the options correctly. Note that initially, it only had options A and B. I posted my initial comment saying I reject both A and B, and the OP responded by adding "Others" as an option, even though it wasn't intended as a "label" the way A and B were. The RfC played out with many choosing D, but some interpreting it as the WL option, but others interpreting it as the label option. JasonMacker (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a waste of time. Considering this one ended with more confusion than before it, what we need now is a new RfC on with clear "Remove" attack by Iran from Ib or "Not remove". --౪ Santa ౪^99° 22:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• Note: the RfC has expired and a bot has removed the active RfC template. This discussion can now be closed. – Scyrme (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Survey

• B, as nom VidanaliK (talk to me) (contributions) 19:30, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• B per MOS:COLLAPSE: Moreover, content in an article should not be collapsed by default. Collapsing navigational elements like navbars and sidebars is fine, but an infobox is a summary of content and thus should not be collpased by default. – Scyrme (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• B with caveat A C There shouldn't be any collapsed lists of countries in the infobox, but any countries that are not Iran, Israel, or the United States should be listed as Others or other parties. Non-governmental belligerents can be either placed in a collapsed list or listed as Axis of Resistance. If those other countries are going to be listed, they should be in a collapsed list.--JasonMacker (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• B as it looks good how it is. That's my main reason. MOS:COLLAPSE would also be relevant, as another user pointed out. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• B I concur with @Scyrme. Lothengrun de Spigel (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• B Uncollapsed. I'd be fine with anyone going ahead and making this change, now that the RfC is over. I don't imagine doing so now would be controversial, though keeping it as is is problematic. entropyandvodka | talk 20:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• B per Scyrme. And probably WP:SNOWCLOSE. (Summoned by bot) Cadddr (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• C massive trim as per Wikipedia:Infobox too large....cuddle infoboxes data overload ... an example of what not to do.Moxy🍁 22:52, 19 April 2026 (UTC)
• C: Remove Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infobox is for a summary of key facts from the article. It is not a place to try to capture detail or nuance. The key fact as to those that are belligerents are those doing the attacking. There are many countries that have been attacked making this detail and, when they have not reciprocated and become an active belligerent, this is nuance. The infobox should be kept short and simple. The infobox is a summary. Not everything from the article should or must be reported in the infobox. In this case, the TOC provides the reader with a quick link to where attacks have been made. Furthermore, if it is considered appropriate to collapse something in an infobox then it doesn't belong there in the first place. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:50, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• B. Things really ought not to be collapsed in an infobox unless absolutely necessary. That is the common practice and I agree with it. Also I'm not considering C here as the previous RfC already ended up with loads of options and lack of clarity (what would "trimming" be here?) that caused issues for the close. I want to see options workshopped before RfCs and added to them from the start, not workshopped as the RfC is ongoing (obviously this is a one-sided criticism of those who want C as they didn't get much of a chance to workshop anything before this RfC started, but perhaps that could go ahead and be done in a new thread under this one). ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:56, 20 April 2026 (UTC)
• B. Uncollapsed. See MOS:COLLAPSE. Guz13 (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2026 (UTC)
• B. with a WP:SNOWCLOSE nod. A could be workable, but reasoning for B is pretty clear. (Wholesale removal of key information is an absolute no-go.) --Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 01:27, 27 April 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.

Status?

The status of the war is listed as a “stalemate?” Are we kidding? Iran’s government and military capabilities have been completely and utterly devastated. Nobody even knows who is running things anymore at this point. This is the most one-sided stalemate I’ve ever heard of, in terms of the ratio of losses from one side versus the other. Jmorley13 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

"Stalemate" is the most appropriate description for now, given the ceasefire condition and the "limbo state" of ongoing negotiations. All your other statements have no basis, are unsourced, and are obviously biased (not to mention, quite comedic). If you would like to propose a change to the "status" description, you must provide adequate reliable sources that corroborate your statements in wide prominence - we would then have to discuss it for consensus. Furthermore, even after doing this, you would have to explain why this sourced information would warrant a change of the "stalemate" description. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Strategic Iranian victory would be more accurate, but that's probably a minority of sourcing at this point. entropyandvodka | talk 10:18, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I would agree entirely with that phrasing - but obviously WP:UNDUE becomes the issue because of minority sourcing, as you're suggesting. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

A lot of analysts are probably waiting for the outcomes of the negotiations in order to conclude who "won" the war. The idea is that favorable outcomes for Iran (compared to what they had before the war) would count as an Iranian victory. But until then, it's too early to make a definitive assessment of who has "won" the war. Although, it seems increasingly likely that the terms will be favorable to Iran. Once that happens, reliable sources that describe a "Strategic Iranian Victory" should become numerous, and the status of this war can be changed accordingly. JasonMacker (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Both US and Israeli casualty figures on "Casualties by Citizenship" table appear to be entirely fabricated

The table titled "Casualties by Citizenship" lists 8,621 injured Israeli citizens according source 740 and 538 US citizens injured according to source 742.

Source 740 "Israel reports nearly 700 soldiers wounded in Lebanon operations": Related to Lebanon and does not contain a total count of casualties for the whole war, certainly not a number like 8,621.

Source 742 "A US military refueling plane crashed in Iraq": Discusses a plane crash which killed 4 US soldiers. Again no reference to a total casualty number or the number 538.

There may be other reliable sources that make these claims but if so the reference needs to be changed. Dekadoka (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC)

I've also checked the 2 sources and both don't mention that number

this also seems to be an issue at Casualties of the 2026 Iran war where there are more sources for the 8,631 figure but all of those also don't mention that number

the number in that article also seems to be incremented from time to time without changing anything about the source

one of the users incrementing it, i.e. User:Whitesin21, seems to have at least some history of doing that without citing sources: [1] [2] Laura240406 (talk) 01:56, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I was able to find these sources as of May 25:

"Number of injured since start of war tops 5,000, Health Ministry says"

So apparently Israel is claiming 5,045 as of today, but the Wikipedia article is claiming that Israel claims 8,631 in the side bar on the top of the article as well as using the figure in the table.

Daily Report: The Second Iran War – March 22, 2026 (18:00)

"Since the beginning of the war, 18 civilians have been killed in Israel, and more than 4,564 people have been injured to varying degrees as a result of direct hits, falling interception debris, and secondary damage."

US-Israel attacks on Iran: Death toll and injuries live tracker

The highest estimate I could find. Al Jazeera (funded by the Qatari government) claims "26 killed, 7,791 injured" confirmed casualties and deaths as of May 20th. I'm not sure how reliable this is, given they don't cite any additional sources or methodology. Also claims "13 soldiers killed, 381 injured" for the US, so again no reference to the 538 figure. Dekadoka (talk) 12:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Everything I post has a source to back it up, none of these numbers are fabricated actually. Whitesin21 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Every source listed clearly points to these numbers, there's nothing fabricated. Whitesin21 (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The sources you are looking for are listed in the Israel section of the Casualties of the 2026 Iran war page and not on the table. One example, https://www.gov.il/en/pages/17042026-02 here you can see 7,834 civilians injured and not 5,045 as you say and you are also excluding military injuries. Here, israeli source giving the 28 civilian casualties number as well https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-894081. And here for the US injuries. https://theintercept.com/2026/04/01/iran-war-us-casualty-numbers-trump-hegseth/. Like I said, everything has a reliable source, nothing is fabricated whatsoever. Whitesin21 (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, if you have sources that support the numbers they should be cited in the article, not just here on the talk page. Currently this is not the case.

It seems the difference in numbers comes down to whether or not the sources think things like smoke inhalation (US) or having a panic attack (Israel) should count someone as a casualty - perhaps some discussion is warranted, rather than only including the highest possible number? Notably the 4,564 claim is for "injured to varying degrees as a result of direct hits, falling interception debris, and secondary damage." As the Times of Israel source states, "The ministry does not give a breakdown of the causes of injuries, and some might be sustained by people trying to reach shelter rather than as a direct result of missile fire from Iran or rocket fire from Lebanon." A newspaper article (opinion piece?) should also not be treated as inherently more valuable that official US government figures - both should be reported, and certainly a news article disagreeing with official figures should not be conflated with the actual official figures, as is currently the case in the side bar. Dekadoka (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

well official US government figures also give false aircraft losses numbers, because there are actually more visually confirmed losses, so I think both are equally important, these sources I posted, are also present in the Israel section of the Casualties page. Whitesin21 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Do you see my point about not using a newspaper article for "Per US" in the side bar? It disagrees with the official figure so it should listed separately, since "Per US" implies that the source is the US government. Dekadoka (talk) 10:21, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

How should we call it then? Internal sources? Or perhaps have a minimum and maximum number of casualties? In this case, the minimum number would be the one given by the US government? Whitesin21 (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Even more sources

The links below are more sources for the next update to this gigantic article.

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/05/25/world/live-news/iran-war-us-peace-deal

https://abcnews.com/International/live-updates/iran-live-updates-peace-deal-work-progress-rubio/?id=133278077

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/05/25/world/iran-war-trump

https://www.foxnews.com/live-news/iran-war-news-trump-strait-hormuz-blockade-ceasefire-peace-deal-may-25

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-war-trump-us-strikes-peace-talks-ceasefire/

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/05/26/world/iran-war-trump-deal

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/iran-strikes-latest-updates

~2026-24829-84 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you but a major part of this article's length problem comes from too many references taking up space. Across the article, there are multiple pieces of information that link to multiple refs to solidify its claim - we suggested in an earlier thread a while back that extensive referencing should be cut back to solve this article's lengthiness problem. We can still use these sources for info not yet included, or future info to be included. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok. This is also my last day on this account.

~2026-24829-84 (talk) 11:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

If I don't respond to your messages hereafter this message was sent and/or no extra information is coming out of me, I am not using this account after May 27th, 2026. It has been nice knowing you while it lasted.

~2026-24829-84 (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, we'll keep these sources in mind, or at least I will. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Same with me. If I don't respond to your messages hereafter this message was sent and/or no extra information is coming out of me for the conflict thereof, I am not using this account after May 28th, 2026. It has been nice knowing you while it lasted. ~2026-26417-07 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Is the war over?

https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/24/middleeast/iran-us-proposed-deal-wwk-intl ~2026-31647-73 (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This headline also makes it look like so. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2026/5/27/iran-war-live-israel-kills-31-in-lebanon-tehran-blasts-us-truce-violation ~2026-31647-73 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

No confirmation that the war is over, it's still ongoing but in ceasefire status. The infobox status is fine as-is, currently. This week's events - not least tonight's events - solidify the war is not yet over. As for sourcing, it would be hard to make a WP:DUE case that "the war is over" per majority sources. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2026

~2026-31574-30 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Title should be 2026 US-Iran Conflict to spread truth over false information. The US is not at war with Iran.. there has been no declaration of war from either side. A title like this is spread false information and should be fact checked

 Not done: This was previously discussed: Special:PermanentLink/1341747552#Requested_move_2_March_2026 EvergreenFir (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Can’t find where it’s mention Iran killed 20-40,000 protestors

Where is that mentioned? It was a major impetus. RationalFactor (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

which RS say that? EvergreenFir (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

You might find more information on 2026 Iran massacres - check the references there. These numbers were likely reported by Iran International. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Add link to wiki-article about misinformation during the war in the See also section?

Should we add a link to the Misinformation during the 2026 Iran war article in the 2026 Iran war § See also section of the article? I know that are already three different sections about the topic specific to Iran (2026 Iran war § Disinformation and propaganda), Israel (2026 Iran war § Disinformation and propaganda 2), and the US (2026 Iran war § Disinformation and propaganda 3), respectively, but all those sections are just excerpts from three different articles. The Hurdy Gurdy Man (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

No objections here. I say be bold and go for it. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I'll go and implement the change now. The Hurdy Gurdy Man (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Possible new information for the already gigantic article.

Here is some information that may be of good use for this article https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/5/29/us-iran-60-day-proposal-what-we-know Randomperson122 (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixing Belligerents Other Parties formatting error

There is a minor formatting error in the article's infobox. Jordan, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Syria, Turkey, the UK and it's dependencies are nested within Iraq but should instead be independent parties (with the two British territories nested within the UK.) I do not have an active account, let alone one that can edit protected articles, and thus cannot do it myself. It's been like this for at least a week so it seems that no-one else has noticed the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2026-32055-53 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 29 May 2026

Description of suggested change:

Add Abdolrahim Mousavi (assassinated) to the wikibox for Iranian leaders. He was the chief of staff of the armed forces. If Eyal Zamir and Dan Caine are mentioned, so should Mousavi. Revolver guy (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done - He's only very briefly discussed in the actual article text, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE he's not crucial enough by policy standards to be included. We want to keep the infobox short, it's already long enough as multiple users have pointed out in the past, throughout this article's Talk history. HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 01:42, 30 May 2026 (UTC)