Talk:2026 Minab school attack

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

Undue content

User:HistoryofIran Pictures taken of unrelated classrooms or press conferences in entirely different cities are clearly WP:UNDUE content that does not belong in this article. The Iran International article does not mention either of these points in the context of the Minab strike. The only thing the article says concerning the Minab strike is that it is "disputed." This may warrant a brief mention, but I'd argue it's a WP:FRINGE view not supported by other sources. Given that this article falls under WP:PIA restrictions, I would advise seeking consensus on talk before restoring disputed material. EvansHallBear (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Iran International are clearly connecting those two events, please read the source again. The perpetrators have not been independently confirmed, only alleged by the Iranian regime, who are obviously not very trustworthy, as we all know. In other words, I fail to see how it is WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

• "...but I'd argue it's a WP:FRINGE view not supported by other sources"

How can it be WP:FRINGE when the perpetrators are not yet known? Unless one is already taking a particular side. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no evidence presented that this particular school was being used for military purposes, so presenting unrelated events to imply that it was is inappropriate. No RS have disputed that the strike happened and neither the US or Israel is denying they struck the school, only that they wouldn't deliberately target a school. The only "dispute" had been the IRGC misfire theory which has been refuted. EvansHallBear (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Inappropriate to you perhaps, but it is WP:RS, and per said WP:RS, it is worth mentioning that the regime uses civilian buildings, and thus it considers it relevant to the Minab school airstrike. HistoryofIran (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Being reliably sourced does not make something WP:DUE. Linking this school to other alleged military uses of schools despite no evidence that this school was used for another purpose is an obvious WP:NPOV issue and likely WP:SYNTH as well. EvansHallBear (talk) 02:27, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Continuing to randomly name drop policies won't make them less invalid. For example, WP:SYNTH says; "Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources." Which I am not doing, the source literally says that, but you don't agree with it, in other words, you are the one violating WP:NPOV here. And your WP:DUE claims have already been addressed. HistoryofIran (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No, until you can point to where Iran Intl explicitly links these disparate items (as opposed to vaguely connecting them as part of an uncited "controversy") then you have not demonstrated due-ness. In the absence of such a link you are in fact (combining) different parts of one source to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. EvansHallBear (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Read the source. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: Please follow BRD. I have reverted these additions as well and am not convinced that this is due or relevant at all (and certainly not as the very first analysis to be featured). Unless of course we are seeking to somehow rationalize this event by listing entirely unrelated ones.

And the arguments presented here/by Iran International of "regime" use of 'schools as military buildings' sounds an awful lot like those presented to justify attacks on schools during the Gaza war. As the Euro Med Monitor says nothing would justify killing civilians, including periphery to mil bases or use as mil bases; which to be noted as a clearly distinguished civilian site are not the case here. Gotitbro (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please point out the part where I/Iran International was justifying killing civilians, I am eagerly waiting. The source connects it to the Minab school airstrike, not sure what needs convincing here. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There is no connection of Minab with the other random/unrelated alleged quote unquote use of schools as military sites listed by Iran International. It is entirely undue, unless this article was about all schools/civilian sites struck by the US/Israel.* None of these other sites have been struck nor are listed by any other RS in relation with this incident.

* And framing it as way of analysis by Iran International is also probelmatic even if we were handling an article for all civilian sites. It is explicitly clear under international law that neither the Hamas nor [insert country] military use of civilian sites like schools and hospitals would rationalize/entail the killing of civilians like primary school children and teachers. No serious analyst would make that claim.

With Iran International being the only source making these dubious connections, it is justifiably undue here. Gotitbro (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No one is rationalizing the killing of civilians like primary school children and teachers. No one has mentioned Gaza nor Hamas anywhere. Iran International is simply pointing out that the regime may have used Minab as a shield. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

This is the analysis section we are talking about, this "may" by way of an association fallacy is entirely inapt/undue therein. Unless Iran International has something to say about the Minab school itself we can certainly stay put without their allusions. Gotitbro (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Do you have actual valid reasons actually based on Wiki policies that support removing info by Iran International? If the section is the issue, then it can easily be moved somewhere else. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Undue has been cited by different editors here and that is where the crux of the argument rests. Listing unrelated alleged military use of civilian buildings which don't pertain to this Minab elementary school has no bearing on this incident.

And with a single source making this unsubstantiated connection, the argument is all the more solidified for disclusion anywhere in the article. Gotitbro (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That's not how WP:UNDUE works. There is no source denying that the regime shield themselves behind school sites or something similar. It is not unrelated as Iran International makes the comparison themselves, not me. HistoryofIran (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Undue does apply to inclusion, featuring dubious connections/conclusions from singular sources would exactly fall in there. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.

PS: The human shield allegation put up there is entirely irrelevant for this discussion. Gotitbro (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

And how is it dubious? According to what WP:RS? HistoryofIran (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

It is dubious in the sense that there is absolutely no connection of "warning that classrooms were becoming "shields for deadly equipment." On 3 March, a classroom in Tehran was used to host a press conference by the Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmail Baghaei.* with the Minab school. We do not go around mentioning 'but do not forget that Hamas uses human shields' at enwiki articles for specific schools bombed by Israel.

And it is becoming incredibly clear in RS that this was a deliberate strike by the US/Israel. Al Jazeera, CBC, NBC and so on.

*PS: And I am entirely confounded as to how a civilian press conference by a foreign ministry relates to the already dubious connections made by Iran International. Gotitbro (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

So no WP:RS, you just don't agree with a claim made by this WP:RS, which is not following any policy. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

No, the policy is that there is no need to feature any undue dubious, baseless (unevidenced), and entirely unrelated claims/connections made in a single source which go against whatever is being reported in the vast majority of sources (US/Israel deliberately striking a civilian facility [from the looks of it based on faulty data, a war crime nonetheless]) for this incident.

To reiterate, we do not (and would not) feature commentary from the WSJ (for instance) when it proffers unrelated Hamas human shields when covering attacks on schools by Israel in Gaza. The same is the case here, even more so. Gotitbro (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

+1 IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This inverts the burden of proof. No RS has provided any evidence that the Minab school was being used by the military. This includes the Iran International piece, which uses unrelated information to insinuate a potential military use despite a complete lack of evidence for such a claim. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

There ought to be a WP:RSP discussion on Iran International as soon as possible. The status and acceptable uses of that outlet should be precisely defined by the community. 〜 Festucalex • talk 05:03, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

There already was one recently, and the consensus was that it is generally reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 506#Is Iran International a reliable source? 9ninety (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't that simple or clear. It seems to me to be generally reliable for facts but not great for determing balance or dueness of information. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any consensus from that discussion. EvansHallBear (talk) 21:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

'''Support''' inclusion per @HistoryofIran. Iran International is RS. Ibn Yagdhan (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2026 (UTC) —  Blocked sockpuppet of BasselHarfouch, see investigation.

I'm finding that Iran International peddles WP:FRINGE views. See this example.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:39, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Iran International (also IranWire) are not reliable source. They are indeed peddling fringe, and building a false narrative, while being, for all intents and purposes, on a mission to provoke and justify "regime change", by promoting false views, exaggerated claims and reports on regime collapse, defections, etc. They routinely push bits and pieces of disinformation, buried under news that are or could be generally credible (that practice is always viewed as rotten to the core). I find the organisation's professional journalistic ethics highly questionable (including questionable editorial independence from organisation's backers, entities from unfriendly dictatorships).--౪ Santa ౪^99° 23:12, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

  Phenomenal breakdown of Iran International and IranWire! Both those sites are extremely questionable and indeed build false narratives pushing specific narratives rather than factual investigations. They should never be included in any article in my view. HarvardJock (talk) 06:07, 7 April 2026 (UTC) <--- CU blocked, see SPI HarvardJock

  You may be interested in WP:RSN#Reliability of Iran International. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks! It seems many others are rightly suspicious of it as well. HarvardJock (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2026 (UTC) <--- CU blocked, see SPI HarvardJock

When to prominently featured US culpability

Right now this article mentions the US is likely responsible in the second paragraph. It doesn't mention the US preliminary investigation there, though that is mentioned elsewhere.

My question though is at what point we would want to feature that more prominently in Wikivoice. It seems clear to me we shouldn't use Wikivoice to ascribe blame yet, but I'm curious at what point y'all think that would change. Perhaps when Hegseth's investigation concludes, if it does.

I looked at similar articles, and they don't ascribe blame in the title, but they do usually feature it in the first sentence, such as for Amiriyah shelter bombing or Bahr El-Baqar primary school bombing.

I figured establishing a clear rubric for when to do that here ahead of time might be helpful. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I personally am hedging on the conlusive investigative report to be firmer in wikivoice for the perps. But if it becomes clear that Trump and his cabinet are stalling or trying to derail the report, with the preponderance of evidence at hand, we would need to go ahead with the changes regardless. Gotitbro (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Why are we even relying on the words of the US government? We have hard footage and independent experts confirming it's a US tomahawk missile. Given only the US is known to possess this in the conflict and even their preliminary investigation indicate a mistake on their part, we shouldn't act like US gov is the only acceptable reliable source to confirm when they have a conflict of interest. But already confirmed how the "mistake" happened - using outdated US intelligence. So no longer a question of who but a matter of why the US stuck to outdated intelligence to make the strikes.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

@Ezra Fox and JaredMcKenzie: I preferred waiting above in the hope of a release of the U. S. investigation but it appear that is unlikely to come by anytime soon (if at all) under the Trump admin.

JulDer Wiki updated the infobox with U.S. as the perp based on the Amnesty investigation (), I agree with this change. We now need to overhaul the article, the evidence being overwhelming. If not in wikivoice then certainly with the tone (references to Iranian state media for the victims should be done away with [enough independent verification], the U.S. culpability should be in the lead para among others).

If editors here agree, I will go ahead with these changes. Gotitbro (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I think I would want to make sure that there are sources that are affirmatively stating the US did the strike, so we aren't doing WP:SYNTH or WP:Original Research. In this case, Amnesty International explicitly said "US responsible for deadly attack on school". The NYT was initially more cautious, such as in their first line in this article. However, they appear to now be explicitly stating "a U.S. Tomahawk cruise missile struck a school in the city of Minab". Given that, I would generally be comfortable with such a change, although I would understand if others wanted more sources. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm good with that. My only concern with waiting is that it places undue weight on a party that is itself implicated. Relying on US gov for confirmation isn't necessary if independent reliable sources have already reached clear conclusions. At this point, multiple RS already are no longer hedging - as Ezra Fox🦊 pointed out - Amnesty explicitly attributes responsibility and a more recent NYT article now states US Tomahawk missile struck the school. Also I would add Bellingcat have technical confirmation backing both. Given this is already established in RSs, it's appropriate to proceed with updating the lead to reflect USA responsibility, as we reached the point where attribution in lead can be updated based on the alignment of multiple independent RS. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 10:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Ezra Fox and JaredMcKenzie: I have made some [minor] changes featuring U.S. culpability somewhat more prominently in the lead. Still staying away from wikivoice for now. Gotitbro (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that looks great, that makes sense to put it like that. For some topics I think wikivoice is important but in this case I think caution is warranted and this is just as informative. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

One thing I would add is there's some uncertainty about the number, ranging from 168 to 175 or more. Right now the article says in wikivoice "At least 175 civilians were killed". One of the sources for that is the Amnesty report, which states there were 168 killed. I think this should likely be updated, either to 168, instead saying something like "around 175", or attributing this to a specific source. Ezra Fox🦊 • (talk) 21:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

168 was initially reported by Iran then updated to 175 later (some sources have it beyond 180). I have updated the referencing.

PS: With enough time having gone by and not a single RS disputing official Iranian statements (rather confirming all of them) it should be fine to do without attributing any of them. Gotitbro (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Trump's evidence-free claims

Early on, Trump claimed he seen evidence indicating Iran had recklessly bombed their own school and also said Iran has Tomahawk missiles too. He made these statements without providing any evidence. But The Guardian reported geolocation, videos, satellite imagery and remnants from the site indicate the US likely made the strike, and also Iran doesn't have any Tomahawk missiles. So seems like Trump was untruthful and as soon as US full investigation confirms it, Trump's statement should be considered to be included in the misinformation section. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If those sources are RS they should be added in the article, though make sure the wording and description meets wikivoice. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

They are all RS and they confirm Trump indeed said all that. But to be safe, I am waiting for the full investigation to conclude. Don't know when that will be. Possibly surprise findings tho unlikely. I am just noting this up here for now in case I forget this topic entirely, and possibly for future editors (after investigation conclude) to later see this and be able to take action accordingly. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I have decided to go ahead and added it in here - The material is supported by reliable sources, including reporting that contradicts the claims and rates Trump's claims as false. If later, the outcome of any official investigation differs *extremely unlikely tho, then the article may of course be updated accordingly. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2026

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 07:53, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

---

2026 Minab school attack → 2026 Minab school massacre2026 Minab school massacre – Well I guess that's how an attack against a school leaving almost two hundred dead is supposed to be called + as per sources Yacàwotçã (talk) 06:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose - Multiple investigations are going on. Wait for them to complete. For now it appears the hit was a mistake. Jay 💬 07:07, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• As with your other move request I have to ask: as per what sources? ―Maltazarian ^{(talk$\lor$investigate)} 12:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  You can Ctrl + F the article and check for yourself Yacàwotçã (talk) 14:49, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

  @Yacàwotçã Ridiculous. It is obviously your burden to find evidence, not ours. Avishai11 (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Massacre" is highly loaded, and as @Jay said, no evidence has shown (outside of Al Jazeera, which is highly biased) that it was deliberate, intentional, or not a mistake in any way. Avishai11 (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose as the proposed title lacks neutrality, and it has not been demonstrated that a sufficient number of reliable sources refer to the event as a "massacre" to overcome these neutrality concerns. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Comment - I think at least wait for now until full investigation completes and we know the nature of the incident. Tho "massacre" might be too strong a word if incident was caused by an accidental error. If it was deliberate and media overwhelmingly starts referring to it as massacre then I suppose we can call it that. But that seems highly unlikely.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose per Avishai11 and SuperPianoMan9167. Raskuly (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME in WP:RS. This is the approach we take across the encyclopedia. We're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Longhornsg (talk) 04:42, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Jay. Lova Falk (talk) 11:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.