Talk:June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident

Official claim

Should we put the US official claim that Iran is responsible for the attack in the infobox?? Wouldnt that be WP:UNDUE?--SharabSalam (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Same could be said about the May one - I would say wait until most reliable sources at least say "Iran as alleged by the US". So fsr they seem to be not doing it yet. Juxlos (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it should remain out of the infobox. StudiesWorld (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Juxlos. I don't even think we should add any allegation in the infobox because that would give undue weight to a certain POV. In this case it is obviously UNDUE because it is attributed to a US official and his name isn't mentioned we don't even know his authority. In the May attack article there are some states that have accused Iran like Saudi Arabia and the UAE(I guess) but then in their investigation report they didn't mention Iran. So I think it would be neutral to put "Unknown" in the belligerents section of May attack as well, we can mention that Iran was accused of carrying the attack in the lede paragraph.--SharabSalam (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't read the WSJ. Does a second or real official certainly blame Iran? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.51.250.205 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I do not have access to the WSJ source, even though I had it earlier. IIRC, the WSJ did not directly identify a source, instead attributing it generally to the United States. StudiesWorld (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Then do not mention multiple officials. What was generally attributed to the whole country? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.51.250.205 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm reading through the source and I cannot verify that statement in the article. No anonymous officials or anything of the like. I'm removing the WSJ source - the CBS one is pretty easily verifiable though. Juxlos (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Please be careful with rumours, they can start wars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.51.250.205 (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The only thing Wiki can do is start an edit war, IP. Please take it down about a thousand.02:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.237 (talk)

• Now that we have Mike Pompeo allegation. Is it worth inclusion in the belligerents section? I think it will be not a NPOV. It will give undue weight to a certain POV even if we write (allegedly) because that's the (((belligerents))) section. Nice4What have added Iran again. So we might need to discuss this here first. Allegations in my opinion should be added to the body or even to the lede paragraph but not in the belligerents section of the infobox. Who agree with me?--SharabSalam (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • My bad, didn't see this discussion. I say add to lede, but if another country comes forward to blame Iran, we can add to infobox. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Muliplie WP:RS reported it so it clearly WP:DUE. Also new video has been published [1] --Shrike (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Shrike None of the sources (including those containing the video) claim Iran was behind the attacks. They all say that the US has said so (and few other Arab countries have not objected to it). Therefore, it cannot be presented in the infobox. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Mensis Mirabilis, Please read WP:DUE.The only thing the matter that accusation is reported by multiple WP:RS we should include it too in neutral matter of course as per WP:NPOV Shrike (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Shrike Per WP:DUE, these accusations should be reported in the article, but adding it to the infobox gives it undue weight, while even the nature of the attacks is still disputed. I think this should be avoided until enough evidence uncovers. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 11:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Since the Trump administration has a well documented history of lying about global and domestic affairs, it would be best to not give undue weight to any statements they make.Juneau Mike (talk) 07:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Even if that weren't the case, America has recently designated Iran's army as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and has made no secret about viewing it as an enemy. There's a pretty obvious conflict of interest, and a neutral party should be prefered to make objective claims. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That sort of reasoning is completely flawed. That's like saying because Nazi Germany may not be invading Poland this morning because Britain and France said it was. COME ON! I know you have a long history of berating the U.S., 'hulk,' but very few countries who've stated an opinion are not backing up the U.S. claims here. The video is obvious. An Iranian tub has no business being around any other country's oil tanker. What did you think was going on, that they were scraping barnacles? 50.111.6.237 (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe. I don't understand maritime business, on the whole. But I know Germany didn't deny its invasion, just lied about it being defensive. Whole other ball of wax. For what it's worth, I mostly like America. Just not enough to hate its enemies by default. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

237 you say "The video is obvious. An Iranian tub has no business being around any other country's oil tanker." I have only seen the news clips, I don't know what else might be shown by any other full footage U.S. intelligence might possess or may have shared. However, in answer to you here I would say (1) if any vessel is deemed to be within Iranian waters then any of their official vessels may well have legitimate business "being around" it. (2) organisations other than Iran - both covert state and non state actors - easily possess resources to obtain a vessel identical to those used by Iranian forces. The now very unreliable U.S. has asked most of the world to buy their version of events based on evidence which - as shared through news media - is not at all sufficient. They provide a video clip then expect the world to accept without question the U.S. interpretation of what the video shows. The U.S. may not be lying but given their history it is arrogant now for the U.S. to expect it should always be believed. The UK foreign secretary (for example) might know something more than the general public know but equally he may just be wishing to keep on the right side of the U.S. 109.144.213.66 (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC) Also (3) if a tanker was outside of Iran's legitimate territorial waters here is a list of conventions that might apply http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/interconv.html On limited evidence it is not ever possible to say Iran had "no business" being there - wherever it was. 109.144.213.66 (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Picture

Mehr News Agency (which is on CC-BY-SA 4.0) published this article which contained a watermarked photo - I think it should be valid for this article? Juxlos (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Juxlos: I've uploaded the image and added it to the infobox. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That pic is of the Front Altair, I think? Juxlos (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Japan

Would somebody care to add to the background the context of Japan attempting to act as a mediator between Iran and the US a day prior to the incident? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 23:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Done -Wikiemirati (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Abe was acting as an intermediary between American President Donald Trump and Khamenei.[7][8]" I don't think anyone disputes that this was one of the things he did during his visit but I think put like that the article currently implies that was his basic purpose in being there whereas (I'm told) he was mainly there for purposes Iran had reason to be happy about. It's important because the spin from U.S. & allies has been the attack was some kind of snub to Japan for being Trump's messenger but there's a case saying that doesn't altogether stack up. 86.155.27.168 (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Video

I've added the video posted by the US Centcom. Is the caption neutral enough? Juxlos (talk) 08:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Juxlos, I think it is. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The boat in the video looks the same as these here. Danrok (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Context

Another context could be houthis strike saudi airport? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/12/world/middleeast/saudi-airport-attack.html --Jakeukalane (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Jakeukalane, are WP:RSes making this connection? StudiesWorld (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Here: https://www.ft.com/content/45c94f4a-8da7-11e9-a1c1-51bf8f989972. --Jakeukalane (talk) 20:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

And I don't know what is a wprs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakeukalane (talk • contribs) 11:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ayatollah

The first paragraph mentions "Abe met in Iran with Ayatollah Khomeini". Should this be Khamenei, to my knowledge Khomeini was his predecessor and is deceased? --TobiThiel (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for updating TobiThiel (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Belligerents"?

June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident

File:A fireboat is extinguishing fire of Front Altair Tanker.jpg The tanker Front Altair on fire
Date	June 13, 2019 (2019-06-13)
Location	Gulf of Oman
Coordinates	24.7143°N 58.7374°E / 24.7143; 58.7374
Type	Attack on oil tankers
Target	Merchant ships operated by companies based in: Japan Norway
Non-fatal injuries	1 crew member wounded
Property damage	2 merchant ships damaged
Suspects	Suspects
Accused	Accused

Can merchant ships that don't fire back seriously be called belligerents, as in the infobox? InedibleHulk (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Can this even be called a miltary conflict, as in the infobox? We have a civilian attack infobox, which might make a lot more sense. Especially with all the allegations of terrorism. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right!! The civilian attack infobox would make more sense.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, I've had gone ahead and switched it, but was reverted by an IP. I agree that it should be changed. StudiesWorld (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I oppose any such change to the civilian attack box. The usage of the military conflict infobox is pretty common in regards to articles relating to attacks on merchant vessels. See these examples May 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, German attacks on Nauru, Convoy HG 53, Action of 6 June 1942. The military conflict infobox is generally more useful in my opinion as it has more parameters available in its layout than the civilian attack infobox does.XavierGreen (talk) 13:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

XavierGreen, is there a way to change it so that it doesn't say "belligerents"? StudiesWorld (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Three happened during a military conflict, two were fights and one is this same mistake. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

• What about {{Infobox event}}? It is used for Sanchi oil tanker collision. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I filled some of the parameters of this infobox and added it here. Seems the parameters are a good fit. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Looks good, but won't need suspects and accused. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That would be fine, i would add the Navy of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to the suspects parameter. In the event more information comes to light as to the force deployed against the merchant vessels, the military infobox might be more appropriate, but as of right now i think the event infobox is fine as depicted.XavierGreen (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the IRGC are equal parts sophisticated state apparatus and common terrorist scum, according to the US State Department. No different from suspected ISIL attacks, in the latter regard. Just surrounded by water for a change. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Iran accuse Israeli Mossad and US

Should we mention "Israeli Mossad" and "U.S." in the suspect infobox section? Iran has accused the Israeli Mossad and the US of being behind the attack per this source--SharabSalam (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Saying something is possible or likely isn't an accusation, but if it's good enough for the goose, gotta give it to the gander. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam Iran's deputy permanent representative to the United Nations has stated this too, but it's still not clear to me whether these are official statements from Iran, accusing United Stated of the attacks. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Clear case of WP:UNDUE when NYTIMES and BBC will report the accusation, then we may report it too. --Shrike (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Relying on one side's media and disqualifying the rest hardly seems fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not about being 'fair,' it's about accurately representing the situation via Reliable Sources. It would take a pretty crazed individual to think that Israel or the Americans are going to attack an oil tanker. That' tin-foil hat matter.50.111.6.237 (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

First it does not look crazy at all to think Israel or the US has arranged this, since the consequences are all in their interest. Furthermore, there's no reliable source here because it's all about allegations, not facts. It would suffice if any involved party announces that they believe Israel was behind the attacks to add it to the suspects (alleged by them, of course). Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't need to be an involved party. America wasn't involved. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Iranian "accusation" is "a senior foreign policy adviser to the Iranian parliament speaker". The U.S. accusation is from its head of state. It's not a source bias as much as the sources erring on the side of caution - Iranian equivalent of Pompeo and/or Trump has not accused anyone as far as I'm concerned. Juxlos (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Zarif's Twitter feed suggests it repeatedly for months, but tactfully enough to not technically say it. Could've sworn he did, but suppose that just verifies its suggestiveness. Maybe cite a direct literal accusation from the supposed official accusers in the box, though? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

In the USA Today source Trump is literally quoted as saying "Iran did do it". No tact as always, not really much space for erring there. Juxlos (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Plain old simple, works every time! And the Sauds? Mysterious as ever? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Saudi went more along "yeah the Americans are right". I removed the Saudis from the infobox for that reason. Juxlos (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I see Jubeir answering a Wolf Blitzer question regarding Pompeo and some thing Iran has a history of doing, but none of the recyclers include that question, substituting a few different contexts of their own. Probably as some say it is, but hearing from Wolf himself might be clearer. Anybody watch it? InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the British government also released a statement "The Foreign Office says in a statement that its own assessment concluded “it is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military,” the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, attacked the tankers" [2]. Does this merit including UK alongside US allegations? Wikiemirati (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Their assessment leads them to conclude Iran is almost certainly responsible, so not sure like Trump or Pompeo. Says they're confident about the May one, though. Confidence is implicitly accusation, but uncertainty is just pretty close. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian

"The Guardian reported that Western intelligence services believed that the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps committed the attacks in retaliation against sanctions preventing Iranian oil exports." What does it matter what the Guardian reported? They're not a reliable source. Instead of saying "the Guardian reported that western intelligence services...", why not cite Western intelligence services? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.109.56 (talk) 19:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The Guardian has an obvious leftist slant in its editorializing, but that paper is indeed a Reliable Source as far as Wiki is concerned.50.111.6.237 (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Western intelligence services don't often make statements like that openly, but (at least in the UK) tend to give briefings to trusted journalists instead. So you can't cite the original source. Robofish (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the point is everything on Wikipedia was reported, but we usually relay the substance of the report, unless it's an article about the reporting itself. Just delete the first four words, keep the source. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Source didn't back the claim, burned it all. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

So then the comment should be removed from the article until there is an actual verification rather than ambiguous speculation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.99.138 (talk) 09:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Further details

CNN is reporting that an MQ-9 Reaper drone was in the vicinity of the vessels when they were attacked, and that the MQ-9 itself was attacked by a surface to air missile shortly prior to the attacks on the merchant vessels. I have added these details to the article with a citation to the CNN article which may be found here [[3]]. I would suspect given that a Reaper was observing the incident, further details will be forthcoming. As such, the article should be updated as any further information becomes available.XavierGreen (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Breaking Defence (probably not WP:RS) says the MQ-9 was shot down by "Iranian missile fired by Houthi rebels" according to "what US officials claim".[4] Possibly more plausible than Iranians firing at MQ-9s, even though we probably shouldn't use this until there is a WP:RS reporting this, confirming this was a MQ-9 near the ships. Rwendland (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

CNN is actually reporting that an "unnamed official" (presumably anonymous) told them this. That actually has less credibility than an official government statement and should not be stated as fact. TFD (talk) 02:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Even less authoritative than an anonymous official with an identifiable vague role. Defense, intelligence, law? Authorized to speak? Familiar with the situation? Senior official? Anything beats nothing, if we can find it. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This needs to change. The article currently says "One of these Iranian vessels then fired a surface to air missile at the American drone". But the CNN article (6/14) cited does not say the drone from from a vessel. This Fox News article from 6/15 quotes "US Military" saying it was from the "mainland". Quoting directly: "Then at 6:45am local time, a missile was fired at the drone, but missed. The U.S. military said that it was a modified SA-7 fired from Iran’s mainland. It was fired on after the drone arrived on station to assist the Norwegian tanker." Source: [5]. Iranians (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Aye, CNN is clear their guy or girl didn't mention seeing a boat attack. But putting "US military" in quotes makes it seem fake or something. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Warning of disinformation

WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:THREAT no one is suspect here and this discussion is not productive
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Anyone who still think the perpetrator is someone else other than the Iranian government is immediately suspect. Instead of simply reading the usual headlines, let's hear it from the experts who actually study U.S.-Iran relations. Both pro-Iran and anti-Iran types saw this event coming since a month ago. Context and history are essential, because this event didn't occur spontaneously. For better understanding of the situation and stop disinformation and misinformation (particularly ones coming from the Islamic Republic apologists), please read the following: Trump's potential war with Iran is all John Bolton's doing. But it might also be his undoing. Iran is pursuing a line of strategic recklessness, but still seeks a secret deal Iran tells Middle East militias: prepare for proxy war —Partytemple (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC) Do you have a proposal for the article, though? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Impartiality and disinformation, further context

SharabSalam removed my previous post because s/he thought "suspect" meant I was accusing someone of a crime.

suspect (adj.): not able to be trusted; possibly false or dangerous.

I have not made any legal threats to anyone and a talk page is in fact a forum. I have not changed the main article. I'm adding articles here for anyone to read to better their understanding of the event. Doubters of the Iranian government's responsibility should be disputed as WP:FRINGE. As I said before, there are plenty of experts who already saw this event coming.

• Trump's potential war with Iran is all John Bolton's doing. But it might also be his undoing.

• Iran is pursuing a line of strategic recklessness, but still seeks a secret deal

• Iran tells Middle East militias: prepare for proxy war

We should continue to apply attributions to official government statements (i.e. "President Trump said," "The Ayatollah said") because they are political rhetoric, and this applies to any government. WP:IMPARTIAL

Don't close discussions before a discussion even took place. There wouldn't be any community consensus. WP:CLOSE —Partytemple (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is, in fact, WP:NOTAFORUM — the talk page is for making specific suggestions on how to improve the article, rather than pronouncements about editors and their views being suspect on the basis of whatever. Sure, it's almost certainly the Islamic regime that's behind this incident, but a false flag isn't outside the realm of possibility, either. The point is to apply due weight to the available reliable sources and go from there. El_C 21:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with El C. However, I would also add that WP:FRINGE only applies to an idea that "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." While it is definitely not the majority understanding, there is a not insignificant number of people in the field who question whether it is truly Iran. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I did in fact make a suggestion on how to improve the article according to WP:IMPARTIAL. And disputing source reliability is part of the discussions here, so if you think Iran is not responsible for the attacks, there should be some reliable sourcing behind it and not just claiming false flag. Just because it's within the realm of possibility doesn't mean it actually is the reality. —Partytemple (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that Iran is not responsible for the attacks. I am claiming that so far almost all reliable sources frame it in the language of presenting allegations, not in their own voice. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, your indenting is confusing to me. Anyway, what the Islamic regime says regarding false flag (example) may also be worthy of mention, in the context of due weight. El_C 22:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you mentioned this, because this is what I was getting at since the removed topic. The Iranian media is under censorship and any news items it publishes should be regarded with skepticism. As I've said before, we should continue to apply attributions to official government statements (i.e. "President Trump said," "The Ayatollah said") because they are political rhetoric, and this applies to any government. They are, by definition, propaganda. So write with WP:IMPARTIAL and cite with WP:SOURCES —Partytemple (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The boldface is hurting my eyes a little bit. Anyway, it's important to include the statements of world leaders, regardless if they may be seen to constitute political rhetoric or not. El_C 22:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

The majority of reliable sources (non-Iranian) are using language such as "US claims", "alleged", etc. This is already reflected as such in the article and straight up saying "Iran did it" in the article would be in violation of impartial. The same applies for saying "Iran didn't do anything", but I don't see any editors doing so, even the Iranian ones. Juxlos (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's wise of Western media outlets to place the attributions. At the same time, I'm seeing Iranian officials and media outlets exonerating Iran of any wrongdoing and some people are buying into it, which is why I started this topic to let people know that most of the sources doing the exonerating are unreliable. For example, this front page of Kayhan: New Tanker Terrorism to Frame Iran. —Partytemple (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fair to limit use of any Iran/US (so just Voice of America)/Saudi government controlled media here to direct quotations. But so far the article seems to be doing that already - unless you sent the message preemptively. Juxlos (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the phrasing in mainstream media, which at present refers to allegations. According to the Washington Post. the U.S. president, Donald Trump, has since his election made over 10,000 misstatements.[6] "The Ayatollah" was a term used in the West to refer to Ruhollah Khomeini, who died in 1989. I don't think his government's opinions should be treated as facts unless confirmed by reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Try not to quote reporters, just their sources. And if Fars attributes reporting to Tasnim, don't credit Fars. Same for Reuters citing CNN or whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Japan's reaction

Could anybody please check my spelling on Japan's reaction? Thanks. --LLcentury (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 22:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• A fireboat is extinguishing fire of Front Altair Tanker.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Norwegian reaction

Is the Norwegian government keeping quiet for diplomatic reasons or is it that Norwegian sources are not readily available in English language versions? 86.155.27.168 (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Does this even remotely concern the Norwegian government? If not, don't hold your breath. If this leads to Atlantic war, I can imagine the English world expecting some solid word on the official position of their mythical longships. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't wait to have a viking style blockade of the straits of hormuz and for the vikings to raid the coasts of the persian gulf personally. Juxlos (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Just don't forget to brief them on the invention of the machine gun first. Beach invasions aren't the legendary parties they used to be, sadly. In modern historical terms, some might even call them "hard work and sacrifice". InedibleHulk (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I found the problem. Norway and Japan don't own these boats, companies based there do. Cleared it up in the article, thanks for noticing! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

"- On the Norwegian side, we await the final results of the investigation, said Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide (H) to VG Friday evening. She says they are concerned about the situation in the Gulf of Oman.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs believes the attacks increases the tension in the area . The Norwegian Maritime Directorate has gone out to warn five Norwegian ships that are in the Gulf of Oman.

- We encourage all actors to show restraint and avoid actions that contribute to further escalation, says Søreide to VG Friday."

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/i/0nreRB/angrepet-i-omanbukta-mannskapet-paa-front-altair-har-landet-i-dubai 86.155.27.168 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Same article quotes Robert Hvide Macleod, CEO of Frontline Management "Everyone has been very well cared for in Iran, and everyone is in good shape" which I think should go near the end of the article's incident section but as you can see I'm struggling a bit with inserting all the ref code 86.155.27.168 (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Eriksen Søreide on Twitter < Norway MFA Verified account @NorwayMFA Jun 14 Great speech at @NobelPeaceOslo by our dear, honourable guest Germany’s FM @HeikoMaas on why #MultilateralismMatters.> Given she's slightly right & he's slightly left & also given his recent view on this* I think it's interesting background. 86.155.27.168 (talk) 11:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC) *“The video is not enough. We can understand what is being shown, sure, but to make a final assessment, this is not enough for me,” Maas told reporters during a visit to Oslo. 86.155.27.168 (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I think so far only the U.S., UK and Saudi governments have expressed certainty that Iran was behind the attacks. Most governments rely on their intelligence agencies which carefully examine evidence before expressing certainty. TFD (talk) 21:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• MV Kokuka Courageous with hull damage and mine.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• MV Kokuka Courageous with hull damage and mine.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Rescued crew of Front Altair Tanker in Jask port.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

usual suspects

Iranian news suggests UAE spies did it

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=June_2019_Gulf_of_Oman_incident&oldid=prev&diff=901998779 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baratiiman (talk • contribs) 08:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

There is enough claims flying around from Iranian media that it's reasonable to include only whatever high ranking officials are stating. Juxlos (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I certainly agree that if we tried to document every M.E. conspiracy theory they would disproportionately take over the article whereas only mentioning the odd one or two would be unbalanced but on the other hand who are we writing for here? What I think is relevant to the story is some mention of just how much talk there is about alleged false flag on all sides throughout the M.E., - if only there was a reliable journalist with a pithy quote we could cite... 86.155.27.168 (talk) 11:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

suspects

According to infobox guide lines You should replace suspects with IRGC Navy And United States Department of State 37.255.66.69 (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That'd make more sense, but Trump is on record as making it officially too simple: Iran did do it. So America has figuratively spoken. Too soon or too generally, perhaps, but he outranks his more specific underling, at the end of the day. According to American law, anyway. Not sure how things work here, or wherever the "Prince of Whales" rules. Give it a shot, see if it sticks! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

suspects

Head of iranian legislative assembly says america is a suspect Dont This edit by a extended confirmed user is vandalism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/902234895 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.255.64.216 (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC) @Nice4What add japans name to ships and americas name to suspects — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.255.64.216 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Lede should mention other responses?

If other countries are stating that they are waiting for the result of the investigation without considering Iran responsible until evidence shows so, shouldn't that be mentioned at the end of the lede where responses are being discussed? I also think Germany saying it can't make a decision on culpability because the video is such low quality and isn't proper evidence should be mentioned. Silverseren^C 20:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Most countries on Earth are reserving judgment. One state saying as much is as inconsequential (for now) as a hundred agreeing on the same inconclusion. Best to limit the lead to resolutions that do publicly and currently exist, or it could get too wordy fast. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Yutada Katada Statements

The statements of Yutada Katada, the Japanese owner of the Kokuka Courageous have now been reverted three times by two users in the past few hours alone example here. In one quote, Katada says literally "I do not think there was a time bomb or an object attached to the side of the ship." No matter what the validity of this (or any) statement, the fact is that it was made by a highly relevant individual and was reported in reputable news sources. It is a direct contradiction of the official US line. Can users who keep reverting please explain how this is irrelevant or "does not improve" the article? Iranians (talk) 03:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not an improvement because they also say it's "just an assumption or a guess." You are placing undue weight on that statement. El_C 03:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fine, that is a statement they made which can also be included. But why still exclude the original quote? This is simply a matter of semantics. Everyone who didn't physically witness the incidents is speculating, no matter if they say so or not. We would be simply unduly punishing the polite ones. The reputation of the reporting source is what matters. They have included the statements knowing full-well the qualifier. A Wikipedia editors judgement that they should be excluded is text-book original research. Iranians (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Timing of the missile attack

I just noticed that the most recent Centcom statement and many of the most recent stories, they say the tankers were attacked first, and then the missile launched at the drone after. The original CNN story we have in the page is reversed. A quick look at stories from 2 days ago indicates the US sources changed their story. CNN (existing source), Military.com and Guardian quote "US officials" claiming drone attack was first. Fox, LA Times and ABC say tanker attack was first. We must address this confusion soon. Iranians (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

This gets too complicated to explain inline. I propose a separate small section just on the drone attack. Iranians (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The latter reports, citing a named Lieutenant Colonel, supersede and nullify early anonymous whispers. There is absolutely no need to treat them as equal, or attempt to balance their claims. Just delete the obsolete and mysterious, keep the official story. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Why? Both reports (actually 3) are attributed to different parts of the official US government, and the media are standing by the story. I think it deserves at least a mention. The fact that there was a discrepancy could be important later. Shouldn't journalists demand an explanation? Iranians (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but the different parts of the official US government have a higher population than many entire countries, they can't all be authorized to speak on matters like this. Tens of thousands are likely even stupid or ignorant, especially at non-federal levels. Why chance it when you're damn sure a legitimate authority figure contradicts a mere stranger? When a reporter cites nobody, he or she never have to correct it, because nobody else can verify if the first nobody said it or not. That's one main journalistic explanation for using anons at all. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fun Fact: Just the full-timers at just the federal level number around two million. That's double my wildest assumption. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fire on both vessels?

The article claims in several places that there was fire on both vessels. However the given cite (NYT) for that statement in the Incident section just says "at least one ablaze". I've googled around and cannot find a good WP:RS that says there was a serious fire on the Kokuka Courageous. eg Reuters just says the incident "resulted in damage to the ship’s starboard hull"[7] and a careful article by World Maritime News does not mention any fire and just says "sustained damage to its hull on the starboard side" and "crew evacuated the vessel as a precaution".[8] Does anyone know of a solid cite, ideally from a little after the immediate confusion, that sustains the claim that the Kokuka Courageous (or both) had a serious fire? Rwendland (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Japanese reaction

Please be cautious, Japan's Foreign Ministry demanded more proofs that Iran was responsible. The "source" that said that the U.S. and Israel have the sophistication to do that does not state the official position of the Government of Japan which has never blamed the U.S. or Israel for it. --LLcentury (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The US shouldn't be listed as a suspect because the two sources we have include one Japanese official who spoke in contradiction to their government's official position and an unreliable source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Targets

To avoid edit warring, let's discuss how to list the targets on the infobox. I've seen it listed as:

Merchant ships operated by companies based in:

• Japan
• Norway

I support having it this way as it's consistent with May 2019 Gulf of Oman incident, the operating companies is more relevant than the flagged companies in this case, and understanding Japan's role in this incident is crucial for context.

An IP has reverted it to list simply as:

2 Merchant ships

I'd rather we keep it with Japan/Norway listed for now and reach a consensus if a change is needed. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@37.254.221.49 and 37.255.64.216: Please self-revert your edits and discuss first. Remove the United States as a suspect because that's a controversial edit; make a new subsection on this talk page. Don't engage in edit warring. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

reaction

annunciation of stockpiling uranium is not related to this event at all37.254.221.49 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please cite a reliable source. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

It's important since it was a decision taken by the Iranian government in return for this incident. --LLcentury (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.rt.com/news/459847-iran-uranium-enrichment-increase/
this news is 4 months old
30 days ago Iran gave europe 60 days to negotiate
https://en.radiofarda.com/a/european-powers-reject-iran-60-day-ultimatum/29930305.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.254.221.49 (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

United States as a suspect

An IP user has added the United States as a suspect in the infobox. I can't revert due to WP:3RR so I suggest reaching a consensus here to avoid any further edit warring. This is how it's listed:

United States (alleged by Iran to be a false flag operation)

Note the sources cited:

• The first source is from Young Journalists Club, an Iranian publication affiliated with the state government. The article is titled "‘Japan dismisses US claim that Iran attacked tankers’". This is a sensationalized title as Japan in reality just asked for more evidence, similar to Germany earlier.

• Reading the second source from the controversial Press TV, it's clear that the Iranian official brought up the United States' record of false flag attacks but falls short of officially accusing the country.

I suggest speedy removing the US as a suspect until reliable sources and official accusations (more than just political rhetoric) come in. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Larijani is one of 3 most powerful people in Iran when he says it was a sabotage you should mention it in wikipedia Baratiiman (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

@Baratiiman: Except Larijani didn't blame the United States. He simply hinted at it. That doesn't equate to the accusation officially made by the United States against Iran. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 15:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with deletion. To be clear, though, both sources are Press TV. The YJC just recycles, attributes at the end. Its controversiality shouldn't be held against it, anymore than controversial Western outlets. That comes with being famous. The problem here is just it's not supporting the claim. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Nor is the Newsweek source I just deleted with the rest. And keep in mind, Assefi used to speak for the foreign ministry. Seems to have stopped in 2005. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Previous version: — diff: United States (hinted at by Iran to be a false flag operation) -- Tobby72 (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

−Should be removed. Iranian propaganda operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.44.170.9 (talk) 04:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• This should be certainly removed. No one in Iran has stated this officially so far. There are speculations and analyses of the incident, but certainly no official accusation of anyone. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It already says it's a hint that US is a suspect keep removing it like a lobotomy victimBaratiiman (talk) 14:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and hints aren't good enough for this field. It'd be like adding the wounded guy to Fatalities, with a caveat. Best explained in longer form in the body, where we can relay who hinted what about whom. Attributing vague hints to "Iran" is overly simplified, unlike the direct US accusation, which is already so simple. Saudi Arabia and Israel are similarly loosely implicated by some Iranians, singling out America is a biased reflection of the hints, and suggests there are only two sides to the story. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

i think we should separate Iran and United States even though they are both suspects i think they both have to remain or the infobox will fail to deliverBaratiiman (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Separate them and keep them both together? Seems difficult. Elaborate? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Maariv report

According to this Jerusalem Post article, Maariv reported the US planning a "tactical assault" against Iran - do we mention it or do we see if this is just BS? Juxlos (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Could do both. Just remember to attribute things to specific nobodies that say them. Not in Wikipedia's voice or from multiple officials, as if in unison. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, that is the Maariv article, just hosted at JP. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Background, False flag incidents

Why is "the Nayirah testimony on incubator babies in Kuwait." included in the paragraph in the Background section noting that the USA "does have a reputation of staging false flag maritime incidents"? On the one hand you can argue whether this whole paragraph is an improper editorial comment, but at the very least the "Nayirah testimony" example should be removed, since it has nothing to do with a "maritime incident". 209.36.5.130 (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

By the same token, a previous similar attack on ships has no known connection to this one, just seems that way specifically to cement the notion that it is that way. If enough sources note similarity, it bears some repeating. But yeah, it's an illusion (and an allusion). InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Date format

The date format is inconsistent, both between May and June incidents and within each. Does this international watery gulf swing both ways? If not, we should probably stick with what's normal locally. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Norwegian company?

The tanker, Front Altair, is owned by Frontline LTD, a company based in Hamilton, Bermuda. While they have offices in Norway and are traded on the OSE the company was founded in Stockholm and later relocated to Bermuda. The holding company that owns a majority of shares in Frontline, Hemen Holding Limited, are registered in Cyprus.

Should not Bermudan replace Norwegian in the article?

https://www.frontline.bm/history/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.171.94 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems most reliable sources describe it as a Norwegian company in the context of this incident. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 12:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but it also seems that's not true. It's publicly-owned and based in Bermuda. We can't say so without a secondary source, of course, but we can easily omit any sourced info we agree is misleading or false. Just call it a ship? InedibleHulk (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I provided a CNN citation in support of the wording 'Bermuda-basd Norwegian' ship, but this was undone with the justification that 'in the context of this event, it's more important that the ship is marked as Norwegian'. The ship is not marked as Norwegian. As the flagging info itself points out, it's flagged in the Marshall Islands, and the port 'Majuro' is emblazoned across the stern. Of course there's a significant Norwegian connection, but describing it as 'Norwegian' is misleading, while 'Bermuda-based Norwegian' is a reasonable representation of both the Bermudan and the Norwegian connections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.225.155 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

US drone damaged?

In the infobox is stated that a US drone was damaged. I do not read this in the reference. Please provide a better reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janvlug (talk • contribs) 12:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Hi. About the drone attack in the infobox, no damage is reported in the source. Should be removed. Thanks. Mensis Mirabilis (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Germany satisfied?

An editor has added how Merkel notes the evidence is strong, calling her "Germany" and deleting a completely different German's desire for better evidence. One does not cancel the other out, I think. Even if it were the same German saying both, there's no contradiction. Strong evidence, just not strong enough for a conclusion yet. Still awaiting any other evidence or rebuttal, after all. Like crediting a boxer with a solid punch in the first or second round, it ain't over till it's over. Suggest reinstating the foreign ministry's lingering doubt alongside Japan's. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, does anyone know the actual question to which Merkel responded? The DW reporter is quite vague. Context matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:33, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think its appropriate to characterize an nation's stance based on one or two official statements. Unless the government or one of its executive institution states that, we shouldn't allege a whole nation because a person of position said something. Wikiemirati (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

It depends. Pompeo and Trump clearly agreeing counts as the American stance more than Merkel and Maas possibly disagreeing stands for Germany. But yeah, a general bad habit, I've found, especially in headlinese. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Why is removing an apparent unexploded mine from a rescued ship a bad thing?

Wouldn't leaving it there be worse? If sources can explain the supposed sinister intent, so should we. Was putting the fire out "obviously" evil, too? What about capturing the stricken crew? Serious questions, just seem dumb to have to ask. My current setup makes typing hard, copying and pasting seemingly impossible, or I'd try to clarify this more myself. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I fixed one part to not suggest Iran denied removing a mine, only attacking the ship. That much was easy, already sourced. Any confirmation or denial of the IRGC defusing this potentially explosive situation, possibly in Farsi? InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

InedibleHulk, https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-categorically-rejects-us-tanker-attack-allegations/

Here is Amir Hatami MoD response to the videos. Although you can find better sources than Times of Israel since they have conflict of interest in regard to iran.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a better source https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/437195/Claim-of-Iran-role-in-tanker-incidents-a-sheer-lie-defense .--SharabSalam (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

That's the stuff, thanks. Would you (or anyone) mind replacing the last bit of the video paragraph with this more relevant reaction? I'll have my own keyboard again soon. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Drone shot down

Main article: June 2019 Iranian shoot-down of US drone

So apparently the IRGC claimed they shot down an American drone [9] and an US official confirmed it [10]. Do we include this in the article or? Juxlos (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

For now it's reasonably aftermath, but this might get its own article sometime. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there is so much relation between the Gulf of Oman incident and the drone. Maybe in Iran-US relationship article but it seems recent. Trump said Iran made a big mistake but then he suggested that they literally made a mistake like, he is saying that Iran's intention was not to shoot the drone but someone in the their military made a mistake and shot down the drone even though the Iranians themselves are saying they did it to send a clear message. So I guess this incident will no really be a big deal in US-Iran relationship per Trump response.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Everything Trump says is either representative of his true intentions or not, and is always taken both ways by both types of political analyst and American voter. I wouldn't read too much into his role in all of this. At the grownup table, Pompeo just heard Salami say those guys he designated as foreign terrorists (and vice versa) blew up his very expensive tool and symbol of mighty eaglehood on purpose after publicly calling him a liar, just because it pursued his clear national interests in getting closer to "solving" the remaining piece of the American Middle East territory puzzle. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The kid in me prays you're ultimately right, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If somebody wants to crunch the numbers or knows a source that does, it might be helpful to learn if this drone model can outrace this missile model for 34 km. Maybe both generals are half-right. Does a shootdown technically occur at impact or at launch? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

before crunching any numbers maybe check the model? Just a detail but my reading (chiefly BBC) suggested Iran thought at first they'd bagged a Global Hawk (as per article) but the U.S. then said it was a more advanced, bigger & more expensive thing called a Triton. The particular BBC source so far cited looks contradictory to me... 86.155.27.168 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC) MQ-4C 86.155.27.168 (talk) 01:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Aye, I read that earlier, too. Even noted the disagreement in the article. When I doublechecked for the details, they didn't exist, so I undid myself and chalked it up to things people say when they're anonymous. The same guy or girl didn't give the distance at all, if I recall. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Per ABC's current version in Juxlos' post, Captain Bill Urban believes it was a Global Hawk. He almost seems certain. I have no reason to distrust him. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia says the Triton is the naval version developed from the Global Hawk. If its purpose was only to protect shipping then a Triton was the correct tool for the job (same size btw but possibly rather more expensive). So if it was a Global Hawk & not a Triton that would suggest it was more likely to have an overland purpose so it was reasonable for Iran to shoot it down if it was heading their way. Even if what this U.S. administration says about their plane's position were to be true, whenever Putin flies his bombers that close to Great Britain armed jets are scrambled & Russian military planes are escorted away, if you don't have the capability to scramble fighters but you do have an anti aircraft missile then surely you don't want to be waiting till something uninvited & hostile is actually over your country before you launch the missile? Anyway, my main point is, for context it would be relevant to confirm whether Global Hawk or Triton & if it's only being called the former to disguise the cost of its loss that's a relevant fact also 86.155.27.168 (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently an unnarmed drone this time, so no worries like for Russian bombers. Everyone seems to call it a Global Hawk now, for what it's worth. Has its own article now, though, so our work here is done. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Germany and “further implicated”

Zimm82 have been consistently forcing edits saying Germany accused Iran of the attacks and an unsourced, personal research, very loaded sentence in the Aftermath section: "On June 20, 2019 Iran shot down an American surveillance drone in the Gulf of Oman further implicating Iran in this and previous Gulf of Oman incidents." Also ReallyAgain, who has a history of adding unsourced additions to articles. Juxlos (talk) 11:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

JuxlosIt's in the article.... Germany stated there was strong evidence that Iran did it after the drone incident. None if it is unrelated. You and whoever else apparently can't read the article or the news as it's easily available on Google and sourced in the article. I think you're a troll trying to piss off other editors by constantly reverting themZimm82 (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC).

...It's source number 9 you troll.

"Strong evidence" is not the same as allegations - which is a very powerful word here. You should stop pushing a point of view in Wikipedia articles especially something of this controversial topic. Especially including an unsourced sentence that is more fit for an opinion piece in Fox. Juxlos (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It's completely illogical to say that Iran shooting down the drone implicates them in the earlier attacks. That's not proof of anything. Hankyjade (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, just shitpiling. Truly fools some of the people some of the time, though. No shame in falling for it once. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Can another editor revert the user's edits due to 3RR? Juxlos (talk) 13:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Merkel's "strong evidence" still doesn't cancel out Maas' requests for more, as far as "Germany" is overall concerned. And what does Germany's opinion matter, even if we did accurately summarize it? Leadworthiness can't just be assumed, especially for one government representative arbitrarily chosen over another. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

More background needed

1. In June 2019, Houthis shot down a US attack drone over Yemen.

2. In June 2019, Iran targeted US attack drones over the Persian Gulf.

That is vital background info. for understanding the context of this incident. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.241.72.9 (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Suspects" in the infobox

There are suspects other than Iran as well. Plus, the current content "Iran (alleged by the United States, and supported by Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United Kingdom; denied by Iran)[4][5][6]" is too long for infobox. "See #Investigation" was a better alternative. @Nice4What: --Z 15:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

ZxxZxxZ, I agree with what you said. I would wait for Nice4What to respond. I also think it is undue to present one side accusation in the Infobox.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

See the talk page discussions above. You have a multitutde of countries blaming Iran so it makes sense that that's up front. There is of course skepticism that will always exist, which is explained in the "Investigation" subsection. Also, per WP:SPADE, if Iran is a suspect, then we should list Iran as a suspect. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 16:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

"multitutde of countries" = US & lapdogs? US has a long history of justifying military campaigns based on false accusations. Japan, a US ally, has criticized this quick accusation. --Z 08:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Saying "multitutde of countries" = US & lapdogs? already highlights your own bias. We can't put bias into editing. No WP:OR. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 13:18, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Of course everyone has biased views, you are missing the point of the discussion. --Z 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)