This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 June 2019. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 13, 2020. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've added the video posted by the US Centcom. Is the caption neutral enough? Juxlos ( talk) 08:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
File:A fireboat is extinguishing fire of Front Altair Tanker.jpg | |
Date | June 13, 2019 |
---|---|
Location |
Gulf of Oman
|
Coordinates | 24°42′51″N 58°44′15″E / 24.7143°N 58.7374°E |
Type | Attack on oil tankers |
Target | Merchant ships operated by companies based in: |
Non-fatal injuries | 1 crew member wounded [2] |
Property damage | 2 merchant ships damaged [2] |
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)
References
Notes
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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: — Partytemple ( talk) 20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
|
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.
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)
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)
Could anybody please check my spelling on Japan's reaction? Thanks. -- LLcentury ( talk) 22:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Iranian news suggests UAE spies did it
https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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. Silver seren C 20:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To avoid edit warring, let's discuss how to list the targets on the infobox. I've seen it listed as:
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:
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)
annunciation of stockpiling uranium is not related to this event at all 37.254.221.49 ( talk) 15:17, 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)
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:
Note the sources cited:
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)
It already says it's a hint that US is a suspect keep removing it like a lobotomy victim Baratiiman ( talk) 14:49, 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 deliver
Baratiiman (
talk) 16:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A news item involving June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 June 2019. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1978 Iranian politics, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on June 13, 2020. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I've added the video posted by the US Centcom. Is the caption neutral enough? Juxlos ( talk) 08:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
File:A fireboat is extinguishing fire of Front Altair Tanker.jpg | |
Date | June 13, 2019 |
---|---|
Location |
Gulf of Oman
|
Coordinates | 24°42′51″N 58°44′15″E / 24.7143°N 58.7374°E |
Type | Attack on oil tankers |
Target | Merchant ships operated by companies based in: |
Non-fatal injuries | 1 crew member wounded [2] |
Property damage | 2 merchant ships damaged [2] |
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)
References
Notes
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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: — Partytemple ( talk) 20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
|
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.
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)
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)
Could anybody please check my spelling on Japan's reaction? Thanks. -- LLcentury ( talk) 22:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 07:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 16:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 20:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Iranian news suggests UAE spies did it
https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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. Silver seren C 20:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
To avoid edit warring, let's discuss how to list the targets on the infobox. I've seen it listed as:
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:
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)
annunciation of stockpiling uranium is not related to this event at all 37.254.221.49 ( talk) 15:17, 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)
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:
Note the sources cited:
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)
It already says it's a hint that US is a suspect keep removing it like a lobotomy victim Baratiiman ( talk) 14:49, 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 deliver
Baratiiman (
talk) 16:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)