Jump to content

Talk:June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Coordinates: 24°42′51″N 58°44′15″E / 24.7143°N 58.7374°E / 24.7143; 58.7374
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mensis Mirabilis (talk | contribs) at 16:18, 14 June 2019 (→Iran accuse Israeli Mossad and US: Not sure yet). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, June 14, 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Video

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

Juxlos, I think it is. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The boat in the video looks the same as these here. Danrok (talk) 15:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

"Belligerents"?

June 2019 Gulf of Oman incident
File:A fireboat is extinguishing fire of Front Altair Tanker.jpg
The tanker Front Altair on fire
DateJune 13, 2019 (2019-06-13)
LocationGulf of Oman Map
Coordinates24°42′51″N 58°44′15″E / 24.7143°N 58.7374°E / 24.7143; 58.7374
TypeAttack on oil tankers
TargetMerchant ships operated by companies based in:
Non-fatal injuries1 crew member wounded [2]
Property damage2 merchant ships damaged[2]
SuspectsSuspects
AccusedAccused

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

You are right!! The civilian attack infobox would make more sense.--SharabSalam (talk) 13:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
XavierGreen, is there a way to change it so that it doesn't say "belligerents"? StudiesWorld (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three happened during a military conflict, two were fights and one is this same mistake. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:59, June 14, 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Kirkpatrick, David D.; Pérez-Peña, Richard; Reed, Stanley (June 13, 2019). "Tankers Are Attacked in Mideast, and U.S. Says Video Shows Iran Was Involved". Retrieved June 14, 2019 – via NYTimes.com.
  2. ^ a b "Gulf of Oman tankers attacked: Live updates". www.cnn.com. June 13, 2019. Retrieved June 13, 2019.
Looks good, but won't need suspects and accused. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:14, June 14, 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)[reply]
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, June 14, 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ The ship was flagged in Panama
  2. ^ The ship was flagged in the Marshall Islands[1]

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)[reply]

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, June 14, 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2019_Gulf_of_Oman_incident&oldid=901839523"