www.fgks.org   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
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 37.255.64.216 (talk) at 14:55, 17 June 2019 (→‎suspects). 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)
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)[reply]
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, 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]
Here: https://www.ft.com/content/45c94f4a-8da7-11e9-a1c1-51bf8f989972. --Jakeukalane (talk) 20:14, 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]
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)[reply]
Relying on one side's media and disqualifying the rest hardly seems fair. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:35, June 14, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Shouldn't need to be an involved party. America wasn't involved. Allegedly. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:46, June 14, 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)[reply]
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, June 14, 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)[reply]
Plain old simple, works every time! And the Sauds? Mysterious as ever? InedibleHulk (talk) 17:52, June 14, 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)[reply]
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, June 14, 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)[reply]

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, June 15, 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, June 15, 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)[reply]
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, June 17, 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:

—Partytemple (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a proposal for the article, though? InedibleHulk (talk) 20:38, June 14, 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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, June 15, 2019 (UTC)

Japan's reaction

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

 Done. El_C 22:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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

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)[reply]

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, June 15, 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)[reply]
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, June 15, 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, June 15, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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

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:

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

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:

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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, June 17, 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[reply]

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. SilverserenC 20:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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, June 16, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:June_2019_Gulf_of_Oman_incident&oldid=902244670"