Talk:2016 U.S.–Iran naval incident

Some points

Nick-D: Which policy led you to this edit? Mhhossein (talk) 16:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Also please note that per sources such as [1], [2], [3], [4], and etc they were "seized", not "held". Mhhossein (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

1) Basic English and common sense: if two boats full of heavily armed sailors from an unfriendly country sail into your waters that's part of how you arrest them (eg, to hold them in position after confirming you've found their guns). It's not "submission", and the source you provided for that was a ranting op ed 2) the boats were released after 18 hours entirely intact after a diplomatic exchange and its not disputed that they had blundered into Iranian waters (where Iran had the legal right to stop them and take them into custody), so they were "held" or similar. If they were "seized" Iran would still have them. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I can admit that in a "submission position" can be removed because of being part of an Open-Ed. But if we are to act based on the sources, we should write "seized" not "held". Mhhossein (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Destructive editing

Dropsandstrikes: Thanks for your edits. But I don't know why you've done this edit. Your edit summary says:"Added back january 29 Fars statement. Please stop destructive editing." This is while the january 29 Fars statement were already in the article and was not removed, so "adding it back" is nonsense, just like your accusing me of "destructive editing". I just fixed the "damaged lead" while keeping the added materials by other editors. By the way, "The statement did not account for navigation equipment" was accidentally removed, although I think it is not that important. assuming good faith the edit could not be called "destructive". Mhhossein (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Just two SIM cards

Dropsandstrikes I agree that an official statement such as that by Centcom is preferred to that of 'The Atlantic'. However, I think we have to emphasize that 'Just' two SIM cards were removed, because the Centcom statement says:"A post-recovery inventory of the boats found that all weapons, ammunition and communication gear are accounted for minus two SIM cards that appear to have been removed from two handheld satellite phones." Mhhossein (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein

I understand the argument but Centcom did not say 'Just' two SIM cards were removed, as they clearly left room open for the removal of other equipment, such as navigation equipment like GPS and RADAR devices. If you would like to use the term 'Just' to describe equipment removal, it would be accurate to say that 'of the communications equipment, just two SIM cards were removed, but it would not be accurate to say 'Just' two SIM cards were removed as it implies Centcom accounted for all other categories of equipment in their inventory. Dropsandstrikes —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Dropsandstrikes: I see your point and I appreciate your precise viewpoint. I thought that GPS and RADAR will be counted as communication devices. Anyway, I have no objection against removing 'Just', now. Mhhossein (talk) 05:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"returned to the United States"

Nick-D: Could please say on what basis you are reverting me? My version were exactly "returned to the United States" (did you even pay attention to that?). You've surprisingly written in your edit summary "read the source: it says they "were returned to the United States", not that they sailed to the US," showing that you know what the source is saying ("Both boats were returned to the United States under their own power"). By the way, "both boats returned to base under their own power" is clearly POV! I would like to ask you to revert the article to the correct version. Mhhossein (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

That wording in the NY Times story says were returned to the control of the US government, not to the United States. These small craft can't sail long distances, or in the open ocean. The Washington Post stated that the boats were eventually docked in Bahrain (which is the main base of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf): [5] Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

@FreeatlastChitchat: I did not make the page, and it has even nothing to do with editing the article. Anyway, how the sailors were released is absolutely important so we have to say about "John Kerry's multiple phone calls" in the lead. Moreover, the source makes no comments about "some politicians" rather it says that Some Republicans have made criticisms. Why did you revert me? Mhhossein (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein I reverted you because you cannot understand English and are therefore incapable of understanding English sources. You are also incapable of understanding the nuances in the English of this article. The sentence The 10 sailors onboard were detained for 15 hours and released unharmed after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's multiple phone calls to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif gives the sense that John Kerry was worried and he hastily made many phone calls, which of course is not the case. John Kerry made one call, and the Iranians released the sailors. I am not making any ad hom comments on your person , just saying that you are incapable of understanding this. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat: FYI, The assumption based on which you reverted me, i.e. "I reverted you because you cannot understand English... ", is fundamentally wrong. It is a very bizarre statement! Let me make a similar judgement about you; You can't understand English well, because according to the CNN ([6]), "Secretary of State John Kerry spoke to his Iranian counterpart, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, at least five times Tuesday while U.S. Navy sailors were in Iranian custody." Also, let's see The Washington Post where we it reads: "Kerry, who exchanged at least five telephone calls Tuesday with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif while the sailors were being held...". The Atlantic ([7]) also hints that you are wrong. So, we have no doubt that multiple phone calls were exchanged between the two minsters. I am not making any ad hom comments on your person , just saying that you are incapable of exploring the sources. The sources does not say that only Kerry made calls, but instead of removing the whole sentence you should have simply edited the sentence to express that. Yes, Kerry was worried, "he was concerned “first and foremost…with the safety and security of the people who were caught up in this incident, the American sailors.”[8] You also refrained from explaining how your lack of English made you ignore the very fact that "Some politicians like the Republican presidential hopefuls" is fundamentally different from "Some Republican presidential hopefuls like...", the latter being in accordance with the source. The source suggests that Republicans criticized the incident (and makes no comment about other politicians), while you insist to misinterpret the source by saying that "some politicians" did it. By the way, don't shout please because shouting things loudly does not make them true. Mhhossein (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Another source: Kerry spoke with Iran's Zarif at least five times about detained sailors: official. Mhhossein (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein as I said before, if you are unable to grasp simple English, feel free to ping someone who does. You can also seek a third opinion, request DRN etc. Again I would like to point out that the sentence The 10 sailors onboard were detained for 15 hours and released unharmed after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's multiple phone calls to Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif is giving the wrong sense. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat: Don't act as if you were unable to read my comment and stop making such bizarre comments. I just presented multiple reliable sources to prove my claim. Anyway, don't shout please, I can hear you! By the way, I changed the sentence to "...multiple phone calls were exchanged between..." which is exactly in accordance with the sources. Mhhossein (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• FreeatlastChitchat: Could I know the reason behind this revert? Which part of my explanation was wrong? Mhhossein (talk) 10:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Mhhossein This sentence "The U.S Secretary of State John Kerry has stated that he raised the issue immediately with the Iranians and "made it crystal clear how serious this was. It was imperative to get it resolved." is grammatically wrong. And John kerry's involvement has been mentioned already. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not mean that sentence at all (which could be resolved via a simple copy edit). My emphasis was on the importance of mentioning the phone calls exchanged between the two minister which you insist to remove and is backed by multiple RSs. There's another point on the "politicians" issue and I think the current status (which is your version) is misinterpretation of the source from grammatical point of view. I doubt if you really read my comment. There it was mentioned what the problem was. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein I have added more info about the phone calls. I had already mentioned the phone calls to be frank. Anyway, meh to that. Secondly what exactly is the problem with the politicians? Compare the two sentences and then show me how the meaning has changed with my wording. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Much more improvements are seen after your edit. Although I've got some points; The "phone call" issue is presented in details which is not usually accepted when it come to "lead", so I think my version which was "multiple phone calls were exchanged between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif" (or sth like this) is preferable over a detailed version. On the "politicians" issue; I have discussed it in my earlier comments. The source suggests that Republicans criticized the incident (and does not comment on other politicians), while you insist to misinterpret the source by saying that "some politicians" did it. Mhhossein (talk) 06:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

POV issues

@Dr.K. and Amberrock: Can you bring your points regarding the POV issues, here? Mhhossein (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the Iran section can be greatly improved if the first three statements by the relatively lower-ranking officials Salami, Dolabi and Firouzabadi, are removed. They are propagandistic in nature and not encyclopædic. They are also quite predictable. Do we really expect army or navy officers to declare that their enemy did not get taught a lesson or that they are not cowards? These people have a COI to advance their careers by making such statements. It's quite UNDUE and POV to include this type of stuff in an encyclopædia. Dr. K. 17:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

They are properly attributed and their COI has nothing to with reflecting their viewpoint. I think this is a proposal for cesnoring the section. We have to " fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" per WP:UNDUE. I think they are notable enough and we can have their viewpoints here. How about removing Kerry's viewpoint because of having COI to advance his career. However, I suggest to add the viewpoints of the other side's high-rank officials to have it balanced, if you like. Mhhossein (talk) 08:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please get real. You ping me presumably for me to give you my advice, then you attack me by throwing at me nonsense like WP:CENSOR. This type of behaviour stretches AGF to its limits. There is no encyclopædic value in the predictable, COI, self-serving, career-advancing, pronouncements of middle-ranking Iranian military officials which make this article read like a propaganda leaflet issued by the armed forces of Iran. But it was my fault. Given my past exchanges with you on this subject I shouldn't have bothered replying. And no, you don't make this article NPOV by adding more POV from the opposing forces. In any case, that's my last comment on this article. I have a strong sense that no amount of reasonable proposals can persuade you to change your mind. Dr. K. 17:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It's very simple; Calling "the highest-ranking member of Iranian military after the commander-in-chief, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei" a "middle-ranking Iranian military official" made me think that you are trying to just remove them. Also, you did not answer why you think Kerry's viewpoints are not "predictable, COI, self-serving, career-advancing"? Mhhossein (talk) 07:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Mhhossein, but it is unrealistic to expect an answer for a nonsensical suggestion that Kerry's statements were "career-advancing" when his appointment as Secretary of State is as high as he will ever be in the U.S. Government. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Oh! I had to ask it, because same "nonsensical suggestion" was proposed by Dr.K. saying that Hassan Firouzabadi's comments had been "career-advancing". FYI, Firouzabadi is ranked just after Iran supreme leader, khamenei. In fact, he is the highest-ranking member of Iranian military after the commander-in-chief, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. I don't deem Kerry's comment "carrier advancing" although I'm sure that both parties naturally have their own COI. --Mhhossein (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I fully agree with what BlueMoonset said. I wasn't going to comment further since this discussion is a clear waste of time. But you keep insisting that the comments of the military are notable. This is not the case. Predictability and COI exist independently of how high the military rank is. In the case of the chief of staff for example, no matter who the chief of staff is or who the supreme leader is, he is serving at that rank at the supreme leader's pleasure and because the supreme leader appointed him at that position, so, predictably, any chief of staff will want to impress the supreme leader. Every time a chief of staff speaks he will try try to prove how great the supreme leader was for appointing him chief of staff and what a great chief of staff he is, so that he can advance his career by remaining on his post as long as possible and perhaps even increase his chances of becoming Minister of Defence in the future. Any chief of staff's comments, regarding their enemy, are therefore, both predictable and propagandistic in nature. Quoting the current chief of staff: "This incident in the Persian Gulf, which probably will not be the American forces' last mistake in the region, should be a lesson to troublemakers in the U.S. Congress." This kind of predictable, career-advancing, propaganda has no place in an article. In any case, this is my last comment on this matter. I intend not to waste any more time on this issue. I have said what I wanted to say and I don't have any illusions that you will agree with me. You can obviously have the last word. Just don't expect me to reply to it. Dr. K. 16:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As it seems, only Iranian side has COI! that's funny. FYI, Hassan Firouzabadi's rank is far higher than minister of defense! for the Nth time, he's the second one! No policy prohibits us from using the comments from those who have COI. If it was so, we had to remove the comments by US side who naturally have their own predictable COI. Can you hear me? You're just misinterpreting the policies! Kerry has an opinion, well! Firouzabadi has an opinion, no problem! We really don't care (and are not sure) why people make comments. I think Firouzabadi never makes comments for the pleasure of supreme leader to become a Minister, he's already the second one! He makes comments based on his own beliefs. Even if we suppose Kerry's comments are "carrier advancing", we can't remove his notable comments, simply because he is a notable person. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have just tagged the article with the POV template, something that should have been done a while ago, since the problems have persisted. In addition to those issues noted above, the excessive use of the "hands behind their heads" phrase (four times in the article for a single event) is another one. Even if Firouzabadi were not deemed inappropriate, there can be no reason for retaining Salami and Dolabi. Further, I don't see any reason for putting Khamenei's various statements and reactions into multiple bullets rather than in a single, streamlined section. Finally, the teenagers bullet plus associated picture have no business in the article. (Nor, for that matter, would be an American protest over the matter, if one had occurred.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)