Talk:Operation Eagle Claw

Try to make sense when you write...

"...the clandestine smuggling nature of the tanker trunk posed no immediate threat." What the hell does that even mean? that makes no sense whatsoever Does it mean the "clandestine nature of a tanker truck minimised any danger, as they are often used for smuggling."? I'm going to assume that's what you cryptically meant.

GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

In no way am I connected to this article or its lack of basic understanding of many elements, but what it/he/they meant was the because it was a smuggler's vehicle, and therefore averse to coming in contact with Iranian authorities itself, it posed no threat of alerting those authorities.--Reedmalloy (talk) 09:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

It's post-Vietnam American military English, old chap. Prime purpose: obfuscation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.148.173 (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This really needs a linkable source to be included

"An investigation from congress found evidence that negotiation from the camp of then candidate Ronald Reagan may have influenced the Iranians to hold the captives until after the US elections. Persons named in this investigation included Donald Rumsfeld, Brent Scowcroft and Oliver North. (see Tower Commision Report)"

I think it deserves a linkable source, i'll leave it in the article for a bit, but if no source presents itself, then i'll remove it. Batman2005 06:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It is clearly not encyclopedic from the start, but a political statement and unsupported by the author's own citation. It belongs in Iran Contra, not here--I have never in 25 years seen a source to verify the allegation, any more than George HW Bush was flown by SR-71 to Moscow to monkey up the works against Carter.--Buckboard 09:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Empty conjecture

"Anecdotal information relayed from special forces personnel suggest a different version of events took place. According to one special forces member, the Iranians had been tipped off of the impending rescue attempt and were waiting for the US forces. It seems likely that this information must have come from Republican operatives wishing to see the Amercian hostages remain in captivity until at least after the 1980 presidential election."

Is a statement like this really appropriate? "It seems likely?" To whom? Based on what? It seems to me that there are any of a number of far more reasonable explanations as to how the Iranians may have learned of Eagle Claw.

I agree with much of the above. This statement needs to be presented in a more NPOV way, with explicit citation - if it is to remain at all. I have edited the statement to try to soften the POV a bit, and to request citation. C.W. Loney 18:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It isn't conjecture, it's a political statement. Create a section of conspiracy theories spawned by Eagle Claw and throw it in there, but don't leave it as "fact."--Buckboard 09:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's likely that the USSR tipped the Iranians. This was the timeframe that the Walker spy ring was handing over most of the US crypto keylist. I was on the USS Okinawa running the crypto/radioroom during the rescue mission. All of our comms were compromised and our movements were watched by AGI spy ships and aircraft. The Russians knew more about what was going down than Carter did. Nsaspook 03:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dubious claims need citation

I removed this paragraph:

Anecdotal information relayed from special forces personnel suggest a different version of events took place. According to one special forces member, the Iranians had been tipped off of the impending rescue attempt and were waiting for the US forces. Groundfire is alleged to have been the cause of the aircraft losses - it is noted that this accounts for the large number of bullet holes found in the returning aircraft that have been officially attributed to ordnance touched off by the conflagration from other burning aircraft. That the US personnel evacuation was done in hostile conditions helps explain why so much sensitive information was left behind.

For a claim such as this, which goes against the widely reported narrative, I think we must insist on a citation. It may well be a theory that somebody has, but who has made the claim and in what published material? --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I find that "anecdotal information" pretty flaky because neither the Holloway Report, nor the article Disaster at Desert One: Catalyst for Change from Parameters Magazine, Aug 1992, nor Command, Control and Communications Lessons Learned: Iranian Rescue, Falkland's Conflict, Grenada Invasion, Libya Raid research report for the Air War College, 1988 mention any such thing, nor even hint that anyone involved made such a claim. I'm a little skeptical of the claim that the Iranians knew anything, that they took ground fire, or that there was some kind of Republican conspiracy unless you find some pretty darned solid evidence. Moreover, it was clearly stated in all three articles that this operation partly failed because it was so tightly compartmentalized and few people knew anything about it--only the President, Sec Def, Sec State, Press Secretary, VP, JCS, and the JTF Commander. Everyone else only knew their piece of the puzzle and nobody really knew anything outside their little sphere. PowerPointSamurai 04:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Analysis / Aftermath

Wouldn't the following piece be better placed under Aftermath?

"The failure of the various services to work together with cohesion forced the establishment of a new multi-service organisation. The concept of USSOCOM was born and finally established, and became operational in 1988/1989. Each service subsequently now has its own Special Operations Forces under the overall control of USSOCOM. For example, the Army has its own Army Special Operations Command (ASOC) that controls the Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF)."

Also, it might be worth including that the creation of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Airborne) was a direct result of the failure of this mission.

I agree and attest from my own research and a associate that the 160th regiment existed as possible creation, in thought of planning stages, though was officially made after the operation. 67.180.241.40 (talk) 09:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle Box

It seems really foolish to use the battle box for this. There was no actual contact between Iranian and American forces. I'm going to remove it in about a week (retaining information, of course) if no one objects. --Detruncate 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no combat only because the rescue mission part of the battle plan failed. We had plans to attack several high value targets (Kharg Island, power plants, etc...). The marines on the ship were ready to go and the ship was at battle-stations. USS Okinawa But Carter send the stand-down message. I still remember the look on the operators face when that TS/SPECAT FLASH started coming across the TTY. I knew that men had been killed but very few people knew what happened. During this time I had been monitoring TASS news agency in Kabul via clear RTTY when the first news report of the failed mission went public. It's ironic that the men on our ship were told about what happened from a russian news report. Nsaspook 06:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless, now it seems like the iranians were responsible for the casulties. No thats not ok, i remove the box... just some ip

The Holloway Report

I added a link and intro to the official investigation into the incident and the impetus for transformation of the DoD from it's recommendations. PowerPointSamurai 04:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Blue Light or Blue Light Commandos

At the time I remember reading something about the "Blue Light" or "Blue Light Commandos". Was that a cover name for Delta? --Purpleslog 04:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Blue Light was the name of the competing counterterrorist unit in Special Forces. I don't know if Delta ever used the name as cover. A quick glance at the index in Beckwith's book suggests they did not, but who knows. Maybe a reporter got the two confused. --VAcharon 21:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Add Mark Bowden's recent book on the subject to references at the end

It also contains a detailed explanation of Reagan's political team and its actions during the crisis. That would solve the citation issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.133.238 (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Post-Vietnam U.S. military: Bad shape

The U.S. military budget had been so badly ignored since Vietnam that the military was completely unable to field technologically superior quality equipment. I recall in the early '80's when I was in the ROTC how badly the situation was for the military. The elite troops were still in good shape but the basic troops were simply not in the best condition. It wasn't until the late '80's after President Reagan had made the military a priority from his early days, that the military became the fighting force it is today.

Regardless, the CH-53 helicopters are crap and do worse in desert conditions. The Israeli's improved them but they still have the deadliest helicopter accidents. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jtpaladin (talk • contribs) 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

List of sources

FYI, a list of sources on this subject can be found here: [1]. Cla68 (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The Tehran CIA team exfiltrated Iran

“ The Tehran CIA team exfiltrated Iran, unaware that their presence had been compromised ”

If they didn't know their presence had been compromised, why did they leave? Did some higher up know their presence was compromised even if they didn't? Was there some other reason?

Anyway, I think that ought to be expanded upon in the article, if possible. TerraFrost (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I was confused by the fate of these people, also, though since TerraFrost's comment someone has removed the word "exfiltrated". Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Aircraft crash section missing

The section describing the aircraft collision is missing. It exists in the article's history but was deleted? There's a photo of the crash aftermath but no mention in the article. Emike7500 (talk) 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it was there not so long ago. It was deleted as this article, like so many in wikipedia fought over by competing agendas, descended into JUNK.

It's there again, from a more authoritative source, one of the MC-130 participants.--Reedmalloy (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Iranian civilian death?

How did the one Iranian civilian casualty die? Jpatokal (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, how did the US soldiers die? The article tells us that a small force of helicopters landed in the desert, and then - poof - "the survivors" are whisked away by transport aircraft. Survivors of what? I know and you know and the rest of the world knows that there was an accident at the staging area, which led to a fire and several deaths, but unless a reader glances at the infobox he would be unaware of this. Even if there's a massive edit war related to the theory at the top of this talk page, someone should have the decency to put "according to the official report, at this point etc", instead of a blank space. Up until that point the article is decent; that omission completely destroys it. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Image error

As a matter of encyclopedic accuracy, the "own image" of the landing site is in error. Carney's clandestine survey included turnaround/marshalling areas 800' wide at the end of the strip. The four C-130s were aligned in a single line, two north of the road, two south, with the MC-130 facing southwest on the surveyed runway while the EC-130s faced northeast: ( ^ ^ || ^ v ) Takeoffs would have been impossible in the diagram as shown.--Reedmalloy (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Stadium name

Can a knowledgeable Iranian editor check the name of the stadium? Is the stadium referred to actually the structure now known as Shahid Shiroudi Stadium? A Google search for "Amjadien Stadium" (which the article currently calls it) seems to only come up with articles about this operation and the two subsequent operation plans; and Google asks me "Did you mean: amjadieh stadium", which does yield more results (including the Shahid Shiroudi Wikipedia article). Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The coordinates need the following fixes:

• Write here

The posted coordinates are about 5 km to the west of the actual site. Here is the correct position N33°6'20.93" E55°42'17.76" Billcheal (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible, but doubtful and needs source. What is your source for this assertion? Let me note that the sketch map in the article shows the road running through the site running from west by south (just slightly south of due west) to east by north (just slightly north of due east). The road orientation at the location you indicate is the mirror image of that sketch, running from west by north to east by south. I've seen at least one other sketch map that also orients the road as in the one in the article, so I'm doubtful of your coordinates and would respectfully request that you provide your source. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I spent a reasonable amount of time in google satellite view looking for signs of the site, on the highways between Yazd and Tabas as mentioned on the "Plan sketch of Desert One." I could find no sign of the site straddling a highway (or something that looked like it might have been a highway) in a non-mountainous region between these two population centers. Neither could I locate any sign of a possible location in the area pointed to by Billcheal at the top of this section. Really, I doubt there would be any sign of the place anymore. The events happened (at the time of this writring) more than 30 years ago and the region is scoured continually by the weather. Mcvoorhis (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Failure

The word 'failure' is seen from an American perspective. Even though forces of nature were responsible for the mission's lack of success it was a tactical victory for Iran as the Americans didn't acheive their objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenon2 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that it was a "tactical" victory for Iran; more like a "strategic" one. It would have been a "tactical" victory for the weather... clearly a tactical, operational, and strategic loss for the U.S., however. - JaimeZX

All capitals in op name

Hi. I reverted a recent change to ALL CAPS for the op names throughout. I am sure there is Wikipedia policy somewhere that discusses this; and if there is, wp policy trumps military practice, though it remains to be seen whether such policy does exist (later edit - please see examples below). If there is a choice, I would prefer it without the caps, which I don't feel sit well in a mostly non-capitalized encyclopaedia. Further, the edit caused "collateral damage" in that it wrecked links to graphics. So I felt it was best reverted initially and then discussed here.

• Well here's one bit of policy: WP:ALLCAPS which says inter alia: "Avoid writing with all capitals. Reduce them to one of the other title cases.". I'd say that that trumps military practice anyway, but I wondered if one of the Wikipedia military projects had anything to add...
• And another mention here: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters)#Military terms which sort-of deals with it. That is, it says "Accepted full names of wars, battles, revolts, revolutions, rebellions, mutinies, skirmishes, risings, campaigns, fronts, raids, actions, operations and so forth are capitalized " meaning, in context, caps and lower case, but it doesn't say specifically not to all-cap them, and slightly unhelpfully to my case uses Operation Sea Lion as an example. Nevertheless, taken with the general ALLCAPS line quoted above, I think it's strong enough evidence not to all-capitalize.
• Finally, the List of military operations article uses caps and lower case. There is very brief, almost tangential mention on its Talk page of this, though nothing like a full discussion.

My conclusion is that if you want to change this practice you don't start with one article, but with the policy that underlies it. It's a much bigger issue than just wanting one article to be "correct" - it would be a massive change requiring serious discussion, but not here. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 08:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I was asked for sources that might answer this. I have none, aside from the MoS sections referred to above. The issue is that all-caps really sticks out and since the demise of the typewriter (which could only underline or cap the text to highlight), we tend to go easy on it. In addition, all caps is now commonly understood to be "shouting" in conversational text. Unless the military term is very commonly rendered in upper case (say, on google), and would look strange to military readers, it would be prefereble not to all-cap the item. Tony (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm pretty sure it does look strange to some if not all military readers, but I feel that we are bound by the general view that minority-preferred typographical rules do not have to trump common usage. In other words there may be good reasons why the military likes operation names in all-caps, but there are also good reasons why we don't, and our duty as an encyclopaedia should perhaps overrule our need, if there is one, to look like a military document. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! :) best wishes, DBaK (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
      • User:JaimeZX (talk) I guess I'm displaying my ignorance of how Wikipedia works then; my impression was that when you saw something that was incorrect, you edited it to fix it. I would agree that there should be standardization across articles, and I would agree that something like this would be a major undertaking; but it also seems like something that could be done as editors read the various articles and not something to be done all at once. I also think people go to Wikipedia (or an encyclopedia in general) to learn things, and therefore they should be trained on how things are supposed to be done, rather than how most people necessarily *expect* things to be done. In my opinion, doing otherwise is simply training the readers to be mentally lazy. So in the military, once an operation or major exercise gets official go-ahead, the name is put in all caps. Reporting thereupon after that should reflect the nomenclature. Again, that's just my opinion and the purpose of my original edit. I'm not sure how it screwed up the picture link, but my sincere apologies for that. - JaimeZX. 09:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the courteous reply and I'm sorry that it's taken me such a very long time to get back to this. No, you were not ignorant, please don't think that - we hear a lot about WP:BOLD and you were Bold and that's good. On the other hand we also hear a lot about WP:BRD and that's what I think has happened here - you were Bold, I Reverted you, and now we are Discussing it. Hurrah, the system works! (Actually looking at WP:BRD I see that this means I have identified myself as a Most Interested Person, which mean oops, the system failed, as I am really not that - more of a sort of Concerned Passerby, which is a type of person not mentioned there.) Oh well. So, let me be honest and say that I am planning to move on after this and trouble you no more anyway, but I think it might be helpful if I try and make one or two more points before I wander off. Firstly, I do honestly believe with all due respect that you are simply wrong - not military-wrong, maybe, but Wikipedia-wrong, and it is the latter which matters here. (long discussion dropped here, it doesn't matter). Secondly, you are absolutely right to try to change things that you think are wrong. Thirdly, you will only do this for big topics by consensus. Fourthly, individual articles are probably the wrong place to build consensus for a massive change such as you propose, and certainly - I promise you this - the wrong place to start making those changes. You will, rightly or wrongly, be seen only as disruptive if you start a crusade on this in individual articles without getting consensus for it. Fifthly, the way to do this will be to build consensus that would be a firm foundation for your work and to which you can refer back if challenged. For that reason I would respectfully but strongly suggest that you should take this to the Military History project and try to build consensus for the change there. Yes, of course: I personally hope, in the very nicest possible way, that you fail (see point 1) but I honestly believe that that is the only way that you could make this work and you will have the satisfaction of a proper discussion with other military-interested editors. Put it this way: if I were still interested in this article, and you came along and changed the op name to all caps as a one-off, then I would revert you. On the other hand, if you came along, and changed it, and put in the edit summary "Changed as part of OpName Capitalization Drive per [[Link to relevant discussion]] or whatever" then I would probably go hey wow, follow the link, read it, be impressed, and shut up and leave you alone: no-one will say boo to you if you've got something like that behind you. Because you'd have done the work, gained consensus, and got rightness behind you ... and if I wanted to stop you I would look a complete arse reverting you all over the place against consensus (boot on other foot, see?!), so I would instead have to try to start a new campaign to change consensus ... and I probably wouldn't, and so on. So that's me done. Here's the project: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history - it looks interesting and well-run and I am sure you can find like-minded souls to discuss stuff with. I do commend it to you as worth a look and even though I disagree with you over this particular thing I do wish you much pleasure in your participation here. Happy Editing! and bye for now. DBaK (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Marine Airforce

It is widely believed that the event was oversubscribed by a need for all forces to be represented, notably the Job of flying Helicopters was not given to the Army who had countless low flying experience in Vietnam but Marine Air force. This resulted in poor selection and ultimately poor performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.255.107 (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, there is never a Marine Air Force, it is just United States Marine Corps Aviation. Contrary to your warped perception or misinformation, marine aviators are indeed trained in low-level flying. And unless you are here to improve this article page, I'd suggest that you come up with source to back up your claim before spewing your nonsensical opinion here. This talk page is not a forum~! Period. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Exact figure of US soldiers not specified

Reading through the whole article, one cannot find any information about: How many US soldiers and agents were precisely involved in this operation? The article lacks the information regarding the exact number of soldiers, pilots, agents, special forces and servicemen that actually took part in this operation and flew into Iran. The article,however, describes only and repeatedly the number of aircrafts and helicopters that flew into Iran during the operation, but never specifies the number of crews that actually were in those helicopters and combat airplanes. Wikipedia, as its goal is, should be clear and precise and without any information hidden to the public. Hiding/not providing this important information into this article, makes the article so defected, as if we describe everything about the Parliament but never say how many parliamentarians there are. This statistical figure is extremely vital to the completeness of this article. Since wikipedia has not provided this information, I have been left with no other option, but to go and browse internet to find answer to: How many soldiers, agents, special forces and servicemen actually took part in this operation and flew into Iran and how many actually made it out. So far, there has been only one Iranian website that has provided the exact number of American crews to 90 Commandos. But is that a reliable figure?... I hope that those people who know such factual info should kindly integrate it to the article.

USS Nimitz and RH-53D

USS Nimitz remained underway, without a port call for 144 days - with this operation in the middle of this period. Did all 4 Cruisers listed (USS California (CGN-36), USS South Carolina (CGN-37), USS Texas (CGN-39) and USS Reeves (CG-24)) also complete 144 days continuous at sea? That deployment for those ship probably deserves its own article.

Rh-53D helicopters. For this designation, these particular variant of H-53 has equipment for minesweeping, and are normally owned operated by a US Navy squadron. These helicopters were present in case of Iran mining the straights of Hormuz. yet flown and used my marines during this exercise. Any factor for lack of familiarity on additional equipment within the helicopters. Wfoj2 (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

USS TARAWA LHA-1

I see no mention of Tarawa in this article yet we were all awarded the Irainian Expeditionary Medal. Never really told what role we played, I assume we were support in case everything really hit the fan since we carried a battalion of Marines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.96.225 (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source available that details the involvement of Tarawa, then you should add it. Otherwise, it doesn't belong in the article.Rockypedia (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Iranian Expeditionary Medal? What country is that from? Not the US. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I was on the USS Okinawa with the 31st MEU on GONZO station and we were awarded the Marine Corps Expeditionary Medal. Navy, Army and Air Force personnel were awarded their services expeditionary medal. If you received the Iranian Expeditionary Medal then it would suggest you were on the wrong side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.31.251 (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

List of units involved

There's currently no cited sources to support the list of units involved. While I don't doubt that most of the units in the list are legitimately cited, obviously we can't just accept "I was in that unit and we were involved" from some anonymous IP in their edit summary as proof that a unit was part of the operation - and if you look at the edit history, there's more than a few adds of that type present. I'm going to try some research on my own to see how many of these units can be verified. I'd appreciate any help anyone else can give, since I really think the list should be edited down to just verified units at some point. Rockypedia (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Iranian commanders

I have inserted the Iranian commanders: Ayatollah Khomenei and President Banisadr in the Infobox, however User:Citadel48 keeps deleting them, commenting on his/her 1st deletion "There were no iranian commanders; the operation failed before fruition." I don't believe this is correct reasoning, US forces invaded/attacked Iran, taking prisoners (the bus occupants) and killing 1 Iranian before the mission was aborted and so while there was no direct engagement of US and Iranian forces each side had its own command structure in place.Mztourist (talk) 08:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• I can see his reasoning. The lack of direct engagement isn't the point. The US military DID engage in this operation. The Iranian had no involvement in it. The head of their bus system had more direct involvement. In any case, if we must put someone in from Iran, I'd say pick one. Neither guy had military involvement, so why compound it with two names. I'd also say cut down the 5 names in the US box. We should list overall command, not the command of every element. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The Iranian command structure was unclear, President Banisadr had nominal command while Ayatollah Khomenei had the real powerMztourist (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This operation only had American commanders, no Iranian commanders were even aware of the operation until it failed.Citadel48 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, if you have a military infobox you provide the relevant information, which in this case includes the Iranian commanders. Mztourist (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• There were no Iranian military commanders because the Iranian military was never involved. This is like a guy breaking into a house, stealing a laptop and the owner tracks it down using software, then the mayor takes credit for finding it because the cops who took the report work for the police chief who is appointed by the mayor. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, the mayor takes credit, that doesn't mean he actually did anything. Citadel48 (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

That is very laboured reasoning. The US launched an attack on Iran, Iran had commanders, the US attack was aborted, but that doesn't mean that there is no reason to state the Iranian commanders.Mztourist (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have raised this issue for 3rd opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history Mztourist (talk) 08:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Given that this operation didn't involve any combat, and was aborted before it really got under way, I'd suggest using Template:Infobox military operation rather than the current infobox. I agree that it's not appropriate to list Iranian figures given that they weren't at all involved. Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D the change to the infobox seems sensible, thanks. Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think using Template:Infobox military operation makes sense too. Anotherclown (talk) 12:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

• The switch makes sense. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Civilian casualty

Who was the civilian killed?122.59.167.152 (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)