Talk:Iran Air Flight 655

Compare with this article with Korean Air Flight 7. Slightly different in tone. This one only "almost" caused an international incident! Paul Beardsell 15:20, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Contradiction? 2 Biased statement 3 NPOV 3.1 Another reference 4 Maritime Style Guide 5 Mentioning the children 6 International Court of Justice 7 Totally Unbelieveable

Contradiction?

"The American ship tried more than once to contact Flight 655, but there was no acknowledgement."

"The American version of the tragedy of Flight 655 has been questioned by many, including a writer of the Newsweek magazine, who said that, since all talks in international flights between pilots and control towers must be done in English, the occupants of the USS Vincennes should have known that the plane nearing them was a commercial jet-liner."

Is it just me or that a contradiction?

Biased statement

I need a source for this claim made by K1, specially the suicide mission part: The US never admitted any wrongdoing or responsibility in this tragedy, never apologized, and furthermore, blamed the Iranians for it, as according to the US account of this tragedy, the Iranian commercial jetliner "appeared to be on a suicide mission". Roozbeh 14:25, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Plus, as far as I remember from Puerto Rican newspapers, President Reagan DID send an apology, to the stuff of "this is a senseless tragedy and the American people extend our condolences to all of Iran" or something like that. Antonio Politically INcorrect...so who cares? Martin

and this is why puerto rican papers and magazines should just stick to salsa and merengue and stay out of politics. not only did usa never apologize, the reagan administration never even admitted the slightest gilt in the whole tragedy. in fact george shcultz, then Secretary of State, said openly and shamelessly [i am paraphrasing here, as i can't remember the quote verbatim] "the responisibility for this incident is fully with the iranian side who were not responding to our numerous queries ...." -- an ourageous lie. as if that wasn't shameful enough, a US federal court rejected the legitimacy of lawsuits and compensation efforts for the families of the victims, on the grounds that this was part of a "war situation" and therefore US law disqualifies such claims on that basis!! now you would think this is unspeakable shamelessness? it gets even worse. they allowed law suits to be filed by families of "non-iranian" victims of that flight because their respective countries were not participants in a war that relates to this case. and for your information, later on, will rogers, the commander of that ship, was decorated for his bravery and dedication to his country!! some brave man. --K1 08:33, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think --K1 should mellow his tone. I am somewhat surprised that you have to take all contradiction / different opinion as a personal attack. Refdoc 21:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just came to this: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-statements.html. It may help to find what US government really said. I'll read it later. Roozbeh 17:06, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have read it. Basically the US president expressed his regret about the loss of life, but maintained throughout that the action in itself was justified and a regrettable outcome of a bad situation precipitated by Iranian offensive action onto lawful civilian ship traffic. The collection though is not complete. I think the most important missing bit appears to be the outcome of the military investigation of the matter and any subsequent apologies (or lack of the same). Significant though might also be the miniscuel excerpt of the ICJ judgement, which seems to deny the legality of American intervention. A further extremely interesting side issue - though not related to the matter at hand is the barefaced lie re bilateral chemical weapons' use... Refdoc 21:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The other source [[1] (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5260/vince.html)], apparently a newsweek article, largely saying here was a trigger happy captain who was completely careless in his action and a subsequent cover up by the navy, but is the article somewhere available in its original rather than on someone's home page ? Refdoc 21:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I found the following :

"Formal Investigation into the Circumstances Surrounding the Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July 1988 Authors: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE WASHINGTON DC

Abstract: The downing of civilian Iran Air Flight 655 on 3 July was a tragic and regrettable accident and, as is so often the case in a combat environment, there were a number of contributing factors. It is important to put the events of that day in the local context. The U.S. Government committed naval forces to the convoying of American flag tankers in the spring of 1987. From the onset, the Administration emphasized that while our forces could achieve this mission, it would involve risks and uncertainties. This prediction was borne out by several incidents, e.g., the indiscriminate laying of Iranian mines, the Bridgeton explosion, the STARK tragedy, the SAMUEL B. ROBERTS striking a mine, the capture of the Iran Ajar, Iranian firing on U.S. helos, and the incidents of April 18 when Iranian ships and aircraft attempted to damage U.S. units. Throughout this period and especially in the wake of the above events, the Government of Iran issued inflammatory statements threatening retaliation against American personnel and interests. Reinforcing the high level of tension, both Baghdad and Teheran have continued to attack unarmed merchant ships, the former with aircraft and the latter with small boats, ships and aircraft. Iranian assaults have been largely concentrated in the southern gulf and on occasion have taken place in the presence of foreign warships. (kr)" [[2] (http://www.stormingmedia.us/77/7753/A775302.html)] and discussion of teh whole thing including the partial releases in 1988 and 1993 at [[3] (http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/ir655-dod-report.html)]

I will try and edit the article, tell me what you think. I have added a few further sources, but I have finally cut K1's assertion of "suicide mission". This accusation (Iran having sent a civilian airliner on suicide mission) - while being made by some American journalists and military personnel has as far as I could find never been part of an official explanation. So I think it shoudl not remain here.Refdoc 22:43, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As everything else is adequately covered by sources I believe the dispute notice can be taken down. If no argument to the opposite appears I will remove it in 48 hrs. Refdoc 09:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If a journalist put it in print and multiple people made the claim, then the suicide mission claim is worth mentioning, whether or not debunked (one of WP's valuable roles is to shed light on the facts behind conspiracy theories). If you delete it, then people will be trying to reinsert it for the next ten years - better to head them off with an appropriately NPOV version. Stan 13:33, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, so how would you formulate this? Refdoc 14:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Something like "According to Joe Blow of Newsrag Daily, who cited several anonymous military officials, the plane was on a suicide mission.", then add any evidence he might have included. The only verifiable fact may be that Joe Blow made the claim, so we carefully attribute it to him, not to ourselves. Also, I would only bother with the whole thing if Newsrag Daily was sufficiently reputable and/or well-known as to merit its own article. Stan 16:54, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This sounds good, only that there is no Joe Blow yet known. User:K1 needs to come up with some reference then, I guess... Refdoc 17:27, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I attempted to do some NPOV work. In addition, there were some grammatical and style errors that needed to be cleaned up. -Joseph (Talk) 04:58, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

It wasn't really NPOV it was to put the impression on the reader that Americans had no intention on shooting and were forced to do so. It's not proved yet.--Pouya 19:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that definitely makes it more NPOV. Or something. I will review your changes more closely in the next day or so. Why is it that everything you deleted consisted of counterarguments or clarifications to allegations? -Joseph (Talk) 20:01, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

"after-action situation" in "Vincennes had been battling Iranian Navy gunboats, which placed her in an after-action situation of being in Iranian territorial waters." means that Americans had no way to avoid violating Iranian territorial waters which is obviously not a counterargument.

"erred unintentionally" in "Differences can be drawn in the fact that (by all known accounts) the U.S. Navy erred unintentionally during a tense and time-critical situation, while the VVS acted deliberately in light of obviously contradictory evidence, and with sufficient time to verify the nature of the target." doesn't imply a counterargument. The same can be claimed by Russian sources that in Korean case they erred unintentionally. Also those accounts you mention regarding the situation of the staff of Vincennes is solely based on reports provided by Americans and this better be explicitly mentioned in the sentence, though I prefer not to make a comparison between these two cases and just let readers check that case through "See also" section.

"The situation will likely be a point of contention for some time, as it is difficult to assess the results of combat actions when not directly involved. The fact that Vincennes and other U.S. Navy vessels had been at full alert immediately prior complicated the situation." is a personal evaluation of the situation and there is no need for it in a wikipedia article. --Pouya 21:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I largely agree with Pouya. There is no point in re-hashing one POV at the bottom as a final conclusion. The lack of intenionality is debated, many do not see this as an unfortunate mistake but as quite deliberate action. So the conclusion can not be "reconciliation" to the US government POV.

Apart from this - the article is afr too short to justify all these different headlines. I therefore remove them again. The article reads fluently enough. Refdoc 00:21, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This article is still POV. And the actions and comments by Refdoc and Pouya are further indicative of this. Any attempt at even insinuating that the incident was not intentional has garnered swift reversion by one of the two of them. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:45, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

The facts are presented from different POV's. US governments official stance is explicitly mentioned:

According to US government accounts, Vincennes mistakenly identified the Iranian airplane....

So if we add a sentence, with no official source, that the attack was intentional (or unintentional) we are making a POV claim. So let it be just a collection of known facts, not personal attitudes. --Pouya 20:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For User: N328KF: Exactly where is the article just now POV ? We list the various versions, link them to known sources and avoid giving our own conclusion. Mine are clear, but I keep them on the talk pages.You try to push yours onto the article. Not good. What shall I say? Maybe "Zip up. Your POV is showing!" ??...Refdoc 22:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Any attempt at even insinuating that the incident was not intentional ... Exactly , insinuating is the word marking surreptious introduction of a POV... Refdoc

Another reference

I added a link to Tragedy over the Persian Gulf (http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/books/rochlin/chapter_09.html#p30) to external links. I think this reference can also be taken into account while resolving this NPOV dispute.

Maritime Style Guide

what is this thing "Maritime Style Guide" and why should it bind us???? - I have never heard of it. Ships are things and should be treated as such , but not as persons, however sentimental navy people might look at them. So please re-insert these articles. Refdoc 18:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The name is informal. I am using it to refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#"The" before the ship's name. It is being debated to some degree, but we have started removing "the" before ship names in all the articles we cross. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:20, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

as it is this appears to be some Navy ideosyncratic thingy, but certainly not mainstream English. So I suggest the articles go in again, unles this will start a revert war... Refdoc

Mentioning the children

N328KF, I think you are once again overshooting the aim. As it is, large amounts of information are under dispute. Only paragraph 1 and 2 are about non disputed items. Whether this was a tragic accident, Iranian provocation or American carelessness - or whatever else - has no direct bearing in the huge sense of tragedy surrounding this event. The debate is secondary, the tragedy primary. SO the children - which are undisputed FAIK - should be part of the factual part - i.e. paragraph 1 or 2. By all means find a better way of formulating it, but do not remove factual information for which you do not have any use. If things were so clearly a result of carelessness or ill will by the Iranians you would have no reason to remove the kids, would you? Refdoc 17:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why should there be any specific distinction for them over the other people on the aircraft? When people refer to the Waco, Texas or Oklahoma City incidents, people don't generally highlight the children there. Nor do they in most of the incidents between Israel and Palestine. Sure, they are important, but their role in and of itself is not distinctive. A different situation could be the Bezlan situation in Russia, where children were the tactical (though not strategic) objectives. In that case, the focus was clearly on them. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 18:19, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

The fact (if any) that people don't generally refer to children in other incidents don't justify not mentioning it here. In the case of Israel-Pelestine clashes, in several cases number of kids are also reported. The purpose is not supporting a POV, it's just drawing a more realistic picture of the tragedy happened. That's all. Would you please provide any reason other than "...specific distinction..." or "...people don't generally highlight the children..." for removing number of kids killed in the incident? --Pouya 20:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

N238KF, whether other articles are shorter or longer - this is really not of importance. We add information, bit by bit and the encyclopedia grows. It might grow irregularly in bits, but lack of information in one end does not justify cutting it in other ends. May I also refer you to the article on the World Trade Centre, which has detailed demographics on the victims. So some felt there this was important information. Refdoc 01:26, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Pouya and Refdoc here. Reporting the facts is one thing. Interpreting them or assigning levels of significance to the facts is another. I remember my news channel kept showing that day care center in the federal building in OKL when it happened.--Zereshk 06:17, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think one way we can resolve this issue is by giving the full breakup of the fatalities: for example 154 men, 87 women, 60 children, 30 foreign nationals. That way it will be hard for someone to accuse the article of trying to "influence the reader". Any takers?--Zereshk 19:11, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

International Court of Justice

ICJ's November 6, 2003 (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iop/iopframe.htm) (Press release (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2003/ipresscom2003-38_op_20031106.htm)) vote on US Navy's presence in Iranian territorial water was about Operation Praying Mantis not IR655 incident. The only record about IR655 on ICJ's site is [4] (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/ibbook/Bbook8-1.59.htm). I'm a bit busy these days but I'll try to incorporate these sources into corresponding pages. --Pouya 20:50, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Totally Unbelieveable

When the KAL 007 was shot down,there was so much noise made by the U.S and mudslinging on the then U.S.S.R. I was watching this show on Discovery and these Americans were making a lot of fuss about the plane being shot down 8 miles outside the Soviet airspace!Excuse me,but i think the Iranian plane was well outside the American airspace(lol).Moreover awarding those men is just another insult to the dead victims.These two incidents just show American arrogance and I must say somebody needs to teach them a lesson.Why dont the Americans write songs and make movies for this sad tragedy?

Just what sort of "lesson" do you think they need to be taught? RickK 05:36, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)