Talk:Iran Air Flight 655/Archive 3

Background - wholly inadequate

I don't have time to fix it now, but can I comment that the single sentence Background is wholly inadaquate. What are we supposed to make of it? Does it not - like the Hostilities comment above - suggest that, really, it's all Iran's fault. Might there be another side or two to the background? Was not the US supporting Saddam Hussain at the time? Does the US having had a big downer on Iran since their revolution have anything to do with their attitude and way of carrying on in the area? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The US did indeed support Iraq in the war against Iran, and hasn't been overly friendly to Iran since revolution ousted the Shah. However the reason American ships were there was due to Iranian attacks against Kuwaiti/Saudi tankers. It's not all Iran's fault, but absolving them of all blame is ridiculous since CG 49 wouldn't have been there but for their actions. Anynobody 21:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ffs. I'm not suggesting an absolution of blame; merely that the previous limp excuse for the US which formed the whole of the background was inadequate. The current edit is much better (though it could do with citations). It might also be reasonable to supply as background the information that the US supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war ... and this for me calls into question the use of the term "neutral" applied to Kuwait & Saudi. They certainly were not combatants but as US allies might not have been viewed by Iran as neutral. I think it is very important that the background is not written exclusively from a US/western perspective, but is genuinely neutral and balanced. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't defending what was there; It was inadequate. As to the neutrality of Saudi Arabia/Kuwait, you have a good point but not because they are US allies but because they supported Saddam with money, however for the purposes of this incident such talk would be too detailed (but not for Iran-Iraq War). Anynobody 05:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, a more detailed explanation should be relegated to the right pages, such as Iran-Iraq War. However we should not continue to call Saudi Arabia & Kuwait neutral, if they were not neutral, but merely non-combatant. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think the background context is highly relevant, but we do need it to be succinctly put. I've just come across a recent Naval Postgraduate School thesis [1] which covers this incident in its context really well, and might provide some appropriate info. For example it says "On April 29, 1988, however, the United States expanded the scope of the protection scheme, extending the U.S. Navy’s protective umbrella to all neutral shipping in the Persian Gulf. This decision divorced the American policy from its original limited objectives, increased the likelihood of further confrontation with Iran, and laid the groundwork for the destruction of an Iranian airliner by USS Vincennes (CG-49)" and in more detail "[the July 3rd] action would not have occurred under the original limited Earnest Will protection scheme, and it ended when the USS Vincennes (CG-49) mistakenly shot down an Iranian airliner, killing 290 people." Well worth a read - gives new insights. Rwendland 19:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that the background section needs to be rewritten or removed altogether. In its current form, the section violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research by creating a synthesis of IRRELEVANT published material on Iran’s actions or reactions against Iraq`s financiers, serving to advance a position that Iran was ultimately to blame for the shut-down of Iran Air Flight 655.--CreazySuit (talk) 01:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph in "Shootdown" section seems out of place

The paragraph beginning "The event triggered an intense controversy, with Iran condemning the shootdown..." in the "Shootdown" section of the article seems out of place and completely halts the flow of the section. We go from events leading up to the incident, to a 'reaction' type paragraph, and then back to an account of the incident again. I suggest that the paragraph in question would be a better fit in a "Reaction" or "Aftermath" type section, as it does not deal with the shootdown itself but of the subsequent follow-up. If it were not for the paragraphs which immediately follow (U.S. and Iranian accounts of the incident), the paragraph might not be completely out of place as it would serve as a sort of 'conclusion' to the incident, but as it is, it does not flow. GCD1 (talk) 15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Legion of Merit" image

• Inclusion of that image is to show the fact that the officers were reliable in the field of "firing procedure" and "confidence under fire", thus , the image is at least indirectly relevent to the article.When that medal is sited in the article , then way should it's image be irrevalant? What's the difference between this image and the image of "USS Vincennes screen displays" ? Does the Flight 655's image is on the screen ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Lustig was not awarded a Legion of Merit. Please cite a source for that assertion. The "confidence under fire" line you refer to is not from a Legion of Merit citation and Rogers' LOM was essentially an end of tour award and did not make mention of Iran, Iran Air 655 or the shootdown. Second, the displays are what the Captain was sitting in front of during the incident, it seems appropriate to use that image, since it was what the crew was using at the time. No images of Iran Air 655 are here because none seem to be freely available. If you can find an image of the aircraft, unencumbered by copyright issues, feel free to add it. As for the Legion of Merit image, there is no reason or need for an image of the medal to be in the article. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

adding the image of a medal that is mentioned on the article ,is not against the wikipedia's policy ;deleting it by "personal taste" is not rational and acceptable. I think we can ask the readers to delete it or not .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

US lack-of-apology and POV

[Pasted from WhisperToMe message to BoogaLouie]:

before re-adding removed sections, please remove possible POV. In the section re-added here [2] I found POVish words. I will remove them. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at this version: [3] - I took out the onlies and buts so there is no value judgment. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that this sentence contains POV words: In 1996 the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation for the Iranians killed, but has only expressed regret only for the loss of innocent life, and never admitted responsibility nor apologised to the Iranian government.

Iranians are very upset about the whole thing and very much want an admission of wrongdoing. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

By definition, what they want is subjective. If that's the motivation for leaving in the 'buts' and 'onlies', then it really is POV. --Vygramul —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That is POV. But has *only* expressed this and that? That makes it sound like it is not enough for the US to do this but that it has to apologize. Let's be cold. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

That is true, it is also bad sentence structure, as it makes one of the onlys redundant. Better to take out the opinionated only than the factual. Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is important

Some of editors ,(eg User:John Nevard ) , think the sentence "66 children and 1 pregnant woman" serves no purpose.I think that's informative about the damage and should be there.If someone think that may be deleted , please say why! Thankyou --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's currently unreferenced, so likely to be challenged and removed, even if you think it's important. Suggest therefore that you find a reliable source so that this information can be verified. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's why I removed it, such information needs a reliable source. For example see China Airlines Flight 611#Nationalities of passengers, which goes into great detail about passenger demographics AND contains foreign sources written in English. If you can find something just as reliable saying X children and X pregnant women died then we can figure out a way to include it. Anynobody 05:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that double standards and anti-Americanism are in full force in wikipedia! In the article on the shooting down of Kal 007 by the Soviets there is no mention of the whether the Soviets ever "apologized" to the Korean government or not, nor is there any mention of the Soviets giving money to the victims' families, nor is there even mentioned any note of "sorrow" about the incident by the Soviet government. I guess the fact that the Soviet Union was unrepentant about its actions in this incident is unimportant and not worth mentioning! BUT, the fact that the U.S. government did give express sorrow over the IAF 655 incident and actually paid money to the families of the victims of IAF 655 isn't enough for the great "unbiased wikipedia contributers", it must be mentioned at least three times in the article that the U.S. has never given an official apology to the Iranian government or admitted any "wrong doing" in the incident. Do you see the double standards? Also, I noticed in the Wiki article listing flights shot down by various nations in history that ONLY in the shooting down of IAF 655 by the U.S. is it deemed necessary to describe the number of foreigners, children and pregnant women killed. Fortunately, its been edited out in that article-unfortunately it still remains in the main article! If anyone thinks that it is important to mention the number of children & pregnant women killed in IAF 655, I think that they must demand the same statistics be given for all those other flights. Comments anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phineaspeabody (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then please, by all means add the information that you feel is missing to the KAL 007 article, if you can find reliable source and substantiate your claim. If person/country/entity A has done something, it is no justification for entity B to do the same thing, then point the finger at A and say: "But s/he did it too!". My point being: You should add or enhance a specific paragraph dealing with criticism or highlighting certain negative aspects of an issue to an article (provided it can be sourced), instead of removing similar paragraphs from another article (provided they ARE sourced, which they in this particular case are). I very much believe that the Soviet government did neither apologize, nor pay compensation to the victim's families - however, that does not change the fact that in this case there HAS been NO official apology by the U.S., which should definitely be mentioned. Especially in light of the fact how almost every major political figure in the U.S. and many cultural personalities (TV hosts, radio hosts, televangelists / religious leaders etc.) bitched about the "Evil Empire" after the KAL 007 incident (with good reason!), but failed to comment on the Iran Air incident. THAT is a double standard, if I may say so. Vargher (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, Indeed this article faces especial sensitivities.As in the injured child's image ,I expect multiple approaches for deleting some parts of information that may seems unpleasant to especial group of editors.If the lack of "reliable source" was the real reason for deleting the text, that should be done after placing the [citation needed] tag and waiting for a while and not to delete it immediately and without the request for sources!
  Anyway, if the real problem is the source,I think it's possible to show some of them:1-In Iranian suit against USA to the International court of justice, page 15,it has been written: "it was carrying 290 people: 274 passengers and a crew of 16.Of these 290, 254 were Iranian nationals, 13 were nationals of the United Arab Emirates, ten of India, six of Pakistan, six of Yugoslavia and one of Italy. Sixty-five of the passengers were children or infants." The reference in the footnote is "ICA0 Report, para. 1.2.1." 2-The Iranian official site for remembrance of the victims says (In Persian): "قرار بود این هواپیما با شماره پرواز 655 با دویست و نود سرنشین (156 مرد 53 زن 57 کودک 2 تا12ساله و8 کودک زیر دو سال )" that means : "The plane with the number of 655 , with two hundred ninety passengers( 156 men, 53 women, 57 children from age 2 to 12 , 8 child under 2years ..." 3- List of the passengers--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I came here from KAL 007 and I feel KAL 007 is relatively neutral (the Russians were wrong but they had some justification) while this is pro American. For instance full transcripts seem to exist there and the position of the Russians ( wrong but explained) is there. This section does very much seem to follow the Pro American route. If Americans do something terrible its a fact of life that these things happen. The awarding of medals was a key sign of this. If anyone else does its a crime that must be analysed to death in the defence of democracy. I think KAL 007 should be used as the guide for this section and i think Wikipedia should stop worrying about country neutrality. Situation neutrality is what we should aim for. "I will never apologise for the United States whatever the facts say" should be used as a Wiki guideline as to why facts from United States contibutors should always be questioned. The ability to apologise when you are wrong is a key hallmark of civilisation which is why apology is often rated over financial compensation in much of the world outside of the United States. Lawyers dont make money from an apology (Mike S) 11:52 11 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.103.245 (talk)

I think the problem here has nothing to do with Anti-Americanism, and has a lot more to do with the arrogance that is pretty much typical of the American government, that despite the fact that 290 innocent people died, they refuse to accept they did anything wrong, in no other country in the world could you be awarded a medal of honor for murdering 290 people, for me it is just another one of the countless occasions where the American military have covered up their own incompetence. For the record, there are plenty of people on Wikipedia that are able to exercise fairness of mind, I for one happen to agree that the downing of KAL007 was an equally disgusting act, however I don't see the Russians further insulting the families of the dead by rewarding the perpetrators of this horrific act with medals of honor. The rewarding of any act like this with medals is tantamount to saying that their actions where acceptable, which is why so many people are still bitter about the IA655 shootdown. (Sk8er boi7000 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

No one was awarded the medal of honor for this incident, you are both wrong and inflammatory to say so. No where in this article did it say anyone was awarded anything, except money to the victim's families. Wikipedia, like most of the internet is American. Honesty by Americans is something common, and blatant on the internet. America doesn't censor the internet, like Iran, or Russia, or China, or Australia. I will not deny, Bush's attitude was ignorant. But not all Americans are president Bush. Only 2 of them are. If you think you can make a case, on an American website, on the American internet, that American's are liars, and not to be trusted, I ask you kindly to at least start with some compelling evidence. If we're only going to go by political heads, let all who don't have dictators for leaders and whose leaders never lie, cast the first stone.

Injured kid image

What is sajed.ir in Iran? Is this a serious news page there, or someone's personal site? (I'd believe either I guess, based on some of the other images in the gallery: Like this.) Anynobody 04:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This child was obviously alive when rescuers got to him/her, note the bloody bandage and bruising. One can't bleed into a bandage or surrounding tissue when their heart isn't beating. I know that there have been rare occurrences where a person has actually survived falls from a greater height, but not over water. Since the source is not in English I can't verify that the caption doesn't say something like "child killed in car accident". Moreover even if it does say the child was on the flight, it's really hard to imagine a small child surviving the explosion/rapid decompression and then a collision with open water after falling more than mile. Even if they did survive all those things, drowning would be guaranteed (it's hard to swim/tread water with a broken arm(s) or leg(s)) Anynobody 07:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I actually think this image should be removed from the article, despite having removed the word 'alleged'. I don't think it has much informational/illustration merit - how about removing it which makes this debate moot? (as I said on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 4) From that collection I would support the addition of [4] or [5] as having some informational/illustration value, if they are GFDL. However I am doubtful about the GFDL claim. Rwendland (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• "This child was obviously alive when rescuers got to him/her, note the bloody bandage and bruising. One can't bleed into a bandage or surrounding tissue when their heart isn't beating." Pardon , but as a medical doctor I can inform you that the bleeding does not need cardiac beating. The blue tissue is not "bandage" : that's the child's T-shirt and the bruising is normal : after a certain peace of time , the corpus begins to get bruised in flanks and abdomen and after that in places that vacsera are deforming . In the chest , the lungs and mediastinal organs do so and we may have bruising in the top of sternum . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All we are doing is speculating since there is no caption on the source page. If we don't know the vital who, what, where, when of this image, how can we provide a proper caption? I concur with Rwendland that this image has no informational value and I feel it does not belong on this page. The other images suffer similar licensing problems as they are not GFDL as the site claims, but at least they have some encyclopedic value. One problem is, how do we know what the other images depict without captions on the source pages? --Dual Freq (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with removal for the same reason, I honestly prefer not to get into technical discussions unless absolutely necessary (which is why I mentioned the language difference as my primary concern.) Anynobody 03:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(PS I tried finding it on Al Jazeera, since they have a page in English. Anyone else know of other native middle eastern sources which also publish English versions?) Anynobody 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sajed.ir/en/component/option,com_ponygallery/Itemid,4/func,detail/id,5222/ change the pe to en and the site is in english, no caption on either page. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't know if there is any Wikipedia guideline to determine which image has "encyclopedic value" and which one does not, but my personal opinion is that it can show the extent of damage and make the reader to read the article.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get the caption? How do you know what the image depicts? When was the photo taken? Who took the photo? How can we possibly "show the extent of damage" if we are only guessing or speculating at the caption? --Dual Freq (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

1- Q:Where did you get the caption? How do you know what the image depicts? A:From the Persian scripts of the page [6],that reads "The American warship's attack on Iranian plane" "حمله نظامی ناو آمریکائی به هواپیما ایرباس جمهوری اسلامی ایران" .If you point the mouse to the images in that page , it will show the "Airbus plane:هواپیمای ایرباس" in response.
2- Q :When was the photo taken? Who took the photo? A:I Don't know . If it is so essential that lack of it means to delete the picture , I can write to the site and ask them to provide this information , but I'm not sure about what to do if someone doubts the information that they may hand!!
3-Q:How can we possibly "show the extent of damage" if we are only guessing or speculating at the caption?A:Many images may have no caption , but still can show many things.A picture is better than a thousand words.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The translation Alborz Fallah gave from the captions of the page are correct. In fact there are more pictures regarding this shootdown availble here[7] which this is only one of them. In fact I propose using more of those pictures as they give a more realistic illustration. As for the site, it is a semi-governmental website dedicated to iran-iraq war [8].Farmanesh (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-governmental? Does that mean its semi-covered under Iranian copyright or semi-GFDL? Their english about page neglects to mention that they are a government agency. The Foundation for The Remembrance of The Holy Defence’s Monument Preservation and Sacred Values Propagation doesn't sound like a government agency to me. Basically we have two problems, we have no caption (what the image depicts, date, location, subject, photographer), just the name of the gallery the image is in, ("The American warship's attack on Iranian plane") leaving us to assume this photo depicts a victim of this incident. Second, the site claims a blanket GFDL status on all its images, but we can't verify this organization holds the copyright on the images it has presented. This foundation did not exist at the time of the incident, they did not take the pictures they are releasing GFDL. If we don't know the original author / source of the image how can we possibly know that the images are not copyrighted by a third party that is not listed. If the foundation is not the image's author, how can they release it under their own license? --Dual Freq (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking around at their other image galleries, this image, which I'm guessing is supposed to portray Rachel Corrie is included in a gallery. Its listed GFDL, but was not taken in Iran and has nothing to do with the Iran / Iraq war. How is it that this foundation decided this image is GFDL? I can't trust any image from this site, it looks like a poorly done web gallery that took images from other places, does not provide proper credit to authors and has no respect for any copyright laws. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks like someone's personal site of "liberated" content. One of two articles on it, is written in English that is so much better than their About Us statement, a part quoted here;After the supreme leader’s prominent guidance as to keeping alive, all the best, the remembrance, name and memory of the Holy Defence valuable years’ brave warriors, The Foundation for The Remembrance of The Holy Defence’s Monument Preservation and Sacred Values Propagation (FRHDMPSVP), decided to start a move by impart of technology, according to this important matter. I'm thinking the article was simply plagiarized when I read both it and what was just quoted. (I take the struck out part back, they clearly wrote the article in question) In short, this site is not reliable and the images claimed to be GFDL will turn out to be copyrighted by someone else. Anynobody 04:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you. Because the site is run by religious, nationalistic Iranians, it must have stolen all its content? This must be some bizarro-world logic I'm not familiar with. <eleland/talkedits> 05:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly, I said one out of two of its articles looks as though it wasn't written by whoever wrote the site. On second read I'm actually pretty sure they did write it, (USS Vincent?). As pointed out earlier by Dual Freq and myself the site appears to be using images whos copyright status is at best questionable; such as this one: identified by Dual Freq or the TV screenshot I pointed out during my initial post.

What I am saying though is that serious questions exist about both the "free" status of the image in question and the overall reliability of the site. (PS And now that you point it out, the NPOV nature of a site run by religious, nationalistic Iranians who don't cite sources raises concerns too.) Anynobody 09:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey , hey ! Calm down please ... That is an international accident and wikipedia is supposed to show both views. If the Iranian data is deleted with the label of "unreliable" and "having copyright problems", then how can wikipedia show the both sides view?
about two problems:
I-No caption (what the image depicts, date, location, subject, photographer), just ("The American warship's attack on Iranian plane").
II- GFDL status(verify this organization holds the copyright on the images it has presented).
"Caption" is not crucial and essential as decisive : If there is any sentence in wikipedia policies such as "The images without captions are not allowed in wikipedia" ,then please show me the page. In GDFL, that is an Iranian governmental site and anyone who knows Persian can understand it clearly by simply reading the text : this is another site of this governmental foundation (Support by: www.sajed.ir in the footprint).The head of the foundation is a Sepah (Revolutionary Guard) Major General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh ,but if the problem is with the Iranian law of copyright and if there criticism over internal Iranian policy of ownership of the images, that's something distinct and should be discussed else where.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey , hey ! Calm down please ... I'm sorry to give you the impression that I'm not calm, I assure you that I am. (Please don't confuse disagreement with anger, after all it's possible to calmly disagree :)

What you don't seem to understand is that according to one of our primary rules, verifiability, sources etc. should be in English which the site you point to is not. Anynobody 09:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I DO can't understand does this sentence "English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality...." means "sources etc. should be in English "? Do you know any available source for the images of the injured victims of the accident outside Iran? How would they(English language,non Iranian photographers) supposed tobe in the Iranian cemetry to shot that photo?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know they were in an Iranian cemetery shooting the photo? This photo could be anything, there is no caption and you are assuming it is related because of the image gallery the photo is in. We can't assume anything in an encyclopedia. We have no idea where this photo was taken or what it depicts, how can we put it up and say that it shows a victim? As I noted above, I can not trust this website as a reliable source of free images and I don't think we should be guessing what the image depicts as this site forces us to do. The image should be removed as unverifiable and deleted as an unfree image. Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity says image origin must be properly referenced. "In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator, it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content must be given. Images that are not properly identified are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia." We have to know more about this image before it can be included. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah we have plenty of high quality, reliable sources in English which state that Iran thinks of this as an intentional attack on Iranian civilians, we don't need foreign language sources for what you're trying to say. If no English sources talked about the fact that civilians were killed, then we'd need foreign sources. (That is the point you're trying to make with this image right? That civilians aka innocent women and children were killed. Nobody is denying innocents were killed, and if this image came from an actually reliable site which had no copyright questions I'd have no problem with including it, even though I think it's not someone aboard an airliner shot down over the open water. Anynobody 04:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(PS Are you seriously saying that this picture is of a kid at a cemetery? Don't they have coffins/shrouds or something to bury dead people in? Wouldn't they have thrown away the bloody bandage (or t-shirt) before going to bury the body?) Anynobody 04:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

An Iranian cemetery is something different.The relatives have to recognize the body and made it washed ,the image is showing the Morgue of that cemetery.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible alternative

Would a solution everyone would be content with be to replace this image with [9], and make a historic-image fair use argument? I recall this image being on TV at the time, so I think it is of historic nature (and referred to in the press at the time [10] [11] [12]). It also well illustrates the horror of the incident without a close-up of anyone, or blood. It could satisfy all parties. The image was also likely taken by an Iranian govt employee on the rescue, released to the media. Rwendland (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are at least two problems with this suggestion, assuming the image is copyrighted and not by sajed.ir then us making a fair use rationale for a more or less stolen image. (Lets say for example, the image is actually owned by Al Jazeera, showing their image with sajed.ir's watermark would not be fair use.) The second problem is The Washington Post story doesn't mention the image you've proposed (I haven't read the rest yet). Anynobody 04:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The WashPost does say "Iranian television broadcast scenes of bodies floating amid scattered debris", and these were also shown in the UK at the time I recall, and I suspect in the U.S. as the Nightline article mentions it. Being written about in the media is one of the historic-image fair-use tests, so I think a fair-use argument would be perfectly reasonable; indeed stronger than many fair-use arguments on Wikipedia. But you are right that we need a frame of the video without a watermark, don't know if cropping it out is OK, Template:Non-free_historic_image does envisage possibly cropping the image itself. Rwendland (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think using [13] is a good alternative, but the real problem is in that any picture of the civilian's damage is of Iranian origin (because of the time and place of the accident),and by interpreting the copyright (and reliability) codes of the Wikipedia with a "beyond the reasonable doubt" approach, no image or video can be used at all. The proposed picture ( [14] )is the same in the video 01:07 of the video, but I'm sure the opposing party will say the same thing about the video too.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rwendland the image your proposing isn't bodies floating amid scattered debris, it's a photograph someone took of their TV. (By the way, this is also very frowned upon from a copyright standpoint.) Do you know of a photo/video of the bodies floating amid debris not from sajed and is actually legible? If so we can certainly discuss it, but this isn't a solution as it still makes use of questionable (and in this case especially poor quality) material from a disputed source.

I don't have a problem with sources from the middle east, so long as they are reliable, to illustrate what I mean I'll point out an unreliable English source. Sajed.ir is the equivalent of this site, which is simply the opinion of its writer without the benefit of fact checking/editing that news goes through. (If it had, then the image's caption would have identified the aircraft in it as not the A300 EP-IBU lost in the incident but a newer A310.) For all I, or any other English only editors know, sajed.ir is just a guy named sajed who thinks he has a foundation. I know that isn't the case with a source like Al Jazeera though. Anynobody 00:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The photograph of the poor dead young girl (“alleged Iranian child victim”) is in such bad taste, that it would appear in a decent encyclopedia is unthinkable. It is NOT from a Reliable Source rather an extremist source. Most of all, the source does not meet standards of RS. Be aggressive and delete, because your position is already substantiated. The raft of dead nude people cannot be published there either. The same standards of decency should apply throughout Wikipedia. The ability to write superior articles, and cite respectable RS far outweighs the value of doing things like this. In it’s own special way, this photo is kind of an indecent vandalism to the article. Delete It ! Bwebb00 (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's a good sugesstion to have a new standard throughout Wikipedia, but I think double standard should be avoided (considering [15], [16], [17] and etc.)--Alborz Fallah (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that there is a double standard being implemented here, the source is legit, we may desagree with it or dislike it but it is a legit organization in Iran. Just b/c you don't know that organization or haven't heard about it won't reduce its legitimacy. It is not a small or irelevent org in Iran but one of major ones in this area. I don't like defending them as I have considrable personal difference in belifs with them but it doesn't make them unlegit.Farmanesh (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No double standard. I am not trying to show dead Americans (or any dead peoples) to "TILT" my article anywhere on earth. This photo has unknown beginnings, unknown in it's real origin, and degrades the Wikipedia because of lack of RS. Sajed.ir is NOT a RS. More important to me, is that it disgraces that little girl to help reinforce some tilted political agenda. Her arm is even broken. I think it is shameful that you would exploit her dead body to put your ZING into article writing here. The photo comes out. Bwebb00 (talk) 20:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Farmanesh. Please do not continue to REVERT that photo of the young dead girl back into the article. Dual Freq had sufficient grounds for deletion when he deleted it today. [[18]] Not only that, it is an Indecent exploitation of the girl. Bwebb00 (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I should say I am amazed with your tone when you say "The photo comes out.", and the 'period' you put at the end of it. I invite you to review the grounds for your self-confidence.

I think we have much more to talk on the RS part of your point, what is your reason for calling that site and organizations behind it RS? Is it just b/c you don't know it?

I however do understand and sympatize with your other point, I do not like to ever see any thing like that happens to anyone, and have no intrest in seeing it either. However, what is an ecyclopedia? Should we sensore a picture just b/c it is very heart breaking? Or b/c one thinks that girl would not like her picture here? One might say that girl would very much want to show the extent of what happened in reality to those who want to read about the incident. I don't think any of us can make such a call. In both cases this is not the first article which has heartbreaking pictures on it. Human history is full of these wild actions and an encyclopedia would need to show the extent of it as you can see on many articles like Vietnam War, Opposition to the Vietnam War, My Lai Massacre and an endless list of these.

It is double standard that you are only objecting to this picture. If you really beleive in your argument you may start going over all war and disaster articles and delete all such pictures.Farmanesh (talk) 05:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion process

I've nominated this image for speedy deletion, I'm surprised no one else has considering the problems with it (otherwise I'd of done this sooner). Besides the questionable nature of what the image is supposed to depict it claims to be under {{GFDL}} yet has someone's water mark on it, plus other images in the gallery are simply photos of a TV. Anynobody 00:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In my ordinary and non-digital life , I'm a medical doctor and in many occasions I had proudly risk many things (Including my own life) to save a number of such kids. After the recent conflict in the Persian gulf (2008 US-Iranian naval dispute),I sensed that such incidents can threat the life of innocent human beings. Then I add that picture to this article to alarm against those possible consequences. I see there are many persons that prefer to hide a result than to prevent the cause.The copy right problem is an excuse for censoring the image.The result of disscusion about the licence [19] was to keep it.But a group of pushing oppsition ,did delete the picture.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alborz, you could contend this speedy-deletion since it seems to be against process. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." Also Wikipedia:SD#I9 says "The image was copied from a website or other source that does not have a license compatible with Wikipedia, and the uploader does not assert ... Non-blatant copyright infringements should be discussed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion.". Since the source (and uploader?) asserts GFDL, and there was extensive discussion, seems to me this image does not come under the speed-deletion criteria, and should have gone thru the full deletion process. You would have to raise this in Wikipedia:Deletion review to challenge the speedy-deletion, if you want to. Rwendland (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for instruction and also thank you because you care. I will do my best, but my mother tongue is not English and getting involved to a complicated discussion is so time-consuming and difficult for me. But I will do my best.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Alborz, if you feel unable to contend this because your my mother tongue is not English, I would do this for you if you want - but this might have to wait until Saturday. But I have to say, I suspect it will ultimately be deleted anyway in a full deletion process vote. You need to consider if you think this is worth the trouble. Personally, I would think time would be better spent trying to introduce one of the alternative images I suggested above, if you think that would have equal value for the article. Rwendland (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Its hard to censor an image when we don't know what it depicts. There is no valid caption for that image, we don't know who is pictured, when the picture was taken, where or who took it. Without that it's basically a Rorschach test, where anyone can see whatever they want in the image since it has no real caption. If the image is restored, I will nominate if via ifd. Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity says image origin must be properly referenced. "In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator, it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content must be given. Images that are not properly identified are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia." --Dual Freq (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the speedy-deletion of Image:Vincennes shot.jpg has been reversed by an admin, without prompting and quite independently of our discussion here. The admin appears to have independently noticed the discussion on Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 4, and recognised the image should not have been speedy-deleted because that was contrary to proper process. Rwendland (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The unsourced, uncaptioned, unencyclopedic image in question has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg --Dual Freq (talk) 00:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rwendland the image wasn't previously up for a deletion discussion, which is why I nominated it for speedy deletion. (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images isn't Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion) Anynobody 02:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I wondered about that but wasn't sure. Still, I don't think it matched the applicable Wikipedia:SD#I9 because it is not a blatant (unarguable) copyright infringement; so maybe a right decision for wrong reason? I think the final outcome will be the same in the end, but at least everyone will be happy from proper process. I didn't really want this outcome, as time would be better spent on improving the article (which I think is quite poor), but as the admin reversed his decision there was little choice. Sorry. Rwendland (talk) 02:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah did do you take know for sure whoever took this picture released it under the GFDL? You claim to have taken it by uploading it under {{GFDL}}. If you did take it you so, you could diffuse the copyright issues by simply uploading a version without another site's watermark and list yourself as the author. (I'm still going to dispute the image as non-reliable, it doesn't matter what the caption says in Persian since this is an English site and sajeed.ir says it's about the Iran/Iraq war so we (English speakers who didn't learn Persian) have no way of knowing if the kid was killed by Iraqis, a traffic accident, drowned in a pool, or was just playing dead for the camera. That concern is entirely separate of legal issues with claiming copyright knowledge of someone else's work as your own. Anynobody 02:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I don't think using {{GFDL}} implies self-made. If you were copying someone else's GFDL release, wouldn't you use that template? Rwendland (talk) 03:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! That's right it's not just a Wikipedia thing, still if it is GFDL from somewhere else, why not simply provide a link to where we can verify that like this one for an image I created where it clearly identifies GFDL? (Answer I don't think a link can be found saying this image was released by its creator under GFDL based on the explanation given:As Iran has not ratified any of the international copyright treaties, Iranian copyright is not recognised in the U.S., see Iran and copyright issues,... It sounds kinda like it wasn't released under the GFDL.) Anynobody 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC) (PS I realize the site claims to have released the image under GFDL, but then again as I've pointed out before it releases pictures taken from the TV under GFDL, which is why I say a link to the image's creator not sajeed/ir) Anynobody 06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A valid possibility is that the original is public-domain for some reason (eg like US govt photos/film are public domain), and sajeed.ir added watermark then released modified version under GFDL. Finding originals on the web isn't always possible (maybe it was a TV screenshot). So I think there are possible good explanations here - hence a full deletion review is better. Rwendland (talk) 10:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

<sorry this is so late> Don't get me wrong, I'm usually willing to give the benefit of doubt, but not when I know they're screwing up on the same issue with different images in their gallery. Note the images in this CNN article:are credited to the Int'l solidarity movement and AP Here we have the same pictures, credited to sajed.ir, Bottom CNN photo and Top CNN photo, for those who may not understand, one cannot release another's work as GFDL which is essentially what sajed.ir is doing with these photos unless they can show that person who created it really did release their work as GFDL. Anynobody 04:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Awarded?

How could the crew on the aircraft carrier been awarded for shooting down an civil passenger jet.Wouldn`t they be triald for murder instead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.144.148 (talk) 14:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, politics. (PS it was a missile cruiser, not a carrier and you're more likely to get an in depth answer to such questions at the Wikipedia:Reference desk) Anynobody 04:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Those awards are typically given out at the end of a deployment. Since the Navy maintains that Captain Rogers did nothing wrong, to not give them out would weaken their position. It did give Iran a tremendous propaganda point however.Seaphoto^Talk 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Or they didn't shoot it down. Does it make any sense to award the crew, unless they had to take the blame for something they didn't do. Why would we take the blame? To take the blame off of somebody else probably. Why I don't know, to hide the fact that someone else was in the war, or to get a very big "I owe you" from someone who couldn't take the blame or that Iran would have smacked down for the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.181.173 (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there is nothing wrong with going into a country's waters and shooting down their passenger planes in their airspace. They did a great job. Awards can only mean that this wasn't accidental but on purpose.

In 1996 the United States agreed to pay US$61.8 million in compensation for the 254 Iranians killed ($300,000 per wage-earning victim, $150,000 per non-wage-earner). In 2002 Libya paid $2.7 billion for Pan Am Flight 103 that had 270 people killed in the Lockerbie bombing, (US$10 million per person). Is the life of an American worth 33 times more than a wage-earner Iranian and 66 times more than a non-wage-earner Iranian (i.e. women and children)? 88.97.164.254 (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is getting stupid... The Vincennes Captian and Crew were NOT awarded an award for this incident. No award exists which references the downing of IAF 655; they were cleared of any wrong doing and later in their careers they got unrelated medals. All this talk about medals is intentionally misleading; give a citation proving otherwise or stop these claims. HckyTwn (talk) 00:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the medals section as I believe it is misleading. The crew being awarded medals has absolutely nothing to do with the shooting down of the civilian aircraft, and is instead related to their tour as a whole. Having this section makes readers assume the crew was directly awarded for this particular incident, which is misleading. --Ridiculous Little Machine (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of the section was about the CARs received by the whole crew. That part was indeed hardly related to the indicent and misleading. However, most of the rest of the section, which I'm restoring, is actually related to the shooting. At least, according to what I read - I would wish to learn it isn't. There is uncertainty about Lustig's medal, but that was already noted in the article. --Chealer (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

BBC Documentary

diff

A paragraph stating that the plane not only changed course away from CG-49 but was still shot down anyway has been introduced. In it these facts are said to have come from a 2002 BBC documentary. This isn't sourcing, in order to be called a source it should be cited which necessitates more information: what was the documentary called? When was it made? Who made it? (The BBC both makes and shows others documentaries) etc. Anynobody 00:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The documentary was called The Other Lockerbie and was produced in-house by the BBC. It was first shown on 17 April 2000, not 2002. I have it on tape somewhere, and while I haven't watched it for a few years, I'm presuming this is the programme referred to. Nick Cooper (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't think this is especially new information. The IATA/DOD data shows IR655 was heading more directly toward the Montgomery rather than the Vincennes, and Vincennes was on a vector moving further away from the flight path. Turning-away is the wrong word though, I think IR655 was flying in a straight line, just the flight path was not directly toward Vincennes. This vector data is mapped pretty well in the 1990 Iranian ICJ submission on page 68 (79 in acrobat)[20], this page upside down in this scan though! From the map it seems IR655 would have passed about 4 nautical miles off the port side of the Vincennes, but almost right over the Montgomery. Rwendland (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Turning away would almost definitely be the wrong way to put it, as you are correct it (Flight 655) was on course and not maneuvering. However I suppose it wouldn't surprise me if the documentary did turn out to say that. Anynobody 05:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this is actually a very important point for the article, ideally with a second source to confirm the Iranian map (though the U.S. did not contend this map in their ICJ response - I think it simply plots U.S./IATA data). It would be great if a Wikipedia mapping hero would independently create a GFDL detailed map of the incident from the DOD/IATA/Iranian data, it would greatly help understand this incident. If ICJ submissions are public domain (cannot work this out), taking the Iranian map would be a possibility. Rwendland (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

According to http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ (see "special cases" section), works from Iraq are "Not protected by US copyright law because they are not party to international copyright agreements." So we should be able to use the map from the filing.--agr (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"Speedy deletion" of Iranian Injured kid image

Although the result of disscusion about the "licence" was to keep the image ,but the parctical result was to delete it in a ultra-fast manner : The image was free to use.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We only have your word to back that though, and the closing admin's salient point that ...The image may be in the public domain, or it may be GFDL, or failing that it may even be fair use.... which it may very well be. If so there should be a way for us English speakers to verify. Don't get me wrong, if this picture was on the cover of Time/Newsweek or the like I'd be happy to discuss a Fair Use rationale. Instead we have an image that comes from a site which doesn't even give a caption in English of what the reader is looking at exactly, and even if it did, we don't know who's picture it is. You can't assume that because it comes from an Iranian site that the person who took it was Iranian, what if it's a photo taken by a journalist from a country that does recognize international copyright and its owner wants to sue. I'm sorry to say that we'd (Wikipedia) be the ones dealing with the law since I doubt Iran would rush to help compensate some photographer because an Iranian website displayed and watermarked his/her picture. Anynobody 05:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• The deleting admin changed his opinion and revert his deletion.But about the copyright problem , it was previously disscused and the overall result was that the image does not have a copyright problem Over all result:Keep .In this case , is copyright paranoia an excuse for censorship?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sajed.ir as a reliable source?

Separate from the issue regarding our disputed image is whether the site could be cited as a source. I don't think it should be, but since there are those who disagree they should explain why at the Reliable sources noticeboard Anynobody 01:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been a systematic effort to censor that image , first by doubting it's copyright license , then by it's claimed Unencyclopedicity and now by it's reliability. That's a picture released by an official source (a part of Iranian government) and the overall effort of the opponents is based on denying the reliability of a government (Iran). I'm not asking to believe anything that governments say or show, but deleting official statements of the governments with the rules that Wikipedia deletes the web logs or ordinary people's comments is impossible. If the opposing party thinks Iranian government is lying, they can add their comment to the text or their source to oppose it, but they can't simply omit the official Iranian government statement as it is "un reliable"! Last day , I send an e-mail to that site and discussed the problem here , their response was as fallows :

"Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 10:34:20 +0330 /From: "Sajed Info" <info@sajed.ir> /To: aft19701357@yahoo.com /Subject: Re: NewComment /salam /shoma bayad be safheh marboot be ax link bedid va estenad konid be inkeh in ax tavashote www.sajed.ir kharidari shodeh hamrah ba haghe enteshare electroniki on dar web "

That translates as :

" Hi, you may link them to the (Sajed)page and allege to the fact that photo is purchased by the Sajed and its free permission for distribution on the web"

Again I connect them via phone number ((++98) (+21) 88346474) and discuss the matter that they does not believe on reliability of your photo, and that although I have linked to the page , but there is still denial against it : they said they will add the name of the photographer and the caption (in english and Persian) to that page.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Alborz Fallah. Sir. (You 'called them'?) You cannot just “make” any site you want into a RS. (off-subject concept but relevant here: the “Iranian Government” also denies that the holocaust happened, but that does not mean that everyone should believe it). It appears obvious to anyone here that the fight to push the photo of the dead little girl into this article is for propaganda purposes, and not for the truth in reporting. And surely not to add a quality contribution to the article. The same exact rejection will take place if I go to the Abortion article, and attempt to upload a clear photograph of a dead human fetus, blood smeared, and from a questionable source. Do not continue to re-add this photo. The photo will be deleted again. There are plenty of other websites where you can show it. The photo is better suited to be displayed in some Weblog (blog) somewhere, but not in an encyclopedia. Bwebb00 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ms./Mr. Bwebb00. Madam/Sir. I am afraid one may differ on the interpretation of Alborz Fallah's work, and observe it as a genion effort to enhance quality of encyclopedia with a picture which depicts the extent of incident. One might see efforts toward deletation of picture as plain efforts of censorship and cover up. Farmanesh (talk) 23:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bwebb00,the nature of abortion is different with shutting down a civilian airliner. If someone uses a picture in an article about an ordinary act to shock the reader, that would be wrong, but no one in no occasion, considers shutting down an airliner normal. US military is a power that perhaps has no match and there is no other way to prevent it from causing civilian damage other than showing and stressing the bitter outcome: Please don't deprive us(-possible next target!-) from this only remaining runaway. In the touchy environment of the Persian Gulf, deploying the military might of a superpower is equal to a bull in a china store. And to add , "the article about holocaust also has unpleasant photos"!. Thank you.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is: How do we know the girl in the photo is an airliner crash victim? - Was this photo used by other sources? WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I really appreciate the response on this thread, but it seems like Alborz Fallah has misunderstood the reason why I nominated the site to WP:RSN. It was because of its other content: Like the article constantly referring to the ship as U.S.S. Vincent. It's easy to imagine someone wanting to cite this gem and figured I'd "head 'em off at the pass." (This doesn't mean I've accepted the photo, far from it, it just means that I mean the rest of sajed.ir.) Anynobody 04:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the image because we do not know for sure if the girl is actually an IR655 victim. If the picture has appeared elsewhere in a reliable source I would add it back. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't even know if the subject in the image is a girl. As for the USS Vincent issue, I don't know if that speaks to reliability or just a bad translation. If this was an official government website, they would have translated it correctly and properly captioned the image. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an active discussion about it, I am not sure just unilatlary deciding upon it is the best way. If this girl is not a vistim of this incident then why her picture is in this gallery? It is not a gallery of random picture. It has a specified/mentioned subject. If you belive this picture is from anything other than the mentioned subject then you need to bring proof. It has a clear subject for the gallery.Farmanesh (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(Dual Freq did you get a look at the title? There are too many issues with it and the others for me to list. I honestly don't think it's a mistranslation so much as a slip of whoever's memory who wrote it, irregardless the point is it's wrong in that no other source calls the ship that. Had the New York Times or another WP:RS made that mistake we'd be stuck with it.)

Farmanesh this isn't about believe/don't believe so much as know/don't know. I understand you are stuck on the fact that some admin didn't care about its status at WP:PUI and "kept" it. What you seem to be misunderstanding is that being "kept" at WP:PUI is like a criminal being found innocent of a crime at the hospital. It means nothing because the hospital doesn't determine guilt or innocence just like Possibly Unfree Images doesn't determine if an image is deleted. (In the example a person saying they were found innocent at the hospital isn't going to carry much weight in court, the same way pointing out that someone at PUI said to keep it on Images for Deletion isn't really an argument.) Anynobody 05:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I enjoyed your anology. I think before changing the picture here, we should wait for the discussion we are having on the deletation of the picture (in the image deletation page) to reach an end. Unilatraly deleting the picture here would not be helpful when we have an active discussion there. Farmanesh (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• Summary of the "doubt section" until now:
  A-The reference "Sajed.ir" could not be cited as a source :Anynobody
  B-The picture is for propaganda purposes, and not for the truth in reporting [and is offensive] :Bwebb00
  C-How do we know the girl in the photo is an airliner crash victim? :WhisperToMe
  D-The site "Sajed.ir" is has errors :referring to the ship as U.S.S. Vincent instead of Vincennes :Anynobody,"If this was an official government website, they would have translated it correctly and properly captioned the image:Dual Freq
• Answers:
  A- "Sajed.ir" is a governmental website ,it is not a Self-published source. As it clearly written on it's logo(in any page), that is "Imposed War official website", A governmental claim can be wrong , but the tool for doubting it is not simply deleting it. You can add a section and state your doubt about the genuineity of the picture, but not to delete it.
  B-If a picture is real, by itself it can't be propaganda. I think that picture is extremely offensive , but being offensive is not a reason for not showing it.
  C-It is written on that page in Persian, if you mean you deny the Persian text ,please read section A
  D- Using wrong words does not change the legal status of the user : do you think when George W. Bush uses a wrong word , his nuclear point of view is invalid?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We don't even know if the subject in the image is a girl or has anything to do with Iran Air 655. Uncaptioned, unsourced images are unencyclopedic. We can't play guess the caption games, we don't know what this image depicts, who it depicts, who took the photo or any other thing about this image. All we know is the least important part, that it came from a very low quality web gallery that you claim is the Iranian government. Anyone can call their website the official webpage of whatever. Why would an official Iranian government website about the Iraq-Iran war have a section about Rachel Corrie? What does her death have to do with the war and the holy defense of Iran? What does Bush have to do with this? Are you saying that he runs this website now? --Dual Freq (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• It has caption.But in Persian!

  :"The American warship's attack on Iranian plane" "حمله نظامی ناو آمریکائی به هواپیما ایرباس جمهوری اسلامی ایران"

  But the source is unknown.Are historical pictures with unknown source prohabited to use? I mean do you think this picture is unencyclopedic?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a caption, that's the name of the gallery that its in. We don't know what this is a picture of, that make this image unencyclopedic. For all we know they placed it in the wrong gallery, since there is no caption, we do not know who or what it is. Nominate the other image for deletion if you have a problem with it, there are thousands of poorly sourced and improperly licensed images awaiting deletion. Its a big problem in wikipedia not an excuse to keep this image, see also Red herring. --Dual Freq (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Folks, really I meant for this section to be about the other content at the site relating to this incident. Even if the site is found to be an unreliable source that wouldn't necessarily disqualify the image as it's hosted content. For example, regarding the shoot down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 there is a website pushing the view that there were survivors and the Russians still have em. That site is totally unreliable because it puts forward a theory not accepted by mainstream sources, so citing its POV would be inappropriate. However it does have images and documents which can be verified and as such are acceptable in their original context. The site in question includes this image of a letter sent by Senator Jessie Helms to Boris Yeltsin. As it turns out this image has proven to be useless, but if it had a use then citing the image alone is ok. That's the same deal with this picture, sajed.ir could be unreliable and still the photo wouldn't be disqualified because of it. Anynobody 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, maybe it would be easier if I showed you an example of a site affiliated (or at least claiming it) with a foreign government, for you to see what I'm hoping for: A German site that's partnered with the German government or even better still a German government site. Note that it's in English, for the most part and at the bottom says:©2008 The Press and Information Office of the Federal Government Anynobody 05:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Even better: Iranian government site:© Copyright 2007 Presidency of The Islamic Republic of Iran. All Rights Reserved Anynobody 05:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a good progress ! Do you mean If I show that site is a governmental site , then there will be no problem ? As you can see , the site of Iranian Presidency adds no tag of "Iranian government" , in the case of sajed.ir,that is exactly the same as the site of Iranian Presidency :The site of Iranian presidency does not says it is a part of Iranian government , same as the sajed. The word "SAJED" itself is a syllabic abbreviation of "SAite Jameh-E Defaye moghadass (All including site of holy defense).It's so clear that is a part of Iranian government as it has been written here : [21].Or you can simply use google:General Mir-Faisal Bagherzadeh+Sacred Defense Foundation--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah You don't seem to understand, Iranian Presidency adds no tag of "Iranian government". The President is part of the Iranian government right? By saying that, in English it's "tagging" itself as an Iranian government site. Also it appears that the Iranian government does not grant free license like the US government does, note at the bottom, © Copyright 2007 Presidency of The Islamic Republic of Iran. All Rights Reserved means we need permission from them to use their images/etc. Yet you'd have us believe that another part of the Iranian government doesn't reserve its copyrights? Doesn't exactly make sense to me, so to summarize here's why the actual Iranian government site makes sajed.ir look even less reliable:

• 1) Unlike the President's site, sajed.ir is not in English and doesn't even mention what part of the government it's supposedly affiliated with.
• 2) Instead of allowing free use of its material, the actual government site restricts such use without a license from them. The "government" site you cite does, generally governments are consistent in this kind of thing so I'm going to assume the Iranian President's site is more accurate as far as government copyright policy.

If sajed.ir was anything like the president's site we'd be able to confirm the assertions you've been making. Anynobody 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• "The President is part of the Iranian government right? By saying that, in English its "tagging" itself as an Iranian government site."
  Yes, The president is a part of the government .But it's "unspoken tagging" is the same as "SAJED": as president's site don't call itself as a part of Iranian government ,the branch of FRHDMPSVP also don't call itself a part of government in the same way.
  Instead of allowing free use of its material, the actual government site restricts such use without a license from them.But whole purpose of building this site (Sajed) is to propagate the victims of war. That's different with the president site. More than that, the site does restrict the usage other than on Internet or electronic use(e-use).

On the photo and NPOV

I think, but could be wrong, that everyone disputing this image has a concern we've been relatively quiet about, NPOV. I know I have, mostly because I couldn't think of an example image going the other way, needless POV against a group attacking the US. Then I happened upon verifiable US government images of an even more disturbing nature on 9/11, but you don't see any of them* in that article do you? Why not? Because it's assumed people will be horribly mangled in an occurrence like this, just the same as we can assume children died when a commercial airliner was shot down. (*Actual photos, uncensored of 9/11 victims so I must be emphatic don't click on these links if you mind real gore: Photo showing part of a 9/11 victim on the street below the WTC or this victim inside the Pentagon.

It's pretty obvious that the intent is to evoke an emotional response, known as a bias, which is exactly what WP:NPOV says not to do. Anynobody 05:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Good summary. I agree that the image of that child was probably released for propaganda purposes, specifically to invoke an emotive response, and that it's therefore POV. Further, I don't see how this image contributes to the appearance, structure or concept of this article as per Choosing appropriate illustrations. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much :), cool sig BTW Anynobody 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of full disclosure I planned on giving 24 hours for pro-image editors to respond to this point (NPOV) before I remove the image when I created this thread. I still do, but given the contentious nature of the image I felt it would be best to give a heads up on my intentions a few hours early rather than pointing out after removing it that 24 hours have gone by without a response. Anynobody 23:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the image, as a compromise, I can live with, but won't defend a link to sajed.ir in the external links section. Anynobody 05:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, as I said before, an image by itself can't be propaganda.A photo is a natural record of an event:how can it be propaganda?!

  Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist

  In showing a picture , how can anyone manipulate cognition of someone else?! Is it correct to say " When we see oxygen and Hydrogen combine to form water , that is a propaganda for the idea that water is formed by combination of oxygen and Hydrogen?"--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

And why there is no similar images on 9/11 pages. That's because the difference between actual and perceptual (mental image of) idea of the "power of self-defense" in American vs. Iranian mentality. The American mind thinks it can and have to prevent such bitter events by using military force , and the Iranian mind think it have to (or have no other way than to) provoke the other side's intentions. Do you think if the preventive power (military power) of Iranian side was strong as the American, would they ever publish such images(of their slain kids)?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah I didn't say it was propaganda, I said it serves no purpose but to evoke an emotional response, known as a bias, however I can answer your question because I agree that it is being used for that purpose: A photo is a natural record of an event:how can it be propaganda?! Here's how: 2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies, if a photo is claiming to be something it's not or has been set up/manipulated

And why there is no similar images on 9/11 pages. That's because the difference between actual and perceptual (mental image of) idea of the "power of self-defense" in American vs. Iranian mentality. You missed the point on this entirely if you were trying to explain why emotion provoking images aren't included in the 9/11 article, but I'll use your argument to prove my point. Essentially you're saying Iran is symbolized by the kid right? I'm sorry to have to be so blunt but that's just ridiculous wrong for several reasons:

• 1 Trying to symbolize a country's plight in the image of a dead kid is doing exactly what I said before, evoke an emotional response, and make people feel sorry for Iran through the kid creating a bias. Adding bias is what WP:NPOV is supposed to prevent.
• 2 Let's assume NPOV wasn't an issue of concern, I haven't seen any sources discussing Iran as an innocent child being tormented by the US, and unless one can be cited, the whole idea is nothing but your original research which is also another problem we have rules specifically addressing.
• 3 Assuming NPOV and OR weren't better reasons to exclude the image, which they are, there's the matter of how appropriate a message like that is for an encyclopedia. This isn't art or literature, it's for presenting facts only and not imparting a message.

To be clear, the reason those pictures don't appear on the 9/11 article, or those like the Lockerbie Bombing is because there is no purpose to such images except to engender negative feelings toward one side or another. It has nothing to do with mental images and everything to do with the rules. Anynobody 23:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• "I said it serves no purpose but to evoke an emotional response, known as a bias"
  Indeed the whole process of communication is related to the emotional response of the reader .If the artticle was going to be only a report of casualties without any emotion,that should be a brief report of annual death. I think "evoking an emotional response" -without manipulating the truth of the data- is not only acceptable, but also is the main goal of publishing any article.
  The example of "2006 Lebanon War photographs controversies" covers allegations over manipulating the original information, and not simply "showing" them without any change: None of the alleged "Photo manipulation", "staging by press photographers", "photo staging by others" and " improper captioning" is the subject of our debate here: if you either think publishing information – 'without manipulation' – can be propaganda or can be subject of unacceptable emotional response, you are wrong! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• "Essentially you're saying Iran is symbolized by the kid right?"
  Did I say that? I don't think so, but if I could not correctly transfer my idea , let me say it again: if such pictures didn't appear on 9/11 articles, the purpose was that the damaged side (American), had no practical benefit to show them: the terrorist group wished to horrify American society to achieve what they want by changing the people's opinion with frightening them: no superior power existed to get it's support or change it's opposition;and showing the images would back-fire.
  About that alleged "Symbolism", I think an Encyclopedia is supposed to show several different aspects of an event: the word Encyclopedia means "a well rounded education"-and not only a report! -. The emotional impact of an event is a inseparable part of it, and any photo in any article shows emotional information that can't be said on the text or speech .As your (English) proverb says, "A picture is worth a thousand words". That's the sole purpose of using any photo! So why can it be NPOV or OR ?! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed the whole process of communication is related to the emotional response of the reader. Not here though, we're supposed to write from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. that is straight from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. In other words according to the rules, you are (and I'm not getting any pleasure from saying this) dead wrong in your opinion:I think "evoking an emotional response" -without manipulating the truth of the data- is not only acceptable, but also is the main goal of publishing any article.

There is also another major problem with your rationale, illustrated in your reason why the bloody 9/11 aren't in those articles, which you say is because the damaged side (American), had no practical benefit to show them:
This is also very incorrect when talking about how we're supposed to edit an encyclopedia with a neutral tone because factors like each side's practical benefit is not what we're addressing.

The point is that there is no educational reason for including the picture, and when the page is available again I'm going to remove it again. It's not because of any personal grudge but simply because the rules say it doesn't belong there, and despite what you and Farmanesh think it's not just myself that had been removing the image:

• Editor 1
• Editor 2
• Editor 3
• Editor 4
• Supported by editor 5

Anynobody 03:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Sure we are supposed to write from a "neutral point of view"! But I'm mentioning "motivation" , "reasoning" and such a things in dedication of information! and not applying it to the written section.I mean when we show a picture , it's unpreventable to have a reason to show that, but if we [mis]interpret it,or write our point of view under it , that can be wrong . I think NPOV is not applicable to any picture without caption.The picture is the event itself ! How can it be someone's point of view??!--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• When I use practical benefit, I mean the motivation. One: There is no "practical benefit", then Two: there is no motivation, then Three: no one puts the picture of 9/11 victims in the article. If nobody adds the images of 9/11 victims to the Wikipedia article that does not means the same image should not be added to Flight IR-655: they are not same events, and they are not comparable. The contributors are different and also their reasons. It's not out of law (Wikipedia's law) to have different reasons(motivations), but the limits have to be fulfilled (NPOV in writing , and not in thinking -which is impossible !- ).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• If you think there is no educational reason for including the picture, that's because your personal point of view about the "education" is different with us. I think education in a traumatic event means to know the causes and the damages. When the damage is enormous, the educational text may have sections to motivate the persons who can prevent it.
  You said: "when the page is available again I'm going to remove it again". Please don't do it without discussion." Protecting" it means indeed the premature editing of it was against the correct procedure of editing the article.
  The editors number 1 to 4, themselves can express their opinion and if they don't participate in the talk page , that may mean they are satisfied and now they have no problem with the current form! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

What just resulted in this rush?

Why in past day you have started deleting the picture? Why are we not waiting to get to a conclusion on the 'request for deletation' page? Unilateral, imature and abropt attemps to deletation would just result in an instable article. Please wait until that discussion reaches a conclusion. Patient is key when dealing with encyclopedic work. Come to think of, patient would have saved the life of the passengers of that airplane too. Farmanesh (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Why in past day you have started deleting the picture? Please don't confuse deleting an image from Wikipedia with not using one.

Your edit summary implied that you had an argument to refute the POV nature of this image:It is your POV. The concerns have been answered adequetly. Regardless, there is an active 'request for deletation' going on for this picture, why you insist in fast deletation now?) With all due respect the concerns about this image's effect on POV have not been addressed adequately so if you believe you can do so then please address the points made in the section above.

To sum up; whether the image is deleted or not has no bearing on whether it's used in this article. (Images without articles become orphaned images.) Anynobody 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It does have direct impact. Have a look to discussion we had there: Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg

All people involved in this discussion have stated their full opinion there in a fair process. If you happen to respect the process and don't want just what your own POV, you should wait for the process to end.

Why do you want to unilaterlary do this? Why are you starting an edit war while we have a process going on and a civil discussion. This kind of impaitent have always resulted in indesirable outcome like the very incident this article is about. Farmanesh (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again you're missing the point, have a look at Category:Orphan images, these are images which haven't been deleted but aren't used in articles either. I realize this has been difficult to understand but there are actually two issues here:

• 1 Should the image be kept on Wikipedia? (Which is what the discussion you're referring to is about)
• 2 Should the image be used in this article? (Which is what we're talking about here.)

So essentially my point is whether or not it's deleted it shouldn't be in the article. As I've always said it needs to be deleted because sajed.ir is a disaster as far as copyright goes, and it shouldn't be used here because of issues with NPOV, OR, language, accuracy, etc. Anynobody 03:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• But the deletion of the picture is claimed to be based on the topics that are under process of discussion ! More than that, not only the debate is going on that pages, but also the independent deletion of the image still needs discussion , that is going on here, then why when the debate is going on in all sides, you delete it by edit waring?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Why don't you answer the arguments with reference to Wikipedia policy, precedent, and guidelines, then? That's the only debate that people who want to improve Wikipedia are willing to accept. John Nevard (talk) 12:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• If you mean me , please mention the exact point : As the debate is getting prolonged, it's difficult to know which point is clear and which one is obscure. Thank you, --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Farmanesh I have to call you out on accusing me of edit warring because Alborz Fallah seems to think you're right. To the contrary I've posted here pretty much every time I removed the image. Plus you're ignoring the fact that I'm one of at least six editors on record either removing it or acknowledging that it violates WP:NPOV. Then you actually hid the fact I was indeed discussing why the removal is/was the correct thing to do, ignored the other editors opinions, and requested the page be protected with the controversial image still in it. That's the behavior of someone edit warring.

Alborz Fallah my point was that there are two separate issues here which you appear to have combined; maybe it would be easier if I illustrated the difference.

Deleting Image:Vincennes shot.jpg from Wikipedia	Use of Image:Vincennes shot.jpg in Iran Air Flight 655 (which is what we're supposed to discuss here)
Numerous copyright concerns as discussed on Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 February 29#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg	Blatant POV problems associated with including a victim simply because they are a child

I think John Nevard was referring to the fact your response was to cite the fact that the image is up for deletion AND being removed from the article as though they were connected without citing any rules supporting that assertion. Anynobody 04:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well , don't you think both of that separate issues need discussion? If the second group ( I mean the claim of blatant POV problems ) has a discussion section , would you kindly show me where is it and where is consensus? or if there were no such consensus , where is the opinion of the admin or the third party or ....?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFC on WP:NPOV implications of Image:Vincennes shot.jpg

Alborz Fallah and Farmanesh appear to think that those arguing the image violates our rule about neutral point of view are wrong. The basic point is that encyclopedias are supposed to be as unemotional as possible to avoid introducing excessive bias. Including an image like this is emotional, and thus only serves to increase bias in my opinion but let's see what others think. Anynobody 04:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Remove the image immediately unless they prove that the image IS of an IR655 victim. Even if that is an IR655 victim, it is still better to remove it, I think. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't second guess yourself ;) You're right that even if it is indeed a victim, which is indeed up for debate, it doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose here. It'd be like including the photo of remains on a New York street in the 9/11 article. (All it would do is either gross out or piss off people, two things an encyclopedia is supposed to avoid.) Anynobody 05:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that the image is being debated but we need to take a guilty until proven innocent approach. Let's remove the image NOW and only add it back if there is a consensus to add it. NPOV is taken seriously so by using NPOV we should remove the image immediately unless and until we get a consensus to add it. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If we had a positive identification of the individual, there we no BLP implications, and the image was used to specifically address and illustrate specific passages in the text, under NPOV we'd probably have to include this image. All baggage of any sort gets checked at the door when we log in. Lawrence § t/e 14:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Anyway, I am thinking of removing the image now (I am an admin) but I want to know if any other admins think that I should leave the image until a decision comes. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is an alternative image being discussed on the IfD page that includes a sign giving the victim's name. But there is no reason to assume the current image isn't authentic. And many articles on Wikipedia include images of dead victims to illustrate the significance of what happened. Here are a few examples: Battle of Gettysburg, My Lai Massacre, Battle of the Bulge, Srebrenica massacre, Holocaust, Mass graves in Iraq. There are no doubt many more.--agr (talk) 15:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the alternative image (I'm not quite sure where it is) - Also, several people quite frankly do not trust Sajed.ir so it becomes a "guilty until proven innocent" - the image is of someone, but how do we know it is an IR655 victim? Also, how did the girl stay intact? I forget if IR655 disintegrated in midair or if IR655 crashed in one piece, but wouldn't either scenario mutilate the bodies of the passengers? The only reason why Diana Kaloyeva of Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937 stayed intact is that the trees broke her fall. We can keep the alternative especially if we can find references to her in press reports of IR655. I'm still unsure about usage within IR655 - Maybe say "parents allowed for this to be release to protest the shootdown" ? I do not mind showing debris from the airliner, though. Maybe that image is the best. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is a link to the alternate image:[http://www.sajed.ir/pe/component/option,com_ponygallery/Itemid,4/func,detail/id,5223/#ponyimg} That "several people quite frankly do not trust Sajed.ir" is not a basis for excluding the image; nor is speculation about bodies being recovered intact. --agr (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If Sajed.ir is unreliable (and people are saying it is), then how do we know that the girl is REALLY an IR655 victim? See the problem? Arnold Reinhold, the principle of guilty until proven innocent ought to be used in this case. Now, regarding "speculation about bodies being recovered intact" I would like a source. The solution, AGR, is to use images from other sources - hopefully Iranian newspapers that are considered reliable will have these images in archives. Surely some reliable source has to have something that is definitely an IR655 victim. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

WhisperToMe it appears you are just having a POV regarding the credibility of that website. If you look to the deletation discussion I have provided a detailed description with links with the notion that this is a government website dedicated to this historical work. At least I think you need to bring your claim why it is not credible, is it just b/c you don't know that part of the world or you have POV not trusting them or...? Farmanesh (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

As Dual Freq said the website does not actually say it is a government site. If it was a government site it should say so in English. If it was a government site then I could take its word for it. The site does not even mention what department or ministry it is associated with. I read the talk pages. Guilty until proven innocent. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

In general we accept government web sites as reliable sources. Here it seems highly unlikely that the Iranian government would have so much disrespect for their own dead that they would use phony photos when they undoubtedly have real ones available. Again, my suggestion is to use the alternate image which gives the victim's name and is attributed to Iranian broadcasting.--agr (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

See above :) WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you missed one 'comment and clarification' I made on image deletation page. I went into details showing where on website they establish their conection with government. Please have a look and provide feedback. Also may I know which part of wiki policy says "Guilty until proven innocent.", that is news to me. Farmanesh (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Iranian parliament government funding bit? If so, as Dual Freq said, the Iranian government may give money to a group, but that doesn't mean the Iranian government controls the group. In any event the group ought to mention its connection to the Iranian government explicitly on its website. - If not, what are you referring to? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia:Verifiability operates in a guilty-until-proven-innocent manner - Unless information is verified, it cannot be used. If the information cannot be verified, regardless of whether or not it is true, it cannot be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Verified means providing a published source, which has been done. The site claims to be an official war memorial web site run by "The Foundation for the Remembrance of The Holy Defence’s Monument Preservation and Sacred Values Propagation" and I see no reason to doubt that. --agr (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I am refering to fifth section of the talk titles "Comment and clarification: Few clarifications" signed by me at the end of it.

Agr said it right, we have a source and in refered clarification I have made clear further reasonings. Farmanesh (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the about page and I know the name of the group that wrote it. Anyway, how is this official? Official in terms of the family members? The group name of the site has almost no Google hits (the only ones I see are Wikipedia hits). The main point of WP:V is that it asks for Reliable sources. How do we know that this site is reliable? "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources." - So how do we know Sajed.ir has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? This is especially important as this is a controversial subject. Also said that sources should directly support the information and that exceptional claims need exceptional sources. In short: Wikipedia has high standards. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you please read the description I gave too? If you want I can copy/paste them here. I established that this website belongs to a government foundation directly in charge of this type of historical matters relating to the war in the time. As far as it goes for Iran this is the official government source for these material. Farmanesh (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see - The desc from Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_29#Image:Vincennes_shot.jpg - I read it, but there still seems to be doubt over whether sajed.ir gets money from the government or if it is controlled by the government as well - There may be the same person in charge, but that doesn't mean it IS a part of the government. Also, Anynobody had already answered the description and also pointed out usage of CNN images that are copyrighted by CNN and not by Sajed, but Sajed claims it has copyright. As pointed out elsewhere Sajed does not identify images taken from elsewhere and we still do not have a clear, definitive proof that the image IS of an IR655 girl. That is the crux of the issue. WP:V asks for a source that directly sources the information, and all I see are indirect relations and what ifs. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reading it, at least now we have established the link and it is not just 'any website' anymore. It claerly says on the about page it belongs to that gov foundation and the nature of gov in countries like Iran is not just funding stuff, they do control things directly. About other pictures, do we go over every picture and text in any gov website that we use in wikipedia and analyse the whole website before accepting what they clearly claim as GDFL? We have a referenced picture here from a gov owned website. I doubt if we want to be detective on any developing country (and probably developed ones too) website we would not find something to point finger on. It appears there is a double standard being implemented here. Farmanesh (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I (and Anynobody, etc.) scrutinized this source because it seems unreliable (improper image use, etc.), not because of its national origins. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I am happy to hear that and I didn't expect anything else. Your scrutiny is well grounded when you say the image doesn't have enough info with it. Considering this claim 'Agr' (and others apparently) have suggested to substitute the next image which has the full name and info which seems to be reasonable as our goal is to enhance the encyclopedia not to just be fixated on one picture. Farmanesh (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

As a note, someone uploaded an image of a body being removed from SQ006 and rows of coffins with grieving families here - Singapore Airlines Flight 006-- - The images come from a Chinese-language Singaporean newspaper called the Lianhe Zaobao - Plus they are irreplaceable (they had to do with SQ006, there are no free alternatives, cannot be reproduced) - And there is actually a section about repatriation of bodies. That is how these images of the dead fit. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• The title of this discussion is comment on NPOV. My personal idea is that a picture without a text is a reflection of the event itself and contains no points of views: when it does not have any points of view, how can it be "not neutral"?
  The reliability of the source is other than " WP:NPOV implications of Image" and I don't know are we going to talk about it here , but in brief , that's a publication of an official site of a government , and if the opposite party thinks the Iranian government is wrong , it may include it's opinion alongside the text , but not to omit the whole section with the tools that are deployed in wikipedia to delete the personal views(and not the governmental views) of the sources...--Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah what you don't understand is that your personal idea is that a picture without a text is a reflection of the event itself and contains no points of views is wrong as far as how Wikipedia defines NPOV. Here we, and I quote NPOV directly including added emphasis, Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. There are no facts to be gleaned from this image, 1) we haven't a clue who this person was/is and as a result 2) we don't even know if they're dead, 3) were a victim in Iran Air Flight 655 or 4) was some kid beaten by their parents, 6) siblings, 7)-99999) whoever because we have nothing that says what we're looking at, exactly. (I understand English may not be your strongest suit so to be perfectly clear what I'm saying here is totally separate of knowing who took the photo which is a copyright concern, instead I'm talking about who's in the photo.) Anynobody 05:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Repeating the sentence "You don't understand" ,does not affirm your point of view. Here we have TWO separate debates: One "Is the image reliable?" Two "If it is reliable, can we use it in this article or not?".
Question number One contains topics that you are mentioning e.g. 1) who this person was 2) If is she dead? 3) Is she a victim of Iran Air Flight 655? 4 to 9999999) other causes did this? BUT, Question number Two discuss about if all of the answers of part one is clear, can we use the image in this article or not? This section (question Two) contains topics like this: 1) Evoking an emotional response is a bias, and then using this evoking image is against NPOV. 2) That picture is unencyclopedic 3) Using that image has no educative value 4) The image is harsh, cruel and/or unmoral to use 5) Same articles (e.g. About 9/11) did not used such an image.
When we are debating about this separate questions , you may not switch between two questions.The subject of this especial section on talk page is about "WP:NPOV implications of Image";that is a part of question number Two - and not question number one! - then please don't swing between the topics by inserting that "You don't understand" sentence! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You said repeating "You don't understand" ,does not affirm your point of view. It's not meant to, it is actually meant to point out that you've obviously not read or understood our rules when you support an argument about content by describing your own personal idea on why the image belongs here. (Essentially if we were playing football you'd be running around with the ball in your hands arguing with the referee trying to explain that you're not playing correctly.) It's further illustrated by your replies:

you may not switch between two questions. I'm actually not, if we can't establish the kid was even on flight 655 then having it in this article to symbolize the incident seems completely pro-Iranian POV because the image is trying to evoke sympathy for someone who didn't die in the shoot down.

Switching implies that I'm not still standing behind the assertion including the image is like including the victim chunks from 9/11 in those articles. I do, but your argument about it "having no benefit" for the US was another example of how little you understand the concept of a neutral point of view since a neutral view doesn't take any side's "benefit" into account. Anynobody 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"you've obviously not read or understood our rules", "you'd be running around with the ball in your hands arguing with the referee"....
I think when you consider yourself as referee or the owner of the rules, that's difficult to reach a logical agreement with you. Please be more positive!
When I say you are "Switching between two questions" , that means if the image is not reliable , then there is no need to show using it in the article is against neutral point of view : an unreliable image is not publishable either with or without neutrality! But this section of talk page is about the "WP:NPOV implications of Image" -regardless of it's reliability.
About that alleged "benefit" vs. WP:NPOV argument, let me clarify it again that I was talking about motivating factor and not about actively changing the article for gaining a benefit. Nobody used a similar image in 9/11 article because no one had no motivating factor to do so: that will not be wrong if anyone add same image to that articles. As an example, why don't you ever add any point to MVP article? That's simple: you don't want to! In article 9/11 that was the same: no one wanted to add an image of victims, and then the article doesn't have such pictures. There were no history of previous argument for adding such images to 9/11 article, but here, in the article about the "Iran Air Flight 655", there is a group of editors that want to add that image:I mean there were no body to want it , and here somebodies to ask for it.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted text

I note the previous deletion of the following text from the Shootdown section:

"Earlier in the day, the Vincennes — along with Iranian gunboats — had similarly violated Omani waters until challenged by an Omani warship."

The BBC documentary The Other Lockerbie (17 April 2000) covers this and includes actual video footage shot on the bridge of the Vincennes as it was challenged by the Omani vessel. I will therefore reinstate the text when the current block is lifted. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not request it be corrected via WP:RFP#Current requests for significant edits to a protected page? Anynobody 03:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Independent sources

There are number of citations in the article that imply the aggressiveness of the captain. Gary Klein in his book "Sources of Power" described an incident when the same captain decided not to engage an Iranian F4 which was "harassing" his ship. (MIT Press, 1999, pp 75-76) Where was his aggressiveness then? Some cited sources said that the ship shouldn't have been there in the first place, but I can't see how it is relevant. Does it mean that if there were some "good" reasons for the ship to be there, the aircraft wouldn't have been shot down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.53.132.225 (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible compromise

Hi, As disscussed in Image deletation page we have a compromise suggested. The suggestion is to substitute current image with this image [22] as it has better information and caption inside the image in the time of taking the picture. The suggestion (made by agr) did get some level of support. I brought it here to give it the fare chance. This disscussion has taken so long and this seems to be a good possible compromise. Farmanesh (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Farmanesh I know it's hard to accept given how long it's been here but sooner or later the image under contention will be deleted based on the simple fact that a {{GFDL}} image must identify the author in order to be valid. When I release an image I've created, like the infobox image-Image:Iranair655shootdown.png, anyone using it must say something like Anynobody released this image under the terms of {{GFDL}} as it says here: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses:

Since sajed doesn't say anything like that itself, or point us to the actual license the copyright holder issued it under, and even appears to claim copyright to images that it doesn't have a right to do (like the Rachel Corrie images we know were not taken by sajed.ir) sooner or later an admin on the commons will delete the image because we don't know who's image it is and therefore can't establish copyright, which can be said of any image from that site. (Note sajed doesn't say they took the pictures either.) Anynobody 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I assure you it is not hard at all. However, you seem very confidence that everybody has agreed with you! Would you please have a look at 'image deletation' page and see how many have said 'keep'? The discussion have had supporters and legitimate reasoning on both sides. Thats why we are talking about compromise. But seems you are not looking for a compromise and if the page is not protected you want to unilaterally change based on your POV. Farmanesh (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that even you have to agree with me in observing we don't know who took the image, because if you did know you'd of just said so. However, you seem very confidence that everybody has agreed with you! If that was true I'd of been saying there was a consensus, which I haven't. What I am confident of is:
that the image violates WP:NPOV by introducing bias
that it doesn't say who is IN the picture,
Then there is the problem of it not being a properly licensed GFDL image, if it was the creator would be identified. Because of that it will be deleted from the commons at some point since policy there dictates all images be properly identified which as I've pointed out it is not.

Are you confused as to what unilaterally means? I ask because I'm not the only one removing the image: another editor nixes it, still another editor removes it, yet another editor removes it, again another editor removes it. These are all separate people who you or AF have disregarded besides myself. Anynobody 03:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anynobody and other users, can we keep the compromise section dedicated to compromise talk and keep other freindly comments for other spaces? I am sure there are many other locations in the talk page you can prove your POV. Lets keep this small section only to talks toward compromise if we are looking for one. Farmanesh (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Farmanesh I have been talking about your proposed compromise, which simply trades one unidentified image with another. Anynobody 03:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do when there is controversy

• I think we may ask an admin to guide us.Or at least ask for consensus.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• The way forward is clear: talking like civilized people and reach a compromise based on wiki policy. Unilateral changes only start edit war and would result in an instable article. I strongly urge our fellow wikipedians to refrain from unilateral changes while we are having a discussion. Please consider joining in a talk toward compromise.Farmanesh (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on reverting then having the page protected to support inclusion of an unidentified image for a second time. Unidentified images are unencyclopedic and have no place in a real encyclopedia. See also, Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. You should locate an identified image from a reliable source and use that instead of an unidentified shock image. Additionally, Wikipedia:Image use policy#Rules of thumb #10, "Do not place shocking or explicit pictures into an article unless they have been approved by a consensus of editors for that article." There is no consensus to add that image (which is not properly identified anyway). Unencyclopedic material will be removed once protection expires. Thank you for complying with wikipedia guidelines and image use policy. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say no one have said anything new in past couple days, it has been review of what has already been said and same answers we have given to them.

Now maybe we should look to the way forward. Would you please have a look to the compromise suggested and tell us your view on it? I think if we focus on a way forward rather than just saying over and over what we have said it may help reaching an stable article.

And thank you for so affirmativly announcing your plan for a continued edit war. We can reach a compromise if we all accept unilateral changes are not sustainble. Farmanesh (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You obviously have no idea what the word unilateral means. There are several editors who have suggested removal of this image. The only compromise being made here is you compromising the integrity of an online encyclopedia by insisting on the inclusion of an unidentified and hence unencyclopedic image. Why don't you give up on the unencyclopedic shock image and find a reliably sourced image that is identified by the author and properly licensed. You might be able to post graphic, unidentified images on you own blog, but this is not a blog it is an online encyclopedia that has policies on images and acceptable content. Unidentified images are unencyclopedic and unencyclopedic material will be removed from this article. Thank you for complying with wikipedia guidelines and image use policy. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

At least it is good to know you are not willing to compromise, I hope you revise your position on that. Seeing your POV as the ONLY way forward and the only translation of wikipedia guidelines, and seeing compromise as 'only what the other side' should make is not best way to achive the encyclopedia we all want to enhance. Farmanesh (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

There can be no compromise that replaces an unidentified image with another unidentified image. That would still be against wikipedia guidelines and policies. The best way forward is to remove unidentified images and find a reliably sourced image that is clearly identified. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Editing at Wikipedia is a collaborative process and one editor does not get to say what will and will not be accepted.--agr (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best possible next step is to ask an admin to intervene. The compromise suggestion seems to be unsuccessful, because the opposing party will object with similar reasoning. Indeed I'm afraid that multiple approach for deleting the unwanted image stems in other unsaid reasons. Anyway, I believe in neutrality of the Wikipedia's admins: let's ask them to judge! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's gone from commons, and there are more policy and less emotionally driven admins there. You could try to resolve the WP:RFC, or go to WP:RFM. Bear in mind that all these forums are for dealing with disputes in article content, including where it may relate to policy, not for things which raise fundamental policy problems. John Nevard (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thread at ANI

Problems re: image I think the best possible next step is to ask an admin to intervene. Since you and Farmanesh seem to only care what an admin has to say I took the liberty of posting the situation on the admin incidents noticeboard. Anynobody 03:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say I "only care what an admin has to say"? If that was the case why would I discuss the matter so long with you and others? Just b/c we have a disagreement here doesn't mean we should say things to eachother which are not true. The very reason I support the compromise is that I do care about your views and I have found number of them legitimate. Farmanesh (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I mean no offense, however I must disagree based on experience; If you look at it from my perspective I've been saying more or less exactly what the posts on ANI said and included links to prove I wasn't just making the stuff I said up. I really don't like saying "I told you so," but it seems like if you had listened to me or any of several others saying the same things then this would not have gone on so long. Instead it would've looked a bit more like this:

Farmanesh

We should keep the image because the website says it's free.

Anynobody

{{GFDL}}s say the author needs to be identified, the author(in this case photographer) is not identified, and our copyright rule has a specific page dedicated to such issues Wikipedia:Copyright violations, which prevent keeping it as a "free" image.

Farmanesh

Oh ok, after reading these links I'll talk to Alborz Fallah and try to find out who took the picture. If not I guess it must be deleted.

Anynobody 03:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That was refereshing, nice to see a simulation of an ideal wikipedia from your perspective. Maybe you are mistaking "respecting" with "agreeing"? I sure respect and care about your POVs and give my answers to them. However the senario you described above is more an army mentality of respecting/following authority than a civil mentality of respecting the person and POV but not necessarily agreeing with it and giving proper response to it. best, Farmanesh (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not saying you have to agree with whatever I say, just the rules here, that's the point of my example: ...after reading these links.... It's also not an army mentality, when anyone cites our rules it behooves you to either agree or disagree with their interpretation of said rules.* In case of the latter, disagreement, then be sure to explain why you don't think that person is correct based on the rule cited. (*The example also is only meant to illustrate how the image situation might have played out, I couldn't think of a valid argument trumping copyright concerns otherwise I'd of included it.)

I couldn't help but notice you seem to believe I'm saying you should accept my POV. When I talk about NPOV I don't mean how it can be more neutral to my POV. This is because unlike Wikipedia I don't have to accept every relevant reliable source, but in order to edit here I have to put my POV aside to comply with our rules. That's all I'm asking you to do. Anynobody 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It is about interpretation of the rules. You have a POV on how a rule interprets to a particular case and you seem to be sure about it. But that doesn't mean you are having the correct or only viable interpretation. That is where your interpretation of the rule is your POV. Different people have different interpretations and POVs about the same rule in each case. In real world a society reaches a unified interpretation of rules in each case through courts/mediation/negotiation/.... In wikipedia we also use most of them especially the negotiation which we did and is normal. Farmanesh (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that you should have realized that the arguments you made weren't actually in the rules and thus were irrelevant as far as Wikipedia goes. Also you seem to be taking the community discussion aspect of Wikipedia a bit too far. In some areas there is no negotiation; like copyright problems, personal attacks, and legal threats. Given the multiple problems as defined by our rules, lack of author info for GFDL image, ability to verify person was a victim, etc. I assure you the negotiation which we did... was anything but normal. Anynobody 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

And I disagree with you per long talk we have had. Regardless, it is good to be able to have these civil talks. Farmanesh (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Overall,that is English Wikipedia and the process of editing is a cooperative one.When the dominant understanding is different from ours, we may accept it.Also the failure of the site to introduce the photographer , in contrast of what they have said to me on phone call, was a helping factor for deleting it . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Farmanesh, the long talk we have had. was because other editors and I were hoping to show you how the image failed several of our rules. From the beginning I knew simply getting an admin would result in the image being deleted. The only reason it went on so long is because those of us who knew better allowed it to.

Alborz Fallah you're right, the process of editing is a cooperative one. but we can't cooperate in evading our rules about copyright. ...the failure of the site to introduce the photographer , in contrast of what they have said to me on phone call, was a helping factor for deleting it... indeed it was actually a key factor as confirmed on ANI, which is what several editors including myself have been saying from the start. Anynobody 03:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Anynobody says "those of us who knew better allowed it to", now that was the most arrogant thing I recall you saying. It helps if you keep the talk page civil. Farmanesh (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Farmanesh it's not arrogance, really, but a simple fact that several editors (Dual Freq, WhisperToMe, Socrates2008, John Nevard, etc.) including myself (those who knew better) told you many different times why the image didn't conform with several of our rules. Seriously it'd be arrogant not to point out that several editors tried to explain this. Anynobody 03:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The arrogance is in the way you said your point above not in its content, saying "those of us who knew better allowed it to" is pure arrogance and uncivil while there are many other ways of saying the same point and not being arrogant. Farmanesh (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the talk page's duty is to show the proofs of those who knew better. Still I can't understand what's the difference between the validity of an American governmental website and Iranian one. But I can understand that the consensus is against using such source .Language difference is one of the etiologies .The fact that the Iranian site is not standard maybe a second cause, albeit similar memorial sites (Russian, Australian and Chinese) are used in Wikipedia and several same non-standard pictures of this site (Sajed) are used elsewhere in Wikipedia, but not in a controversial article. Anyway, Wikipedia itself is a collection of articles written by ordinary writers for the ordinary readers, and here I think the point of view of the majority of the readers is against our point of view; then so be it! Let them decide the picture is unpublishable! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

To: Alborz Fallah. That picture is Unpublishable. It is Propaganda. It does not meet standards. Leave it alone. 68.3.144.9 (talk) 21:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Farmanesh respectfully, ...the way you said your point above not in its content,... is probably an interpretation based on the premise that I'm gloating, to be clear I am not and resent people who do. I've just been trying to explain that several editors knew the image was totally unacceptable by Wikipedia's standards and engaged in good faith discussion to explain both individually as well as including links to the very policies being explained. Why am I doing this? Because you genuinely appear to think discussion would somehow offset problems like who took/owns the image, whether it even belongs in an encyclopedia or what the implications of including a picture of an unidentified child which doesn't add anything to explain the incident.

Alborz Fallah, I'm curious about this the talk page's duty is to show the proofs of those who knew better. We "proved" that GFDL images must identify their author, on several talk pages, by linking to the rule which says so. What else can we do? (Or have you been ignoring the links provided?)

Moreover, ...and several same non-standard pictures of this site (Sajed) are used elsewhere in Wikipedia,... this is another mistake about the rules here. It doesn't matter whether the articles are controversial or not,* there are rules regarding using images, and one of them is that it's status must be known. Image:Mersad.jpg has one of the exact same problems you identified above as why the kid image was deleted, ...the failure of the site to introduce the photographer...was a helping factor for deleting it.... An image can't be GFDL unless we know, and as usual sajed makes that difficult to determine for those of us who don't read Persian.

(*The kid image was indeed controversial for many reasons, but those all took a back seat to copyright concerns. I'm hoping you understand a bit better now why I tried to express in the beginning that copyright problems would probably make discussions about NPOV and suitability irrelevant as one can't discuss using an image that isn't here. It's a bit like re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic as it sank, no matter what arrangement one makes it'll be ruined when the ship sinks.) Anynobody 02:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem , I can understand and also agree about that a GDFL image may have known photographer.But don't you think applying this more prominently in a controversial image may cause misinterpretation for one side of the controversy? I mean same non standard images such as Russian State Archive or [23] have the same problem(No known photographer). There are same photos in the Holocaust* article that don't have the name of the photographer:why do you have "special interest" in this one particular image?
As you see (IP 68.3.144.9 for example) don't have problems with the standardization of the images, they want to change the article as they like.
*I mean this one:[24] --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations

I noticed the Iranian account section was expanded, which is good, with citations like this:(§4.52), which is not good as it departs from the style already being used (the <ref></ref> system). Would the person making these changes please correct the citation style? Anynobody 01:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Important statement has unacceptable source

" ...some U.S. observers claim the incident had been identified as a motivating factor in Ayatollah Khomeini's decision to pursue an end to the Iran-Iraq War."

The reference provided for this statement is a conference recap written by staff of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The recap asserts:

"An Iranian scholar present at the conference said a turning point in Iran's thinking came with the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in July 1988 by the American cruiser USS Vincennes. That incident apparently led Ayatollah Khomeini to conclude that Iran could not risk the possibility of U.S. open combat operations against Iran and he decided it was time to end the conflict."

The exculpatory assertion is without original source and is published by an institution which is a child of the USA government. The Wilson Center is substantially funded by the USA and its Director is appointed by the POTUS.

Without better attribution, this sentence should be removed. --NRF - North Vancouver Canada (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Rogers told that the plane was diving?

User:Other-thing added qualification justified by "There's no evidence that Rogers was really told that the plane was diving. All credible sources believe that this was a post-facto explanation." The US Navy investigation says the tactical information officer testified that he reported declining altitude more than once. It also says that Captain Rodgers claimed that was only one piece of information among many. http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/reading_room/172.pdf pdf pages 5 & 6. The officer's testimony and the fact that the Navy did not rely on this explanation suggests the edit should be reverted.--agr (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dangerously close...

... to either a WP:3RR violation, and/or a page protection. Please pursue dispute resolution if you cannot find common ground. Edit wars accomplish nothing. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 06:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The Bush quotes and background have been discussed in the past. I don't know how this shoot down can be discussed without specifying that it occurred in the context of what was at the time a war zone. Anyone in charge of a ship transiting the Gulf in that time period would have had the Stark, Samuel B. Roberts and other attacks in their mind. In fact the Samuel B. Roberts was shipped out of the Gulf on July 1, 1988, only 2 days before this incident, receiving a salute of naval artillery from Vincennes as the Mighty Servant transited the strait of Hormuz. As for the never apologizing for America quote. We're referencing the quote section, "Perspectives", of Newsweek which simply lists the quote. The other sources that were removed clearly show that Bush said he would not apologize for America frequently during the campaign and he made that statement prior to the shoot down. I only provided full quotes because this is a contentious item that is often used without context. It was extensively discussed in January 2008 and is not original research. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Two examples of prior usage of that statement, January and February 1988, months prior to the shoot down. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• • Bush told the crowd, "We must never apologize for the United States of America." Bush Sidesteps Campaign Talk In the Bluffs; [Iowa Edition] C. David Kotok. Omaha World - Herald. Omaha, Neb.: January 30, 1988. pg. 1.
  • "I will never apologize for the United States," the Vice President declared recently. "I will stand up for her." Bush, a Cautious Front-Runner Again, Avoids Attacks and Personal Campaigning, Gerald M. Boyd, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: February 27, 1988. pg. 1.8
  • To a women's group in Concord, N.H., he said, "I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." Dole and Bush: Dramatic Contrast of Styles . . . BERNARD WEINRAUB, Special to the New York Times. New York Times. (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: February 7, 1988. pg. A.32
  • "If I am elected president," Bush said, directing his words at the protesters, "I will never apologize for the United States. I will strengthen her and make her a beacon of freedom and liberty!" BUSH VOWS TO ATTACK JOBLESSNESS. Edward Power. Philadelphia Inquirer. Philadelphia, Pa.: April 26, 1988. pg. A.8
  • "My view," Bush told about 300 supporters, "is let Mike Dukakis go around there and talk about pink slips, despair, pessimism in the United States. I'll be the guy out there talking about hope and opportunity and challenge, and the fact that the United States is the best, the fairest, the most decent nation on the face of the earth. Let them apologize for America, and let me lead her to new greatness." VOTERS FACE CLEAR CHOICE, BUSH SAYS; [THIRD Edition] STAFF, WIRE REPORTS. Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext). Boston, Mass.: May 4, 1988. pg. 13.

You can't cite the New York Times of 1988, and say "look what New York Times said in 1988", that's a classic definition of a primay source which is not allowed. As per Washington Post, I kept that reference, I only removed NYT and other primary sources which are not allowed per WP:OR policy. Regarding the background section, several users has expressed concerns that the section, in its orginal format, served to "justify" the shooting down of a civilian airliner. I have no objection to describing the area as a war zone, but the background should be limited to a general description of the Tanker Wars, and not every action or re-action of Iran or Iraq, which is called poisoning the well. --CreazySuit (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not possible for the NYT to refer to the shootdown in February 1988 because the shootdown did not occur until many months later. We have numerous reliable examples of prior usage in the campaign and references stating he used the statement numerous time during the campaign. It is not original research to point out that this statement was made a number of times prior to the shootdown in connection with the campaign. You unilaterally removed all references in the article to the Stark incident as well as the Iranian mining of S. B. Roberts and the subsequent Operation Praying Mantis. This conveniently omits that actual combat was occurring in the gulf, ships sunk or nearly sunk, in the period prior to the shootdown. Both incidents are noted in the background section of the Fogarty report as well. Certainly both incidents would be on the mind of every commanding officer and ships master taking a tanker or warship into the gulf in 1988. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"We have numerous reliable examples of prior usage" is not good enough, there has to be a secondary source for each and every claim. Otherwise, using primary sources as "examples" is against established Wikipedia policy on original research, and prohibition of primary sources. As far as the background section goes, what you're trying to do is called poisoning the well, others have expressed similar opinions under the "background" discussion. Background section should be specific to this incident, there is no need whatsoever to list and cite any and every incident in the Persian Gulf involving Iran, unless you're trying to editorialize the article, and synthesize sources in order to justify shooting down a civilian airplane by shifting the blame to Iran. --CreazySuit (talk) 05:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. No one in that section you've linked agrees with you. Anynobody basically wrote the background material you deleted and the other editor wanted to include more information, not delete it all. You are also completely misrepresenting the original research policy. You have removed the fact that Bush "promised to never apologize for the United States months prior to the July 1988 shootdown" a fact that is supported by multiple reliable sources, there is nothing original there, it is a plain statement of fact supported by multiple citations and is not original research. --Dual Freq (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of what you removed was not in the background section during the November 2007 "background" discussion. Original research from primary sources would be using an Iranian timetable as a reference supporting "As of January 2008, Iran Air still uses the flight number IR655 on the Tehran-Dubai route." or using the primary source ICJ decision to support the sentence starting with "On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice ruled that..." or referencing s "House Armed Services Hearing". The entire article would be deleted if you couldn't use newspapers as references. --Dual Freq (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The background section more or less looked the same in November 2007, you simply have no consensus for the background section, you can't just force your preferred version on others by reverting and re-reverting until you've driven away other users, please read [[WP:OWN}. As far as Bush's speech goes, if you think there are other vitiations of OR, feel free to correct them. Two wrongs don't make a right. --CreazySuit (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove those to items or to carelessly remove the other minor edits in between. Citing the a newspaper is not original research and that background information is important to this article. There was no consensus to remove the background in the above discussion, which resulted in additional material being added to that section. --Dual Freq (talk)

Youtube update

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.114.89 (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon. Please know that youtube is generally not considered a reliable source. You may, (and are encouraged to), however, post more reliable sources. Bless sins (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, according to Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement" Nearly everything on youtube is a copyvio and I'm surprised a bot didn't remove the link already. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Question of intentionality and misrepresentation of Iranian view

It is incorrect to state that the Iranians viewed the incident an intentional downing. The Washington Post quoted Iranian general Satary of stating that the Vincennes was incompetent and negligent.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_thread/thread/1bafd44a55edb458/813dddf77054c318

Furthermore, the USS Vincennes' actions DO meet the legal definition of "intentional conduct" - shooting down a civilian airliner may not have been a DESIRED oucome of their act, but the act was still intentional. Similarly, a drunk driver may not "intend' to cause an accident (as in not desiring an accident to happen) nevertheless his conduct of driving whilst drunk is in fact intentional, and he is therefore responsible for all the consequences of his intentional act. This is basic crim law. And even if the Vincennes was not acting intentionally, there's still criminal negligence (note that othe ships in the area correctly identified the plane.)

Finally, the question of the state of mind of the Vincennes -- and whether they "intended" to shoot down the airliner or not-- is largely irrelevant anyway under military and international law. Overlooked is the issue of Comman Responsibility which makes a captain always liable for everything that happens on his boat, and the issue of International Law according to which whenever a military shoots downs civilian airliners, this is a "strict liability" situation -- meaning that the shooter is always, ALWAYS totally responsible no matter what he "intended". This was pointed out by the Editor of the American Journal of International Law: 83 Am. J. Int'l L. 336, April, 1989 AGORA: The Downing of Iran Air Flight 655 by Andreas F. Lowenfeld http://groups.google.com/group/alt.peace/browse_thread/thread/d54890fb93f82534/e46e39d2d2805336

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.7.4 (talk) 03:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Significance of the Location of the VIncennes ignored

The entry concentrates on how the Vincennes supposedly mistook the Airbus for a jet fighter, but entirely avoids the fact that the US insists that incident happened when the USS Vincennes was engaged in "self-defense in international waters" which was simply not true. The VIncennes was illegally inside Iranian waters, making the claim of "self-defense" false (not to mention that the Vincennes had initiated the confrontation) Thus the SIGNIFICANCE of the location of the Vincennes when it shot down the Iranian airliner, and how it was misrepresented so long is left out entirely. Contrary to repeated (and false) US Navy allegations, the Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters and not "defending itself in international waters" as the US has officially claimed to this day (this was repeated by the Press Guidance on the compensation payments.) The Vincennes had initiated the conflict by buzzing the Iranian boats inside Iranian territorial waters, and then entered into Iranian waters to fight with them. That fact, and the US Navy's effort to hide it, are significant but ignored. Why? Whether or how the US Navy mistook the airbus for a fighter is largely a side issue and a deliberate distraction.

Capt Carlsson says specifically that the Iranians were going out of their way NOT to be provocative, and that the Vincennes was NOT under attack by Iranian boats. The USS VIncennes sent its helicopters into Iranian airspace, where it drew the predicted warning shots. only THEN did Rogers ask for permission to engage. There was no conflict going on at the time until the Vincennes decided to charge into Iranian waters. Whatever action had taken place inside Omani waters earlier in the day was over. In fact, Iran Air 655 was shot down while it was still inside Iranian airspace too.

Finally, Adm Crowe most certainly did not "refute" the Newsweek piece. He denied it, but that's not the same as refutation. In fact he didn't deny the location of the Vincennes -- instead he tried to downplay it as being an irrelevant issue (which begs the question of why it not disclosed earlier if it was so irrelevant.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.7.4 (talk) 02:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC) 

[Citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vygramul (talk • contribs) 18:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not use "terrorist"?

Why Wikipedia is bias towards US government and White people? I suggest rewriting the first line, "Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles on Sunday July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War."

to, Iran Air Flight 655, also known as IR655, was a civilian airliner shot down by US missiles which were fired by terrorists in the US army, on Sunday July 3, 1988, over the Strait of Hormuz, toward the end of the Iran-Iraq War.

Why do you have double standard? The article on 9/11 clearly state "terrorist attack". Then why NOT this once consider as a terrorist attack. Wikipedians, are you scared of your fellow KKK members? Boo!

USA government definition of terrorism state, loss of civilian life due to an attack on a civilian target by.... Well, if Wikipedia go by the book and dictionary definition, this should and must be classified as a terrorist attack. WOW you guys call Muslims extremist and fail to realized that you are worst than them!

From the 9/11 article on Wikipedia; " The September 11, 2001 attacks (often referred to as 9/11) were a series of coordinated suicide attacks by al-Qaeda upon the United States. On that morning, terrorists affiliated with al-Qaeda hijacked four commercial passenger jet airliners "

Boo hoo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Damn right! I remember the Korean Airlines jet shot down by USSR - a "barbaric act" said Reagan. This was apparently an understandable mistake - double standards!

I submit that the United States Republican Party and all of the outdated gun wielding maniacs that believe in it are themselves an "understandable mistake" of evolution. --77.98.178.218 (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not written by Ronald Reagan. To address the example mentioned above,here is the first line of the KAL 007 article:

Korean Air Lines Flight 007, also known as KAL 007, was a Korean Air Lines civilian airliner shot down by Soviet jet interceptors on September 1, 1983 just west of Sakhalin island. 269 passengers and crew[1], including US congressman Lawrence McDonald, were aboard KAL 007; there were no known survivors.

That seems pretty neutral, just like the lead to this article. If the Soviet shoot down of a civilian airliner was not a terrorist attack (in that it was not a deliberate action carefully planned to kill and injure civilians far in advance of the act), neither was the downing of Iran Air 655. The Captain of the Vincennes made a tragic mistake, exacerbated by an overly aggressive command style; no evidence has been presented that the US Navy (not Army) planned to shoot down an Airliner full of civilians.Seaphoto^Talk 03:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol.. I agree with the topic opener, they are terrorists and they should be called terrorist for many more reasons than just this attack on the Iranian Airliner, but my friend, we are living in a world which is dominated by Israel and the U.S. Even this Wikipedia thing is hosted in the U.S. and invented by a Jewish person. But don't worry, one day, they will be called the terrorists when the world realizes their media trickery and psychologically charged wordings to alter human perceptions. Already, many Jews and Americans alike are starting to distance themselves from Israel and the U.S. realizing their goals are far from the interests of the people they claim to represent. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 07:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Since when was Jimbo Jewish? 2. No personal attacks. Let's talk issues, not nationalities. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. If you want to talk about the principles of Islamic extremism, then bog off to an al-qaeda website or something. Wikipedia is a source of factual information, not a breeding ground to further the opinions of islamic fundamentalists. Hatemongering like this is precisely why the western world fails to take Islamic societies seriously, it seems utterly ridiculous to me that most Islamic preachers claim Islam is a religion of peace and not hate, all we get is hatemongers like these people trying to continuously persue anti-western and anti-jewish agendas. Whilst I admit the IR655 shootdown was a horrendous act, it was not a terrorist act persay as it is pretty obvious that the Americans shot the plane down more out of incompetance than with the aim to kill innocent people. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a breeding ground for far-fetched political ideology. Please take it elsewhere (Sk8er boi7000 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

I add the follwing: "Terrorist attack"... now everyone is happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Potential Factors

If the article ever becomes unprotected, a sentence in the Potential Factors section has a few grammatical issues. The current sentence reads: Apparently not all the crew in the CIC realized the track number had been switched on them.

A possible changed version would be: Apparently not all the crew in the CIC realized that the track number of flight 655 had been changed.

Let me know what you think StarsTrainsAndRandomThings (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be a definite improvement in the article. I hope we are allowed to edit it sometime.Seaphoto^Talk 21:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the same vein, I have mistakenly committed a couple of date format corrections before realising that the page was protected. My apologies. Rama (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Aircraft Transponders and how they work

In the section "US government accounts" I corrected a blatant ignorant and uneducated typing that goes as follows:

The USS Vincennes could have used the squawk code to advise Iran Air 655 that they were indeed speaking to them and not another aircraft; however using the squawk code is not normal practice.

For some unknown reason some aviation "expert" (CreazySuit) chose to put that comment back. Hence, the need for some educational content here.

Aviation transponders were introduced as one communication devices installed on aircraft. Even though some of the later models have sideband signaling that allows two-directional communication, this capability is new and not relevant in the timeframe of this incident.

A transponder is installed on an aircraft and responds with what is typically known as the "squawk code". The squawk code is a four digit octal number. This can be used by air traffic control to keep blips on the screen apart from each other, and in some cases is the primary method of identifying aircraft. Most transponders also add aircraft altitude, which is mandatory in many areas of the US and the world. A later additional signaling also added additinal detail, such as flight or tail number; though this was not available in the relevant timeframe of the incident.

So here's the problem. If transponders are put on aircraft for ground based radars, then how would the Vincennes be able to talk to the aircraft via a transponder? The article stating that USS Vincennes is using a squawk code to communicate is akin to MTV asking its viewers to vote on content by talking into their television sets. It just doesn't work that way.

Now can somebody remove (or correct to the true intended meaning) this part. Preferably CreazySuit as he saw fit to perpetuate the impossible. Aki Korhonen (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is thinking that transponders are two-way. I think the idea was for the Vincennes to address its voice warnings to "aircraft squawking 6760" as that might have alerted IR655 that they were the ones in danger. --agr (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I just watched a documentary and you are correct. It stated that although there was no rule requiring it, the Vincennes should have said 6760 in it's transmisions so the civilian plane knew it was the one being spoken to and that the transmision was not just a continuation of the contact with the P-3 Orion. This brings up another point that should be included in Potential factors. The radar operator sent the "friend or foe" (FoF) signal while the plane was taking off and recieved back both squawk Mode III 6760 and squawk Mode II 1100 because there was an F-14 on the runway. Due to inefficient design the FoF radar cursor followed flight 655 but the FoF target signal remained directed at the airport where it later picked up another F-14 signal. This is what caused the 1100 to briefly light up alongside the 6760 again as it neared the ship. The radar operator should have resent the signal at the plane but he didn't realise the target point didn't follow the cursor. He told the Captain that the sinal had changed and everyone thought the 6760 was falsely transmitted. The investigation found this was a large factor in the mistake as the Captain said he couldn't trust the squawk on it's own. Wayne (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That sentence was not factually inaccurate, as the person who posted it was not trying to say that the crew of the Vincennes should have used the transponder as a communication device, rather that they should have identified the IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) code being broadcasted by the transponder in their communications to IR655. Commercial aircraft cockpits are busy places to be, and the crew of any aircraft are quiet within their rights to ignore a message if they have no idea that it is being directed at them. (Sk8er boi7000 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

Request for edit to this protected page

{{editprotected}} Please disambiguate Nightline to Nightline (US news program). The change is needed in the third paragraph below "Independent Sources". Thanks! Auntof6 (talk) 07:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. PhilKnight (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks. And for those of you who think defending or editing in order to favour a country, who shoots down a passenger airliner in foreign territory that is not their own, and then awards their men medals for the attack, must really be loons from something out of Idiocracy. For those of you, regardless of nationality, who have made this article the way it is and those who seek to make this article factual in all manners, well done. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 07:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first we need to be Wikipedia:Civil - Second, I do not believe that there is a consensus that the shootdown was intentional. There are people who came to the conclusion that the shootdown was negligent (and was due to not following command), but that's different from an intentional shootdown. I have no idea why the US awarded any sort of medals to the crew, but anyhow, we are on this page to see how to make the article better. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The US didn't issue any awards for this incident. Citation 7 in the article doesn't say this; it's a bad reference. While it's true that officers and crew received awards after this event, in most cases it was years after and in no case is the IAF655 mentioned. People need to provide legitimate citations and follow wikipedia guidelines.HckyTwn (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for unprotect in order to diversify sources

I concur unanimously with 78.86.159.199's indignation - this article is riddled with US and British (NATO) sources. I, however, was able to make myself familiar with the opposite site's views - here. Please unprotect the article, so that I could recapitulate some reactions of high-ranging officials of the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the view of President Ahmadinejad (here) - I implore the protector. This article needs some balance. Bogorm (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Picture of the Victims

Can someone please add the picture of the victims where their bodies and their luggage is floating in the Persian Gulf, IRIB has already declared full rights to anyone who wishes to use its footage for purposes of covering this tragedy. The sophisticated and "action" heavy imagery representing the U.S. Vinceness and its crew should be balanced by some photos of the airliner and its passengers. The above argument implying Wikipedia states "unemotional" imagery is false, for Gods sake, there is even a picture of a Penis, how emotional and controversial do you want to get? As far as I remember, becoming horny involves emotions too. Regardless, Wikipedia guidelines also dictate that imagery is ebcouraged in cases where words are insufficient to describe an event\object, and personally reading through the Wikipedia guidelines, I did not see anywhere solely stating the non-use of the aforementioned image. --78.86.159.199 (talk) 07:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but IRIB's concession on usage rights (aimed at news organisations) does not place the footage in the public domain, which Wikipedia requires for all content.

Also, the existence of penises is a plain fact about our world. They might make you emotional, but that's a fact about you, not them. PRNG4u (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the image could be included as a fair use image; just make sure a Wikipedia:Reliable source identifies this as debris from the plane. There are FU images from the Lianhe Zaobao fair use for Singapore Airlines Flight 006. BTW, PRNG4u, there are some circumstances where "Fair Use" is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Fair use WhisperToMe (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the tip. -PRNG4u (talk) 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Pros and cons of the no apology stance

I was wondering what the US saw as an unwanted consequence of offering an apology. Does anyone have any ideas? I'd like to understand the benefits of the no apology stance, too. Thank you Louis Waweru  Talk  04:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well, these opinions have to be sourced. Otherwise we cannot include them in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that is a good point. I wasn't intending to use it in the article. I was just curious...but I guess that's not what the talk pages are for. My apologies. Louis Waweru  Talk  00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavian casualties?

Out of curiosity does anyone know who exactly were those 6 Yugoslavian casualties aboard Flight 655?

I heard somewhere they were contractors working on a plant in Bushehr or something in the South of Iran. Does anyone have any further information regarding them?

124.169.197.176 (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, they were Yugoslav workers based in Dubai. In order to get a new visa for Emirates you have to leave the country and then come back - the easiest way is to go to Iran and then travel back to Dubai. That's why they were on the plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.252.95.26 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

background

Lots of reasons have been given by different editors on this page. --Wayiran (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Attack on the captain's family

I remember that a short time after the shootdown, someone placed a pipe bomb underneath the captain's wife's van while she was in it. I don't think anyone was injured. Should be mentioned in the article if someone can find a source. Tempshill (talk) 05:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the NY Times article here and added 1 paragraph to the article. Would be appreciated if anyone can add followup information, like if anyone was ever caught. Tempshill (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not relevant. The connection between two events has not been proven even after 20 years. There is eight month time difference there and I don't think the Iranian intelligence service would use such an ineffective "bomb" if they really were about to retaliate. Such kind of inflammatory information can only be included in wikipedia if a balanced coverage of opinions of both sides are included. Sinooher (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I don't agree that it's not relevant. Pipe bomb attacks involving occupied cars are unheard of in the United States. I daresay it was the only one of the year. It's beyond a reasonable doubt, in my view, that it's a coincidence that the van belonged to the captain. How is this information inflammatory? There was no accusation made involving Iranian intelligence or that it was ordered by ... anyone. It's an unsolved crime. Tempshill (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence..yea right guys. Off course it was related. How many people put pipe bombs under cars to settle a dispute?. It didn't need the Iranian's to do it, anyone with family on the flight had a motive and there were many. I have reistated the comments and renamed the section to better fit it in as post incident events. --Cyber Fox (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cyberfox, we shouldn't be proving a negative (that it wasn't related). We need proof that the bomb was related to IR 655. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The White House called it perceived terrorist activity. In tha absence of any other conclusion I think we can call a spade, a spade. --Cyber Fox (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Then wouldn't the White House have said maybe it had something to do with IR 655? Where is the source you are referring to? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you honestly think that the US authorities would admit that the Iranians managed to attack the eminent Captain Simpson on US soil? The White House statement all but admitted that it was a terrorist attack. The compete absence of any evidence of a local dispute can only lead to one conclusion. Even Simpson himself knew of no civil dispute or anything to do with his work. Simpson and the US government know only too well that the attack was directly related to the shooting down of the Iranian aircraft. --Cyber Fox (talk) 11:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Background Section: Disputed--Lacking Citations and Non-Neutral

Statement in the section, "Besides the obvious damage to Kuwaiti and Saudi business interests, they also affected the flow of oil to America" lacks any citation or source, and has questionable neutrality

What proof (articles, sources, etc) exist to show that the information in the above mentioned statement is factual (and non-bias) concerning the economic impacts to Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti businesses? The usage of the term "obvious" strongly implies opinion and point of view. Additionally, the "after-the-fact" statement concerning the effect to the flow of oil to America is lacking neutrality, especially without any citation or source of proof. It is highly questionable that nearly every single article dealing with the Middle East (especially conflicts) on Wikipedia always makes mention or alludes to the USA and oil. The Middle East is not the sole source of oil on the planet Earth, and the world's (and America's) interests with the Middle East do not rest solely with oil.

In fact, the USA's involvement in the Iraq-Iran war was at the request of Kuwait to provide protection for Kuwaiti economic interests. The secondary side-effect of the USA's benefits from helping an ally at their request (and thus the safety of the oil trade) is not a legitimate and non-bias statement or reasoning to make the statement.

If I rescue a man from a burning house, and thus save his life, and the man goes on to cure cancer, of which I am suffering, it neither means I saved his life because he was discover the cure cancer nor did I save his life in the desire (or knowledge) that I would become cured of cancer by saving him. I saved his life because he cried for help.

Just because the USA benefits (by receiving oil) by protecting nations and allies that produce oil, does not necessarily mean it is about oil. The "flow of oil to America" has little or nothing to do with 1) The USA honoring its alliance with Kuwait, and at the request of Kuwait, providing protection to Kuwaiti economic interests, and 2) the "flow of oil to America" has absolutely nothing to do with the US Naval ship attacking and destroying the Iranian civilian airliner.

Making mention or alluding to the USA and oil is a great show of ignorance and non-neutrality. If anyone were educated on the subject of oil and oil-based products, they would quickly realize that not just gasoline (petrol) but thousands of "life-essential" products are oil based or oil derived; from plastics to pharmaceuticals to dyes to electronics to preservatives to food products, etc. Considering in the "Modern" world that oil IS such an important commodity, if the oil supply were at such a great risk, or there was to be such a great reward in attacking civilian airliners... not just the USA but Canada, Britain, Australia, etc. would all be shooting down airliners in the Middle East; as we all benefit immensely from the "flow of oil."

Also take into consideration the World Economy, the Western Economy, etc. and how tightly intertwined European and American nations are (as evidenced by recent global economic issues.) If the USA benefits (directly or not) then so does the UK, Canada, Australia, etc. To be more neutral, the statement should be reworded "affected the flow of oil to the West," or perhaps NATO Allies or nations, etc.

Honestly, I believe that (latter) portion of the statement should be completely removed as it has no factual merit, hard-proven truth, and neutrality; and, it has little relevance to the specific topic of this article regarding the destruction of the Iranian airliner.

It is a statement of speculative opinion.

Any citation, source, etc. providing proof the above (whole) statement being factual and non-bias is requested; or, the deletion and removal of that statement on the ground of lack of being factual (no citations or sources) and lack of neutrality. 68.95.126.245 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, you used the wrong tag, you should have used { {fact} }, instead, to indicate a problem with a single sentence, not the entire article. I changed removed it (see below).

While your argument is well thought out, and likely well-intentioned, it is also inappropriate. By presenting your opinion on whether or not oil is the primary factor in US-Mideast relationships, you are conducting Original Research. Your opinion means, at WP, precisely as much as does mine: zilch. WP is only interested in what others have said on the subject; preferably very reliable & expert others, at that.

And, to respond to your statement more directly: the article appears, to me, to be stating that "attacks against oil tankers [...] affected the flow of oil". In fact, it seems perfectly obvious to me that continued attacks on Kuwaiti shipping would damage their business interests, as well. My argument has convinced even me; I've deleted the {fact} tag, too. The only question about this sentence is not "is it factual", but rather, why is it here in the first place? Personally, I would delete the sentence entirely, as it doesn't really add to the story of Flight 655. Its only reason does seem, in fact, to be the implication that American involvement was due somehow to oil. But then, didn't Reagan say (nearly) as much by stating we would "protect our national interests"? Eaglizard (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want more on this background you should read pages 9 to 26 of the already cited name=kelley-0706 source (cite 12). The 1949 US President NSC 47/2 directive is based on the US oil needs and Cold War considerations. Also in part the reason for Iran attacking Kuwaiti and Saudi tankers was they were shipping Iraqi pipelined oil out, evading the Iranian sea blockade on Iraq. The question is how much of this complex background should go in this article. Rwendland (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "never apologize" quote

I woke up this morning and decided to do something controversial at WP. No, actually I thought about this for about an hour, and decided that the Bush quote regarding "never apologizing" needed to be removed. My reasons for this are

1. It has no bearing on the text in which it appears, which discuss the (years-later) settlement, and it is quite awkwardly placed, leaving the clear impression that Bush's statement is somehow related to the lack of a US apology 10 years later. If you want this quote, I think it needs ot find a more appropriate place to live in this article. If it can, given that
2. The quote is very poorly sourced - I could find only one reference (a quotations list) which cited it as appearing in Newsweek. The actual cite used is an article on a Carter speech from last year, in which the quote appears only as a caption under a picture of a ship firing missles. It doesn't actually say when or why Bush said it. The implication is clear, but the article itself is hardly NPOV - it refers to GW Bush as conducting a "witch-hunt". Perhaps true, but it does reveal a specific bias in that article which probaly makes it an unsuitable source for the key thing that's missing:
3. No source that I have been able to find online actually connects this Bush quote to the downing of IR655 in the first place. As far as I could tell, it may well have been a completely unrelated statement.

So until somebody wants to go look up the Newsweek article, and show that Bush said this in reference to IR655 and then integrate the quote properly into the article, I say the quote goes away. Eaglizard (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've added a direct link to a time article from 1988 that references the quote within the context of the shooting downZaq12wsx (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)