Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:28, 14 May 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Maritime This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Maritime warfare task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Iran This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Some points

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

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

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

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

Destructive editing

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

Just two SIM cards

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

Mhhossein

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

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

"returned to the United States"

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

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

Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• FreeatlastChitchat: I've got a suggestion for lead. I think we'd better have the phone call part of the lead edited as such:"The U.S Secretary of State John Kerry called the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif within five minutes. His call was followed by multiple other phone call exchange between the two ministers." Then we can take the detailed version of the phone calls to the body of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein we need to mention the fact that Kerry told Zarif that he will have his arse on a silver platter if these soldiers are not released. Incorporate that in your text and lets see what you come up with. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, let's see your source. Mhhossein (talk) 13:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein click the article page, read the lead and see that the quotes from Kerry are well sourced. How can you demand sources when they have already been given?. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That was because I was not familiar with that impolite phrase. I had not noticed that phrase in the sources. --Mhhossein (talk) 16:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein if you do not understand even common English slang you only have to ask you know. Let me rephrase. John Kerry told Zarif what would happen if the soldiers were not released this was done in a tone so strong that withing 20 minutes Zarif was calling back saying that not only were the soldiers all ok they will be returned very shortly. We have to mention this fact, that Kerry "threatened"(for lack of a better word) Zarif with dire consequences if they did not release soldiers. As we do not know the exact words used (He may have said "You do not go around taking Uncle Sams's soldiers hostage prepare to be nuked back to the stone age" but we do not know that) we are left with nuances such as saying made him aware what the consequences would be etc. So if you are going to remove the quotes and "tidy up, you will need to get the meaning through that Kerry basically threatened the poor guy so much that he called back within 20 minutes. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

• @FreeatlastChitchat: While reported at AE and moving towards Tban, I would be more careful about my behavior and and act based on BlueSalix's tip, instead of committing edit war and pushing unnecessary details into the lead. Your recent inclusion has a clear POV issue so please consider removing that. --Mhhossein (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein no. The text adds due weight to the lead showing that the US minister had the upper hand and did not just politely request or beg. therefore it should stay. Why do u want to remove it? Try not to ping people who you think will take ur side, next time you misbehave like this (I have already told u multiple times not to cnavass) I will be reporting you. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's just your POV that they "had the upper hand"! Please remove your POVs out of article and as per WP:ONUS, "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." So, avoid restoring this disputed content unless you've built a clear consensus here. Btw, my pinging was of course called an 'appropriate notification' and feel free to report me when ever you can. --Mhhossein (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not my POV, it is what has been reported. Anyway I wash my hands off of this stuff. I'll just open an RFC later on, lets have the other editors give their opinion. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

POV issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I fully agree. In addition, I think that the whole reaction section is essentially a WP:QUOTEFARM. Per WP:LONGQUOTE: "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style." and "Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section." I think the reactions section, especially the section dealing with Iran, does not conform to these rules. Also per WP:QUOTEFARM: "Overuse happens when: quotes are used to explain a point that can also be paraphrased the quotes dominate the article" which is the case here. Dr. K. 21:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: Just wait, Dolabi was there inside the event! Why should we remove him? Now, what do you think about having McCain's comment? However, I agree with having a single bullet for Khamenei and that having separate bullets are not necessary. Moreover we should shorten his quotes. Finally, I fully disagree with removing "teenagers bullet plus associated picture" as it is fully related to reaction section showing reaction of Iranian people. It would also be worthy of mentioning if American had made protests. Mhhossein (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to thank you for tagging the article. Mhhossein (talk) 06:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein please stop your POV editing. Everyone agrees with toning down the propaganda except you, so I am toning it down. @BlueMoonset and User:Dr.K. I think you will find the reactions section much more neutral now. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: Thank you FreeatlastChitchat for taking the time to improve the section. It is much more focused and encyclopedic now. Best regards. Dr. K. 16:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Your thank, of course, does not make the edit acceptable. Mhhossein (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein it does make it acceptable as everyone except you now agrees with my edit. You are the one going against consensus now. For your kind information consensus does not mean that we have to make you agree with us it means that we (the other editors) have looked at the policy at WP:NPOV and made a decision about the article. If you want to change that decision you are the one who will have to explain your edits. As per WP:BURDEN you need to prove something belongs in an article before you put it in. so basically you cannot put back the text you inserted until you explain its relevance here on the TP. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, you edited based on "vacuum", not consensus. Those "every one" were just 2 users against me. For example, they never said why the pic of simulation had to be removed, while I believe it's absolutely relevant. Mhhossein (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein you may believe anything you want here you must prove that it adds encyclopedic knowledge to the article, then add it. 4 users are editing the article three are against your edits tell you something doesn't it? FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 16:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, not all users have same viewpoints. My problem is your not respecting others' points. Anyway, there are other ways of dealing with such issues. Mhhossein (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Salami's ridiculous comments need to go. Has he not heard of the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or hell, Jessica Lynch or Bowe Bergdahl? Nonsensical statements intended to puff up one's own organization have no place on Misplaced Pages. Parsecboy (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the photo + text in the reaction section be removed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

On the 38th anniversary day of Islamic revolution of Iran, Iranian people reacted to the capture of 10 US sailors by simulating the scene, in some cities such as Tehran and Qom. They did it in a variety of styles using teenagers and older men. The incident was covered by multiple sources such as BBC, CTV News, Irdiplomacy, Daily mail, Observer and etc. The related information along with a photo was inserted in the reaction section which was removed later claiming that they were not encyclopedic. Now, should the info + pic of that event be removed or do you think they are notable enough and we have to mention them? Mhhossein (talk) 07:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Remove : As per WP:NOTNEWS FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• Include Obviously the information is news-worthy and yes, the information is encyclopedia. People searching for information about the subject should be afforded every opportunity to locate such information without having to search other sources. Always: More information is better than less provided the information is backed with references and citations. The fact that the information should be included should be obvious, and perhaps would be is volunteer editors were creating a professional encyclopedia. Damotclese (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Include Notable enough an well sourced. There's nothing POV in covering the fact that Iran is taking every bit of the propaganda value of this incident. ViperFace (talk) 03:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• Include (nominator): These are absolutely well sourced and encyclopedic information and is interesting for the readers. Mhhossein (talk) 11:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment the relevant policy here is WP:DUE, not WP:NOTNEWS. the content under dispute is clearly not a news story, but related to the larger event being described. The question is, given the coverage this particular sub-incident has received relative to the rest of the content in the article, is it appropriate to devote a paragraph and an image to it? In my judgement, yes, it is. Others may, of course, disagree, but they would have to explain why the volume of coverage does not justify inclusion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: This text and image were originally at the end of a very long and imbalanced Reactions section. Given the size of the section now, there won't be room for two photos in the Iranian subsection, and it doesn't belong in the American subsection. As for the text, the five sources above paint a very different picture from the original demonstrations text, since three of the five seem to dwell on embarrassment in Iranian social media that these simulations were presented, while the other two just talk about the simulations. To reflect the information in the five sources noted, which I'm assuming is a representative selection, a very different reaction sentence or two would need to be written for it to be neutral. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, after some supports are gained, I see that you have changed your "Finally, the teenagers bullet plus associated picture have no business in the article" to almost something else (that we may reflect the information in the five sources noted). Mhhossein (talk) 06:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, no. I still don't believe was appropriate in its original form. If it does get inserted again, however, it clearly can't be written as it was given the sourcing you've provided above. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but we know that "changing the form" is sth and "wanting the whole issue out of article" is something else. The proper way for dealing with the original form was not to remove it totally (what you suggested!). You could simply refer to the POV issue which is acceptable. Mhhossein (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Include relevant, sourced, encyclopedic BlueSalix (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Chronological order

FreeatlastChitchat: You reverted me twice ( and ) alleging that my version had disrupted chronological order of the events. You should explain here what you mean exactly, or your reverts are counted as vandalism and/or disruption. I believe that my version had no such problems you alleged. Mhhossein (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mhhossein "chronological" measn that we tell things as they happened. John Kerry called the Iranian guy and told him that he will nuke the hell out of Iran if Iran does not release the sailors. The Iranian guy was so afraid he called back 20 mins later (after an understandable bathroom break and cloth change) saying that the sailors were ok. Kerry then drove the point home with more phone calls. This should be written as it happened, the calls were not exchanged AFTER the sailors were released. Thus the chrono(time) logical order. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Based on the sources Kerry called within five minutes and they at least had 5 phone calls. What part of my version suggested that "calls were exchanged after the sailors were released"? Mhhossein (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Your version puts this sentence Some Republican presidential hopefuls such as Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have criticized the US response to the detention, which they deemed too weak between the timeline. It disturbs the order. The republicans did not talk/comment on this until AFTER the phone calls had been exchanged, thus we should mention them AFTER the exchange, plus the second sentence also throws an ambiguous light as to whether the sailors were ashore when he called first then made five more calls or he called when he got the news and made five more calls. So to make everything clear, we should just mention his calls and then the trump shenanigans. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat: The more I think the less I understand why you really reverted me. My version does not put the mentioned sentence between any timelines. It's right there after the "exchange of the phone calls". Can you see that? The mentioned sentence (Some Republican presidential hopefuls...) is located at the very end of the lead section in both versions and is after every thing else. The only difference is that I have took the details to the body of the article, what is exactly in accordance with the manual of style. Also, I think you have misunderstood the story; Non of the sentences suggests how many calls kerry made, rather we're only talking about the number of phone calls being exchanged between them (at least five based on the sources). So, this is a fact that kerry's call was followed by multiple other phone call exchange between the two ministers, i.e. after Kerry made the first call, more calls where exchanged between them. Why did you revert me really? Mhhossein (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

FreeatlastChitchat Your tone and behavior is not constructive and is so outrageously NPOV ("The Iranian guy was so afraid he called back 20 mins later (after an understandable bathroom break and cloth change) saying that the sailors were ok") you'll need to completely recuse yourself from any further editing on this article. The WP Talk section is not the appropriate place to organize a Flag Day celebration. BlueSalix (talk) 00:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

BlueSalix: This is just a small part of the story, look at other discussions! By the way, he can't respond your comment. Mhhossein (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Simulation of the arrest

BlueMoonset: Per the clear consensus formed above, I restored the bullet point regarding the "Simulation of the arrest". I saw that you are willing to add some points you have it balanced and would like to ask you discuss your points here. Mhhossein (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Mhhossein, it is frankly up to you to—in a section labeled "Reaction" of all places—to have that bullet point reflect the five sources you gave while arguing your case, some of which had highly negative reactions to those displays. To restore the bullet without making the necessary changes first is unfortunate. I think it's your responsibility to update the bullet text accordingly, but as the whole article still retains a neutrality template, at least the reader is properly warned, in the interim, that there are NPOV issues. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset: َAlthough I believe that the section has to be balanced per sources we got (that's why I pinged you), I think "to restore the bullet without making the necessary changes first is not unfortunate" and it's not my "responsibility" to do that. I also think that removing them for the sake of " having no business in the article" is much more unfortunate, isn't it? Anyway, I agree with you that it needs a POV template. Mhhossein (talk) 17:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

That you are unwilling to edit a bullet point you yourself created back on February 16 so it neutrally reflects the many sources you provided in your argument that it should be kept tells its own story. If you aren't capable of writing a balanced bullet point from the sources you yourself find, then you're going to continue to run into neutrality problems on articles that you contribute to, including those (like this one) that you bring to DYK or other places. No need to ping me further; I've spent enough time on this article. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I think you did not get the point. I don't reject the POV issue, yes it has to be resolved. My major issue is with your former biased approach toward the article which has changed now after the RFC proved that you were clearly wrong. It was clearly encyclopedic! you dismissed that, why? Anyway, as I said, I agree that other viewpoints has to be reflected here. Of course, I'm able to reflect the sources and you are able too. --Mhhossein (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Sorry for pinging you, but please note that I voluntarily did the job on my part, just to show my good faith. Note that I wouldn't open this topic on the article talk page if I did not want the section balanced. --Mhhossein (talk) 05:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class maritime warfare articles
• Maritime warfare task force articles
• C-Class Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles