Talk:Iran Air Flight 655

Softening of initial US denial

We went from: The Pentagon initially denied the Iranian claim that the U.S. has shot down the airliner, and declared that information from the fleet indicated it had shot down an attacking Iranian F14, but within hours confirmed it shot down the Airbus.

To: Pentagon officials initially said Vincennes had shot down an Iranian F-14, but issued a retraction within hours and confirmed Iranian reports that the target was instead a civilian Airbus.

If you look at the source it literally says the the US denied the claim from Iran they shot down the airplane.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_International_Airlines_Flight_752 This page doesn't say, "Iran initially said", they call it denial. I think this page should follow the source we use and do so too. Corn Kernel (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was never softened, the opposite actually. In early January and the many years before, it never even existed in the article:[1]. It's only here because you've added it in several, times. Stickee (talk) 06:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I didn't add it, but after I added it, it was softened. Literally everything on wikipedia was added at some point, my point is that this is what the article says (i.e. denied Iranian claim), and that was softened. I am using a source you added for this. The point is not if it existed before or not, the point is that now it does, there is a source that says this and it is being softened.Corn Kernel (talk) 09:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a subtle way in which the two incidents differ. With the shoot down of Flight 655, U.S. national authorities reversed themselves within hours when the initial reports from Vincennes personnel that they had shot down an Iranian F-14 changed to reports the U.S. had shot down an airliner; there were no denials in which the U.S. authorities knew they had shot down an airliner but denied it anyway. With the shoot down of Flight 752 in the Iranian Capital, the Iranians continued to deny it for three days when they knew within hours that the IRGC had carried out a shoot down with a Tor-M1. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the same. But if a source says denial of a specific claim why does that not get included? We should follow the source and not editorialize. If there a good reason for it, sure. But right now the source we use says the US denied a specific claim, and it has been edited to soften that. It already did include that within hours they confirmed it was the airbus. Secondly in the source "Evans, David" it's indicated that least a US nearby frigate commander knew within minutes that the Airbus was shot down. So I don't think the claim "there were no denials in which US authorities know they had shot down an airliner" will stand without an independent source, it seems to me that there must have at least some confusion (so maybe no denials where they were confident in the facts). Corn Kernel (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta agree with Azure here. They're different and sources indicate that. The part about Evans is just straying into original research. Stickee (talk) 10:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say we should add that, but "there were no denials in which the U.S. authorities knew they had shot down an airliner but denied it anyway" also seems to stray into original research. Get back to the topic please. Why don't we follow what the source says? Corn Kernel (talk) 13:30, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a tertiary source - we summarise multiple secondary sources. It seems a fairly accurate summary of what the sources say in context of the article. Taking a step back, I'm sceptical this sentence event warrants being in this article in the first place, as sources rarely mention it an it fails WP:DUE. Stickee (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential Factors" poorly written

There are A LOT of points, many of which lack even a single citation, and several of which are very vague and questionably worded. To draw just one example:

"The radar, for all its sophistication, cannot detect the type or size of the aircraft."

Why include [for all its sophistication], this sounds like really unnecessary congratulating of the US equipment? Likewise that seems like a pretty major factor, why don't we have a citation there or the type of Radar being used?

Ditto for the point on the aircraft ascending instead of descending, why phrase it [people they could trust]? It sounds highly apologetic of the actions of the crew and clearly in this instance they couldn't trust people over their instruments?

While this section of the article is vital, as explaining how the event came to pass is key, the phrasing comes across on many points as less objective and more a specific effort to try to reframe the incident much like US media at the time had done. 2A02:C7F:2246:5600:3CB1:94CA:5673:6868 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British ambassador to Amman Bridget Brind was shot dead

What is this sentence doing at the end of the 'Nationalities of the victims' section? Zommes (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and heat stress

I was looking at a global climate map and this appears to be the most inhospitable area on Earth by dew point and wet-bulb temperature, which rarely fall below 80F all summer. It seems likely that the heat was impairing the crew's judgement. Octaazacubane (talk) 22:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Octaazacubane based on what? Aircraft have air-conditioning and a temperature gradient means that it would have been cooler in the air. No reliable source maintains any concern about the state of mind of the crew, all of which were highly experienced. – Isochrone (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map Error?

I believe there is an error with the map "File:Iran_Air_Flight_655_map.svg" made by @Isochrone. Oman is incorrectly labelled as Yemen in the smaller map in the bottom right-hand corner of the image. Mr.Sagdiyev (talk) 13:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed now. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry and thank you both! – Isochrone (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bush quote

A much politicised quote relating to Iran Air Flight 655 comes from George H. W. Bush: "I will never apologize for the United States—I don't care what the facts are […] I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy."
This quote was first misattributed by Newsweek and has subsequently been picked up by a surprising number of publications. It has been endlessly discussed on this talk page and now exists with the following context:

George H. W. Bush, then vice-president of the United States, commented on another occasion, in a televised recording, whilst addressing a group of Republican ethnic leaders during the 1988 presidential campaign: "I will never apologize for the United States—I don't care what the facts are ... I'm not an apologize-for-America kind of guy." The quote, although unrelated to the downing of the Iranian airliner and not in any official capacity, has been mistakenly attributed as such. Bush used the phrase frequently during the 1988 presidential election campaign and promised to "never apologize for the United States" months prior to the July 1988 shoot-down and as early as January 1988.

The problem with this is that it is all synthesis of published materials. None of the cited sources explicitly say "the quote is taken out of context", rather, we have a mess of different sources used to support what is effectively original research (as much as it annoys me to say that).

The only sourced conclusion available is that Bush made that quote in relation to the Flight. I do not think it is right to just leave that in, and I propose to just remove the section on the quote, including the quote itself, in its entirety. Whilst it is important to contextualise the quote, we cannot do so with synthesis and original research. – Isochrone (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems removing this has been proposed before, as well. – Isochrone (talk) 10:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pull quote from the Wa Post article says directly "Bush, who ... came of age in World War II, instinctively identified with the crew members and captain on the Vincennes. He said he would not apologize for the incident. "I will never apologize for the United States of America!" he frequently declares in campaign speeches." That quote has been removed in the last decade, but it's paywalled now.[2] That language was part of campaign speeches prior to the shootdown as the other refs demonstrate. C-SPAN has the entire clip, [3] at 2:30 the quote is spoken, but there is no mention of Iran or the shootdown. He was in the middle of talking about Poland. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that reliable sources have explicitly stated (incorrectly) that he is saying that with reference to Flight 655. Even that WaPo article is vague – it could be that he refused to apologise for the shoot down in many campaign speeches. It comes back to WP: Verifiability, not truth; we need reliable sources stating that the quote is incorrectly attributed, and I believe that the WaPo article is too vague to dismiss the claims of many reliable sources. I am not saying what the section says is wrong, merely that we must reflect reliable sources. Once again, I think just removing the section makes the most sense. – Isochrone (talk) 07:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is just going to re-add the quote without the context that he had been using that same phrasing for months prior to the shootdown and without linking the video showing that he made no mention of the downing. This same discussion has occurred on the G. H.W. Bush page on wikiquote a few times in the last 15 years as well. It's pretty clear from all the sources there and here that this was something he said routinely during the campaign, even prior to July '88. If you want to omit the word "mistakenly" I guess I don't have a problem with it. It has been commonly attributed to be related to the shootdown, even though he was not discussing Iran, and he used that wording through-out the campaign. I think that context is important to the quote. "The quote, although unrelated to the downing of the Iranian airliner and not in any official capacity, has been attributed as such." --Dual Freq (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed items from 'popular culture' section

I've removed two items from the pop culture section -

1. In Raymond Khoury's book The Templar Salvation the shooting down is the key motivation for the Iranian protagonist.
2. In Kaveh Akbar's debut novel Martyr! the shooting down is an important part of the protagonist's life and motivation.

These are peripheral connections that we as editors are not allowed to make. We need Reliable Sources [book reviews, etc.] that make that connection. Until that time, they cannot return to the article. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"While Vincennes engaged with the gunboats, it entered Iranian territorial waters"

This is a false assertion, the video on the Vincennes as well as the Newsweek article Sea of Lies confirms that the Vincennes had to steam for miles to find gunboats to target. It did not enter Iranian waters while engaged with the gunboat. 73.224.210.195 (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evans makes clear that Vincennes got the OK to open fire AFTER he was inside Iranian waters 73.224.210.195 (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Falsehood about Fogarty report

"In 1992, journalists from Newsweek obtained a full copy of the DoD's internal report which included a map and coordinates of Vincennes. They concluded that Vincennes was about 4 kilometres (2.5 mi; 2.2 nmi) inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shootdown. This was admitted in a report by Admiral William Fogarty"

The Fogarty report certainly DID NOT admit that the USS Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters, quite the opposite the Fogarty report's unclassified version had erased an Iranian island Furthermore the Vincennes engaged Iranian gunboats AFTER entering Iranian waters oo it did not enter Iranian waters in the midst of engagement - See Carlson

From the data extracted from the Vincennes’ Aegis combat system, the Iranian gunboats did not turn toward the cruiser until 0942—after Captain Rogers had been given permission to fire. Time 0942 is the vital piece of information that destroys the myth that the Vincennes and Elmer Montgomery were under direct attack by a swarm of gunboats. The time the Iranian gunboats turned was duly recorded by the Aegis data tapes, but it was not contained in the investigation report. Not until four years later, when Admiral William J. Crowe, U.S. Navy (Retired), the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, testified to the House Armed Services Committee on 21 July 1992, did this significant datum come to public light.13


YOU GUYS ARE TRYING TO DOWNPL:AY AND REWRITE THE HISTORY 73.224.210.195 (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rather accusing editors of attempting to "rewrite the history", we would benefit from you clearly providing references to a reliable source that, as you say, rejects this claim. Errors are always possible, please assume good faith when making such aspersions.
As you note, there are two copies of the Fogarty report. The publicly released edition, submitted to the ICAO and ICJ, redacted details on Vincennes's exact position. The copy that Newsweek obtained, as the article states, omitted these redactions. Indeed, the declassified edition (released 2001) of the Fogarty report states on p39:

USS VINCENNES entered the territorial waters of Iran during the engagement.

I think the main problem here arises from having separate sections for the different accounts, when in reality these should be merged into one to allow better neutrality using the published sources. The gunboats for example are discussed in the "independent sources" section, and Zatarain and others discuss their alleged threat (if any) heavily. But in the article's current form it is difficult to maintain balance. I intend to begin merging these sections but it is obviously a huge undertaking. I am currently away from my computer but I will look at the sources later as well to make sure their is indeed integrity with the text. – Isochrone (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also on the discrepant US accounts of the position, I am currently writing a section to add on that. I am waiting for some maps to arrive that I can add later first. – Isochrone (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Koohi v United States

The page should mention the case of Koohi v United states where the judge ruled that even if the shootdown had been deliberate, the US had sovereign immunity. 73.224.210.195 (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple errors

1 - The fact that the USS Vincennes was inside Iranian waters when it shot down the Iranian airliner should be in the very first paragraph instead of alluded to much later - this is the key fact of the whole incident.

2- The US Navy has always maintained that the Vincennes was defending itself in international waters when it shot down the Iranian airliner (when in fact it was inside Iranian waters and had initiated hostilities) and the admission by Crowe on Nightline 4 years later was when he was retired & no longer a US Navy official. "...officials blamed Iran for the accident, saying the USS Vincennes had been operating in international waters and was defending neutral merchant ships from Iranian gunboats when the unidentified aircraft appeared on its radar screen" Dredging Up Gulf Secrets `Nightline' Investigates The Airbus `Accident' The Washington Post 01 Jul 1992 by John Lancaster DREDGING UP GULF SECRETS - The Washington Post

3- While the US did pay compensation this was not only "Ex Gratia" and not only denied responsibility but cited this as an example for Iran about how "civilized nations" are supposed to behave - "It does seem, however, appropriate and important that as our part of this humanitarian effort is completed, we call, perhaps by joint congressional resolution, upon the Iranian Government to observe how civilized nations should act if they intend to be responsible citizens of the world community. …" ARTICLE: THE DOWNING OF IRAN AIR FLIGHT 655: EX GRATIA PAYMENTS AND THE IRANIAN AIRLINE TRAGEDY, 83 A.J.I.L. 325, 332. In other words they lied about the location of the vincennes, killed a bunch of people, underpaid compensation while denying responsibility and also claimed to be more civilized. Note again that they're asserting that the USS Vincennes was acting in self-defense in international waters.

4- There was no way for any Iranian airliner to know that just a few minutes earlier the USS Vincennes had entered Iranian waters and started shooting at Iranian boats that posed no danger to it - again inside Iranian waters. Iran Air 655 was shot down minutes after takeoff. So to suggest that Iran was responsible for "allowing" the plane to fly over the incident is just silly and even more so when the plane and the Vincennes were both inside Iranian territory.

5- The NOTAM is not a justification to shoot down civilian airliners while inside Iranian waters and note that other countries flew their jets across the Persian Gulf at the time too

6- Even if Iran had been flying an F-14 it was perfectly entitled to fly its own jets inside its own airspace. Iranian F-14s were not equipped to attack naval vessels either

7- Many airports have military and civilian uses including Dulles Airport so that fact about Bandar Abbas airport has no particular relevance nor a justification for the shootdown

8- There was no reason for the Vincennes to enter Iranian waters to go towards the helicopter that had drawn warning shots while it buzzed Iranian boats inside Iranian territory - if the helicopter was in danger it could have simply left Iranian territory, faster too.

9- Admiral Crowe wrote later after the Nightline report that the Vincennes had entered Iranian waters in the course of a conflict when in fact the Vincennes open fire after entering Iranian waters and not in defense of any international shipping or in self defense (if acting in self-defense there was no need to get permission to open fire as Carlson noted.) He also claimed that the location of the Vincennes inside Iranian waters was not significant and was rightful as long-standing legal practice - but had not been disclosed in the official declassified report because it would give away Rules of Engagement. Crowe says Vincennes was in Iranian waters rightfully - UPI Archives

10- You should mention there were a couple of lawsuits from the incident including Koohi v United States which among other things ruled that the US was immune even if the shooting had been deliberate: "The result would be no different if the downing of the civilian plane had been deliberate rather than the result of error."

11- You should mention that Howard Stern and other talk shows and TV programs started claiming that the Iranians had put dead bodies on the plane and deliberately aimed it at the USS Vincennes to gain propaganda points and proof of this supposedly was in the fact that the dead bodies recovered from the Persian Gulf were naked. This claim is still promoted by denialists.

12- According to the Newsweek article Capt. Will Rogers was specifically warned of "possible comair" and raised his hand in acknowledgment

13- None of the other US Navy ships in the region misidentified the ascending, departing Airbus for an descending approaching F-14

etc etc This article requires a LOT of revision 63.131.130.254 (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you can make these changes if you want instead of saying it here, right? If you feel like the article need revision, then just do it. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 05:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I leave it to you expert editors
Here's the transcript of the Nightline episode too: IR655: "The USS Vincennes: Public War, Secret War": (ABC Nightline, July 1 1992) (Iran Air, 290 victims)
Note the very first opening that correctly emphasized the location of the Vincennes inside Iranian waters contrary to US assertions:
There was the “official” story.
George H.W. Bush (U.S. Vice President, Jan. 20 1981-1989 Jan. 20) [July 14, 1988]:
“One thing is clear, and that is that the USS Vincennes acted in self-defense.”
Ted Koppel (voice-over).
An official story—
Of the American warship as victim.
At the right place.
At the right time.
Minding its own business.
Richard S. Williamson (Assistant Secretary of State, International Organization Affairs, 1988-1989) [July 13, 1988]:
“The ship was, at the time of the incident, in international waters.”
Ted Koppel (voice-over).
It was official.
And untrue.
Tonight, the real story of what happened... 62.96.244.8 (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these points (particularly the first one) seem a moot as we already include the relevant information in the article. But there does seem to be a recurring problem with how we divide the different "viewpoints" in this article. To rectify this, I have begun rewriting and rearranging part of this article in my sandbox. I have done this will the goal of reducing duplication and allowing more neutral balancing of points.
I will likely spend much more time on this but currently a big problem is with how we arrange the responses/aftermath. In my draft version, the facts of the case are in one section and the US/Iranian government responses in their own. I think this helps to address concerns about the discrepant US takes. The draft is far from completion but I am open to feedback. – Isochrone (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655