Talk:2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis

Active discussions

Stena Impero dateEdit

The Stena Impero was seized on Friday July 19. Iran announced the seizure on the 20th.

August 2019 seizure of another tanker in the GulfEdit

According to a state T.v., the Revolutionary Guard Corps' naval forces seized a foreign tanker in the Gulf. The tanker is said to carry around 700,000 of fuel and its seven sailors have been detained.


Takinginterest01, the source doesn't say Syria is supporting Iran and the UK allegeded that the Iranian tanker was headed towards Syria but that is not an actual fact. It's an allegation by the U.K.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

In the title Syria is mentioned as the destination for Iran's oil tanker, its in the article's title this is support.Takinginterest01 (talk) 03:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
WHAT! LOL. So you didn't bother and read what the article says? That's an allegation and the Tanker never reached Syria. Don't read titles only. They are most likely clickbait.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Also I understand that the article is behind a paywall but you can figure that out if you are following the news about this crisis. I think China is the one that is supporting Iran.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)


Mikrobølgeovn you didn't provide a reason why you removed China and Russia.. Both countries have explicitly stated that they support Iran. China is trading oil with Iran despite US sanctions.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: This article is about the seizure of oil tankers and the military tensions between Iran and the US and its allies in the Persian Gulf. There is a different article for the sanctions against Iran. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Takinginterest01: Please explain what role the PMF and Hezbollah are playing in the Gulf (not Iraq or elsewhere). Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn:, firstly you must understand that Iraq is a gulf country, and that during the ongoing crisis PMF has attacked American bases in Iraq with rockets and mortars and there are also reports of the US taking some limited action against PMF, as well as putting pressure on Iraq to limit Iran's influence in Iraq and PMF which was established with American support in 2014, with US generals even praising it as a National Guard style force. Since the start of the situation tensions have drastically increased between PMF and US forces in Iraq and it is linked to this crisis, PMF is an involved party, as for Hezbollah they are likewise involved in supporting Iran's position in the region and in action against Israel which is listed as a belligerent among other things, there is no good reason whatsoever to remove PMF or Hezbollah they are both supported by Iran, and involved in the crisis, I am unsure why you think this has to do with sanctions, being that the sources mention their involvement in the current standoff.Takinginterest01 (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Takinginterest01: This article is about the seizure of oil tankers and military tension in the Gulf, not the bigger cold war between Iran and the US. PMF and Hezbollah "supporting Iran's position in the region" is so far irrelevant, and unless this turns into a hot war where they leap in support of Iran, they do not belong in the infobox. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn: Yet again, Iraq is a gulf nation, PMF has actively attacked US positions in Iraq in solidarity with Iran and under Iranian command, they are an involved party.Takinginterest01 (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Takinginterest01: Please prove that Iraq/PMF and Hezbollah are playing any role whatsoever in the naval tensions in the Gulf. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn:,,,, please stop trying to limit this article because of your own personal preferences the article is called the 2019 Persian Gulf Crisis not the 2019 seizure of Iranian oil tankers.
@Takinginterest01: Excuse me? Please read the first sentence in the lead. This article was always limited to the naval deployment in the Gulf. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn: The 2019 Persian Gulf crisis is an escalation of military tensions between Iran and the United States due to the deployment substantial military assets to the Persian Gulf.Takinginterest01 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the belligerent section is now better. We need to note that the involvement of the PMF is alleged by the US as what this source says [1] in addition I think we need to remove Iraq and only put PMF in the infobox and remove IRGC and only put Iran in there. The IRGC is a branch of the Iranian military so it's not like an independent entity or that would be like putting United States Navy under the United States.--SharabSalam (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Takinginterest01, did you see what I said in the edit summary? is not a reliable source!--SharabSalam (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: that's your opinion, which does not have a place here or hold any influence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talkcontribs)
Takinginterest01 This proves that you didn't read my edit summary. See the list of sources here WP:RSP it says generally unreliable. Also anyone who is interested in politics and Google the news everyday will see that is nuts. They post a lot of fake stories and with capitalized letters like this: RUSSIA WARNS THE US OF NUCLEAR WAR. You haven't noticed that??--SharabSalam (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@SharabSalam: point taken Takinginterest01 (talk) 22:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Also I noticed that you took the France reaction out of context. The France statement came after Trump said no body speaks on behalf of the U.S. accusing France of sending mixed messages to Iran. Also a lot of things are taken out of context in this article. I will try to improve it tomorrow (now it's too late) if I have time. In addition, thats not a related see also. Please remove it. You know it is not related but I don't know why you keep adding it. My opinion has no place in Wikipedia and you should take your opinion and put it in your pipe and smoke.--SharabSalam (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Takinginterest01: Since you insist on including Iraq, please prove that the Iraqi government supports Iran in this dispute. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn:, I have already proven PMF's involvement in the conflict, PMF is an Iraqi government entity, just read its article, The People's Mobilization Forces (PMF) were formed by the Iraqi government on 15 June 2014 and On 19 December 2016, Iraqi President Fuad Masum approved a law passed by parliament in November that incorporated PMU in the country's armed forces. With this incorporation, the PMU are now subject to the supreme commander of the national armed forces and will no longer be affiliated to any political or social group. PMF is involved and PMF is an institution of Iraq's government, there is no need for further discussion.Takinginterest01 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Takinginterest01 Why did you skip what I said above??.
That the PMF is involved in this, is an allegation that the PMF has denied. Also the attack on the green zone was by a group that call itself "Operations of Martyr Ali Mansour". The group claimed responsibility and said it is attacking foreign forces. The PMF has said that they have no relationship with this group.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Takinginterest01: Anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the situation in Iraq knows that it is not as simple as you're portraying it. Unless the Iraqi government leaps in support of Iran, the US and Iraq are not on opposing sides here. There would be a diplomatic uproar if that was the case. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree with what Mikrobol... said, Iraq is trying to be neutral in this crisis. Alsoo none of the sources that you cited above support what you said. It appears that you searched "Popular Mobilization Forces"+"Persian gulf crisis" in Google. The Kurdish source says that Iran supports the PMF and that's true. Iran supported the PMF when it was fighting ISIS and that doesn't mean they are involved in this particular crisis.--SharabSalam (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn:, Anyone with an ounce of knowledge and basic command of the English language would understand that The People's Mobilization Forces (PMF) were formed by the Iraqi government on 15 June 2014 and incorporated PMU in the country's armed forces. means PMU is part of Iraq's government and an entity of it, and likewise would understand the PMU are now subject to the supreme commander of the national armed forces means they are under the command of Iraq's government they do not operate outside the command of Iraq's government, stop trying to over complicate it and make it be a way that suits your preferences for what you deem ideal and proper, the facts are facts.Takinginterest01 (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Takinginterest01 please stop the inflammatory language it's not helpful. The sources you gave does not support what you said. Okay? I have talked about one of the Kurdish sources the other says that the PMF accused the U.S of attacking one of its groups the U.S denied that allegation. That's no a proof that the PMF is involved in this or that it supports Iran.. the foreign policy source says that The US accused the PMF and all Iranian proxies of the attack on the green zone next to it's embassy. The PMF rejected the accusation. Later a group called Operations of Martyr Ali Mansour claimed responsibility and denied that it is connected to Iran.[2] It says that they attacked the U.S because one Iraqi called Ali Mansour was wrongly killed by a U.S. soldier and that Trump pardoned that solider. So I suggest we remove Iraq and the PMF since all of this is accusations and not confirmed.--SharabSalam (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Takinginterest01: No sources indicate that Iraq is siding with Iran. Unless such sources can be provided, Iraq needs to be removed from the infobox. It's really that simple. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 11:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mikrobølgeovn: The People's Mobilization Forces (PMF) were formed by the Iraqi government on 15 June 2014 and incorporated PMU in the country's armed forces.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Takinginterest01 (talkcontribs)

@Takinginterest01: Bring one source that proves that the PMF is involved in this crisis. There is only accusations. The U.S. is in a panic mode, immediately after the attack on the green zone they accused the PMF. Later, a group called "Operations of Martyr Ali Mansour" claimed responsibility and said that they did what they did because Trump pardoned a person who killed innocent civilians in Iraq including Ali Mansour. These people didn't like Trump's decision and attacked the US embassy. They denied any relationship with Iran but they said they might consider allying with Iran(though they are Sunnis)--SharabSalam (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The PMF is part of the Iraqi army and it was fighting with Iran against ISIS before it was included to the Iraqi army so that the Iraqi government can control them and that's per a request from the U.S.. Israel is attacking them and has attacked them before but without admitting it because it sees them as a threat. That is not related to this. Are we going to add Hamas because Israel attacked Hamas recently?. If Israel attacked the PMF it doesn't necessarily mean that the PMF is siding with Iran.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Takinginterest01 can you seek consensus? Pleeeeeassssseeeee.--SharabSalam (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


Takinginterest01, Seriously? What's this Special:Diff/911478488? So you revert without any explanation? LOL. See what the source says

The U.S. government has issued a warrant to seize the supertanker Grace 1, which was detained last month on suspicion of hauling Iranian oil to Syria in violation of European sanctions.

SharabSalam (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam:, It says suspicion of oil, not suspicion of its destination, its destination was Syria there would be no other reason for it to go to Gibraltar or the Mediterranean, all sources that cover the story mention its destination as Syria the only suspicion is its cargo.Takinginterest01 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
No. Omg....
The ship was accused of violating the European sanctions against Syria. There is no European sanctions against Iran. The suspicion was about where the ship was headed to. Do some research!! I can't believe I am arguing with you about this. You have no idea what you are talking about. See the section "July 2019 capture of tankers" to learn more about this. Do you really know what is going on the Persian Gulf? Or you are interested in other political things but not this?--SharabSalam (talk) 04:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
The ship was detained because of the sanctions against Syria - the latest US warrant, however, appears to be about US sanctions against Iran, so are about the cargo, not the destination.Nigel Ish (talk) 08:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
And the context here and in the article is about the sanctions on Syria not Iran. It literally says European sanctions. Also the U.S never seized the Iranian Tanker.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are foreign office employees getting taken as hostage for the oil crisis?Edit

If birds of the same feather don't flock together and mutually don't save each other, they will become collateral damage to inter-government conflicts. There has to be some alternative means for these people to connect and save themselves when the government won't or can't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Belligerents 2Edit

There are way too many belligerents, one has to emphasize that nations/forces that are not yet actively engaging in military activities are not to be listed. In this sense verbal support is not even counted, while intelligence, logistic and financial support goes under "support". Australia and Israel are not yet actively deployed in the Gulf, so it is rather support; Bahrain is so far unsourced, so unless some source is provided, it should be removed.GreyShark (dibra) 06:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Bahrain was sourced 2 days before you wrote this. Any country actively participating militarily in the conflict should be listed as a direct belligerent. Similar to rest of Wikipedia infoboxes. These include, UK, US, Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Israel and Australia so far. Countries which provide support such as sale of arms but no direct military involvement shall be listed as support, as per in every other Wikipedia infobox. These include Russia and China so far on the side of Iran. (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Strongly agree with GreyShark. We also need sources on Saudi Arabia and the UAE who, albeit affected by the crisis, have not joined the coalition to the best of my knowledge. Also, let's get rid of China and Russia - if selling military equipment to a belligerent is criteria for inclusion, the infobox will end up 3-4 times bigger than its current size. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely correct about Russia - one source for alleged support says it is "offering to sell jets", but no jets have been sold yet. This violates Wikipedia's WP:CRYSTALBALL policy. Another source for Russia says it is supporting Iran verbally against Israel and US - verbal support is not military support. Words are not bullets.GreyShark (dibra) 11:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
The source on Bahrain says "support", not that it is actively involved.GreyShark (dibra) 11:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


As a UK territory, Gibraltar is obviously related, but detaining an Iranian tanker is not a military action, but at most a kind of support. Gibraltar is not a belligerent yet as no active military involvement has been done.GreyShark (dibra) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


Syria is a known ally of Iran in the region, but except some statements do sources indicate Syrian support with equipment, finances or intelligence during the Persian Gulf crisis?GreyShark (dibra) 15:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


Conditionally adding Japan, which announced it would sent its Navy in support of the US-led maritime coalition. Should actually deploy the ships or otherwise we remove it. Any updated info on this?GreyShark (dibra) 16:00, 7 January 2020 (UTC)


The Iraqi government is obviously not on the Iranian side, look 1. I will hence remove it soon if not challenged. Ms96 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree, Iraqi government and military are neutral in the conflict.GreyShark (dibra) 08:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
100% Agree. Someone is still reverting the edits made. Iraq is not openly fighting US or Saudi Arabian aligned forces. This is misleading, at least some Militias inside the Iraqi Army are waging guerrilla warfare or hit and run attacks on US bases. And thats not the same.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Should this really be called "Persian Gulf Crisis"?Edit

I mean the conflict talks about gulf of Oman, Yemen, and Saudi territories being attacked. Tankers in the strait of hormuz being seized and sanctions on Iran which extends all the way to the capsian sea. I understand the title is intended to show the American build up in the Persian Gulf but as far as I know US also evacuated personnel from Iraq and put out advisory for it's citizens in Saudi, while Iran shot down a US drone over Hormuz and it's territory, not just the Persian Gulf.

I don't know this title seems very vague and non discriptive. It's as good as calling it "2019 Middle East crisis". Maybe something like US-Iran tensions or Saudi-Iran tensions since all of this is technically a proxy war between Saudi and US on one side and Iran and it's proxies on the other. Calling it "Persian Gulf Crisis" makes it sound like another gulf war. Anyone cares to share their thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Let me explain what this article is about. Not only you who doesn't know the scope of the article but also some editors as well. The article content was in Iran–United States relations#2019 escalation in tensions and then the section become large so editors decided to move the content to a new article. So for example, Israeli airstrikes against Iraqi soldiers are not in the scope of this article. Although some editors will see it that way but it's not.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree with you that the article title should be changed. I have explained what the article content is about so maybe 2019 Iranian–US tensions is the alternative.--SharabSalam (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Agreed, this article is terrible to be honest. It lacks most of the material and doesn't fully describe the events surrounding US-Allies and Iran-Allies tensions, which have been escalating since May. This should be merged or a new article created titled 2019 Iran crisis which should include all US-Allies and Iran-Allies tensions and escalation since 2019. Bill497 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

how about west asian 2019 issues5.219.95.204 (talk) 10:42, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment on name changeEdit

  • agree. as per above, I feel article name and article scope could be changed. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Also another option is to have a separate article for the timeline. I have created a draft at Draft:Timeline of United States-Iran crisis, using the current timeline from this article. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • strong disagree, for now. The article name adequately sums up the area where most events and all surrounding events of the crisis are rooted and stem from. The events in Gibraltar are related to ME-EU politics and by proxy the "Gulf region" activities and shipping. The Main belligerents are the U.S. and Iran. Iran borders the Persian Gulf, the U.S. has many allies and many military bases throughout the gulf, many of which are involved in the crisis, therefore "Persian Gulf" should remain in the title, as the vast majority of activities and participants are in the Gulf and its immediate surroundings—including all of the recent events in Iraq-Kuwait, which are apart of the "Gulf region". Title is fine, if anything needs to be addressed, the main Timeline body needs more work and details, grammar fixes, better chronology of events, etc. RopeTricks (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
RopeTricks, those are valid points. please feel free to comment in talk section below. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • agree. (the following all assumes the article is not split into two) The title of this page, though possibly more factually accurate, is confusing and unintuitive. (It was not easy for me to find this article, even though I'm more familiar with Wikipedia's page naming policies than your average internet user. Not that I'm sure it matters, but people search "US Iran" much more often than "Persian Gulf" [1]) This article (which, I agree, could do with a change of scope) may encompass events in the entire Gulf region, but it is primarily about events commonly described as part of a US-Iran conflict. At the very least, we could note alternate names for this crisis. Ashley (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
For the record, IF it was absolutely necessary to change the name of the article, I'm currently open to "2019-20 Iran-United States crisis". Until then, I still think the current title is geographically accurate and suffices. RopeTricks (talk) 04:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

"2019–2020" vs "2019–20"Edit

Which format should be used in the title? Per MOS:DATERANGE two-digit ending years may be used for two consecutive years, and most other articles that span two years use the shortened form.  Nixinova  T  C   06:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It's been moved to "2019–20".  Nixinova  T  C   21:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

timeline section has to be moved to Draft:Timeline of the 2019–2020 Persian Gulf crisisEdit

guys, now that this is a major international crisis, the timeline format should be moved into its own article, with maybe the title of Draft:Timeline of United States-Iran crisis Draft:Timeline of the 2019–2020 Persian Gulf crisis. and then this article should be used to cover the historical developments, the increasing debate in the USA, the international reaction, the diplomatic reactions, etc etc etc. that is how Wikipedia would usually cover a developing crisis of this nature.

I would welcome any comments on this. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

by the way, just to clarify, I don't mean the timeline data should be fully removed from this article. i simply meant the timeline format itself should be moved to an article that is focused on the timeline; we can keep the information that is in the timeline here, but that section's format and content itself needs to be expanded, in order to actually cover this issue fully as a world issue, by covering policy, diplomacy, world issues, domestic developments, economic sanctions and issues, etc etc etc. --Sm8900 (talk) 14:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 10 January 2020Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 06:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis2019–20 Iran–United States tensions – I think this title will make the scope of the article more clear. See this discussion. Another option which I recommend is Iran–United States tensions (2019–present). SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment Why you not merge it with Iran-United States relations because I think this is same topic about the conflict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
This article's content was originally there. It got split to this article after a discussion here.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The current name is uncommon--Sakiv (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
Agree that Saudis and other Gulf States are actively involved, however the civilian Ukrainian jet incident is a collateral damage which doesnt make Ukraine a crisis participant.GreyShark (dibra) 11:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I mainly mentioned the plane being shot down b/c it’s the deadliest incident of the crisis. I’d say it briefly dragged Ukraine into the crisis. It may drag Canada into the crisis briefly or for a more significant period of time. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • OpposeCrisis is more urgent than tensions. The nature of the events making calling it tension a serious underplay of what occured. There are also other countries involved as other users have stated. As to the name being uncommon that is blatenly false. A search on bing nets you 7,960,000 articles with that name. Sounds pretty common. Boston1775 (talk) 09:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support - I think the article was made to reflect the tankers seized. However, as things progressed most of the tensions did not take place over the Persian Gulf but occurred in Iraq and to a lesser extent in Saudi Arabia and Iran. Also, the tankers which were seized or attacked occurred in the strait of Hormuz, gulf of Oman, and the Persian Gulf - not just the gulf. Saying persian gulf makes it sound like all this occurred inside the persian gulf, like the tanker war. The two main countries involved here are Iran and the US, with Saudi and Iraq coming up next. What's the whole persian gulf got to do with these tensions, US bases are not inside the persian gulf nor did solimani was killed in the persian gulf. Primdena (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "2019–20 Iran–United States tensions" makes it sound like an article that covers all incidents that happened between the US and Iran in 2019 and 2020, when really it covers a crisis in this one specific geographical area. There are also more parties than just the US and Iran. Crescendolis (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Tensions" is even less clear, too general, and drastically underplays the seriousness of the specific events that have occurred. A crisis is above tensions but lower than a conflict. This is a regional crisis involving regional players. RopeTricks (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Other parties involved, and 2019-20 Persian Gulf Crisis seems to fit more than 2019-20 Iran-United States Tensions.Fernsong (talk) 13:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Very misleading and inaccurate. Ms96 (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Topic is significant enough to deserve its own article. --Franz Brod (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

American Involvement?Edit

The page says it still needs a citation to prove american involvement when literally everyone who knows about the crisis knows that the U.S. is involved. The page in and of itself displays an American strategic bomber and an American drone that was shot down by Iran. It can't get any more obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:4000:C480:3C12:91C6:6FD8:23D3 (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Someone previously went through and applied citation templates where they weren't needed. I don't know who did it. RopeTricks (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Image CaptionsEdit

Someone needs to correct the captions. The captions appear to go left-to-right, top-to-bottom rather than clockwise, and there isn't even a caption for image 6. --Mocha2007 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Return to "2019–20 Persian Gulf crisis" page.