Talk:IRIS Konarak

Image

User:Mjroots, User:SamHolt6, User:Dumelow: I am amazed at how this article expanded with your work! I have a question, since I am not good with copyright. Can the image in Tehran Times [1], of the ship in better times, be uploaded? The bottom of the page says "All Content by Mehr News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.". There is also video and images after the strike (the whole superstructure is gone): [2], but I can't find licensing for that yet. Vici Vidi (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

CC4.0 means we can copy across to Commons. Use {{Mehr}} to attribute the correct licence. Mjroots (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Uploaded: pre-accident[3] and burning total loss.[4] Vici Vidi (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

[[File:|180px|Konarak burning after being hit by missile ]]

Konarak burning after being hit by missile

• ... that the Iranian support vessel Konarak was struck by a missile during training on 10 May 2020, killing 19 of its crew?"Nineteen sailors have been killed and 15 others injured in an accident involving Iranian naval vessels in the Gulf of Oman, Iran's navy has said. Iranian media reported that the support ship Konarak was hit by a new anti-ship missile being tested by the frigate Jamaran during an exercise on Sunday.""Iranian sailors killed in 'friendly fire' incident". BBC News. 11 May 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2020.
  • ALT1:... that the Iranian support vessel Konarak has since been converted into a combatant vessel armed with anti-ship missiles? "Veel van deze schepen van Hendijanklasse, waaronder dus de Konarak, zijn namelijk door de Iraanse marine recent zwaar bewapend, en voorzien van antischipkruisvluchtwapens." Which translates as "Many of these ships of the Hendijan class, including the Konarak, have recently been heavily armed by the Iranian navy and are equipped with anti-ship cruise missile." from: Karremann, Jaime (11 May 2020). "Raket van Iraans fregat treft Iraanse patrouilleboot: 19 doden" [Rocket from Iranian frigate strikes Iranian patrol boat]. Marine Schepen (in Dutch). Retrieved 11 May 2020.

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Grenfell Thomas

Created by Dumelow (talk), Vici Vidi (talk), Mjroots (talk) and SamHolt6 (talk) . Nominated by Dumelow (talk) at 14:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC).

• Added image, Mehr news is creative commons. Also File:Konarak whole.jpg could be used. Vici Vidi (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawing, this article has now been featured on "In the News" and so is ineligible for DYK (Eligibility rule 1e) - Dumelow (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

"Mehr news is creative commons" -- I am not familiar with Mehr but I can't see the CC license anywhere on their front page. What makes you say so? Can you point me to their licensing page please? -- Wesha (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Konarak whole.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Nearly double the number of crew were killed or injured

It might be worth mentioning how 19 were killed and 15 injured when the boat's compliment is only 15 crew according to the infobox. Where did the other 19 people come from? †dismas†|^(talk) 16:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, I changed the lede to reflect this.174.0.48.147 (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Although the "15 complement" could be cited to the Navypedia article, or elsewhere, it is not at all clear whether that refers to the vessel in its as-built role, or has been updated following the modifications to armed patrol boat. In any case, it is not at all unusual for the number of crew to be increased for particular assignments (in this case handling the intended targets). And if at sea for extended periods could well have a double crew on board - I don't think that there is any particular reason to doubt the Iranians if they describe the larger number as "crew". Davidships (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Konarak burning.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, on the grounds that the incident is independently notable of the ship, which itself has a notable pre-incident history; proposal stale for more than 10 months, with opposition before that. Klbrain (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Konarak vessel incident into Iranian support vessel Konarak#2020 friendly-fire incident. This article already contains more information than the stand alone article. 203.185.249.147 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - All the event information from Iranian support vessel Konarak can simply be merged into Konarak vessel incident. There isn't much more at either article. They both have the same amount of content. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 03:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Merge the other way round since the vessel is known only for this accident. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 04:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support the merge as proposed. Mjroots (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support the merge as proposed. Don't need two articles, but there is information on the vessel, like its conversion from an unarmed tender to armed ship, that is independent of the incident.--Vici Vidi (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The two pages are independently notable. The fact that Konarak vessel incident is stub does not mean it should be deleted; there is a lot more to add to it by a simple search. 80.210.223.147 (talk) 07:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Merge There's not much to write about the incident itself (which currently has only three sentences). Brandmeister^talk 07:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, but repurpose this article as Hendijan-class support vessel. Much of the non-incident content here is about the class, and the Dutch-built batch in particular; there is undoubtedly more to be said beyond the bare names in List of current ships of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy and the mention there of Kalat and apparently others converted to missile boats. If there was already a class article I would have supported merge on content grounds. Davidships (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the merge as proposed. As above suggestion not attracted any interest, I support the proposed merger on content grounds.Davidships (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the merge as proposed.Pennsy22 (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Keep this article and remove the incident related parts from Iranian support vessel Konarak (leave a sentence or two about the incident with a link to this article).--F4fluids (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

1- There are 3 other languages that have separate article for Incident and the Support Vessel. Merging two articles messes the links. 2- Some users in favor of merge have mentioned that if there was a different country maybe they would vote for not merging the articles, I am not sure if this a definition of bias based on nation that the incident occurred in. 3- This is a developing matter yet, I believe that keeping the articles separate will keep the organizing relevant information better.--F4fluids (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support merge as proposed comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose--Microinjection (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support merging both articles to Iranian support vessel Konarak (preferred) or to Konarak vessel incident. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support the merge as proposed. All information can be adequately captured under the vessel's page without running into length issues. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support a merge - either as proposed or as a reverse of what was proposed, but we don't need 2 articles. i doubt the Konarak is notable as a standalone topic, but I could be persuaded otherwise. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

  Struck comment by JungerMan Chips Ahoy!, a blocked and banned sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NoCal100/Archive § 06 May 2020 and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/NoCal100 for details. — Newslinger talk 15:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There should be a completely different section under the page Iranian support vessel Konrak containing most of this information. Ringo Asinal - Nocead12345 (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support the merge as proposed. Merging will keep information together. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support merger either way - No disrespect intended to the author of this, but it's a short article, with no major further information is likely to come to light to expand it or make it massively notable. Merge either way - Iranan support vessel Konarak into this would probably be best, as it's a non-notable ship, but the other way round is fine too. By the way, whatever is happening, shouldn't this be linked on the Main Page? Sir Magnus has spoken! (So can you!) 15:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support the merge as proposed. If this were a collision from a more transparent nation, subsequent reports on its causes and news coverage might be generated, but I'd be surprised if that were the case for Iran. Given that, it seems most reasonable to merge the two. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 18:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support the merge as proposed. — Goszei (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, This is an incident that has been widely reported in the media and the discussions around it continue. Shahab760 (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support an inversion of the proposed merge. A merge does seem the appropriate course of action under these circumstances, but clearly the subject of interest which is the focus of the majority of the sources (and which brings this relatively small support vessel itself to international attention for the first time) is the incident itself. The articles for the incident and the ship are both recent additions, and there's really no reason to believe the vessel would have had independent notability justifying a stand-alone article under WP:GNG if not for the incident. In all respects (including the crucial detail of the focus of the RS), the most intuitive and significant namespace for the article would seem to be the one which references the incident. That said, I would also argue that all or most of the content of the vessel article should be included in the ultimate merged article, since it will mostly be fully cite-able to the relevant sources and is significant contextual information which may reasonably be of interest to those wanting information about the incident and the vessel itself. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Support merger as proposed - many other friendly fire incidents in a ship's history are on the individual ship page. This does not need its own page.Llammakey (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Support merger as proposed - There are quite a few pages on Wikipedia that provide details of various ships; for example USS_George_H.W._Bush and HMCS_Ville_de_Québec_(FFH_332). If these modern ships from the west are notable, I would imagine that this Iranian ship is notable as well (perhaps notable more to the Iranians than to westerners).Dig _deeper ^talk 16:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Support merger as proposed The incident with the Konarak is important for understanding the Konarak as a ship, keeping the Konarak incident as a seperate article takes away from the learning about the Konarak one can gain from reading this article. I Support the Merger — Preceding unsigned comment added by JazzClam (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - Both are valid and independent subjects in their own right. - chris_j_wood (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

It's definitely not unheard of to keep both the article on the ship and the one on the incident (like we did with USS Liberty incident for example) but are they really both "valid and independent subjects in their own right" in this case? 1) I can't find any sources that cover the vessel without mentioning the incident; 2) our article on Konarak was only created after the incident and 3) all of the sources it currently uses relate to the incident. That said, I obviously oppose the merger as proposed as well (but support it the other way around, i.e. vessel into incident). 78.28.44.111 (talk) 22:45, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

When you say you did not find any sources that cover the ship without mentioning the incident, did you search beyond English based articles? It’s possible that coverage for specific Iranian ships in general on English based search engines might be relatively low unless there was such an incident. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Added some older sources available on the web; editors with easier access to standard naval ref sources (Jane's, Conway etc) will be able to add more. Davidships (talk) 21:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Support the merge, all of the sources refer to the incident, there are no sources on the vessel that do not refer to the incident. Regarding the title of the merged page, 'Konarak vessel incident' is the most appropriate. Ideally it should be a citeable english translation of a popular citeable persian name for the incident. Please note that the only persian source so far is of the BBC, a UK source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TZubiri (talk • contribs) 02:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It is incorrect that there were no pre-incident sources when you wrote this (and there would be more, but my library is currently closed). Davidships (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, if you are talking about Navypedia and that sort of thing, that's not really the kind of detailed, contextual coverage that is meant to be contemplated when making a determination of WP:Notability under our relevant policies. In fact, some of those per-incident sources that have been added arguably do not even rise to the level of a WP:RS. In any event, all the coverage prior to this incident really only amounts to a few dry isolated technical details about the ships dimensions, construction, and years in service. They do not constitute enough information to have justified an independent article for the ship under either WP:GNG or a subject-specific notability policy, which pretty much highlights the fact that the ship itself is the dependent topic, whereas the incident is the independent topic that unquestionably satisfies notability guidelines. If there is a merge, it should certainly go the direction of the information in this article being merged into the namespace for the incident. Not that it's going to be a huge deal either way, but that's definitely the most intuitive and appropriate move under every relevant policy.Snow ^{let's rap} 18:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per arguments by User:chris_j_wood. I can find sources about operational history of Konarak and make it a better article. Pahlevun (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.