Talk:Abqaiq–Khurais attack

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jordan Figdor.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback from New Page Review process

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: More references, please..

LefcentrerightTalk 14:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Saudi is named as backer of the Government. Iran should be named as backer (funds and weapons/drones) of the rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.107.152 (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Map

Neither this page nor Khurais oil field show where that facility is (though there are coordinates to help. Davidships (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

In cooperation with honorable and free people inside the kingdom

Hi, I wonder if its okay to add that the Houthi spokesman (Yahya Saree) said that the attacks came after "careful intelligence operation, prior monitoring and cooperation from honorable and free people within the kingdom". I cant find any English source for this. And the video is not fully translated but here is an Arabic full version[1]. These are some Arabic sources for this [2][3]--SharabSalam (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The information seems notable enough to me, and Deutsche Welle a reliable enough source for the statements. However, I don't speak Arabic, and coincidentally, the translation you provide is almost exactly the same (one word is different: "prior" has ""advance") as the one provided by this well-known free robotic translation service. I'm willing to try to add this, provided someone validates the translation. Wakari07 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Oops, it's added already. Point made. Wakari07 (talk) 12:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

DW misquoted him. He said "careful[(could be translated to advance)] intelligence operation, prior monitoring and cooperation from honorable and free people..."

It is notable in the Arab media. Thanks for the translation.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added the translation.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Cruise missile attack?

LissanX said that the cruise missile attack theory is now confirmed, any sources for that?--SharabSalam (talk) 13:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Confirmed by unnamed and "suggested" by US and Saudi authorities. I don't think this meets our WP:Verifiability standard. Wakari07 (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the edits with comment "please mind WP:Sources and WP:Verifiability and do provide WP:Attribution". Wakari07 (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

There were pictures circulating of the left over parts of a cruise missile and various news reports, as well as a video apparently showing a missile used in the attack. e.g. PHOTOS SHOW HOUTHIS USED CRUISE MISSILE IN THEIR ATTACK ON SAUDI OIL FACILITIES LissanX (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Wakari07 Al-Jazzeria report says suggested with a link to this article which says Saudi and American officials are investigating the possibility that attacks on Saudi oil facilities Saturday involved cruise missiles launched from Iraq or Iran, questioning Yemeni rebel claims of responsibility, people familiar with the matter said.

The drone attack is confrimed by the Saudi interior minister

We were discussing reported *cruise missiles* here. Everyone seems to agree that drones were used. Wakari07 (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

LissanX the link you gave is broken. Also is it reliable?--SharabSalam (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the 404 not found - Southfront circulating pictures of "a cruise missile that appears to be identical to the Houthis’ Quds cruise missile" somewhere in the desert... could be anything in my opinion. What is sure is that unnamed (US, Saudi), reportedly official, sources behind a WP:Paywall allege that cruise missiles were used. And Reuters says the US official, "who asked not to be named", says indications of "signs that cruise missiles were used" came from unnamed Saudi officials. While the allegation may be remotely attributed, that's too little for a fact. Even Trump seemed to invoke Wikipedia's policies when saying it's "depending on verification" ;-) Wakari07 (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Removing content on state-backed media

Why was the fact that the Middle East Eye backed by Qatar being deleted from the article, especially after such significant allegations against rival states were made? Such information is highly relevant and should not be arbitrarily censored. LissanX (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

• Quatar is not directly involved in what has taken place, so it is not a fact needed for the article. This could easily be found out by visiting the Middle East Eye's Wikipedia page as well. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• Presumably SA will either blame or not blame the Iranians. Either way, in the long term, that statement from the Middle East Eye would not be helpful against official statements from SA. --Masem (t) 18:29, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
• I removed it because it is not relevant. It's not only the middle East Eye who made the allegation, there is also Kuwaiti newspaper who said that there were drones passing from Iraq towards Saudi Arabia in Kuwaiti airspace. Please ping me because I filter out talk pages from my watchlist.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Drone wars

you should make a new article category called drone wars93.110.182.18 (talk) 05:47, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

As a small step, I moved the drone war redirect to drone strike, it pointed to drone strikes in Pakistan. Drone warfare also points to drone strike. There are many related articles, such as: flying monkeys (popular psychology), Disposition Matrix, United States National Security Council#Kill_authorizations, manhunt (military), targeted killing, public opinion about U.S. drone attacks, proxy war, unmanned aerial vehicle, target drone, Tactical Control System, swarming (military), anti-aircraft_warfare#AUDS, battlefield UAV, battlefield UAVs of the United States, unmanned combat aerial vehicle, history of unmanned aerial vehicles, list of unmanned aerial vehicle applications, miniature UAV. Some lists are: civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes, list of UAV-related incidents, list of drone strikes in Pakistan, list of drone strikes in Yemen, list of United States drone bases, list of proxy wars, ... Indeed it seems a good idea to centralise it somewhere, and the concept is more than just strikes. Wakari07 (talk) 21:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

evidence

Please observe WP:FORUM - this whole section should be hatted - Administrator? 104.169.37.72 (talk) 00:04, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

where is the evidence drones where from Iran5.219.65.181 (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

So far no evidences. Probably the Houthis did it. If not then the UAE with the Houthis[4]. I doubt Iran did it. I personally think that the US "intelligence" is not reliable its becoming like the the boy who cried wolf.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

We do have to go off the statements SA has made claiming that the drones were made in Iran. We can't tell how verifyable it is hence why we use attribution and let the reader decide for themselves. --Masem (t) 14:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Count Iblis, is your account compromised? Why did you post an Arabic comment here with the signature of user:أبو يحيى ? The video could be edited, next to the airport etc.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the introduction

Greetings Masem (talk · contribs) I'd like to bring your attention to how misleading the introduction it is right now. The introduction depicts the Houthis as the definite doers of the attack, which is outdated information since the press conference that the Saudi ministry of defense held yesterday confirmed that the attack was not from the Houthis, but it is from Iran. The ministry on live-coverage showed the missiles used, which are made in Iran. The United States and Kuwait intelligence have also confirmed that the missiles were launched from Iran. Therefore, the introduction, which most of the readers only read, does not represent this updated fact. And I do not want to edit it but only to go to edit wars later, so would you be interested in helping me update the introduction and make it in a way representative of the facts, rather than outdated information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmopolitan268 (talk • contribs)

The Saudi press conference didn't say where the attack came from. They said that the weapons were used were Iranians or based on Iranian weapons and that their cameras shows that the attack came from north. They haven't said that the attack came from Iran. And apparently Trump is refusing to accuse Iran. Also the lead seems fine not as you described it.--SharabSalam (talk) 11:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We are treating the situation as claims made, there is no fact yet on who did it it, regardless of what the US, Saudis, and Kuwaiti say. This we present the possible suspects in chronological order. --Masem (t) 12:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem (talk · contribs) With all due respect, but the introduction is still not in line with the updates if we want to present it chronologically . Yesterday's conference explicitly stated that it came from the north, not the south where the Houthis are. It also showed by live-coverage that the attack was not only by drones (the introduction only states that), but also by missiles and I quote: "A total of 25 Iranian drones and missiles were launched...including Iranian Delta Wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and “Ya Ali” cruise missiles." These facts are not conveyed in the introduction. Wikipedia ia a place where only facts are, not wishes. --Cosmopolitan268 (talk) 12:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

These are claims made by parties to the event, and very specifically a long-standing dispute. The reliable media are not taking these claims as fact, so neither should we. --Masem (t) 13:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

That being, adding the SA's claims related to the drone parts from the press event yesterday should be added to the lede, which I did. Still not strong enough to make it factually Iran behind it. --Masem (t) 13:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem (talk · contribs) Thank you, but why taking Houthis' cliams and Iran's statements as "facts", but not for Saudi Arabia? For example, Saudi Arabia said the attacks weren't only by drones but also by missiles, but it doesn't get a mention at all in in the introduction. It makes you really wonder! --Cosmopolitan268 (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Cosmopolitan268: nobody's claims are being treated as facts: they are being attributed, as claims, which is appropriate in this case. -Darouet (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

We're not taking their claims as facts either. We iterate what they have said (Houthis claiming responsibility, Iran denying any), but presented with attribution. The article is developed from the standpoint that we *know* drones hit these oil facilities, caused fires, and shut down production, but factually have no idea who as responsible, only that some have claimed responsibility, some haven't, and other bodies have made assertions as to who was at fault. Nothing in the article factually states any party being responsible or not involved. --Masem (t) 16:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I added that Saudi Arabia and US officials believe that the attack was carried out using missiles to the lede and infobox. BTW, the lede in Wikipedia is the first paragraph in the article and the lead is the whole introduction until the next section. The drone attack is claimed by both Houthis and Saudis so it can be in Wikipedia voice.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem said at 19:43, 22 September 2019 "it is 100% a drone attack. The variations are best left to the body." I disagree with his apparent belief he has the authority to declare for the entire Wikipedia community that there is 100% certainty of such an issue, which is clearly in dispute.User:207556versant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207566versant (talk • contribs)

Masem continues to revert my changes in an apparent attempt to definitively state that the Houthi version of events is the only true one. His ability to know "100%" what transpired is amazing. Perhaps he is posting from Abqaiq and has firsthand knowledge no one else has. 207566versant (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2019 (UTC)posted by 207556Versant

There is no question it was a drone strike, as that element is in all versions of what happened. Whether it was also cruise missiles remains in question. --Masem (t) 21:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Coordinate of Khurais

Currently we have Abqaiq coordinate only in the infobox, two days ago, I tried to add two coord templates to the infobox but I got a warning. Any idea how to solve this issue? thanks.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The infobox for the military attack is hard-coded on one set of coords (and its map). Before we had the VOA map I was looking at how to update it to consider multiple sites, I'll have to revisit that. --Masem (t) 20:11, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Dubious report by the Wall Street Journal

I have started a disscussion earlier about this report see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Dubious_report_by_the_Wall_Street_Journal if you want to join--SharabSalam (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

[5] Indeed, a correct attribution would make the blurb an unencyclopedic hodgepodge. Wakari07 (talk) 21:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert made by USer.

Please if someone want to revert something, Care to read the source first. That edit reverted by Here come the Suns was inappropriate the Wall Street Journay cleraly state Saudi officials/company executives have say "It may take many months"..."to restore operations to full working order"Mr.User200 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The "many months" have since been overriden by newer statements that they expect to have full production by end of this month. So yes, they are working to repair, but the part abouth "months" is not correct anymore and likely why it was removed. --Masem (t) 13:43, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

In addition, what the article that was used as a reference for the original statement I removed say is that repairs "may" take longer that expected, not that they will take that long. We don't put such speculation about the future in an infobox in wiki's voice, especially when other (Aramco's exec's) have made different predictions at the same time. Here come the Suns (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Who accused Iran of attacking Saudi Arabia

207566versant sorry for reverting you. I had to revert because France, Germany and the UK didn't say Iran attacked Saudi Arabia but they said Iran bears responsibility which is not the same as saying Iran is the one who executed the attack. The U.S president Donald Trump didn't say Iran executed the attack and when asked he didn't say yes Iran executed the attack. The Saudis didn't say where the attack came from; they only said that the weapons are Iranian made which is something they always say about Houthis weapons. The investigation is still going on. Again, I am so sorry for reverting.--SharabSalam (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

SarabSalam, thank you for engaging with me in Talk: on this issue. It would have been better had you done so prior to reverting my changes, which you have now done multiple times over the past several days. Your assertions above attempt to split hairs to obfuscate. As thoroughly documented in the main page, there were initial statements (some as old as two weeks ago) that investigations were ongoing. Since then, investigation results have been officially announced, and much other information has come out. This page needs to reflect that fact. One example is the official statment on 23 September by the leaders of France, the U.K. and Germany that ""It is clear to us that Iran bears responsibility for this attack. There is no other plausible explanation." Other sources are also continuing to appear, more fully documenting the hardware used (to include air-launched cruise missiles for which the Houthis have no inventory of fighter aircraft to launch them from. I was in the middle of attempting to add another such source when your edit warring interfered with my uploading that section of text and new citation. Please cease edit warring and allow the Wikipedia community to function under commonly accepted practices of good faith and fairness. 207566versant (talk) 12:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)207566Versant

Bearing responsibility is not the same as stating Iran committed the attack. The statement they make goes short of saying Iran started the attack, and thus leaves open the door that IRan gave the Houthis the equipment to do it or something along those lines. That's why we cannot list them as IRan's accusers in the infobox. --Masem (t) 13:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

207566versant, I didn't editwar. I see that you are trying to edit in good faith. I couldn't ignore the fact that you made a mistake which I believe you did it unintentionally. France Germany and the UK didn't say Iran executed the attack. They said Iran is responsible, that doesn't mean Iran executed the attack. Notice that the parameter in the infobox is |executed by= not who is responsible.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to interfere in this discussion but if UK, Germany, and France said that Iran "bears responsibility" then there's no other way to explain it. It is a form of proxy warfare, plain and square. Let's not try and split hairs on meanings of words and being politically correct. Even if Iran didn't directly attack the oil facility the fact that all these countries "blame Iran" means that Iran is accused of proxy warfare. Proxy warfare by itself is a major military act that's documented throughout history. Same thing with US and mujahideen in Afghanistan and the Nicaragua contras affair. Iran is definitely allegedly involved whether we like it or not because major countries has "blamed it". Assisting someone in murder has the same consequences as being the murderer. Let's not hide things behind words and call it what it is. UK Germany and France "blamed" Iran. Fair and square. 45.61.15.106 (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. Germans, British and the French said that they believe Iran bears responsibility for the attack. They didn't say who executed the attack and the investigation is still ongoing. The parameter executed by is only for the party that executed the attack. Even if the weapons are "Iranian-made". The Saudis used U.s-made bombs when they bombed a civilian bus year ago. We didn't say the U.s. executed the attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous user above: I agree with your characterization that SarabSalam is trying to split hairs on this issue. Thank you for adding to the discussion. I think the preponderance of Wikpedia users want a fair treatment of all viewpoints. SarabSalam is a skilled writer of English despite the fact that it likely is not his first language--I couldn't do nearly as well in Arabic, so I respect the energy he is putting into expanding the discussion in this thread. It seems to me, however, that the Wikipedia community would be better served were he to stick to describing the Houthi viewpoint (with which his posts clearly show him to be sympathetic), while devoting less energy to his attempts to put words in the mouths of parties who do not find the Houthi version of events to be credible. As a wealth of sources over the last two weeks clearly demonstrate, those parties include not only the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, but also multiple Western European and Central European nations. 207566versant (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)207566Versant

207566versant accusing Iran of responsibility ≠ accusing of Iran of being the executer of the attack. A clear example would be the recent Saudi Bin Salman statement in which he said that he "bears responsibility for the killing of Khashoggi"(MBS: I bear responsibility for Khashoggi's death) yet that doesn't mean he admitted he ordered the killing of Khashoggi or that he had any involvement in it. The European statement is the same. It doesn't suggest that the Europeans believe Iran executed the attack.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

207566versant You have ruined the infobox for 2 days. Keep this disruptive editing and you will find yourself blocked.--SharabSalam (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Counter UAS technology and response

Added the UAS defense section as the article failed to acknowledge the defense systems in place and how the UAS and cruise missiles got past the defense system. Furthermore, the article lacks the significance of the drones used in the attack. Linked document further describing counter-drone technology. Jordan Figdor (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Why are some of the references from several propaganda outlets?

Many of the references in here are extremely unreliable such as Reuters, BBC, Deutsche Welle, etc. More importantly, Iran International was created and is funded by Saudi Arabia and it's not a reliable source. NCRI, which is MEK, is also not a reliable source. Why are WP:RS and WP:NPOV ignored for this article? Sickofthisbs (talk) 18:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)