Talk:SIEV X

message: The last paragraph makes the obvious (and incorrect) implication that the Australian Government may have been directly invovled in the sinking of SIEV X. This is unproven, unsubstantiated, thus I am removing it.
:Oh dear God forbid that anyone might suggest that the Australian Government has acted with anything less than Snow White like moral probity!  You make me laugh.  Or perhaps being critical of the Australian Government in print falls under the powers of the Sedition Act?  But if the Prime Minister is snow White, where are the seven dwarves?  In DFAT (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) THAT'S where.  Tonguetwister 09:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: in his book, ex public servant Tony Kevin, makes some rather compelling arguments that although the government may not have had a direct role in the SIEV X disaster, people acting on their behalf did. An actual record here of the point-form arguments Tony Kevin gives in his opening summary would be useful. The government has not  rebutted these points so they should be given as partisan opinion (none the less interesting).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp adelaide (talk • contribs) 19:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A certain Maritime Incident 

message: I reversed the change of name back to "unknown" as there is no reference for it being there for "the tenth event of this kind".  Can someone please confirm this is correct?  I can find no mention of another 9 incidents. Stellar 12:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name and explanation of "X" 

message: I added the Split Suggestion because I believe that this article should only cover the definition of what a SIEV X is, and perhaps briefly mention the 2001 incident, but have the details of that incident in a different article. Suggestions? Unknowntbeast (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "What a SIEV is" is already covered at Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel. This page "SIEV X" is about a particular SIEV boat that is known as 'SIEV X', and related incidents. Therefore your suggested split seems to be unnecessary. - 220 of Borg 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Split Suggestion Added

message: An IP editor insists on inserting the following material: While Australia may have not had any legal responsibility to help the sinking fishing boat, it is widely believed that the Howard Government had detailed intelligence reports about the boat’s departure from Indonesia, in an obviously unseaworthy condition. At the time, the government had lied about how much they actually knew, and there still hasn't been an inquest into this cover-up.
The sources given do not substantiate this content. If the IP editor - or anyone - would like to discuss this, feel free. --Pete (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced editorialising 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on SIEV X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041013053250/http://www.aph.gov.au:80/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/ to http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/maritime_incident_ctte/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified