Talk:2007 Iranian arrest of Royal Navy personnel/Archive 1

message: I find this term quite POV, as it's clear to me that under a reversed situation, they would be called 'detainees.' Also, unless any sort of official demands are made by Iran in exchange for the release of said prisoners, the term fails to qualify by definition. In any event, as this article expands, careful attention should be paid to keep Wikipedia from becoming a propaganda machine. An exception, however, would be a quote containing the word, as wikipedia itself does not assume the position of a quoted source. That would actually shed light on the political dynamic of this incident. -Etafly 15:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you say is true, but I doubt it will be heard.  Yongke 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Such foresight!  -Etafly 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Says the idiot who started the section in the first place.  I hope you and your "infinite foresight" can understand the fact you are wasting our time and go troll somewhere else.  Yongke 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't being facetious; I was praising your foresight, as after I made edits to the effect of my entry in this talk page, references to hostages had been re-added without any discussion. What I said wasn't heard, and hence my response to you -- that you have excellent foresight (in all seriousness). I cannot begin to imagine how what anything I have said could be considered trolling, and I don't appreciate the personal attack in response to what was supposed to be a friendly compliment. -Etafly 21:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Actually hostages are the correct term, following the rules of engagement in naval encursions into territorial waters, the warship is considered national territory and are not to be trespassed, the correct thing (and only thing) Iran could/should have done, is to inform of the trespassing and order the warship to leave. After that normal rules of engagement applies. Sneaking Viper 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: @ Etafly, please, we are not born yesterday.  There is a fine line between sarcasim and sincerity.  Your reply wasn't much better, as your effort in trying to lie your way around what you said quite insulting.  After all the best way to troll is to inflame the other party without coming out sounding like a troll at all.  Kudo for your skills in that respect (sincirly, I complement you).  Beside, Sneaking Viper do have a good point, I do not see how you can argue with that.  24.89.245.62 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you don't believe me, check the edit history. I wasn't being sarcastic. Also, on the 24th of March, very little had unfolded and use of the term was extremely premature at that point in time (no GPS evidence and whatnot). Note that they still haven't made any demands, thus failing to qualify the incident as a hostage situation as of yet. As for Sneaking Viper's point, unlawful detention does not equal hostage taking. I am not a troll, and I wasn't trolling. Frankly, sir, I'm the one being insulted by your repeated personal attacks. In all fairness, I can see how what I said can be interpreted as sarcasm, but sarcasm is contextual. Again, correlate the article's edit history with the timestamps in the talk page. I even wrote to the user who reverted my edits. Please try to assume good faith before dispensing insults next time. Thanks  -Etafly 04:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  True unlawful detention does not equal hostage taking, but capturing noncombatants on foreign soil, denying them access to embassy personnel, not charging them with anything and treating to kill them is kidnapping and the victims would be regarded as hostages. Sneaking Viper 07:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it isn't. The word "hostage" in it's literal sense cannot be used unless Iran starts making demands. Use in any other sense would violate WP:NPOV. -Etafly 16:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the contrary, Iran is making at least one demand, i.e. that the UK "admits" that its personnel were in Iranian waters. Since this is coupled with an assurance that the troops will then be released, that clearly makes them hostages. Nick Cooper 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if the US demanded that Iran admit meddling in Iraq as a price for having the seized consular personnel released, that would make them hostages, too?--Wehwalt 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Nick Cooper 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: @ Etafly, I do not see why you would check the edit history, since your post is right there.  And it clearly does not sound sincere.  Nor does your argument hold any grounds, who said Iran have to make formal demands?  The hostages are used as a political bargaining chip.  If Iran made formal demands, the world would be furious, so it is wiser to play the game and leave the world to argue among themselves what "might" happen.  It's politic.  Yongke 16:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The edit history corroborates what I've been saying. You've misinterpreted my comment as sarcasm, and repeatedly accuse me of lying, while being too lazy to see for yourself -- I've been as patient as possible in trying to make you understand that I wasn't being sarcastic or facetious, and that what I said was sincere; I even provided evidence. If you want to believe that I was trying to insult you, then fine. I've jumped through too many hoops already, and this is a waste of time and space. -Etafly 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you have "evidence" then why not show them?  Saying over and over again how there "are evidence" but can't actually come up with anything concrete is precisely like how Bush say there's WMD in Iraq but fails to deliver. Take some lessons from the President - lying does not pay.   Yongke 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: PS - There is a section in the Sunday Times which claim Iran will use them to bargain the release of the 5 Revolutionary Guard "detained" by the USA in Iraq.  Now one source is not enough to confirm this but if that does fit awfully well with the scenario doesn't it?  Yongke 16:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what sources? I recall that being excluded by virtue of it's flimsiness (some Iranian blog). Again, this isn't a terrorist barking demands upon which release is contingent. This is a state. While we can deduce that there are political motivations (potential gain) for their delays, until events play out and it is indeed widely established as fact that this is a hostage situation, wikipedia cannot connect the dots without employing some form of original research. -Etafly 17:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would hardly call the Sunday Times "original research".  There is also another source up now on Times.  Read and weep at .  Second paragraph.  Notice the source is from officials within Iran. Yongke 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Analysts have suggested that some Iranian officials have argued..." -- Unspecified analysts suggesting that unspecified Iranian officials have argued in favour of using the detainees as bargaining chips are hardly reliable sources. Even if it were cited, transcript et al, this would not establish that said arguments are in fact Iran's policy.  While the Times can be quoted on this, it can't be used as evidence to definitively categorize this incident as a hostage situation. The Times does not present this as fact, and neither should Wikipedia. -Etafly 23:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Then what exactly would be considered "facts"?  You seem to think the only "fact" are Iran's official statements.  They are not.  Nor will Iran ever make such statements.  No one, not even Iran is stupid enough to officially ADMIT that they kidnapped British soldiers.  That would be suicidal.  So don't say it's "false" just because Iran does not agree.  The WORLD agrees.  Yongke 16:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  PS:  Why is it that you guys always say there are proof, but there's never any real proof?  What is up with that?  Yongke 16:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the term 'Hostages'

message: Good section. I believe it was eight British serviceman detained so I'm going to change it, correct me if i'm wrong though. -Bananaman1966 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2004 Incident

message: The piece I put in about President Bush monitoring the situatiob was taken from The Sun newspaper, on 24/03/07. I don't know how to cite references, can someone do it for me please? -Bananaman1966 23:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See if you can find it online on their website, that'd make it easier and better to cite --Rayis 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell would you delete and put reason 'Random comment' when it clearly wasn't? -Bananaman1966 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I found the article on thesun.co.uk and referenced it. I don't know why you put random comment, I think it will be VERY important to emphasise the importance of the USA in this matter. -Bananaman1966 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other reactions

message: I moved the Jpost/Al-Sharq-alawsat report to the other reactions, but please stop putting every unverified claim you find in the world. Otherwise, to balance the article, we have to put Iranian newspapers claims as well, making the article very long and confusing:
On March 24, the Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post wrote that the UK-based Asharq al-Awsat newspaper had quoted an unnamed person whom they identified as "senior Iranian military official" that the detention of coalition military personnel had been planned as early as March 18.
--Gerash77 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unverified claims 

message: I've added it to the article. (The Sunday Times Article)
Hello32020 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sunday Times (UK) reports Iran will indict the sailors in Iranian court, if Rev. Guards aren't released 

message: i would like to draw attention olf fellow wikipedians to the fact that use of Gunpoint in the wording is clearly a bias leaning towards a party.On wikipedia we should use the most netural terms and avoid such phares which may seem to be Pov of one party.So i'm going to remove this term except from british statement.User talk:Yousaf465
:Yes, "at gunpoint" has a connotation of severity & violent potential in English.  The incident is not usually characterized as fitting that violent picture, and the wording is not neutral anyway.  BBC, which isn't neutral in this matter, has been fond of "at gunpoint" and saying that Iran "insisted", or other biased presentations: "Fifteen British Navy personnel are taken at gunpoint by Iranian forces in the Gulf off the coast of Iraq, the UK's Ministry of Defence says.".  Under neutrality that should have mentioned the UK's Ministry of Defense first.  Anyway, feel free to replace the offending statement.  The Behnam 05:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all in favour of using more neutral terms, but can there really be any doubt that these sailors and Marines were captured at gunpoint? There's simply no way they would've voluntarily agreed to be escorted into Iranian waters and captured unless there was some level of coercion, with at least the threat of violence. If that's not 'at gunpoint', I don't know what is. NPOV's a nice enough aim, but let's not go overboard and use it to distort the facts. — Impi 08:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just that the phrase adds a more "criminal" elements to it.  The issue isn't so clear cut as to be called "criminal."  Heck, it isn't even clear whether or not they were on Iranian waters or not.  Considering what BBC is it is no surprise that they favor this term especially.  I think it is better to avoid the term if we can in favor of neutral words.  Best avoid the problem all together, no?  The Behnam 08:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But they were forcibly arrested. They weren't "asked to come to the Police station". So it's acceptable. John Smith's 10:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John Smith on this view, it's acceptable. Bananaman1966 12:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After annother removal of the gunpoint wording, I've put something in that might hopefully serve as a bit more neutral wording, to avoid the constant reverts. Narson 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The BBC is clearly not in the government's pocket and BBC news strives very hard to be a neutral news agency, going as far  as to grill its own bosses quite harshly if the BBC comes under fire. I don't think you can dismiss a source like the BBC just because its British unless there is some kind of editorial control exerted by the government. Narson 13:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC could be non-neutral on this matter for other reasons.  I can't say for sure but I've noticed some bias there.  Their coverage of the war against Hizbollah made it seem like nobody supported Hizbollah; as in only interviewing non-Shia people who happen to think Hizbollah is crazy.  Not good to paint an inaccurate picture when doing a feature like "Voice from Lebanon" , or whatever the name was.  Also, recently, they released a similar interview article with Iranians but actually spelled Ahmadinejad's name "Hamandinejad" at first release.  They eventually corrected it, but still, that shouldn't have happened.  And of course there is the tricky wording I mentioned above.  Anyway, it is better just to avoid disagreement by getting rid of "at gunpoint" and other contested wording in favor of uncontested wording.  The Behnam 20:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have put something in there now using the word force. There has to be some wording to indicate that this was not a simple civil arrest nor was it a case of British soldiers complying because they wanted to. Because that would lead people to come to other conclusions. NPOV should not be used to omit facts because they are distasteful to one side. I would agree that while 'gunpoint' is indeed literally correct, with many people it does bring to mind criminal activities (And its the criminality of this act that is part of the debate) so we should find suitable wording. I would however keep gunpoint in the BRitish claim because, well, thats how the British claim it to be. Narson 21:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the British claim should reflect the British claim (though Britain should be mentioned in the beginning of it sentence).  How about "detained?" I usually see detained in situations where there obviously had to be a potential for use of force, since the person wouldn't step aside without this threat.  The Behnam 21:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: While it is common to ignore connotation when pressing for a certain wording, I see no reason to even have this disagreement.  I think the non-controversial wording here is "detained."  I don't see any reason to stick to controversial wording when we can have neutral wording instead.  This happened at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over "insists" versus "states", and all parties ultimately agreed to "states."  There has been no further incident.  The Behnam 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And just as a simple note, don't you think it is odd to use severe wording in this situation? While to think that this is criminal may be a British POV, we shouldn't project this into the article.  Besides, it could very well be that Iran is completely in the right here.  It would be odd if all articles involving arrest of people breaking the law had to say "at gunpoint."  Let's avoid the controversy.  The Behnam 20:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if the action of armed persons requiring these service personnel to perform actions they would not otherwise have performed outwith the weapons are not criminal, it is clearly acceptable to use 'at gunpoint', as to do otherwise might deny the essence of the story.  We have to make some small, subtle suppositions in order to show the story.  Unless there's evidence the people doing the detaining were unarmed, 'at gunpoint' is essentially NPOV.  86.142.42.155 00:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The latter is a rather spurious metaphor, given that in many jurisdictions, those guarding transferred prisoners may not necessarily be carrying firearms in the first place. In any case, "at gunpoint" doesn't vaguely mean that weapons were present, rather that they were drawn and brought to bear as a threat to ensure compliance. In jurisdictions where police are routinely armed, officers can effect an arrest without drawing their weapons, hence the arrestee will not have been taken "at gunpoint," so it is false to argue that it is not necessary here. By all accounts, the British personnel were so threatened by the Iranians, so "at gunpoint" is a legitimate description of what actually happened. Nick Cooper 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV words 

message: Please stop putting it back. It is not suitable in this case because all the points made in that section are clearly referenced. As to the one that is in dispute, the newspaper is identified clearly as the only source. Just because some people here may not like it is not a valid reason to use the tag. 
I may believe a lot of Iranian newspapers and news agencies made reference to here are anti-UK, but you don't see me demanding they be removed or have dispute tags everywhere. If you want to criticise the source, make some objective and sourced comments on its own page. But do not try to undermine a source because you don't like what it says. John Smith's 14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will respond once I have time.Azerbaijani 16:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, the dispute tag does not have to be placed here at all.
User: Azerbaijani is the only one who disagrees thus far. 
Highcount. 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute tag

message: The article seems to need a section on the diplomacy that has taken place/will surely take place on both sides - for instance the meeting that took place in Tehran today.  The diplomacy would be much better put in a seperate section rather than in either British or Iranian claims sections.  I will create such a section but want to get other peoples views first. Davewild 15:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dave, that sounds like a good idea. Maybe you could also use it to discuss updates as to what's happening in the face of that diplomacy. John Smith's 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Diplomacy section

message: "They were subsequently taken to Tehran."
This hasn't been confirmed, has it? The references states quite clearly that their location is unknown. For a while there was a media-rumor they'd been taken to Teheran, true, but this has gone unconfirmed both from officials in Iran and the British themselves.
--129.241.122.39 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Teheran

message: This incident is the same as the American/Iran Hostage incident.... therefore, the article should be in :Category:Hostage taking.  I will leave it to someone else to add the category back to the article to avoid an edit war.  EnviroGranny 23:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It not technically the same, more like the Zar'it-Shtula incident in which both sides claimed the other side was on their territory.  Only this time, it's on water.  Let's wait for the media to develop a general consensus about whether this is or is not a hostage situation, then ref it. That also goes for the title.  This British Royal Navy/Royal Navy stuff will become irrelevant when the media start calling it the "Shatt al-Arab" incident or something like that.--Rayc 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And that's different from Iran claiming they were taking over the spy den, and the US claiming that it was an embassy, how? When I first heard about this, the Iran Hostage Crisis was the first thing that came to mind. Monkeyman334 23:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you mean US claiming they were taking over a spy den and Iran claiming that it was an embassy, which also doesn't say anything in the text about people calling it a hostage incident.  People have said it, but that doesn't mean that the categories can give more information then is presented in the text. As for the see also, isn't there a template on Iran history somewhere that can be added that has a link to the Iran Hostage Crisis on it? That article is important in understanding current relations between Iran and the west, but so are a lot of other things.--Rayc 00:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And then the US held them hostage for over a year unless Iran agreed to stop building nuclear reactors. Heck, America even paraded those Iranians around on TV and made them denounce Iran's actions. Aha! Another example of those American hypocrites and biased Wikipedia!Monkeyman334 00:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: The students took over the embassy, and then, in order to gain support for their government/revolution, they (the government) explicitly endorsed the takeover and refused to force out the students. Ever wonder why it took over a year to get them released? So sorry if Iran "seizes" some soldiers and everyone immediately assumes there's going to be another hostage crisis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It becomes a hostage situation when demands are made in return for release, but as far as wikipedia is concerned its a hostage crisis when someone notable says so. Hypnosadist 01:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, now that reputable sources have surfaced that directly address fears a potential hostage situation, I suppose this is no longer an issue -- inclusion of the term is both relevant and mandatory.  -Etafly 02:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I saw on the CTV news this morning that Iran says they will release the Royal Navy captives in exchange for Iranian military personnel captured in Iraq.  I would say that the article meets the criteria of hostage taking now and the +cat should be added. EnviroGranny 10:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, one source quoting anonymous officials is hardly enough evidence to make such a link Nil Einne 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Nil Einne, it is. Just ask Dan Rather and the rest of the CBS News team that got canned. Jackryan 15:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is different in so many levels. First, the US was inside Iran, was the UK marines inside? The US embassy was siezed, no British soveriegn territory was siezed. The Iranians in the US hostage crisis did for real take hostages. But here Iran claims to be siezing them because they were in Iranian territory. Many people in the middle eats are developing a taste for kidnapping people for political reasons thats for sure - you only need to look a few years to see Hezbollah, Iraqi insurgency etc. Tourskin 04:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hostages

message: How should this be tied into this article as there seems to me to be a link and atleast one source says they are linked? Hypnosadist 10:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One source isn't a lot. Plus the UK isn't the US - I think it's best to wait, rather than speculate. John Smith's 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have linked the word capture to that article in our mention of the Sunday Times allegation. I don't think there is any need for any other connection Nil Einne 11:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think this article should be cited at all. Its a complete "POV" even the use of the word "US Attack". The word attack is POV, especially when reading the related articles they call it a Raid. That's like saying when the Police go to a house to arrest a suspect they "Attack" the house. I think the article is "Anti-American" and we are trying to stay neutral. 218.101.11.87 21:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[US attack on Iranian liaison office in Arbil]]

message: :The Sunday Times also quoted another unidentified person that the Iranians would release the personnel if the United States Armed Forces release the five members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard they had captured earlier this year in Iraq.
As I understand it, Iran denies the people capture were Revolutionary Guard members. The US hasn't really presented any hard evidence to back it up either from what I can gather. Therefore, we have to be careful to not present it as a fact that the people captured were part of the Revolutionary Guard. I've fixed the primary article in this light. But in this case, it's a bit tricky since the Sunday Times article presents it as a fact. But it's not a direct quote. So should we say alleged members or just leave it as is? Nil Einne 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as we say "The Sunday Times also quoted" its ok (maybe a ballancing claim that they are not could be added), but if this becomes a big issue then we should add more depth of coverage. Hypnosadist 12:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunday Times claim 

message: BBC article from Saturday on the political situation inside Iran and the timing of this.  There is probably some useful material and it discusses the various factions in Iran who might have been involved.  It doesn't explicitly suggest this was pre-planned, so that can't go into the article, but it's pretty clearly implied.
ALR 17:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian political issues 

message: Is there any information on weather the sailors or marines fought back? If there is it should be added to the article. Mrld 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the previous section.ALR 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fight Back

message: BBC interview on boundary issues.ALR 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a good write up on why no one knows where the border is: --Rayc 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool link Rayc, should be very useful. Does anyone know if there is an article on the dispute about the border? Hypnosadist 16:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boundary issues - audio 

message: The allusion to Nick Lambert frantically calling MOD doesn't ring true and whilst I've left it in for the moment I'm uncomfortable with it.  Not least because the only reporter that's been there has been from the BBC and there is no hint on the now extensive BBC coverage of this incident, but also because I don't imagine him doing frantic, and specially not on a radio to London!
Any thoughts?
ALR 21:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Scotsman on sunday quote 

message: In the other reactions section, there are some points made by Iranians. Is anyone opposed to renaming the 'Iranian claims' section to 'Iranian claims and reactions' and adding these points from other reactions to this section? Bananaman1966 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't the reactions to claims by the UK go in the British claims section?--Rayc 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then...is anyone opposed to doing the same thing I suggested with Iranian claims section, to the British claims section? Bananaman1966 15:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian claims and reactions 

message: I heard that Iran had some very senior defections recently, and that the government wants to pretend that the defections were really kidnappings.  These detentions were then counter-kidnappings in the propaganda of the government of IRan.  Is there any basis for this?  Are there citable sources to include something about this theory in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sandwich Eater (talk • contribs) 15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um given that the Iranian government isn't saying that these are kidnappings but the legitimate detention of people in their waters, it seems unlikely that they have any propaganda saying they are counter-kidnappings. Besides that, there are the 5 Iranians detained in Iraq which were clearly not defections which it seems more likely they would have wanted to 'counter-kidnap' for then any alleged defections Nil Einne 05:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well the result will show, this may be a possible theory to wage war against Iran now like in Iraq theories, truth, lies who knows. Lakers 07:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defections

message: This statement has undergone several revisions, and I think the current one is not quite right:
:According to Britain, HMS Cornwall could not get closer to the merchant vessel because of shallow water. A Lynx helicopter monitoring the boarding had returned to HMS Cornwall, and by the time Cornwall realised what was happening the British team had been taken to Iranian waters.
As written, it implies that the British were not already in Iranian waters, which is contested.  Previously it read:
:... by the time Cornwall realised what was happening the British team was in Iranian waters
That version was ambiguous as to when the British had entered Iranian waters (the original article meant to imply that they only entered Iranian waters under the escort of the Iranian border patrol).
I think it would be better not to mention the entering of Iranian waters at all, since it causes confusion and isn't meant in that statement the same way it is elsewhere in the article.  I suggest something like this:
:.. by the time Cornwall realised what was happening the British team was already being escorted to shore by the Iranian border patrol.
Is that satisfactory, or is there some better way to get the point across (or am I completely mis-reading and mis-understanding the BBC article)?
--Sapphic 01:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewording 

message: The current version of the article is inconsistent re. the origin of the searched merchant vessel (I know this is a minor point, but anyway...): In the intro it says it was an Iraqi vessel, whereas sometime later it says it was Indian flagged. I remember reading about the Indian flag somewhere in the quoted sources, but I'm not entirely sure. Anybody knows better and wants to fix this? --84.188.211.216 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the reference to nationality altogether from teh lead.  Possibly intial reports said one thing, whilst the later, more detailed info clearly states it was under the Indian-flag (could still have an Iraqi crew I suppose).  David Underdown 12:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The flag really means very little in terms of where the ship comes from. I mean, there are /alot/ of Liberian ships, for example, and I imagine they very rarely end up in Liberia. I think there are even some Swiss registered ones. And I'm quite sure ocean going ships never go there :) Narson 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite, that's why I said it could still have an Iraqi crew.  I think the Master may have been described as Indian in the MoD briefing however.  Point remains, "Indian-flagged" is easily verified from teh sources, Iraqi is much more open to question.  David Underdown 14:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The key to understanding this is Terri Judd's "Marines 'confess' to Iranian captors" article in The Independent - she's the journalist who was on Cornwall at the time. Iraqi (or Iranian?) barges were unloading from the anchored Indian vessel. Many reports are not clear on this.  It seems the British RIBS were chasing a barge that had just left the Indian vessel after loading up cars when they were caught.  Rwendland 15:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, folks! That was quick and to the point. As often, I'm impressed. --84.188.211.216 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the searched cargo vessel from? 

message: Is Iran Air still allowed to fly into London given the present situation? 217.34.39.123 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  No diplomatic sanctions have been imposed by UK on Iran in light of this, with the exception of all current bilateral talks.  Iran Air should be unaffected.  Chrisfow 00:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that the majority of people looking at the page before it ends up being resolved will be looking for new information. As it is now there is no way to view that. I would suggest instead that a separate page be created as a timeline of events (linked to at the top of this page).SarcasticDwarf 20:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iran Air 

message: Some of this seems relevent, the rest just looks like someone copy-pasted from an article going into the intricacies of the shatt al-arab demarkation, should we start a section on relevent international law and treaties perhaps and move some of this there and just keep a concise segment of that in the intro? Narson 20:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Or just delete it for now as neither of the provided sources clearly supports it. One is a timed out session at the UN Treaty archive (which I think needs subscription and an authorised login), and the other doesn't have the detail in the article. Rwendland 22:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shatt Al-Arab info in the intro 

message: "Third Party" section is biased, as it only gives statements from nations/organizations which support the British claims, even though there are many nations (especially those in the region) which support the Iranian claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.126.97.123 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Find Good sources that say that and then put them in. Hypnosadist 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there? Anyone got some credible sources on this? Roberdin 16:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: No, there aren't. No one has spoken out in support of Iran. TomGreen 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you know this?  Obviously there must be some support for Iran, or the British wouldn't have run into a wall on their Security Council resolution.  It may well be though, that there haven't been public expressions of support.--Wehwalt 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why equate anything short of outright support for the UK as "support for Iran"? The statement that was passed does effectively condemn Iran and calls for the release of the detained personnel. Did anyone on the Security Council vote against or veto it? Nick Cooper 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in an era when some nations interpret any action by the Security Council as carte blanche for war, I think it behooves us to be careful in our phrasing.  The BBC reported that there was opposition to the original British resolution, led by Russia, and it did not pass.  The resulting resolution simply says that members of the SC, not the SC itself, are concerned.  Not that Iran has been "effectively condemned". --Wehwalt 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't even use strong words on their bit of meaningless paper when these people are in harms way enforcing their resolutions, exactly what i expected of the UN, morally and spinally bankcrupt to the last. Hypnosadist 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Equal care should be taken in reading what I actually said, which was not - as you seem to suggest - that the SC statement states that Iran is "effectively condemned." I used those word to describe what the statement does, not the exact wording of what is in it. Nick Cooper 00:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Third Party" section biased 

message: Citing an non-English language website is not sufficient. This is a very serious accusation and it needs clear corroboration. Nick Cooper 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added an English source as well. Note that this is an Iranian claim. Response to one side's claim belongs in official reactions of the other nation. --Gerash77 21:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The response may do, that doesn't allow it to be stated as fact there without any kind of language to indicate that it is not verified. Notice we use things like 'According to' etc to make it very clear it is a claim in the British section. Its also a bit silly to insert a single line for the British response in the British claims which responds to a line thats in annother completely different section of the article. Narson 21:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we include British response to this claim, then we have to do the same for every other claim in both countries statements, making the article more confusing. I think it would suffice to say: According to Ministry of Foreign Affairs--Gerash77 22:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already moved that up to the British section. Narson 22:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Some American media coverage on the Basra consulate disputed shooting: San Diego Union-Tribune MSNBC/Newsweek. --Mathew5000 22:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged British attack on Iranian consulate 

message: These have been a big part of the story in the UK but the article only mentions one of the letters right at the end and it has no disclaimers. The Trascripts of the letters can be found here . Hypnosadist 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Faye Turney's letters

message: Maybe its just me, and if so ignore me. But I was pretty shocked to see we are showing pictures of the British Military Personel on the the article here. I personally don't think its appropriate. Anyone else have an opinion?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.74.221.29 (talk • contribs).
:It's potentially distressing, but legitimate. The same applies to the photographs used in Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Nick Cooper 10:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of "Sailors"

message: I very much think we should add the following diagram to the article, as it would help explain the British claims:
http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/09D090E9-66DD-4951-9774-AC88983AF4CD/0/Slide2.JPG
This diagram is referenced on this site:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/ModBriefingShowsRoyalNavyPersonnelWereInIraqiWaters.htm
Would we need MoD's permission. Would this qualify as fair use?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmalleson (talk • contribs) 19:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it would not as the maps are easily recreatable Nil Einne 20:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, documents and diagrams produced by the MoD are under Crown Copyright, protected for 50 years after publication, and anything we recreate can be published under a free license - the general idea is that everything on Wikipedia should be free content, although this is not always practicable - which is where fair use comes in. RHB Talk - Edits 20:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should add MoD diagram of incident. 

message: Can someone please add little flags next to each national reaction?  The Behnam 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are we doing that?  I wonder how encyclcopedic it really looks.  Maybe we should have the flags play the national anthem whenever the cursor rolls across them!--Wehwalt 12:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the idea of national anthems!  Can someone implement that?!? Valtam 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It is actually not a bad idea and sort of makes it clearer.  Anyway I suggested it because I recall that being done for this article.  The Behnam 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags 

message: Renamed "See Also Links" 202.74.221.29 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The U.S. Kill or Capture strategy to confront Iranian operatives in Iraq is a policy change put into effect 2 months prior to this incident by our coalition partner who was part of HMS Cornwall's Combined Task Force 158, in the same country as the incident, affecting Iranians. It is reported that British Special Forces are authorised to participate in the U.S. strategy. It is a possible cause of a hardening of Iranian attitudes. Seems to me a worthwhile See Also item, if not indeed mentioned in the article as part of the background situation.  Rwendland 09:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The task force is part of the UN Mandate. And the UN have rigid ROE's. This is US policy and nothing to do with UK Forces. Can you prove that the UKSFG and British Service personnel engage in this type of ROE? Also note that the reality is this is only a different type of ROE that has been explained incorrectly (from my understanding). It just means that now US forces will attempt to detain any "MILITARY" Iranian forces in Iraq, and will defend themselves with lethal forces if needs be i.e the Iranian use force to stop being detained. They have not been given free will to shot first ask later. This is still irrelevant to the UK Service personnel detained. If these were the ROE's of the UK as well, and since they (are saying they) were in Iraqi water. Wouldn't they take action against the Iranian RG using these ROE's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.74.221.29 (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be making a case for altering/renaming the Kill or Capture strategy article, rather than delinking from here. Please do if you have reliable verifiable sources.  The current sourcing of the article from the Washingtion Post and elsewhere seems sound. I checked as I was dubious at first - the Washington Post names it "kill or capture program", and NBC "kill or capture", but that is perhaps not an ideal name for Wikipedia.  The Washington Post reporter said British Special Forces will participate in this program, using info from "senior administration officials" as usual: "Officials said U.S. and British special forces in Iraq, which will work together in some operations, are developing the program's rules of engagement to define the exact circumstances for using force. ... Casey had planned to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a 'hostile entity,' a distinction within the military that would permit offensive action." . This recent change of policy by a coalition partner in CTF 158 does seem a worthwhile background-event See Also item to me. Rwendland 11:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be making a case for altering/renaming the Kill or Capture strategy article - Not really. Thought I don't agree with the article, there's not much I can do. The article is related to the "War in Iraq" and not the Detained dispute. Just as the "Iraq War" Template was removed as this article is not related. Nor is an article which is in effect defining the US ROE's. 218.101.11.87 01:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you suggesting the "Iraq War", and recent increasing tension with Iran - including a new "shoot first ask later" policy, is irrelevant background/See Also to this article? I disagree. I'd say the article is about more than ROE, but part of the political backdrop of increasing tension. Rwendland 10:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing to do with this article. That article is about US Policy towards Iranian military in Iraq. Where is the see also for the Nuclear issue, issues with Isreal etc.. etc... Also, your cited Washingtonpost article does not say that UK forces will use those "ROE's" only that it will discuss them. "Officials said U.S. and British special forces in Iraq, which will work together in some operations, are developing the program's rules of engagement to define the exact circumstances for using force". Which says they are not using these ROE's but looking at them. Key word "Developing".  See Also article has no relevance to this article! 11:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

text: We're both not going to agree on this, and there is no consensus as its just us so we're a bit stuck. How about one day we leave it in the next day we take it out. ;-) LOL! (jk) 202.74.221.29 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also Links 

message: I just editted to remove the comment given in the article's first header. A lock should be placed in the article to prevent further vandalism.71.62.25.159 23:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that it was already taken care of. 71.62.25.159 23:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits