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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Naming

I think we need a name change for the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Little Spike (talk • contribs) 21:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Agree, but to what? Gotta mention 'Iran' in the title, eh? --199.71.174.100 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It was 7 marines + 8 sailors last I heard, making the title more incorrect. How about something like:

2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel

Descriptive at least. |→ Spaully°τ 21:51, 23 March 2007 (GMT)

I agreeFheo 00:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Hostages'

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)

What you say is true, but I doubt it will be heard. Yongke 20:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Such foresight! -Etafly 01:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Of course. Nick Cooper 16:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

@ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I would hardly call the Sunday Times "original research". There is also another source up now on Times. Read and weep at [1]. Second paragraph. Notice the source is from officials within Iran. Yongke 22:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"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)

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)

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)

How about captives? i think they are less detained then their iranian counterparts. Also i think that if having wishes makes them hostages, other nationas should start taking really good care during their interogations. Does israel have 'wishes'? or the use? Captives seems nice albeit a bit utopically. After all wether you are afghan, palestine, iraki or iranian, you are captive , so why not if you are a britton. Nobody thinks captivity is nice or always rightfull and just, so it a neutral word applicable to anyone justly or unjustly locked in, especially when no criminal procedure had gone on , making them detainees... 80.57.243.16 02:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hostage: One that is manipulated by the demands of another THIS IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE DICTIONARY LINK POSTED ABOVE. (205.243.71.250 18:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't know why everyone's getting so het up, it was a perfectly reasonable suggestion by Etafly. C'mon people! As for the term, it's ambiguous as to why they were taken, and 'hostage' is a loaded term. Captives, in my opinion, is a lot better Corington 22:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

2004 Incident

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)

Other reactions

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)

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)

Why the hell would you delete and put reason 'Random comment' when it clearly wasn't? -Bananaman1966 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

unverified claims

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)

What is the evidence that "they boarded a Iranian dhow"? I can find this nowhere else. Should this not be referred to as a vessel or boat as did Commodore Nick Lambert ?

Sethrussell 01:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Asharq al-Awsat

Asharq al-Awsat cannot be used as a source. It is a pan Arab newspaper, which is vehemently anti Iranian in its writings.Azerbaijani 00:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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.[8]

This statement should not be in the article, as it is a from a newspaper that quotes another newspaper that says it quotes an "senior Iranian military official". Furthermore, Asharq al-Awsat is a nationalist Arab and pan Arab newspaper, it does not satisfy Wikipedia's rules on neutral sources.Azerbaijani 14:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This is now using a source direct from Asharq Alawsat paper and I have added that the paper is Pan-arab. The reader will now have some context for the source and the claim is very relevant for the article. It is also being reported by some other news sources. Davewild 14:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Sunday Times (UK) reports Iran will indict the sailors in Iranian court, if Rev. Guards aren't released

I've added it to the article. (The Sunday Times Article) Hello32020 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

2004 incident

This is the one I support, as it sounds much much more neutral and does not have weasel wording: [2] which says In June 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by Iran in the Shatt al-Arab. They were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitted entering Iranian waters illegally, then released unharmed after three days.

This is the one which John Smith's put into the article: [3] which says In June 2004, eight British sailors and marines were detained for three days in Iran after being seized during another routine operation. They were paraded blindfold on television and forced to apologise for their "mistake".

You can and should read the explanations given bellow.Azerbaijani 04:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Whats up with the selective quoting? You removed a source that was also from the associated press, yet decided to keep the one with the worse wording. The wording of the other selection sounded much more neutral by Wikipedia's standards.Azerbaijani 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The one I removed didn't discuss the 2004 incident, so I relied on the one that actually did. I'm not sure why you need two to say the same thing anyway. John Smith's 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

But the other source, which is also Associated Press, said this about the incident: They were released unharmed after they were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitting entering Iranian waters illegally. This statement is much more neutral, dont you think? The current one has very negative connotations.Azerbaijani 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And what you propose is also highly POV because it implies they admitted it freely. John Smith's 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no evidence that they admitted fault under duress. Saying that they admitted something under duress without the evidence to back it up is POV. The other statement is far more neutral. Why so stubborn, its obvious, lets settle this logically. Please keep your neutrality here, you have already shown bias by using a source that you believe is better over another.Azerbaijani 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the other source implies they did so of free will - which is not backed up by any facts. On the other hands various news reports do state clearly they were forced to. You don't actually think they would have let themselves be used as propaganda pieces by the Iranian government, do you? That's just ridiculous. John Smith's 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is all mere speculation on your part, which constitutes Original Research and is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. The fact of the matter is that the more neutral statement must be used. There is no evidence that the soldiers were under duress when they made their statements (if they were, the whole world would know about it, dont you think?). Again, be reasonable, one is more neutral than the other.

This is the statement we should be using: They were released unharmed after they were presented blindfolded on Iranian television and admitting entering Iranian waters illegally.

Here are the things that are wrong with the statement currently in the article: They were released unharmed, but only [1] after being paraded[2] blindfolded on Iranian TV and made to[3] apologise for their role in the incident.

[1] There is no indication that the soldiers would not have been released had they not confessed. Again, this implies that the only reason the soldiers were released unharmed was because they confessed. This statement is not neutral and violates Wikipedia's policies, as it is a weasel word (Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words).

[2] Again, paraded is a word that has lots of negative connotations. It is also a weasel word.

[3] Again, made to implies that there was some type of duress involved, possibly even torture. This is also a weasel word.

This statement violates Wikipedia's policies. Come on, lets be sensible here, both come from the Associated Press, and both are recent. We must use the one that avoids weasel wording and the one that is most neutral.Azerbaijani 21:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Give me a credible reason why servicemen would freely apologise on the State TV of an unfriendly nation for propaganda purposes. I don't see anything weaselish about the current version - indeed it rather makes sense. The idea they freely apologised doesn't. John Smith's 22:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you not know of Wikipedia's polcies of NPOV and OR? It doesnt appear so. Please inform me and I can give you the proper links.Azerbaijani 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been active since I left this message, which leads me to believe you are purposely ignoring this. You are in violation of Wikipedia's policies of NOR (no original research) and NPOV (neutral point of view).Azerbaijani 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Because both of the sources are the same[4][5] and we don't have any other proof which shows they forced to confess or they do not, I suggest this one:

On June 4, 2004, six British marines and two sailors were seized by the naval forces of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in the Shatt al-Arab/Arvandrud and detained for three days, after Iran said they had entered Iranian territorial waters. They were released unharmed, after being presented blindfolded on Iranian TV and apologized for entering Iranian waters illegally while some sources says they've made to do so. Their equipment was not returned.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

John Smith's version is not neutral, especially the use of quotes around "mistake". Also takes as unquestioned fact the POV that they were on usual rounds. "Paraded" is also not as neutral as "presented". The Behnam 05:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The version proposed is not neutral as it implies they apologised freely. It has been stated in various reports they were forced - it has not been said anywhere they freely apologised. It also is the most logical thing to assume they would not have done so willingly - that is not original research. John Smith's 10:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Kaveh, stop reverting information provided in the article. Unless you have a source that says the opposite, you cannot keep infering they apologised freely. I have already let the "at gunpoint" thing go - you give some ground. John Smith's 12:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that they did anything freely. Detainees follow instructions. To claim coercion, you need to provide more details than a passing reference. It's better to err on the safe side. Kaveh 12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If detainees follow instructions then they do not act freely and are coerced. You've just contradicted yourself. Really, do you never back down? I already said I gave up on the gunpoint - do you want me to start reverting that too? John Smith's 12:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Detainees comply as a matter of procedure. To further highlight that relationship, there needs to be an event of extraordinary nature: "X did not comply with police instructions and was forced in the car." You can simply use the word "instructed," if you must. Kaveh 12:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would say it's rather extraordinary for military personnel to allow themselves to be used as propaganda pieces on Iranian TV. Why are you doing your best to avoid the use of the word "forced" - your constant behaviour is making it difficult for me to accept you are acting out of good faith. If you are, please don't quibble over semantics and restore the bit you removed. As I said I didn't press the "at gunpoint" issue as an example of good-faith - I would like to see some from you. John Smith's 12:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

John, please see WP:AWW, if your reasoning for using such words is that "it is obvious", then let the reader read and decide --Rayis 12:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rayis, you are ignoring everything else I have said. Unless you respond directly I cannot assume good faith or your neutrality. John Smith's 12:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My neutrality has nothing to do with this. The neutrality of the wording in the article and for it to comply with the NPOV policy and MoS guideline is what I am pointing out --Rayis 12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't bring up neutrality - there is no such thing. If you had it there would be no comment - to say anything is not neutral. Also do not use false wikipedia rules - it is not weaselish to say they were forced. It would be weaselish to say they "may have been forced" or something like that. John Smith's 12:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're correct; the phrase "weasel words" is being misused in this discussion. Insisting on the inclusion of "forced" isn't using weasel words, it's original research. You're trying to include language that implies an interpretation that you consider "obvious" or "common sense". Now, it seems quite likely to me that your implication is correct (the phrase "British servicemen made public confessions while in Iranian custody" _screams_ "coercion" to me), but the correctness of the implication is immaterial. If an idea is credible, cite it. Wikipedia is no place for implications, correct or incorrect. Also note that "they're implying the confessions were given freely" isn't a valid argument. Saying "they were captured and while detained they confessed" is simply stating the facts and allowing the reader to draw his own conclusions. Adding uncited conclusions (whether "they were forced to confess" or "they freely confessed") is inappropriate. 216.52.69.217 12:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I did not bring up neutrality, it was you who questioned mine. Oh and it is not a "false" rule, it is a policy. --Rayis 13:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Your USE of it was false, not the policy itself. You need WEASILISH WORDS to activate it - saying X happened is not weaselish. John Smith's 13:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep it WP:Civil, no need to use capitals. If there are sources for statements, provide them --Rayis 13:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can provide more sources if necessary, but it would look silly if I did. Maybe I could replace the Scottish one with something else. John Smith's 13:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Include it! A following sentence ("...confessed while in custody. Once freed, however, So-and-so retracted his confession.") with a citation would solve the whole OR mess _and_ increase the amount of information available in the article!  :) 216.52.69.217 12:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank Sa.vakilian for acting as a neutral third party in this debate and giving his opinion. Second, I would like to point out that John Smith's is basing his argument on his own POV, rather than Wikipedia's policies of neutral point of view. His version contained several weasel words and words that had large negative connotations. By Wikipedia's policies, we must either go with the version Sa.vakilian proposed or the previous one that I had proposed (however, I believe Sa.vakilian is a good compromise for both parties involved).Azerbaijani 13:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutral? Lol, who says he's neutral. Maybe he knows he's fighting a losing argument and is trying to compromise his way out. You are highly biased in proposing my versions cannot be used. You yourself are being POV by complaining about a source just because you don't like it. You can't tag a section as being disputed because you don't like the source - it says it is just according to that one report. John Smith's 14:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijani, I take what you say to be POV. Having served with the British Military I agree with John Smiths comments that it highly unlikely servicemen would apologise on Television unless they thought it would get them out of that situation. You can manipulate what Wiki says to your advantage all you like. You cannot prove either way whether they were "made to", but the word Paraded is commonly used in the context of humiliation of persons in public. You say "Paraded" has lots of negative connotations. The servicemen were blindfolded and shown as such on public TV. How negative do you want to get? Next you'll be saying you can't call be-heading's from Iraq shown on the internet as executions because its got negative connotations. 218.101.11.87 01:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that the description of blindfolded appearances of servicemen on Iranian TV is stomach-turning enough on the strength of the facts alone. The use of "paraded" is gratuitous and implies a POV on the part of the encyclopedia itself, which is inappropriate for style reasons. For the same reason, I don't want to see WP say that Guantanamo prisoners were "abused" by US personnel, regardless of my own opinion of their treatment. It's sufficient to report on what we know happened and to allow the reader to draw his own conclusions about the appropriateness of the incidents. Choosing words that we hope will guide readers to the emotional reaction we consider proper is inappropriate (and, one would hope, unnecessary). 216.52.69.217 12:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

In the Dictionary the definition of "Paraded" amongst others is "to promenade in a public place, esp. in order to show off" So even though what happened fits with in the definition of the word, your saying its POV even though its the definition of the word? Are we saying Dictionary's our children use are wrong? I just want the point understood that using the word "paraded" in the context is quite correct in the English Language. 202.74.221.29 23:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Words have connotations beyond their bald definitions, obviously, and careful choice of words is a key element of maintaining a neutral voice. One of the great strengths of English is our wealth of synonyms, which allows us to choose our words to push one POV or another, or to remain neutral, all while using words that the dictionary says _can_ fit in the sentence. We could also say that Iranian officials "allowed the servicemen to appear on television and confess" without offending the dictionary (the officials didn't impede the confession, after all), but that phrasing would clearly be pushing a pro-Iran POV, and thus undesirable in a neutral encyclopedia. Remember that what's "correct in the English language" isn't necessarily consistent with the style and aims of every English-language venue. While you'd be perfectly justified (and correct) in using "paraded" in this context in your own email, or blog post, or conversation, or editorial talk show, it isn't appropriate in this venue when a more neutral alternative is available.216.52.69.217 12:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the word "Connotation" in this instance is incorrect. Again the Dictionary defines "Connotation" as "the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning: A possible connotation of “home” is “a place of warmth, comfort, and affection.” Note the part that's says "in addition to its explicit or primary meaning". The use of the word Paraded in this instance IS a Primary and Explicitly correct definition of the word. There is no "Connotation" of the word "Paraded" in this instance as the word is primarily defined as "to promenade in a public place, esp. in order to show off", which is exactly what happened. So how can you call the word "Paraded" a connotation, and by virtue POV. I get the impression that you find the word POV, but I have merely used fact to prove that use of the word in this instance is not POV but just correct use of the English language. I'm sorry for you if you find it POV, and feel a need to manipulate the facts and truth to your own beliefs. But wikipedia is based on FACT and not personal opinion of the facts. 218.101.11.87 01:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the choice is between words at various levels of neutrality. "Allowed" is deliberately pro-Iranian POV, "paraded" is deliberately anti-Iranian POV, and "appeared" is deliberately neutral POV. Insisting "but such-and-such a word isn't _incorrect_ according to the dictionary" is missing the point.

If we _must_ play word games, though, please note that the 12 definitions and subdefinitions given by the American Heritage dictionary for the noun "parade" indicate either a ceremony to glorify the participants, an organized military assembly of troops, the physical movement of people in a constant way, the place in which the parade takes place, or figuratively the "ostentatious show" that you're talking about. In both figurative senses, the definitions and their examples clearly imply that the intent (although not necessarily the effect) is to portray the subjects positively, if extravagantly, just like in the literal senses of the word. The verb form (which is what we're discussiong) is uniformly defined by referring to the noun definition and in _voluntary_ terms. None of the 20 definitions of any form of "parade" is presented as negative and involuntary. In ordinary usage, the use of the word "paraded", when applied to an involuntary display of prisoners, carries with it the _connotations_ of degradation and humiliation. In this case, the verb "paraded" _denotes_ "ostentatiously exhibited" and _connotes_ "degradingly displayed as captives", a meaning "in addition to the explicit and primary meaning" of an intentionally positive or neutral display.

This is a losing game for everybody. Again, we make word choices every time we write, and those word choices can either push a POV or embrace neutrality. When a more neutral phrasing exists, it's the responsibility of WP editors to use that phrasing. Whether any given phrasing is grammatically or definitively _correct_ isn't the question.216.52.69.217 13:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Note that the discussion is essentially academic, as the WP editors have responsibly changed the phrase to "appeared blindfolded on Iranian TV", which describes what happened in a correct, evocative, and NPOV way.216.52.69.217 13:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

True, if I really gave a hood wink I would have changed it. The point I am trying to put across is that from my time reading Wiki articles I consistently read of people saying one things POV or not. And it drives me nuts, because most of the time its one, or a small number of persons "Point of View" that something is POV. Its all down to personal interpretation. My example being used is the word "Paraded". I explained that using the Definitions of the word "Paraded" and also the definition of the word "Connotation" that in use in explaining what happened in the 2004 incident was quite correct.

You don't seem to agree and have wrote a rather complex and manipulative response about how it is a "Point of View". Please not I state fact and only fact, and did not write my own understanding of it. Which is what you have done. You have also said that "None of the 20 definitions of any form of "parade" is presented as negative and involuntary", I never said it was. I just said that the word is the exact meaning in the instance we are discussing.

So I have 3 points.

1. Like many other users/editors of Wiki you have manipulated this discussion. I have presented bare facts, and you have "discussed" your own opinion of it (as above).

2. A lot of things on Wiki are one person or another's POV, you are saying that the word Paraded is POV. I am saying its not because it's use in this context is well within the definition, I do not see it as a negative towards one side of the other, just a correct use of the word.

3. You have said that word Paraded was "a meaning "in addition to the explicit and primary meaning" ". So please answer with a simple Yes or No. No manipulation; whether what happened in 2004 to the service personnel on TV was "to promenade in a public place, esp. in order to show off". No additions nothing. Were they, or were they not "promenaded in a public place"? If you need me to define promenaded to you let me know. NOTE Fact not my own definition. 218.101.11.87 21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"please answer with a simple Yes or No...Were they, or were they not 'promenaded in a public place'?" Yes. Once again, "within the definition" isn't the point. Language is complex, and I think you'll find the world a more pleasant and reasonable place when you consider and address the concerns of those who disagree with you rather than simply writing them off as "manipulation". As far as I'm concerned, this conversation has gone as far as it can. Good day, sir, and I wish you all the best in your future.216.52.69.217 12:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! my whole point exactly "when you consider and address the concerns of those who disagree with you", we both disagree and both are using reasonable reasons as to why. The whole point of this original remark was that one person "thought" something was POV. I am trying to prove that POV can and is very often a personal interpretation of what has been written. That is all I was trying to explain! I used "Paraded" as an excellent example. I saw it as neither Positive or Negative towards on side or the other, just a word used correctly by is definition, not used ostensibly. An encyclopaedia is a collection of "Facts", and if you cannot used wording based on factual definition then what sort of encyclopaedia is it? 218.101.11.87 21:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, what if a quote can be found by the detained marines? I know they have been giving interviews recently to the BBC, mentioning mock executions, sensory deprevation.....we are well into what countries like say...Iran...claim is torture when the United States does it so I think we definatly need something in there to indicate there are multiple claims of coercian from the Iranians. Narson 14:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Having read the discussion above i feel that some metion of Sir Alan West's statement to the BBC saying that "Don't tell them secrets, clearly, but if they tell you: 'Say this', well if that's going to get you out, then do it. It means absolutely nothing, what they say, to be honest"http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6491581.stm, would let readers decide themselves what the confession means, I know the above quote is with regard to the latest incident, but it does give good background on what the British captives in 2004 thought they could say; if they would need to be forced to confess or if they would do it freely knowing it was untrue or true. The current version does not suggest ,that contray to popular belief, the British would hand possible propaganda material to their captors, if they thought it would result in there release. It also does not point out that in 2004 the British ,unlike in 2007, did entertain the idea that their boats had possibly strayed into Iranian waters by accident, "A British military source acknowledged the men may have strayed into Iranian waters in bad weather in confined straits."http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=721052004. All this is not to say that the current version is inccorect, but extra could be added to it to point out how diffrent the 2004 incident was to the 2007 one.

I have no problems with the term paraded since internation laws of war don't allow such a presentation in media. When during the last year's Lebanon war IDF released material about detained Hezbollah members institutions like HRW and AI cried out loudly. However, so far I didn't hear them complain on the footage of Faye Turney in Iranian TV. I also wonder we we discuss honestly about wether 2004 the British soldiers were forced or not. Certainly they volounteered to appear blindfolded in a reality show --213.155.224.232 14:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

POV words

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."[6]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with John Smith on this view, it's acceptable. Bananaman1966 12:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree with Benham. They're being detained by the military. It goes without saying they're "at gunpoint". Without the phrase would the reader assume they were just strolling to this place for shits and giggles? I doubt it. When a criminal is transferred between court and jail no one says it's "at gunpoint". 66.167.145.86 07:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

As I said, they're in military custody. Whether they were pointing their guns directly at them seems irrelevant.Of course it was "a threat to ensure compliance", you fool, they're in military custody. Whether they were pressing them against their spines or had them slung willy-nilly across their backs, it goes without saying they would shoot them if necessary. You know why? Because they're in military custody.

It's an unnecessary "detail" added for the purpose of garnering sympathy for these boys. 66.167.145.86 12:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not POV wording, because they have been illegally 'held', it's called the truth.

Picture inaccurate

THe picture and links in the article indicate this took place in the Shatt al-Arab waterways. This is not the case. The 2004 incident was there, this one took place out in the persian gulf. It involved a large ship with cars on it and the RIBs went out to investigate that from the HMS Cornwall (Whose area of operations is in an area stretching out south east from Iraq's coastline.) There any PD pictures for the cornwall's area of operations? Only one I can find is on the BBC website. Narson 14:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to note, the reference for this I see is in the CNN article (that the ship they boarded aroused suspicions as it navigated the shatt al-arab waterway) but that doesn't make it clear if thats where the ship was stopped, and other source smake it clear that the ship was stopped by the RIBs off the coast in the gulf. Problem being that the Shatt Al-Arab would put a different spin on the story (due to the clearly controversial border there as well as well as the previous incident), so unless its a clear thing it should certianly not be alluded to based on one interpretation of a single sentence in a CNN article. Though I'm more than willing to be proved wrong :) Narson 14:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the only evidence, that i know of, that this happened in the mouth of the Shatt Al-Arab Waterway is from Commodore Nick Lambert of the HMS Cornwall who said on camera "... we know that a helicopter reported that they saw the boats being moved up the Shatt Al-Arab Waterway towards an Iranian base up there ...". But that does not imply that the capture happened there. Sethrussell 18:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The interception would have been in coastal waters rather than in the mouth of the waterway, but the nearest Iranian military facility is actually inside the waterway, so the escort vessels would have to take the RIBs into the waterway.

Of course without knowing the tactical environment then it's difficult to say where the boarded vessel was at the start and end of the inspection, and how they managed to rustle up six FIAC quite as quickly as they seem to have managed.

ALR 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... we have the map of the area of operations of the HMS Cornwall which, if i am interpreting it correctly, does not include any "coastal waters". Then we have the fisherman who claim they witnessed it in the mouth of waterway. Sethrussell 18:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cornwalls AOR extends out beyond the oil transfer platforms, at least on the BBC website, from memory that's about 10 miles or so and there is an extension into high seas which will take them beyond the 12 mile point. The clarity on that graphic doesn't really indicate whether it extends beyond the projection line on the Western edge of the Shatt or not. Mind you it's also not been published as to how far away from the boarded vessel Cornwall was during the inspection.

ALR 18:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The BBC had video of the RIBs going out to intercept the ship as well as images of the ship they stopped (though the closeups of the RIB they had were from the day before) from before the men boarded it. I imagine its from the Sea King or whatever the Cornwall has and that returned to base before the Iranians showed up. Going to go now and try to find some of the video or stills from it. But yes, from that video it looked to very much be in clear open water. Narson 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind that media outlets frequently show videos from their file. Just because the media have shown RIBS operating in open water, does not imply that this is a video of the actual event or that the images are "of the ship they stopped". Sethrussell 19:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There was a media team from the BBC on-board, they were doing filming on Thursday, so it's not out of the quesiton that the imagery is real rather than library.

ALR 19:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

She can fly a Sea King, but I'd be surprised if they've got one out there at the moment, more likely to be a Lynx as it has more utility for coercive boarding.ALR 19:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, they also showed the ship they stopped....I can't imagine they have stock footage of that exact random Iraqi ship hauling cars around :) Can't find the darn video clip though. Otherwise I could use that as some kind of source. Darn it all to heck. Narson 19:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

POW

The soldiers have to be handeld at worst as prisenor of war, because Iran has to accept the Geneva Conventions. --Histio 14:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not the case, there is no declaration of war so they can't be PoWs.ALR 14:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe they are "illegal combatants", =) --Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 15:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How can they be "illegal combatants" if they are operating under UN mandate? Or are you deliberately ignoring that fact? John Smith's 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

declaration of war? 19th century? They are captured while invading Iran or doing military stuff elsewhere. --Histio 15:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue about location, to be handled as a PoW there needs to be a recognition that a state of conflict exists between two state actors. Incursion of armed personnel can be interpreted as a hostile act, equally the enforced detention of military personnel outside territorial waters can be interpreted as a hostile act. Either one could be used as a basis for a declaration, however as yet there has been no such statement from either state actor.

ALR 15:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because Iran would obviously stick to the conventions anyway. Rather makes this whole debate academic :) Though, they weren't fighting so not sure they can be illeagal combattants. Illeagal immigration perhaps? :) Narson 15:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The convention does not allow torture, put them into TV or to court them for doing allowed war stuff (invading Iran). The convention is sth like the worst limit of treatment, Britain of course wants them to be realised now. As a statement it's enough to say, they are british soldiers in action. --Histio 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But Britain hasn't declared war on Iran, making them illegal border crossers. Thats about 2 years each according to Iran laws.--Gerash77 16:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

They are alleged illegal border crossers. Nothing proved. Hugorudd 00:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Royal Marines and Royal Navy, not soldiers. They were engaged in the enforcement of UN mandates and protecting the economic security of the Iraqi state at the behest of that state, not war stuff.

The convention prohibits a number of things which serve to humiliate or otherwise degrade the dignity of the individual, regardless of the activities they were undertaking whilst detained (either legally or ilegally). Didn't stop it happening in the past and I dare say it won't stop it happening again.

ALR 16:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There aren't declaration of wars since WWII. War stuff means, they belong to the British forces, are not civilian fishing. Invading Iran includes crossing border is war stuff too. Nothing to be court for. --Histio 18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

In modern conflict we need to be very careful about terminology, enforcement of UN resolutions related to trade is not war stuff. Incidentally, invasion requires military intent not just tactical positioning. Where the border is disputed (or at the very least unclear), as it is around the Shatt, then you need to be very clear about intent, capability and tactical positioning and throwing terms like invade around without qualification doesn't contribute much.

I really wouldn't typify two RIBs and fifteen personnel armed with personal weapons as an invasion force, even if they were clearly inside Iranian territorial waters, rather than possibly in an area claimed by Iran but disputed by everyone else.

Anyway, the point remains, they're not PoWs and the application of the convention is unclear. Irans respect for the convention is non-existent anyway. In 2004 they're reported to have engaged in a mock execution and the 'admissions of guilt as transmitted are second hand, although the personnel affected later conceded that they had complied with the instruction from Iranian authorities to admit liability.

ALR 18:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That all makes no different. Invasion or not, captured in Iraq or not, more or less agressiv or not, intention or not, UN or not, armed or not, they belong to British forces and that makes it to war stuff. --Histio 18:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions apply until an appropriate compitent tribunal determins their status, at which time they can be declared POW's or illegal combatants (very unlikely as they were clearly identifiable as British forces) or even criminals. But just like gitmo the conventions apply to everyone no matter the situation until the tribunal (see Scotus ruling). Hypnosadist 22:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't make it 'war stuff', unless you can point to a non-original source defining same. Hugorudd 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find they are not POW's. And are being held for "Illegal Entry to another country" and "Illegal possession of Firearms". This was a regular occurrence during the Northern Ireland conflict, and in that sense British Military personnel were held for "Illegal Entry" and "Illegal possession of a firearm" when they crossed into Eire, or Southern Ireland. I cannot see how this is any different. If this were a "Combat" situation no doubt the British Troops would have taken combative action to evade detention. But as there is no conflict they took no action but did as ordered. 218.101.11.87 00:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My point was that the Geneva Conventions apply until the royal navy personel are deemed to be NOT POW's, that Iran may well put them on trial in a criminal court later does not effect the aplication of the GC.Hypnosadist 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong here, but from my time as a serving soldier, the GC does not come into affect unless there is a combat situation between two forces. There is none in this sense, so "if" they, Iran, were to take Legal action against them it could only be Civil not Military. The same as in Eire/Southern Ireland. Again I could be wrong but that was my understanding of it.

218.101.11.87 01:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There is protocol I which extends it to 'international conflicts' which is not signed by, among others, the USA and Iran. We are still bound by it in regards to Iranian persons we might take, until such time as they breach the geneva conventions.....either way, right now its a bit misleading to refer to them as POWs. It not only adds 'sympathy' to the British side but legitimises the Iranian side, as well as misleading people (potentially) over the status on the ground. Narson 01:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but Iran has been accused of breaking the Geneva conventions before.

Highcount. 11:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

They didn't ratify Protocol I. Hugorudd 00:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

An opinion sees a brake of Geneva [7] --Histio 11:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Words fail me. Misquoting Nelson for a start.

I don't hold much faith in his assessment of the legalities and I'm sure the rest of the blogosphere is coming up with competing assessments anywaay.

ALR 11:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

These discussions on 'legality' and the Geneva Conventions are immaterial. A "warship" (including a ship commanded by an officer of Sovereign State, such as an officer of the Royal Navy), is completely immune from prosecution or boarding even when it is in Coastal Waters. According to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: "If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave the territorial sea immediately. ... nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial purposes." [[8]]. This fact has already been noted in Parliament by Margaret Beckett. Roberdin 14:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran is accusing them of being spies, not combatants. So they are not POW's. Sneaking Viper 20:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Spies, in uniform???

Whilst at the same time parading them on TV in uniform.

hmm

ALR 21:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Didnt say i agreed, just what i heard in the news :o) Sneaking Viper 07:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An that attacking a warship makes it war stuff too. --Histio 20:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They are in uniform, clearly identify themselves, openly carry weapons, and report to a responsible chain of command. They also were not in the process of comitting a war crime. They were following orders in the conduct of a military operation at the direction of their superiors. Therefore, they clearly fit the GC definition of a lawful combatant according to Article 4. Article 5 goes on to say that if there is any confusion they must be held as POWs until a tribunal determines their status.

Accusing them of being spies is crap. Even if they had fancy MI equipment and were in the process of collecting intelligence, they're still lawful combatants and not spies. Accusing them of any "civilian" crime, in fact, is crap because they are soldiers following orders from their superiors. Even if they accidentally crossed the border (and it sounds to me like they did not) that fact does not suddenly turn them into criminals. 64.193.213.38 19:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did HMG not claim GC?

• • The cousins do not care much about GC too.
  • HMG does not like a discussion about the state of war, speaking against an immediate release. --Histio 20:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

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)

I will respond once I have time.Azerbaijani 16:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Diplomacy section

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[9]. 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)

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)

Title change required.

"Royal Navy" used in many countries, and as NPOV states, there is a large Anglo POV on Wikipedia. The title should be changed to "British Royal Navy", not only for NPOV reasons but also for better recognition of the article's content.

That's wrong. "Royal Navy" refers to THE Royal Navy. "X Royal Navy" refers to X Royal Navy. John Smith's 20:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not wrong at all, it's distinguishing WHERE it is at. There are many Royal Navies in the world; the UK isn't the only one, and we shouldn't assert that they are the only notable ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.241.167 (talk • contribs) 20:46, March 25, 2007 (UTC)

Well on Wikinews it is titled as 15 British Royal Navy sailors captured at gunpoint by Iranian guards so I don't see why it's wrong --Rayis 20:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia appears to link Royal Navy to the British. Possibly this is a debate that should occur on that page rather than here, and until then we should keep this page in uniform with the wikipedia article? (Though yes, I do see nothing wrong with British Royal Navy or Royal Navy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain And Northern Ireland) Narson 21:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While it seems that Royal Navy by itself does refer to Britain, I didn't know this until I read the WP article for Royal Navy. Other readers may be confused as well, so let's just include British simply for clarity. The Behnam 21:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

How about '2007 Iranian seizure of British naval personnel' to avoid the whole mess completely? Narson 21:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No, let's not use "British Royal Navy". I'm sorry, but it's actually rude to not call an organisation like that by its real name. Let's be realistic - loads of people have heard of the Royal Navy, like the Royal Airforce. How many have heard of the other XRNs, let alone primarily associate Royal Navy with that? John Smith's 22:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You're bordering on NPOV by the exclusion of it. Wikipedia should not have a Anglo-POV, even though it does. "Royal Navy" is used by quite a few countries - the UK is no different than any other country that names it as such. It has no special claim. Not many can relate "Royal Navy" to just the UK - many monarchies (or former monarchies) have claims to the term.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.241.167 (talk • contribs).

Not sure any other nations use Royal Navy without any other words. Royal Austrailian Navy, Royal Navy Force, Royal New Zealand Navy. I still suggest 'British naval personell' as an alternative. Narson 22:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at this ---> Royal Navy <--- i think that shows that we should be using royal navy (simply because of notabilty).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hypnosadist (talk • contribs).

It would be 'Royal Navy' or 'Royal Navy of the United Kingdom' because that's what it's called. We wouldn't say 'American Delta Force' or 'German Luftwaffe'. Even if there are other royal navies, they're going to be referred to in their national language primarily, if we're avoiding Anglo POV. --Hugorudd 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Title should be called what the incident becomes best known as or, "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." --Rayc 23:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A quick look at the references seems like majority refer to them as "British sailors" --Rayis 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I acctually took the idea for British naval personel from the BBC evening news. Sailors is a bit inaccurate as half the lot were Royal Marines. Narson 00:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, "Royal Navy" is the official title of the UK aea based military component. It is not "British Royal Navy" but "The Royal Navy", well actually, if people want to be pedantic is "Her Majesty's Royal Navy". whether there are "other" Royal Navies in the world of not, it is "The Royal Navy". The only military component that does not have the "Royal" title is "The British Army", where the Unit is given a Royal title. The Royal Marine Corp's falls under the "The Royal Navy" command and control so the article is correct in that sense.

But putting "British Royal Navy" does stop any ambiguity so I understand it being used. Just wanted to clarify for people! 218.101.11.87 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Does "British naval persons", or something along the likes, seem like a good compromise? --75.21.241.167 18:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Being an ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA it is natural to have an Anglo point of view, so long as its not discriminatory.Tourskin 04:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because a discriminatory POV against Anglo's would also be an Anglo-POV. --75.21.241.167 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is an English language wikipedia, not an English wikipedia (that is, not of the country). M412k 20:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Outside of Britain if you ask random people "What do you think of the Royal Navy", I'm sure at least half of them would have no idea who were refering to. At least in the US. It seems to be more a case of British myopia than being Anglo-centric. The Royal Navy isn't the household name you seem to think it is. 66.167.145.86 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

As a non-native English speaker I can assure that the first association on Royal Navy is those of the UK and no other. As speaking of Royals refers on the British Royal family. --213.155.224.232 14:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• I had trouble associating "Royal Navy" with just the UK. I'm a native speaker of English, but I hail from the US. --75.21.241.167 16:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Alot of people may infer or assume that it's British because it has "Royal" in the title but as has been established, there are several Royal Navys. Not to mention several monarchies that could conceivably command a Royal Navy. In American media, you'll rarely hear them refered to without the British qualifier. 68.166.69.33 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the exact opposite has been proved. That there are no other Royal Navy organisations. There is Royal Austrailian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy, Royal Navy Force, Royal Navy, Marine Royale etc. No other Royal Navy. As for US media...well....they are never wrong right? ;) Narson 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with being right or being wrong. The average person, at least in the US, doesn't automatically know the Royal Navy is British, and if they do it's an assumption or inference. As far as most people know, they could be referring to the Saudi Royal Navy, if there is such a thing. Which is why they use the adjective "British" before refering to the Royal Navy. I know it hurts your national pride to learn that your great Navy isn't as world renown as you thought, but that's how it is. 68.166.69.33 02:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't hurt my national pride one bit. Its name is the Royal Navy. Wikipedia's Royal Navy article is about the Royal Navy. There is no other Royal Navy, therefore its name is the Royal Navy. If you did not know this, thats not a reason to subject wikipedia to incorrect naming. You could have just looked at Royal Navy. Narson 03:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This whole arguement is rather spurious, given that in the case of the other thirteen active naval forces that actually have "Royal" and "Navy" in their (English-language) titles, eleven are "Royal [Country] Navy" while the other two are "Royal Navy of Oman" and Jordan's "Royal Navy Force". If we are using the rather dubious yardstick of what Americans might think on seeing "Royal Navy" you're probably going to have an even harder time finding any that would be able to associate the term with either of those countries. I also suspect that given American history, the amount of people who would automatically associate "Royal Navy" with Britain is a lot larger than some editors here are claiming. Nick Cooper 10:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing it to '2007 Iranian seizure of [British] Royal Navy personnel' shouldn't hurt anybody's e-pride ... or?--Svetovid 22:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To quote myself from a week ago Svetovid: 'How about '2007 Iranian seizure of British naval personnel' to avoid the whole mess completely?' Narson 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've read over this whole discussion now, and I can summarize the argument now. Proponents of leaving the name as is (...Seizure of Royal Navy Personnel) argue that it should remain so because the British Navy is in fact officially called "The Royal Navy." On the other hand, people who favor changing the title argue that non-British readers will not immediately recognize that "The Royal Navy" is in fact the British navy. Not being British, it strikes me as strange to just refer to it as the Royal Navy, especially in an article. If I were unfamiliar with the situation, I would probably assume that it was the British Navy, but would not be entirely certain of this. It is true that there is not another navy in the world which is simply called "The Royal Navy," but the casual reader may not be aware of this. I think that we need to change the title to something which is less ambiguous even if that does make it less technically correct. 132.170.37.199 20:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be flippant, but is making things less technically correct because people might not be totally aware of all facets rather defeat the point of an encyclopedia? Don't know what the Royal Navy is? Click on the wikilink! Common belief is not a reason for things to be in an encyclopedia, otherwise we could reference 'My mate Dave from down the pub'. We are where people go to find out about things, not to find out what they already believe. An encyclopedia is a reference material and it is something you read to improve yourself thus, yes, we should strive for correct terms, and if people get a tad confused as to why something is, they can check the article for it. Narson 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

British naval personnel sounds just fine, Royal Navy is ambiguous and confusing. The Anglo POV is also seen in the introductory paragraph: calling it the Iranian revolutionary guard when it is simply the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps? Can John Smith explain why it's actually rude to not call an organisation like that by its real name? --ti 03:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguing that 'Royal Navy' is ambiguous and hence should be changed to 'British Royal Navy' is like arguing that 'White House' is ambiguous and should be changed to 'American White House'. The lack of recognition by the reader regarding to what the author is referring is attributable to the reader's ignorance, not the author's ambiguity. This is a problem which I would like to think the reader can take responsibility for, and correct, by following the linked term to its respective page on Wikipedia. Arguing that it is POV to use the correct name for its most notable example without the use of disambiguating prefixes is pedantry of the worst kind.Dr Faustus AU 18:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The page is dubiously named in any case, as seven of the personnel in question are Royal Marines. How about "2007 Iranian seizure of British Naval Service personnel?" Deadlock 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps, "2007 HMS Cornwall incident"? Avoids the above naming controversy altogether, while remaining concise. Thoughts? Dr Faustus AU 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point Deadlock. I originally changed it to this title under the impression that the Marines were also Royal Navy personnel. In this light the RN part ought to be changed. Your suggestion is the most obvious change but perhaps makes the title too long; however I can't think of a better one. This incident doesn't have that much to do with HMS Cornwall, given it encompasses the time the personnel were in Iranian custody. I think an acceptable rewording of the current title would be more descriptive, unless the media happen upon a name for it. Not a particularly useful message this... |→ Spaully°τ 09:02, 5 April 2007 (GMT)

Teheran

"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)

Hostages

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This is in no way the same as the Iran hostage crisis, as the embassy wasn't taken over by the Iran Revolutionary Guard, but by student protesters. I suggest you see the articles hostage crisis and hostage, and perhaps a dictionary with regards to the term hostage. My intention is to keep this article as politically neutral as possible. Asserting that this is a hostage situation is clearly not NPOV. This act was carried out by the Iran Revolutionary Guard (i.e, the security apparatus of the country itself). They are being detained by a country, not being held hostage by a bunch of terrorists. Get it? -Etafly 00:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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).

I had hoped the the israeli article on disappeared iran officials had by now been related and surfaced in the discussion at least, congrats otherways on removing that hatemonging quote , that beside obviously out of context(..) , apparently proved a propagandatory lie. For the matter of the missing iranians, iran has been complaining over diverse undercover operations directed against her, so i see no major reason to regard it improbable. Isn't it the clichee, media mix lies with truth?I doubted that quote :-<80.57.243.16 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Um, one source quoting anonymous officials is hardly enough evidence to make such a link Nil Einne 11:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Theres an argument at the bottom of the talk page for the same thing. It either became a hostage situation when a notable source said so - President Bush. Or when the definition of hostage became true - when they said they will release the Royal Navy captives if Iranian prisoners were released. Maurauth 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

US attack on Iranian liaison office in Arbil

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)

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)

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)

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)

Template

(cur) (last) 05:37, March 26, 2007 Hypnosadist (Talk | contribs) m (this is definately part of the iraq war re-added template) - somebody want to explain how this is an action of the Iraq War, or remove the template? Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 11:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You've got me. This is to do with patrolling Iraqi waters - the Iranians aren't part of the insurgency. John Smith's 11:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support removal of the template. Yes, the reason the troops are there was because of the Iraq War, but this is not an action of that war. For example, the BBC has "branded" all its Iraq War articles at the moment with a link to their "Iraq: Four Years On" series (for example [10], [11], [12]; in all of them, the link is near the top on the right hand side). The BBC article about the Iranian hostages issue ([13]) does not have this link, because the BBC does not believe that the Iraq War is relevant to this issue. IMO they are right, and unless someone can explain why this is part of the War, then the template should go. Batmanand | Talk 11:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is very simple, the ONLY reason the Royal navy are in these waters is as part of the ongoing War in Iraq as the article says "In accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1723". The BBC is not linking this to the war in iraq because it is linking it to the nuclear stand off which is a better news angle. Also the template being added is NOT a claim that the Iranians are part of the insurgency just that the British are their because of it. Hypnosadist 12:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

awaiting the explanation, I'm removing it --TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. Hypnosadist 12:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have an Iran tensions template somewhere then Feargod? Hypnosadist 12:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but I shall support it's creation. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the Berlin Wall article should have the Template:World War II in it because the Russians and Americans were there because of WWII? Do you think that the Exocet missile article should have Template:Falklands War on it because it was used in that conflict? Of course not. So surely this article should not have the Iraq War template, which should be reserved for actions pertaining directly to that conflict, and that conflict only. Batmanand | Talk 13:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your analogy is false, look at the War in Iraq page, this is an ongoing conflict and these british troops were diployed as part of that war as such the template should be on the page. As for your exocet example no it should not have the template but there is a catagory of weapons used in the falklands war that should be on the page to link the encyclopedia together. Someone reading this in 20 years needs to know why british troops are on the border with iran and the larger context of that why. This is all done easily by adding the iraq war template. I've asked for comment on the War in Iraq (from where stems the template) talk page as well. Hypnosadist 15:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely if you want people to know the British troops were there because of the War in Iraq, an addition to that effect in the article itself (I am just about to do this) is all that is required? Instead, your solution is to add the large, obtrusive and, as we have said, not terribly relevant War in Iraq template. Why is this the best solution? Batmanand | Talk 15:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a tiny part of the Iraq war and in building an encyclopedia it is important to be able to move from detail to big picture, this is one of the things the template allows. It also provides many usful links at a small KB cost, these links tie this article into wikipedia and give a reader access to more data and a broader view of the conflict. Being obtrusive (in your opinion) is not usaully a criteria for deletion, as for relivance i say again the ONLY reason this event can happen is beacuse of the Iraq war that makes it 100% relivent. Hypnosadist 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Our point is this: this is not part of the War in Iraq! Batmanand | Talk 16:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

UK forces have been involved in enforcement of UN directives since the 80s and incidents such as this were just as liable to happen then as they are now, and that was in a state of non-compliance from the Iraqi authorities.

The geo-politics of this isn't as simple as being war related or nuclear escalation related, probably pretty closely intertwined. Quite reasonably Iran feels threatened by the level of co-alition activity in Iraq, particularly with the posturing and rhetoric from Washington. It's not out of the question that this was just an opportunity to demonstrate the ability to exercise a degree of sea control in an explicit manner, in a way which isn't really exploitable when one is supporting subversive activity inside the borders of another state actor.

I'd agree that it's not related to the invasion or subsequent activities in support of the Iraqi government, but it might be beneficial as this case develops once we have an appreciation of how it will affect progress either in Iraq itself or with respect to the nuclear capability posturing.

ALR 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Batmanand makes some good points - I agree wholeheartedly with them. John Smith's 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems a bit...off in its wording at the moment. In that it doesn't make reference to the fact they were acting in accordance with UN resolutions, not with some uni or bi-lateral action as that paragraph would imply, its a good start though. Will do some reading and then try and re-work it. Narson 15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing something. The inspection was not routine. The ship was thought to be smuggling. Routine implies it was something they do to every ship or every other ship. The ship aroused suspicion while moving along the waterway (Going up implies direction, and that the boats would have to go into the waterway to intercept). I will revert part of your revert to the less leading wording. Narson 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your change to "less leading wording" is fine with me; thanks. Batmanand | Talk 15:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the understanding. Just trying to avoid drawing /too/ many comparisons with other incidents or letting assumptions creep in from the media :) Everyone needs a hobby! Narson 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to check out what I have done to Arvandrud/Shatt al-Arab, where you complained (correctly) about the paragraph about this incident. I have rewritten it, and would appreciate your input. Batmanand | Talk 16:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just checked over that. Looks good and far less intrusive. The whole big sub title and obvious link was way OTT. Much better infact. Will have to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't creep in, as that seems to be annother controversial subject (with arguments over the name. Noticed someone replaced the shatt al-arab link on here to the persian name before I removed the link. Heh) Narson 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sunday Times claim

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)

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)

Sources - an observation

A lot of the references depend on the BBC website, it's notable that the page on the website is dynamic, with content developing as information leaks out or is released. It's probably worth reviewing the usage of the BBC website to ensure that it still reflects what it is being used to support.

As a matter of interest, I heard on Radio 4s PM at abou 1715A (UK time) an interview about eh border situaiton. I don't believe that audio, even when it can be downloaded as a podcast, meets the requirements of Reliability, but it's worth a listen if only for interesst.

ALR 17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, part of the reason of this is the lack of free press in Iran (with one independent news paper etc) combined with the fact the BBC has a reporter on the ship involved, giving them a big information advantage on some things. Narson 17:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Which kind of misses the point I was making. The page changes over time and may no longer support the statements it's intended to support.

I am conscious of the risks of single sourcing and given the level of coverage we don't really have that problem, most of the print media is also carrying material. We do have an issue of media bias though given that all we're seeing from Tehran is government information.

ALR 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The status section

The status section reads like pure OR to me, I'm not going to engage in an edit war but I don't think it actually adds anything until there is something in the public domain about their status with respect to the convention.ALR 17:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I understand what you are saying - that the status section violated the "synthesis" section of WP:ATT - I am not sure it does. The status of the personnel is surely of paramount importance to what happens to them, and the Geneva Conventions are the keystone document in this respect. Batmanand | Talk 17:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, status is important, as exemplified in the discussion about whether they are POWs or not, but as it stands it is pretty speculative in it's writing. All we have is a report of a statement, there is nothing which meets the Reliability standard (whichever one we're using today) which correlates the alleged Iranian statement with the Convention.ALR 17:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The official status as POW/not POW is certainly up for debate (see section above). But having just read the policy regarding OR, I don't see how the section "advances a position" or does anything but describe potentially relevant sections of the Geneva Conventions with respect to the espionage charge. The section does not talk about any of the other myriad facets of international law that might come into play.

I added the section because when I read that article, I remembered something about a difference in being captured in uniform or in plainclothes (which is also an issue with the "enemy combatant" classification by the US, an issue I won't go in to here). So I looked it up and found the relevant portions to the espionage charge. The subsequent edit regarding Iran's failure to ratify Protocol I is greatly appreciated. But still, I feel like the section adds something for people like me who were looking for more info about the legality of an espionage charge.

That said, thank you for taking this to the talk page and not starting an edit war. I think there's a valid concern, and would like to work it out here. dkatten 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

On reflection, and re-reading, Batmanand identifies the section which applies best. It's synthesis, and it's based on as you say, an incomplete review of the legal judgements which might apply, an incomplete understanding of the tactical situation and tbh I think it's a little risky to comment on it at this time.

Regardless of whether the Convention applies we can be pretty sure that Iran will not comply with it. The wording alludes to an assessment that espionage is an inappropriate if the convention applies, then moves on to assert that the convention does apply.

We don't need to go very far down that route until we're writing an assessment which places this incident in the context of ongoing negotiations.

Regardless of whether the convention applies we can be pretty sure that they're going to be paraded on TV at some point, probably with a statement to read, neither of which are compliant.

ALR 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

After doing additional research, I agree. There seems to be only one source for the claim that they will (or might) be charged with espionage, while other sources say the issue is being worked out and will rely on a claimed "incursion" - I guess the military equivalent of trespassing. Thus, since the charges haven't been formally or reliably informally announced, it does seem to be hasty to add the section. I'm still not totally sold that it constitutes "synthesis", but I do think I'm beginning to see where you're coming from more.

I am less open to the argument (if I understand you correctly) that "It doesn't really matter, since Iran won't pay attention to the Geneva Conventions anyways". In response to that, I would claim that as (probable) leverage for the UK, the sections directly pointing to espionage charges are quite relevant to the article. I'm pretty sure that the legal status of the marines is a point of contention between the UK and Iran, and the Conventions are a relevant treaty (also relevant: Iran's non-ratification, fwiw).

I will delete the section, but I think it's likely to be necessary at a later time (or presently in a different form that doesn't rely on the espionage charge).dkatten 18:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The point about more compliance was more an observation than a reason to delete.

No problem with including a corresponding section when there are some reliable sources discussing the status.

ALR 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Iranian political issues

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)

Non-action by HMS Cornwall

The article badly needs a map showing the position of the Cornwall relative to the captured boats, the boarded merchant ship, the base of the Iranian boats, and the Iraq/Iran boundary. I do not see any discussion of how the Iranian boats were able to swoop in and capture the two British boats without any response from the Cornwall. Is there any press coverage related to whether personnel on the Cornwall were aware of the approach of the Iranian flotilla? The Cornwall had radio capability to warn off the Iranians, and missiles which could have sunk them from a considerable distance. Did the Iranian vessels pop out of a nearby harbor (a forseeable and likely event) or did they come some appreciable distance? Did the Cornwall have other boarding parties they were watching so they were distracted? Were they monitoring radio traffic and positions of enemy vessels when they were conducting a search operation admittedly very near Iranian waters (and claimed by Iran Have there been any British press reports about questions in parliament about this flub? This is reminiscent of the Tonkin Gulf Incident. Edison 19:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Very Simple, the standing orders will not allow the HMS Cornwall to fire first, so that they don't start a war with iran. This is the second time marines have surrendered not firing a shot, last time we got them back. Hypnosadist 19:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure but if Cornwall were in Iraqi waters, why did they submit to a boarding by an Iranian vessel who, in that scenario, was out of her jurisdiction? El charangista 00:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the cornwall was a fair ways off from the small boats that were seized? Cornwall herself would never have submitted to the boarding. Not only is Cornwall able to defend herself, but I imagine she contains data and items we would like to keep away from potential enemies. 15 people with pistols and rifles against RPGs and machine guns....you tell me....would you give the order for those people to resist and effectivly commit suicide? Narson 01:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Any discussion of Cornwalls actions would need to be informed by knowledge of their Rules of Engagement, those of the boarding teams themselves and the tactical situation. I heard on R4 earlier that the merch had weighed anchor before the inspection happened, hence was under way, but there is no indication of her position or nav track.

The point about a chart is well made, but there doesn't exist anything in the public domain with that level of detail, and since the border itself is questionable I'd doubt whether one could be made up. The official border was agreed in '75 and was agreed as the centre of the navigable channel, however the Shatt has moved in the 30 intervening years and the agreement hasn't been been updated. In any case that just applies to the waterway itself, not to the littoral water extending out from the mouth.

ALR 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You also have to remember that iranian ships were performing war games in the area so Iranian ships in and of themselves is not a suprise. We can also assume from the fact the BBC has images of a fly over from the helicopter on the ship but nothing from the Iranians showing up, and that we know the boarding was complete and they were returning to the boats when the Iranians turned up, that the air support was returning to or had returned to base (Not sourced and OR so totally unencyclopedic. But answers your curiosity). Hrm. Now to go and check the cornwall wikipedia entry. Narson 21:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fight Back

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)

Read the previous section.ALR 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No, they did not because of fear of serious casulaties. Fheo- April 4, 2007

Boundary issues - audio

BBC interview on boundary issues.ALR 20:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC) BBC video discussing possible locations and suggestions of pre-planning.ALR 20:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

similar in text.ALR 06:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

More video, now adding commentary on political considerations.

This seems to be a good write up on why no one knows where the border is: [14]--Rayc 15:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

The Scotsman on sunday quote

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)

Iranian claims and reactions

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)

Shouldn't the reactions to claims by the UK go in the British claims section?--Rayc 04:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

MoD to release data tomorrow

On the BBC 10 O'Clock news it was reported by Nick Robinson that the Ministry of Defence is to hold a news conference tomorrow revealing coordinates and photographic evidence to the media.

It was also reported that the ship which the British personnel were inspecting is still anchored where it had been searched last Friday.

Should this be included? By the way, the programme can be watched at http://news.bbc.co.uk

A quick transcript of Nick Robinson's comments (apologies for any mistakes - I typed it quickly):

Well, preparations are now in place, Emily, for a news conference at the Ministry of Defence tomorrow morning at which - I'm told - that what will be revealed be the is not merely the coordinates of where that capture took place but photographic evidence; photographs taken at the moment of capture itself.

This can be found about 4:55 into the programme. Also, the reference to the ship still being anchored in the same position can be found at about 3:45.

Not quite sure how to reference this, however.

88.104.192.34 22:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should include some kind of reference to this...I had heard something similar on the news, that they'd be able to pull GIS coordinates; I'm surprised it's not included in the article. I think it would be a definite to include, but maybe we should wait until the information is released, because it's technically speculation...unless we just do a short cite for now that records are to be released soon. Jakerforever 01:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Location map on MOD website.

Statement on MOD web

Pretty extensive statement from MOD which puts some context and quite a lot of meat to the article. I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment but perhaps someone will be in a posiion to draw it out. ALR 10:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we add about the Iranians apparantly outgunning the marines and sailors by quite a bit, to help explain why they didn't defend themselves? I would just add it in but figure it might be a controversial point. Narson 14:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Six boats against two should be pretty clear cut, but it might be worth adding some of the material about them having crew-served weapons.

It doesn't actually explain the didnt defend themselves thing as that would be laid down in the RoE anyway and the boarding officer would have made a judegement call based on that.

ALR 15:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparantly, from what I'm reading, it was initially 2 Iranian boats and the other 4 came in when the RIBs had surrendered. One of the royal navy people also said that the RoE were sufficient to allow for self defense, but they had pistols and rifles versus rockets and machine guns. Narson 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Having read Charles Styles statement in some detail it doesn't say they'd surrendered before the four additional boats approached. My inference is that the additional boats would have been in sight, visual range from the RIBs is about 8 miles and the normal sea conditions in the NAG don't change that significantly.

Machine Guns and rockets is what I meant by crew served weapons.

RoE also carries a responsibility to not get yourself, and more importantly your subordinates, killed. Self defense is only a viable option if there is a chance of not getting killed in the process.

ALR 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

ALR is on the money with this one. UN RoE's are a lot tighter than in a war situation. When I was under UN ROE's, unless someone was literally in the process of pulling the trigger you had your hand's tied, nothing you can do sept load and ready. 218.101.11.87 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

A photo released today takenfrom a British helicopter shpowing the boarded ship and a GPS readout would be evidence of the capture being in Iraqi rather than Iranian waters if there were data for the latitude/longitude of the boundary at that point, and if there were information on the path the boats took when they left the inspected ship, and if Photoshop and photomanipulation did not exist. Has there been any Pariiamentary inquiry as to the stored files of radar tracks and GPS data from the Cornwall at the time of the incident? Any mention of how far away the action was from the ship? Edison 17:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Edison, if people start heading down the "Photoshop" Photomanpulation route, it will never stop. They release GPS track data, and next thing someone will says it been modified by the MOD. 218.101.11.87 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't tihnk you can automatically discount any photo simply because manipulation technology exists. Every bit of second hand information can be edited to some way, we simply have to state sources and take care to make it clear such things are released by the military. As for parliamentary inquiry, parliament very rarely exerts oversight on armed forces actions on such a scale. They usually investigate the political orders from the MoD level from what I've seen. Plus I can't imagine in the course of 5 days an inquiry would be set up. At best there might be a committee hearing in the armed forces select committee....but even then, they are not going to recall officers from active duty just to sit infront of a commitee because an MP wants to commit political suicide and support Iran over British troops. Narson 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would a parliamentary enquiry be useful, given that most of the parasites in there don't have a minutes military experience? Read the report, mention of a data feed and digital charting, MOD know exactly where the boats were.

Also think about the purpose of the presentation of evidence, it's not for our benefit in the UK but for the Iranian Govt to show that it is known about.

ALR 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um I don't think we need to go down the Photoshop route. Indeed, I would say the British Royal Navy would be incredibly dumb if they did that. All they needed to do would be to make the etrex device say they were someone they weren't which presemuably would be rather easy. Other then that, is there any real evidence the photo was taken when they say it was (i.e. the boat was still in the same location?). NB I don't think anyone has any doubt the MOD knows exactly where the boats were. This still doesn't tell us where the boats were since the MOD (as with the Iranians) have good reason to lie. Nil Einne 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that GPS photograph usable by Wikipedia? --Afed 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see a map as well - the MOD one, despite it's dubious claim on the border, seems the best. I'd have thought a fair-use claim would be easy to make, as the MOD has freely released both to all the media. I don't have time for this today though. Rwendland 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Defections

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).

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)

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)

Rewording

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)

Where's the searched cargo vessel from?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks, folks! That was quick and to the point. As often, I'm impressed. --84.188.211.216 15:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Iran Air

Is Iran Air still allowed to fly into London given the present situation? 217.34.39.123 14:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

Fheo 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)== Structure of article - more timeline based? ==

As this incident runs on, this article in it's current structure may become confusing. Seems to me so far there are several phases that are already become a bit muddled: 0) background, 1) the incident 2) initial reaction 3) MOD press conference and reaction 4) Iranian film of Brits in custody 5) now heading toward UNSC involvement. I wonder if we need to somehow move to sections based on a rough timeline. But it's hard merging that with the current involved-party based structure, which has its own merits. Not that I have much time for this right now! Any views? Rwendland 16:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

I agree this article is all over the place!!!-~Fheo01-April 4, 2007

Iranian GPS data

There's a claim "On 29 March, Iran released the captured GPS devices indicating the boats were 450 meters inside Iranian territorial waters" backed up by a Persian website reference. Can any Persian readers please give a translation, as no English-language news agency seems to have any information about Iranian releasing of GPSs or GPS data, not even Al Jazeera. Amaccormack 17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This [15] mentions the showing of GPS devices by Iran, though not the 450 meters. Gerash knows Persian which is why he included it, though I am sure another who knows Persian could verify it. The Behnam 18:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK it seems Gerash has cited BBC for the 450 meters remark, so that is resolved. Except that its BBC Persian... The Behnam 18:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly I couldn't see any English media reporting this, or the attack in Basra either, though they are widely covered in Persian media.

BBC Persian language: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/story/2007/03/070329_mf_gps_conflict.shtml

Reports that Iranian TV showed the GPS devices showing coordinates, but British authorities say its fabricated.--Gerash77 18:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it takes time for them to seize upon it, though it does seem odd. The Behnam 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

according to this CNN article: "Wednesday, the British Ministry of Defense gave what it said was proof that the British ship carrying the sailors and marines never strayed into Iranian waters. British Vice Adm. Charles Style said the global positioning system on the ship proves the vessel was "clearly" 3.1 kilometers (1.7 nautical miles) inside Iraqi waters.Iran insists the ship was inside its territorial waters and, according to Style, provided a map with coordinates on Saturday in an attempt to prove the point. Style said those coordinates actually "turned out to confirm they were in Iraqi waters" and Iraq has supported that position. Upon pointing that out Sunday through diplomatic contacts, Style said Iran then "provided a second set of coordinates" on Monday that were "in Iranian waters over two nautical miles" from the position shown by the HMS Cornwall and confirmed by the merchant vessel the British personnel boarded.The "change of coordinates," Style said "is hard to legitimate."[16].Anthonymendoza 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I'm overly enamoured with claims of attacks on Iranian soil (the embassy) when a non-English source is cited and the story is nowhere to be found on the English speaking media at all. Though it is in the Iran claims sections, unless we can find some better sources (I've been searching on the net for this story for a while and got nothing) it should be made clear this is pretty unsubstanciated. Narson 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the absence of the specific GPS coordinates claimed by the Iranians is unfortunately conspicuous here. (Whether fabricated or not.) The UK MOD says two different sets were given by the Iranians, with the implication being that the Iranians blew their argument with the first set that were in Iraqi waters. The MOD did not share those numbers with the press. Can a Wikipedian get these? I've looked to no avail so far. Are they apparent on the Iranian TV broadcast? How to access? (The English/Persian language-barrier shouldn't be a problem, GPS coordinates are only ever given in Arabic numerals after all!)--69.207.255.21 06:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Main BBC news now mentions the captured GPS claim at the bottom of the linked article. The GPS allegedly showed five violations of Iranian waters, while the MOD says the naval group had "at all times" been in Iraqi waters. No co-ordinates were given, though. Amaccormack 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by the reference to the Iranian claims with respect to GPS data, the wording of the article implies that the boats chartplotter was shown and the co-ords were then shown on a hard copy chart. The photo in the news article is of a handheld GPS, not a chartplotter. The image is pretty small so it's difficult to tell, but it also looks as if the photo is of a different screen which doesn't show the spacecraft data. I happen to have an eTrex Legend so have some familiarity with how it works. Just how representative is the current article text?ALR 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shatt Al-Arab info in the intro

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)

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)

"Third Party" section biased

"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).

Find Good sources that say that and then put them in. Hypnosadist 00:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

No, there aren't. No one has spoken out in support of Iran. TomGreen 17:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

IBRU

"Analysis by the International Boundaries Research Unit at Durham University concluded that "it would need a dramatic reconfiguration of the coastline marked on current charts for the median line to run to the west of the point at which the incident occurred", and so be in Iranian waters.[6]"

Is this based on the coordinates given by the UK? If so, it should be stated in the article for the sake of NPOV. 68.166.64.57 06:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

By that token, it should also be stated if it applies to the first set of co-ordinates provided by the Iranians. The ones they then changed when it was pointed out to them that that put them in Iraqi waters. Nick Cooper 07:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it difficult to reconcile what the article currently says with the IBRU press release. Currently the article says Point "R" was exactly fixed in position by where the thalweg in 1975 was. But the IBRU press release says "The unstable nature of the coastline of the northern Gulf means that it is possible that Iran has a different interpretation of the median line than Iraq", implying Point R moves around according to where the thalweg currently is (as agreed by a Commission under the 1975 agreement). The IBRU claim seems to be that no reasonable thalweg position agreement could place Point R such that the MOD given location was in Iranian waters: "but it would need a dramatic reconfiguration of the coastline marked on current charts for the median line to run to the west of the point at which the incident occurred." If anyone can clarify this, that would be great. At the moment it looks to me that the implication that Point R is exactly fixed, so there can be no dispute where the border near the incident is, is wrong. Rwendland 10:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that according to the original treaty the boundary was supposed to be reviewed every 10 years, but due to the various conflicts which have taken place in the region this has never actually happened. Hnece the point R referred to is that originally defined in the treaty, which should have been subject to later revision depending on what had happened to the thalweg between reviews. However, the main argument is over what happens to the border beyond point R, which is covered by no treaty . According to the IBRU, the de facto boundary then becomes the median line between the two coasts (from the low tide mark), and it is over this line that there is no real agreement. There is some interesting comment on Craig Murray's blogpost by Martin Pratt of the IBRU (if you go to the original location of the blog, from the link posted in this article). David Underdown 11:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a brilliant high quality discussion; even though it is a blog it is tempting to treat it as a reliable rource - the Director of Research at the IBRU and a former Head of the Maritime Section, FCO who negotiated such agreements.[17][18]

Back to the current article, currently we imply the IBRU release concludes "the disputed locations are not in any disputed territory" (I think this may be an out-of-place hanger-on from the earlier UN Treaty discussion) wheras it actually says "it is difficult to see how Iran could legitimately lay claim to sovereignty over it", implying it is possible they could have a claim so there could be a dispute. Rwendland 12:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, reviewing the article text and IBRU statement again it is perhaps verging on Original research to conflate point "R" with "the southern terminal point of the land boundary agreed by Iran and Iraq in 1975" (although i'd tend to agree that they msut be one and the same). To an extent the IBRU statement is also slightly contradictory on this statement, it first states that the point is within the agreed land boundaries, and then says (in effect) even if it weren't it doesn't really seem reasonable for Iran to claim the waters at that point (as territorial waters, rather than land territory). David Underdown 12:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I watered down the statement by the IRBU a bit in the article, I'm afraid. I called their release a "statement" rather than an "analysis". I confess to being a bit put off by the fact that the IRBU adopted the MoD's contention that the Iranians released two sets of coordinates, something we don't know for a fact, but only through the statement of the MoD. The IRBU treats it as fact. I deem its statement to be more to support the British contention than to provide neutral analysis. As regards the land thing, I suspect that rivers, and so forth, are called land by them, so what they are really saying is that the British-supplied coordinates are within the estuary, not in territorial waters, although they are certainly wet.--Wehwalt 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a new statement on the IBRU site with a good map. I think you should include this in the article: http://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/iran-iraq/

Alleged British attack on Iranian consulate

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've already moved that up to the British section. Narson 22:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This would make more sence if we put it all together in one sub-section called "Basra Iranian Consulate Incident". At the moment the coment in the britishsection comes out of no-where. Hypnosadist 03:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Faye Turney's letters

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 [19]. Hypnosadist 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture of "Sailors"

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) 06:52, 31 March 2007.

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)

Where is Iran claiming the ship was?

I am confused about what position Iran is taking in justification of the seizure. Has Iran given latitude-longitude coördinates of where it says the seizure took place? If so it would be great to get that on a map near the top of the article. Or is Iran saying that the personnel it detained had previously been in Iranian waters, although they were not necessarily there at the time of the seizure? The Iranian government media releases are all available at www.iran-embassy.org.uk/news/?l=e but I cannot see a concise statement of the facts according to Iran. --Mathew5000 23:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if there has been actual precise disclosure of the two positions Iran claimed, i.e. the one that was in Iraqi waters and the amended one in Iranian waters, neither of which match the position of the merchant vessel claimed by both its master and the Royal Navy. The Iranian claim is that the seizure happened in its waters; obviously for them to say the RN personnel had previously been in Iranian waters would imply that they were followed or chased out of them, putting the Iranians in the wrong. Nick Cooper

Yes, but look at the wording of some of the IRNA releases since Thursday, particularly A Brief look at British violations of Iranian territory (2007-03-29). That release never says the 15 were detained in Iranian waters. Rather it speaks of "the trespass of two British Navy boats with 15 marines on board into Iranian territorial waters at Arvandrud which led to their arrest by Iranian coast guards". Up until Wednesday (2007-03-28), the IRNA releases did claim the 15 were "arrested in Iran's territorial waters": [20]. --Mathew5000 03:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the obvious errors on the IRNA page (e.g. "two British Black awks [sic] (choppers) from Royal Navy" - neither the RN nor the British military in general operate Blackhawks), this does seem a subtle but significant shift. Trying to make sense of the the various stated positions (i.e. [21]), it could be speculated that the first Iranian-supplied coordinates were where the capture took place (as they returned to the Cornwall), while the second were where the Iranians claim the merchant vessel was, the latter obviously contrasting with where the RN and the ship's master says it was. However, would be contrary to the Iranian map on the same page, which is hard to reconcile against anything due to the tightness of its scope and absence of any coastline. Nick Cooper 13:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Journalists on the Cornwall

There are some puzzling parts to this story on the British side as well. Journalists on the Cornwall reported that a dhow/barge had just been boarded when they were caught [22] [23], and initially MOD gave the time of capture as 10:30 local time (07:30 GMT). [24] [25] But the MOD press briefing said a merchant vessel was boarded between 0739 and 0910 local time, and communications were lost with the boarding team at 0910 - and the implication was that this merchant vessel was the large anchored Indian ship for which the GPS location was given. Are the initial reports wrong, or were the British RIBs zooming around chasing dhows/barges until 10:30 when they were caught somewhere else? The latter possibility does not seem to be incompatible with the MOD press briefing if the helicopter "immediately returned to the scene" actually took about 1+ hours after comms were lost, though the press briefing does say "Debriefing of the helicopter crew and a conversation with the master of the merchant ship both indicate that the boarding team were ambushed while disembarking from the merchant vessel.". Rwendland 15:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Journalists on the cornwall? As far as I'm aware the only journalist on the cornwall is the BBC team. The BBC were very clear it was the large merchant ship in their early reports. The BBC very quickly had footage from their fly over said ship as well, with cars on its deck. Unsuprisingly newspapers who were relying on second hand info fudged some of it. As for why the helicopter might be returning to the base and not hovering over the team for the full 2 hours they were on board, they had a BBC crew onboard (We can infer this from the BBC having images of the ship as it was stopped from a helicopter) and I've no idea what the maximum fuel load is for Lynx but I imagine that it can't be much more than 2 hours of flight time. ALR or someone with a bit more info on that can probablly tell you. Still not as bad as the UH-60 or the co-ords gaff. Or did we claim the Iranians were sailing in Caledon class Light Cruisers? :) Narson 16:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh and a by the by, the BBC seems to be referring (or at least did during a news cast) to the indian flagged vessel as a 'Dhow'. Might be one source of confusion. Narson 17:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

No, the on the spot reports make it very clear there were both the large Indian vessel and several barges/dhows involved in the smuggling: "in a Lynx Mk 8 helicopter as they once again spotted the same ship offloading as many as 50 cars on to three barges." [26] Rwendland 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the extlinks I gave above, Terri Judd of The Independent was on Cornwall at the time (and the day before when she went out with the 15 on the RIBs), as well as Ian Pannell of BBC News24. Interesting quotes of their early reports are:

"The two navy crews had spotted the merchant vessel on the horizon as it brazenly offloaded its cargo of vehicles on to an old barge which would most likely slip up the Shatt al Arab waterway to the Iraqi city of Basra as part of the booming smuggling racket."[27]

"Ian Pannell, a B.B.C. News correspondent aboard the Cornwall, reported that the confrontation took place just after the British sailors had boarded and inspected a small merchant vessel known as a dhow, a type in common use in the Gulf. “While they were on board, a number of Iranian boats approached the waters in which they were operating — the Royal Navy are insistent that they were operating in Iraqi waters and not Iranian waters — and essentially captured the Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel at gunpoint,” Mr. Parnell said.[28]

(the day before) "when the barge tried to evade the sailors who decided to take a more forceful approach. They leapt on to the craft as it sped towards the buffer zone that separates Iraq and Iran's territorial waters. As the Royal Navy crew jumped aboard, the car traders tried to hide a box before tossing it over the side. The Marines half raised their SA80 rifles and ordered the barge to turn back."[29]

(the day before) "they were still irked at the laughter of the smugglers earlier that morning and decided, in consultation with senior officers, that the matter merited further investigation. The following day the 15 Marines and sailors set off from HMS Cornwall again."[30]

"Briefly the pilot and his observer managed to make contact with the Revolutionary Guard who said they had arrested the Britons for straying into Iranian waters before a cacophony of angry Iranian voices filled the airwaves and he lost contact."[31]

"[Commodore Nick Lambert] explained how the 15 sailors and marines had been surrounded and captured at gunpoint. They were already being held at a small Iranian naval base across the border. For the moment, we were sworn to secrecy while the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office were alerted and the families contacted."[32]

These on the spot reports are an interesting addition the the MOD press conference, but don't seem to have been widely reported. Rwendland 17:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

First and second coordinates supplied by Iran/IBRU

Garesh77, I've reinstated the qualification that the coordinates the IRBU agree are within Iranian waters were the second set supplied by Iran. The fact that two sets were supplied has been widely reported, and it is important to differentiate what the IRBU was commenting on. As far as I know there has been no denial from Iran that they issued two sets, so it is nonsense to characterise this as a "unconfirmed British claim" as you have. Nick Cooper 00:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

IRNA (Islamic Republic News Agency) also refers to the UK government having been given "a second set of coordinates by Iran about the detentions that were in Iranian waters": [33]. --Mathew5000 02:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I found many sources that say Iran gave two coordinates. Not one said that is only the British that were making that claim. Please add info and keep it. Monkeyman334 04:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So were these independant confirmations, or accepting the British claims as fact? Do you know?--Wehwalt 17:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

IRNA is an Iranian government source.--Mathew5000 23:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1- IRNA is not official spokesman of the government, just as BBC isn't that of Britain.

2- IRNA reports that British government says that they had been given a second set of coordinates by Iran. It doesn't say Iran said so. Please pay attention to details.--Gerash77 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article that I linked is an obviously biased source. It just repeats what the Iranians are claiming, while referring to itself in 3rd person and using an ambiguous "the embassy in London." And yet it says: "In a corresponding statement, Britain's deputy chief of defence staff, Vice Admiral Charles Style confirmed that his government had been given a second set of coordinates by Iran about the detentions that were in Iranian waters." Corresponding, meaning, it was released in parallel with the Iran's second claim. Confirmed means "corroborated," which means that "yes, we got their second set of coordinates." Notice that it claims the British had "been given a second set of coordinates by Iran about the detentions that were in Iranian waters" as fact.

I realize I am reading between the lines a bit, but I used blatant propaganda as a source. The point being, nobody is making your claim: that Iran didn't release two sets of coordinates. I didn't even suggest a sinister reason behind the two coordinates. Can you find a single source, even Iranian propaganda, that claims there has only been one set of coordinates ever released to the British? Monkeyman334 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

For the second coordinate issue to be included in 'Iranian official briefings', one has to find the statement from Iranian government that they did so. I did not find this anywhere within the Iranian official briefings and government websites, but only in Britain's. Hence, it can't be included in that section.--Gerash77 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have to contradict you there. Official means that it was a legitimate government action. If a reliable news source says that the government said it then it should go in there, even if they never did it publicly. In fact there are many articles that state that governments did things officially even when both sides deny it. I have some independent sources that state "Iran provided a second set of coordinates" as fact, many that say that the British said it, and none that say it's a fabrication. Maybe someone can just email them and ask them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

If the Iranians don't confirm it, and don't have confirmation in some other way (and repetition by the press is not confirmation) we cannot state it as fact. We have to add a caveat, along the lines of "as alleged by British authorities" and the like. I do not know myself if the British are telling the truth or lying. None of us do. We believe one thing or another. It may be "gospel", or it may be another "dodgy dossier". As for emailing them (I take it you mean Iran?), that would be OR, and you probably wouldn't believe a denial so what's the point?--Wehwalt 21:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"and you probably wouldn't believe a denial so what's the point?" To put *attributable facts* on Wikipedia, no? I have a reliable source that says it's true. Nobody is contradicting it. It's not disputed (except here). What exactly is the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, I'm not sure that there is a difficulty, since I haven't seen what you want to edit. But I gather you want to put the "attributable fact" in--without any attribution to the British. That leaves the reader at a disadvantage, thinking there has been confirmation when there has not.--Wehwalt 22:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The specifics are incorrect, but I still disagree with it in principal. A reliable source does not necessarily mean the primary source. Even so, I am even willing to concede the content if Iran contradicts it, but they aren't. Do we need to add "Private official statements from Iranians/British" and "Public official statements from Iran/British" just to make it explicit? Only including official statements is a crutch to settle disputes, not the standard (which is "attributable to a reliable source") Monkeyman334 23:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran, by not "contrdict[ing]" the statement, is not thereby admitting it, as you seem to imply.--Wehwalt 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am saying that Iran has done it, but has yet to admit it (why do I believe that? because a reliable source said so). However, to keep from being POV, and to keep from starting a "who is reliable?" debate, I am saying that keeping it as an official statement until Iran contradicts it would be a good compromise. But other people are not convinced that Iran gave two sets of coordinates for any reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I think it's best to establish who or what reported the initial coordinates, if any. March 21st to 24th of March was public holiday in Iran, and all government agencies remained closed. Hence, if a coordinate was given to Britain, it couldn't have been from any official agency, but by an unofficial party. So to put this British statement in "Iranian official briefings", is highly misleading.--Gerash77 23:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On the 24th Iran's foreign minister was at the UN, which was the day after the seizure and the day of voting for new sanctions on Iran. Maybe we should email the British and ask them who told them that :D Monkeyman334 00:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it can't be included in the article per WP:OR, but I really like to know whether an official briefing or an unofficial comment used for the first position. If you get a reply, please let us know!--Gerash77 18:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Interrogation Training?

I was under the impression that British military personnel are trained to only give their name, rank and number when captured. Why are two soldiers filmed "apologising" for their countries acts? Are the personnel involved just weak personally, or what? Why are these servicepeople acting in this way? Why have they given so much personal information? Am I missing something here? I think this question could be important in the article. Jamdonut 01:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the army only provides specialised 'Resistance to Interrogation' training to specialised troops that are likely to be captured (Reccy troops, spec ops etc). Certainly all they are /required/ to give is their name, rank and serial number but from how its been explained, normal soldiers are told that if it doesn't give away military secrets or compromise operations, you do and say what you need to survive. That we will know its under duress. Narson 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You're British, don't succumb to US cultural imperialism ;)

Recce is the British abbreviation and Special Forces, or SF, we don't do Spec Ops as such, most of what the US SOF do is normal soldiering for the UK.

In any case, applicability of the convention is questionable.

ALR 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Could have been worse. I could have referred to them as 'Super Friends' as my US infantry friends are always doing :) Assuming the convention you are referring to is the third geneva convention on POWs, I don't think it applies anymore. We seemed to be treating it as a protocol I situation, but now the Iranians have breached the conditions set forward in the convention, we can ignore it (meaning that Iranians captured in this same situation would not be required, under international law, to be given the protections of the geneva convention). But as you indicate, all a bit academic. Britain always seems to go for the geneva convention treatment of military detainees, by default. Because any other action gets us labelled as 'Imperialistic'. Narson 17:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get too far off topic, but that sounds like an interesting discussion, maybe take to talk pages ;) I still find it hard to believe that there is a lot in common between regular British soldiering and American SF. Especially considering that POW training is given to regular US army infantry, and the captured sailors didn't last a week without giving in to being used for propaganda. Monkeyman334 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Note I said US SOF, not US Army SF. SOF includes things like Psychological Operations, Media Operations, Civil Military Relations, Forward Air Control, Combat Evacuation, Recconaissance (to a level comparable to a Battalion Recce Platoon) which are just day to day business as far as UK regular forces are concerned.

SF is inevitably beyond that and tbh I'm not entirely convinced that the US SOF arrangement is really the best way to be doing business, but there are considerable doctrinal differences in how our forces operate.

Conduct After Capture is a different thing and as I've said below, everyone gets different levels of CAC training subject to their requirement.

ALR 17:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The two countries are not at war, so that rule does not apply. If they really were in Iran, then civil laws would apply (unless there is an agreement on different rules by the two countries). Even if they were supposed to apply, giving your name, rank, and number to the Iranians would just make them laugh. The Iranians are obviously coercing these people. The other posts are also correct, if they aren't in a high risk job, there's no point in giving them the POW training. The British soldiers probably don't even have useful information to give.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Monkeyman334 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 April 2007.

I would suggest that it is unwise to speculate in the article why those individuals who are speaking on behalf of Tehran are doing so. Conduct After Capture training is given in different ways and to different levels as required.

ALR 14:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

We should add MoD diagram of incident.

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).

No it would not as the maps are easily recreatable Nil Einne 20:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I know very little about fair use, but publishing a recreation of this diagram rather than the diagram itself seems counterintuitive to me. Wouldn't it be better to show what the MoD actually published...and say this is what the MoD claims...rather than recreating the map, and explaining that it's based on a map published by the MoD? Could it not be justified as follows: The MoD's publication of the diagram is on its own a politically salient act (for example, a controversial political campaign poster), and therefore republishing it would qualify as fair use. Also (and I imagine this doesn't change anything but still seems relevant to me), the MoD would almost certainly want their view of the matter to be republished. After all, they created the image to make a point they hoped would be widely communicated, not to create an asset from which they could profit monetarily, now or in the future. However, emailing a vast government bureaucracy to ask permission would likely be overly time-consuming for a rapidly developing news story. Mmalleson 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Fair better, I think, to create a map showing both versions of events, that is, combining the map with the MoD allegations with the one the Iranians have released.--Wehwalt 12:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Can someone please add little flags next to each national reaction? The Behnam 23:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

I like the idea of national anthems! Can someone implement that?!? Valtam 14:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

See Also Links

Renamed "See Also Links" 202.74.221.29 11:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There are a few external links I think have no relevance to this article. "The Kill or capture Strategy", this is related to the US Militarys response to Iranian Military in Iraq. Nothing to do with the British Military. "US Attack on Iranain Embassy" Again, this is about american forces and not UK. Its also very very POV verging on Anti-US Propoganda. Any one elses views? 202.74.221.29 06:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

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).

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." [34]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edits

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)

I see that it was already taken care of. 71.62.25.159 23:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)