Military history Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Additional information: /  This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Iran Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Discussion archive 1

I added a portion of the statements made by the sailors when they returned to UK. any comments? Klymen 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just rv'd a well meaning anon's changes to "taken hostage" from "detained". "Taken hostage" seems to be rather open to debate as to the legal situation, whilst detained is an accurate statement and seems less POV. However I welcome peer comment on this. Pedro |  Talk  10:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By saying detained, you are showing Iranian POV, saying it's not illegal. I recommend changing it to 'illegally detained' so as to keep a neutral POV. (Idk how to sign this since I'm not a wiki member) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.17.37 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You put four tildes (~~~~) after your post. Nick Cooper 11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infact, someone above has stated that Iran will release the British people in return for Iranian prisoners. That is a hostage negotiation. 86.6.17.37 11:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If so, what about the Cold War spy exchanges - were we taking hostages rather than arresting spies? It's more complex. Rwendland 11:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you discussed this and went and made a change anyway, Thats not how things are done. A consensus needs to be reached first. There are a few things on here I think are pro OpFor I don't agree with and that's why I discuss them here.

There was never a consensus on the word detained, yet it is still used. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.6.17.37 (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Detained is neutral. Hostage is Pro UK, Illegal/Criminal is Pro Iran. Detained is just what it says. 202.74.221.29 11:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hostage is not Pro UK, it's the truth. Detained is Pro Iran, since it implies they had a right to capture British troops. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.6.17.37 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Lets try to stay to what we know for certain. It's still early days with this situation. Each side is claiming the boat was in their own territorial waters and there's no way for us (as uninvolved observers) to know what the truth really is. So any unsourced claim about the legality of the situation, or anything about the "truth" is not going to hold much water. Lets try to stay neutral. --Imroy 11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP post is clearly POV. However, the text should read hostages somewhere (besides British claims). Iran has said that they will release the prisoners if the British admit their mistake. They're making demands as a condition of the sailors release, therefore they're hostages. "Hostages" makes no claim about the legality of the detention. In fact, pointing to legality is worthless, because we don't know what happened, and Iran isn't going to charge them with anything, because they're *hostages*. Regardless, the old text should have been removed. It sounded like "the hostage takers took the hostages hostage using their hostage-taking boats. Give me a break. Monkeyman334 12:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again... detained is Pro Iran, since it implies they had a right to capture British troops. As you said, let's try to stay to what we know for certain. Also; as Iran said they will trade the British troops for Iranian prisoners, that becomes a hostage demand, thus justifying the use of hostage as it is factually correct for the situation. 86.6.17.37 11:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry. Detained is neutral. They are not at liberty and therefore are detained. There is considerable debate (in Real Life not on wiki) as to whether they are "hostages" under international law. Until that is resolved we must stay NPOV. And I am sorry but I have to refute the idea that "detained" is Iranian POV. It is a statement of documented, citable fact, where as "taken hostage" isn't. Pedro |  Talk  12:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The legal definition of hostage does not matter. We are not lawyers. Monkeyman334 12:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. So until we can cite a reliable source that these people are hostages we must maintain NPOV, and I can only feel "detained", "detainee" or whatever where appropriate to the sentence structure is acceptable.Pedro |  Talk  12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, therefore the quote from Bush would be considered a reliable source, considering he is the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world? Maurauth 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is making demands for releasing the prisoners, that makes them hostages by definition! If you can't agree on this point, then you've at least got to agree adding something to the opening paragraph which states the questioned legality of the situation. Something along the lines of 'questionablly detained'. Maurauth 12:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 4 of the article as it stands details that there are multiple points of view on the legality. Not convinced that we need "questionably" in the header. Also, that make the sentence imply that it is disupted as to whether or not they have been detained. Pedro |  Talk  12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI -- I am only voicing support for the word "hostages," which the sailors are. I am not arguing legal/illegal. Monkeyman334 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Iran has said that they will release the prisoners if the British admit their mistake." - Actually that makes it blackmail if the British were not in Iranian waters. Which I personally don't think they were but can prove. I think their capture is sickening TBH but from a neutral POV Detained is IMHO the most neutral word. 202.74.221.29 12:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are we doing dictionary definitions on concensus now? Look up the word. Monkeyman334 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support As a Brit myself I find this whole series of events apalling. But at the end of the day this is an encyclopedia for the world and my personal reaction is nothing to do with it.Pedro |  Talk  12:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(it appears someone removed pedros part)replaced by PedroYes, but if someone was to read just the headlining part, they would not know this, thus misleading the reader. Also; if you know any basic english, it wouldn't imply that it is disputed whether or not they have been detained. Also; that was only an example, maybe a short sentence describing the debate in the openning paragraph, since that is what all the kerfuffle is about! Maurauth 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another discussion of the same topic further up the talk page, I think they should be merged, since they say some valid points. Maurauth 12:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about merging, but this is a discussion page not the article. If any of the previous editors in that section want to add more they can do so here. Additionaly, as this is a current event the discussions will change over time. In a few days this could all be a waste of time (e.g. Iran starts calling them hostages then the article would be changed)Pedro |  Talk  12:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, put it this way. 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. Why should they not be refered to as hostages then? Maurauth 12:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off Subject Maurauth I have just noticed you removed my comment that you had made few or no other contributions outside of this topic (actually you have made none at all except "I'm Rather Awesome" on your user page.) I don't want a war here but my comment is perfectly acceptable and a wikipedia convention - it's used to help to prevent sockpuppetry. 9I'm sure you and not a sock, of course). Please don't take offence, but it's a bit rude to remove other editors comments on a talk page.Pedro |  Talk  12:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were using it to suggest that I was just trolling this page, trying to make what I said pointless. It was off subject, and you could have put it on my talk page. Also; please stop stalling by avoiding my argument, it's not becoming. I have given sufficient proof for either changing the wording to include hostages, or add a sentence to state the questionable legality of the captured personnel. If you don't have anything to refute my arguments with, I'll happily take the second option and add something to the openning paragraph, until someone writes something to object to it here. Maurauth 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please If you look at the edit history you will see I replied with the sugestion below 4 minutes before commenting on your removal of my words. No, your talk page would not have been a good place as it is germane to the discussion here - you have made no other edits beyond thius article. Fact. That's not a bad thing, of course, but it does imply that you may not be aware of wikipedia guidelines as much as others. Please, this is not a bad thing, and I sincerely welcome you to this project and hope you stay. And I'm not "refuting arguments". Please, do not turn this into a war. You will note that other than my original rv I have not touched the main article, waiting consensus. So far there isn't one - just you and me. So edit counts aside let's wait for some consensus. As below I do feel a reference to the Bush quote is appropriate.Pedro |  Talk  13:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a consensus in the above, that they should be refered to as hostages. And in this discussion, there is both monkey and I, considering they are hostages. Maurauth 13:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have nothing against a line, towards the start, along the gist of "US President George Bush has refered to the detainees as hostages" and then provide a cite. I don't think Bush's comment is enough to reqwrite the whole tone of the article but it is a fair point and worth noting. Pedro |  Talk  12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the BBC [1] and the Toronto Sun [2] indicates they are both using the phrase "detainee". Surely, until these kind of news sources switch to something else (ie hostage) we should be consistent with them?Pedro |  Talk  13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem referring to them as such in the bulk of the article (as I mentioned before, putting hostages in every sentence is dumb). Really, I would be fine with just the facts: that Iran has detained these people and not charged them with crime, does not intend to charge them with a crime, and had said that British should admit to trespass in order for them to be released. And not in a section that says it's a "claim" by either side. It's a fact. I have no problem with using the term "detained/detainees" in the rest of the article. Monkeyman334 13:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if it is first refered to as 'taken hostage and detained' and from then on, nothing is changed. Maurauth 13:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about use of the word capture, (alted to be gramatically correct in each sentence). A lá CNN. Maurauth 13:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As in "The captives have...." "The captives were..."? That sounds pretty good actually. What about a mix of "captives" and "detainees" thoughout the article? This would probably be a better writing style to remove repetition. And we can still have the Bush quote, with a citation. Smells like the sweet scent of consensus brewing .......Pedro |  Talk  13:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: 1. Open with 'taken hostage and detained'. 2. Keep Bush quote, possibly edit it to sound better where it's written, and add link. 3. Alternate between captive and detainee in remainder of page. Maurauth 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I'm not sure about the 'taken hostage'. At the initial time of detention they were probably even further away from been hostages than they are now surely? With the exception of that I agree with the rest. Your reqwrite of the intro to the article with the Bush reference sounds very good now IMHO.Pedro |  Talk 

Okay well, since 2. and 3. are sorted, we'll just leave it under discussion for whoever posts next. Maurauth 14:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thank you for not trurning this into a war. Your contribution here has been most helpful, and I wish you, as every Happy Editing!Pedro |  Talk  14:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broader look

• In other wiki articles we have used the term 'detain' instead of POV arrest and taken hostage.
• US raid on Iranian liaison office in Arbil - Iran officially considers the detainees as hostages, and such is reported in most Iranian media. But hostages is POV and can't be included, even though its the term used by one of the two parties.

It doesn't matter if the term is/isn't used in the press. If the individuals are being tried for crimes and the US has not given demands in exchange for their release, they are not hostages. They are detained, prisoners and/or arrested. I am not going to start citing a dictionary so you can see the proper use of words. "Hostages" may have a negative connotation, so be it.Monkeyman334 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The two parties involved in this case, UK and Iran, don't use the term hostages. USA does, but USA is not a party involved, and hence, its sayings can't be included in introduction, and I'll move it to its own section.

Cite directly: "Iran has said that they will release the prisoners if the British admit their mistake." Iran does want an apology but never stated it will free the detainees if British do so.--Gerash77 18:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iran said (and I quoted the IRNA, just to remove any questions) that an apology will "facilitate" their release. And I will add this here, as I mentioned above, as long as that fact is left in the "facts" of the article (and not a claim), I am happy to have that in lieu of the term hostages.Monkeyman334 20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the above section, it's a summary on the debate of hostage/detainee/captive. Consensus has already been met, but you can continue the argument if you wish. Also, if you read the quotation you just uses it says that they will free the hostages, if the British apologise. It's also been reported above, that they will free the hostages, if Iranian prisoners are freed. This is the definition of a hostage demand. Maurauth 19:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You stated something, and another user agreed with you, thats not a consensus yet. #Use of the term 'Hostages' was the last major consensus.
• Again, you claim something without a direct quote from the Iranian government.--Gerash77 20:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons stated in the above section (I'm not sure why there are three sections for this specific discussion now), the use of the term 'hostage' in the narrative of the article is highly fallacious and POV. As stated previously, it is perfectly acceptable to use the term in the specific context of a party's view (e.g, Bush, the Times article), but they must be explicitly kept at that - Points of View. The reality is somewhere in between. As also stated above, Iran's desire for an apology has never explicitly been vocalized in such a way that it would directly lead to the release of the detainees. Iran has yet to make any demands, let alone attempted to negotiate a release. This fails to qualify as a hostage situation. I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated. I suppose a new section will be made and the same attempt at POV pushing will be repeatedly put forth until it's successful. At this point in time, they are not hostages. They're still detainees. I was reticent at the thought of the inclusion of the link to the 79 Hostage Crisis, but I let it go for two reasons: 1. The current situation understandably brings back memories of Iran in 1979 and 2. The situations are notably different, for reasons I stated in the second section in this talk page relating to the use of the term hostages. Consensus on the inclusion of the term has only been reached on the limited scale I just described. The article cannot in itself characterize this as a hostage situation, and must remain neutral. I believe that detainees is the most neutral term available, as it would be the most likely be used if the situation were reversed. I am for the alternation between 'detainees' and 'captives', but Wikipedia itself cannot call them hostages until it's been definitively and factually established (Short of Iran itself admitting this, I don't think this is going to happen.) -Etafly 23:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are 100% incorrect. According to your logic, the Iran Hostage Crisis could not be written as such because Iran never referred to the "detainees" as "hostages." The fact that they are political hostages was set in stone when Iran started making demands, and even more so when Iran said they weren't trying the hostages for any crime. You're saying, someone who says "get me my money, or something bad might happen" isn't making a threat, because it's not explicit. It's a joke. "Hostages" is factual. Find me a word that means "a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge pending the fulfillment of an agreement" besides "hostage" that can be neutral. My thesaurus has none. Detainees certainly isn't in there.

• In the '79 crisis, a group of militant students barricaded themselves in the embassy for over a year. It wasn't conducted by the country itself! How many times do I need to make this point? Equating the actions of a sovereign nation to this simply makes the country look like a terrorist organization. The legality of the seizure is still under dispute and Iran still maintains that they were in its waters. This is in no way similar to flagrantly occupying the U.S. Embassy (Sovereign U.S. territory.) Ultimately, time will tell us whether or not this will in fact be remembered as a hostage situation, but this is not the same as 1979. Please don't use that rationale when you make changes to the page.
• Also, Iran hasn't made any official demands. As refreshing as your analogy is, I haven't made that claim. The criteria for a hostage situation simply hasn't been met. In time and as the situation unfolds, that may change. Regarding your last point, it's sheer speculation that Iran is holding them as a pledge pending the fulfillment of an agreement. They can just as easily release them tomorrow! There is only circumstantial evidence to support this, and yes, the reader can draw their own conclusions, but really your point is moot until Iran basically states that they're being held until some sort of negotiation takes place. -Etafly 01:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone further up into the talk page stated that they also will release the captured personell if Iranian Prisoners are also released. I'm sorry, but that IS a hostage demand, by definition! I don't see why there's any problem with the current wording of the article, it's still NPOV. Maurauth 08:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm losing patience.. This is not an official Iranian position! I've lost count as to the amount of times I've repeated the same arguments here. Furthermore, your addition: "The legality of the detention of the British personnel and their status as detainees or hostages is currently being debated. U.S. President George W. Bush has refered to the personnel as hostages." lacks citation. If it isn't original research , then re-add it along with a source. Other than your latest addition, I have no problem with the article as it stands. I'm trying to keep it neutral. From the discourse I'm seeing here, it's on the brink of becoming highly POV. For now, I'm reverting your edit as it's unattributed. -Etafly 09:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to link it to a citation at the bottom of the page, but there is already one for it, I'm sorry, but maybe you can link it to the citation. Maurauth 09:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The portion I have a problem with is "their status as detainees or hostages is currently being debated" as no such debate is cited. Bush calling them hostages does not indicate such a debate. Please don't start a revert war. Furthermore, in your haste to restore the text, you neglected to correct your spelling mistake (as well as the grammatical structure of the sentence) which makes the statement even more suspect. I don't want to make the same revert twice, so I'm asking you to do it yourself. This is original research unless you can cite a source that supports the fact you're trying to assert (That there is a debate and it's somehow connected to George Bush's use of the term.) Next time, only undo a revision after it's been discussed. Thanks -Etafly 09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You're the only one who's starting a revert war, it was agreed upon previously here, to include that statement as it is a crucial point to the article, since that's part of the whole debate - the legality of Irans capture of British personell. But I agree, there was some spelling mistakes and I'll get on that. Next time, only revise after it's been discussed. Thanks. Maurauth 10:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Etafly has been trying to resolve this here, and you are the one that is constantly reverting. The consensous so far as I have seen is to refer to "Hostage" but your edit is a bit over the top IMHO Nooie 10:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was already resolved, he's just been removing something that was agreed upon, as you say - the consensus is to refer to hostage. I added in that as a placeholder for someone to re-write it to sound better. Perhaps you could? Maurauth 11:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a negative ghost rider :-) It was agreed to refer at some point in the article that it may been seen as a Hostage Situation, but your wording was convoluted, and your citing George Bush as the reason for it, which would be seen as POV. One note on "Hostage" is agreed upon. I am not willing to write this for you as even though I think Iran's stance is Illegal, we have to be neutral, and I don't think "hostage" should be referred to at all. Write something neutral in the right place and it won't get reverted.Nooie 11:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed upon to keep it as it stands earlier, I don't see why it should be removed as it provides enlightenment into the situation, an explaination of the debate IRL. Maurauth 11:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your addition was never agreed upon. I've read through this page and can't seem to find where it's been directly discussed (namely, that there is an active debate in the political sphere as to whether or not they should be called detainees or hostages). In fact, the debate is here! Unfortunately, you can't cite this talk page as a source, and you haven't provided a source. Why is it that every entry I make here gives me the strange sense of deja vu? Perhaps in another time, another place, in another life, I've made the same arguments over and over again.. Makes you think! Back to my point, in international responses, you can clearly see that there is a division, but drawing from that and asserting that there's an active Detainees V. Hostages debate currently taking place is both original research and incorrect. There are differing perspectives, and that's already outlined by their inclusion in the article. There's no need for an ineloquent sentence that assumes to connect the dots for readers. They do that themselves. -Etafly 16:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See directly above this for a discussion of the use of that phrase. Its eloquence is up to opinion, and it's not up to the readers to join the dots, we're an encyclopedia to show the facts, and that's what it does. Maurauth 17:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter now. Maurauth 18:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed my main concern about your entry - that it's original research. While Detainees V. Hostages is a debate in this talk page, unless you can cite a reputable source about an external debate, it's original research and should be removed. Further, in this case, you're making a contentious addition to the article, so it's up to you to convince us that it should be included, not me to convince you why it shouldn't be. The article is fine without it. It already states that George Bush used the term 'Hostages' in his address. -Etafly 10:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word detainee is also contentious, but that has been agreed upon. Also; you're the one that's to convince us to remove it, as it's already been agreed upon, and you are the only person here who disagrees with its use. The entire external debate is about the legality of their capture of British personell! Maurauth 10:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You are an interesting person Mautauth! You just told Etafly that he is the only one disagreeing with the inclusion of a POV/OR in the lead. Yet, you have also told me the same thing, contradicting the definition of the word "only". To be honest, YOU are the only editor who wants an inclusion of this Bush quote in the lead. What you quote as a "consensus", is an agreement by Pedro who implied the Bush's comment may be included in the article, but he didn't specify in the lead! Let me be clear: your own agreement with yourself about inclusion of "hostage" in the wp:lead does not constitute a wp:consensus based on any logic or wiki rules.--Gerash77 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say you're an interesting person too Gebash66, but you obviously can't read so I won't. It's still keeps NPOV and it's in no way original research. Okay then, two people arguing against the inclusion of such a statement. However, there's also two people wishing for the inclusion of it, so until there is a deciding person. I'll put it back in, please don't revert it until you have a consensus descision to remove it! Maurauth 11:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with you in conclusion, that we can leave "hostage" out of the text. Simply because if that facts are left in there, then it's an obvious conclusion. I think readers are smart enough to know that when Iran says "we will 'facilitate' the release of the sailors if the British government admits their msitake" that it's a hostage situation. Just like I don't think it's necessary to say that the sailors were coerced into making public statements, because nobody is being fooled.

It's the truth though, that's not a conclusion, that's a fact. Maurauth 08:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We're heading for an edit war here. IP's possible sock Puppets are making changes as they see fit. rather than on a consensus basis. If can't resolve this then we may need to get this locked and a decision made by Admin. 218.101.11.87 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to agree with the pro-'Detainee' outlook. I am not going to deny that I'm British and so have a natural distrust, in this matter, of the Iranians, hostages is emotive language. Its not pro-Iranian to use detainees, though the most vocal people against it may be pro-Iranian editors. It is simply the sensible route to take. If we use hostages, then it makes it very easy for people to dismiss the whole article. As for consensus....I've yet to see any huge outcry for hostages beyond a few anons. Not even the other pro-British editors I've noticed have called for it.

As for the subject of locking this to some degree, it would be useful if we could stop the anon users from just coming in and editing it as the level of vandalism and silliness is causing people to be able to slip POV language into the text as well as errors as it gets missed. Do people really feel the need to edit perfectly correct English to American English every 5 seconds? Narson 01:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though probably irrelevant, I'd just like to clarify that I'm not pro-Iranian (the stupidity of this situation is beyond words), I'm just trying to sustain NPOV. Iran is already next in line in the war on terror. Seriously, they're already part of the Legion of Doom (the only part, if North Korea is now excluded), so it's quite natural for the media to spin this into something resembling a terrorist attack. I just don't want Wikipedia to be a vehicle for it. Cheers! -Etafly 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

are we heading for a WP:LAME with this one? LOL. 218.101.11.87 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Thanks for bringing that great article to my attention! -Etafly 03:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:HORSEMEAT for a great synopsis of what this is becoming. I still stand by my (cited) statement earlier. Major news sources including the BBC are using the term detainee and I see no reason not to follow suit. I have agreed with Maurauth about the reference to the comment by President Bush calling them hostages however. I disagree that the article needs locking. This isn't vandalism per se and most of the editors (anon or otherwise) have folllowed standards and used the talk page. All credit to them. Pedro |  Talk  07:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the use of "hostage" is POV, which is why Bush and the UK contributors on this page are so for it. 66.167.144.46 09:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Attempts by the British to obtain a stronger statement were defeated by opposition on the Council, led by Russia." It might be true, but the provided reference: [3] makes no mention of Russia. MoodyGroove 14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove[reply]

Good call Moody. I have found a ref for this, though, and put it back in.[4] Thoughts? Chrisfow 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me that this is being citied? It's all one persons POV that is on his blog and has been copied word for word onto one media out let. Can you really cite someone's who says "The British and Iranian government are acting like Idiots". These are one persons POV's! No evidence to back up his statements. 218.101.11.87 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V Blogs are not to be citied. And the two other articles are copies of the blog. This needs to go! 218.101.11.87 03:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, blogs are not entirely verboten:

...and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field or a well-known professional journalist. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

In this case Craig Murray does have a reaonable cliam to expertise - he was the head of the FCO's maritime section (as well as being HM ambassador to one of the former Soviet states). He was alo interviewed on Radio 5 Live about his claims. Possibly the BBC website has some comment on this, which would be somewhat preferable as a source I agree. David Underdown 10:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No BBC as far as I can see, and just because he was FCO Maritime and Ambassador to one of the former USSR states, does not mean he is an expert in the Iran/Iraq Water territory issue. As you said "self stated". I think its a poor reference. If I start a blog as an Ex UN employee, can I start citing that on here? Nooie 10:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth mentioning that Murray's views were aired in The Mail on Sunday (1 April), while it seems a version of the same piece appeared on the newspaper's website the day before. Nick Cooper 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

his quotes are also now in the BBC article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6496559.stm (which we're using in the article as ref name BBC-20070326) so I've added that at the appropriate place. It's worth keeping the link to the original blog post as well I think as that shows the original context of the quotes (and as mentioned elsewhere on this talk page, the comments on the blog contain interesting points Martin Pratt of IBRU saying why Murray isn't quite right) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by David Underdown (talk • contribs) 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thats cool David, I looked at the BBC article and hope you don't mind that I citied it from it too using "He stressed that, equally, Iran could not say definitively that the UK crew had been in its waters.". Becuase that does give a more neutral POV and is from the same BBC article after all. Thats no problems is it? Nooie 21:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murray has also been quoted, at some length, in the New York Times of Sunday last. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me, this title is unwieldy. Could we have, say, "2007 Anglo-Irani [or Irani-British] Persian Gulf crisis"? Nyttend 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fine description of the events, and how it is covered in the media. Also that title will probably not make as much sense if there are further problems this year in the region. Maurauth 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the "10:30 local time" is Iraq time? However, if it is, that is POV because we don't know for sure that they were in Iraqi waters. If they were in Iranian waters, local time would have been Tehran time, half an hour later than Baghdad time. -86.134.12.250 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The time reported in mainstream media is 10:30, I've not seen 11 reported anywhere. Furthermore the notion of attaching a timezone to water miles away from shore seems spurious. Throughout the article times are reported and I feel it would be too cumbersome to give 3 different times for each instance. |→ Spaully°τ 17:22, 4 April 2007 (GMT)

I still don't quite understand that - if it's spurious to attach a timezone to water, then in what sense can the reported time of 10:30 possibly be "local time"? Anyway, 10:30 must be Iraqi time (since it's said in the article to be GMT+3, and we know that Iraqi time is GMT+3, whereas Iranian is GMT+3:30)... which is taking sides because we don't know for sure whether they were in Iraqi waters. -86.134.12.250

You ignored the other two, more important, points. I have not seen 11 reported anywhere in the media, our sources, and so I would argue inclusion of two times itself starts to introduce a POV on this matter.

In one of the broadcast videos of the captives one man reports the time of interception as being 10:30. Presumably if the Iranians have not corrected the media, nor him when he made his statement on Iranian TV they either don't care or agree it was 10:30.

My other point is with regards to other times reported in the article. There are several instances of this and presumably to make it consistent we must change these accordingly which seems cumbersome. |→ Spaully°τ 08:47, 5 April 2007 (GMT)

There was an Iranian who was kidnapped by Sunnis who was just recently released, but I can't remember the name. There is also Speaker Peloci's visit to Syria, who some claim support the same Sunni terrorist groups. Has anyone seen any speculation in the media on the connection of these events, or am I just reading too much into this?--Rayc 18:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnis from where? Also, Syria has nothing to do with this, it's only Iran, the UK, possibly the US and possibly Iraq. So indeed, you are reading too much into this. Are you going to suggest North Korea was involved next? Nil Einne 20:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several reports coming out that Syria was an intermediary, but little detail: "the value of recent British overtures to Syria, a regime which proved a crucial go-between in the past fortnight."[5], "The Syrians claim to have played a leading role in persuading Iran of the foolishness in detaining the Britons any longer."[6] Rwendland 01:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the section on Legal Treaties:

According to the IBRU and UK Ministry of Defence analysis above, Murray's statement is correct only if his geography were correct, which it is not. Murray ignores the fact that the British-provided coordinates are within territory governed by the ratified, in-force Algiers Agreement (1975) and are not further out where, as he correctly points out, the two states have never agreeed to a boundary

This was supported by none of the sources cited; it is a classic example of Original Research. (As I read the IBRU statement, it covers only the waters of the Shatt al-Arab, at its greatest extent; and Murray is discussing the Gulf - but we can discuss that when this criticism has a source.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that the border defined by the Algiers Agreement extends beyond the location given by the British, thus making any discussion of the median line and the non-agreed boundary (as Murray has done) moot. The only issues under question are whether A) The Algiers Agreement is still in force (there's no evidence to suggest it isn't) and whose co-ordinates are the correct ones. Whether or not the median line represents the correct maritime boundary or not (as Murray is arguing) is utterly irrelevant and has no bearing on the key issue here. It's not Original Research to understand that. — Impi 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The original research here is the claim that that argument refutes, or indeed answers, Murray's claims. In order for Wikipedia to say that, somebody, other than our editors, has to say it first.
• In fact, the argument appears to be a misreading of what the IBRU said. Our article correctly cites them as asserting a boundary exists as far south as the point R. The one thing both the Iranians and the British agree on is that the incident took place further south than R. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IBRU clearly shows Point R as being west of the reported British position (it becomes clearer if you look at their map), which means that the British position simply could not be in disputed waters as Murray claims. That this invalidates Murray's argument is important and should be included some way or another, perhaps by using the IBRU as the 'somebody' that said it. Either way, it would be incorrect to treat Murray's argument as a valid counterpoint to the IBRU's analysis. I'd agree on the wording of the original section being POV though, so a change would be necessary in any case. — Impi 22:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean east, or rather ENE, not west. But the claim that this invalidates Murray's argument would have to depend on someone who mentions Murray, preferably by name, or at least as a clear member of a well-defined class. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats okay, Murray was mis-quoted on the article. I noticed his comment that was on the BBC "He stressed that, equally, Iran could not say definitively that the UK crew had been in its waters." Which I have now added to the article. But the reality is that. He really doesn't appear to have a clue what hes talking about. "They were in Iranian Waters, but actually they can't defiantly say there were" not really a reliable source is it? Nooie 22:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

His position is quite clearly that the boundary is undetermined beyond the Shatt al-Arab; the recent edit merely clarifies that: Neither the British nor the Iranians know where the boundary is; no-one does. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I meant East (the consequence of too-little sleep I suppose). But again, it requires only a little common sense to realise that Murray's claim, even in its correctly-quoted form, makes utterly no sense since the claimed British position was clearly on the correct side of the only defined sea border between Iran and Iraq. The border is only in dispute beyond Point R, yet the British position was well inside of it. At the very least, this should make us doubt the accuracy of Murray as a source and re-examine the prominence of his views in the article, perhaps removing them altogether. He is, after all, not one of the protagonists, so there's no requirement to list his arguments in order to protect NPOV. In fact, I'd argue the opposite is the case, since his inclusion violates WP:RS and he is far too dubious a source for us to be using him as a third party arbiter of facts (like the IBRU). — Impi 09:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell from the articles, he has been quoted in a number of sources. Also, from what I can tell from the article, he isn't saying the claimed British position is necessarily in disputed waters. He is saying that the boundaries are hotly disputed and by presenting them as clear cut thing, this is unlikely to help the situation since it's something that would understadably antagonise Iran. Whether or whether not the area the British claim they were in is in disputed waters seems not particularly relevant to the point he was making. Nil Einne 12:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok now someone needs to update the developments of the release

When there are some. Have they gotten to the British embassy yet? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, reference 82 and 81 (a BBC article) doesnt work, it has one . to much at the end within the link(it should be .stm not .stm.) and I cant be bothered to fix it because of this cite.php thing. Thanks.

• Fixed Pedro |  Talk  09:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Release section says that no consular access was granted during release, and gives a BA flight number home. Where was that information taken from? Doesn't seem to be in the BBC website or CNN. Splash - tk 11:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the soldiers have been released, a lot of the article needs to be changed from present tense to past i.e "has pledged their support for the British etc. etc." --84.68.162.114 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just read in a Colombian newspaper that according to Iran the release was because Pres. Blair send a letter of apologize on Tuesday, even when the British government doesn´t want to accept the the letter was in fact send. so I think the part when it says that the release was like "a Easter gift" sound pretty pro British and anti Iranian (WP:NPOV). However I don´t know to add a spanish source for it, can someone help me found another one in English with this info? thnks --ometzit<col> 15:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• President Blair ??!?! Come to think of it.....
  

ok prime minister Blair, the same thing in practical terms after all--ometzit<col> 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non english language sources can be cited on en.wikipedia if no english source can be found, however a translation should be included within the article. If you care to do this it would be incorporated.Pedro |  Talk  15:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A translation like made by myself or a link to the web page translated using a automatic process? cuz the newspaper doesn´t have english version btw--ometzit<col> 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds preety neutral to me, as that's a quote from the Iranian leader. Maurauth 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"However the release was presented in such a way as to suggest that it was an Easter "gift" to the British people and not a surrender to British Government pressure and diplomacy;"

isnt this statement a bit one sided. it suggests that he did surrender to british in a way?