Talk:2007 Iranian arrest of Royal Navy personnel

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)

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)

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)

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: [1] 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: [2] 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[3][4] 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)

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)

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."[5]. 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)