Talk:Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:58, 5 September 2013

Australia: Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

	Australia portal Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Suggest we make an article on the recent SIEV last week which killed 4 Afghans and wounded 4 Navy personal. Nath1991 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SIEV

SIEV stands for "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel" why change the page title to the more politically biased "Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel"? It is not illegal until proven - that's why irregular was probably chosen. Tiddy (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the word "Illegal" rather than "Irregular" was correct until around late 2009 or early 2010 when the term was changed. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2010-11 (in the definitions section on page 332) defines SIEV as "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel". The 2009-10 Annual Report carries the same definition. The 2008-09 Annual Report defines SIEV as "Suspect Irregular Entrant Vehicle" although that and the current definition are both used in the text of the report. The 2007-08 Annual Report defines SIEV as "Suspect Illegal Entry Vessel" I suggest the heading be chnaged as suggested by Tiddy above with a reference to the former expression Dobryen (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Dobryen that both terms have been used (and should be noted somewhere), "Irregular" being the more politically correct term currently in use. They are basically interchangeable as they refer to the same thing, though Illegal seem to be the term currently used on WP. Please note that "Illegal" was the original page title when started, and AFAIK has always been the name of this page. Some editors have changed the text to irregular, but as that conflicts with the title should not be done. I think we may need a source that mentions the change, as Dobryens' sources above just might equate to original research! 220 of ^Borg 03:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected irregular entry vessel is not more "politically correct", it is more correct. If you can point me to where there is any evidence of illegality I will stop considering your argument to be prejudiced and probably racist. What law do you suggest has been broken? http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/default.aspx uses the term irregular many times. http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants also explains the confusion. The name of this article is wrong and must be changed. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's also "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel" in the Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2011-12[[1]], so "irregular" it is. (pun alert!) Monsieur Puppy (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forced back or piloted?

I don't know if "forced back" is an acurate description of the process involved, given that the vessels deemed sea worthy were actually piloted back to the sea border by ADF personel after removing at least half of the passengers to make the vessel sea worthy, and trying for days to get the engine started. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :::Suspected irregular entry vessel is not more "politically correct", it is more correct. If you can point me to where there is any evidence of illegality I will stop considering your argument to be prejudiced and probably racist. What law do you suggest has been broken? http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/default.aspx uses the term irregular many times. http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants also explains the confusion. The name of this article is wrong and must be changed. [[User:Djapa84|    Djapa Owen]] ([[User talk:Djapa84|talk]]) 13:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
-Well it's also "Suspect Irregular Entrant Vehicle" in the Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2011-12[[http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/annualreport2011-12.pdf]], so "irregular" it is. (pun alert!) [[User:Monsieur Puppy|Monsieur Puppy]] ([[User talk:Monsieur Puppy|talk]]) 23:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
+Well it's also "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel" in the Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2011-12[[http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/annualreport2011-12.pdf]], so "irregular" it is. (pun alert!) [[User:Monsieur Puppy|Monsieur Puppy]] ([[User talk:Monsieur Puppy|talk]]) 23:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 == Forced back or piloted? ==