Talk:Iranian Embassy siege

Move

Perhaps this should be expanded and moved to "Iranian Embassy Seige". Operation Nimrod as I undestand it is only the military operation carried out by the SAS. There is a considerable amount of additional information which would be pertinant to an encyclopaedic article, and a great deal of wha is already included is outwith the operation itself. Rich_Farmbrough 21:42, 29 June 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Dunc_Harris|☺ 17:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And i just moved it. I think its a lot better now. Dunc_Harris|☺ 21:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims about Iraqi involvement

I think "sponsored by Saddam Hussein's Iraq," is less NPOV than "sponsored by Iraq,". What do you think? Should we change it back? Edward 15:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think just 'Iraq' would be more NPOV. Possibly 'sponsored by the Iraqi Government'? (All truth be known, I'm not personally clear on the evidence of the connection).

Why? Not everyone knows the history of Iraq and it is important to differentiate the Ba'athist Iraq from the current Iraq from whatever was before the Ba'athist regime. 88.105.246.110 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone provide any evidence to support the "sponsored by Saddam Hussein's Iraq" claims?? 87.194.20.135 13:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There is still no evidence provided about Iraq's involvement, so I've flagged the sentence about the group's "Iraqi handler". Thomas Blomberg (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dadgar

Who is this man? He's not identified by full name anywhere in the article, nor is it indicated that this is a code name. All it alludes to is the fact that he was there, probably as a hostage. Wally 22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• He was a hostage. 88.105.246.110 21:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added that he was a hostage in the last para, I know its already in the article elsewhere but I think it needs to be stated near the end also Murray.booth 08:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Parole for Fowzi Nejad

The article stated that Fowzi Nejad was to be eligible for parole in 2005. A quick Google search uncovered only articles looking towards 2005 considering his possible release. Does anyone know if Nejad's parole hearing took place in 2005 and if it did, what happened? --AStanhope 17:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to just re-iterate the point of Astanhope, but does anyone have any further information on Nejad's parole? It has been some time since any mention of it and there are no stories that I can find which state whether he is still in prison. --138.37.81.69 (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

According to this, Nejad is due to be released. This also states he may be given asylum.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

I just searched the BBC's website for information about the Iranian Embassy Siege and found out that most of the text has been taken from the BBC's. It's nearly completly the same. The might by copyright trobles, but I do not know. Who knows some about this? Here's the link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2000/iranian_embassy_siege/default.stm --M9IN0G 09:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Bugger. It turns out that's been there for more than two years! I've had to take it out, but if anyone has the time to paraphrase the info and put it back in, that would be tremendous. Sadly, I don't. Henry^Flower 20:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename

Shouldn't this page be at Iranian Embassy s<u\>iege? There is no reason for the capitalisation. —anskas 00:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

photos

a photo or two of the SAS' assault would be nice

a good one would be of the front of the building when the SAS operators used a frame charge on the embassy's windows

I agree, why are there no pictures, it was a well known event. Lordqaz (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adding date, place to title

Anyone object to changing the title to "1980 Iranian embassy siege in London", or something similar? This would keep the title parallel with the other titles for embassy attacks used on Wiki: List_of_attacks_on_diplomatic_missions MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't object to a title change. The current title is rather ethnocentric - there are many Iranian embassies - it needs to be in keeping with other such events and the title needs to make clear which Iranian embassy. Sterry2607 (talk) 01:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the need for a change. How many Iranian embassies have been besieged?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Words to avoid?

The further one reads in the article, the more common the word "terrorist" becomes. Is this deliberate?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone has a rational objection, I'll replace this wording.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the overuse of the word made me laugh. Terrorist is a loaded term and clearly someone wants to make sure we all see these people that way, in this and some other Wikipedia pages I've just be reading. People with agendas need to be a bit more subtle. This usage sticks out like a sore thumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.23.238 (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me how someone who takes and murders hostages for political reasons is not a terrorist? BodvarBjarki (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Could you go into detail about how using the word "terrorist" indicates an agenda? Like BodvarBjarki writes, I think it can generally be agreed that hostage takers pushing a political view are terrorists. No agenda, just an accurate description. 141.149.172.201 (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

The article states that 26 hostages were taken, but 5 were subsequently released. It states that 19 hostages were saved in the assualt. Yet, it also states that 7 hostages were killed. Is this the new math? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.244.211 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The section Embassy capture says there was an ITN unit at the rear able to watch the retaking of the embassy; then the section SAS Assault mentions "One team to the rear, entry via the first floor, entry from No.14's balcony - as seen by BBC cameras". Is this referring to the same camera crew and confusing the news organisations (ITN produced news for the ITV network; the BBC produced news for their own networks).

Also, phrases like "first floor" which have different meanings in the UK and US should be clarified. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reunion

BBC Radio 4 broadcast a programme this week which was basically an interview with some of those involved, including one of the the SAS soldiers, the negotiator and some of the hostages. It would be useful for references and will be avaible here on the "listen again" service for the next day or so. I believe you can record the BBC's "listen again" output using the Audacity software although I've never tried it myself. Richerman (talk) 12:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sense of Failure

Here's the link to the full article on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8660688.stm

It would be nice if this article could be expanded to include a reference to the role that the first translator that was used to communicate with the terrorists in the embassy had in the outcome of the negotiations. Anyone has more informations on who this translator was and why she wanted to derail the negotiation talks? (Riciwtf (talk) 10:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

Names

In the article, it is stated that Tak Takavesi was the name of the trooper caught in the abseil ropes. However, in both Rusty Firman's book (Go! Go! Go!) and Soldier I, they state that Takavesi was a member of one of the assault crews to go in through the ground floor. In both books, the name of the trooper caught in the ropes is given as "Tom the Fijian". Takavesi was also Fijian, which might explain some of the confusion. (Craig, 6/2/11)

I agree with this point as I have never seen Taks name mentioned in relation to the fellow caught in the ropes.Prehaps Taks names should be removed and possibly changed to "Tom the Fijian" and referenced to the statement in Soldier I. --MisterCharlieLord (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

In ths Wikipedia article for this it says:Iranian Embassy Siege. "Frank Collins claims this hostage was mistaken for the terrorist 'Salim' (codename for the leader) and believed to be carrying grenades> was it true that to colins that one name Ali Akbar Samadzadeh was killed by friendly fire from SAS? Collinswas an NCO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulioetc (talk • contribs) 10:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Specifics

I'm not sure which section to best add further details, but the article doesn't mention at all who exactly were involved from the SAS except mentioned "red/blue" teams of the CRW, which is rather vague. It was B Squadron's Pagoda Troop, the Special Projects alert team from the CRW, which then broke itself down into "red/blue". http://www.angelfire.com/wa/cagiva2/nimrod.html http://www.regimental-art.com/operation_nimrod.htm --YEPPOON (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

New image

The new image of the S&W revolver is misplaced in this article. The revolver was not used, and played no part in the outcome. On the contrary, the H&K MP5 became extremely popular with law enforcement after this event - the vendor could not have asked for better endorsement than that of the SAS. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

That another image is more relevant is not a reason to remove that one. An image is beneficial there because it breaks up the text a little and makes the article more aesthetically pleasing. If I can find a suitable image of an MP5 and a place to put it, I'll certainly include it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this image "increases users' understanding of the subject matter". Also its prominence gives undue weighting to the role that the revolver played in the siege. If you're simply looking for gap fillers, then we can do better than this. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Injuries sustianed by the SAS

An article in the popular press (Robin Horsfall,The Sun (UK), Page 14, 29/08/11) about sgt McAleese it is stated “one of our guys got burns to his legs and another shot the end of his finger off, otherwise it was a complete success”. Although I could not find mention of the burn injury I could not find any mention of the phalanx amputation accident in the text of this article. I think this could be mentioned as a point of interest. 2.219.126.222 (talk) 12:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)