Talk:2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Copyedit : Put article into past tense where appropriate
  • Expand : Expand references to include full details - publisher, retrieved date, published date etc
  • Verify : Verify weblink references to check links still work


comments from the sailors[edit]

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)

Further detail is required about their treatment while being held hostage. TomGreen 16:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Detained v taken hostage[edit]

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)

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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 10:55, 3 April 2007.

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

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

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)
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 (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

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

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 (talk) 11:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

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)

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)

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. 11:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)
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)
"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. 12:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we doing dictionary definitions on concensus now? Look up the word. Monkeyman334 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Hostage has a negative connotation, detainee does not. I mean, we could easily edit this to say "Iran majestically defended its own waters and liberated British naval personnel from their oppressors, who forced them to encroach on Iranian territory." Detainee is neutral. It suggests that Iran took the people and kept them against their will in some place- detained them. There were no death threats, no threats to the British detainees, and they did say that the Iranians treated them nicely. That is far from a hostage situation. Wpchen 01:12, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Broader look[edit]

  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

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)

  • 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)

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)

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

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)
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)
  • 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)
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)

  • 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)

  • 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. 22:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
are we heading for a WP:LAME with this one? LOL. 03:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Haha. Thanks for bringing that great article to my attention! -Etafly 03:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
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)

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

Comment removed[edit]

"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

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)
Works for me! MoodyGroove 17:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Craig Murray[edit]

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. 03:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

his quotes are also now in the BBC article (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 (talkcontribs) 15:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
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)

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

Revisiting the naming question[edit]

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)

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)

I agree. "Iranian Seizure" does not sound neutral. Wpchen 01:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont see anything wrong with "seizure" or "capture", the only words which have caused minor controversy in the media are "kidnapping" and "hostages" Angryafghan 15:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


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. - 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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. -
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)

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)
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)

More OR[edit]

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)\
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)
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)
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)
Or to put that the other way round: the point he was making isn't particularly relevant to any of the issues here. Yes, the MoD were careless in not distinguishing between between the 1975 boundary and the estimated median line, but the dispute is about which side of that 1975 boundary they were. Both sides seem to accept that boundary, and the Iranians displayed it in their charts. Iran isn't claiming that the coordinates given by the British are in a disputed area, but rather that they were at different coordinates. In that context, Murray's remarks about distance to the coastline and disputed waters are grossly misleading. His article is not a Reliable Source. 22:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the IP's remarks here. His work is OR and is citied from his personal blog. He also seems to contradict himself with some of the points he makes. Further his statements are not very specific but seem to beat around the bush of the subject at hand. Can we please start to draw a conclusion and consensuses as to whether this should stay, be re-worded, or removed completely Can I ask we complete this as we would an AfP etc... Nooie 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Remove - OR and citied from blog. inaccurate and misleading. Nooie 01:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Reference 82 and 81[edit]

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.

Consular access during release?[edit]

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)

It's a past event now[edit]

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." -- 13:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Letter of apologize?[edit]

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)

  • 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)
Even George Bush got it wrong in a statement about the Iranian seizure Angryafghan 15:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Sounds preety neutral to me, as that's a quote from the Iranian leader. Maurauth 17:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Here's an article from the BBC where the British denied any apologising over the incident. The "letter of apology" claim by the Iranians was also mentioned, so it could be useful as a source for both sides of the claim.
On the other hand, "Easter gift" were the words of Ahmadinejad and are definitely not pro-British. Aran|heru|nar 05:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Viewpoint - Release section[edit]

"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?

I agree. It implies that Iran intended to hold the sailors indefinitely but caved under British pressure. There's no definitive reason to suggest Iran wouldn't have released the troops eventually, if not at the same time and manner as they actually did release them. If anything it was international pressure that facilitated the release. It comes across as smack-talk from slightly embarassed and angry Brits. The point could be achieved without the second part of the sentence. 23:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The above comment is really just stating that the Iranian president announced their release in such a way as to convey the impression that the service personnel were being returned as an Easter gift (i.e. an act of kindness and friendship) and to emphasise that their return wasn’t a cave into diplomatic pressure. Having heard the press conference, this is an accurate if slightly more concise account of what was said.

It stands to reason that the Iranian government would want to express such a view regardless of the reality of the situation and doesn’t seem to add credence to the suggestion that it was a surrender to British pressure and diplomacy. Rather than removing it I would suggest substituting “British pressure and diplomacy” with “international pressure and diplomacy,” since this would more clearly include the actions of the EU and UN, which president Ahmadinejah was just as dismissive of in achieving the service personnel’s release.


I don't know, this article seems a bit biased here. First is the use of the word "hostage", which has a negative connotation, where as "detainee" does not. (I mean, we can compare this to the use of "detainee" instead of "prisoner" in terms of Guantanamo Bay.) Second, in the section where we see the views of the world, we only see pro-Britain views. I mean, Russia led the opposition in the Security Council to back up Iran, maybe we want to see what their points are? I'm sure the entire world is not anti-Iran. Wpchen 01:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually Russia did not "Back Iran Up" they wanted to water down the words used so as not to cause tension between Russia and Iran. If you can find an article to cite that is backing up and supporting Iran then you are free to add it. I think people have tried but failed. You must be able to back up anything you add in. Nooie 04:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
I've also just looked at your hostage remark, and from what I can see it's only used when quoting news outlets, rather than actually part of the article. Nooie 04:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The wording has been argued about 5 times now, see above and archive. Maurauth 09:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect biased statement[edit]

This text is incorrect:

Upon their return, one of the sailors stated that when interviewed by British media at home, he would say nothing different than comments he has made in Iran about being well treated by the authorities. "I would not say anything different to here and I will be completely truthful. I will definitely promote Iran actually; there is a lot of ignorance in the UK about Iran and the people."

It implies that the statement was made in the UK, while in the article it is clear that it was made in Tehran (and later, in the UK, it was obviously retracted as being forced by Iranian authorities). Futurix 16:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit it to make it clearly state that that statement was said in Tehran then. Maurauth 16:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Faye Turney[edit]

I have asked for a deletion review of Faye Turney. Follow the first link if you want to take part. Greenshed 16:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

FOX News[edit]

I've heard on FOX News that in the future, if the military has this go on again, there will be hell to pay. All UK soldiers and military will fire on anything percieved to be a threat. 21:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well? So? What's your point here? --386-DX 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You heard that from FOX News? Funny, there's been no mention of anything like that over in the UK. 17:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


I have re-added the rammed statement regarding the initial contact between the two groups of boats. This is highly relevent, as it provides details of the nature of the seizure. Since there have been many disagreements over the legality of the seizure, it is highly appropriate to make clear as possible, the nature of the circumstances under which the seizure occured. TomGreen 18:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Release Claim and Counter Claim[edit]

Regards the release statements, i.e. they were under physcological pressure, and forced to admit they were in Iran's water, when they say they actually weren't. And by the same token the Iranian counter claim that they were coerced back in the UK. Can we get some article that were citied for these blurbs please as at the moment there is nothing. And whilst I believe both claims were made we need to cite somthing here. Nooie 23:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok Jumping Cheese was good enough to cite the article, but I notice that the Iranian Counter Claim is directly quoting. But when I read the BBC page it came from, I cannot see these direct quotes. Can this blurb be re-worded please? Maybe by the original Author. Nooie 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Release:- debriefing[edit]

Would there be a problem , e.g wrt copyright, with using block quotes of the partial transcripts of the press conference at the BBC's Royal Navy captives: Key quotes? The way the quotes are written into the article at the moment are very bitty.Koonan the almost civilised 09:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so. The BBC was reporting on public statements - it can't copyright that. If you are still unsure, go to the Royal Navy's News page - quotes are there.
I agree it is far too bitty at the moment - the quotes need to be expanded and more coherent. John Smith's 12:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Turney writing the letters[edit]

The article repeatedly says Turney allegedly wrote the letters; perhaps we need to find another way to say this, since she is now on record [7] as saying she did indeed write them, but under compulsion. The Wednesday Island 12:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Faye Turney[edit]

Some arrogant editor took it upon himself to override the overwhelming consensus on [8] to keep her article (keeps outweighing redirects 3 to 1).

That this was the wrong decision has been since even though this editor decided to ignore the clear consensus that she was notable, the media has obviously decided otherwise, and she is the subject of massive public and media interest [9] with six-figure payments made for her story.

The editor who decided to completely ignore the overwhelming consensus and do what he liked should be blocked. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

We try to avoid personal attacks here. Please desist. Greenshed 23:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Those who have comments about the process by which the article on Turney was deleted may make them here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Faye_Turney. Greenshed 23:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Craig Murray comments[edit]

I move that the craig murray comments be stricken from the article or reduced to a mention rather than the paragraph and a half it currently occupies. It was something which came up a bit in the media coverage but didn't actually amount to anything and as far as either government was concerned didn't matter. Iran haven't denied that the position the British say they were in is in Iraqi waters. Likewise the British do not deny that the (second) position the iranian government says they were in is in iranian waters.

Equally craigs comments are being taken strictly out of context in our article to suggest that the British naval personnel may have been on the iranian side, when what he was infact saying was that it was a little presumptive of either side to argue definitely who was on what side because the maritime border between iran and iraq had never been exactly agreed on. It literally was a throwaway comment he made about both sides using charts and maps which showed defined borders. But as things panned out it seems both sides are using the algiers accord agreed line and so it didn't matter. Theres an entire paragraph where a mountain is made out of the mole hill that were his comments, (made after all by a relatively low level retired official) hence I shall guage support here to have it removed or more likely reducded down to a more precise sentence or two. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 11:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This paragraph did start off in British claims and reactions/Press and other coverage, and I wonder if it is best returned there. The facts in the Murray para are presented elsewhere in the section, except that he notes the MOD vessel location is closer to Iranial land (high-water) than to Iraqi land which should perhaps be retained in the section somehow. Rwendland 13:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that comment was pushed around a lot in the press because on the face of it, it has impact. That the boats were closer to iranian land than iraqi land... however, it's not uncommon at all in maritime borders. Consider the British crown dependencies of Guernsey and Jersey, they are located much closer to France for example than they are Great Britain in the English channel, yet they're British territory. Consider aswell the English channel itself, until the UK joined the EU, the UK maintained a 30 mile coastal exclusion zone. The rest of Europe had a 3 mile exclusion zone, so it would be quite possible to be closer to france than the UK but still be in UK terratorial waters. It doesn't really mean anything, who's closer to which land body. The only important thing is where the border runs which in this case hasn't been an issue. The issue is whether the naval personnel were at the iraqi co-ords or the iranian co-ords. So I'm happy to move it back as you say, although I think it really needs to be clarified because its still being made into more than it is. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
It's not just which co-ords to believe. The 10-year reviews under the 1975 agreement have never taken place, so there is the question of if the 1975 Point R is still valid, or has it moved to wherever the thalweg currently is. Superimposing the Iranian and UK maps does suggest the thalweg has been moving about a considerable amount since 1975: [10]. Oddly enough, Murray participated in the Channel Island boundary negotiations. [11] Rwendland 15:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Prolific here; Craig Murray's comments don't actually contribute anything useful to this article. Were this dispute about positions on either side of the Iran-Iraq Median line, he might have a point, but since the only border involved is a mutually-agreed one and the only dispute is about reported co-ords, the Median Line and any argument about it is irrelevant. Further, the 1975 agreement (including the position of Point R and thus the border) remains valid in spite of the lack of any subsequent surveys. This is because the border is not defined by the position of the thalweg, but rather by mutual Iranian and Iraqi agreement on the position of the thalweg. Since the most recent such agreement they could come to was in 1975, that's legally where the thalweg is until such time as a new survey changes the position of Point R. — Impi 16:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, the agreement doesn't say the border agreement ceases to be definitive if there isn't a 10 year survey, it just recommends that there be a survey every 10 years to ascertain the position of the thalweg. Murray himself commented that even if the thalweg had moved considerably, it would still be virtually impossible for it to have moved to the west enough to place the British in Iranian waters. (Consider we're talking about the thalweg moving 2.7km in 30 years... very unlikely. Equally Murray is a very open critic of everything the present British government do and don't do, one just has to look around his website to see this. Its so extensive that he sees error in everything to the point it makes him an unreliable source. It's rather like quoting michael moore in an article on the Bush administration... WikipedianProlific(Talk) 18:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not too bothered with this being removed as the content is now mostly covered elsewhere. But if we do this then all the UK reporting left noted in the article is uncritical of the UK Govt line, which I don't thisk is a fair reflection of events. There was some disquiet of the uncompromising Blair approach which started a few days in, and much subsequent analysis suggests going noisily to the UNSC so soon was counter-productive. (NB I'm of the opinion the media reporting section should be more timeline based, to capture the different phases of this incident.) Rwendland 14:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
In view of the Iranian Ambassador's clarification of his govt's position on the border issue (or rather non-issue!) in the FT interview, I second the motion to reduce this para to a mention or even strike it entirely. In any case, most of the references are either totally irrelevant to the border issue, or merely quote Murray's blog or offer only opinions, which IMHO have no place here. One reference (to Murray's site) would be quite sufficient.Ianjt 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Official statements by Iranian Ambassadors should of course be included in the section on the Iranian position. But it is not dispositive: there are plenty of cases in which one side asserts, and the other denies, the existence of a dispute. All voices should be heard from; and when the BBC and the NYT quote a blog, it is not "merely". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The point you appear to be missing in this crusade to include Murray as a source is that, it really isn't important. Murray is pontificating about the border itself, it should be clear from the official commentary that there isn't really a substantive issue about where the line is on the chart. The dispute was about the position of the boarding team in relation to the line on the chart. We appear to have been given three different positions, two to the South and West and one to the North and East. Murray may have his view, but both sides of the debate have marginalised him.
His vocal criticism of the UK government doesn't make him a particularly reliable source anyway.
An additional point to note about his stance is that as head of section in the FCO he wouldn't have been watchkeeping in the CMC, so which was he, a watchkeeper or head of section?
ALR 17:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is no decided line, as he says, then both sides are posturing; a POV that is widely represented in the sources, and deserves inclusion. As to which office he held, I merely restored what I found; see the sources, or ask on his talk page - the answer may be both, in succession. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a dividing line, the one that was agreed in '75. And from the charts that both sides have shown in the media there does appear to be agreement. And of course both sides are posturing, this is a political pissing match and the boarding teams are just this months vehicle for that. But this article probably isn't the place for an analysis of British/ US/ Iranian relations until such time as a reliable source actually publishes something. My point is that his thoughts on the position of the border are tangential to the argument over the various positions given for the boats.
ALR 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, Murray wasn't just blogging. He was on BBC News 24, Sky News and wrote in the Daily Mail. He did a stint as head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre 1990/1, which involved being on-call in a bunker somewhere for Iraqi shipping boarding decisions - so he has experience of the sharp end of this in this exact area. I know some people don't like his views, but his qualifications are imacculate to comment on this issue. Rwendland 18:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if his rotation in the ESC was concurrent with his a portion of his time as head of section, so the experience isn't specifically related to maritime trade. The Embargo wasn't only breached via the NAG but also via a pipeline to the North and another pipeline to the West.
The nature of embargo enforcement prior to Op GRANBY was also very different to how it is now, post Op TELIC. Most importantly at the time any embargo ops were conducted in the high seas, limiting opportunities as there was only a very short stretch of water across which smugglers could be intercepted.
In any case, boarding operations are no longer managed from the CMC, decisions are made in theatre by the battlestaff on the CTF command. That's been the case for at least 14 years.
ALR 18:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I still have three main issues with murray which I'll summarise
  • He is an extremely brutal critic of everything the current British government has (and hasn't) done. He is such a harsh critic it reaches a point where he becomes an unreliable source to quote because he is bound to say whatever is against the interest of the current British government. I.e. they say the skys blue so he says its grey.
  • His points were irrelevant anyway as a border line dispute hasn't come into this or made any signs that its going to come into this.
  • The way in which his comments are presented in the article isn't the way he wrote it or meant it. it's been taken out of context. What he means is that its hard for either side to say who was in whos territory because the borders havent been recently agreed on, but that turned out to be irrelevant anyway because both sides in this seem to be working off the 75' algiers agreed border.

To push this in a direction I've restored the cut down version of his comments that were made by an editor earlier. It now references his concerns but doesn't explain them at such length. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be aware of the chronology of this. I wrote the first version of the Murray paragraph a bit after the MOD press conference, and before the detailed IRBU analysis came out - so this is rather dated (and I would agree the current version is best deleted). Murray was right that the MOD drawn boundary extending into the territorial water was an un-agreed boundary - he was amongst the first to say this, and at that time people generally assumed the incident took place in territorial waters. (Why did the MOD press release & chart not specify internal/territorial water boundary which was a long way out due to the extensive sand banks?) Since the IRBU analysis came out Murray has commented that the the large Indian vessel had according to 2002 IRBU satellite imagery anchored in the intertidal zone, which is an unlikely place to anchor a large vessel, so it is likely the sand-banks had shifted since then so the vessel wasn't grounding twice daily. Rwendland 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


This warrrants a POV tag; when the British nationalists and the Iranian nationalsts have gone on to other articles, repeating there their various Official Truths, perhaps we can get back to reflecting Murray's professional opinion, widely quoted in the sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

His opinion is not relivent as the border is not being argued about, if the british and iranians both agreed where the boat was captured BUT claimed it was on THIER(for both sides) side of the line because they where arguing over the postion of the border then it WOULD be relivent and notable. But both sides are happy to use the pre iran/iraq war border, and so should we, there is no dispute over the location of the border. Hypnosadist 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't an outlet to reguritate what media sources say. Just because Murrays name came up in a few newspapers or TV channels doesn't warrant its inclusion here in our article, like the BBC, IRNA, Al Jazeer, CNN etc. we decide whats relevant to the situation and put it into the page. Including his comments as they presently stant seems to me almost like saying in an article on cats; "Mr.So and So doesn't don't like dogs because they smell". What he said just has nothing to do with this disagreement and he seems to be expressing his aggravation with the present British government more than anything else. I'd quite happily see his comments go into an article on critisisms of the UK labour government, but they don't belong here imho. If you read the article on craig murray you can see why he has motive to dislike the UK government, he was sacked by them in 2004. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the use of Murray's blog as a source clearly violates the rules on reliable sources and so should be removed. According to the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, blogs should not be used as sources. However, an exception is made when a self-published source is used, quote "when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise ... has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications" (my highlighting). An exception is also made in the case of "Government officials self-publishing within the scope of their official duties, and using official government channels", but a) Murray is no longer a government official, and b) he's not using official channels. So where are the required references to Murray's original research on recent or current maritime boundary disputes between Iraq and Iran in "credible, third-party publications" that we need to see in order to back up the claims in his blog? These would be a lot more relevant that the current list of media references that do nothing more than quote Murray's site and provide no additional informational content.Ianjt 16:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you telling me the POV tag is in place over this? You have to be kidding, we have been over and over Craig Murray and the consensus here is that he is not a reliable source, and his personal blogs are being citied. If you actually read the paragraph that has been kept its pretty Neutral. So I am struggling to understand why there is a POV tag for this. Is it because the paragraph about what he said has been cut down? I think the statements just about as neutral as your gonna get. You can't just slap a POV tag on because you don't agree with the consensus. Thats the whole idea of the Wiki Community. Nooie 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the POV tag. It seems the consensus is clear, and any reduction in self-references is welcome. Further - it is not biased to ignore the opinions of a commentator who has no role in the crisis, he certainly does not warrant a paragraph of explanation. |→ Spaully 09:40, 18 April 2007 (GMT)

LOL WTF[edit]

Wow. I seriously can't believe it. An article that I started has stayed on the front page for two weeks and has become an extremely popular article and has grown from my "meh" stub version to a great, sprawling virtual papyrus of information. It's nice to see this article come to life. I just came back from a long wikibreak (with occasional edits; I never looked at the front page) to see the article on the "News" section. I must say I was extremely delighted in what the article has come to be.

I originally created the article after hearing the news from my wife about five minutes after waking up. Still in my boxers, I dashed to the computer, turned it on, and fired up Wikipedia, determined to grab this article before anyone else did. I was pretty sure someone would've created it already (the story had been known for a few hours), but it wasn't! I started it originally as "March 2007 British Navy incident" with a few lines of text. I felt like a total geek, but it was worth it.

I must say, you've done a fucking awesome job. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but for every constructive edit I think this ones had a contrasting destructive edit or vandalism. Unfortunately things like this often go that way though, when two different groups are told two opposites by their respective media.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Page title[edit]

Has this type of incident happened previously? If not, I don't see a need to call it 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Instead, I think it would be more appropriate to call it Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel because there isn't a need to disambiguate. Any thoughts? Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem with Source 125[edit]

It's a strange little article from a website called "Red Bolivia" which doesn't seem like a very credible source for something as outlandish as kidnapping and torturing of diplomatic personnel. I think the section which relies upon it should be deleted unless corroboration from other sources can be provided. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 19:24, 15 April 2007.

Private Eye[edit]

The last edit deleted a section without discussion, simply stating that "I don't think Private Eye is a reliable source". Please point us to a Wikipedia discussion that has reached consensus on never using Private Eye material. 21:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I pointed to the relevant policy on reliable sources (click on the link for more), the Eye is largely a satirical magazine, not a news source. I'm not saying that the allegations are not true - Eye stories have been proven correct in the past. If they are correct then "mainstream" media coverage will eventually follow, and then the information can be included. David Underdown 08:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
That is riduclas logic. There are sections of private eye which are clearly reference-able ie. The "in the back" section. Things/issues can be correct without going through mainstream press. Chendy 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Source 129[edit]

Can someone fix this for me - can't seem to get the reference right - the data's there - just not formatted properly - ta Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Times dead links[edit]

The citation system returns an error message but the articles that are cited are still there. From the Times online homepage, which can be accessed from the error page [12].

Enter the search phrase "Fifteen sailors" for citation number 132.

Enter the search phrase "'Servicemen will never" for citation 136.

hopefully this is only temporary, if not I'm sure we can come up with a more convenient way to access these articles.Koonan the almost civilised 23:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Clear up article structure[edit]

I intend on breaking up the begining section and creating two sections to deal with the issue: 1. A time line of events 2. detailed analysis of disputed waters. Chendy 19:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Selling of stories, for non-UK readers[edit]

Someone needs to write what the MoD's usual policies are regarding publication of stories and interviews by servicemembers. Also please explain the cultural issues that led to the selling of stories being controversial among the public, as that seems to be a UK-specific thing. Identity0 21:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"International Reactions"[edit]

I love these little "international reactions", where someone takes the time to put all those cute little flags beside countries that have absolutely no connection to the subject matter...who cares what Sweden or Norway thinks of this incident? How are they involved? Why are their reactions important? Obviously they will express their wishes for the safety of the sailors and a quick resolution to the issue...for most of the "reactions" from these countries, that statement basically sums it up for all of them. It is moronic to put so many reactions from so many un-important countries. Really the only reactions that should be put here are from major players in the region (Saudi Arabia) and those concerned with the subject matter (i.e. the US, UK, UN), as well as any country that was in support of the Iranian side of this conflict.Scott 110 03:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The view of UK allies are interesting as it provides depth (Especially if it involves allies who are not involved in Iraq). The view of neutral countries is of interest as well, to prove its not just a partisan issue, that this received wide spread condemnation. Narson 06:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Personally I'd disagree, given the age of the article now the content is stable, so it is probably time to give a critical going over to turn it into a coherent, concise description of the event and the subsequent debacle over handling. It's reasonable to identify widespread criticism of the Iranian position, then just reference some of them. There is no need for verbatim quotes of each and every one.
I'd start to do so but my main concern with that is that I have a very good understanding of the tactical situation in the NAG so I'd probably cull rather more of the background than is neccesary and there would be a likeely knee-jerk reaction reverting anything I'd do.
ALR 08:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm perfectly happy with removing the ones that simply say the generic 'Boo ya sucks to Iran' and replace it with something like 'Country A, B, C joined in the international condemnation of the Iranian position' etc. I just think removing all mentions but the 'involved parties' doesn't give enough of a context. Narson 11:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

'in disputed waters[edit]

Can someone incorporate this into the article? [13]Nokhodi (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be better if we found the original Times article. David Underdown (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the original Time article I believe [14] . The story was also covered on Channel 4 News this evening (17/4/08). Malbolge (talk) 18:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've tracked down the heavily redacted MOD document [15] from this report. Some quotes there such as "At this point OCRM ordered all his personnel to make their weapons ready ... two Iranian gunboats came alongside and blocked in the RHIBs", "The initial posture of the Iranian personnel was friendly and the IRGCN Captain shook hands with OCRM", "To date, no review has been undertaken and beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab, the channel has since shifted in favour of Iran." suggest that some of the initial reporting was not very accurate. How do we tackle this in the article: adjust to latest info, or leave initial reporting and add what came later in a new section? Rwendland (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

One little thing, I think it would be better to show the publisher of the redacted document as The Register, rather than MOD (actually they may technically be in breach of Crown Copyright by sticking it up on their website like that, but I may be wrong on that). It's unlikely that The Register is lying about the document's provenance, but until the MOD put up a copy on their own website, I think it would be a more accurate description. In general we're probably better referring to The Register's report, perhaps in particular it's rebuttal of the conclusion the Times drew from the MOD doc, rather than trying to draw our own conclusions from the MOD doc (which would be bordering on Original Research. The document itself might be better placed as an external link, rather than as a reference. David Underdown (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Word doc properties suggest it is a digital copy from MOD given to The Register. Interesting question about what implied Crown Copyright license such FOIA releases have. I'm not planning to hurry into article changes (have things to do). Except I think "allegedly had their boat rammed" should be removed in the intro, as it suggests an initial Iranian attitude contrary to the MOD report. Rwendland (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I commented it "for now". If someone comes with an objection with a good reasoning, we can re-add it. Pejman47 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
On Crown Copyright, having done a bit more research, such releases are probably covered by standard waivers of Crown Copyright. It still seems to me that the actual publisher of the documetn at the moment is the Register. David Underdown (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

code of conduct for captured British military personnel[edit]

I have tried numerous time to make an entry about the conduct of these young sailors while held in captivity. but it keeps being taken out by other claiming it is vandalisim. This is what these pages are about, fact, there conduct came ino question, fact this page is bais as mentioning the US shooting down of Iran flight has any bearing on this subject. Any one care to comment on this??? The page has a left view and contains any a fraction of what happened. There is nothing negative about the british action, cause or response to there conduct as Royal navy personnel. User: Jack

If you add unreferenced text, particularly if it appears to be promoting a specific point of view, it will be removed. The information about previous events involving Iran and western coutnries is important as it provides context for the later incidents. You could put the content you propose to add here on the talkpage so it can be reviewed and critically discussed. David Underdown (talk) 10:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

You must joking, it was removed even before I finished it, as it doesn't conform to the over writting of this page. If you want to talk about historical context, please feel free to enter British involvment in Iran since 1930's Here is a recent one:

Iran says arrested British agent for twin bombings Sunday, 16 October 2005 Iran Focus

Tehran, Iran, Oct. 17 – An individual arrested in connection with Saturday’s twin bombings in the south-western city of Ahwaz has confessed to have received British training in Iraq to carry out the attacks, the Iranian Majlis (Parliament) deputy for the oil-rich city announced on Monday.

“The arrested individual is a deceived person who received the necessary training in Iraq”, Nasser Soudani told the Fars news agency, close to the office of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“Foreign agents, led by treacherous and criminal Britain, have trained teams in Iraq to create insecurity and an air of fright and terror in the province of Khuzestan”, Soudani said, referring to the ethnic Arab-dominated province whose capital is Ahwaz.

Saturday’s twin bombings in a central Ahwaz shopping centre left at least six people dead and over 100 injured.

Soudani said that two British intelligence agents arrested last month in the southern Iraqi city of Basra had ties to both the bombings on Saturday and a similar spate of bombings in the volatile city earlier in June.

British officials have said that the pair were MI5 agents working to uncover Iranian support for the insurgent attacks against British troops in southern Iraq.

Iranian officials and state-run press have been advertising the idea that Britain was behind Saturday’s bombings, a charge denied by the British embassy in Tehran. On Sunday, hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told the state-run ISNA news agency that he suspected British involvement in the attacks. “We are very suspicious about the role of British forces in perpetrating such terrorist acts”, Ahmadinejad said.

“Our people are used to these kind of incidents, and our intelligence agents found the footprints of Britain in the same incidents before”, Ahmadinejad said, adding “We think the presence of British forces in southern Iraq and near the Iranian border is a factor behind insecurity for the Iraqi and Iranian people”.

A demonstration has been planned to take place this morning outside the British embassy in Tehran against London’s position regarding the Islamic Republic’s suspected nuclear weapons programme at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Some analysts see a link between the spate of recent attacks on British forces in southern Iraq and the hardening anti-British voices in Tehran.

“Iranian rulers are clearly fuming over what they perceive as Tony Blair’s government coaxing the European Union towards a tougher position on Iran’s nuclear program”, said Simon Bailey of the London-based Gulf Intelligence Monitor. “They hope to isolate the British position within the EU by linking it to bombings in Ahwaz, but no one is buying this”. ref [[16]]Jacob805 (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Having looked back, all I can find that's been added on this topic is a header, and a request for more info - that simply doesn't add anything to the article. If you're trying to add something in stages, make use of the preview button to check what it looks like, or as I say, try setting out what you want to say here first. The Vincennes incident is specifically another incident where foreign naval forces entered Iranian territorial waters, so certianly seem relevant to me. David Underdown (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have actually read what happened the cause and results, it has no bearing on the Royal Navy being capture. I also find it strange that there is not one mention on this page, about their conduct in captivity, as it was unbecoming of a Royal navy sailor.

The page is one sided. Then you throw a US mishap in, to make it all right.

Please also tell me who you are to say this stays in. I say it is it has no bearing. If you are making a point that the US ship was in there waters yes, but mention they were being fire upon by the paramilitary forces of Iran at the time. Gun boats were also firing anti aircraft shells at the US warships helicopter, that why they proceeded into there waters. All you touch on is the anti American view and not the truth. When you use the information in your context, yes it seems like it belongs and that it is relevant. But when you add the truth, it has no bearing on the royal navy be captured and paraded on TV.

As for the header. I put it in as a start, as I thought this page could use the topic as it is clearly missing. I saved it and went to get the reference material that I had on anther page and within a minute some had taken it out. I could almost hear the person say “ Let’s not have that subject line here." You have to admit, there conduct was it was a full topic during and after the return and no one wants to talk about or reference it, s it puts these sailor in a poor light. Well that’s what you get for forgetting your honor and country.Jacob805 (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no content with it - and no indication that anything was going to be added. I've no more right than anyone else to decide that any particular thing stays or goes, but the fact that you are so far the only person who has argued for its removal since it was added suggests that most of the poeple who have edited the page (and there were a lot of them whilst the incident was ongoing) saw it as being sufficiently relevant to remain in the article. Having reviewd the articles on Vincennes it seems the Iranians only fired on the helicopter after it had buzzed the patrol boats in. We are only mentioning the incident here to give context, not to give full details - that's why we link to the other articles if people want to know more. Also be aware of the polices on WP:Original Research, unless third-party WP:Reliable sources have drawn attention to the behaviour of the captured personnel, we should not speculate on whether their behaviour was up to scratch or not. David Underdown (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The text you have added is virtually all a straight cut and paste from the websites you link to. This is not acceptable - content should be in you own words to avoid copyright infringment, unless clearly identified quotes form sources are being used. It also disrupts the existing format of the section which is clearly divided into sections relating to the coverage from the Iranian abd British media and governments. David Underdown (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Right, I've re-written what you added, and moved it to what seemed to me to be more logical places in the article. The stuff about the TV broadcast seemed most sensible under Iranian media coverage, whilst the comments by Admiral Band seemed to be from the press conference that's already mentioned in the "Debriefing" section, so i placed them there. David Underdown (talk) 12:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

discussion to remove reference Iran Air flight 655[edit]

I believe that after reading this page, the reference to the US Navy actions and the shooting down of the iranian airline have no bearing on the subject matter 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal navy personnel. Other then the US Navy was Iranian waters 20 years before.I think the page on that subject matter covers what happened. The US Navy had no direct involvement in what happen during this incident. This is an example of bais entries, clearly a british incident and by mentioning the US incident, that took place years before, really distracts on the events that happened in 2007. This entry is not directly related and should be removed based upon wikipedia rule. l Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presentedJacob805 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


I typed in "Iran Royal Navy", "Iranian Royal Navy", "Iran Royal Navy detain" and several other variances and none got me to this article. But when I put "Iran Royal Navy" in google this page was the first result listed. I think the redirects need to be tinkered with to make the page more accessable. (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

International Boundaries Research Unit position[edit]

I think the article may do a rather poor interpretation of the Durham University IRBU position. For example the Foreign Affairs Committee report[17] quotes the IRBU Director saying:

Nevertheless, there are sufficient uncertainties over boundary definition in the area to make it inadvisable to state categorically that the vessel was in Iraqi waters.

which seems contrary to what the article says the IRBU position is in the intro:

showed that the position given by the British was in Iraqi waters

Therefore I will remove the comment in the intro. Really the IRBU position we give later in the article needs revisiting in the light of the IRBU evidence in the Foreign Affairs Committee report. Rwendland (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, the existing stuff about IRBU was from waht they posted on their web site whilst the incident was in progress, quite possible they were given more access to RN positioning data, rather than just what was reported at the time. Their initial findings seemed to be based purely ont he 1975 boundary, with no attempt to adjust for changes in teh thalweg (which I believe are liekly to have gone in Iraq's favour), so it make sense to update what they've said, perhaps retaining some mention of what they originally said at the time. David Underdown (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
When I have more time I'll review the IRBU stuff in the article against the FAC report evidence. NB the redacted MOD report says the Shatt al-Arab channel had shifted in favour of Iran (ie toward Iraq), which the latest Google Earth images support. Speculation on my part, but this would explain the positioning of the Indian ship - unlikely they would anchor where they grounded twice daily - but if the thalweg had moved that way it is possible it was no longer on the low-tide sands. Rwendland (talk) 11:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not to clear what tidal ranges are like around there. Remember that it counts as "land" when it's exposed at the lowest possible spring tide, if the incident occurred during neap tides it's possible there would still be sufficient water for the merchant vessel. David Underdown (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Introduction - Paragraph 2 - misleading?[edit]

I still find the second paragraph misleading:

"A year later, a British investigation report was released which stated that the area in which the incident took place was not covered by any formal agreement between Iran and Iraq."

Discussion further down the article, IMO, reveals this to be a half-truth. The full article indicates that the position claimed by the British, which is supported by a clear photograph of a handheld GPS unit, was southwest of the last agreed line of demarcation (the 1975 Algiers Accord). This was a river boundary, not a maritime boundary. Discussion of the OP Line, and whether Iran was aware of it, seems irrelevant as this is only determined from a point Northeast of where the incident allegedly took place. WRLO56 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

But doesn't the MOD report concede that even the river boundary was no longer valid, especially beyond the river mouth into the tidal areas where the Indian ship was because the channel had shifted in Iran's favour: "Since the outset of the Iraq-Iran war there has been no formal ratified TTW agreement in force between Iraq and Iran. The last agreed demarcation (1975 Algiers Accord) delineated TTW along the Shatt al Arab only. ... The 1975 Algiers Accord ... made provision for 10-yearly reviews to account for silting. To date, no review has been undertaken and beyond the mouth of the Shatt al Arab, the channel has since shifted in favour of Iran." This appears to support the intro statement. That discussion further down written earlier may need tweaking, especially in the light of the less certain IRBU evidence to the Commons Committee discussed in the Talk section above. Rwendland (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 8[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 10[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 11[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 12[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 13[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 14[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 15[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 16[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 17[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 18[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 19[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 20[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 21[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 22[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 23[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 24[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 25[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 26[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

film of the seizure[edit]

film of the seizure it may show somthing else,see and judge! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Seniority of MP[edit]

How on waves a lieutenant could be more senior than the captain? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

He's a Royal Marine captain not a naval one, Marines use a similar rank structure to the Army, captain is O-2 same as a Royal Navy Lt. More info here — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:42, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2007 Iranian seizure of Royal Navy personnel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:48, 19 September 2016 (UTC)