Talk:15 Royal Navy sailors captured at gunpoint by Iranian guards

Why isn't this on the front page? 128.62.95.149 16:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources and Atmosphere
"Reza Faker, a writer believed to have links with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wrote in the Subhi Sadek (the Revolutionary Guard's weekly newspaper), “we’ve got the ability to capture a nice bunch of blue-eyed blond-haired officers and feed them to our fighting cocks. Iran has enough people who can reach the heart of Europe and kidnap Americans and Israelis.”" This part is a lie! First no media in Iran has the right to express their views like this. Second the writer of this passage even didn't know Subh Sadegh is not a newspaper but a weekly magazine and beside is not related to Revolutionary Guard. The Revolutionary Guard has no newspaper in Iran because people do not read such media at all! 3rd there are so many blue-eyed in Iran and reporter based their lie by watching the truth in 300 movie! that Iranian are black. ;-> Mohsen

Hi, I tried to add some background info from this source It said that the seizure might have been an reaction to the rendezvous of the french air craft carrier Charles de Gaulle with the USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf this tuesday. Unfortunatelly this contribution got removed very quickly without any notice on this nor my discussion page. This is my first contribution to the english wikinews and i'm used to a rather friendly and communicative style from the german wikinews (btw. i know that we've lost the war ;)). Is this the usual tone in here? I would be very disappointed. Regards, -- Torsten 17:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In the meantime i got an answer from Cueball who reverted my edit. I'm a bit less disappointed now. (could I say I'm appointed? ;-) - Torsten 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * So if someone's suprised by the arrival of a French aircraft carrier they kidnap British sailors? I'm not sure that's logical. There COULD be a link, but until it's directly suggested by a credible news source it is original research and so should not be included. Cueball 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC) with Cueball's permission moved from my discussion page to here.


 * So the arguement to revert was luck of credibility of the source and that the source does not state the seizure of the soldiers might have been an iranian reaction of the increase of western war ships in the region. So why is DEBKAfiles.com not a source for wikinews? And how is it more possible to formulate that the seizure is associated with the increase of western war ships in the persian gulf and the manoeuvre the iranians are conducting at the moment as it is done by this source? Even if the reaction of the iranians is not logical this doesn't mean that this wasn't a reaction and even less it means that the above mentioned source does not say it is a reaction. Best regards -- Torsten 18:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not actually say it was not a credible source, though to be honest it isn't a news agency and just recycling what others have said. The important thing is that it did not say the reason for this abduction was because of the naval buildup. Cueball 18:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Cueball, what if you helped me to rewrite that passage? Already now the passage says that "the seizure might have been a reaction". What if I wrote "According to an israelian open source intelligence website the seizure and the military manoeuvre the iranians are conducting at the moment in the Persian Gulf might be associated with a recent increase of western war ships on the iranian coast." or so? I think there is obviously an Israeli news website who claims that there is a link between the seizure of the british soldiers, the iranian manoeuvre and the recent increase of western war ships in that region, and this shouldn't be ignored. I agree of course that my formulation might have been too imprecise and my current suggestion is a bit clumsy - I'm not a native english speaker, you see. So I would welcome any suggestions or assistance from your site. Best wishes -- Torsten 19:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is that if we start jumping on comments made it will lower the credibility of wikinews. There should be an air of professionalism here. An opensource website is not really terribly appropriate. If we get theories being picked up by the BBC, CNN, etc then we could start listing them. But I think we should wait a bit until that happens. Cueball 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing about the resources, don't you guys think that this article should reference some Iranian news site to get the Iranian view on the incident? all we have for now are British, American, and other western point of views... just for the sake of Wikinews NPOV policy. Abountu 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * First you would need a site in English. Second you might want to find one with credibility - their reporting of the Lebanon-Israel conflict wasn't terribly good. As it is the Iranians already have their viewpoint being put across. Cueball 23:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Irna has reported on the incident by now. Of course it is questionable if this source is "credible". But lack of credibility is in my opinion a POV arguement. BTW is it a wikinews-rule that sources must be credible? If so I couldn't find it. - Torsten 11:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Minor Grammar Revisions
I've corrected some of the grammar errors in the article; however, I feel there might be one textual misinterpretation on my part. Formerly, the offending section was written as '... was summoned to the Foreign office to see a foreign officer - Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett is away from London in her Parliamentary constituency.' This has thusly been corrected to '...has also been summoned to the Foreign Office to see a senior officer (as Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett is away from London in her Parliamentary constituency).' This is largely an edit for clarity, and I think the fact that I'm unsure about this reflects its need for editing. However, if this is factually incorrect, please correct. LeRob 17:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ship believed to be smuggling cars
On BBC news website, the officer states that the ship was cleared, this article misses that point... I'm changing "believed to be smugling" to "believed to be smugling [..] but was later cleared" Abountu 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * or was cleared after inspection ... something like thatAbountu 20:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pov or not?
Cueball reverted a development of the story with the reason "rv blatant POV editing" it was sourced and attributed. the reason fall back on him self as it was bad poved earlier. now reverted and with brianmc:s removal of breakingtag the story is not correct. Can it be 1st lead? thnink not. international 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to add new material do it in a NPOV manner. You changed the entire title and rearranged the article to suit yourself. That is not NPOV. Cueball 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What a hypocrasy, Irans statements is not worth anything when they open their mouth? Brits stated the gunpoint thing. you have ignored story development by this imo very povprotecting way. Its news and development of it puts Irans claim in focus. that not same as pov. count articles statement from diferent sides if you like. now article by not having Irans statment inactuall, incorrect and pov. Thanks for your contribution. international 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Cueball, I support your revert, that was blatant POV. Please inter (btw welcome back) write a new NPOV article containing this, you better than anyone should know that you don't edit articles when new info is added Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 22:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I know where you stand in pov sinse earlier Brian, shame on you. Just look on google news just now. what is main leed?

Iran Claims British Sailors Confessed to Incursion ABC News - 40 minutes ago
 * Im sick of you who many years been a negative force here on wikinews. You are one reason wikinews is systematic pov:ed in us viev. just go away and wikinews will be better. But why should i care? yes, i care because i know all americans or thier suporters is not arrogant and dont deserve being burnmarked all ower the world. international 01:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't put this new info in the old article, please write a new article with this info. You know, you are not allowed to edit old articles. Also inter, if you want to debate ask yourslefs why they have said this? do you think the ragheads could have entertained Her Majesty's sailors like they were in the Hilton? Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * cool, 'ragheads' (sic)... you obviously dont know the story was breakingtaged when i edited? and it still is main news. fantastic good work done here. wikinews realy stands out as a newssourse. international 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * in case you did not notice, I was been sarcastic there, you seem to think that in RL i'm a person who uses terms like that, so I humoured you.
 * The fact is, your edit completely changed the make up of the article, to from what happened “Some of Her Majesty’s Sailors were taken by Iran” to a “GOD SAVE IRAN, IRAN CAPTURED THE DEVILS”Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 02:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it did changed the focus to the claim the iranians did. as breaking news sometimes do. I dont care less about you or your texas name who so happily untagged the article after it was reverted. you just as a reflex have to support Cueball who reverted the article. nice gang of supporters of NPOV? Killed my interessed of contributing but that make some happy i guess. I just lean back and read about what happen within the countries involved then. hope the war dont fall back on the hard working sheepcutters down there as i fear tho i feel more indiferent now. international 03:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I feel, it should go in a new article Brian | (Talk) | New Zealand Portal 03:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)