Talk:British sailors detained by Iran "to be tried for espionage"

Quotations?

Following Wikinews' neutral POV policy, shouldn't the quotation marks around espionage be removed? To put espionage in quotations implies that these are false charges, or that the soldiers are being wrongly accused. Both of those are taking a stance, an opinion on the matter. Unless evidence surfaces that would prove those things of course, and even then that would be an entirely new Wikinews article, not a retroactive change on this one. Wrc wolfbrother 05:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No...the quotes are quotes of government officials from Iran. DragonFire1024 05:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But "had been inspecting, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1723" does not contain quotation marks and is stated as fact. If they strayed within Iranian waters - and the area is disputed - they would not be in accordance with the resolution. So why is this not stated as a quote by a British official to bring it into line with the Iranian comments?--Steerpikenz 09:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The UK says they were not in Iranian waters. DragonFire1024 09:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need for quotation marks in the title or in text around espionage. If its correct use it should be more used, not just from sources not in favour of those accepting Anglo-American-centric point of view when something is contradicted by different sources. And the quotation (") is often mistaken for situation marks(') and used around a single word like this put the statement in scruple. international 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thereby better not to use it here international 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I reverted the edit here: [1] because the way it WAS worded before the edit was to lose the copyvio. DragonFire1024 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ridiculous

• "Associates" of Ahmadinejad don't have a website.
• some of "Supporters" of Ahmadinejad said on their website: "If the charges of espionage is brought against them the result would be heavy punishment by current law. http://www.rajanews.com/News/?7609
• Stop putting total BS on wikinews, otherwise we have to put Iranian newspaper BS as well, and you wouldn't want that, seriously.

Gerash77 15:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually for you to say that Iran news is "BS" may or may nor be true. In fact to balance a POV if there was one, then Iranian sources are as good as any other sources regardless of your personal beliefs. See: NPOV DragonFire1024 03:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling "ridiculous" correctly would help to be taken more seriously. B0at 20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

is that the only spelling mistake on the page?!Gerash77 22:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed 6 other spelling mistakes, is that all? Please ask. Thanks. Gerash77 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the sources. It is NOT UK sources. It is a variety of sources which say a website . This title is misleading. DragonFire1024 03:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[2] A website run by associates of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, reported last night that the Britons would be put before a court and indicted. DragonFire1024 03:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I cant underatand why you use the word espionage at all. My i guess you just to make it upp to do the title sound more dramatic then? huh? Is the quote your own you should atribut it so. The source use (`)-marks in title. "Iran 'to try Britons for espionage'" You are making a title out of that? (sic!) Are you feeling well? (Guess you wrote this in answer to me, but on wrong place in this side. ) international international 12:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't change the fact the news is false. The news weblog Rajanews.com can't try people for espionage. This is a typical example hyperbole of certain western newspapers, not reported anywhere in reliable news agencies, Iranian media or by any of its government members. For this reason, the title British sailors detained by Iran to be tried for "espionage" is wrong news. Try to find a better titleGerash77 13:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Read the source I listed above and any of the sources for that matter...The espionage is sourced properly...and so is everything else. Ther is nothing misleading...Iran does not deny that they are being tried...if you want I can list about 100 more sources. DragonFire1024 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And another: [3]. Iran’s decision to limit its co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its capture of 14 British soldiers which it threatens to try on espionage charges, appear to be Tehran’s response... DragonFire1024 19:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

fifteen British sailors

eight are sailors, seven are marines. –Doldrums(talk) 07:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing the title

If I'm not mistaken Wikinews has guidelines about changing the title of an article. If possible, start off with a title that's a bit more general, so you don't have to change it at all.

I'm just posting this because I now have this article in my RSS reader 5 times. And I don't think any of the changes to the title were really worth it. :)

Just my two cents.

Michiel Helvensteijn 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

British sailors detained by Iran to be tried for espionage

Why wikinews has remained an unreliable reference: A totally false title British sailors detained by Iran "to be tried for espionage" has remained here for almost 2 days, although I did try to change it. Nevertheless I personally hope this "news" becomes a reality to prove Stephen Colbert's hypothesis.Gerash77

You have yet to provide sources to disprove anything in this article. DragonFire1024 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide a source for your information? Reuters? AP? AFP? Anything? Even an Iranian media? This is a typical western yellow journalism, weird claims with no backing whatsoever, worthy of wikinews.Gerash77 20:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See above. DragonFire1024 08:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rajanews.com

The article or editorial linked to at [www.rajanews.com/News/?7609] is hard to verify since it is in Farsi. Also, the footnote is working in it present form, but is it right to move it to sources? Unknown date, unknown author, unknown title, Farsi content. --SVTCobra 20:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Why was this page used by 20 or so western newspapers to say that "associates of Ahmadinejad" want to execute the Brits, remains unclear to me. Expansion of this rumor would have resulted in an attempt to pressure the Iranian government to stop the website, one of only few in Iran standing up to the Rafsanjani tribe. This is why I attempted to stop the rumor at source. You can do whatever you want with the article, the danger seems to be gone. Gerash77 21:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)