Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Iranian Embassy siege

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Embassy siege

[edit]
Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?


The Iranian Embassy siege lasted six days in spring 1980 and is the event that brought the SAS, previously a small, little-known unit, to the world's attention. Much to the displeasure, that is, of the SAS! The events of that week in 1980 are among the most talked-about in 20th century British history, and the raid is still referred to today whenever the SAS is mentioned. It's certainly a defining moment in the SAS's, and British, history.

So, having invested in a couple of books on the subject through eBay, I decided to give it the article it deserves. I've almost completely re-written it, and it now stands at over 5,000 words, despite the fact that it was conducted by one of the most secretive military units in the world. I would like to take this on to FAC, but I'm bringing it here first because it could do with scrutiny from fresh eyes first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim

[edit]
  • Comment Support
  1. British Gas is a disamb link.
    Fixed.
  2. The ISBN for Insight Team (1980). Siege!. London: Times Newspapers Ltd needs checking
    So it says, but that's the ISBN as I copied it exactly from the book. It is an old book, maybe that's why?
  3. Not sure about all the commanders in the inf box. Whitelaw was Thatchers deputy so he could go. And a case could be made for DLB to replace Rose. Maybe having just the police and army commanders who were at the scene would be best. Just a comment something to consider
    I put Whitelaw in because he was chairing COBR; I agree DLB has a claim, but probably not at the expense of Rose who was the "on the ground" commander.
  4. I like the table but should it not go at the end, giving the details of who was killed. wounded etc its seems a bit soon in the narrative.
    I put it in the aftermath section, do you think it works better there? 16:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  5. Someone is going to ask for a reference for note 2 sooner or later. Could use this link http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/jul/05/met-police-extra-officers-olympics Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I thought it was a bit like stating the sky was blue, but that's handy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to support. Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nick

[edit]
  • Comments this is a very interesting article, but I think that it could be tightened up a bit more:
    • The first sentence could be a lot more punchy
      • I agree, but everything I've thought of or seen so far is either over-detailed or has neutrality problems.
    • "the gunmen's leader" - isn't good grammar - this should be 'the leader of the gunmen' or similar
      • Fixed.
    • "The embassy was severely damaged by fire and did not re-open until 1993." - did Iran not have an embassy in London until that time? I think that you mean 'was not re-occupied until 1993'
      • Done.
    • "and was scarred from having allegedly been tortured in SAVAK custody" - this reads oddly - how could 'allegedly' being tortured have left scars? If this can't be confirmed it should be 'he claimed that he had been tortured while in SAVAK custody, leaving permanent scars on his body' or whatever the exact situation is. It seems reasonable that he would have been tortured though.
      • Good point, is this an improvement?
        • Looks good
    • Where did the terrorists get their guns from?
    • Was Frieda Mozaffarian released because the hostages convinced the terrorists that she was pregnant or because they became concerned about her being sick, or both? - the article claims both, but separately, at present.
      • Both, but clarified.
    • Some background on the SAS's role in Britain's counter terrorist arrangements at the time would be useful - the SAS teams presumably didn't move themselves to London without an explicit order to do so from the Government or military chain of command and had trained for this kind of operation
      • I added a bit to the background. They had trained for almost exactly this scenario, but they did slip down to London pretty much of their own accord, without any order from the government.
    • "the result of the security recommendations previously made after the SAS's review years earlier" - this review isn't previously mentioned in the article
      • Fixed.
    • Is is possible to identify the terrorists by name in the 'SAS assault' section? I'd imagine that this is public knowledge.
      • Let me consult the books...
        • I've tried and failed. The only one of the sources that explicitly states where each terrorist was killed is relying on accounts from hostages, some of whom are clearly mistaken while others contradict their fellow hostages, and even the author admits that it's a "best guess". In fact, if the "best guess" is right, a dead man spent 30 years in a British prison! Sorry, I don;t think this is do-able. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why did the SAS shoot Oan if he had been tackled? Did he still pose a clear threat?
      • He was still armed, added.
    • "Whitelaw recorded that "We in Britain had shown the world that we were prepared to take a stand against terrorists, and indeed to defeat them. There can be no greater deterrent to future action than that" - given that he was a key Cabinet minister involved in this, you'd imagine that he'd think it a success. What do more neutral parties think of the operation?
      • I haven't seen any source that considers the operation anything other than a success. Of the two books I've relied upon, one calls it a "complete success" and the other an "almost unqualified success". Considering only one hostage was killed in the operation, when DLB had told Whitelaw to expect a 40% casualty rate, it's not surprising nobody has a negative word to say about it.
        • I agree - everything I've read about this operation regards it as being a success. However, it would be better to quote the two books rather than just the self-assessment of one of the ministers responsible. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was using it more for the impact on the Tory government and its tough stance on terrorism (and just about everything else, but that's a little off topic!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • In that case, Whitelaw is a particularly bad source to quote. He obviously isn't neutral towards the performance of the government he was a minister in, especially when discussing something which was part of his portfolio. Given the widespread terrorism which continued in Northern Ireland (including bomb attacks in mainland Britain), his claim that "There can be no greater deterrent to future action than that" looks pretty dubious. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A Wikipedia licencing-friendly map of the area in which this operation took place could be easily generated from Open street maps. Nick-D (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My above comments have now been largely addressed and I think that the A class criteria are now met. Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socrates

[edit]
  • Comment Support Would be good to see this article promoted, however I suspect there's still some work to go.
  • The prose needs tightening up, e.g. this sentence amongst others, doesn't flow very well: "The SAS was not pleased with its new high profile as it had previously enjoyed its relative obscurity. However, the operation vindicated the SAS, which had previously been threatened with disbandment and whose use of resources had previously been considered a waste." (I'd recommend enlisting a copyeditor to help.)
  • That's quite patronising—I've made more copy-edits than you've made edits. I've tightened up those few sentences, did you have any other specific concerns about the prose?
It wasn't intended to be. The feedback was given based on the article content, not anyone's edit count, which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Appears I'm not the only person to have made this comment.
I apologise, that was unnecessarily snippy. Do you have any other concerns about the prose? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This controversial text is unreferenced: "One of the SAS soldiers dragged him away, allegedly with the intention of taking him back into the building to shoot him. He reportedly changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that the raid was being broadcast on live television."
  • There isn't a ref at the end of that sentence, but that doesn't mean it's not referenced. It's in the next reference. I reverted your fact tag.
The next sentence appears to have moved on so I didn't associate its ref with the above; also these two sentences particularly stand out in this section, so surely there's no harm in adding a ref?
I'm not sure it's really necessary, but you may have a point about it being particularly controversial, so I've ref'd it.
  • After this successful operation, did Thatcher make more use of the SAS? (e.g. I think she might have used them to quell a prison riot)
  • She did, but I'm not sure that's directly attributable to the success of this operation. I'll have a look for something, though.
  • How did the Iranian government react to the outcome - did they thank anyone, award any medals etc?
Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the SAS man who was burned - was he in the pub drinking afterwards too, or was he hospitalised? Do we know if he recovered?
  • I've dug this up and added ti to the aftermath section.
  • The non-free image you've used is likely to be strongly challenged if this goes to FAC.
  • When this goes to FAC! ;) FAC reviewers have a way of keeping writers on their toes when it comes to justifying non-free images, but the image is the subject of discussion in the article, so I think it's justified.
  • Given the lack of free images of the event, is it worth adding an external link to a site like this?
  • I'm not sure. If there were an image gallery on a webpage (that didn't violate third-party copyrights) I'd gladly add it, but I'm hesitant to add something that requires new software and isn't in an immediately accesible format.
  • It's not part of the criteria for A-class or FAC. Most of the images are decorative anyway, so alt text would add little value.
You're not allowed to use non-free images for decorative purposes - ipso facto if you're going to keep any of these, you should add alt text. Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
With the exception of the non-free image and possibly the photo of the embassy (whose alt text would be "a big, white building"), the images are there to break up the wall of text rather than add to the reader's understanding. But alt text still isn't required for A-class or for FAC: A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate; 3. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]
  • I've added alt text to the non-free image for you.
  • Heading "The Special Air Service" to "Special Air Service" per WP:MOSHEAD
  • Fragmented sentence (and ambiguous as to who the sponsor was): "The DRFLA was undermined by its links with the Iraqi government, which, it emerged during the siege, had sponsored the training and equipping of the DRFLA members who carried out the operation."
  • "The embassy building was severely damaged by fire and was vacant for years after the siege ended. It was more than a decade before the British and Iranian governments came to an agreement." It's redundant, and possibly confusing, to use both the terms "years" and "decade" together like this.
  • Fixed.
  • ""Operation Nimrod" might be better introduced earlier in the assault section than in the aftermath section.
  • Done.
  • Were there press cameras on the back garden as well as the front of the building? "He reportedly changed his mind when it was pointed out to him that the raid was being broadcast on live television" would not make sense if there were no cameras at the back.
  • Interesting story behind that. I worry it might be venturing into over-detail, but I've added it.
  • "The raid lasted 17 minutes and involved 30–35 soldiers." Might be better to mention the # of SAS when the red & blue teams are introduced.
  • I think it works better where it is. To move it up there would, I think, burden the reader with too many facts at once, but I'm open to discussion on this.
  • I don't have a strong view on this either.
  • Fragmented sentence: "At 13:40, Lock informed the negotiator that the gunmen had taken Abbas Lavasani—the embassy's chief press officer and cultural attaché, who, being a devout believer in the Iranian Revolution, had repeatedly provoked his captors—downstairs and were preparing to execute him"
  • I'm not sure what's wrong with this sentence; it seems the most intuitive way of phrasing it.
  • How about: "At 13:40, Lock informed the negotiator that the gunmen were preparing to execute Abbas Lavasani, the embassy's chief press officer and cultural attaché. Lavasani was a devout believer in the Iranian Revolution, which had repeatedly provoked his captors."
  • Another: "The events in Al Muhammara were, according to Oan Ali Mohammed, the group's leader, the spark that led to their desire to attack the Iranian Embassy in London, a plan inspired by the Iran hostage crisis"
  • Re-worded this one.
  • Do we know what weapons the "heavily armed" hostage takers had, other than grenades? (Handguns, rifles, submachine guns...?)
  • The identification of Fowzi Nejad by Sim Harris is repeated in two sections - suggest that this detail is consolidated into the assault section, with the trial & jail term left in the aftermath.

Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the alt text (I hate doing it). I'm pretty sure I've addressed all your comments, unless I'm missing something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray! I thought you were going to keep the comments coming forever. Thanks for keeping me on my toes! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus

[edit]
  • Comments
  1. Lead
    1. The lead says there were six hostage-takers, but in at least two other places the article says that there were seven.
  2. Background
    1. "In the aftermath of the Second World War, the people of Khūzestān rebelled, but the rebellion was defeated, remaining so until 1978, when Khūzestāni oil workers went on strike." What that's saying is that the rebellion remained defeated until 1978, which doesn't make sense.
  3. Arrival in London
    1. "Within a week, the housekeeper asked them to leave. They soon found another flat, claiming that they had been joined by other men and required larger accommodation." Who did they make this claim to? They'd already been asked to leave their first flat so had no need to claim anything.
    2. The last paragraph starts off by talking about seven men, but by the end of the paragraph we're inexplicably down to six.
  4. Day one: 30 April
    1. "At approximately 11:30 on 30 April, the seven men, now heavily armed, stormed the Iranian Embassy building". Is it six or seven?
  5. Day six: 5 May
    1. "Tensions rose throughout the morning until 13:00 ...". That doesn't quite work, as obviously 13:00 isn't in the morning.
    2. "Meanwhile, the police negotiators began stalling Oan, keeping him talking by offering concessions, in order to stall him while the SAS made its final preparations for the now-inevitable assault." There's one too many "stalls" there. They began stalling him ... in order to stall him?
  6. Hostages
    1. "Gholam-Ali Afrouz was the embassy's chargé d'affaires and was the member of staff at the embassy when it was captured." What does that mean? The member of staff at the embassy when it was captured? That implies that there was only one member of staff, which can't be right.

Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm Thanks Malleus. I've sorted all those. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a few more. Malleus Fatuorum 18:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Looks like I confused myself about the number of them, but it's definitely six. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more question, 3.1 above. Malleus Fatuorum 21:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. They were lying to their new landlord because, presumably, they didn't want him to know they'd been kicked out of their last place. Thanks again for having a look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

[edit]

Here I am trying to evolve into a new and nicer me, and just my luck, I bump into one of these "General references"/Specific references" formats again. I will forego the obligatory hair-tearing rant. However, it is a nonstandard format, and it would put a serene smile on my face if you would do something standard with it.  – Ling.Nut 11:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Without wishing to contribute further to your hair loss, can I ask what's wrong with that format? It's used in several FAs (including one of mine), and I had no idea it was 'non-standard'. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about it being non-standard with respect to FA; the concept of "nonstandard formatting" is completely irrelevant to FA. FA doesn't prohibit you from using grape candy-colored smiley icons and lemon drops to distinguish books from periodicals, so long as you do so in a consistent manner. What I mean by "nonstandard" is that AFAIK it doesn't exist out in the real world. Out in the real world there are Notes and References and Bibliographies and Other Sources and Further Sources etc. The history of this particular format (which I consider an aberration, but I am being nice nice smiley smiley happy happy Ling) is that someone or other got the bright idea to arrange the documentation of some citation template or other here on Wikipedia in this manner. Then folks... shockingly.. began copying it as if it were Holy Scripture. Now, I could be wrong in every thing I have just said, but I don't think I am.  – Ling.Nut 12:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Must get me some smiley icons for my next project! ;) I'm sure this is a really stupid question, but is there anything 'wrong' with this format, and do we have to follow what other publications do? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep breath. OK. Well. Now. You see. It's like this.. the universe is ordered like this: there are rules you have to follow on Wikipedia, and rules you have to follow out in the real world if you wanna publish things. And your format is emphatically not a violation of Wikipedia's rules. Therefore, you can quite safely ignore everything I say, if all you want is yet one more bronze star atop your user page. Now, having said that, I think it makes us look decidedly unprofessional if we just make sh*t up as we go. Now, you're gonna say, "But we are unprofessional." OK, but do we have to emblazon that fact in fluorescent paint right across our foreheads? Are we required to wear buttons that say, "Hi. I have no desire to look like the rest of the world; I'm on Teh Internetz! Lulz! Wikipedia iz serius bizmness, lol!"? That's my perspective. YMMV.  – Ling.Nut 12:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm perhaps missing something, or lacking some experience you have, but I just don't see what's unprofessional about this format. The source is the information is no more or less clear than if I used a different format, and I personally think it's much tidier than having a separate bibliography section, for example. I'm not in love with the format, it just happens to be (in my opinion) a tidier way of doing things than other formats I've seen. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

[edit]

Support. Since this is up at the same time at FAC and ACR, I left my comments at the FAC after my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 17:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Iranian_Embassy_siege&oldid=1148048931"