Talk:2009–2011 detention of American hikers by Iran/archive
Tourists/hikers
editIt is somewhat disingenuous to describe these people as 'tourists' and/or 'hikers' in the article. The facts are that Shane Bauer was employed as a journalist to cover elections in Kurdistan; that is the primary reason he was there:
'Sandy Close , executive director of the Pacific News Service, said that she had employed Mr Bauer, who specialises in the Middle East, to cover the elections of the autonomous Kurdish government in northern Iraq. She said he had not intended to travel to neighbouring Iran. Mr Bauer told Ms Close in an e-mail that he wanted to “feel out the situation" in Kurdistan and get some ideas for stories. “Kurdistan is the big story in Iraq now,” Mr Bauer wrote in the e-mail provided to the Associated Press. “I'm off to Kurdistan.” ' Little grape (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have deleted all references to them being hikers except for the title and deleted two external references that failed our standards. I will try to get around to doing something with this article over the next few days but I am snowed with more important projects. Please keep in mind that referring to the three as "hikers" may itself be POV, it is far from clear as to whether the border crossing was intentional, and if so, for what purpose. Thanks for everyone's help.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- They were social justice activists, who had been living in Damascus, holidaying in Iraqi Kurdistan. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t17kb. Little grape, do you have references to back up what you say, please? Lopifalko (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The link you provide to bbc.co.uk does not support a statement that they were "social justice activists. Am I looking in the wrong place? -- Komowkwa (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Did you listen to the interview with 'Nora Shourd, mother of hiker imprisoned in Iran' at that page? Lopifalko (talk) 11:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Any research on the web into what these people spent their lives doing will show them involved in various forms of activism, so if it's a better reference you're after then I'm sure we could find that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopifalko (talk • contribs) 11:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I listened. Although I think interpreting the interview as support for the comments you added is a big stretch, there may be some reference for your conclusion. Did you do "original research" in order to expand the discussion about the hikers which appears between 10:18 and 20:06 in that 45 min. program? Did someone ever refer to any of these three as "anti-war, social justice and Palestinian solidarity activists." The girl's mom says she was teaching english and was a woman's activist. You state that "Any research ... will show ..." your conclusion. I think a person putting such comments into an article should add the reference, rather than suggesting that those reading the Wikipedia article need to do it on their own. --- Komowkwa (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- The link you provide to bbc.co.uk does not support a statement that they were "social justice activists. Am I looking in the wrong place? -- Komowkwa (talk) 00:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- They were social justice activists, who had been living in Damascus, holidaying in Iraqi Kurdistan. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t17kb. Little grape, do you have references to back up what you say, please? Lopifalko (talk) 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- "Did you do "original research"" - no, though I may not have referenced satisfactorily.
- "Did someone ever refer to any of these three as "anti-war, social justice and Palestinian solidarity activists." In the Nora Shourd interview at 11:15 she says "they were doing activism". To label these people as merely 'hikers' seems disingenuous. Here are various quotes supporting the above:
- "We are pro-Palestinian and against the Israeli occupation. Sarah and I met while organizing demonstrations against the Iraq war. We have protested AIPAC. We oppose aggressive US policies against Iran." - http://freeourfriends.eu/shane
- "They have always taken a stand for justice in the Middle East. They have organised against the Iraq war, lived and worked with Palestinian and Iraqi refugees and campaigned against the Israeli occupation." - http://freeourfriends.eu/
- "These young people represent a segment of the U.S. population that is critical of [US] policies, and often actively opposed to them." - Noam Chomsky at http://freeourfriends.eu/supporter/chomsky
- "Sarah, Shane and Josh are doing what our daughter Rachel did before she was killed - standing up against injustice and for the freedom of the people of the Middle East." - Statement from Cindy and Craig Corrie at http://freeourfriends.eu/supporter/corries
- "Sarah Shourd and Shane Bauer are two of the bravest voices for justice in the Middle East that I met during my time in Syria. Strong critics of the US-led brutal war on Iraq and Israel´s ongoing violence against the Palestinian people, Sarah and Shane worked tirelessly in solidarity with the struggle for freedom, dignity, and self-determination for all people in the Middle East." - Anna Baltzer at http://freeourfriends.eu/supporter/anna-baltzer
- "During February 2009, I worked with Shane Bauer in Baghdad...Shane is one of very few independent journalists who was working in Iraq. He opposed the US occupation of Iraq and was intent on using his pen to show the effects of the occupation to the world, in hopes of helping the Iraqi people." - Dahr Jamail at http://freeourfriends.eu/supporter/dahr-jamail
- I've only gotten these quotes from the one web site because that seems to have enough info to answer your question, and the sources used at that site seem disparate and credible enough. But if the article itself needs further references then I'll look for them|. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopifalko (talk • contribs) 16:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
If memory serves in the latter part of last century [post Sha] it was considered quite a trekkers coup for a female to hike, unescorted, through Iran en route to India, Nepal etc and probably still is. There was too a heavily disguised female who rubbed the oversensitive nose of the Iranian authorities in this "verboten" activity [verboten because the then theory by Ayatollah Whomever was that their Iranian menfolk would be corrupted by any unattached/unescorted female] by having her subsequent travel book, which described her activities in Iran, published.
I find it strange [and misleading] that this information, as well as the well-known Iranan policy re unattached females, is not referred to in this wiki-article as background information. It is, after all, not a secret and is, I think, a transit visa condition for Iran as well as less progressive [I'm really not trying to be offensive] Muslim countries ending in -stan. As to the real reasons why this bunch found themselves trespassing, in these days of hand-held GPS devices etc is known only to themselves and the aforementioned Iranian authorities.
The truth of the matter lies somewhere in-between and will only become public once their various travelogues are in the public domain. But the smart money is on provocative/cheap thrill-seeking with the intention to publish a goggle- eyed "I wuz there" eventually and to use that as leverage for the talk show/lecture circuit to support their respective future "career" choices! It appears the situation simply ain't working as anticipated. Semperlibre (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
With all the places in the world practicing “social injustice” the most benign to blow “raspberries” at or to give a “Bronx cheer” to would currently be either Iran, Myanmar or North Korea. Or, if you like, become a militant anti-whaling campaigner.
These are the fashionable naughty boys, the politically ostracized nations and activities of our era and it is certainly not very dangerous to “defy” and to “take a stand” for their unacceptable social/environmental practices, ‘specially when you don’t even share the same continent.
And the personal kudos, the publicity rewards, the Warhollian 15 minutes within one’s own circle, are potentially enormous and, of course, to the confirmed egoist, priceless.
To brave the lions den, to make a clandestine, un-authorised entry into any of those countries or to “defy” a great lumbering factory ship while sitting in an outboard rubber dingy [ so David and Goliath, don’t you know ] definitely is publishing and talk show material. One appears soooo very brave!
No real personal danger [a little disconcerting though, when one is arrested] but very thrilling to the like-minded audience who doesn’t have access to trust-fund support, albeit second or third hand or the inclination to abandon their personal comfort zones. To some circles these “social activists” are the epitome of “role models”.
But how come I never hear of like individuals taking a personal stand against child-pornography, of announcing their arrival in places such as Kiev, in the Ukraine [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukrainian_child_pornography_raids ], with the loudly proclaimed intention of exposing the pimps and the political leaders of these anti-social practices to the world? How come they aren’t willing to publicly defy the child-prostitution industries in Cambodia, Thailand, India and elsewhere? How come they ain’t publicly chaining themselves to the palace walls of the corrupt fascistic and repressive dictators in Africa, South East Asia, the Middle East and South America? How come one never hears about their efforts to reform the Taliban from their outrageous practices and attitudes?
I can only, with all this information, sadly conclude that these persons such as Sarah Shourd (31), Shane Bauer (27) and Joshua Fattal (27) [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_detention_of_American_hikers_by_Iran ] are simply grandstanding, seeking cheap publicity, truly insincere in their efforts to truly expose serious social injustices.
They are, when all is said and done, hugely hamming it up with the benefit of a government paid-for safety net. And the only price they have to pay is to live, for a little while, like a poverty-stricken third world peasant. The miserable difference is that, for true poverty-stricken peasantry, there is no forgone eventual release and nor a raft of publishers madly waving their cheque books!
These show-offs, in actual fact, deserve no applause but only our opprobrium!
Thank you for this opportunity. James Mashele. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.34.242 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly are they grandstanding and "hamming it up" about? What "government paid-for safety net" are you talking about? What could possibly come out of, "Oops, I accidentally walked illegally into Iran!" besides them being seen as not-the-sharpest-tool-in-the-shed? Living in poverty is quite a deal different than being in a political prison. This area of wikipedia discussion is not for you to vent at us and display your pointless ranting. You also might want to try living in poverty like 15% of America does before you go around talking about "third world peasants". 67.246.185.40 (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Title
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was page moved. December21st2012Freak Happy New Year! 00:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
2009 detention of American hikers intruding into Iran → 2009 detention of American hikers by Iran —
I think we could have a better title for this article. "Intruding" seems a bit POV, and I think we could afford to simplify a bit. Something akin to 2009 imprisonment of American journalists by North Korea. I've made a proposal along with the move template above, but there are other options, such as simply 2009 detention of Americans by Iran. Grsz11 01:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support definitely a better title. Airplaneman talk 02:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support much more neutral. --Labattblueboy (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support More neutral, plus it's not even known if they actually crossed into Iran (it wouldn't be the first time a country went into another country to kidnap people and Iran has snuck into Iraq before). TJ Spyke 00:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Support the new title as nominated. Get's the POV out of the title. Courcelles (talk) 07:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.