Talk:Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel

Suggest we make an article on the recent SIEV last week which killed 4 Afghans and wounded 4 Navy personal. Nath1991 (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

SIEV

SIEV stands for "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel" why change the page title to the more politically biased "Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel"? It is not illegal until proven - that's why irregular was probably chosen. Tiddy (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The use of the word "Illegal" rather than "Irregular" was correct until around late 2009 or early 2010 when the term was changed. The Australian Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2010-11 (in the definitions section on page 332) defines SIEV as "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel". The 2009-10 Annual Report carries the same definition. The 2008-09 Annual Report defines SIEV as "Suspect Irregular Entrant Vehicle" although that and the current definition are both used in the text of the report. The 2007-08 Annual Report defines SIEV as "Suspect Illegal Entry Vessel" I suggest the heading be chnaged as suggested by Tiddy above with a reference to the former expression Dobryen (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Concur with Dobryen that both terms have been used (and should be noted somewhere), "Irregular" being the more politically correct term currently in use. They are basically interchangeable as they refer to the same thing, though Illegal seem to be the term currently used on WP. Please note that "Illegal" was the original page title when started, and AFAIK has always been the name of this page. Some editors have changed the text to irregular, but as that conflicts with the title should not be done. I think we may need a source that mentions the change, as Dobryens' sources above just might equate to original research! 220 of ^Borg 03:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Suspected irregular entry vessel is not more "politically correct", it is more correct. If you can point me to where there is any evidence of illegality I will stop considering your argument to be prejudiced and probably racist. What law do you suggest has been broken? http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/default.aspx uses the term irregular many times. http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/4/are-asylum-seekers-who-arrive-by-boat-illegal-immigrants also explains the confusion. The name of this article is wrong and must be changed. Djapa Owen (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

"Illegal" was the term that was originally used on this page and title, and is what was also officially used by the Oz government, up to about "... late 2009 or early 2010" as Dobryen mentioned above--220 of ^Borg 20:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Note also this page was started in October 2004‎, and it has been, correctly "Illegal" for most of that period as that is the term that was used. http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/glo.php may be of interest. They have both terms, though no info on when they were used. This Customs Service 07-08 Annual report does though, http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/annual_report.pdf See Glossary, p223. Please remember wp:NPA Djapa. I don't appreciate you inferring I am racist.--220 of ^Borg 21:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Well it's also "Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel" in the Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2011-12[[1]], so "irregular" it is. (pun alert!) Monsieur Puppy (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is, now, but up to 2008 it was 'Illegal' per http://www.customs.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/annual_report.pdf Glossary, p223. I have now added text to the page noting the change. I hope all are happy with this. 220 of ^Borg 21:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you everyone. I think we have an accurate result after an exhaustive discussion. On the subject of whether entry by boat is illegal, (then) opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said in a speech to the National Press Club that asylum seekers arriving by boat without a valid Visa were illegal entrants. The ABC Fact Checker found this statement to be correct. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-06/morrison-correct-illegal-entry-asylum-seekers/4935372 Dobryen (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert back to SE'Illegal'V

The plot 'thickens' again! According to footnote 2 on page 6 of this [2] PDF table of 19 March 2014 at sievx.com

“ The Australian government acronym ‘SIEV’ has subtly changed in meaning over time. The first use of the acronym that I have found dates back to 1991 in reference to a boat that arrived at Montague Sound in the north west of Australia in December of that year. However, it is possible that the acronym was in use prior to that time. SIEV originally meant ‘Suspected Illegal Entrant Vessel’; this morphed into ‘Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel’. After Labor was elected in 2007 the acronym was changed to mean ‘Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel’. Since the election of the Abbott government in September 2013, the ‘I’ in ‘SIEV’ has reverted to ‘illegal’. ”

And this is supported by theAustralian Customs and Border Protection Service Annual Report 2013-2014, Part 6, ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS SIEV=Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel. --220 of ^Borg 02:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Forced back or piloted?

I don't know if "forced back" is an acurate description of the process involved, given that the vessels deemed sea worthy were actually piloted back to the sea border by ADF personel after removing at least half of the passengers to make the vessel sea worthy, and trying for days to get the engine started. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

SIEV 4?

There's a problem here. I cited a book that refers to the SIEV X (sank killing 353 passengers)as the SIEV 4, yet every google search has brought up SIEV 4 as the "Children overboard" boat, as also stated on this page. Monsieur Puppy (talk) 14:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

SIEV term in current use?

@SatuSuro: Re your tense change here, apparently there haven't been any boats recently (one in 18 months?) [3] but this ABC report [4] using the term is from June 2014. --220 of ^Borg 17:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: - please feel free to change adapt or whatever, I dont believe anything about this anymore, there could well have been, but the spooks and etc make sure we dont know, conspiracy theory, no reliable sources. satusuro 03:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)