→POW Tag: re tag |
→POW Tag: r |
||
Line 337: | Line 337: | ||
::::"The poster is evidently that of an ''Irish source'', inevitably shifting the Irish POV." Right. Irish sources need not apply? That sounds a bit racist to me but I assume good faith and know that you didn't mean it the way it sounds. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
::::"The poster is evidently that of an ''Irish source'', inevitably shifting the Irish POV." Right. Irish sources need not apply? That sounds a bit racist to me but I assume good faith and know that you didn't mean it the way it sounds. ([[User:Sarah777|Sarah777]] 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)) |
||
:::::What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Wikipedia. If you break it down; 1) There have been no sources yet claiming POWs apart from two images. Other sources may claim the troubles as a war, but there is no direct mention to POWs from such sources. 2) The images provided are not [[WP:RELY|reliable sources]] and therefore not [[WP:V|verifiable]]. Now if you put two and two together and simply assume that because it was a war and they were imprisoned they are automatically rendered POWs, you get [[original research]] and a inevitable POV. [[User:Chris Buttigieg|Chris Buttigieg]] 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
::For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t, none is possible. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
::For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t, none is possible. --[[User:Domer48|Domer48]] 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:27, 12 July 2007
Biography B‑class | |||||||
|
Gibraltar Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.
(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).
Goals
- Improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.
- Gather interested editors, and provide a central location to discuss matters pertaining to the above.
Scope
- Topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.
Guidelines
Open tasks
- This 'To do' list- has it been updated since 2007? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Armed Campaigns
Republican Wars
- (1798) - 1798 rebellion
- (1916) - Easter Rising
- (1919 - 1921) - Irish War of Independence
- (1922 - 1923) - Irish Civil War
Others
- Irish Socialist Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War
- S-Plan
- IRA Abwehr World War II
- Northern Campaign (IRA)
- Border Campaign (IRA)
- Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997
Events
Armed Republican Groups
For an organized hierarchial chart, see Genealogy of the IRA
- Irish Citizen Army
- Irish Volunteers
- Cumann na mBan
- Irish Republican Army
- Irish Republican Army (1922–1969)
Irish Republicans
Note: There are many, many IRA Volunteers of varying memberships, and we cannot list them all here. We have many categories for that. Only particularly notable members should be listed here.
Early Volunteers; the Wars
- Michael Collins (Irish leader)
- Éamon de Valera
- James Connolly
- Patrick Pearse
- Constance Georgine, Countess Markiewicz
- Tom Clarke
- Edward Daly
- The O'Rahilly
Later IRA
- Official IRA: Cathal Goulding
- Provisionals: Joe McDonnell
- Continuity IRA: Dáithí Ó Conaill
- Real IRA: Michael McKevitt
- INLA: Seamus Costello, Dessie O'Hare
Other
Participants
|
Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest
- Paddytheceltic (talk · contribs) Protestant Nationalists, Militant oganisations, Political Organizations and others..
- Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) Militant Armed Irish Republican organizations. Gaelic.
- Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) I've been working on some of the articles about women in the Easter Rising.
- Pauric (talk · contribs) Too much to mention
- Derry Boi (talk · contribs) Interested in all areas of republicanism really.
- One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Bit of everything
- Irish Republican (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism 1798-Present
- Vintagekits (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present with more focus on the history of the Provisionals
- Phoblacht (talk · contribs) Republican Newspapers from 1790’s to Present.
- GiollaUidir (talk · contribs) Republican activities from the 1969-mid 80's. Also, biogs of (primarily) dead activists both political and military. Post-1986 is mainly CIRA activity and shoot-to-kill operations by the SAS etc.
- Leopold III (talk · contribs) The leaders in the period from the Easter Rising to the end of the Civil War.
- Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) Learning more and helping where I can.
- Scolaire (talk · contribs) 20th century history, especially the 1913-1922 period
- Sheehan07 (talk · contribs) Love Irish History
- Sbfenian1916 (talk · contribs) Love Irish Republicansim, hate Unionism.
- United and Free (talk · contribs)- PIRA history and operations
- Fluffy999 (talk · contribs) Inter(world)war republican activities. Internment and extra judicial activities surrounding Irish Republicanism.
- Free Scotland, Unite Ireland (talk · contribs) Interested in post- St Andrews agreement Republicanism.
- Diarmaid (talk · contribs) Six county sovereignty
- Domer48 (talk · contribs) Period covered by the Irish Confederation (Young Ireland)
- Conghaileach (talk · contribs) Special interest in left-republican history
- Max rspct (talk · contribs) PIRA;INLA; civil war era; 70s 80s 90s; links/solidarity abroad;
- Carrignafoy (talk · contribs) War of Independence and Civil War (especially in Cork) also development of Official Sinn Féin and its successors.
- Brixton Busters (talk · contribs)
- BigDunc (talk · contribs)
- Ró2000 (talk • contribs) Tá suim mhór agam i stair náisiúnta na hÉireann, neamhspleach go háirithe!!
- quirk666 (talk · contribs) Republicanism 1798-present. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
- gavcos (talk · contribs) Old IRA, War of Independence, Civil War
- ElementalEternity (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Irish history and republicanism in general.
- Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Moz1916 (talk · contribs) All Irish history, especially 1903-1932
- Princess Pea Face (talk · contribs) Ireland pure and simple
- Barryob (talk · contribs)
- NIscroll (talk · contribs) --NIscroll (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- RSFRuairi (talk · contribs) Anything really.
- Gr8opinionater (talk · contribs) 1:10 July 27 2008 (GMT), Interested in Irish nationalism in general particularly from a Political and historical point of view.
- Lihaas (talk · contribs) open to much
- EoinBach (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism in general from an academic point of view
- Gerard Madden (talk · contribs)
- SPARTAN-J024 (talk · contribs) I have ties to the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence
- NewIreland2009 (talk) The 1912-1924 period, with a particular passion for challenging popular myths of the period.
- Dribblingscribe (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Tippsno1fan (talk · contribs) Tá an-spéis agam ann
- Gallagher-Glass (talk · contribs) General interest.
- Fallduff (talk · contribs) National Archives, Dublin and Na Fianna Éireann, pre Northern Troubles
- Mabuska (talk · contribs) maintaining neutrality and verifiability
- Nicholas Urquhart (talk · contribs) military operations of the "New IRAs": the Provos, the Reals and even OnH, the Official and Continuity IRA.
- You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) 32 CSM
- Finnegas (talk · contribs)
- Sittingonthefence (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism as a philosophy. 1916 and War of Independence combatants.
- High_Noonan (talk · contribs) Tom Hunter, 1916, War of Independence
- Antiqueight (talk · contribs) Women involved in 1916 or similar.
- AusLondonder (talk · contribs) General matters.
- Tdv123 (talk · contribs) PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, ICA, IVF, SE, CRF, SARAF, PLA
- Irishpolitical (talk · contribs) Traditionalist Republicanism and Nationalism. Dissenting republicans post GFA. Anti-communist Republicanism.
- CnocBride (talk · contribs) All Irish history, though my favourite time period would be the vast 1800–2011 period.
- KINGHB190 (talk · contribs) A Corkonian with ancestry in the original Irish Republican Army.
- Endersslay (talk · contribs) Enjoy Irish republican music and history.
Userbox
Feel free to place {{User WP:IR}} on your User page to advertise our WikiProject!
Articles
Featured content
Candidates
Good articles
- Real IRA
- Maze Prison escape
- 1993 Bishopsgate bombing
- 1973 Mountjoy Prison helicopter escape
- Free Derry
- Ernie O'Malley
Candidates
Articles in need of urgent attention
Please provide a short explanation, or leave a note on our talk page if needed.
- John Sweetman. Article on 2nd President of SF needs more footnotes, and appears to have been compiled largely from reports in The Times of London, which is hardly a neutral source on an Irish Republican.
Suggestions for new articles
- IRA Southern Command
- Brian Arthurs
- John Kenneway
- Sean McKenna (Irish republican)
- Doomsday Plan
- White Cross Organisation
- Joe Christle
- Mrs. John MacNeill (Rosetta (née McAuley) McNeill
- Mrs. MacDonagh O'Mahony
- Mrs Duffy Edwards
- Mary Gahan Married name O’Carroll
- Katherine Gifford
- Kathleen Gillies, wife of Paddy O'Daly
- Nora Gillies, wife of Seamus O'Daly
- Una Gordon
- Mary Hyland I can't find dates for her (married Michael Kelly)
- Kathleen Lane-O'Kelley (née Shanahan)
- Maureen MacDonagh O'Mahoney
- Agnes MacNamee
- Agnes MacNeill
- Jo McGowan
- Lizzie Mulhall
- Bridget Murragh
- Una O'Brien
- Teresa O'Connell
- Bridie O'Mullane
- Mimi Plunkett
- Niamh Plunkett
- Maria Quigley
- Priscilla Quigley
- Eilis Robinson Norris Elizabeth (1899-1969)
- Nell Ryan - Almost certainly Min's sister - and there would be Mary Kate and Phyllis as well.
- Maire Tuohy - Founding member but no other information about her at all.
- Murt Qualter
Articles in Preparation
- See Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation/Template:IRAs
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation/James Mac Guill
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation/Kevin McKenna (Irish republican)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish Republican Army/Preparation/Charlie McGlade (Irish republican)
New articles
Richard Goss (Irish Republican)
Thomas Harte (Irish republican)
Patrick McGrath (Irish republican)
Andy O'Sullivan (Irish Republican)
Please feel free to list your new Irish Republican Army-related articles here (newer articles at the top, please). Any new articles that have an interesting or unusual fact in them should be suggested for the Did you know? box on the Main Page.
Collaboration
The article listed here is our current official article to collaborate on. Propose new articles in the Nominations section below.
Nominations
James Larkin - Grosseteste (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Review
Assessment requests:
Language
Gaelic words and phrases should be marked up using {{lang}}, thus: {{lang|ga|Páirc na hÉireann}}
.
Templates
To use the following template, simply put {{IRAs}} at the bottom of an article.
To use the following template, simply put {{NIPP}} at the bottom of an article.
Banner
Articles which fall within our scope should be labeled as such on their talk pages. To do so, simply place {{WP IR}} at the top of article's talk page.
Irish Republicanism Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Categories
- all subpages of this page
Regular cats
- Category:Irish Republican Brotherhood
- Category:Members of the Irish Republican Brotherhood
- Category:Irish Republican Army
- Category:Irish Republican Army campaigns
- Category:Irish War of Independence
- Category:Irish Civil War
- Category:Institutions of the Irish Republic (1919-1922)
- Category:Irish Republican Army members 1917-1922
- Category:Irish Republican Army members 1922-1969
- Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members
- Category:Heads of Irish provisional governments
- Category:Irish rebels
- Category:Years in the Irish Republican Army
- Category:People who died on the 1981 Irish hunger strike
- Category:Continuity Irish Republican Army
- Category:Real Irish Republican Army
- Category:Real Irish Republican Army members
Project organisation cats
Resources
Using references
- For a simple guide to using references, place {{subst:refstart}} (including brackets) on your user or talk page.
Related projects
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland
- Portal:Ireland
- Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board
Use of "terrorist"
Wikipedia has a policy of not using the term "terrorist" in any article other than the terrorism article.GiollaUidir 16:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Anon Edit Details
I changed 'The operation came to a horrific end with all three of them brutally gunned down, in cold blood on the Spanish-Gibraltar border by members of the SAS on 6 March 1988 in fiercly contested circumstances', which is clearly highly NPOV, to 'The operation ended when all three were shot dead, despite being unarmed, on the Spanish-Gibraltar border by members of the SAS on 6 March 1988 in fiercely contested circumstances'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.28 (talk • contribs)
The shooting was not at the border. --Gibnews
Sources Required
Please provide sources for the following: Imprisonment(1976-1986) Within Armagh Jail beatings, sensory deprivation and other forms of torture were routine. Each morning inmates were required to "slop-out" their chamber pots, which would almost always entail running a gauntlet of abusive guards— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wegggie (talk • contribs)
For beatings and harrassment: [1]
- Abusive Guards: [2]
- Gauntlet: British Criminology Conference— Preceding unsigned comment added by GiollaUidir (talk • contribs)
- The first source is not neutral and can only labelled as POV if added to the article. The second source with quote 'Gauntlet' is about the Maze and doesn't discuss conditions in Armagh. In any event the underlying cause of the dirty protest was the clampdown on the display of paramilitary regalia (as suggested by the INLA website link you kindly provided). Wiki guidelines state that any editor can remove unsourced material, so I suggest this is revisited. Weggie 22:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Removal
This needs a source
Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there I do not sleep,
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
When Ireland lives I do not die.
A woman's place is not at home,
The fight for freedom it still goes on,
I took up my gun until freedoms day,
I pledged to fight for the I.R.A.
In Armagh jail I served my time,
Strip searches were a British crime,
Degraded me but they could not see,
I'd suffer this to see Ireland free.
Gibraltar was the place I died,
McCann and Savage were by my side,
I heard the order so loud and shrill,
Of Thatchers voice, said shoot to kill.
Do not stand at my grave and weep,
I am not there I do not sleep,
Do not stand at my grave and cry,
When Ireland lives I do not die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs)
Yes, Mary, blowing up an army band in Gibraltar is going to 'free' Ireland. Well done. Very brave of you.
Good grief, where do these people come from? Every Irishman I've ever met has been a perfectly well-adjusted and decent individual. Ah well, I guess every culture has its pet menagerie of nutters.
- added by User:Psidogretro ((Sarah777 12:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
Photos
A picture of her would be a nice way of filling out what is a fairly bare article (on what is sadly a half-lived life), and the long-term political repercussions. For instance, Fr. Denis Wilson's talks with Gerry Adams began after these killings, and were among the first serious backroom discussions that led to the Good Friday Aggreement. Fergananim 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps a picture of some of the school children from catholic school where the bomb was to be planted, who grew up with arms and legs and lead normal lives because of the vigilance of the security services ...
--Gibnews
That too. Sadly so many did not because many of her comrades were more successful, usually on their parents but, as we say at Omagh, on children too. Fergananim 19:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There are photos here: http://irelandsown.net/armaghwomen.html but the site is copyright, so we'd need to write for permission. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hunger strike
I've added info on the 1980 hunger strike in Armagh prison, quite an important part of Farrell's carreer. Contorebel 31 August 2006
Second Term of Active Service (1986-1988)
This title seem to imply that the Provisional IRA is or was a legitimate military force. It is not, nor has it ever been. It is a murderous, terrorist body responsible for the deaths of many innocents.
I am changing this title to 'Second Period of Terrorist Activity'.
I think this quite reasonable, considering the woman in question was attempting to cause explosions with the intent to kill bandsmen of the British Army.
-- 82.39.87.139
- The term 'active service' is quite clear, the word 'terrorist' is only appropriate when its a direct quote, rather than an expression of (your) opinion. The page needs to be factual and avoid emotional references to murdering bastards gunned down by the evil British imperialist Thatcher.
--Gibnews 09:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with the above statement: "The term 'active service' is quite clear". The term 'active service' is not at all clear. Who or what was Mairéad Farrell serving besides a proscribed terrorist organisation (the Provisional IRA)?
Indeed, I quite agree that articles must be impartial, accurate and above all, factual. In this instance, the rest of the article supports the use of the word 'terrorist'! It clearly states: "[The European Court of Human Rights] also ruled that the three had been engaged in an act of terrorism". Is it unreasonable then, to call Mairéad Farrell a terrorist? A vehicle in her charge was discovered with 150 lbs of Semtex and 200 rounds being used as improvised shrapnel!
The use of the word 'terrorist' is not 'my opinion' as the above user suggests. Far from being my opinion alone, this view was upheld by the ECHR! She was also a member of a Proscribed Terrorist Organisation (The PIRA is described as a terrorist organisation by the governments of the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, Germany and Italy).
I was not aware of the Wikipedia policy on the use of the word 'terrorist'. However, I maintain that the subtitles 'First Term of Active Service(1975-1976)' and 'Second Period of Active Service (1986-1988)' are both misleading and terminologically specious.
They beg the question, 'active service to whom?'. Since the Provisional IRA is not a legitimate or legal force, the subheadings I mention above must be changed. My suggestion is; 'First Term of Paramilitary Activity'.
--unsigned by 82.39.87.139 cable.ubr03.jarr.blueyonder.co.uk
- Any semi-intelligent reader should be able to infer with whom her period of "active service" was with. I see no reason to change it to "terrorist" or "paramilitary".GiollaUidir 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
- It was significant that the IRA announced its people were on 'active service' although nobody has suggested they were on holiday in Spain and popped over the border for some cheap whisky. Their target was soldiers armed only with with brass instruments. However, although it was and remains quite legal to shoot terrorists in Gibraltar, that the IRA was a proscribed organisation is debatable. Lets keep things factual and not insert emotional language for the sake of it. --Gibnews
Evacuation
I removed
However, despite the apparent belief that Farrell and her cell-members had left a bomb primed and ready to be detonated, no attempt was made to evacuate the area surrounding the bomb until several hours after the shootings at the border. Those who allege that the shootings were part of a "shoot-to-kill" execution have taken this as evidence that the SAS never intended to arrest the unit.
Firstly the reference cited does not actually display anything to support that view.
Secondly, there is the question of exactly WHO would be evacuated on a Sunday as the bomb was in front of a school and a bank neither of which were occupied on the SUNDAY. I recall that after the shooting, which I just missed, that the area was cordoned off and a controlled explosion took place, which would be the proper action. Although there may have indeed been a policy of 'shoot to kill' not evacuating people who were not there is not proof of it, even to Guardian readers. --Gibnews 07:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- Surely what you've just said about the bank and school makes the 'shoot-to-kill' theory more likely rather than less? Consider: The SAS have been told that there is a highly dangerous IRA ASU on Gibraltar who have left a car-bomb ready to detonate and all they have to do is "press the button" on their remote detonator to set it off. So after shooting 3 members of the team at the border and failing to find any remote detonator surely the logical thing to do would be to think that there might be another member(s) of the team still on the loose with the detonator. So the area around the bomb should at the very least be sealed off. Yet, no effort was made "until several hours after the shooting" (according to the Guardian anyway).GiollaUidir 12:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I just missed the shooting in the street and saw the aftermath. Going home I monitored the police radio channels, a friend with a telescope was watching the scene outside the bank from a safe distance; the area was promptly sealed off. we communicated using a radio similar to the one pictured.
- The only people who might have required evacuation could not have been extracted without exposing them to more danger than staying indoors away from the windows. The police were indeed looking for a fourth member of the team.
- If the The Guardian report says that, its bollocks. Indeed police car which went past the suspects with its siren blaring had been instructed to go to the bank to assist with sealing off the area, prior to the shooting.
--Gibnews 14:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I (and the Guardian lol) stand corrected.GiollaUidir 14:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- It is, after all, a 'bloody awful newspaper' according to Phil the Greek :) (good online news archive though) --Gibnews
Being Objective
(Note: it seems the dissenting editor has chosen to remove replies from this thread making it look like a one sided rant, the replies can be deduced from the answers) --Gibnews 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the need to introduce the term 'Volounteer' as these groups are unofficial organisations which cannot employ conscription - the only point seems to glorify the participants rather than objectivly describing their actions and those of the security services. If that stands, then it is necessary to introduce some wording to balance it pointing out that the PIRA is a proscribed terrorist organisation and in keeping with the policy of not using the T-word the term is 'Illegal paramilitary group' which is less emotive and totally accurate. --Gibnews
- That is exactly the point, you are trying to promote a POV that she was in a military organisation.
- The PIRA is not a legitimate military force its a proscribed paramilitary organisation. In practice it does not matter whether people attempt blow up kids for money or at no charge, its still wrong. Fancy titles and language do not legitimise such things. --Gibnews
- So is the fact that its a proscribed paramilitary organisation and that its members came to Gibraltar to engage in an act of terrorism, or are you suggesting they came here to feed the monkeys ?
- The target was the area where the band (armed with dangerous musical instruments) assembled in front of Bishop Fitzgerald middle school. If you want names, write and ask for a class list at the time. In relation to 'research' I've looked at things carefully, interviewed witnesses and people who would not talk openly about what happened. I've made measurments and know a lot more about the event than most, and was there at the time, so would like to keep this entry factual and balanced.
- No, they were not murdered.
- I have no liking for foreigners who come to my country to murder me and my fellow Gibraltarians. Their shooting was totally legal, and remains so, visitors take note. --Gibnews 11:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
The British army came to Gibraltar in 1704, and have defended us against the Spanish and more recently visiting Argentine and Irish terrorists, we don't seem to have a problem with them. Locally catholics, protestants, jews and arabs seem to get on fine. Perhaps if you thought about the future a bit more instead of the past you might too. Whatever, the tactic of going abroad to blow up kids in the road is not going to advance any causes, bring you any credit, or make friends. Neither is glorifying it. --Gibnews 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- And yet everything I have said is true and verifiable. --Gibnews
- We're discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) currently. Demiurge 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Could I suggest that the word Volunteer and the section about the PIRA being an illegal organisation are removed from the introduction. The convention/MOS for the word Volunteer and IRA ranking system are not yet finalised so this revert war could go on until such times as a policy is decided on.
By all means link to the Volunteer (republican) article at other points in this article where the word is used in the appropriate context but leave the into as it was before the current controversy started.GiollaUidir 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree and will not edit this page until the issue is ironed out. One thing I would say it that it is not a rank per se but the official title given to all members irrespective of their position within the organisation. For example one could be the Quarter Master General and still be a Volunteer, in other words a member always retains the title of Volunteer. Beaumontproject 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree too, however, dressing up criminal activity on my streets in the guise of 'military action' and giving terrorists fancy titles is offensive. --Gibnews
- I think you are getting this article mixed up with one about the British Army Beaumontproject 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Children, this is neither the time nor the place for this debate.GiollaUidir 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Some thoughts
I've spent some time adding and re-ordering things on this page; however I begin to wonder whether its strayed from the point of being an article about a person to one describing an event. As its now more thorough than the one about Operation Flavius or that TV documentary.
There is also a lack of a Gibraltar perspective on the event, thankfully unlike the USA or IRAQ its not everyday that people get shot on our streets, indeed this was the only occasion. Somewhere I have the newspapers of the day filed and will pull them out and review them.
However there is a reasonable balance at present and the existing content should not be lost in an attempt to push any particular POV.
--Gibnews 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, it has grown pretty quickly but is still readable and generally accurate. :) If anyone has any time to do some serious improving of the article then the old peer review has plenty to be getting on with: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mairéad Farrell. GiollaUidir 17:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Whitewashing
The introduction explained who Ms Farrell was and why she was killed, removing the reason is a cover-up to further a POV. The IRA stated after the incident that their people were 'on active service' The ECHR ruled they were engaged in an act of terrorism, so lets tell it like it is. --Gibnews 19:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - the article is out of balance at the moment Weggie 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- 1. It was badly worded, 2. It shouldnt be in the intro, it is further information not intro stuff 3. the details of what happened are clearly outlined further in the article--Vintagekits 20:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed - the article is out of balance at the moment Weggie 19:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits: People read Wikipedia to be informed and that is why we write things; The ONLY reason Ms Farrell merits an entry here is that she was killed whilst planting a bomb. Thats why its in the introduction. Its more important than who shot her. Take some time to reflect and because others do not agree with your POV does not mean we cannot be objective - and thats whats needed to write good articles. --Gibnews 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Gibnews, I know you focus almost soley on Gibraltar issue but to say something like "The ONLY reason Ms Farrell merits an entry here is that she was killed whilst planting a bomb" pretty much just shows your ignorance on the issue--Vintagekits 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
For all I know she was kind to animals. pressed flowers and her mother loved her - none of these things merit an entry in Wikipedia. However the reason she has prominence is because she was shot in Gibraltar, and that is directly due to her being here to plant a bomb. You seem to have a different view of reality which not good for anyone, especially yourself. That anyone is shot is a tragedy, that anyone feels the need to blow up bandsmen as a political act is worse and totally ineffective. Unlike Detroit, people getting shot on the street here is a very rare event and something we would rather had not happened, but to quote the conclusion of the dissenting justices of the ECHR
- We consider that the use of lethal force in this case, however regrettable the need to resort to such force may be, did not exceed what was, in the circumstances as known at the time, "absolutely necessary" for that purpose and did not amount to a breach by the United Kingdom of its obligations under the Convention.
The inquest cost the Gibraltar taxpayer around 300,000 pounds, and the publicity was not positive. That, however, was cheap compared to the cost of the alternative, and people need to know what that was and it should not be whitewashed away.
As for 'ignorance of the issue' you were probably not even born at the time of the incident. I was on the spot.
--Gibnews 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Early Life Section
The only reference is a blog which does not meet wiki standards for references (reputable source). Also, Bobby Storey, a living person seems to be accused of a criminal offence. Is this libel? Weggie 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's not a blog. Good point, re Bobby Storey, I'll check it out.GiollaUidir 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree, its not a blog from what I can see, looks like a webpage dedicated to people called Farrell.--Vintagekits 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
No Revisionism
There is NO dispute on why an PIRA cell were in Gibraltar, at the time the IRA stated they were on 'active service' - the inquest ruled they were lawfully killed whist in the process of planting a bomb and the ECHR review concluded they were engaging in an act of terrorism. Now is not a time to engage in revisionism and denial of purpose. The ECHR by a small majority critisised the UK for the use of lethal force to resolve the situation, but apart from that ruled that there was no doubt as to the purpose of the mission which thankfully failed.
Lets record what happened.
--Gibnews 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Volunteers required
Without wishing to get into a dispute over pseudo-military ranks, the following could be worded better: This required a large number of volunteers, so younger members such as Mairéad were required to participate.
--Gibnews
- members would be fine in that context. Volunteer or Volunteers would be used when specifically referring to individuals but it is of to the "the three were members of the PIRA" if you are describing them in general terms.--Vintagekits 21:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think you miss the point, someone who is required to do something is not a volunteer. How about ''This required numbers of people, so younger members such as Mairéad, were asked to participate. --Gibnews
- Volunteer is the de facto rank for junior members, also no one was required to join the PIRA and they can freely leave at anytime--Vintagekits 00:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- The use of required implies pressure to do something, and the original wording is bad because it gives the impression of coercion, whch goes against what you say above that ongoing membership and activity is a free choice. --Gibnews
- Change "required" to "asked" perhaps?GiollaUidir 12:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- I hacked it a bit to read better - my experience is asking people to stand around in the road with placards shouting where you certainly need their consent. More so for worse things one assumes. The SAS volunteer three times for what they do. --Gibnews 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Picture
Must admit I thought screen captures were acceptable, however the present image is awful, and copied from a dubious website. --Gibnews
Purpose
The purpose of operation Flavius was to prevent the bombing of the military band and the purpose of the PIRA cell in Gibraltar, was to place a bomb in a public place to effect that. Hiding that is a distortion of both the official IRA statement that they were on 'active service' and the inquest verdict.
Its highly regretable that people are shot on our streets, and unlike some places, its not an everyday occurance. Indeed nobody has been shot since - but although there is no crime of 'being Irish in Gibraltar' it remains the position that terrorists can, and will be shot. Although we do not anticipate any more visits from Ireland, due to the proximity to North Africa there are new threats.
One of the NYT articles cited says that the position with Britain is complicated because it does not have a written constitution - this is sloppy journalism because Gibraltar has one and despite a subsequent version, the section which deals with this incident remains 'as was'.
--Gibnews 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Could editors please reference statements or cite sources. Regards--Domer48 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you don't intend to claim that writing on a wall is a reasonable source! --Gibnews 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- This article used to have NPOV sources, but I see a number of them have been replaced with rather suspicious ones. The best source is the ECHR judgement as they review the evidence presented at the inquest. The inquest was the subject of a film by UK Channel four, which the court officials assure me was the closest thing to actually being there. It was aired and is available on DVD. Of course there is a cynical view that everyone lied in court.
- One of the references that seems to have gone is
- "Fatal Encounter"
- The story of the Gibraltar killings
- by Nicholas Eckert
- 288 pages, 7 B&W photographs, diagrams of Gibraltar and Andytown
- published by Poolbeg press, Ireland 1999
- ISBN 1 85371 837 8
- The author is neutral, he was picked up by Special Branch on arrival in Gibraltar, and treated with equal suspicion in Ireland.
--Gibnews 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Sources
I have no idea what 'Tírghrá' might be but it sounds like a dubious foreign language source. By contrast the Gibraltar Chronicle is a respectable English language daily newspaper; however as some editors keep deleting the statement about the purpose of the attack, then I assume that reference does not say what Ms Farrell and associates were in Gibraltar for wheras the Chronicle article certainly does. --Gibnews 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. An English-language source is preferred, but only because English is our common language here, not because English is more "respectable" or foreign language (actually it sounds funny to me to call Irish a foreign language as it is spoken in parts of the UK) sources are "dubious". It's just easier for us and our readers to use English sources. Please be careful of people's sensibilities when you talk about their sources. --John 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- John "it sounds funny to me to call Irish a foreign language as it is spoken in parts of the UK". Odd, that. Think Chinese, Polish..what does it mean? The notion that EN:Wiki gives any special credibility to things written in English, never mind languages spoken in the UK, is bizarre, and goes counter to various Wiki polices on avoiding Anglo-centric bias. The notion that an English-speaking Spaniard (I recognise Spain's claim to Gib) should regard something written in Irish as "dubious" is risible. (Sarah777 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Please refrain from racist insults --Gibnews 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Excuse me? I strongly advise you to substantiate you allegation of racist insults or withdraw the charge and apologise. (Sarah777 11:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Sarah, this page is supposed to be for discussion of improvements to the article. What point were you trying to make? Are you saying we should or we shouldn't use this source? --John 01:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The rather clear implication of my comments above is that I believe the source is as credible as any written in the Gibraltar patois. I have also reinstated this reference once - thus one may assume I accept it. And I don't believe my comments were any more circuitous than the others in this thread. (Sarah777 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- What Gibraltar patois? They use English there as far as I know. I have no problem with using Irish language sources per se, but we must also follow policy here, which says that English-language sources are to be preferred. --John 01:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have no idea what language they speak in Gibraltar. As it is in Spain I assume some version of Spanish. we must also follow policy here, which says that English-language sources are to be preferred. Surely when this principle becomes an obstacle to WP:NPOV it's time to go with the "ignore the rules" slogan coined by Mr Wales? (Sarah777 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- I have read the article you suggested. What did I learn: (1) They speak English, officially. But I'm not clear that that is the everyday spoken language. Is it? (2) They want independence. (3) Spain wants Gibraltar back (something I did know) and considers it to be part of Spain. Why should sharing the Spanish pov be "offensive" or "racist"? (Sarah777 11:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
What evidence is there that it obstructs NPOV in this instance? I'll look the other way at your rather unusual statement about Gibraltar. --John 01:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- What rather unusual view? - Clearly the notion that an article from a British source should displace one from an Irish source because the latter is written in Irish, in an article relating to an Anglo-Irish affair, can only lead the neutral observer to suspect WP:BIAS? (Sarah777 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- The event happened in Gibraltar, the Irish participants didn't say much. However some editors were removing the description of the event based on that obscure Irish source. --Gibnews 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- To nip at least some of this rather pointless discussion in the bud; may I point out that Tírghrá is written in English? Scalpfarmer 02:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- LOL, that really is hilarious! Pointless as you say. --John 02:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. Didn't know that!(Sarah777 09:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- So you are defending a source you have not read, critisising the Gibraltar Chronicle - the worlds second oldest daily newspaper - for being in Spanish, which it is not, and think Gibraltar is in Spain ... Do some research and lets start again. --Gibnews 09:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- No. I was rejecting the basis of the argument you were using to exclude one source and include another. Is that not clear from my comments? What has being very old got to do with anything? Perhaps we should ALL heed the excellent warning below? (Sarah777 11:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. To help improve Articles, Wikipedia provide a talk page which is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.The talk page is not a soapbox, therefor, Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for personal views. When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive and considered disruptive, while others facilitate good editing. You might like to read WP:TPG.Thank you.--Domer48 10:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
POW Tag
Thumb
Republican Prisoners through out the conflict considered themselves as prisoners of war (POW). Alternative titles such as Political Prisoners and Special Category prisoners were also used. As this Political Poster from the Hunger Strikes clearly shows. In addition an image I placed on the article illustrates the point also.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Domer48 (talk • contribs) 12:22, July 12, 2007 (UTC).--Domer48 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well frankly that doesn't convince me. The poster is evidently that of an Irish source, inevitably shifting the Irish POV. Even if sources consider the troubles to be a war but there is no mention of POWs, defining them as such would be OR. And I would hardly consider the poster to be a reliable source. Chris Buttigieg 10:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- "The poster is evidently that of an Irish source, inevitably shifting the Irish POV." Right. Irish sources need not apply? That sounds a bit racist to me but I assume good faith and know that you didn't mean it the way it sounds. (Sarah777 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Wikipedia. If you break it down; 1) There have been no sources yet claiming POWs apart from two images. Other sources may claim the troubles as a war, but there is no direct mention to POWs from such sources. 2) The images provided are not reliable sources and therefore not verifiable. Now if you put two and two together and simply assume that because it was a war and they were imprisoned they are automatically rendered POWs, you get original research and a inevitable POV. Chris Buttigieg 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- For those who understand no explanation is necessary, for those who don’t, none is possible. --Domer48 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thumb
Additional information. --Domer48 11:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
From reading Prisoner of War I don't see how any of Farrell (or indeed any IRA activist) could be classed as a prisoner of war. Posters of IRA propoganda are very NPOV. 194.72.35.70 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- The Wiki compromise seems to be that neither the terms "terrorist" nor "POW" be applied to Liberation Armies or that articles relating to such not be categorised as either. Which is fine. But I see Mairéad Farrell is in fact categorised under "People convicted of Terrorist offences". Should we not remove the article from that category if we are resisting the POW categorisation? (Sarah777 12:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Surely it is a matter of fact that she was convicted of a terrorist offence (whether or not she was a terrorist). The PoW article could do with a clean up as there seem to be quite a few members of 'Liberation Armies' listed there. 194.72.35.70 12:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'd question the existence of the category (ie whether it should exist). This is akin to having a category Members of the British Army accused of murder - we could add thousands of names; in fact we could even create new ones by making accusations. The Guildford Four etcetera were convicted of "terrorist" crimes; are they categorised? (Sarah777 12:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- I wouldn't have a problem with a category Members of the British military convicted of unlawful killing being created. The Guildford Four are in the category British wrongfully convicted people, and I would suggest that since they were convicted of a terrorist offence they should be included in People convicted of a terrorist offence, although this may be regarded as potentially misleading and offensive. Perhaps there is an argument for a category People wrongly convicted of a terrorist offence or similar? 194.72.35.70 12:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- Only problem with People wrongly convicted of a terrorist offence is deciding who they are. Should the arbiters be the systems that wrongly convicted them? I presume such a category would extend to "legal systems" even dodgier than the British one? (Sarah777 12:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
- Wrongful conviction also fails to reflect that some people cleared on appeal may in fact have been guilty! People convicted of terrorist offences but later cleared? 194.72.35.70 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Is it not important that the prisoners described themselves as prisoners of war? That a whole campaign was launched around this concept. That they were political prisoners and would not be treated as criminals is well documented. That they achieved their demands on special category status though this is less well known would lend support to my contention that the tag is supportable on this article. --Domer48 13:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)