Talk:Mairéad Farrell

Siobhan O'Hanlon

I have reverted the addition about Siobhan O'Hanlon as it is irrelevant to an article on Farrell, put it the the Flavius article. BigDunc 20:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a large amount of material in this article related to the Gibraltar incident, alleging a 'shoot to kill' policy on terrorists. This recently released material shows that there was a plot and that there was no such policy.. It also specifically names the mystery fourth member of the group from an official source. --Gibnews (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes very neutral we have a secret service member saying that there was no shoot to kill tell us something we haven't heard before. BigDunc 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We also have some fanatics claiming they were innocent irish tourists albeit two were wanted for murder of a policeman. Its also interesting that it names the fourth member of the gang who had direct links to today's politicians. --Gibnews (talk) 21:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they were Irish freedom fighters taking on the might of the British Army but that is not important, the word of a Brit spook about themselves can go into the articles were it is relevant and it is not relevant here. BigDunc 22:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, 'freedom fighters' who with barely 64 kilos of semtex wrapped in bullets as shrapnel confronted the might of the British army armed with musical instruments. However I draw your attention to the fact that the author of the book you are rubbishing is a respected university professor of history and not a spook. --Gibnews (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My Editing the alleged identity of the targets

The original statement in the article implied that the exclusive target of the bombing was the military band at Gibraltar. However, the two articles in the document that is cited to prove this, that is artices 13 and 17, do not support this portrayal of the event. The first one,13, (which I have copied in full below)identifies the target as "the Royal Anglian Regiment" carrying out the chaning of the guard. 13. Before 4 March 1988, and probably from at least the beginning of the year, the United Kingdom, Spanish and Gibraltar authorities were aware that the Provisional IRA (Irish Republican Army "IRA") were planning a terrorist attack on Gibraltar. It appeared from the intelligence received and from observations made by the Gibraltar police, that the target was to be the assembly area south of Ince’s Hall where the Royal Anglian Regiment usually assembled to carry out the changing of the guard every Tuesday at 11.00 hours.

The second article, 17, (again with relevent material copied below) indicates that the targe was both the band and the guard of the First Battalian of the Royal Anglian Regiment. 17. The Operational Order of the Commissioner, which was drawn up on 5 March

1988, stated that it was suspected that a terrorist attack was planned in Gibraltar and that the target was highly probably the band and guard of the First Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment during a ceremonial changing of the guard at Ince’s Hall on 8 March 1988. It stated that there were "indications that the method to be used is by means of explosives, probably using a car bomb". The intention of the operation was then stated to be:...

All in all, this shows that portraying the target of attempted bombing by the IRA radicals as being exclusively the unarmed band members is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marxist-Leninist Papist (talk • contribs) 15:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall whether there were soldiers on parade as well as bandsmen assembling at that point. But neither would have been armed to walk down Main Street to The Convent. The back of Inces hall (pictured) was simply the assembly point where they got out of their vehicles and prepared for the parade cheered on by the general public. A soldier with an empty rifle is much the same as a bandsman armed with a musical instrument. --Gibnews (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews (sorry for the familiarity) thanks for pointing that out. Though the point would still be that a regular soldier even one "with an empty rife" when on parade is still a potential fighter for the British army, and thus a more legitimate target in war then instrument players. But regardless of that, the sources cited for the identity of the target do not identify the band exclusively as the target. They say that it was the guard and band together, as the guard was changing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marxist-Leninist Papist (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a good point, and I don't know the ratio of soldiers to bandsmen at that time, but may be able to find out. The actual guard is three soldiers. Bandsmen act as medical auxiliaries in time of active service so are certainly not 'a legitimate target', nor was co-located Jewish old peoples home, the catholic middle school, Hambros bank or the passers by all of which would have sustained serious damage by a successful action. From the Bank I only recall seeing bandsmen, and I think the parade was once every two weeks, rather than weekly but in any event it had been postponed due to refurbishment of the pavement outside the Governors residence. --Gibnews (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not really here to score points for the Provisos, just to be clear to on that; my view on Republican militarism are mixed to put it mildly. I was just trying to rectify an obvious oversimplification of the IRA bombing mission discussed in this article. As to the weekly vs. biweekly question I am just using the legal document that was utilized by the original source for this part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marxist-Leninist Papist (talk • contribs) 17:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPG) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mairéad Farrell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070204153946/http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/larkin_pubs/older/motr/motr_all.htm to http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/larkin_pubs/older/motr/motr_all.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mairéad Farrell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://freespace.virgin.net/sean.farrell/Maireed_Farrell.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.coiste.ie/politicaltours/political_tours/ballymurphy/murals.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060110234724/http://www.relativesforjustice.com/victims/mairead_farrell.htm to http://www.relativesforjustice.com/victims/mairead_farrell.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

ECHR Verdict Interpretation

The section regarding the findings of the European Court of Human Rights says in one paragraph that their findings include that the three were “unlawfully killed”, but then below it says again that this was only the interpretation of some sources. The excerpted portion seems to heavily imply as much but stops short of outright saying as much. I’m not positive what should be done but both sentences can’t remain it’s nonsensical. OgamD218 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)