Talk:Mairéad Farrell

POV issues

There are some balance issues now, with the introduction of the recent material. For example, we quote a number of "independent" witnesses, all of who are highly critical of the apparent judgment. I don't know for sure, but as is the case with these sorts of trials, I'm sure there were other "independent" witnesses who took a very different POV. If we are going to quote what individuals think, then its important for balance that we cover all aspects, not just those that forward one POV. There are also lots of leading statements, for example:

• Through the British legal system, justice was not forthcomming [sic]
• In what was a landmark decision the court found that the three had been unlawfully killed

Finally, the statement: The SAS according to Raymond Murray, author of The SAS in Ireland (1990), has described the SAS as an assassination squad, like the South American death squads, who, acting outside the law, have killed persons when they have had the opportunitie of arresting them. He also says they are well known "for shooting wounded and incapacitated persons lying helpless on the ground is remarkable in the context of the discussion in the section above. Either we do establish wider context, and describe the record and history of the key players, or we do not. The article is not about the SAS, neither is it about McCann and Savage. Most of the material added should really be at Operation Flavius, because its relevance to a bio on Farrell is questionable. Either way, lets keep it balanced people. Rockpocket 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agre with you RockPocket but this is what happens when editors try to push a POV the other side will push back, as I said the editions added by Gibnews are not relevant to this article. BigDunc^Talk 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I too would take Rocks concerns on board, and I'm will to address them in any way deemed necessary. For example, if editors wish to cite alternative witnesses it would help. I don't have any to hand now, if I had I would definitly have included them. I'm more than happy for the Murray statement to be moved, I only added it because of the veiw we should establish a wider context, and describe the record and history of the key players. --Domer48 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ms Farrell is notable primarily because she was shot in Gibraltar, and the article goes into detail about that. When she was shot it was as part of a group and the composition and nature of that group is something that anyone reading the article needs to understand, without whitewashing. --Gibnews (talk)

And they (editors) can follow the wikilinks to the other people involved.BigDunc^Talk 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I altered a few sections as the line "The relatives of McCann, Savage and Farrell found that they were unable to get justice" is complete POV and no better than the previous version. Also stating that it was a landmark verdict is POV. If that is to be reinserted it needs a cite e.g. "it was regarded as a landmark verdict by some commentators" (specify and cite them.) Valenciano (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasnt finished or happy with the rewrite myself and was intending to change thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working on this further. I am still a little concerned with the balance of the inquest section. As it stands, we have one sentence describing the verdict. One suggesting it was as slim as it could be, and the rest of the section is undermining the verdict. Now, I have no knowledge of the case, but I find it hard to believe that the presiding judge didn't at least give some summation that supported the inquest finding. There must have been another side to this expressed. This is brought into focus when we contrast the section with the following one. Here we do quote the judge's summation.

Looking at the title of the major source (State Violence: Northern Ireland 1969-1997) suggests that it is not that Domer is cherry picking the people to quote, but simply that the author of the source is recounting that part of the case that suits his thesis. So there is nothing wrong with this material in isolation, but if we can't find a source for a reasonable counterpoint then I think we have to rework the section to ensure fairness of tone. Rockpocket 22:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just on the two points raised:

• Through the British legal system, justice was not forthcomming [sic]
• In what was a landmark decision the court found that the three had been unlawfully killed

They could be directly attributed to the author, none of the statements were mine, I just changed the order in the sentences. Hope that helps. On the inquest, there is a lot of other material I could add, but decided not to. Petty little things that were done during the trial, like increasing the price of transcripts for the lawyers going from 50p to £5.00 per sheet of paper, or not giving the lawyers access to the evidence files and statements prior to the case being heard. Now if I can find additional statements I will, and a quick look at the book will quickly show that the statements I used were not cherry picked. I would be concerned though with removing the information because editors can't find a source to present a counter point. --Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue here isn't one of presenting alternative views per se but presenting one authors viewpoint as definitive. I've no problem with the statements going in provided that they're explicitly attributed to the author i.e. Raymond Murray criticised the events claiming that 'Through the British legal system, justice was not forthcomming" and Raymond Murray claimed that the verdict was "a landmark decision." Valenciano (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The term 'The British Justice system' is meaningless. The court in question is not in Britain, but in the Gibraltar jurisdiction where the law is based on English law. HMG was not happy about the scale of the inquiry and nor could they do anything about it because they have no control over the justice system. The event cost the Gibraltar tax payer a fortune which we paid, not the UK. However, the details of the inquest are certainly outside the scope of this particular article. Channel 4 did a excellent reconstruction of the inquest according to the court officials who watched it. --Gibnews (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Activation of bomb

However, the arrest-operation that resulted in Farrell and her companions deaths took place on a Sunday-the changing of the guard occurred on Tuesdays, meaning that even if it was a remotely-controlled device it would not have been activated as the arrest happened. pp155-6, Unfinished Business: State Killings and the Quest for Truth, Bill Rolston, ISBN 1900960095

That really is speculation; Nobody apart from the PIRA members knew the contents of the car, and unless he was the bomb maker, Bill Rolston has no way of knowing what state a potential bomb is in. Unless you intend to publish plans of 'IRA Radio Bomb Mk1' showing an activation switch, I suggest you remove that as its fiction. Placing a car on the Sunday is the only way to secure a parking position in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Placing a car on the Sunday is the only way to secure a parking position in Gibraltar. That really is speculation. Nobody apart from the PIRA members knew the contents of the car. That really is speculation. unless he was the bomb maker, Bill Rolston has no way of knowing what state a potential bomb is in. That really is speculation. Provide sourced information which contradict the above referenced text, and not just your speculation. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• Parking in Gibraltar is difficult at the best of times, if you really want to argue about that, I can find references to it in the press. It should have been mentioned in the inquest evidence. The bombers did their research properly in reserving a place on a Sunday when the indigenous car population is lowest. Thats a fact not speculation.

• That the security services did not know what was in the car is recorded in the evidence. Someone walked up to the car to take a look and noted the antenna, not the best job in the world.

• That the author cited is making it up is self evident, unless he was the mysterious fourth terrorist.

This POV quote adds nothing factual to the article. --Gibnews (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Provide sourced information which contradict the above referenced text. That the author cited is making it up is self evident, That really is speculation.--Domer48_'fenian' 13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What evidence is that his OPINION has any substance? What evidence is there that any radio controlled bomb needed to be 'activated' whatever that might mean. I'm not objecting to it for any other reason that its total rubbish. There was no radio controlled bomb found so speculation about how it might have worked is rather like describing the properties of unicorn dropping.--Gibnews (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

His opinion is considered to be both WP:RS and WP:V, and yours is not. I think 'activated' must mean switched on? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Apart from here people seem happy to pay for my opinion :) I don't consider the extract from the book to be trustworthy it expresses an opinion about something that was not there and about which he has no specific information. The EVIDENCE suggests that the security services believed that a radio controlled bomb was in place. It would be reasonable to assume that if a bomb had been delivered it would have been armed (the correct term). If not someone would have to go back later risking being caught, and it going off by accident. These are serious people, not a bunch of amateurs like the current wave of jihadis being arrested in the UK who think you can make a bomb with aluminium foil and oxo. You should not disagree with me just for the sake of it - look at what is being said and consider whether this adds anything of value or is simply a badly informed opinion.

It can all be discredited by sifting through the court transcript, shall we do that? --Gibnews (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It can all be discredited by sifting through the court transcript, shall we do that? That would be called WP:OR I think? Just find a source that contradicts it, and add it? Or find a source that says it is not trustworthy and add that. It would be reasonable to assume has no place in the article I don't think, but that is just me. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, quoting references from the inquest that show the author of an obscure book is expresing his opinion without any substantive factual basis is not original research. No doubt there are several shelves of books published of a similar nature. There certainly are about the Mary Celeste many of which claim all sorts of things imagined by their authors and cited from similar books. I know its true - I read it on the Internet. --Gibnews (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, his book is considered to be both WP:RS and WP:V, I may be wrong. Could you possibly cite a source that says he is the author of an obscure book? I don't think I can be of any more help, other than the suggestions I have already offered. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how being an expert on Irish wall paintings assists in understanding car parking in Gibraltar, terrorism, or bomb making, but thank you as ever for pointing out there is a different way of looking at something obvious. --Gibnews (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Anytime.--Domer48_'fenian' 19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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)