Misplaced Pages

Talk:Mairéad Farrell: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:53, 13 July 2007 editVintagekits (talk | contribs)22,333 edits →Edit warring: r← Previous edit Revision as of 20:54, 13 July 2007 edit undoJohn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers215,646 edits →Edit warring: rNext edit →
Line 505: Line 505:


::::::Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate. --] 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ::::::Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate. --] 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Unfortunately for your POV-pushing endeavours, that is not how we work here. The onus is on the editor wishing to include something to show that it is justified. Good luck. --] 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


== ] == == ] ==

Revision as of 20:54, 13 July 2007

WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconGibraltar Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Gibraltar, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gibraltar and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GibraltarWikipedia:WikiProject GibraltarTemplate:WikiProject GibraltarGibraltar
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Mairéad Farrell received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This WikiProject is believed to be inactive.
Consider looking for related projects for help or ask at the Teahouse.
If you are not currently a project participant and wish to help you may still participate in the project. This status should be changed if collaborative activity resumes.
Wikimedia subject-area collaboration "WP:IR" redirects here. For WikiProject International relations, see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject International relations. For image requests, see Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures. For Misplaced Pages ignore all rules (IAR) policy, see Misplaced Pages:Ignore all rules.
This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate!
Shortcut
Irish Republicanism articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 1 3
GA 1 2 6 3 12
B 12 16 41 27 5 101
C 5 10 53 64 26 158
Start 4 37 170 198 127 536
Stub 1 26 77 29 133
List 1 2 2 10 3 18
NA 1 4 3 204 212
Assessed 24 70 303 382 204 190 1,173
Total 24 70 303 382 204 190 1,173


Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Misplaced Pages's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Misplaced Pages:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

Goals

  • Improve Misplaced Pages'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

To-do list for Mairéad Farrell: edit · history · watch · refresh

To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.

This 'To do' list- has it been updated since 2007? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Armed Campaigns

Republican Wars

Others

Events

Armed Republican Groups

For an organized hierarchial chart, see Genealogy of the IRA

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

Later IRA

Other

Participants

This user is a member of WikiProject Irish Republicanism.

Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest

  1. Paddytheceltic (talk · contribs) Protestant Nationalists, Militant oganisations, Political Organizations and others..
  2. Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) Militant Armed Irish Republican organizations. Gaelic.
  3. Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) I've been working on some of the articles about women in the Easter Rising.
  4. Pauric (talk · contribs) Too much to mention
  5. Derry Boi (talk · contribs) Interested in all areas of republicanism really.
  6. One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Bit of everything
  7. Irish Republican (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism 1798-Present
  8. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present with more focus on the history of the Provisionals
  9. Phoblacht (talk · contribs) Republican Newspapers from 1790’s to Present.
  10. 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.
  11. Leopold III (talk · contribs) The leaders in the period from the Easter Rising to the end of the Civil War.
  12. Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) Learning more and helping where I can.
  13. Scolaire (talk · contribs) 20th century history, especially the 1913-1922 period
  14. Sheehan07 (talk · contribs) Love Irish History
  15. Sbfenian1916 (talk · contribs) Love Irish Republicansim, hate Unionism.
  16. United and Free (talk · contribs)- PIRA history and operations
  17. Fluffy999 (talk · contribs) Inter(world)war republican activities. Internment and extra judicial activities surrounding Irish Republicanism.
  18. Free Scotland, Unite Ireland (talk · contribs) Interested in post- St Andrews agreement Republicanism.
  19. Diarmaid (talk · contribs) Six county sovereignty
  20. Domer48 (talk · contribs) Period covered by the Irish Confederation (Young Ireland)
  21. Conghaileach (talk · contribs) Special interest in left-republican history
  22. Max rspct (talk · contribs) PIRA;INLA; civil war era; 70s 80s 90s; links/solidarity abroad;
  23. Carrignafoy (talk · contribs) War of Independence and Civil War (especially in Cork) also development of Official Sinn Féin and its successors.
  24. Brixton Busters (talk · contribs)
  25. BigDunc (talk · contribs)
  26. Ró2000 (talk • contribs) Tá suim mhór agam i stair náisiúnta na hÉireann, neamhspleach go háirithe!!
  27. quirk666 (talk · contribs) Republicanism 1798-present. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
  28. gavcos (talk · contribs) Old IRA, War of Independence, Civil War
  29. ElementalEternity (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Irish history and republicanism in general.
  30. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  31. Moz1916 (talk · contribs) All Irish history, especially 1903-1932
  32. Princess Pea Face (talk · contribs) Ireland pure and simple
  33. Barryob (talk · contribs)
  34. NIscroll (talk · contribs) --NIscroll (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
  35. RSFRuairi (talk · contribs) Anything really.
  36. Gr8opinionater (talk · contribs) 1:10 July 27 2008 (GMT), Interested in Irish nationalism in general particularly from a Political and historical point of view.
  37. Lihaas (talk · contribs) open to much
  38. EoinBach (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism in general from an academic point of view
  39. Gerard Madden (talk · contribs)
  40. SPARTAN-J024 (talk · contribs) I have ties to the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence
  41. NewIreland2009 (talk) The 1912-1924 period, with a particular passion for challenging popular myths of the period.
  42. Dribblingscribe (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  43. Tippsno1fan (talk · contribs) Tá an-spéis agam ann
  44. Gallagher-Glass (talk · contribs) General interest.
  45. Fallduff (talk · contribs) National Archives, Dublin and Na Fianna Éireann, pre Northern Troubles
  46. Mabuska (talk · contribs) maintaining neutrality and verifiability
  47. Nicholas Urquhart (talk · contribs) military operations of the "New IRAs": the Provos, the Reals and even OnH, the Official and Continuity IRA.
  48. You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) 32 CSM
  49. Finnegas (talk · contribs)
  50. Sittingonthefence (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism as a philosophy. 1916 and War of Independence combatants.
  51. High_Noonan (talk · contribs) Tom Hunter, 1916, War of Independence
  52. Antiqueight (talk · contribs) Women involved in 1916 or similar.
  53. AusLondonder (talk · contribs) General matters.
  54. Tdv123 (talk · contribs) PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, ICA, IVF, SE, CRF, SARAF, PLA
  55. Irishpolitical (talk · contribs) Traditionalist Republicanism and Nationalism. Dissenting republicans post GFA. Anti-communist Republicanism.
  56. CnocBride (talk · contribs) All Irish history, though my favourite time period would be the vast 1800–2011 period.
  57. KINGHB190 (talk · contribs) A Corkonian with ancestry in the original Irish Republican Army.
  58. Endersslay (talk · contribs) Enjoy Irish republican music and history.
  59. R0paire-wiki (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present, with particular focus on Socialist Republicanism.

Userbox

Feel free to place {{User WP:IR}} on your User page to advertise our WikiProject!

Articles

Featured content

Candidates

Good articles

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

Articles in Preparation

New articles

Belfast Pogrom

1923 Irish Hunger Strikes

Richard Goss (Irish Republican)

Joseph Whitty

Thomas Harte (Irish republican)

Patrick McGrath (Irish republican)

Jack McNeela

Seamus Woods

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

Peer review
Assessment / Project's Assessment page

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.

Armed Republican groups in Ireland
   

Earlier organisations

Easter Rising

Irish War of Independence

Irish Civil War

The Troubles

Dissident Campaign

To use the following template, simply put {{NIPP}} at the bottom of an article.

Steps in the Northern Ireland peace process

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.

WikiProject iconIrish republicanism Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Categories

Regular cats

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

Use of "terrorist"

Misplaced Pages 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:


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: " 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 Misplaced Pages 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

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

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: Misplaced Pages: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)

Vintagekits: People read Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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))
Quite the contrary. I think you should be the one to apologise; I don't know whether you said it unwittingly, but calling Gibraltarians English-speaking Spaniards is a as Gibnews said, a racist insult. Chris Buttigieg 13:44, 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))
Perhaps you could spend a few minutes reading Gibraltar where you would find the official language is English. You would also learn that Gibraltar is not in Spain, and why saying that is offensive. --Gibnews 09:47, 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))
This is a page to discuss a particular article. You just need to know that it is offensive and incorrect to refer to Gibraltar as part of Spain, and there is more chance of a Ireland becoming part of the United Kingdom again. --Gibnews 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you may have just skimmed through the article becuase your facts are totally wrong. Chris Buttigieg 13:38, 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))
To establish the introduction to the article, one source would be enough, the point about the Gibraltar Chronicle is that having been long established, it has a well established reputation and is internationally regarded as reporting accurately. By contrast the other source is not available to check, and previous editors removed what the purpose of the PIRA operation was in Gibraltar, presumably because it does not mention it, which the Chronicle certainly does from day one. Being a cautious reporter, it also does not induge in the excesses that some of the UK newspapers did in reporting the success of preventing an outrage. --Gibnews 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. To help improve Articles, Misplaced Pages 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)

Bit of a tangent here but any chance of a link/scan of the article in question. LexisNexis has no record of this Gibraltar Chronicle.GiollaUidir 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

POW Tag

Image:Victory To the Prisoners Poster.JPG

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)
"Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV," for a start is a none runner. The logic employed in the statement "is no good for Misplaced Pages." The same could be said then of any source. Could I suggest you read the article 1981 Irish Hunger Strike. You have heard of it I assume. That should inform your opinion. If you wish to increase your understanding, most if not all books on the subject mention the subject. Although, as an Irish wikipedian based on the logic above I'm inherently POV motivated and biased at a genetic level and therefore allowances should be made for this defect.--Domer48 13:59, 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)

Image:Remember the POW's CD.JPG

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)
Don't think that has ever happened....and I am not charging at that little red flag you are waving! (Sarah777 14:38, 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)

They were granted special category status but were never granted POW status. --John 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The difference being? They regarded themselves as POW’s. They regarded themselves as an army. John you are just as much a protagonist in this discussion as anyone. You have allowed a comment like “What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Misplaced Pages,” without comment. You have ignored this comment and this on your own user page . Now I’m requesting that you have a none biased admin review this article, as your contrabuting to it is untenable. --Domer48 14:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
You can request any of our 1000 admins for help any time you like, I already showed you the list of their names. Please correct your mistake above; I did respond to your message on my talk page. Your perception of my "bias" means very little to me at this point. Please try to follow our policies towards improving the article. Thanks. --John 14:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At the end of the day, the simple fact is that categorising them as prisoners of war implies a moral judgment; and if one party can effectively attach the label to a group, then it has indirectly influenced others to adopt its moral standpoint. Chris Buttigieg 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see why it is so difficult to remove pro-British bias from these sorts of articles. Chris, in response to my objecting to you appearing to dismiss "Irish sources" per se; you replied - "What I mean to say is that an Irish source is naturally going to bear an Irish POV and this is no good for Misplaced Pages."
Does it therefore follow that "a British source is naturally going to bear a British POV and this is no good for Misplaced Pages."
So what sources can we accept: the view from Mars? (Sarah777 14:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
The view from Gibraltar is pretty neutral. --Gibnews 15:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
John I do not misunderstand the role of an administrator. Administrators apart from anything else are also editors. Now an administrator who is editing an article and involved in a discussion could hardly be described as unbiased. What I am saying though, as an administrator, you do not abdicate your responsibilities as such, when you see behaviour which is not appropriate being conducted on an article. In addition, any decisions you make with regard this article, and this discussion will be as an editor, and any views you may have will be seen as such, including the inappropriateness of removing categories which you disagree with.

I hope that clarifies things for you. Your opinions means very little to me at this point. Please try to follow our policies towards improving the article. Thanks--Domer48 16:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The definition on the Prisoner of War page is "A prisoner of war (POW, PoW, or PW) is a combatant who is imprisoned by an enemy power during or immediately after an armed conflict." Farrell et al were imprisoned as combatants during the course of the armed conflict in Ireland.

Keeping both PoW and People Convicted of Terrorism tags should surely satisfy both sides??GiollaUidir 18:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I will also compromise to either the removal or inclusion of both as there should be some sort of parity.--Vintagekits 18:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
As will I. --Domer48 20:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And, that is exactly the point I was making...somewhere else. Both or neither. (Sarah777 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

That Ms Farrell was convicted of terrorism is a matter of public record, and part of her claim to notability. The claim that she was a PoW is wishful thinking with no official recognition. I suggest we leave it as it was. --Gibnews 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

"no official recognition" - who's recognition is offical and who isnt? They were offical classed as prisoners of war by the republican movement and the republican movement doesnt recognise the officaldom of the foriegn occupiers. So whats your point?--Vintagekits 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
A better solution would be to remove both tags. According to the article Farrell was convicted of explosive offences - that is fact - but whether or not she was a terrorist is subjective. As for the POW tag, the 'Republican view' is clearly that she was a POW, the 'British view' is clearly that she was not a POW but a criminal. To give her the POW tag is to endorse the 'Republican view', and to violate NPOV.--Hegertor 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree with removing BOTH tags (Sarah777 03:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
See Talk:Michael Gaughan (Irish republican)#POW status where User:Rockpocket makes the seemingly reasonable suggestion that we use Category:People convicted on terrorism charges instead.--John 23:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I dont find a reasonable suggestion or an equitable solution. What remove them as Prisoners of War and categorise them as terrorists? No.--Vintagekits 23:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to point out that the category Category:People convicted on terrorism charges isn't actually categorising anybody as a terrorist per se, its actually just stating that so-and-so person has been convicted of charges relating to terrorism in a court of law. This is a clearly verifiable and well defined fact. Claiming however that a member of the IRA in prison is a POW is neither clearly defined or conclusively verifiable. The best compromise would probably be to keep the people in question in the "convicted of terrorism" category (because, like it or not, they were convicted on terrorist charges) and to create a sub-category: Category:Imprisioned IRA members (or some such title) which could then be added to Category:Prisoners of war and any other pertinent categories. This would certainly reduce (if not fully halt) the furore over this and would clean up the POW category, which has become very overbalanced with the sudden addition of dozens of IRA members (the reason I ended up here in the first place).--Jackyd101 00:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Excellent suggestion. --John 00:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually not a very useful suggestion as it merely facilitates British bias. As explained by V-kits and myself. We must keep BOTH tags, or remove both. (Sarah777 03:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

(deindent)They were convicted under British law, like it or not. And this category is verifiable and NPOV, unlike the other two. --John 05:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly possible for the suggested new category to also be a subcategory of Category:People convicted on terrorism charges, so that the category is not present on every IRA member's page. I'm also well aware that Ms. Sarah777, Mr. Vintagekits and other members of WP:IRA do not regard the British government's decisions as legitimate and thus do not recognise their legal system. You are free to believe this, but such beliefs have absolutely no place on Misplaced Pages, which does recognise the legitimacy of the British government. This does not mean that government sources should be presented unquestioned, but it does mean that decisions made by the government are regarded as legitimate in the eyes of Misplaced Pages and your personal belief that it is not legitimate is irrelevant.
Your demand that both tags are kept or neither are is not a compromise, nor is it an accurate reflection of fact or a legitimate argument position. Misplaced Pages relies on verifiability, not "truth", particulaly not in the case of The Troubles where many people have different versions of what constitutes truth. It is however an undeniable fact that these people (whether terrorist or not), were convicted under anti-terrorism legislation by a sovereign government. The statement that they were prisoners of war is only an opinion, and a controversial one at that (by the way, the Guildford Four's convictions were quashed so they are no longer convicted).
Despite your insistance, this is not an example of pro-British bias because (unless you can provide a source to contradict me) no sovereign government or reliable media outlet worldwide has given these men the status of POWs. How they regarded themselves is irrelevant, how they were seen by the rest of the world (i.e. not necessarily in Britain) is the most important indicator.--Jackyd101 09:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Republicans, however, as a point of principle, never accepted criminal status and always referred to themselves as political prisoners, or prisoners of war (POWs). In keeping with their demands for POW status, generations of IRA prisoners referred to their jail as a ‘prisoner of war camp’. Thus they had a Camp staff and Gamp council." Brendan Anderson, Joe Cahill A Life in the IRA, O’Brien Press, Dublin, 2002, ISBN 0-86278-674-6, Pg 73.--Domer48 10:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
This doesn't answer my question. It is already established that Republicans prisoners viewed themselves as POWs. My question is: Did/does anybody else? Joshua A. Norton said he was emperor of the United States but that didn't make it so. Also, what is wrong with Category:Imprisoned IRA members as a subcat of both "convicted of terrorism charges" and "prisoners of war"? Does anybody object to that as a compromise?--Jackyd101 10:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Good idea but there are a couple of problems I can see with that. The main one is that there have been several organisations called the IRA and it might be misleading to lump them together like that. --John 14:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What about Cat: Political Prisoners? They were politically motivated, i.e. in conflict with the British Government. We could call them Prisoners of Westminster, abbreviated PoW. --Domer48 15:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
They were prisoners captured in the course of an armed conflict (more commonly called a "war" in the common parlance) and imprisoned for their actions in the war. Why not just stick with both or neither Category rather than fudging it?
Also, while it is true that Ms Farrell was captured after the attack on the hotel and was not on armed service at that particular moment, as per Protocol I, Article 44, 3(b),4 and 5 she is still entitled to PoW status under the Geneva Conventions.GiollaUidir 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Lynndie England was also imprisoned during an armed conflict she was involved in, yet her article does not belong to the category. Do you feel that it should? --John 16:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you're deliberately misrepresenting my point. Members of the IRA were captured by enemy forces and imprisoned by them; Ms England was a war criminal tried by her own side. It would be reasonable to categorise Jessica Lynch as one though, as indeed, she is.GiollaUidir 16:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As indeed she should be. My point was that being imprisoned while fighting a war does not automatically entitle you to the status of PoW. More importantly, in the real world IRA prisoners were not treated as PoWs but held in ordinary jails, albeit under special conditions. However much you or I think they were entitled to this status, we have to reflect and report the world as it is and not as we think it should be. Frankly, and I hope I won't offend you by saying this, this is the sort of dispute that makes people ridicule Misplaced Pages. I wish we could move on from it; a perfectly good compromise has been proposed that we should all be able to live with. --John 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello GiollaUidir, my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek . I thought my edit summary made the same point as you did. --Domer48 16:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"They were granted special category status but were never granted POW status. --John 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)" This is just a play on words. Political Status/ special category /POW. --Domer48 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be wonderful if we could discuss sincerely here how we can improve the article rather than making these kind of barbed wee jokes though. --John 17:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And with that thought in mind, going to other articles to create the same discussion is considered what? --Domer48 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In the real world what happened was men and women were denied a status that they were entitled to due to the British government riding roughshod over international law. Have a read over the articles about the Geneva Convention and subsequent Protocols, esp the ones linked to above.GiollaUidir 17:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
You have just undermined your entire argument. By saying that IRA prisoners were denied their status as Prisoners of War under the Geneva Convention, you have tacitly admitted that they were not Prisoners of War. Nobody as yet has provided a reliable, neutral source which agrees with the Irish Republican POV that IRA prisoners were legally prisoners of war. Until somebody does that, the prisoner of war category is both POV and incorrect. I still fail to see the problem with the compromise I suggested above.--Jackyd101 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Many were also denied their human rights, does that mean they weren't human also?? See below for source: (GiollaUidir 17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

"3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

( a ) During each military engagement, and

( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities." -From Protocol I of the Geneva Convention

  • Again, though, you are arguing that according to you they ought to have been accorded this status. In point of fact they were not. --John 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Infact, just re-read Section four of the above excerpt, "in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed". It's pretty unambiguous and allows use of both POW and "Persons convicted of terrorism" cats.GiollaUidir 17:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Arguing that they should have recieved prisoner of war status is irrelevant. The fact is that the imprisoning government (the British) did not class them as prisoners of war under the Geneva convention and no major news organisation or foreign government (including the Republic of Ireland, the USA or the UN) has made any statment so far uncovered which indicates a belief that they should have been prisoners of war. Quoting the Geneva convention is only relevant if it actually applies, which it does not here because the British government chose not to apply it.--Jackyd101 17:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a bit rich to expect the occupying forces to suddenly change 350 years of precedent during the latest revolt against their presence. There is nothing in the convention about whether status is dependent on the occupying forces deciding to apply the provisions or not. GiollaUidir 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
"Occupying forces" has nothing to do with it. The convention is self-enforced. If a government refuses to apply it and instead treats the irregular fighters as criminals or terrorists (as the British so chose during The Troubles) then it does not apply and the people it concerns are not legally prisoners of war under its juristicition. Attempting to retroactively apply it here is at best OR. I say again: Please provide a reliable and neutral secondary source which descibes IRA prisoners as "Prisoners of war" and then there can be a proper debate. Until then, this entire discussion is moot.--Jackyd101 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jacky. In the absence of any such source, use of the term POW to describe people who were not treated as such would be OR. See also User talk:John#POW category where Sarah777 and I have been discussing this matter. --John 19:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

Editors are continuing to change the POW cat’s on other articles despite me directing them here. As I did with John. If I keep reverting and directing them here will I be blocked? --Domer48 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Edit-warring is bad, and there is no provision for being "right". Better to discuss here than to revert others' good faith edits. --John 17:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you aren't actually engaged in an edit war then, no. If someone wants to break 3RR then leave them to it. However, it's all moot as they'll all be changed one way or the other one this discussion runs it's course. GiollaUidir 18:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
3RR specifically says you do not need to make 4 reverts to be blocked for edit-warring. Just a word to the wise. --John 18:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed Bobby Sands from Category:Prisoners of war. This edit was reverted and in the edit summary it said to mention it here. Sands was never a POW; a Prisoner of war is a soldier who is captured in enemy territory during a war, in the uniform of their military and detained without trial in a POW camp under the Geneva convention until the war ends. Bobby Sands was put on trial and convicted of possession of firearms and sentenced to 14 years in jail. Under every convention and international standard, he was a convicted criminal and not a POW. Only a small number of Republicans in Northern Ireland consider those imprisoned during the troubles to be POWs and it is Misplaced Pages policy to have a neutral view. Therefore, under WP:POV, no member of the Provisional IRA who was imprisoned during that time should be in Category:Prisoners of war. --Philip Stevens 20:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
During Bobby Sands Election as an MP, he recived over 30,000 votes. This was as a Political Prisoner. --Domer48 20:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
A Political prisoner is someone who is imprisoned because of their beliefs and/or political views. As I've already said, Sands was imprisoned for possession of firearms, no other reason. And even if he was a Political Prisoner, why would that make him a POW? --Philip Stevens 20:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I am going to revert the removal of the category until it is sorted out fully. Philip Stevens, should not have taken it upon himself to remove the category at this stage.--Vintagekits 20:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
And nor should you take it upon yourself to replace them. This is edit-warring. --John 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Its hardly edit warring when I have informed everyone here, we all know you support his move, however, this is still being discussed and he had no business removing it. I agreed with Stu not to add the POW cat to anymore articles until the issue is sorted, that was on the proviso that they remained there until this was sorted.--Vintagekits 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain what you mean and how this is relevant? --John 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
His candidature was as a POW. His aims to have political status returned to the prisoners. They got their five demands! He was a POW. --Domer48 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That's an opinion that few outside the Republican movement share and so it is against WP:POV. I know feelings run high on this topic but you must follow Misplaced Pages policy. --Philip Stevens 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were POWs and I will believe you. Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate. --John 20:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Show me a non-partisan reliable source which states they were not POWs.Until then, your repeated assertions will add little value to the debate. --Domer48 20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Unfortunately for your POV-pushing endeavours, that is not how we work here. The onus is on the editor wishing to include something to show that it is justified. Good luck. --John 20:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Free the POW's Mural Belfast.JPG

Does anyone think this image is even slightly encyclopedic? Grainy, poor colour, and with a slogan and a legend on it. I would also be interested to know its copyright status, but my main point is it's of dreadful quality to illustrate an encyclopedia article. If someone could make a free high-quality version I think it would be a fine addition to the article, but this version doesn't cut it. --John 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No.--Vintagekits 23:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad you agree. Anyone think we should keep it? It'll likely be deleted soon anyway. Ideally, as I say, someone could take or find a free version for us.--John 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's better than the picture of MF; looks like a mugshot on a bad hair day. (No offense intended) (Sarah777 03:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC))
I have no problem either way. --Domer48 07:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If grafiti is adequate proof of something for Misplaced Pages, we could include some pictures of Gibraltar walls. --Gibnews 08:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It's a mural not graffiti.GiollaUidir 16:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah but there is a thin line between them ... __Gibnews 17:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

John imposing English claims as facts

John, please dont impose English claims as facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donnchadh (talk • contribs)

All right. Please don't undo constructive changes to the article in pursuance of a narrowly nationalistic POV and we'll be fine. --John 13:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough

Fair enough but please amend narrow English POV claims presented as facts.

--Donnchadh 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts, my lawyer tells me are things which can be established, opinions may vary. --Gibnews 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:Mairéad Farrell: Difference between revisions Add topic