Talk:Sean Murray (Irish republican)

Misleading and concocted information

I removed the claim, inserted by User:Weggie that the subject is a member of the IRA Army Council. The "source" provided by Weggie makes no such allegation; rather it claims that Murray is a member of the IRA General-Headquarters (GHQ) staff. The two bodies are not synonymous.--Damac 15:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference 2

This link doesn't work. Unless someone can provide another one- it should be moved under WP:BLP. Astrotrain 21:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldn't, the publication date and name of the newspaper are provided. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 22:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've axed the useless link. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tabloids are hardly reliable in these cases. Astrotrain 22:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the paper in question, so please don't take anything I've done as endorsement of the cited article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

So let's get this straight shall we....if the link was still active you wouldn't have removed the information claiming WP:BLP, but now you're saying the newspaper is a tabloid and isn't reliable. Would you care to move the goalposts any more? One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of Sunday Life reference

A claim has been made that this is not sufficient for the claim, I dispute this. Although the Sunday Life may have a slightly more feel to it than it's sister newspaper, the Belfast Telegraph, that is no reason to exclude the information in question. If the newspaper had published something along the lines of "Mild mannered painter and decorator is actually IRA boss", and named a previously unknown individual then I would certainly require it to be sourced from somewhere more reliable. However this is not the case with Sean Murray, it is verified from far more reliable sources (and I'm not saying the Sunday Life is unreliable) that he served time in prison for explosives offences, and that he is a member of the IRA Army Council which is actually more controversial than being a member of the GHQ staff. As such I don't believe the information being sourced is that controversial and it is relevant to the article, therefore I cannot see any legitimate reason for its removal. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 16:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, do we have a better source for the fact that he served time for explosives offenses? That seems like it'd be easy to source, and it's better safe than sorry when you're stating that someone is a criminal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Good point, I didn't realise that was sourced by that as well. I'll search now. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a technical point: when you remove a reference, make sure that reference isn't called down the page. If it is, move the tag with all the info down to the next tag using that ref name. You broke the Sunday Times ref when you removed that line pending sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was actually trying to fix that when I realised my mistake, but you got there first and I got edit conflicted. I found this source which confirms the gist of the Sunday Life story, is that sufficient? One Night In Hackney₁₉₁₆ 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[1] More than enough here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

I've re-added the claim, as it can be sourced elsewhere. I'm not sure which other reference to add to support it (if any) as they are on Highbeam, so if anyone wants to add one of those (or the Orange Order one) feel free. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Walk/parade

I think that walk should be changed back to parade, as it more accurately describes the event. The Orange Order, BBC and RTE all use the word parade. Any objections? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)