Talk:Mairéad Farrell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Use of "terrorist"

Wikipedia has a policy of not using the term "terrorist" in any article other than the terrorism article.GiollaUidir 16:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

cf. Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GiollaUidir (talk • contribs) 13:34, 16 August 2007 (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) 03:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The shooting was not at the border. --Gibnews 19:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

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 Weggie (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For beatings and harrassment: [1]

• Abusive Guards: [2]
• Gauntlet: British Criminology Conference—Preceding unsigned comment added by GiollaUidir (talk • contribs)

The first source is not neutral and can only labelled as POV if added to the article. The second source with quote 'Gauntlet' is about the Maze and doesn't discuss conditions in Armagh. In any event the underlying cause of the dirty protest was the clampdown on the display of paramilitary regalia (as suggested by the INLA website link you kindly provided). Wiki guidelines state that any editor can remove unsourced material, so I suggest this is revisited. Weggie 22:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal

This needs a source

Do not stand at my grave and weep,

I am not there I do not sleep,

Do not stand at my grave and cry,

When Ireland lives I do not die.

A woman's place is not at home,

The fight for freedom it still goes on,

I took up my gun until freedoms day,

I pledged to fight for the I.R.A.

In Armagh jail I served my time,

Strip searches were a British crime,

Degraded me but they could not see,

I'd suffer this to see Ireland free.

Gibraltar was the place I died,

McCann and Savage were by my side,

I heard the order so loud and shrill,

Of Thatchers voice, said shoot to kill.

Do not stand at my grave and weep,

I am not there I do not sleep,

Do not stand at my grave and cry,

When Ireland lives I do not die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weggie (talk • contribs) 09:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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))

Why has this been removed? It is a well known song about Mairead Farrell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.20.172.170 (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It needs to be referenced; it could be your own work or it might be copyright; without a reference nobody can tell. And John reckons songs are not encyclopedic. That's another problem 'cos he may be right; though like St Thomas I'd like to see what authority he is relying on for that opinion. Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2008 (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 10:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.87.139 (talk) 21:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A military band is part of the army, and as such a military target. They perform vital functions such as encouraging people to enlist. Running the risk of getting killed is part of the deal of every member of a military organisation, even band members. A strike against them could mean that many people do not become soldiers, and thus in the long run save lives, as well as being a sound military strategy. You may not be on the same side, but you cannot fault the reasoning or correctness of the attack. Terrorism is not a suitable description of the event. 217.31.178.94 (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a debate. However, the ECHR consider it was a terrorist attack and that is shown where appropriate and that, unlike editors's opinion is what matters here. --Gibnews (talk) 11:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The term 'active service' is quite clear, the word 'terrorist' is only appropriate when its a direct quote, rather than an expression of (your) opinion. The page needs to be factual and avoid emotional references to murdering bastards gunned down by the evil British imperialist Thatcher.

--Gibnews 09:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above statement: "The term 'active service' is quite clear". The term 'active service' is not at all clear. Who or what was Mairéad Farrell serving besides a proscribed terrorist organisation (the Provisional IRA)?

Indeed, I quite agree that articles must be impartial, accurate and above all, factual. In this instance, the rest of the article supports the use of the word 'terrorist'! It clearly states: "[The European Court of Human Rights] also ruled that the three had been engaged in an act of terrorism". Is it unreasonable then, to call Mairéad Farrell a terrorist? A vehicle in her charge was discovered with 150 lbs of Semtex and 200 rounds being used as improvised shrapnel!

The use of the word 'terrorist' is not 'my opinion' as the above user suggests. Far from being my opinion alone, this view was upheld by the ECHR! She was also a member of a Proscribed Terrorist Organisation (The PIRA is described as a terrorist organisation by the governments of the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, Germany and Italy).

I was not aware of the Wikipedia policy on the use of the word 'terrorist'. However, I maintain that the subtitles 'First Term of Active Service(1975-1976)' and 'Second Period of Active Service (1986-1988)' are both misleading and terminologically specious.

They beg the question, 'active service to whom?'. Since the Provisional IRA is not a legitimate or legal force, the subheadings I mention above must be changed. My suggestion is; 'First Term of Paramilitary Activity'.

--unsigned by 82.39.87.139 cable.ubr03.jarr.blueyonder.co.uk

Any semi-intelligent reader should be able to infer with whom her period of "active service" was with. I see no reason to change it to "terrorist" or "paramilitary".GiollaUidir 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It was significant that the IRA announced its people were on 'active service' although nobody has suggested they were on holiday in Spain and popped over the border for some cheap whisky. Their target was soldiers armed only with with brass instruments. However, although it was and remains quite legal to shoot terrorists in Gibraltar, that the IRA was a proscribed organisation is debatable. Lets keep things factual and not insert emotional language for the sake of it. --Gibnews

Where the SAS actually sent to prevent the bombing or just to murder these three volunteers. BigDunc 14:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a point. The IRA were not only targetting a military band, but also civilians. Many friends, relatives, and tourists would have been in attendance at the band's performance. The IRA targetted a similar band in Eniskillen a year previously killing mainly civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remembrance_Day_bombing. Those 3 knew a similar attack would do the same. They were just casing the place for attack, using the empty car parked near the bandstand to test the security precautions, and a large amount of Semtex was found in a 2nd car m its keys being found on the body of one of the IRA men. These people are not heroes or freedom fighters, they do not represent Irish people and they have no useful place in our society. If they were genuine freedom fighters they would attempt to occupy public building and exclusively target military and security targets, not civilians, and i also believe shooting a British army soldier is murder, especially when there were constitutional means of achieving their aims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.193.42 (talk) 19:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

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 08:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Being Objective

(Note: it seems the dissenting editor has chosen to remove replies from this thread making it look like a one sided rant, the replies can be deduced from the answers) --Gibnews 07:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to introduce the term 'Volounteer' as these groups are unofficial organisations which cannot employ conscription - the only point seems to glorify the participants rather than objectivly describing their actions and those of the security services. If that stands, then it is necessary to introduce some wording to balance it pointing out that the PIRA is a proscribed terrorist organisation and in keeping with the policy of not using the T-word the term is 'Illegal paramilitary group' which is less emotive and totally accurate. --Gibnews

That is exactly the point, you are trying to promote a POV that she was in a military organisation.

The PIRA is not a legitimate military force its a proscribed paramilitary organisation. In practice it does not matter whether people attempt blow up kids for money or at no charge, its still wrong. Fancy titles and language do not legitimise such things. --Gibnews

So is the fact that its a proscribed paramilitary organisation and that its members came to Gibraltar to engage in an act of terrorism, or are you suggesting they came here to feed the monkeys ?

The target was the area where the band (armed with dangerous musical instruments) assembled in front of Bishop Fitzgerald middle school. If you want names, write and ask for a class list at the time. In relation to 'research' I've looked at things carefully, interviewed witnesses and people who would not talk openly about what happened. I've made measurments and know a lot more about the event than most, and was there at the time, so would like to keep this entry factual and balanced.

No, they were not murdered.

I have no liking for foreigners who come to my country to murder me and my fellow Gibraltarians. Their shooting was totally legal, and remains so, visitors take note. --Gibnews 11:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The British army came to Gibraltar in 1704, and have defended us against the Spanish and more recently visiting Argentine and Irish terrorists, we don't seem to have a problem with them. Locally catholics, protestants, jews and arabs seem to get on fine. Perhaps if you thought about the future a bit more instead of the past you might too. Whatever, the tactic of going abroad to blow up kids in the road is not going to advance any causes, bring you any credit, or make friends. Neither is glorifying it. --Gibnews 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And yet everything I have said is true and verifiable. --Gibnews

• We're discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) currently. Demiurge 22:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Could I suggest that the word Volunteer and the section about the PIRA being an illegal organisation are removed from the introduction. The convention/MOS for the word Volunteer and IRA ranking system are not yet finalised so this revert war could go on until such times as a policy is decided on.

By all means link to the Volunteer (republican) article at other points in this article where the word is used in the appropriate context but leave the into as it was before the current controversy started.GiollaUidir 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree and will not edit this page until the issue is ironed out. One thing I would say it that it is not a rank per se but the official title given to all members irrespective of their position within the organisation. For example one could be the Quarter Master General and still be a Volunteer, in other words a member always retains the title of Volunteer. Beaumontproject 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• I agree too, however, dressing up criminal activity on my streets in the guise of 'military action' and giving terrorists fancy titles is offensive. --Gibnews
  • I think you are getting this article mixed up with one about the British Army Beaumontproject 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think the British army did this. --Gibnews

• Children, this is neither the time nor the place for this debate.GiollaUidir 22:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Some thoughts

I've spent some time adding and re-ordering things on this page; however I begin to wonder whether its strayed from the point of being an article about a person to one describing an event. As its now more thorough than the one about Operation Flavius or that TV documentary.

There is also a lack of a Gibraltar perspective on the event, thankfully unlike the USA or IRAQ its not everyday that people get shot on our streets, indeed this was the only occasion. Somewhere I have the newspapers of the day filed and will pull them out and review them.

However there is a reasonable balance at present and the existing content should not be lost in an attempt to push any particular POV.

--Gibnews 09:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it has grown pretty quickly but is still readable and generally accurate. :) If anyone has any time to do some serious improving of the article then the old peer review has plenty to be getting on with: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mairéad Farrell/archive1. 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 Wikipedia to be informed and that is why we write things; The ONLY reason Ms Farrell merits an entry here is that she was killed whilst planting a bomb. Thats why its in the introduction. Its more important than who shot her. Take some time to reflect and because others do not agree with your POV does not mean we cannot be objective - and thats whats needed to write good articles. --Gibnews 15:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Gibnews, I know you focus almost soley on Gibraltar issue but to say something like "The ONLY reason Ms Farrell merits an entry here is that she was killed whilst planting a bomb" pretty much just shows your ignorance on the issue--Vintagekits 18:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

For all I know she was kind to animals. pressed flowers and her mother loved her - none of these things merit an entry in Wikipedia. However the reason she has prominence is because she was shot in Gibraltar, and that is directly due to her being here to plant a bomb. You seem to have a different view of reality which not good for anyone, especially yourself. That anyone is shot is a tragedy, that anyone feels the need to blow up bandsmen as a political act is worse and totally ineffective. Unlike Detroit, people getting shot on the street here is a very rare event and something we would rather had not happened, but to quote the conclusion of the dissenting justices of the ECHR

We consider that the use of lethal force in this case, however regrettable the need to resort to such force may be, did not exceed what was, in the circumstances as known at the time, "absolutely necessary" for that purpose and did not amount to a breach by the United Kingdom of its obligations under the Convention.

The inquest cost the Gibraltar taxpayer around 300,000 pounds, and the publicity was not positive. That, however, was cheap compared to the cost of the alternative, and people need to know what that was and it should not be whitewashed away.

As for 'ignorance of the issue' you were probably not even born at the time of the incident. I was on the spot.

--Gibnews 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Early Life Section

The only reference is a blog which does not meet wiki standards for references (reputable source). Also, Bobby Storey, a living person seems to be accused of a criminal offence. Is this libel? Weggie 17:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a blog. Good point, re Bobby Storey, I'll check it out.GiollaUidir 18:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, its not a blog from what I can see, looks like a webpage dedicated to people called Farrell.--Vintagekits 19:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No Revisionism

There is NO dispute on why an PIRA cell were in Gibraltar, at the time the IRA stated they were on 'active service' - the inquest ruled they were lawfully killed whist in the process of planting a bomb and the ECHR review concluded they were engaging in an act of terrorism. Now is not a time to engage in revisionism and denial of purpose. The ECHR by a small majority critisised the UK for the use of lethal force to resolve the situation, but apart from that ruled that there was no doubt as to the purpose of the mission which thankfully failed.

Lets record what happened.

--Gibnews 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Volunteers required

Without wishing to get into a dispute over pseudo-military ranks, the following could be worded better: This required a large number of volunteers, so younger members such as Mairéad were required to participate.

--Gibnews 20:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Purpose

The purpose of operation Flavius was to prevent the bombing of the military band and the purpose of the PIRA cell in Gibraltar, was to place a bomb in a public place to effect that. Hiding that is a distortion of both the official IRA statement that they were on 'active service' and the inquest verdict.

Its highly regretable that people are shot on our streets, and unlike some places, its not an everyday occurance. Indeed nobody has been shot since - but although there is no crime of 'being Irish in Gibraltar' it remains the position that terrorists can, and will be shot. Although we do not anticipate any more visits from Ireland, due to the proximity to North Africa there are new threats.

One of the NYT articles cited says that the position with Britain is complicated because it does not have a written constitution - this is sloppy journalism because Gibraltar has one and despite a subsequent version, the section which deals with this incident remains 'as was'.

--Gibnews 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Could editors please reference statements or cite sources. Regards--Domer48 09:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't intend to claim that writing on a wall is a reasonable source! --Gibnews 18:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This article used to have NPOV sources, but I see a number of them have been replaced with rather suspicious ones. The best source is the ECHR judgement as they review the evidence presented at the inquest. The inquest was the subject of a film by UK Channel four, which the court officials assure me was the closest thing to actually being there. It was aired and is available on DVD. Of course there is a cynical view that everyone lied in court.

One of the references that seems to have gone is

"Fatal Encounter"

The story of the Gibraltar killings

by Nicholas Eckert

288 pages, 7 B&W photographs, diagrams of Gibraltar and Andytown

published by Poolbeg press, Ireland 1999

ISBN 1 85371 837 8

The author is neutral, he was picked up by Special Branch on arrival in Gibraltar, and treated with equal suspicion in Ireland.

--Gibnews 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I have no idea what 'Tírghrá' might be but it sounds like a dubious foreign language source. By contrast the Gibraltar Chronicle is a respectable English language daily newspaper; however as some editors keep deleting the statement about the purpose of the attack, then I assume that reference does not say what Ms Farrell and associates were in Gibraltar for wheras the Chronicle article certainly does. --Gibnews 22:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources in languages other than English. An English-language source is preferred, but only because English is our common language here, not because English is more "respectable" or foreign language (actually it sounds funny to me to call Irish a foreign language as it is spoken in parts of the UK) sources are "dubious". It's just easier for us and our readers to use English sources. Please be careful of people's sensibilities when you talk about their sources. --John 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

John "it sounds funny to me to call Irish a foreign language as it is spoken in parts of the UK". Odd, that. Think Chinese, Polish..what does it mean? The notion that EN:Wiki gives any special credibility to things written in English, never mind languages spoken in the UK, is bizarre, and goes counter to various Wiki polices on avoiding Anglo-centric bias. The notion that an English-speaking Spaniard (I recognise Spain's claim to Gib) should regard something written in Irish as "dubious" is risible. (Sarah777 00:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Please refrain from racist insults --Gibnews 09:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I strongly advise you to substantiate you allegation of racist insults or withdraw the charge and apologise. (Sarah777 11:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

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, Wikipedia provide a talk page which is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page.The talk page is not a soapbox, therefor, Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for personal views. When writing on a talk page, certain approaches are counter-productive and considered disruptive, while others facilitate good editing. You might like to read WP:TPG.Thank you.--Domer48 10:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

John you say "English-language sources are to be preferred" but does that make them the only source that is true and to me it seems racist to imply that a source in a different langauge is inferior or wrong. BigDunc 14:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that this is the English language wikipedia and very few of its readers are going to be fluent in Irish enough to understand what an article in that is actually saying, yet conversely most Irish people understand English. Plus the Gibraltar Chronicle has a reputation for being impartial. --Gibnews 16:56, 17 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 Wikipedia, 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)

I've replaced it with a better qualty free version. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 17:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice one.--Domer48 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well done. I cropped and tweaked the levels and colour a bit. --John 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent John - I was going to do that myself!! Now, can anyone get a better free photo of MF? (I've seen many in the media). (Sarah777 00:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

I have a better one taken from the documentary 'Mother Ireland' but cannot get a response from the copyright holder of the documentary to release it, email to Ms Crilly of the Derry Film and Video Collective is read but not answered. Perhaps someone else might have better luck. --Gibnews 09:38, 16 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) 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

My compromise seems to have been changed back. Why are English claims being presented as absolute facts? Brixton Busters 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

John you dishing out more of your BS. You back up your POV with references or you stay quite. I mentioned you in a rant of mine just now. And now I see this! There is nothing constructive in your changes. You losing a discussion and going around causing trouble with your changes because of it. So John, put up or shut up, and provide references. If you do not like my tone, tell it to someone who gives a crap, if you can not take it do not dish it out.--Domer48 19:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets be clear, if you are making a claim about something then its you that need to come up with some evidence, and murals although pretty and real are hardly evidence of anything except their existance. Please do not attack other editors just because you disagree and lack evidence to support your POV. --Gibnews 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Evidence that English claims should not be presented as absolute facts:

The Irish War by Tony Geraghty, pages 37-38 - 'The Defence Ministry was to claim that British gunfire amounted to just fourteen rounds. The claim was challenged. Much later, the real figures were published. In all, the soldiers had fired 1,454 rounds......As Simon Winchester of the Guardian wrote later: 'Ever since those later figures were quietly published, many reporters found it terribly hard to accept contemporary accounts of a serious disturbance by the army public relations' men. Never, since then, have I found myself able to take the army's explanation about any single incident with any less a pinch of salt than I would take any other explanation.'

Or for a more recent example of English misinformation, how about a man shot dead 'after he was challenged and refused to obey an order'?

The legal documents are also vague on the target - '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.' and 'the target was highly probably the band and guard of the First Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment'.

Taking all this into account, the article should reflect the lack of confirmed target. Brixton Busters 16:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I regard The Irish War as an excellent reference; almost uniquely in all the (many) books I have read on the subject, it presents a NPOV account of the story. However, I don't agree that Geraghty supports adding a "lack of confirmed target" to this article. I also don't think it is productive to argue that because on some occasions during the conflict the British Army was 'economical with the truth', we can assume that everything they have ever said is false. Remember, NPOV says we report the views of significant sources and let the reader decide for themselves. Part of what I like so much about Geraghty's book is his 'a plague on both your houses' approach; he reports the lies and cynicism of both sides in the conflict. That is an approach we can usefully learn from in our coverage of these topics; if certain segments of opinion wish to believe these IRA members were merely innocently on holiday with a car-load of Semtex and were gunned down unjustifiably, that is their privilege, but it is not an encyclopedic point of view, I would contend. --John 17:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor for that matter is people being shot on the streets of Gibraltar a common occurance as it is in other countries. The inquest into the circumstances cost the taxpayer GBP 250,000 which could have been better spent, however that was cheap compared to what a sucesful bombing would have cost. And the jury was certainly not English. --Gibnews 18:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted my comments John. I provided the Geraghty (and a lesser extent the BBC) quotes to show that "facts" are not always that. If a claim is made by one side, it should always be clear that it is just that, a claim not a fact. There is no dispute the ASU were on active service not holiday, even the IRA fully accept that. The link shows that while that the English were not sure of the ASU's target, and the article should reflect this also. Brixton Busters 07:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The Gibraltar police were sure where the target was, and the no-parking restrictions on the parade route limits locations to plant a car bomb which wa what was found. We cannot record the actutal attack, because thankfully the prompt action of the security services prevented it - but in a maze of lies from both 'sides' about what happened, that part is clear. --Gibnews 07:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing could be further from the truth actually, what is the ASU had decided to change the target of the attack, what proof is there that the military band were the target, what if the ASU decided not to go through with the operation as they felt it was too risky? We will never know beause these unarmed people were murdered in cold blood.--Vintagekits 08:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Again you are trying to say they were 'murdered' the verdict of the inquest was 'justifiable homicide' that is a fact. I disagree that they were cowards, they were hardened terrorists, and Mr Farrells comments on the documentary 'Mother Ireland' makes her position clear. The inquest accepted that they were terrorists and that they were in the process of planting a bomb, and so does the ECHR review. Those sources are definitive, and neither are controlled by the UK Government. --Gibnews 14:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

But desperate circumstances warrant desperate measures. Chris Buttigieg 08:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Whats desparate times - the unarmed ASU were surrendering and then murdered.--Vintagekits 08:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That might be what you wish to believe, and a view you want to promote, but the facts don't support it. The ECHR review is clear, and the Gibraltar Constitution has not been changed. --Gibnews 14:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Unless any of us were there (which I doubt) we cannot know the precise circumstances of the death of this team of terrorists. It is true that they were unarmed when shot, but "murder" is a precise legal term which I don't think any reputable source has used about them. We do not deal in "proof", not being a court of law; rather, as BB suggests, we give the accounts of the reliable sources and let our readers decide. --John 14:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Terrorist is a POV term, if you are going to use pejorative such as terrorists you are going to infalme this discussion - as an admins you should cop on a bit and have a but more responsibility. I expect a lot more from admins.--Vintagekits 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. See terrorism. --John 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read it and yes the British Army indeed fullfill all criteria! Cop on - your an admin try acting like one.--Vintagekits 14:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. However note that the ECHR held by ten votes to nine that the British government had violated Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also ruled, however, that the three killed had been engaged in an act of terrorism. --Gibnews 15:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You are spot on there Gibnews. --John 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we get back to my point please? The court documents show the target was not 100% clear, the article needs to reflect this. Brixton Busters 06:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It would only be 100% clear if a bomb had gone off, which was thankfully prevented, however there is no evidence that they were in Gibraltar to kidnap monkeys. The fact that they parked a car in the spot adjacent to the bands regualar assembly point rather confirms the target. --Gibnews 10:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really. The IRA are "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force" (and that's according to British Army experts), who conducted sophisticated operations. Was the car to be used as a getaway car? Was it a decoy? Was it to be used as a "come-on" attack? Who can say? As before, the target was not clear (according to the court documents you are so fond of quoting) and the article needs to reflect this. Brixton Busters 17:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

When the IRA issue a formal apology for launching an attack on the people of Gibraltar they will confirm what everyone else sees as obvious. --Gibnews 18:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Fishers of Men by Rob Lewis (former FRU agent), ISBN 0340750715 page 164. "They were under suspicion of being in the final stages of planning a terrorist attack on Government House. Other possibilities for a terrorist offensive included the changing-of-the-guard ceremony, which would be carried out by the Royal Anglian Regiment at Ince's Hall, situated in the main street, or any number of British military locations situated close by". I think this source is adequate for the present wording to be changed, does anyone else? Brixton Busters 06:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

NO - there is no 'Government House' the changing of the guard was not carried out at Ince's hall, nor for that matter were there 'any number of British Military locations' in town then.

That 'source' is utter shite. --Gibnews 21:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A FRU agent says the target wasn't clear. The court documents say the target was not clear. I think too much weight is being given to a tiny circulation local newspaper. Brixton Busters 16:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you mean Bob Lewis, the quote given indicates he has not got a clue. That 'tiny circulation' newspaper is the second oldest daily newspaper on the planet, the first to report the battle of Trafalgar, and the mystery of the Mary Celeste. It has a reputation for factual reporting. And its not 'English' its Gibraltarian.

James Adams 'Secret Armies' ISBN 0-330-30661-8 also talks nonsense about the location claiming that the location was the 'town square' not a stones throw from the ops room'.

The largest time window to hit the band would have been prior to the parade, and there are no other targets of significance that match the materials recovered. Its also easier to know the start time rather than the finish of the event. --Gibnews 18:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:Neutral point of view. If sources disagree, you may not present the opinions of your local rag as facts. Brixton Busters 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but facts, as presented in the Gibraltar Chronicle can be established. The day one report in the newspaper was mostly supported by the inquest, itself a process to determine the facts about an event. The ramblings of some idiot who hasn't got a clue about the geography and places involved as the quote from your 'source' demonstrates are not worthy of inclusion, neither is the book I mention which presents things from POV of the SAS supporters club. --Gibnews 20:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"three dead as police foil Gib IRA attack" - if the newspaper cannot get basic facts right, then they cannot be trusted to have anything else right especially when other sources including court documents disagree. Brixton Busters 06:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)

Well, there were three dead, they were from an Irish terrorist organisation and they were not on holiday.

your 'source' is totally wrong because there is no 'Government House' the changing of the guard was not carried out at Ince's hall, nor for that matter were there 'any number of British Military locations' in town at that time.

If you think they were in Gibraltar to feed the monkeys, provide some evidence, and be aware that is now a criminal offence. --Gibnews 09:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it is in doubt they were there to carry out an attack but what target was is not clear. BigDunc 09:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is according to the ECHR review which states:

AS TO THE FACTS

12. The facts set out below, established by the Commission in its report of 4 March 1994 (see paragraphs 132 and 142 below), are drawn mainly from the transcript of evidence given at the Gibraltar inquest (see paragraph 103 below). I. Particular circumstances of the case

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.'

I believe that answers who, what, where. and when, the how was discovered in Spain. This was accepted as fact by the ECHR, as there is no higher authority then its good enough to present to people in Wikipedia.

--Gibnews 16:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All that says is It appeared from the intelligence not exactly definite is it . BigDunc 16:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that is certain in life is that we are all going to die. If you have any suggestions on what an alternative target might have been, and have any evidence to support your opinion then lets hear it - otherwise lets defer to what the inquest considered to be true. Having watched the band assemble for parades a number of times, I can see the logic of terrorists planting a bomb at the location stated. In Gibraltar at the time, the military kept to their areas and it would have been very hard to impossible to get a foreign car anywhere near a target. The band assembly point outside Hambros Bank was ideal, and the time they were there known. They would arrive 5mins early, haeve a cigarette, adjust their uniforms and march to the Governors residence. The only difficulty would be ensuring one could park there, which is why a car was placed there on the sunday to reserve the spot. One the Sunday most local motorists would be driving around Spain and the town is desserted.

The IRA admitted there was an attempted attack, all that remains is for them to issue an apology to the people of Gibraltar for the attempt. Thankfully no innocent people were killed. --Gibnews 21:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What you or I think the target was is irrelivant facts only should be used and not speculation or educated guesses. BigDunc 13:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also this is not a forum it's a talk page to help editors make this a better article so calling on the IRA to issue an apology should not be done here. If you want to get on a soapbox I am sure there are loads of forums for you to put your opinion on. BigDunc 14:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make it a better article, then stick to the facts accepted by the ECHR that the plan was to plant a bomb south of Inces hall. If its good enough for them, its good enough for the readers of Wikipedia. That you consider the 'target was not clear' is YOUR opinion with no factual support.--Gibnews 16:13, 10 September 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)

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)

Centralising discussion

I hope nobody minds but I have moved all the discussions on the POW category as it applies to IRA members in general to the noticeboard. I hope we can conclude the discussion there. --John 16:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at

→ Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board#POW category added to IRA articles

Why is John allowed to act as final judge on this page. It seems his POV is to be taken as objective fact.--Donnchadh 17:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that what he is saying is backed up by references from official sources, and what presumably you would like to believe is backed up by unofficial writing on a wall.

Some people want to have it both ways, if the IRA considered they were engaged in a war and were on 'active service' you can reasonably expect casualties.

If you think that is OK to take 'a war' to another country, blow our elderly and kids to bits in order to promote a political agenda of imposing a socialist state which the majority will not vote for at the ballot box then we will disagree.

However, the official records state that these people were terrorists and that Ms Farrell did not obtain Prisioner of War status whilst in jail for her previous criminal activity. Wikipedia should reflect this as its not a repository for wishful history. --Gibnews 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good God, Gibnews, are you really so childish as to believe what the propaganda departments of MI5 and British Military Intelligence pump out? It seems John is (if he is not, in fact, one of their agents). We have lately heard about CIA computers being abused to edit wikipedia, do you really believe MI5 are above such conduct???--Donnchadh 22:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not foolish enough to believe what any propaganda department churns out, and rely on being on the spot, at the time. Some of the people contributing here were probably not even born then. As a major event in Gibraltar, a small place, there is the opportunity to talk to witnesses and other participants off the record. I think you mean 'CIA computers being used to abuse Wikipedia' hey even the spooks have to have some fun and relaxation at work. I don't know whether John works for MI5 but he is mentioned in the bible and there is a possibility he is the antichrist, or even the antipasta. My pencil has a point, what was yours? --Gibnews 00:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing

The phrase "instead of risking the brutality of the guards" was removed several days ago as an "obviously POV statement" here. Two seperate cites were added for this, and Gaimhreadhan has three times removed it. What can be done about this please? Brixton Busters 00:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed this phrase because it doesn't make sense.

How can smearing excrement and menstrual material avoid "risking the brutality of the guards"? I would have thought that those sort of actions by one of their prisoners would wind them up rather than placate them. And please stop categorising edit differences as "POV". Until we're dead we all have our individual prejudices. The trick here is to recognise them and then avoid incorporating them into our articles unless they are significant and referenced...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense. If they left their cells to slop out, they risked being attacked by the guards. And it was referenced by two reliable sources. Brixton Busters 00:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

And the brutal guards had lost their keys to go into the cells to attack them? If you really think our readers will understand that cryptic phrase, then wack it back in again. Try and put the citation in the correct place this time, though...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't edit my talk page posts in future either. Brixton Busters 00:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No probs. I'll respect your space. Each time I've posted there before I've been blocked. I'm not a masochist...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 01:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced [3] the word "risking" with "allegedly" without prejudice to restoration following additional clearer citation(s) establishing motivation. (Existing references are to allegations). Since this is also an extraordinary claim (that women would smear excrement on their cell walls rather than use the chamber pot - or shit in the corner by the door) I think the current sentences regarding motivation also require extraordinary references. (I would accept, without further references, statements indicating that smearing menstrual blood on her cell walls was a brave and unusual political protest rather than an action in extremis prompted by fear of attack by brutal guards....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 09:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The second reference (Begoña Aretxaga) is not to an allegation at all, please do not misrepresent sources. That reference also unequivocally states that their actions were motivated by attacks from the guards. I am restoring the text. Brixton Busters 16:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

and Exceptional claims require exceptional sources? See WP:V#Sources if you wish to see where this is stated in Official Policy on the English Wikipedia, look at the first, second and third sentences of that reference. Please consider your position...Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not the English Wikipedia, and the information is sourced by multiple reliable sources, policy is satisifed just fine. Brixton Busters 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond Murray, was the Curate in the prison. He is also a well known advocate for human rights. He is along with Fr. Denis Faul (noted Anti-Republican) co-author of thirty-three books and pamphlets and numerous leaflets on violations of human rights. He is also editor of the scholarly journal Seonchas Ard Mhacha (Journal of the Armagh Diocesan Historical Society) and author of many historical articles. He is also the author of book The SAS in Ireland is published by Mercier Press and the Irish American Book Company. I would consider the source relilable, thanks --Domer48 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

image of Mairéad Farrell

I would like to replace the current image of Mairéad Farrell, [4], could other editors tell me what they think. Thanks --Domer48 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be a better image.--padraig 21:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - good that you uploaded it. I have added an infobox too. Chris.B 18:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks copyright infringment to me, 'fair use' is not an excuse. I tried something similar and had it deleted. Better image than the original though. --Gibnews 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Minor changes

They were in Gibraltar so were proceeding to the frontier with Spain, the half on this side is not Spanish. Its important to mention the lack of a radio. I'm not sure that three witnesses alleged they were 'trying to surrender', or how anyone would know that. Mrs Proetta certainly claims it, although unless she was listening with a parabolic microphone its rather hard to believe she could hear anything over the distance involved.

In her libel action she had a colourful lawyer, who is no longer practising.

--Gibnews 00:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I added back "apparently by accident but mourners evidently feared an attack similar to Stone's was taking place" with a reference, as it's an important piece of text. Brixton Busters 07:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

radio

I'm not aware of any other technology that can set off a bomb over a distance and through walls. Strictly speaking a radio is not a 'detonating device' its a remote control device. --Gibnews 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No 'detonating device' was found, there again nobody was expecting to find any, they were members of the PIRA not a suicide brigade. They were also planning to cross the land frontier with Spain where people are often searched. A radio would not attract attention, people often crossed with those, but a detonator is another thing and leads directly to jail. The security services expected a radio, the IRA hired a radio expert for the inquest, and the army tested radios (I watched them) so lets call 'the thing' by its correct name. --Gibnews 15:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see that referenced? "...the IRA hired a radio expert for the inquest, and the army tested radios (I watched them)..." --Domer48 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have to provide citations for comments on the discussion pages; however its really very foolish to suggest that anyone would carry detonating devices on their person and again a radio is not a detonating device. If you don't know the difference, ask someone who does to explain it. --Gibnews 19:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I just got what you mean. For those who were as in the dark as I, see detonator and radio.GiollaUidir 13:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thats the basis if it, although the article does not explain that detonation is a chemical change in a material caused by a shock wave, which is different to 'light blue touch paper and retire' deflagrating explosives. Really the important issue was whether they were carrying a radio transmitter. The presence of one would be enough to justify shooting - whether its possible to use one over that distance is debatable, however the ECHR report makes the point that the security services had hidden radios which were working so its reasonable for them to assume other people might be similarly equipped. --Gibnews 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fatal Encounter

I see Domer48 referring to that book, I've added it a couple of times as a reference, but someone has removed it. Nicholas Eckert took the trouble to visit Gibraltar and Ireland to try and understand what happened and produced a reasonably unbiased account. He notes he was treated with equal suspicion in both places. --Gibnews 21:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

First term of active service, 1975-1976!!!

Domer48 you have just used as an edit summary to revert my change: "Ref Fatal Encounter, Nicholas Eckert, Poolbeg,Dublin, 1999, ISBN 85371 837 8"

It's a bit daft to have as a section heading the title "First term of active service, 1975-1976" rather than "First term of active service: 1976" if not one single word of the section's text does actually refer to any activity pre-dating 1 January 1976 and neither does that reference appear in the daftly titled section.

Please either fix the sub-section text to justify the daft title or revert yourself. W. Frank talk ✉  22:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll add more information to the section then. You asked for a reference [5] and I gave you a reference. --Domer48 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Domer48.

Since I now understand that information should not be placed in articles until it can be referenced, never mind reverted, perhaps you would be kind enough to revert yourself until and unless referenced information in that subsection supports (or at least obliquely mentions) the year 1975? W. Frank talk ✉  07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref Fatal Encounter, Nicholas Eckert, Poolbeg,Dublin, 1999, ISBN 85371 837 8 page 17-18. Gives an account of her Active Service. Which interrupted on the 5 April 1976. --Domer48 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New sction

Tim2718281 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC) Mmm, I just saw this p[age, and it has two errors

1) The page says the ECHR ruled they were "unlawfully killed". I assume this is a typo, and it should say "lawfully killed". (The ECHR upheld the actions of the soldiers: "the actions of the soldiers do not, in themselves, give rise to a violation of this provision (art. 2-2)""

2) The page says the ECHR criticised the use of lethal force. Actually it did not; what it said was "In sum, having regard to the decision not to prevent the suspects from travelling into Gibraltar, to the failure of the authorities to make sufficient allowances for the possibility that their intelligence assessments might, in some respects at least, be erroneous and to the automatic recourse to lethal force when the soldiers opened fire, the Court is not persuaded that the killing of the three terrorists constituted the use of force which was no more than absolutely necessary in defence of persons from unlawful violence within the meaning of Article 2 para. 2 (a) (art. 2-2-a) of the Convention."

(So, what would have had to have been diffent for the ECHR not to find the UK had breached the right to life? Smply the briefing; had the soldiers been told the three *might* be able to detonate by remote control, and *might* attempt to do so if confronted, then the ECHR would not have made the same judgement. The soldiers would still have killed the bombers anyway.

The ECHR judgement is available here:

http://www.gibnet.com/texts/gibira.htm

I would suggest you read the documents more carefully. If you don't understand them, the New York Times summarise it quite well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There is some confusion in the ECHR review as the dissenting justices put their view on the record at the end. However although the majority considered that HMG used excessive force and infringed the human rights of the terrorists, the ECHR does not have the ability to overturn verdict of the Gibraltar inquest which was that they were lawfully killed. Nor for that matter has the subsequent Gibraltar Constitution (2006) been changed to protect the right of life of such criminals in future. They can still be legally shot. Now although things have moved on and the IRA is not considered a threat, North Africa is 13 miles across the water where terrorism is still active, so potential terrorist visits are still taken very seriously. In some ways that is worse as todays threats are less concerned about the consequences.

The soldiers report they were told there would be a remote controlled bomb and that was their justification for shooting. As One Night In Hackney' says read the ECHR review carefully. Secondary reports are unreliable. --Gibnews (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sad to think that removing racist comments is now called censorship.BigDunc (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There were no 'racist comments' intended but removing other people comments because you find they do not support your POV is censorship. --Gibnews (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the ECHR found they were unlawfully killed, which carries just as much if not more weight than some minor inquest held in a two horse town colonial outpost. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The verdict of the Gibraltar inquest was lawful killing The ECHR has no competence to overturn that decision. Your claim is not supported in the ECHR judgement. Please also refrain from being insulting - for the avoidance of doubt Gibraltar is not a colony AND is horse free. --Gibnews (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as the inquest in Gibraltar has no competence to prevent a higher power returning a verdict of unlawful killing, which is supported contrary to your claim. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly you don't understand the process. --Gibnews (talk)

Yes, I do. The local inquest didn't even hear evidence that the ECHR did, so their decision is largely meaningless anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(unident) On the contrary, there was very little new material introduced at the ECHR apart from some dubious evidence about radio propagation. However as you think the decision of the Gibraltar court does not stand, please supply evidence to support your opinion, without simply being insulting. --Gibnews (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Where did I suggest the decision of the Gibraltar court does not stand? You seem to be under the wholly mistaken impression that your little outpost has the final word on these matters, whereas higher courts exist for a reason. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The ECHR ruled that the terrorists human rights were infringed. Again you are seem to need to denigrate the authority of the Gibraltar jurisdiction. I suggest you talk to a lawyer and get an informed opinion. --Gibnews (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Which right was that exactly? The right to life if I recall correctly? So their lives were unlawfully taken away? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

No they were lawfully killed, but their human rights were infringed for which the UK was fined. The ECHR result did not change the verdict of the inquest, nor has it the competence to do so. The entity capable of doing that is the Gibraltar Court of Appeal. Ask a lawyer, I did. --Gibnews (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but how were their human rights infringed? Which rights specifically? Come on, you know which one it is? The ECHR found the truth, unlike the inquest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)I don't think anyone has presented the truth about this incident, nor will they in our lifetimes. However let me say it again, the verdict of the Gibraltar inquest stands. The finding of the ECHR was that UK infringed the terrorists right to life. They do not use the words Unlawful Killing in their verdict.

• 159. For the Commission, the inquest subjected the actions of the State to extensive, independent and highly public scrutiny and thereby provided sufficient procedural safeguards for the purposes of Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention.

• 163. ... the Court does not consider that the alleged various shortcomings in the inquest proceedings, to which reference has been made by both the applicants and the intervenors, substantially hampered the carrying out of a thorough, impartial and careful examination of the circumstances surrounding the killings.

• 180. In the light of its own examination of the material before it, the Court does not find it established that there was an execution plot at the highest level of command in the Ministry of Defence or in the Government ...

• 183. Nor can the Court accept the applicants' contention that the use of the SAS, in itself, amounted to evidence that the killing of the suspects was intended ...

I do not intend to reproduce the verdict again, however it consists of a small award to cover the costs of the legal action and not compensation for unlawful killing.

--Gibnews (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll produce the verdict andother relevant passages for you then.

• 145. The applicants alleged that the killing of Mr McCann, Ms Farrell and Mr Savage by members of the security forces constituted a violation of Article 2 of the Convention which reads:

• 1. Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

• 2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:
• a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
• (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;
• (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.

• 1. Holds, by 10 votes to nine that there has been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention;

So there you go, in black and white. The defendants "right to life" is protected by law, a law which was judged violated by 10 votes to nine, and accurately described by the New York Times as "unlawfully killed". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The ECHR is ruling on the European Convention on Human Rights Neither they nor the New York Times make laws. If you are claiming that the ECHR said that the terrorists were 'unlawfully killed' please cite the part of the judgement when that is stated in those words. All they say is that there was a violation of the convention and made an award minimal costs to cover the legal action. 'unlawful killing' would imply damages and the need to prosecute a guilty party, and that never happened. Nor is the judgement of the inquest set aside or overuled - except by a newspaper. --Gibnews (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even need those exact words. The "right to life" (protected by law) was violated, and described as such by a reliable secondary source, no matter how much you dislike it. As for the rest - no it wouldn't. Try and find a court case and damages for the unlawful killing of Séamus McElwaine why don't you? Another one murdered by British death squads. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let us be reasonable and report the verdict of the ECHR in the words they used and not inflammatory and incorrect language. If you must include the opinion of a newspaper hack, it needs to be clear that is NOT the court judgement - or should we include the headlines from the Sun too? Today I have to visit a lawyer involved in the original inquest and will ask his opinion on the points raised for my clarification, not as original research. I have no interest in events that happened outside Gibraltar, where incidentally resident Irish people and North Africans have co-existed peacefully for three hundred years, and common forenames are not seen as any kind of racial insult. --Gibnews (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are when used in the way you used them, you say you have a high IQ on all tests since you were 11, well use that brain you have a think about what you said. You have accused every muslim person, every Irish person and the whole country of Algeria of being terrorists.BigDunc (talk) 09:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

NO, I said that the Irish were no longer a concern, in the belief that peace had broken out. According to the Foreign Office The high threat from terrorism in Algeria remains. However the purpose of this page is to document the past. --Gibnews (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

And again you are catagorising the Irish people as terrorists, not that you said Irish in your racist remark.BigDunc (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

100% of the terrorists in Gibraltar have been Irish. --Gibnews (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

So with your twisted racist logic all Irish are terrorists good man your a credit to the British.BigDunc (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Moving onwards

I've read the above discussion and I suggest restarting it here. Please let's remember to focus entirely on the encyclopedic arguments, and refrain entirely from commenting on the attributes of other editors. My usual expectations apply; obvious violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:SOAPBOX or the like will get one warning and then a block. So will edit warring on the article. We will have WP:0RR on the article, which means no reverts at all. Continued participation here signals understanding and acceptance of these expectations. So, we're arguing about whether the article should say that her killing was unlawful or not, basically? --John (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As above, people's right to life is protected by law, a right which was ruled unlawfully taken away. If I was just using the judgement to come up with "unlawfully killed" I could see a possible problem with the wording, but a reliable secondary source says just that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah agree the source is WP:V and WP:RS. BigDunc (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok. If we have a reliable secondary source we can say that. Are there other secondary sources which contradict this interpretation? If so we might want to report the controversy. My understanding was that the killings were judged to be legal by the British inquest, but illegal by the European Court. Is that basically right? So long as we stick scrupulously to reliable sources I am sure we can come up with a NPOV wording that will please everybody here. --John (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Another source for the same, and another. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

John I feel your starting comments are not the most helpful considering you are here to diffuse tensions, so to speak, as an Admin you are well within your rights to enforce wikipedia policy but as the essay you are quoting states Editors may also choose to adhere to a zero-revert rule I dont see much choice with you coming out with all guns blazing, at the end of the day WP:0RR is not policy. Maybe asking editors to agree to it would have been better. BigDunc (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Let's focus on improving the article now, shall we? --John (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No court ruled that these people were 'Unlawfully killed' and as the ECHR mandate clearly states The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws. the Gibraltar court ruled that the killing was lawful.

If you wish to remove gibnet.com (which is a general information site not a tourist one) as a source for the text of the ECHR report it would be helpful to find somewhere reliable which has the full version rather than an edited one.

--Gibnews (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There are three reliable sources for the court finding they were unlawfully killed, I see nothing to contradict that apart from your interpretation. And I see you have no problem with stating the opinion of a local paper as fact.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is not much more I can add to ONIH's comments! It gose without saying I share Dunc's concerns above. --Domer48 (talk) 20:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me recap

• 1. The Gibraltar court ruled 'lawful killing'.

• 2. The ECHR mandate says they cannot overule a national court

• 3. Their judgement is restricted to human rights.

• 4. No compensation was awarded for loss of life.

• 5. Nowhere in their judgement do they state 'Unlawful Killing'

• 6. They consider that the Gibraltar inquest was properly undertaken.

I think the facts are clear.

That 'local paper' has been established for a lot longer than the New York Times and reported events very fairly. --Gibnews (talk)

More OR. Three secondary sources support the verdict being unlawful killing, regardless of the opinion of an editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The primary source does not. I regularly read on the BBC website that Gibraltar is an island, but it remains the imagination of a journalist, in the case of the NYT one who has not read the judgement. See also points 1 & 2 --Gibnews (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to John's comments above. Please come back when you have some reliable secondary sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Gibraltar Chronicle which you have excluded is a good secondary source, however the dispute is over what the ECHR actually state. --Gibnews (talk) 21:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have not excluded anything. John says "Ok. If we have a reliable secondary source we can say that. Are there other secondary sources which contradict this interpretation? If so we might want to report the controversy" - over to you. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I see this is still being replaced by editors own interpretations, despite the lack of secondary sources. I shall reiterate again - the right to life is protected by law, which was ruled breached. Therefore they were unlawfully killed, supported by three secondary sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent addition removed

"The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws" was sourced by this. There is absolutely no guarantee this was in place in 1995 for this case, especially since it is contradicted by the BBC who state However, the result was overturned at Strasbourg in 1995 when Britain was found to have used excessive force and breached the European Convention on Human Rights. If there is a reliable source stating this particular rule/guideline/whatever was in place at the time of this particular case and applies please cite it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant article on the European Court of Human Rights makes this clear, in the section on its procedure.

But, see also the text of the Convention itself, here; in particular articles 32 (ie. the Court only applies the Convention and its protocols and not national law) and 35(3) and 41. What happens in practice (as I understand it, and I'm not an expert in international law) is that the Court issues a 'declaration of incompatibility' stating that the national law is incompatible with the Convention, and the national parliament is then expected to change its domestic law in order to bring it within the scope of the ECHR as applied through the judgment.

If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, you'll see the legend: Done at Rome this 4th day of November 1950 [...], so, QED 'this was in place in 1995 for this case'.

If one looks up the judgment itself (here), see items 151 onwards, esp. 153, which repeat this view.

Rather ironically, you have removed a statement of fact (The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws) which was itself a major issue in the ECHR's judgment in this case.

There's a good summary of the judgment here.

As I've pointed out before, just because something appears on the BBC's web-site doesn't make it holy writ. This appears to be another example of journalists, not experts in the field, simplifying a complex matter.

Turning to the article as written, it states: The European Court of Human Rights reviewed the shootings in 1995. By a 10-9 majority it ruled that the human rights of the 'Gibraltar Three' were infringed in breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights stating that they were unlawfully killed ^[22][23][24] and criticising the authorities for lack of appropriate care in the control and organisation of the arrest operation.^[25] [...]

Reading the judgment, I've been unable to find any reference to the Court making a finding of 'unlawful killing'; the actual finding is this:

[Item] 213. In sum, having regard to the decision not to prevent the suspects from travelling into Gibraltar, to the failure of the authorities to make sufficient allowances for the possibility that their intelligence assessments might, in some respects at least, be erroneous and to the automatic recourse to lethal force when the soldiers opened fire, the Court is not persuaded that the killing of the three terrorists constituted the use of force which was no more than absolutely necessary in defence of persons from unlawful violence within the meaning of Article 2 para. 2 (a) (art. 2-2-a) of the Convention.

(Which itself reads: 'Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary: in defence of any person from unlawful violence'. See here.)

That is far from a finding of 'unlawful killing' which, anyway, the Court lacks the jurisdiction to make because (see above) it can only apply the Convention and its protocols. The scope of the judgment is considerably narrower than that claimed in the article.

In conclusion; the article, as quoted above, is incorrect. It would be more appropriate to reference the section on the ECHR to the judgment itself, or bona fide commentary, both of which are readily available, rather than contemporaneous newspaper reports. Looking up the citation given for the alleged verdict of 'unlawful killing' (here) and comparing it with a good brief summary of the judgment, one can see that The New York Times has simply got completely the wrong end of the stick. --Major Bonkers (talk) 04:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Was there some part of "If there is a reliable source stating this particular rule/guideline/whatever was in place at the time of this particular case and applies please cite it" you had difficulty understanding? I couldn't care less for your conjecture or interpretations, and neither could policy. Also I'd like a verifiable cite that the result of an inquest in Gibraltar is a "national decision", and that isn't more interpretation in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question, at length, and with relevant links. In summary, the 'reliable sources' that you seek are: (1) Wikipedia's article on the European Court of Human Rights; (2) relevant excerpts from the European Convention on Human Rights; (3) the judgment in this case; and (4) external commentary and summation.

I don't understand the relevance of your new question: 'I'd like a verifiable cite that the result of an inquest in Gibraltar is a "national decision" '. If you want it, go and look for it yourself; it's hardly relevant to the article. --Major Bonkers (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"In summary, the 'reliable sources' that you seek are: (1) Wikipedia's article on the European Court of Human Rights;" - I didn't need to read past that, please come back when you have some reliable sources that you haven't interpeted yourself. And in case you haven't worked it out, the bit about "annul national laws" isn't the part that's relevant to this article, so I'm not sure why you spent so long waffling on about it. And it's funny you should link to Bishopsgate, since you were told at length to stop trying to add your own interpretations of sources there too. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I'm a lawyer, so I've answered (fully) the question that you posed, which involved a legal issue, with reference to legal sources. There are plenty of links to support what it pleases you to call my interpretation, and I'm sorry that you choose to reject it out of hand. --Major Bonkers (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The addition was made because Gibnews thinks that his local inquest takes precedence over the verdict of the ECHR, and is an attempt to show that it doesn't overrule the local verdict. It is the inquest verdict that is alleged to be the "national decision", the second part is irrelevant to this discussion. Therefore, as before, sources that show this part about a "national decision" applying to this case (not just a link saying it does now), and that a Gibraltar inquest is actually a "national decision" as stated, and that isn't just more interpretation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's right, is it? As I see it Gibnews' point is that there has never been a verdict of 'unlawful killing', that's surely right - the closest that the ECHR came to it was a (rather disguised) finding of 'unlawful violence'. If we can stick to verifiable facts, ideally cited back to either the judgment of the inquest or that of the ECHR (rather than newspaper reports), there shouldn't be any problem, surely? --Major Bonkers (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the sections above. Gibnews' (additional) point has always been that the ECHR doesn't have the power to overrule the Gibralatar inquest verdict. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think, actually, that this matters. As I see it, from my quick read of the judgment (very early) this morning, the findings of fact are fairly uncontroversial. The inquest, as I understand it, dealt with the question of law on the basis of the English Common Law defense of self defense, which is wide enough to cover this case, and provides a defense to any claim of murder. The European Court of Human Rights, on the other hand, dealt with the much narrower issue of 'has there been a breach of Article 2 of the Convention, which is the right to life'. Gibnews is, therefore, technically right; the inquest was not over-ruled because different issues of law were being decided: under the English common law, the killings were lawful; under the Convention, which permits a proportionate degree of lawful violence, the degree of violence used was considered disproportionate and therefore unlawful. --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He may well be right, just that (as you'll hopefully agree) the source provided doesn't 1) Show that particular rule/guideline/whatever was in place for this particular case and 2) Doesn't show that a Gibraltar inquest is a "national decision". Both may well be the case, but it's certainly not particularly clear and as it's contradicted by the BBC (who may be wrong) I don't believe it's unreasonable to ask for a source that shows it is the case. You'll note I haven't added the BBC piece of information to the article either.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a separate jurisdiction operating under a constitution, you can see the Laws of Gibraltar here. See also this If you read the ECHR review, they refer to the inquest and determine that it had been properly conducted, they do not, nor can they overturn the verdict. The only entity that can do that is the Gibraltar court of appeal. These things are facts which can be established, not opinions. --Gibnews (talk) 08:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll be able to provide a reliable source that backs up your claims then, as I don't see where you're getting this idea from? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the sources given made that clear, but how about this]. --Gibnews (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A source that doesn't even mention the words "coroner" or "inquest" once never mind provide the citation requested? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 08:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That page describes the Gibraltar legal system, and makes it clear it is a separate jurisdiction and how it operates. If you want references to the inquest and its verdict, there are plenty in the ECHR review. What exactly IS your point ? --Gibnews (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought I'd made that very clear already. None of the sources you provided prove that particular piece of legislation was in place in 1995, and none of them prove an inquest in Gibraltar is a "national decision". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the first point has been addressed, however its not legislation but a statement of purpose of the ECHR. You can read more about the Gibraltar judiciary which is defined in the Constitution here. --Gibnews (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Another link without mention of "coroner" or "inquest", tremendous! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Guys, two things. One is that I have had to issue a couple of warnings for reverts done on the article. Reverting only raises the temperature, and will achieve nothing in the long run. It will only make it more likely that the solution, when we achieve it, will be one which has involved protecting the article and/or blocking editors, outcomes which I am sure we would all prefer to avoid. The second thing is that we cannot synthesise from our knowledge of law, the Gibraltar constitution, or whatever, we can only report what reliable secondary sources have said. Some of the arguments above come close to original research in my opinion. --John (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is viable to include "The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws." We do not report a negative and it seems to breach WP:NPOV. Neither should we include "The Court is not empowered to issue TV Licences" or "The Court is not empowered to accept speeding fines". This article is not the place for us to discuss what the European Court of Human Rights can and can't do; as I said above, we just report what others have said, and try to remain balanced while we do it. The wikilink is there for readers who wish to learn more about the ECHR. --John (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Me neither, per the above, especially since there's doubt due to the BBC source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

John kindly fixed a glitch I caused (lost data when I added an assessment tag) and suggested I comment here, so I will.

I have actually been closely involved in the preparation of two ECHR cases (unrelated to this one), and confirm that it is misleading to say that the ECtHR can "overturn" a domestic court. What it actually does when its supports an applicant's complaint is to declare that the applicant's convention rights have been violated, and sometimes to award damages. It is then a matter for the domestic legal system of the country concerned to implement that decision, whether by a resumed court process, or a change in the country's statute law, or whatever.

I don't have the references to hand, but will try to dig them out later. However, I think that it is important that this article should be clear and accurate about the role of the ECtHR, because it's decisions do not have the same effect as those of a domestic court. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We're not saying they could "overturn", in fact despite having a reference for just that I haven't added it to the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think we need to say something resembling "Court X said x about the killings (insert reliable source(s)), and then Court Z said z(insert reliable source(s))". We don't need to say or imply anything misleading about the jurisdiction of the various courts (though if we can find verifiable references for the controversy we could include something of that too). Stating a negative is misleading in its own way, because it implies that the statement being negated has validity and at this point we would be getting uncomfortably close to WP:SYNTH. It is, if you excuse the inelegant analogy, as though we were to add to an article that the subject has never been convicted of beating his wife. It can add nothing and can only increase the confusion. Maybe a draft would be the best way to go to next on this one? --John (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Until the underlying problem is addressed (and I think we all know what that is), any draft or article is unlikely to remain stable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The underlying problem is a desire to promote the view that Ms Farrell was murdered, and although there are plenty of websites that state that, there is no court record that does. Indeed what the ECHR says is:

184. The Court therefore rejects as unsubstantiated the applicants' allegations that the killing of the three suspects was premeditated or the product of a tacit agreement amongst those involved in the operation.

--Gibnews (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please learn the difference between unlawful killing and murder. Diana, Princess of Wales was unlawfully killed, was she murdered? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there we go. We can look to that article for guidance to some degree. We certainly cannot say that Farrell was murdered. Just the facts, as reported in good sources, and presented in as neutral a way as we can manage. --John (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has ever attempted to, merely retain the accurate and sourced "unlawfully killed". It should be noticed that this whole discussion started because an editor erroneously believed the ECHR found they were "lawfully killed". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

accurate and sourced "unlawfully killed"?????? Accurate???

That phrase is used in the secondary commentary, but in the judgement it appears only the quotations of the coroners directions to the jury; it forms no part of the ECtHR's judgement.

The phrase "unlawfully killed" is therefore demonstrably inaccurate if applied to the judgement of the court. It doesn't matter that the NYT reported the judgement that way, because even if Jesus, Buddha and Mohammed issued a joint statement witk Krishna using that description, the fact remains that it is not what the court ruled.

It is of course perfectly reasonable for anyone to describe the killing however they want ... but where a report of a court judgement is demonstrably false, it is misleading to the reader to repeat inaccurate reports of court judgement without allowing the reader to contrast this with what the court actually decided. Rather than adding any OR, POV commentary or synthesis, I have inserted in full the text of the court's own summary. --21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in that everyone's right to life is protected by law. What's so difficult to understand about this? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some people seem to be finding it difficult to understand the subtle but crucial differences between the concepts of "law" and "convention rights". The latter stand above domestic law, as an ultimate guarantee, and were not incorporated into the UK's domestic law until the 1998 Human Rights Act came into force, but even if they had been, the fact remains that the "unlwfully killed" is a precise phrase used in British coroner's court verdicts. The ECtHr judgment was simillar in effect, but it didn't use that term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

BHG, John has imposed an WP:0RR on this article and I have recieved a warning from him for what he considered a revert when I remove WP:OR, you seem to have done the same so just a heads up. BigDunc (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And I see the so-called OR is only being removed in one direction, whatever happened to impartiality?! One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please can you clarify that? Which OR, and whose impartiality? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It's clarified amply in the discussion above, please remove the OR immediately, since 0RR doesn't seem to apply to certain people..... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is 4 screenfuls long. Please clarify which of the many points you are referring to, and what changes you think should be made. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The addition at the top of this section since added back in a reworded fashion, since there is no evidence that a Gibraltar inquest is a "national decision" (despite many requests for evidence) or that it applied with that exact wording in 1995 anyway, and there is no secondary source linking it to this particular case either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

ONIH, the ECtHr's FAQs on its own website clearly says "Please note: * The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws." The text in the article now says "The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws". That is not original research by any stretch of the imagination.

The UK takes responsibility for Gibraltar under Article 56(1) of the convention. If you want to interpret "national decision" as meaning something other than the straightforwsrd reading of "a decision made under the authority of a state party to the convention", by all means try to find a reliable source for that, but that's no reason to remove the court's own advice on the limits of its powers. The court's powers are set out in the convention and its protocols; unless there is evidence that some relevant change has been made to the convention in the lats 13 years, I see no reason to query applicability of that statement unless there are sources challenging it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) Total and utter bollocks. Where's the evidence an inquest verdict is a "national decision", and that it applied to this case in 1995? There is none. Over and out. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 00:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ONIH, please try to be civil.

Reviewing the decisions of members states is what the ECtHR is for: that is its raison d'etre. It is what it was founded for in the 1950s, and although procedures have changed over the years, the only change in purpose was when states were required to allow individuals to bring cases (they used to be allowed to opt out of that). Try reading the Convention

"Article 19 – Establishment of the Court
To ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the High Contracting Parties in the Convention and the Protocols thereto, there shall be set up a European Court of Human Rights, hereinafter referred to as «the Court». It shall function on a permanent basis.

or the full text of the judgment, where para 1 concludes

The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 2 (art. 2) of the Convention.

It's quite simple: if a matter was not a "national decision" it would have been outside the court's remit to review the decision as it did.

I'm very disappointed by the bitterness and anger expressed in this discussion, which has been stoked by some quite inappropriate and provocative comments from Gibnews, and by some quite unnecessarily hostile responses. The political hostility here, and the quite unnecessary and inappropriate airing of political perspectives by Gibnews has obscured the fact that there seems to be complete agreement that the court reviewed the case, and that it found that Convention rights of the Gib3 had been violated in respect of article 2.

The dispute here has actually about two very minor points: A) whether the court decision can be described as an "overturning" of the inquest; B) whether the court's decision about the killing can be described as an "unlawful killing". We seem to have settled on a way of handling point B (though correct me if I'm wrong), and only A remains.

This is technical point, relating to the ECHtHR's position outside domestic law. Even if the ECtHR had ruled that the inquest jury's decision was so utterly perverse and irrational as to be a deranged conclusion which could have been reached even with the assistance of tons of hallucinogens, it does not have the power to overturn a decision; only a domestic court or national govt can do that. All the court can do is to is describe that there has been a breach of the convention, and (optionally) require that the state fixes a problem.

If the ECtHR had the power to overturn the inquest jury's verdict, it might well have done so, because it clearly rejects the inquest's conclusions; but the court didn't have that power. Major Bonkers sets out very clearly at the top of this section why this is the case. You seem to be saying that we need specific evidence that the provisions of the convention applied in this case, but you have not provided any grounds to suggest that it might be an exception. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah citing a reliable source is needed for it will verify a particular guideline for this case.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In practice the ECHR was supportive of the inquest.

• 163. ... the Court does not consider that the alleged various shortcomings in the inquest proceedings, to which reference has been made by both the applicants and the intervenors, substantially hampered the carrying out of a thorough, impartial and careful examination of the circumstances surrounding the killings.

As a resident of Gibraltar I consider doubt cast on our judiciary and its ability offensive. The rule of law has been established in this territory since 1704 and our institutions are generally respected internationally. I doubt that the scale and detail of the inquest, which cost the Gibraltar taxpayer a very large sum - more per capita than the 'Diana inquiry' - was the kind of detail the UK Government wanted, however it was done and its verdict stands. --Gibnews (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place for a detailed argument on the finer points of European jurisprudence. We simply need to agree a form of words that accurately describes what happened, without becoming so detailed it disappears up its own fundament. --John (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is utterly irrelevant to the creation of a neutral article whether any editors are offended or delighted by comments about the Gibraltar judiciary, and it's deeply unhelpful that Gibnews is editing an article in pursuit of such a strong POV. The court's comments about were were not wholeheartedly supportive; they say that the examination was not "substantially hampered" by alleged shortcomings. That can be read in a number of ways on a spectrum from "basically fine" or as "deficient in many ways, though not sunk"; but it's neither a condemnation nor a clean bill of health.

It seems to me that article as it currently stands deals with ECtHR decision in a fairly balanced way with a minimum of editorial value judgements. There only are 200 words in that section, but thousands of words have been written on this talk page in the arguments about them. Can we just accept while that the current wording doesn't fit everyone's idea of perfection, it's good enough for everyone to move on? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy that the present wording describes the situation correctly, and have nothing to add or remove from that section. It did not before we had this extended discussion. --Gibnews (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I still have qualms about the last sentence. I know it is true, and I understand what it is doing there (balancing the POV), but I feel sure there is a better way than by making this negative statement, unless of course reliable sources can be found that there was a controversy about the ECHR trying to over rule or annul UK (or Gibraltarian) law. As this never occurred, the sentence is merely stating that which should be obvious. I'll continue to think of another way we could improve the wording. --John (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Its not obvious without reading a lot of documents, and the wording is copied from their website FAQ so they feel it necessary to explain their limits - however we have a compromise that hopefully can stand so lets review it in a year. --Gibnews (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)