Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Flavius

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Flavius edit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?


In 1988, as "the Troubles" raged on in Northern Ireland, the Provisional Irish Republican Army began a plot to attack a military band in Gibraltar. On the personal orders of Margaret Thatcher, they were pursued by the SAS. Exactly what happened next may never be known, but what we do know is that three members of an IRA active service unit died at the hands of the SAS in one of the most controversial moments of "the Troubles". Such was the impact of this event that six more people died in Belfast as a result of it, and the controversy raged for almost a decade until a judgement from the European Court of Human Rights. There was further political and legal fallout as a result of an equally controversial piece of investigative journalism, but that's my next project!

Given the controversial subject matter, I would (even more so than normal) appreciate plenty of neutral eyes on this before (hopefully) I take it to FAC. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "had "access to and control over 140 pounds (64 kg)" of Semtex.": Should that be "control of over"?
  • "while they were on the floor": ... on the ground?
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dan, thanks for your edits. I might have some queries on those when I've looked at them in more detail but I'm pressed for time atm. your quibbles here:
Dan: Just looking through your edits.
  • Support Comments
    • "...now inactive, is a paramilitary organisation..." - if it's inactive, shouldn't it be past-tense?
      • It's a bit convoluted, but that's a compromise solution we've come to (the IRA and its current status is a matter of considerable controversy); the IRA still exists, so past tense isn't really appropriate, but it has been inactive for a few years.
    • "... were, according to one author..." - which author? There are 3 citations at the end of the para. And it's best to be specific anyway.
      • Good point, done.
        • And he has a Wiki article, even better.
    • It would probably be good to introduce Operation Flavius by its name in the Build Up section - I came away from that section wondering what Flavius exactly was, when it started, that sort of thing.
      • Leave this with me.
      • There's not much available without indulging in supposition because the British government officially denies almost everything leading up to the shootings, but does this edit do anything for you?
        • I suppose that's the best we can do, since there's no real access to exactly what the government was doing and when it was doing it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check for duplicate links, there are quite a few. There's a script Ian told me about (though I'm blanking on where you can find it) that can highlight them for you.
      • I found the script and caught three duplicate links.
    • "...was shot and allegedly beaten to death..." - what part of this is uncertain? Did he die, allegedly by being beaten? Or was he allegedly trying to attack soldiers?
      • It's not disputed that he was trying to attack soldiers, that he died, or that he was shot; the allegation is that he was beaten between being shot and dying. Does this tweak make things clearer?
        • Yeah, that's clearer.
    • There's a Harv error in the O'Leary ref (it's a named ref with no citations pointing to it - again, I think Ian can point you to a script that can help you detect these problems). Parsecboy (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know what that means, much less how to fix it. :S Thanks for your comments, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm, I don't know exactly what's going on - it's usually caused by an unused, named ref, but there's no name parameter in that ref. But converting the template from citation to cite book seems to have fixed the problem. Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images

  • GBooks links don't need accessdates and can be truncated after page number
    • I've removed the links.
  • Windlesam or Windlesham? Bladachino or Baldachino?
    • Well spotted; fixed
  • File:Flag_of_Gibraltar.svg and File:Coat_of_arms_of_Gibraltar1.svg should both include info on the copyright status of the original design as well as a source to verify it. Nikkimaria (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an admirably detailed and well illustrated article, and I have only the following comments:

  • "The deaths were the first in a chain of violent events in a fourteen-day period" - I'd suggest noting that these other attacks weren't in Gibraltar
    • Done.
  • "Daniel McCann, Seán Savage, and Mairéad Farrell were, according to journalist Brendan O'Brien, "three of the IRA's most senior activists"; McCann was "a high-ranking intelligence operative" and Savage was an explosives expert, while McCann and Farrell had both served prison sentences for offences relating to explosives" - I'd suggest splitting this into two or three sentences as it's a bit complex at the moment (looping back to mention McCaan twice in the second half in particular)
    • Fixed.
  • Why was the SAS given the role of arresting the bombers? - did the police not have personnel with the necessary skills (eg, something like a SWAT team or an anti-terrorist squad), or was there a concern that an attempt to arrest them could quickly turn into a battle? Was this standard practice at the time? I imagine that the British Government provided a rationale as part of the various inquests.
    • I don't think there's anything about this in the sources (other than the speculation about a conspiracy, which is covered in some detail in the inquest section). To engage in a little synthesis, Thatcher made a great deal of use of the SAS after the Iranian Embassy siege, and there was infamously bad blood between her and the IRA, so it was quite common for the SAS to be used in operations against the IRA. Eventually they came to be used in all sorts of incidents, to the extent that it was eventually decided that they were being over-used and police forces had to take on more responsibility for major incidents. I'm thinking of writing a more general article about the SAS' role in the Troubles, so I could link that from this article when I get round to it for a little background on the SAS' relationship with the IRA.
      • That seems a bit surprising given that this has been covered in legal inquires, but on the other hand it would also have been a sensitive cabinet/prime ministerial decision and the files may not have been declassified yet. Anything on this topic would be good. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(50 miles [80 kilometres] from Gibraltar)" - weren't both Spain and the UK using the metric system by this time? If so, I'd suggest leading with metric in all units of measurement
    • I'm not sure the UK or Gibraltar have ever used metric measurements for roads (you can still buy milk and beer in pints in the UK, though it's illegal to sell veg in pounds and ounces!), though most of continental Europe does.
  • While more relevant for a FAC, the coverage of the European Commission of Human Rights case seems rather brief in comparison to the blow-by-blow account of the inquest
    • There's very, very little coverage of the commission in the sources (even the weighty legal textbook); if you mean the court, the coverage is small compared to the inquest because the inquest is where many of the facts (or lack thereof) were established and where the government presented its version of events for the first time. The court didn't do much fact-finding (and indeed ruled that inquest was a sufficient investigation), so I've focused on the legal reasoning. The court case also has its own article, which is on my to-do list, whereas the inquest doesn't.
  • A map showing the location of the shooting would be good Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed. My remaining comments above are really relevant to a FAC, which is where I hope this fine article is headed. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Flavius&oldid=1075714162"