Talk:Martin McGartland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References[edit]

Some more references, not yet used.[1] [2]

Tyrenius 06:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer and informer or agent[edit]

Which came first. Was he in the IRA and then agreed to inform, or did he agree to inform and then join the IRA (which some texts indicate, by saying he "infiltrated" the IRA)? Tyrenius 07:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever his initial motives, it is plain that McGartland became committed to thwarting the IRA which takes him out of the simple, pejorative informer category. If he had been a German passing information about the Nazis to the Allies, calling him an informer would be inconceivable.

He is called an informer by secondary sources. O Fenian (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And an agent by others. You know very well, O Fenian, that 'informer' is a pejorative POV term. Anyway the article says he infiltrated the IRA. That is not what informers do but it is what agents do. The article is at least more balanced and the tone less slanted so just leave it be. The lives saved aspect is derived from within the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.63.192 (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned enough times about adding unsourced commentary. Also agent implies some sort of legitimacy, rather than a traitor who sold out for money. With 55 results for "IRA agent" versus 556 results for "IRA informer", it is obvious which is the term generally used. O Fenian (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could he be a traitor, O Fenian, if he was not in the IRA when he made the decision to infiltrate it? Your word count tells us nothing about Wikipedia's need for neutrality. Agent it must be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.161.39 (talk) 12:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It tells us what he is described as by a factor of ten. Please stop edit warring against consensus on multiple articles, you are being disruptive and gaming the system. O Fenian (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the first 2 lines of the article: "Martin McGartland, born in 1970, is a former Provisional Irish Republican Army informer[1] who joined the organisation in order to pass information to British security forces. When he was exposed as an informer in 1991..." The word informer or information appears three times. Once would do especially as 'informer' is a pejorative term and McGartland is notoriously litigious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynire (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The word informer appears twice, not three times. The second time is necessary as "was exposed in 1991" makes little sense. Informer is a neutral term for someone who informs, which is what he did. It does not take a trained legal expert to tell you any litigation being brought over being called an informer (which is what reliable sources call him) would be laughed out of court. Or do you think he would complain to newspapers about Wikipedia? O Fenian (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know as well as I do O Fenian that the term informer is not neutral in Ireland but my first objection is to the overuse of the word in just two lines, be it informer (twice) or passing information (same effect). Once will do. Being 'exposed' is entirely understandable in the context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fynire (talk • contribs) 14:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you object to this tout being called an informer despite him being called that by hundreds of reliable sourcess, yet you insist on calling Eamon Broy an informer with zero reliable sources? I can see what is going on here.. O Fenian (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need any more sources to tell you that both Broy and McGartland were in the business of passing information to their supposed enemies so both were informers or double agents. It is just a fact. Live with it.--Fynire (talk) 20:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC) Never have turer wrods been written (or spoken), the following appears on the Sluggerotoole site[1] "Mick writes “Martin McGartland, who infiltrated the IRA in west Belfast, was an agent in the purest sense. He joined the IRA at the request of his handlers and did exactly what he was told; it involved no switch of loyalties.” You try and add something like that to McGartland’s Wikipedia article and you will be met with a wall of Republican wiki-warriors reverting everything back to ‘informer’ or ‘tout’. Read the ‘discussion’ page –[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martin_McGartland There is only one permitted discourse there and it involves no Catholic being allowed to be other than a loyal nationalist." It is a fact that Martin McGartland infiltraded the IRA, he was not connected with the IRA nor involved with the terrorist group before nor during his infiltration. He is (was an 'agent'[2] "There is also the question of what the term 'agent' actually means. Martin McGartland, who infiltrated the IRA in west Belfast, was an agent in the purest sense. He joined the IRA at the request of his handlers and did exactly what he was told; it involved no switch of loyalties." The History can not be re-written, like the case of Bobby Sands,. he was a convictied IRA terrorist who killed himself. We know know the IRA let many of the Hunger Strikers die.


Wikipedia does not work that way. O Fenian (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to source that Broy was an informer, it follows from the description of his actions. And Wikipedia does not work through pejorative over statement. One 'inform'Fynire (talk) 10:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC) mention is enough if you have to have your way.[reply]
Yes you do need to source that, it is how Wikipedia works. O Fenian (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple reliable secondary sources that call him an informer.BigDunc 17:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pejorative in Ireland you say? And McGartland's self-aggrandising novel defines informer as "A person who passes information to the police", which he did! No evidence of it being pejorative, except the word of someone who believes the BBC are not neutral and can therefore be ignored as lacking any semblance of neutrality. O Fenian (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, that an editor believes that the BBC are not a neutral is without doubt pushing some kind of agenda. BigDunc 17:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is a pejorative term. The tag team you belong to know it is a pejorative term. Think of Liam O'Flaherty's novel. O Fenian calls him a tout so he is parti pris with a giant agenda. By the way the BBC is not by definition neutral and often isn't. My concern is your ramming your bias home with three uses in a few lines.

The deal is one use in the opening paragraph.--Fynire (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am also of the opinion that not everything printed/reported by the BBC is neutral but here on wikipedia it is a verifiable, reliable source and thats all that counts here. BigDunc 21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you "know", despite Sean O'Callaghan using it to describe himself and McGartland giving a simple definition for it? I simply choose words that I would use in everyday language, and the word "tout" is not exclusive to republicans either. Your own dislike of factual non-pejorative terms is no reason to insist on poor English. As said before, simply "exposed" is unclear wording, and I see no reason why it should be changed to suit your bias. Obviously you need to actually introduce him as an informer prior to that, so the first one is also needed. Feel free to suggest a rewording of the part about passing information if the third use offends you so much, I am all ears. However your deal demand is not acceptable. O Fenian (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree OF, this has been explained, again and again.--Domer48'fenian' 16:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adding multiple lengthy quotes about the film don't really belong on a biographical article, and also I don't see the need for these lengthy self-serving quote from the book either, when he's written two books what's the significance of that quote?--Domer48'fenian' 16:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This POV bullshit is really getting on my tits. McGartland specifically infiltrated the Provisional IRA to feed back information to the RUC therefore he is an AGENT, not an informer as that would have applied to him only had he been turned whilst inside the organisation as in the case of Sean O'Callaghan and numerous others. Let's keep our idealogies out of this and just attempt to write an accurate encyclopedia for the sake of the readers, shall we?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first line doesn't make any sense. Nor does it read well. Surely, he was an IRA volunteer, terrorist or member, take your pick depending on your bias, but a Special Branch agent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.51.124 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://sluggerotoole.com/2011/12/23/the-dirty-war-informers-are-not-necessarily-agents
  2. ^ http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/liam-clarke/dark-world-of-agents-is-not-black-and-white-16094277.html

Recent changes[edit]

I have once again removed highly point-of-view and unsourced changes. To document one of the most egregious examples, "Martin McGartland was a special Agent and was not and never was a member of the IRA". Really? Exactly what contract was he under? He makes no such claim in his book, he was a standard paid informer. As for him never being a member of the IRA, completely contradicted by his book. The word "agent" is also misleading, since its meaning in English varies substantially according to location. He was an informer, say RTÉ, the Guardian, the Independent, the Belfast Telegraph, the BBC, the Irish Independent, 4NI and countless more, including senior Special Branch officer Ian Phoenix who describes McGartland as an informer in McGartland's own book! This article is not being written in the way McGartland would like himself to be described, not when all those use the wholly accurate label of informer. The lead notes his motiviation for joining the IRA, so the wholly incorrect "was not and never was a member of the IRA" is not necessary. If the rest needs to be discussed, so be it, but I have already demonstrated how deep the problems with the edit run. O Fenian (talk) 10:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infiltrated The IRA[edit]

I entered the following "It is accepted that Martin McGartland infiltrated the IRA, in other words; He was before and during his infiltration of the IRA already an established agent. As a result, he was never in the true sense ever a member of the IRA" however this has still been removed !! it seems just because this is to do with the IRA, the term Informer has to be used.. so does this make people like Chris Penhaligon whom infiltrated Green peace, a member of Green peace and an informer.....NO...... because he was working for the British security service at the time, so it makes him an Agent... well this is the same case for Martin McGartland.....he was working prior to his infiltration for the British Security Service.... I think what I have entered is a fair and true to fact alternative to the previous... thank you --Neilduffy112 (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the section immediately above this one. In addition your change is a completely unacceptable tone for an encyclopedia article. The basic facts are noted in the existing version. McGartland was an informer, who joined the IRA in order to pass information to the security forces. O Fenian (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As i have said on the other page I give up with trying to discuss the matter the page can be left as it is, i am contacting Wikipedia to have the page removed as it is to do with a living person, and factually in correct... also do you have permission from the author or his publisher to have a quote from the book on the page !!!! there is no tone given on either of the changes as it is a true fact, and that is what an encyclopaedia it is supposed to represent. --Neilduffy112 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not factually incorrect. He was an informer, as the reliable sources I have provided in the section above show. Reliable sources including major British and Irish newspapers, and the Unionist leaning Belfast Telegraph, and McGartland's own book includes a quote from senior Special Branch (the same Special Branch he worked for!) officer Ian Phoenix which describes McGartland as an informer! In case those are not enough, there are also these books that correctly describe McGartland as an informer:
  • The psychology of terrorism by John Horgan (ISBN 978-0714652627)
  • A farewell to arms?: beyond the Good Friday Agreement by Michael Cox, Adrian Guelke, Fiona Stephen (ISBN 978-0719071157)
  • Conflict in Northern Ireland: an encyclopedia by Sydney Elliott, William D. Flackes (ISBN 978-0874369892)
  • Lost lives: the stories of the men, women and children who died through the Northern Ireland troubles by David McKittrick et al (ISBN 978-1840182279)
  • The Provisional IRA in England: the bombing campaign, 1973-1997 by Gary McGladdery (ISBN 978-0716533733)
If you want to go down the copyright route, do you have permission from the Sunday Times for this addition? You will not be able to find a similar diff for me adding the quote to this article. I will be fixing it in due course though. O Fenian (talk) 18:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said I am not going to be changing the context of the page again. You are also contradicting yourself by one of the references you have placed on the page.... I do have permission to use this materiel and all materiel relating to Martin McGartland as I have already stated prior to this message. Have a pleasant evening O Fenian --Neil Duffy (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC) If was no work of yours, then it should of been removed straight away if the person/persons do not have permission to use the text from the book (Fifty Dead Men Walking, page 6 line 25-33). just a suggestion as you are quick enough to remove everything else placed on the page, and after all it is a BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilduffy112 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your knowledge of copyright, particularly in regard to Wikipedia, is hampering your argument severely.
There is no such copyright licence that allows just you to use particular works here. Either the work is licenced so that is can be used here by any editor, or it cannot be used at all by anyone. Equally regardless of any claim you may have over works by Martin McGartland that does not apply to publications by third parties such as the Sunday Times, you are not the copyright holder of the article published by them.
Finally without going into too many details your claim that "I do have permission to use this materiel and all materiel relating to Martin McGartland" means you have a clear conflict of interest.
As for why I have not removed it yet, I said I would get round to it in due course. At present it is presented as an attributed quote, although it is not directly attributed to the book as it should be. No permission from the copyright holder is needed for such quotes. As there is no need for it to be quoted in that way it simply needs to be rewritten, which I will do when I have time. O Fenian (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, and have not said I am the copy right holder, however I do have permission to use all information written and quoted by, the above mentioned and others for the work I am doing, I have no conflict of interest on the contrary, I just like to see things written correctly and factually. And with the paragraph copied and pasted from the book it should be removed as it states in the front of the book. You have to have permission to use any works, quotes e.t.c, and WP does not have the permission from the above or from the publishers, so it is a breach of copyright..... Just remember WP is not a law unto itself and does on many occasions step a fine line between fact and fiction. I am removing the quote with permission of a third party.. as I have said I will not be doing anything else on this page. --Neil Duffy (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite obvious you have a conflict of interest. For the benefit of anyone else reading, here are the basic facts.
  • Martin McGartland is in hiding under a new identity, and has been for over a decade
  • He is extremely careful about his security, due to being under an IRA death sentence. While the IRA are unlikely to carry this out due to their ceasefire, any of the dissident groups may not hesitate to like the killing of Denis Donaldson
  • For those reasons, Martin McGartland is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to contact. He does not have a website, facebook or myspace under his old name, and you will not find him in the phonebook either.
  • Again for those reasons, Martin McGartland is extremely, extremely unlikely to reveal his old identity to anyone he knows now, and personally I doubt if he would regardless of how much he trusted them.
So bearing all that in mind, how could you have gained his permission to use his copyrighted works? There are two possible options.
  1. I do not believe that an approach through say his publisher saying "You do not know me, but I would like your permission to use your copyrighted works" would be a successful one. Perhaps if you were entering into some commercial venture permission may be granted, but if you were doing so then you would have a clear conflict of interest.
  2. You are someone very closely associated with Martin McGartland, sufficiently trusted for him to grant you permission to use his copyrighted works. You would still have a conflict of interest in that case.
There may be other similar scenarios as well, but each one would entail you having a conflict of interest. I am unwilling, as would anyone else, to accept that Martin McGartland granted permission to freely use his copyrighted works to a complete stranger just because they asked nicely.
Next, as I have explained before, your claim to have permission is completely irrelevant to your editing of this article. Simply because you may have permission, it does not mean that you can use the information in this article. Read the message above the edit notice, "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL". Only if Martin McGartland's works have been released on a copyright licence compatible with Wikipedia could they be used in that way, and if that was the case you would not have a leg to stand on with your other objection. There is no licence that says just you can use it on Wikipedia, it is that simple. As I also explained before, you do not have permission from The Sunday Times to use their works, and you cannot get permission from Martin McGartland either as he is not the copyright holder of their works.
And finally, permission from the copyright holder is not needed for short attributed quotes. You can try and argue any of the points above should you wish, but I recommend reading up on copyright first. O Fenian (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious as to what your views are on informers and agents, those who have given information against the terrorist groups in N. Ireland???? as you do seem to be quite out spoke on the topic. Oldtart (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.martinmcgartland.co.uk and facebook http://www.facebook.com/marty.mcgartland Oldtart (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Web site Designed and published by (c) Neil Duffy Website". O Fenian (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neil could you stick to posting here with just one account and as regard the links you have provided, to me it shows a COI on this issue. Mo ainm~Talk 19:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as i i said i have i can not get logged on with that account.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldtart (talk • contribs) 05:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC) O Fenian, Is an IRA man a freedom fighter or is he a terrorist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanbo1908 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Website?[edit]

Is there any evidence the website is actually official? Any webmaster can add the word official to a page, it doesn't make it so. Is there any verifiable connection between the third-party webmaster and Martin McGartland? 2 lines of K303 10:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point of reference[edit]

Hi, first of all I find the article very readable and informative. One problem I have is eg " He occasionally drove IRA punishment squads around and overheard them boast about the beatings they had meted out to their victims, many of whom were innocent people who had somehow incurred the wrath of a member of the IRA." The reference here is his book. Would it not be more accurate to say "He says..."

This applies to a lot of the content that is presented as fact when it is his story. I'm not doubting anything, just that its presented as verified and it isn't, not by the references anyway. I'm not suggesting heavy editing out of things, but maybe a reframing in certain parts for accuracy. Thoughts? Cjwilky (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His book is not self-published so it qualifies as a reliable source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree. It is in effect a primary source and should be treated with considerable circumspection. RashersTierney (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.I changed the above sentence to read "He recounted in his book that he occasionally drove IRA punishment squad....".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reads better :) I think a problem here is that by the nature of what he was involved in, detailed reports are thin on the ground outside of his personal recollections. So I think its valid to use those recollections if they are stated as such. To do that wholesale through the article would be the correct thing to do, although there's a balance to be struck with readability. Cjwilky (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It already mentions in the lead that he is the author of two books about his life as an agent. Each statement is sourced to the page number. And Liam Clarke's article verifies most of the statements.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Martin McGartland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Martin McGartland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Martin McGartland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Martin_McGartland&oldid=1206072353"