Talk:Mairéad Farrell/Archive 2

Nationality
She died before the Belfast Agreement 1998, and therefore was not entitled to joint citizenship automatically. Being born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, she was therefore born a subject of Her Majesty the Queen. Before the Single European Act there was no such thing as British "citizenship", you were a subject not a citizen. Therefore, unless evidence can be given to show that Ms. Farrell had been granted Irish citizenship, then her nationality can only be "British subject" Ulster_Vanguard (talk) 01:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My 1976 Passport says British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies, whereas its replacement ten years on says British Citizen The difference being the British Nationality Act, 1981. So if she was born in Belfast, then most probably she was legally a British Citizen at the time of the shooting, unless there is any evidence that she formally renounced it. Her passport was false and I understand nationality is not recorded on death certificates. --Gibnews (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles 2 & 3 of the Irish Constitution was before the Belfast Agreement, and that says because she was born on the Island of Ireland she was Irish. --Domer48 (talk) 18:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh no, under the 1956 Act She was eligible but would have needed to apply. Being born in part of the UK confers British nationality, which can be renounced. The question is is there any evidence of this?  Otherwise, it may be an inconvenient truth that she was British. --Gibnews (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"The only limitations to which were that anyone born in Northern Ireland was not automatically an Irish citizen but entitled to be an Irish citizen"--Domer48 (talk) 20:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No she has it as a birth right after independence was won, the Republic of Ireland adopted a pure version of jus sanguinis, meaning citizenship based on ancestry. and a quick search proves this here and here and here and here so the onus is on editors to prove she was British. BigDunc Talk 19:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Afraid not BigDunc, we know she was born in the UK, therefore IS British by birth; the question here is whether she renounced this formally and applied for Irish citizenship, and that it was granted. You can argue all you want about precieved entitlements, but that is besides the point - this is a question of fact; unless it can be shown, i.e. evidence is adduced, that she had been granted citizenship of the Republic of Ireland, then her nationality as a statement of fact must be british. Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution (before ammended by Belfast Agreement 1998) simply allowed people born in Northern Ireland to APPLY and be granted citizenship - it is on you to prove that she applied.--Ulster Vanguard (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And what of your assumption that she did not renounce her british citizenship if you have evidence that she didnt provide it the onus is on the editor inserting content. BigDunc  Talk 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Once again BigDunc you seem to have it the wrong way round. Being born in the UK we KNOW she had British citizenship from birth; therefore, inorder for her to have any other nationality she must have changed it - therefore, it is on you to provide evidence that it changed to Irish.  To take your point "your assumption that she did not renounce her british citizenship" - no, YOU are asserting she changed it to IRISH.  I am making no assumptions; her nationality WAS British at her time of Birth, and therefore it is a fact it mush have remained so UNTIL she either renounced it or applied for Irish citizenship - unless evidence can be produced to show a change in nationality, then her nationality WAS British.  I would ask you to STOP editing the article until you can produce such evidence.--Ulster Vanguard (talk) 21:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I have a proposal. Either we leave her nationality as blank and thereby avoid such political concerns, or else list her nationality as Northern Irish, which satisfies the birth argument. Either way, if the revert-warring continues here and at Bobby Sands, I will protect both. So please come so some agreement. And soon. Rockpock e  t  20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I've already made such a proposal on the Bobby Sands page. In fact if nationality and ethnic identity in that part of the world was such a clear cut and unambiguous thing then we wouldn't be writing articles like these in the first place. As I've already said, leave it out and it will save everyone time and hassle. Valenciano (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with that Rock I meant to revert to that but by mistake didnt also as I said the Booby Sands one is WP:LAME and not worth stressing and decided not to feed the trolls BigDunc  Talk 20:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rock could you make both blank as I dont want to be seen as edit warring? BigDunc  Talk 21:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and as neither actually appear in the info box blanking works for me. --Domer48 (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have removed the nationality from the box completely. In cases like this, where there is disambiguity over concepts like nationality, it really isn't worth distilling it down into a box. Clearly the lady in question didn't identify as a British subject (that much is clear from her refusal to recognize Her Majesty's court), therefore labeling her as such serves more of an antagonistic purpose than an encyclopaedic one. I expect so see a significant level of talk-page discussion before it is added back, one way or the other. The same goes for Sands.  Rockpock  e  t  00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. There is no legal status of 'Northern Irish' so at the time of her demise she was either a British Citizen, or could have held Irish citizenship  but there is no evidence.  Nationality, residence and domicile are thinks I take an interest in because there is a similar situation where Spain at one time decided that all Gibraltarians should be Spanish. I think its a bad principle to impose nationality, the individual needs to consent. --Gibnews (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Mcann and Savage
As the article describes her being shot, its important to mention that her accomplices were known killers as that goes a long way to explain why the security services reacted strongly. The reference is a respectable academic book on terrorism published this year. We are trying on Wikipedia to create articles based on this, rather than editors opinions. --Gibnews (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So in that case will I insert about the state sponsored murders carried out by the SAS in Ireland just to show the company she was murdered by. BigDunc  Talk 20:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have anything that is as well sourced as the reference you have censored you should. However you do not know the names of the officers involved, so its just a general allegation.  The fact that the PIRA members in Gibraltar were known murderers is highly appropriate to the manner the security services treated them.  There is a lot of material in this article which is not directly related to the subject, and just because its inconvenient to your point of view does not mean that it should not to be included.  Perhaps you should read the book.  --Gibnews (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

POV issues
There are some balance issues now, with the introduction of the recent material. For example, we quote a number of "independent" witnesses, all of who are highly critical of the apparent judgment. I don't know for sure, but as is the case with these sorts of trials, I'm sure there were other "independent" witnesses who took a very different POV. If we are going to quote what individuals think, then its important for balance that we cover all aspects, not just those that forward one POV. There are also lots of leading statements, for example: Finally, the statement: ''The SAS according to Raymond Murray, author of The SAS in Ireland (1990), has described the SAS as an assassination squad, like the South American death squads, who, acting outside the law, have killed persons when they have had the opportunitie of arresting them. He also says they are well known "for shooting wounded and incapacitated persons lying helpless on the ground'' is remarkable in the context of the discussion in the section above. Either we do establish wider context, and describe the record and history of the key players, or we do not. The article is not about the SAS, neither is it about McCann and Savage. Most of the material added should really be at Operation Flavius, because its relevance to a bio on Farrell is questionable. Either way, lets keep it balanced people. Rockpock  e  t  17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Through the British legal system, justice was not forthcomming [sic]
 * In what was a landmark decision the court found that the three had been unlawfully killed
 * I would tend to agre with you RockPocket but this is what happens when editors try to push a POV the other side will push back, as I said the editions added by Gibnews are not relevant to this article. BigDunc  Talk 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I too would take Rocks concerns on board, and I'm will to address them in any way deemed necessary. For example, if editors wish to cite alternative witnesses it would help. I don't have any to hand now, if I had I would definitly have included them. I'm more than happy for the Murray statement to be moved, I only added it because of the veiw we should establish a wider context, and describe the record and history of the key players. --Domer48 (talk) 18:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Ms Farrell is notable primarily because she was shot in Gibraltar, and the article goes into detail about that. When she was shot it was as part of a group and the composition and nature of that group is something that anyone reading the article needs to understand, without whitewashing. --Gibnews (talk)
 * And they (editors) can follow the wikilinks to the other people involved. BigDunc  Talk 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I altered a few sections as the line "The relatives of McCann, Savage and Farrell found that they were unable to get justice" is complete POV and no better than the previous version. Also stating that it was a landmark verdict is POV. If that is to be reinserted it needs a cite e.g. "it was regarded as a landmark verdict by some commentators" (specify and cite them.) Valenciano (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasnt finished or happy with the rewrite myself and was intending to change thanks. BigDunc  Talk 19:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this further. I am still a little concerned with the balance of the inquest section. As it stands, we have one sentence describing the verdict. One suggesting it was as slim as it could be, and the rest of the section is undermining the verdict. Now, I have no knowledge of the case, but I find it hard to believe that the presiding judge didn't at least give some summation that supported the inquest finding. There must have been another side to this expressed. This is brought into focus when we contrast the section with the following one. Here we do quote the judge's summation.
 * Looking at the title of the major source (State Violence: Northern Ireland 1969-1997) suggests that it is not that Domer is cherry picking the people to quote, but simply that the author of the source is recounting that part of the case that suits his thesis. So there is nothing wrong with this material in isolation, but if we can't find a source for a reasonable counterpoint then I think we have to rework the section to ensure fairness of tone. Rockpock  e  t  22:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Just on the two points raised:


 * Through the British legal system, justice was not forthcomming [sic]
 * In what was a landmark decision the court found that the three had been unlawfully killed

They could be directly attributed to the author, none of the statements were mine, I just changed the order in the sentences. Hope that helps. On the inquest, there is a lot of other material I could add, but decided not to. Petty little things that were done during the trial, like increasing the price of transcripts for the lawyers going from 50p to £5.00 per sheet of paper, or not giving the lawyers access to the evidence files and statements prior to the case being heard. Now if I can find additional statements I will, and a quick look at the book will quickly show that the statements I used were not cherry picked. I would be concerned though with removing the information because editors can't find a source to present a counter point. --Domer48 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here isn't one of presenting alternative views per se but presenting one authors viewpoint as definitive. I've no problem with the statements going in provided that they're explicitly attributed to the author i.e. Raymond Murray criticised the events claiming that 'Through the British legal system, justice was not forthcomming" and Raymond Murray claimed that the verdict was "a landmark decision." Valenciano (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The term 'The British Justice system' is meaningless. The court in question is not in Britain, but in the Gibraltar jurisdiction where the law is based on English law. HMG was not happy about the scale of the inquiry and nor could they do anything about it because they have no control over the justice system. The event cost the Gibraltar tax payer a fortune which we paid, not the UK.  However, the details of the inquest are certainly outside the scope of this particular article.  Channel 4 did a excellent reconstruction of the inquest according to the court officials who watched it. --Gibnews (talk) 09:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Activation of bomb
''However, the arrest-operation that resulted in Farrell and her companions deaths took place on a Sunday-the changing of the guard occurred on Tuesdays, meaning that even if it was a remotely-controlled device it would not have been activated as the arrest happened. pp155-6, Unfinished Business: State Killings and the Quest for Truth, Bill Rolston, ISBN 1900960095''

That really is speculation; Nobody apart from the PIRA members knew the contents of the car, and unless he was the bomb maker, Bill Rolston has no way of knowing what state a potential bomb is in. Unless you intend to publish plans of 'IRA Radio Bomb Mk1' showing an activation switch, I suggest you remove that as its fiction. Placing a car on the Sunday is the only way to secure a parking position in Gibraltar. --Gibnews (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Placing a car on the Sunday is the only way to secure a parking position in Gibraltar. That really is speculation. Nobody apart from the PIRA members knew the contents of the car. That really is speculation. unless he was the bomb maker, Bill Rolston has no way of knowing what state a potential bomb is in. That really is speculation. Provide sourced information which contradict the above referenced text, and not just your speculation. -- Domer48 'fenian'  07:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Parking in Gibraltar is difficult at the best of times, if you really want to argue about that, I can find references to it in the press. It should have been mentioned in the inquest evidence. The bombers did their research properly in reserving a place on a Sunday when the indigenous car population is lowest.  Thats a fact not speculation.


 * That the security services did not know what was in the car is recorded in the evidence. Someone walked up to the car to take a look and noted the antenna, not the best job in the world.


 * That the author cited is making it up is self evident, unless he was the mysterious fourth terrorist.


 * This POV quote adds nothing factual to the article. --Gibnews (talk) 09:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Provide sourced information which contradict the above referenced text. That the author cited is making it up is self evident, That really is speculation.-- Domer48 'fenian'  13:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What evidence is that his OPINION has any substance? What evidence is there that any radio controlled bomb needed to be 'activated' whatever that might mean. I'm not objecting to it for any other reason that its total rubbish.  There was no radio controlled bomb found so speculation about how it might have worked is rather like describing the properties of unicorn dropping.--Gibnews (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

His opinion is considered to be both WP:RS and WP:V, and yours is not. I think 'activated' must mean switched on? -- Domer48 'fenian'  19:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Apart from here people seem happy to pay for my opinion :) I don't consider the extract from the book to be trustworthy it expresses an opinion about something that was not there and about which he has no specific information. The EVIDENCE suggests that the security services believed that a radio controlled bomb was in place. It would be reasonable to assume that if a bomb had been delivered it would have been armed (the correct term). If not someone would have to go back later risking being caught, and it going off by accident.  These are serious people, not a bunch of amateurs like the current wave of jihadis being arrested in the UK who think you can make a bomb with aluminium foil and oxo.  You should not disagree with me just for the sake of it - look at what is being said and consider whether this adds anything of value or is simply a badly informed opinion.

It can all be discredited by sifting through the court transcript, shall we do that? --Gibnews (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It can all be discredited by sifting through the court transcript, shall we do that? That would be called WP:OR I think? Just find a source that contradicts it, and add it? Or find a source that says it is not trustworthy and add that. It would be reasonable to assume has no place in the article I don't think, but that is just me. -- Domer48 'fenian'  22:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, quoting references from the inquest that show the author of an obscure book is expresing his opinion without any substantive factual basis is not original research. No doubt there are several shelves of books published of a similar nature. There certainly are about the Mary Celeste many of which claim all sorts of things imagined by their authors and cited from similar books. I know its true - I read it on the Internet.  --Gibnews (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, his book is considered to be both WP:RS and WP:V, I may be wrong. Could you possibly cite a source that says he is the author of an obscure book? I don't think I can be of any more help, other than the suggestions I have already offered. -- Domer48 'fenian'  15:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how being an expert on Irish wall paintings assists in understanding car parking in Gibraltar, terrorism, or bomb making, but thank you as ever for pointing out there is a different way of looking at something obvious. --Gibnews (talk) 19:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Anytime.-- Domer48 'fenian'  19:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)