Talk:Operation Flavius

top
This article does not give a fair description of the events of March 1988, nor of the political circumstances. There is a better account at http://www.specialoperations.com/Counterterrorism/Operation_Flavius.html. In particular, I am concerned that you state the inquest "found that all three had been shot while laying face down on the ground" I can find no mention of this crucial detail elsewhere on the web; where is your source? Otherwise, it should be removed.

Death on the Rock
This article and the Death on the Rock article are practically identical, I suggest a merger and redirect. --Coroebus 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the Death on the Rock article is notable enough to deserve an article of its own. There is some overlap between the two articles, but that's not a major problem and is required to give the Death on the Rock article some context. Stu   ’Bout ye!  10:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be if the articles were not essentially exactly the same. --Coroebus 10:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its good to have them seperate, the incident was important as was the attempt to supress an ill informed bit of TV journalism. The solution is to expand the two topics in different ways.  One thing that is not mentioned is that Channel 4 did a reconstruction of the inquest.  I have that somewhere on VHS. --Gibnews 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Further Detail
Someone added the following to the Mairéad Farrell page. I feel it is too specific and would be better suited here. However, the language appears to be pidgin-esque and requires a good deal of editing to be fit for inclusion. It also seems to lack any sources. (Copyright issues?)

The (British) intelligence service was now convinced that the bombing would take place on Tuesday 8 March, yet while the Joint Operations Centre was deliberating, there was still no sign that either (Danny) McCann or (Sean) Savage was getting ready to leave Belfast. They knew the third member and commander of the team was a formidable woman called Mairead Farrell, they knew what the target was, they were pretty certain they knew the date, and they thought they knew exactly how the bombing would be carried out. So far the whole operation had been a staggering success; seldom before had the security forces been in such an enviable position. On the afternoon of Sunday 6 March the MI5 observer is enjoying a quiet cigarette in the main square when he comes face to face with a man in a pin-striped jacket and jeans whose photograph he is certain he has ben looking at all week. It is 2.30p.m. Sean Savage has arrived on the Rock. With a start the watcher turns, walks away and then on the surveillance radio net reports back to the joint operations room the possible sighting of Savage. At almost the same moment other watchers stationed at the border report that two persons answering the description of Farrell and McCann have entered Gibralter on foot and are making their way past the airport terminal towards the town centre. Meanwhile Savage has wandered back across the square to a Renault 5 parked in slot 2 with its to the wall and its boot facing into the area where the band halts at the end of its parade. He unlocks the car and fiddles with something inside for two or three minutes. No watcher is close enough to see what he is doing but the significance is obvious. The waiting is over. The two SAS teams are now ready and awaiting instructions. Each soldier has brought with him from Hereford a 9mm Browning semi-automatic pistol, 9mm ammunition and empty magazines. Suddenly the active service unit is in the square not a stones throw from the operations room. It is 2.50p.m. Farrell and McCann have joined Savage and all three walk along the line of parked cars. They stop and look at the Renault. Not for long but long enough to chill the MI5 watchers. Now there can be no doubt. Identification is positive and the time to strike has arrived. At 2.55 p.m. Colombo (Deputy Commissioner Gibralter Police) agrees to the arrest and, verbally for the moment, passes the civil power to Soldier F and the military. At that moment the three bombers turn away and head out of the square past Soldiers C and D. The soldiers report in with a positive identification and set off in pursuit. Soldier E in the operations room tells them to hold back. Control is once more with the police. At 3.40 p.m. exactly the commissioner of police signs the document handing the power of arrest to the military. He (Detective Constable Charles Huart Special Branch) gets on his motorbike and heads for (Gibralter) town. Suddenly on the corner are all three terrorists, whom he recognizes instantly. At that moment the three separate. Farrell and McCann continue to head north towards the border. Savage turns round and heads back the way he has just come. In the words of Soldier A: "As I was getting close to Farrell and McCann, McCann looked over his left shoulder. He looked over but his body did not turn. He was smiling at the time. I was behind him, approximately ten metres... he looked straight at me. We had eye to eye contact. We looked directly at each other. The smile went off McCann's face ...it is hard to describe but it is almost like McCann had realized who I actually was ...I was just about to shout a warning to stop and at the same time I was drawing my pistol. I went to say "Stop" ...I don't know if it actually came out. I honestly don't know. He looked at me and all of a sudden his right arm, his right elbow, moved, in what I deemed an agressive action, across the front of his body. I thought Mad McCann was definately going for the button. To me the whole worry was the bomb in the assembly area." Soldier A, knowing that McCann is considered to be the IRA's greatest exponent of close quarter combat, now has his browning in his hand and fires one round into McCann's back. He sees Farrell out of the corner of his eye "going for her bag". By now the two soldiers are just three metre away from the bombers. Soldier A assumes Farrell is going for the button. He shoots her in the back and then shoots McCann three more times, one in the back, two in the head. In all, A fires five times. Soldier B is concentrating on Farrell. He draws his own gun as Farrell draws a large shoulder bag across her body. "In my mind she made all the actions to carry out the detonation of a radio-controlled device... I fired one or two shots at Farrell and then switched fire to McCann... in all seven shots." Soldier C fires four rounds to the chest and two the head. Soldier D fires nine rounds. In all, Savage is hit no less than fifteen times. At 4.06 p.m. soldier F hands over control of the military operation on the colony back to the police commissioner. The military operation has been running for just twenty-six minutes. Three of the IRA's most ruthless operatives are dead. By a majority of nine to two the (inquest) verdict was lawful killing.

GiollaUidir 17:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * wrong spelling of Gibraltar, My understanding was that all three were leaving Gibraltar at the time, not moving towards the town center. The reference to 'the main square' is bollocks as the bomb and holding car were parked further south.  This sounds like a sensationalised version taken from a popular paperback about the SAS.


 * The terrorists had been spotted in Spain and tracked by the Spanish intelligence services, who declined to attend the inquest, but it is believed co-operated fully with the British.


 * The detail can be found in the ECHR review. A link is given on the page.

--Gibnews 22:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Theres a lot of overlap between the various entries in Wikipedia about this incident. Currently all of them are fairly accurate, based on the report of the ECHR, which included the evidence presented at the inquest. Probably because of the interest at the time, this was not published and was available for an outrageous fee per page, Channel 4 bought a copy and did a full reconstruction of the inquest. This was believed to be the closest thing apart from televising the actual proceedings. I could not find the ECHR report online so created a .pdf of the copy downloaded from their website and anyone interested in the details should read that rather than the sensationalised accounts in paperback form. I've added some photographs of the locations taken recently - they are much as they were then except there were more cars parked in front of the bank then. I used to watch the band assembling and think about the possibility of someone planting a bomb, sadly others did too.

--Gibnews

Keep it real
The intention of the PIRA was to blow up the bandsmen, there was evidence they were in possession of semtex, detonators and timing devices. There were experienced and had no regard for human life. The Inquest determined that was their purpose, the independent ECHR review confirmed it, and the IRA issued a statement that they were 'on active service' - so lets not introduce any doubt in their purpose and resolve. --Gibnews 23:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The were killed before they took any action! They could have aborted the mission, got cold feet and decided not to carry it out or anything - we will never know! What we do know is the SAS killed 3 unarmed people on the bias and ALL of them reached for their pockets even though they were actually carrying nothing! The implication being that they all made the story up once they got back to the barracks. Vintagekits 00:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They were lawfully killed, not murdered. That was the verdict of the inquest. You are free to imagine whatever you like, but there is no evidence. There was evidence of explosives and given the past history of the team they were fully committed. You might want to add some extra material describing how the PIRA bravely shot the ex-Governor of Gibraltar in the head whilst he was enjoying his retirement. --Gibnews 01:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since they were immediately killed, they had no chance to defend themselves so we don't know what their personal intentions were. Meanwhile, since the British government had infiltrated the PIRA with numerous spys - including bomb experts - we don't know how reliable the evidence was against them.  Do we?  See the following references regarding just some of the 'outed' British spys within the PIRA: Matthew Teague talks about "Double Blind," his extraordinary profile of a double agent who helped undermine the IRA, 'Stakeknife' The Story of Britain's Army Spy at the Top of the IRA, Sinn Fein British agent shot dead  Because of the infiltration with bomb expert spys into the PIRA, no one will ever know what false flag operations were carried out by the British spys - rather than any PIRA members.Bcsurvivor 02:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are few things in this life that we can be totally sure about, in relation to this incident everybody lied in places, however the idea is to present the official record and things that are evidenced rather than wild assumptions lacking any substance.


 * There is reason to believe that the 'Gibraltar three' were bad people and that their elimination preserved the lives of many others, in that context I think the People of Gibraltar are due an official apology from the IRA for the attempt - which they have already acknowledged they maed - and that a line should be drawn under the matter and that we all move on. --Gibnews 09:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Who determines what is an "illegal paramilitary organisation"? King George of England believed that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and all of the other U.S. Patriots were members of an "illegal paramilitary organisation" and they would have been hung as traitors if King George could have managed to capture them.  They may even have been drawn and quartered like the Irish Patriots of 1798.Bcsurvivor 02:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Currently its the UN However, I believe the IRA has been an illegal organisation according to the laws of Ireland for some time. My pal with a degree in history says you are wrong about 1798.


 * Nobody denies that they were in Gibraltar to detonate a large bomb, so consider them 'casualties of war' like the attack on Sir Peter Terry, who was believed to have been playing golf in Spain when the original shooting occured. --Gibnews


 * The links with Gibraltar and Ireland are good, indeed we are twinned with Ballymena where a number of Gibraltarians were evacuated during WW2, the Irish here are well integrated and liked. Our situation is rather different as the indigenous population is both British, Catholic, self-governing, and united before making crass comments you need to be better informed.


 * I was in Dublin the day of the Omagh atrocity and shared the shock with the people there. There is nothing to be admired from this sort of activity and those who came to Gibraltar intending to murder and maim innocent people received swift justice.  Its history, leave it alone. --Gibnews

Allegations
Sorry, the allegations against Siobhan O'Hanlon shouldn't be included.

It's like having a link to An Phoblact stating Ian Paisley was involved in Greysteel.(Irish Republican 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I'd agree with that. If there was a fourth member it could be anyone. --Gibnews 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Radio evidence/claims
I think all the various radio evidence needs to be in one place, as at the moment there are competing "claims" in Death on the Rock, the inquest, and the European Court. In fact, it takes up most of the inquest section, which needs more detail in itself. Nick Cooper 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree there should be more information about the inquest, however the only published material is that reproduced in the ECHR review, unless you can get hold of a transcript of the Channel four reconstruction.

On the radio evidence, radio propagation around the rock is rather strange and the limited tests done by both camps are best described as RUBBISH. I watched the Army people doing theirs. Although I'm not saying Scott lied, he was very economical with the truth. --Gibnews
 * In 1979 the IRA had used a radio controlled bomb in the Mountbatten bombing, so surely they were at least as capable, if not more so, 9 years later in 1988? Radio detonation was used the same day at the Warrenpoint ambush and the Enniskillen bombing in 1987. How did it even become an issue at the Gibraltar hearings?86.44.214.41 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

MI6 involvement
For those who did not know at this point, exMI6 agent Richard Tomlinson has edited the list of MI6 he previously released and the MI6 responsibilities for Operation Flavius apppear attributed to:


 * Michael Charles RAMSCAR
 * DOB: 1948
 * POSTINGS: 77 Lagos, 79 Brasilia, 86 Madrid, 89 San Jose, 97 Madrid

Tomlinsons credentials as exMI6 are not disputed afaik. A gagging order was also previously issued to try and prevent dissemination of the list alongside all his other legal woes. With these things in mind i'm wondering if the detail Tomlinson alleges can be included in the article even though it was published on his blog?

I have not read on the subject of Flavius so cannot say if the naming of Ramscar is a confirmation of previously alleged information or something new. Either way its some detail that doesn't appear in the article presently so might be worth including without infringing WP:OR.

(tried including a namebase link describing the original gagging order controversy but it triggers the spam blacklist alert)
 * http://tomlinsonvmi6.blogspot.com/ Tomlinson Blog Saturday, February 24, 2007 entry
 * http://www.savefiles.net/d/h8m5zgonoy3y4.html Direct link to his edited version of the previously public MI6 agent list
 * Dee Mac Con Uladh 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ECHR
The ECHR reviewed the technical evidence presented at the Gibraltar inquest, they did not add to it. As the transcript of the inquest is not freely available, I believe they charged 5 quid a page, publication by the ECHR is a reliable source of the nonsense that went on. --Gibnews 10:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * By definition it was disputed, that's why it was reviewed. One Night In Hackney 303 08:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vintagekits: If you want to say the ECHR disputed the evidence presented at the inquest you need to substantiate that claim. They reviewed the evidence and came to conclusions. It may be you believe the evidence was rubbish, it may be that I think a lot of it was lies and fabrication from both camps, but neither of us are ECHR judges and its the record of that hearing which matters not our opinions.

The verdict was disputed by the families of the terrorists for political purposes, thats all. --Gibnews 08:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The reference is to paragraph 114

''114. The applicants called Dr Scott, who held a masters degree and doctorate in engineering and was a licensed radio operator. He had been involved in two IRA trials in England. He had conducted tests with similar receivers along the route taken by the three suspects.''

This is the evidence given at the inquest.

The evidence is contradictory, but the ECHR did not rule on that, or dispute any of it, even Dr Scott who was economical with the truth. --Gibnews 08:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Please try reading what you are reverting and saying - "this was further disputed at the European Court". Nobody is saying the ECHR disputed it, but by definition it was disputed at the ECHR.  One Night In Hackney 303 08:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference is specifically to the radio evidence and that was NOT disputed, it was reviewed. --Gibnews 10:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was disputed by the applicants which is why it was reviewed by the court. One Night In Hackney 303 10:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * "Reviewed"- seems more neutral. ONIH- please use edit summaries to explain why you are reverting. Astrotrain 10:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The radio evidence referenced was provided by the Irish Radio expert so you are 'disputing' that ? Confused. --Gibnews 21:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sir, if, as has been suggested above, you would take more care in reading the wording of the section you keep reverting, you would see that what is being stated is that evidence and statements were disputed at the ECHR---not that the ECHR disputed said evidence, but rather that the applicants disputed it. It was the disputation on the part of the applicants that led to the court's review. Please see the following:


 * 4. Further material submitted by the applicants


 * 131. The applicants also submitted a further opinion of Dr Scott, dated 22 October 1993, in which he reiterated his view that it would have been impossible for the three suspects to have detonated a bomb in the target area from the location where they were shot using an ICOM or any other conceivable concealable transmitter/aerial combination, which he maintains must have been well known to the authorities. He also drew attention to the fact that the strength of a hand held transmitter is severely attenuated when held close to the human body; when transmitting it should be held well clear of the body with the aerial as high as possible.


 * Which can be found at this link, already used as a reference - http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/gibralta.htm

--- Theoldanarchist  Comhrá  21:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that the ECHR did not accept any 'new' evidence and simply reviewed what was presented at the inquest.


 * Dr Scott was economical with the truth. The MoD people refuted his evidence, and there was a technical analysis in the magazine 'Wireless World' which calculated that it was possible, as indeed it is in practice.


 * The neutrality of ECHR needs to be carefully maintained. --Gibnews 09:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim2718281 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC) The article says "The SAS team was incorrectly informed that the IRA had already placed their bomb and were ready to detonate it."

As far as I'm aware, that is not correct. The person who examined the parked car briefly said he reported it as a suspected car bomb; and when asked in court what he meant by tnat, he explained it meant he could not rule out the possibility there was a bomb in the car.
 * updated.Twobells (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

POV statement
I question the inclusion of the Paragraph

''Fr 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 opportunity of arresting them. He also says they are well known "for shooting wounded and incapacitated persons lying helpless on the ground." ''

Its pretty clear the SAS do not operate in that manner and specifically did not in Gibraltar and the inclusion of that very POV quote would be rather like someone including the opinion of Norman Tebbit about the IRA which is equally unflattering. If there is evidence that the SAS do that sort of thing, lets see news reports of it and not just a prejudiced unsubstantiated opinion.

--Gibnews (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets see evidence that the SAS do not do that sort of thing, "lets see news reports" that are not just a prejudiced unsubstantiated opinion.-- Domer48 'fenian'  00:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you know that looking for reports that people do not do something is a rather weak argument. If you are saying that all news reports are biased then as Wikipedia is largely based on such things, the whole concept is flawed.  All I am saying is that including rampant propaganda and the personal unsubstantiated opinion of someone is not productive in describing events of a historical nature. Indeed his claim is probably based on the flawed view that 'innocent people' were shot on the streets of Gibraltar by the SAS which we know was not the case, a view supported by the inquest verdict. --Gibnews (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if Wikipedia is largely based on biased news reports the whole concept is flawed. However, it is not! We also have authors who have spent time in researching the subject, which can not be just dismissed as "rampant propaganda" and "unsubstantiated opinion" without any supporting evidence. -- Domer48 'fenian'  11:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Its a pity that your author has chosen to come of with defamatory weasel words, however, there is no shortage of material describing the IRA in less than flattering terms for murdering innocent civilians, as they proposed to do in Gibraltar, nor for that matter articles describing SAS bravery. Can I suggest politely you tone down the language and keep to facts rather than propaganda.  --Gibnews (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like some of "rampant propaganda" and "unsubstantiated opinion" without any supporting evidence we mentioned above. Its probably stuff like that which appeared in that colonial outposts newspapers. -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:51, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Use of the phrase 'colonial outposts' sounds like you want to be offensive and does not apply to Gibraltar which long ceased being 'a colony'. The Gibraltar Chronicle is the second oldest newspaper in the world and has a commensurate reputation. Its reporting of the foiled IRA atrocity was factual and lacked the ranting and misinformation of the UK press over the shooting of known IRA murderers.  --Gibnews (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Gibraltar Chronicle does not come anywhere remotely near being the second oldest newspaper in the world, there are dozens of still published journals very much older, but even if it was, age alone does not make it a reliable source. Wmck (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Well your description sounds like some "rampant propaganda" and "unsubstantiated opinion" without any supporting evidence which was covered in the The Gibraltar Chronicle. Its probably stuff like that which appeared in that colonial outposts newspapers.-- Domer48 'fenian'  14:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In The Gibraltar Chronicle their headline was "three dead as police foil Gib IRA attack", so much for factual accuracy!-- Domer48 'fenian'  18:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Gibraltar is not a 'colonial outpost' any more than Dublin. As regards the Gibraltar Chronicle headline, that sounds a reasonable description. Which part do you think is wrong?  Unlike the UK newspapers the story did not specifically state that there was a bomb:


 * British troops evacuated the whole area surrounding the Inces Hall where a car believed to contain a large bomb was being dealt with by bomb disposal experts. ... At a press conference held in, the Convent yesterday afternoon British officials, controlling all information, stated that UK forces were supporting the police and that the three people killed were suspected terrorists. People who were in the area of the shooting say that there were at least seven shots and a young man who saw the bodies of the man and woman close up says that both had their faces disfigured by the shots. The car was towed away and there has been no confirmation of the story that it held 500 pounds of explosives.


 * A story that gives its sources rather than random ravings about the SAS


 * --Gibnews (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly Raymond Murray's books' are for one audience, and do not claim to be even-handed, breaching WP:NPOV. E.g. his book "Hard Time: Armagh Gaol 1971-1986" is searing, and well written, but is based around his own reports on the jail.86.40.71.42 (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

O'Hanlon
An MI5 surveillance photo of O'Hanlon in Gibralter in 1988 has been released. Definitely looks like her. Part of Christopher Andrew's new book. Depending on what Andrew's book actually says, it may merit inclusion in the article. Stu  ’Bout ye!  10:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't see the article. The files state she was observed "reconnoitring" in Gibralter, but spotted local intelligence and returned to Ireland. Andrew's views on the operation as a whole should probably be included as well. Stu   ’Bout ye!  10:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Examination of MI5 Records
I've removed the last paragraph citing from that lunatic rag 'The First Post', honestly you cannot cite from a 'source' that suggests that both 9/11 and 7/7 were conspiracies while not offering any facts for same just uneducated opinion, they did exactly the same over the sniping of Sir Christopher Andrew. Also the Guardian cite makes no mention of him being a 'court historian', rather the piece had sympathies with the service. It's only point which wasn't even criticism more a suggestion was that it might have been better to have a raft of historians rather than one. Twobells (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It clearly says "court historian" so please explain why you say that it dose no mention this.-- Domer48 'fenian'  19:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Flags in Info Box
MOS:FLAG "Flags should not be used to misrepresent the nationality of a historical figure, event, object, etc. Political boundaries change, often over the span of a biographical article subject's lifetime. Where ambiguity or confusion could result, it is better not to use a flag at all, and where one is genuinely needed, use the historically accurate flag." The flag of Ireland is used in the info box, while I understand that the terrorist organisation (probably get a warning for that) used this flag , it is still the flag of a soveriegn state which should not be used in the context here and I beieve this is covered above in MOS:FLAG. I will leave this here for a day and then remove flag icon if there is no counter MOS issue, if its a POV issue I will still remove .Murry1975 (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Also from MOS:FLAG "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen."Murry1975 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I agree with the removal of flags from all infobox but it also states in MOSFLAG "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags" Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:42, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I do understand that aspect Mo Ainm, but the flag represents the state from 1922 , it should not in that time period (1922 - present) be used to represent an organisation that is not or never has been a part of that state . And as above "makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial". Murry1975 (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There was discussion before about the flag issue on another article about the use of the Flag of Ireland and as far as I can remember consensus was to use it, i'll see if I can find it. Mo ainm  ~Talk  20:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cheers Mo ainm, I would like a look at that . As I stated it is against MOS:FLAG , I cant see any criteria to use it any context here , it seems to make the actions of the PIRA look like that of Ireland . I could understand national flags used for armies of combatant nations - the British Flag in this article , but using a state flag when the state is not invovled is against MOS:FLAG.Murry1975 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Mo ainm ,I did not move the British one because it created no ambiguity .Murry1975 (talk) 11:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But you cited MOSFLAG, which states ...flag icons should not be used in infoboxes... Mo ainm  ~Talk  11:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:FLAG states several reasons against and some reasons for . The British flag was perfectly ok in the article even as a stand alone flag . What reason was there for me to remove it ? It was acurrate unambiguous and clearly should the state that the combatants belonged to - as you pointed out "It may in some narrow military history circumstances be appropriate to use flags"- from MOSFLAG . It also stated ,"Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly. In other cases, a flag may have limited and highly specific official uses, and an application outside that context can have political (e.g. nationalist or anti-nationalist) implications "Which it woud in this case .Murry1975 (talk) 11:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have stated I am not in favour of flags in infobox, but I will point out that there is no problem with the use of the tricolor since its use by the Irish Republic pre-dates the use by the Free State and its successors, and the tricolor is the flag used by the IRA. Mo ainm  ~Talk  11:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is used by the IRA yes ,is the IRA an offical legally recognised body ? No . It is used by the Irish state Ireland, is Ireland an offical legally recognised body ? Yes . Could there be ambiguity when used in cases like this on Wiki ? Yes . The PIRA , as in this case , do use the flag . If you want to qoute history the flag is older than ANY form of the IRA by about thirty years . Many organisations use it . In most cases it would be clear what the flag stands for . In a military history context it should only be used where the state has been involved , not for a terrorist organisation which has been illegal in that state and even attacked the legal army and police force of that state what would the flag icons be used here if they were to be used []?Murry1975 (talk) 12:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Terrorism/Archive 3. Nothing new really brought up here. The tricolor is verifiabily the flag of Irish republicanism and the IRA, and its use pre-dates any adoption by any other Irish state. It did not cease to be the flag of Irish republicanism at any point, particuarly not when adopted by the Free State. Any arguments about illegality are specious. Are you going to remove the Confederate flag from American Civil War articles? Or the Stars and Stripes from American Revolutionary War articles? Plenty of non-state (although the whole point is that the IRA aren't non-state, more acting on behalf of an unrecognised state) actors have flags, should they all be removed because they aren't "legal"? I've no real preference for both flags versus no flags, but having only one flag is POV. 2 lines of K 303  14:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Having one flag is not POV .The flag of Ireland being used in a modern i.e. post independence, article is against MOS:FLAG "makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial". As you say " the whole point is that the IRA aren't non-state, more acting on behalf of an unrecognised state" using a flag of that state . It also uses other flags , maybe one of them would suffice ? As for the usage in this article , how would you describe the use of the tricolour? Inappropriate ? Unnessecary ? Misleading ? Ambiguous? I have read the link , and it is clear that the POV that the tricolour usage by the IRA in articles is correct even with consensus and the links it still a POV. Where can we have a good chat about this ? Flags or Ireland , open the catergory chat and let me in - dont forget to invite others .Murry1975 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Simple solution really enforce MOSFLAG and remove flags from infobox they add nothing to the article. Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * MOSFLAG is not mandatory, is a guideline, and as any WP guideline it is a set "of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Far from being 'obstructive' Domer48 (at Talk:Warrenpoint ambush) has only reflected consensus. 'Legal' or 'illegal' doesn't matter here, since we have reliable sources cited in that discussion that support the use of the Tricolour as the flag of Irish republicanism. Additionally, a much more specific guideline actually allows the use of the Irish flag for groups other than the RoI. WP:IRISH FLAGS reads: "At this time, neither the island of Ireland nor Northern Ireland has a universally recognised flag. In those instances, if an organisation uses a flag or banner to represent the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland, use that flag or banner to represent teams, bodies or people under its aegis.".--Darius (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Alternative PIRA symbol?
I was thinking of an alternative symbol for the PIRA...I spent some time trying to remember...and I found, this and

Yes, the very symbol of the Provisional IRA is the Phoenix. Although it dates back to the XIX century as republican icon, the Phoenix gained momentum during thefirst Civil Marches in Derryand 1969 riots. I guess this bird is our opportunity to avoid further users complaints about the use of the Tricolour and future edit wars. I found a nice svg file... any suggestions about? If it doesn't upset another people, :)) (just a joke), can an agreement be reached?. Your opinions, please.--Darius (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic work Darius .Agree with use . Murry1975 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Murry1975, I left further comments on Talk:Warrenpoint ambush.--Darius (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My feelings on flags is that they shouldn't be in the infobox at all, having said that making up a symbol for entry is original research so I would be against using it if we have reliable sources for the addition of the Flag of Ireland then if we are going to ignore the MOS then that is what we go with. Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree! -- Domer48 'fenian'  13:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

First sentence
The operation (better known as the "Gibraltar killings") is notable for the fact that three IRA operatives were killed. This should not be sprung on the reader in the middle of the second paragraph of the lead, but the fact and the location should be stated in the first sentence: "Operation Flavius was a controversial military operation conducted in Gibraltar by the British Special Air Service (SAS) on 6 March 1988, in which three members of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) were killed." Scolaire (talk) 09:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter, thanks for your suggestion. I've re-worded the first sentence completely; see what you think. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:18, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Query
"The British authorities had intelligence that the IRA was planning an attack in Gibraltar possibly as early as August 1987. " Did the authorities have the intelligence as early as August 1987 or was the intelligence that the attack might be as early as August 1987?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The former; I've re-worded to that effect. Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverted edits
Rms125a@hotmail.com, I've reverted your most recent series of edits. some of the changes were useful, but you also introduced a lot of problems. I'll list them in order so we can discuss them if there are any you feel strongly about:
 * this tag is unnecessary imo; The person might be named (and I'll check), but I don't think the name would add to the reader's understanding, as the event in question is mostly background to the main subject of the article. Also "traveled" versus "travelled" is an ENGVAR thing; Brits use the version with two "l"s. The rest I have no strong feelings about. -- I re-added the name of the IRA volunteer shot dead, Kevin McCracken (as per source: http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1988.html).  Quis separabit?  22:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * this edit I can live with happily; I'll restore it tomorrow. -- DONE. Quis separabit?  22:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * this edit is against the MoS—external links belong in their own section if we're to have them, not linked to words in the body; "Thus, the court decided there had been a violation of Article 2 in the control of the operation." is not synthesis, it's a statement of fact (and indeed that's a concise version of what the source says) -- Fine, but I simply am often leery of third parties' "versions" of source text, because this indicates some (unavoidable) degree of personal cogitation, but OK. Quis separabit?  22:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "allegedly beaten to death" is in the source; emdashes (—) shouldn't be spaced, per MOS:DASH. -- Fine and Fine. Quis separabit?  22:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your courtesy. I indicated my feelings or actions above on each of the four points you made. We should be able to move ahead now. Quis separabit?  23:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; I'll probably make a few tweaks tomorrow, but I don't have time right now. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Background
I am making some changes to the first few sentences of this section. Firstly, if we say that the IRA was a paramilitary organisation that aimed to get the British out of Northern Ireland though the use of force, it adds nothing to say that they were "considered by the British to be terrorists"; there's a bit of a "d'uh!" factor there. Secondly, it's not accurate to say that they split from the Official IRA: Officials and Provisionals were the two products of a split within the IRA. I'm putting in a different source for that: Bishop and Mallie's The Provisional IRA. I'm also linking the Provisional IRA, because it's the beginning of the article proper, and a long way from the link at the start of the lead. Finally, I thought "bombing and shooting of businesses" sounded very stange, so I am re-ordering the wording in that sentence. Scolaire (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I thought the "considered [...] to be a terrorist organisation" was worth including, because the British approach to Flavius was one counter-terrorism rather than an operation against an opposing military, but i you think it goes without saying, I'll go along with that. As to linking, some people believe very passionately that no article should contain two links to the same place, but my general rule is once in the lead and once in the body. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * "Partial rv" (actually almost entire rv) re my last edit by HJ Mitchell is borderline censorship and should be explained and discussed on talk page. Mentioning only police and Army as opposed to the whole litany of victims -- reservists, politicians, judges, WWII veterans, loyalists, alleged informers, etc -- is a disservice to the article and to the truth. If you rv references to the creation of the PIRA from the 1960s split in the IRA as a whole, then we can maybe remove some extraneous details, but otherwise how else to distinguish between PIRA as compared to OIRA, from which it split? Quis separabit?  16:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the whole range of IRA activity being included. I also thought that "police or military patrols" was a bit bare. I do think that the list could be ordered a bit better, though; at the moment it looks kind of thrown together. I don't think suspected informers should be there, either. While the IRA did undoubtedly kill them, it couldn't really be said to have been part of their strategy i.e. how they "pursued their aims". I also think "to intimidate opponents and drain the British Exchequer" is a bit hyperbolic, and could do with clarification as well as toning down.
 * I've added half a sentence to distinguish Provisionals from Officials. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for your advice and your helpful edits. Quis separabit?  21:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I would also have concerns about sourcing. The CAIN page linked to gives a lot of statistics about violence, but does not say that this is the way the IRA "pursued their aims". The other source, Urban's Big Boys' Rules, is the source that was used for the previous, much shorter sentence. I would like to know exactly what that book says on pages 32-34. Scolaire (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "It pursued its aims through the killing, by shooting and bombings..." was formerly "The IRA attempted to achieve its aims through bombing and shooting ..." I guess I don't see much difference. Quis separabit?  23:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I may have misconsolidated something, but I do trust and rely on CAIN implicitly. These links I added to the text should be informative (http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/victims/introduction/smcd07whoarethevictims.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/8351344.stm, http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/index.html#append). If there is anything you object to as inaccurate or untrue, then please feel free to rectify. Also, I added some info to the background section re splinter groups since you pointed out that the OIRA ceased activity in the 1970s but the PIRA was not the only republican group active since that time. But if this added info is too tangential or better placed elsewhere then feel free to remove. Yours, Quis separabit?  00:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you misread what I said. I didn't say that CAIN was not reliable, I said that I couldn't see anything on the page to back up the assertion that "It pursued its aims through the killing, by shooting and bombings..." Multiplying the refs doesn't help there. Indeed, it only adds to the confusion, because they're all very long pages, and I can't see what, specifically, you're citing. I'd still like if could tell me what the Urban book said. The other thing is, we don't need an exhaustive list of every kind of person that they killed. This is not the IRA article, it's an article on a very specific subject. So, rather than adding resident magistrates to the list, it would be better to summarise it as "members of the police, military, prison system and judiciary, including off-duty and retired members."
 * The info on other parmilitary groups is not needed. The Officials are only there because it confuses readers if you talk about a split without saying what the other half of the split was. Scolaire (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've made a stab at it here. I think I've made all the points you wanted to make, and I've linked to two books that state the facts concisely. Scolaire (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Rms125a@hotmail.com, your accusations of "subjective removal" and "censorship" are outrageous and deeply offensive. I've spent hundreds of hours building this article up from the bare bones that it used to be, and I'm certainly not "partial" to either side of the debate, as I think the prose shows. It's extensively researched, and I've taken great care to back up controversial statements with solid references; I certainly have not sought to shy away from anything that one party or the other may find uncomfortable. However, not everything can be included—the article is already hovering around the 8,000-word mark, and many thousands more words have been written elsewhere about the events described in this article. The role of an encyclopaedia is to summarise the literature on the subject; that means there comes a point when you have to decide whether something is significant enough for inclusion and what weight to give it. If we didn't do that, this article could easily be three times the size it is, but the reader's understanding of the subject would be no deeper.The background section in particular should be restrained—its purpose in an article like this is to help the reader understand who the main parties were and how they operated, as far as is relevant to the main subject. We don't need a full history of the IRA (or indeed the SAS), much less Irish Republicanism, we have other articles that are far better equipped to inform readers on those subjects; we need enough so that a reader understands how the IRA came to plan a bomb attack in Gibraltar. I welcome—and have welcomed—edits that improve the article, but some of your edits have introduced more problems than they've solved. I've always assumed good faith and given you and your edits the benefit of the doubt; since I've known you were following edits to the article, I've used very clear edit summaries; and I have been friendly in interacting with you because my only interest is the best possible encyclopaedia article. You, on the other hand, have used ambiguous edit summaries, removed vital facts on the extremely dubious grounds of "synthesis" and "speculation" (on which points you seem not to fully understand the applicable policies) and you have repeatedly reinstated your edits after I have carefully fixed the problems without resorting to a wholesale revert, apparently without reading my edit summaries. I would appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy I have shown you, and I would ask that you strike your accusation of censorship. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the heated language. Obviously this is a topic that people feel strongly about. The censorship claim was based on your edit summary ""Partial rv" when you apparently reverted almost the entire edit in question. I took umbrage, but I'm sorry for any untoward comments made in the heat of the moment. Quis separabit?  23:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Scolaire: Thanks for your work on the background section, and for digging up some broader sources. I hope you don't mind if I incorporate them into the general references section with the other books. It's been a few weeks since I wrote it, but I don't think anything from Urban was verbatim ("pursued its aims" I'm almost certain are my words, not his). He devotes several pages to explaining the origins of the Provisional IRA and I tried to boil it down to a couple of lines for background. I don't have the book to hand right now, but I'll check it later and get you a quote tomorrow. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you're happy with the paragraph as it is now, there's no need for you to check back and see what Urban said, as he's no longer one of the sources. Thank you for moving those sources into the General references section; I should have done it myself but I was too lazy. Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it works for me (though attempts at governing Northern Ireland both futile and expensive for the British government is a bit over the top; I'll probably change that back to ... making Northern Ireland ungovernable. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I am removing the reference to the Good Friday Agreement. For one thing, the Agreement was in 1998, and the cessation of activity was in 2005, so the two are nor generally linked by commentators, except in so far as they were both part of the Peace Process; and for another, the GFA is not relevant to the events of 1988. I'm changing "in abeyance" to "inactive", and moving it back to the start, as it explains the change of tense in the sentence ("is a paramilitary organisation which aimed...") Scolaire (talk) 08:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that Good Friday isn't relevant to this article, though I wasn't aware of the more complicated history. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead again
The lead is not too long for the length of the article, and could be expanded into four paragraphs. I think the second sentence of the first paragraph should be the first section of the second, as it begins the chronology of the event. The remainder of the first paragraph should talk about why the operation was controversial and the questions it raised – the use of lethal force, warnings, possible surrender, alleged conspiracy etc. – and make a brief mention of the Milltown killings and the corporals killings as well. This is the sort of information the reader will look for if, for instance, the first paragraph appears on the front page of Wikipedia some day. Scolaire (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I went for a three-paragraph lead just because I didn't want to overwhelm readers with what was already quite a long article, but there's scope to make it a bit longer if we think that's necessary. I would prefer to keep it in chronological order if possible, so perhaps a new paragraph between the second and first (as they are currently) would be better? By all means try something if you want; it'll be next week before I can do much. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, my point is that "Operation Flavius was a controversial military operation in which three members of the Provisional IRA were shot dead by the SAS in Gibraltar on 6 March 1988. From late 1987, the British authorities were aware that the IRA was planning to detonate a bomb..." does not flow. They should be in separate paragraphs. To quote a now retired admin in a related discussion from 2009, "It is a case of the first para summarising the lede. The idea is to bring the key points up front to people unfamiliar with the topic, with a longer introduction in the rest of the lede. This is helpful because Wikipedia articles are often much longer than other encyclopedia articles - this is one of the more common criticisms of Wikipedia, that there's far too much detail and not enough overview." What I am proposing is to give the overview in the first paragraph, and the chronology from the second paragraph on. Scolaire (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not something I've come across before, but it's quite a good idea. What do you think of this, Scolaire? Copy-edits or suggestions for improvement are welcome. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of
 * The three—Seán Savage, Daniel McCann, and Mairéad Farrell—were believed to be planning a bombing attack on British military personnel in Gibralter. SAS soldiers challenged them in the forecourt of a petrol station, then opened fire, killing them. All were found to be unarmed, and no bomb was discovered, leading to accusations that the British government had conspired to murder them. An inquest in Gibraltar ruled that the SAS had acted lawfully, while the European Court of Human Rights held that, although there had been no conspiracy, the planning and control of the operation was flawed. The deaths were the first in a chain of violent events in a fourteen-day period; they were followed by the Milltown Cemetery attack and the corporals killings.
 * First of all, the three should be named and linked in the first paragraph, followed by the reason they were challenged, and the place they were challenged (thus explaining why the main image is one of a petrol station). Remember the Five Ws. The remainder should be stated briefly – it is a summary of a summary after all – and I think all the information about this incident, including court cases, should come before a very brief mention of the other killings. Scolaire (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been bold and done the edit. Scolaire (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I also think it would be no harm to have the paragraph break where it was before (after "seen to cross the border shortly afterwards"). Simply moving the content from the first para into the second has had the effect of making the second para very long and somewhat daunting. The three sentences are not too little for a stand-alone para. Having the break where it was made sense: one para for the build-up, one for the event itself, and one for the legal fall-out. Scolaire (talk) 09:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no strong feelings on the break, but it does no harm and the paragraph was a bit big (even after a little trimming before I combined the two). I'll look at the other stuff in more detail sometime in the next few days—I'm on a train at the minute. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've no issue with the rewording of the opening paragraph, except that I really would prefer to keep things in chronological order—ie mention Milltown and the corporals in the order that they happened; the ECtHR case didn't conclude until nearly six years after the shootings but is currently mentioned before events which took place just days later. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a question of flow. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, we're talking about what readers will see on the front page of Wikipedia some day. If they're reading, "questions were asked about the killings...some other killings happened in the following weeks...and the inquest and the ECHR answered the questions in such a way", they'll be saying "what? wait, you're losing me". Strict chronology is not important for an overview; readability is. Right now, you're the person writing the article; I'm not going to waste time arguing the toss with you. But when you submit this for FA, the question of readability is going to be raised again, and your "I just like having things in chronological order" isn't going to satisfy the reviewer. If you think I'm wrong, by all means ignore me. I'm not going to come back in two months time and say "I told you so." Scolaire (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Background again
Copied from my talk page:
 * Hi. Just wanted to let you know I reverted my last edit as I didn't wish to be in violation of 1RR. However, I believe the edit is salutary, and most certainly not tweaking for tweaking's sake. I believe the term "judicial personnel" is quite unclear, almost intentionally vague, whereas "members of the judiciary" is far clearer.
 * Anyway I don't want to get into any kind of edit war regarding good faith editing, so I wanted to know if you could look again (via edit history) at the rewording I used and let me know if you have any problem with it (and why) so I can TRY to reword it for mutual agreement, if possible.
 * Yours, Quis separabit?  20:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edits, and your posts here and on my talk page, raise a number of questions: Having said all that, I would have no problem with changing "military, police, judicial and prison personnel" to "members of the armed forces, police, judiciary and prison service". But I'll see what Harry thinks. He's the one that has taken the trouble to bring this article up to standard. When I say I don't want to get into any kind of edit war, I stop edit-warring. I'm not going to revert you again; I'll let you and Harry sort out the wording between you. Scolaire (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Why is the killing of judges so important, that it merits special mention. It's not as though the IRA targetted one judge a week for thirty years. Were judges the target of the planned operation in Gibralter? If not, why is there a specific need to emphasise the killing of judges in this article? There are no fewer than three articles – The Troubles, Provisional IRA and Provisional IRA campaign 1969-1997 – where this degree of detail is appropriate.
 * 2) Why would I be intentionally vague, given that I have already said that I have no objection to the whole range of IRA activity being included? I want to help Harry bring this article up to FA standard. Your use of that word, and the earlier use of the word "censorship", directed at Harry, might suggest that you are less concerned with improving the article than with holding all the sins of the IRA up to the light of day. If we were not assuming good faith, that is. Let me just remind you that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
 * 3) In the light of the above questions, is "judicial personnel" really that much more unclear than "members of the judiciary"? And if clarity is so important, why have you now replaced "members of the judiciary" with "jurists"? That word had me scrambling for my Collins dictionary!
 * Gents, I've just made this edit. I'm not sure we need to mention the judiciary specifically, but if we are, that copy-edit was useful. RMS, the rest of your edits introduced various problems. For example, the articles uses "IRA" (not "PIRA") as the abbreviation throughout; as I understand it, the latter was mainly used by the British Army, and "IRA" is used by all the sources and in the article on the organisation. Similarly, "Volunteer" is, I believe, a term mainly used by the IRA to describe its activists; even Eckert (who is otherwise apologetic for the IRA in many parts of his book) thinks the term portrays the IRA as "social workers toting assault rifles"—I've tended to avoid the term, in the same way that I've avoided words like "terrorist".
 * Above all, though, this is just background—it's there to help the reader understand the history as it relates to the events described in the article; we have links to other articles (the Troubles, Provisional IRA, even Official IRA and Irish Republican Army (1922–69)) for those who want to know exactly what the IRA did during its campaign. I'll gladly concede that my original version wasn't perfect, and I'm entirely open to suggestions, but it's not meant to be a comprehensive list. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  21:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I personally think it makes more sense, purely from the point of view of providing background to the events, if judges were not singled out, i.e. this version or the alternative I suggested above, but I said I would leave it to you, so I'll say no more. Scolaire (talk) 22:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * RMS, Scolaire, what do you think of this wording? I'm also considering removing prison officers from the list, but I don't feel overly strongly if somebody wants to make an argument for their continued inclusion. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  22:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The original text said it "attempted to achieve its aims through bombing and shooting of businesses and police or military patrols". This was subsequently clarified and extended, but the edit you link to leaves out the destruction of businesses altogether. We also had agreed that prison officers and judges were to be included as targets – my only objection to the previous edit was that it singled out judges for no apparent reason. Also, "mainly in Northern Ireland and England" is misleading. If you wanted to cover all your bases, you could say "mainly in Northern Ireland, sometimes in England and to a lesser extent in other parts of Europe", but I think it's easier just to leave it as "both in Northern Ireland and England". Scolaire (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we really need the laundry list of different targets; for example, the targeted plenty of politicians and other establishment figures but they're not mentioned in the article. As far as background is concerned, I don't think police officers, prison officers, and judges are significantly more or less relevant than any other group. Military personnel are obviously relevant because Operation Flavius was concerned with an attempted bombing of a military parade; police officers I think I added originally to give some background (to avoid the impression that the IRA only attacked soldiers), and now we've got the laundry list. I think the judges were singled out for the sake of the prose rather than because they were more important. I agree that we should probably retain the destruction of businesses. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  19:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Armed forces, police, judiciary and prison service" is four items, seven words. I don't know how many items you send to the laundry at one time, but I certainly would not think of four items as a laundry list. It's a straightforward statement of how the IRA operated – which, if I understand correctly, is the purpose of the paragraph - and I don't see any benefit accruing from lopping off three words (the "and" will need to stay). As I said in the section above, this is your baby, and I feel no great need to oppose you. I can't help wondering though, if there aren't some ownership issues here. However, do what you feel. I think I've contributed enough, and I'm going to unwatch this. Happy editing. Scolaire (talk) 00:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Scolaire, I hope you'll reconsider. Perhaps I've not been the easiest person to work with, and maybe I am a little protective, but my aim is to make this the best encyclopaedia article it can be, and I was quite enjoying working with you towards that aim. Your contributions thus far have been extremely valuable, and it's hard to overestimate the value of having people like you to discuss changes with and to challenge things if something is going wrong—this article would be much poorer if I were the only contributor. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  20:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I meant it when I said I think I've contributed enough. I never meant to be a major contributor; I just wanted to share my thoughts on two or three things, and now I've done that. I wish you all the best in your quest for FA status, and I'm sure someone else will come along and help with the other sections. Regards, Scolaire (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Judges were targeted because of the Diplock courts which had been implemented in NI because of the widespread intimidation of jurors by the paramilitaries which was leading to acquittals when there was ample evidence presented in court of the accused's guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Rms125a@hotmail.com subject to 0RR at this article
For continued disruption to this article, including gaming the 1RR restriction, I have imposed a WP:0RR restriction on user:Rms125a@hotmail.com at this article. If they make any reverts, whether explicitly marked as such or not, to this article they may be blocked without further warning. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Citation format examples
A better example would be something like the WP:FA pages at:
 * 1) The General in His Labyrinth
 * 2) El Señor Presidente
 * 3) Mario Vargas Llosa

Hopefully these are some helpful examples from which to model references formatting sects.

Cheers,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede too long?
Is the "lede" not ridiculous right now? It's like a book...Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is my suggestion for a radically shortened lede: ....Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, leads are something I struggle with, but that's a little bit too drastic. It needs to adequately summarise the article but without going into excess detail. It's on the longer side of acceptable at the moment, and I'm certainly not averse to some pruning for readability if it goes into too much detail, but please bear in mind that this is a featured article, and it's been through a lengthy review process to ensure it meets strict criteria. That doesn't mean it's perfect or that it can't be changed, just that a lot of people have had input on the way it is. I'll reply in more detail in the morning as it's getting on for 01:00! Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's ok. You don't need to spend any time justifying anything to me. I am not committed to this article the way you appear to be. You have my view - that it's ridiculous. To call it a lede is ridiculous. My view hasn't changed. Regardless of there having been a "review process". I will drop out now. Best of luck with it. Frenchmalawi (talk) 01:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Some Interesting Stuff
I contributed the following which includes some interesting stuff that isn't covered in the article presently (even though the article is extremely long). I reproduce it for those who may see merit in including all or any of the following (all sourced). My edit was reverted in about 5 minutes so no one really got a chance to read any of the material. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The Inquest
The Inquest in Gibraltar which followed the shooting to establish the causes of death commenced on 6 September 1988 and lasted until 30 September 1988. The proceedings attracted much interest from the international press who followed the proceedings as well as from the Government of Ireland, the International League of Human Rights, the National Council for Civil Liberties and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. Fianna Fáil, the largest political party in Ireland at the time, also sent an observer, David Andrews, a man who would subsequently serve as the Irish Foreign Minister. Andrews claimed that the British security police would be on trial. Lawyers acting at the Inquest on behalf of the families of the deceased applied to have the hearing held without a jury, fearing that a local jury might not be totally objective. However, their application was refused. Before the Inquest, certificates were issued that certain information should not, in the public interest, be disclosed. This included the identity of the soldiers involved in the operation (referred to only as soldiers A to G) as well as sensitive operational information. 79 witnesses gave evidence. The identity of the soldiers was protected by a tent erected in the patio of the Supreme Court with a thick curtain behind which witnesses gave evidence. The SAS came under intense scrutiny at the Inquest and the question which arose was whether there had been a security blunder on their part when they shot dead the terrorists having assumed that they were armed and about to detonate a bomb. Lawyers for the families argued that the decision to kill the suspects had been made by the Government of the United Kingdom before the incident and the soldiers were ordered to carry out the shootings. Alternatively, they argued, the operation had been planned and implemented in such a way that the killing of the suspects by the soldiers was the inevitable result. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict of lawful killing by a 9-2 majority.

European Court of Human Rights
The Inquest was not the end of the matter. The matter came before the the European Court of Human Rights in 1995. . The Court ruled by the narrowest of margins (10 to 9) that the killing did not constitute use of force which was "absolutely necessary" and that article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention of Human Rights had been violated. END OF STUFF Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Article milestones
I cannot find any reason that the bot went from Action1 to Action3 here, which I have corrected. If you know of any, please correct. Also, if you hate my bundling of citations pls feel free to revert (I think they are easier on the reader and use them when citations are not repeated). Up to you, unwatching, best regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)