Talk:Thomas Murphy (Irish republican)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Arrested
He's been arrested in the Republic by the CAB. The Lunchbox of Dooom 08:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I just say that Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories. Has this person been found guilty of anything? However, our sister project Wikinews does exactly that, and is intended to be a primary source.--Domer48 18:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your link is misleading. It connects to the "no original thought" policy on wikipedia. Murphy's charge and arrest are reported in quotable news reports, so they are not original research. Also, the section you removed (which I, too found too detailed) did not state he is guilty of anything. If Murphy is a public figure, surely the basic fact that he was arrested and charged is important enough to be included in this article? athinaios 14:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * athinaios, I agree with you, and have returned the Arrest section to the article. I have, however, shortened it to a more manageable size.  As is the nature of these things, if/when anything else happens on the story, and over the passage of time, it will be expanded or shortened as required. --  The.Q (t) (c) 15:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for deleting unsourced/unreferened possibly contrived Irish name
In line with the majority consensus in this discussion, I removed the reference to the subject's alleged Irish name of "Tomás Ó Murchú", provided by User:Derry Boi, as no evidence has been provided that a) the subject uses this name or b) that he has been referred to as such. There are many forms of Murphy in Irish (including Ó Murchú, Ó Murchadha and Mac Murchaidh). Names are names and there can be one version of an individual's name. Unless we know whether Slab uses an Irish name and what form this takes, this encyclopaedia should make no reference to it as it may help spread misleading, indeed false, information.--Damac 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Thomas Murphy (Irish republican). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070321101909/http://www.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/ireland/article740263.ece to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/ireland/article740263.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Move without any discussion
An undiscussed move was made earlier this year, to an article that's been at this location for over 10 years. This move was reverted. The move was made again, bizarrely claiming a stable version. The stable version is the location where it was for over 10 years, I have restored it. Anyone wishing to move the article should follow WP:RM. Mo ainm ~Talk  22:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, apart from your blindingly obvious political bias for reverting the move, the fact is Thomas "Slab" Murphy is now a convicted criminal (not only the title of which you reverted but also the text in the body, you slipped up there!) and - for example - Google search results show more results for his criminal conviction on tax evasion offences than any other reference made to him, including the innocuous "republican" description. He is known for being a criminal now, above all else, so the title aptly reflects that. You claim the title's move was made without discussion, yet four months after it was made you make your own move without discussing it. The titles' move was made in the dates following his conviction - an event - your move was made on a random date. IrishSpook (talk) 00:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, Murphy's a convicted criminal. If the shoe fits... Miles Creagh (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 June 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved back to neutral and longstanding title. Arguments about the subject's criminal record do not help disambiguate him from the myriad other Thomas Murphys. — JFG talk 06:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thomas Murphy (Irish criminal) → Thomas Murphy (Irish republican) – Article was at that location for over a decade, until a pair of editors have chosen to move war to keep it at a new, undiscussed location. Thomas Murphy is notable for being the alleged chief of staff of the IRA, and "Irish republican" is the standard disambiguator we use for, well, Irish republicans. His trial for tax evasion was extensively covered by the media because of his alleged role in the IRA, in fact I am struggling to find a single source that covered the trial that did not mention his alleged IRA role prominently. If he was just a plain old farmer his trial would have got zero to little coverage at all. He is not notable for being a tax evader, he is notable for his alleged role in the IRA. If a politican with a "politican" disambiguator was convicted a crime we wouldn't suddenly move his or her article to a "criminal" disambiguator, despite the fact the trial and conviction would be extensively covered by the media for the exact same reason Murphy's was, that he was notable for being an Irish republican before and after his conviction. Mo ainm ~Talk  20:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose requested move. The article was moved here after Murphy was convicted of tax crimes, which were for personal profit, rather than any political motivation. Also, Murphy himself has always strenuously denied any involvement with the IRA, so there is a potential BLP issue here. Miles Creagh (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * His being a Republican is not in question and being one doesn't mean that he is in the IRA so don't know what BLP issue you are talking about. Also he is notable for being a Republican and not as a criminal. Mo ainm ~Talk  22:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Also he is notable for being a Republican and not as a criminal" - totally untrue, as I completely dismantled that unfounded assertion below. IrishSpook (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen sources that verify any notable Republican activity other than his alleged involvement in planning and directing IRA violence over many years, which he denies, claiming he is "just a simple farmer who knows nothing about the IRA". So he has never been convicted of anything in regard to IRA activity, and he denies it. He is however a convicted tax evader in the RoI, and as such certainly an Irish criminal. Miles Creagh (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * With the 9 million google hits argument? Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. Or to make it more specific using his unique and clearly distinguishable nickname (not "a lawyer in Wisconsin", see below) thomas slab murphy criminal: "About 295,000 results" v thomas slab murphy republican: "About 136,000 results". IrishSpook (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the Republican activity that many sources attribute to him is his planning and direction of IRA violence, which would itself of course be a very serious crime and one he strenuously denies. Miles Creagh (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, Biographies of living persons issue here. IrishSpook (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when is being called a Republican a BLP issue? Glad to see though you have dropped the ludicrous 9 million hits argument. Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, like I say, the Republican activity attributed to him in various sources is exclusvely involvement in illegal IRA violence - unless there is a record of service as a Sinn Fein councillor somewhere I am completely missing? The BLP issue is that he is being associated with very serious crimes, which he denies and with which he has not been charged with let alone convicted for, and which are far worse than the tax evasion he has actually been convicted for. It must be very upsetting for him, as a simple farmer who knows nothing about the IRA, to be the subject of such sensationalist and titillating claims about kinky torture chambers and what-have-you. Miles Creagh (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also as regards BLP it should be important to note that Murphy brought a libel case against The Sunday Times newspaper in 1998 after that publication described him as a prominent IRA member who was directing an IRA bombing campaign in Britain. He lost this libel suit, however a few months later one of the men who gave evidence against him in the libel case, Eamon Collins (himself a former IRA man) was murdered by having a spike driven through his face in the outbuildings of a farm. That's about as serious as a BLP issue gets in my opinion. IrishSpook (talk) 00:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose requested move. Apart from the editor's blindingly obvious political bias for attempting to 'tone down' the Thomas "Slab" Murphy article (which the editor has shown a pattern of these biased edits) from him being a convicted "criminal" - which he indeed is - to being an innocuous "republican" which has a far more ambiguous and political meaning (he was arrested, charged, convicted and sentenced for being a criminal, not a republican!), it is clear that in the media and public arena that this individual is far better known now for being a convicted criminal than he ever was for being a "republican". "Slab" Murphy was never the public face of anything "republican" (political or paramilitary) because he did his utmost to stay out of the media spotlight (see this). In fact only when his criminal trial began were the first published images of Murphy. The title's move from "Thomas Murphy (Irish republican)" to "Thomas Murphy (Irish criminal)" was clearly predicated by an event - his criminal conviction, and supported by numerous references, while User:Mo ainm's reversion was predicated four months later by absolutely nothing, zilch, zero... nada. The number of reports of Murphy's criminal charge, trial and conviction far outweighs any reporting on his so-called "republican" activity. A quick Google search for Thomas Murphy criminal shows up over 9 million results, a search for Thomas Murphy republican shows up just 500,000 results, almost twenty times less. The editor also removed sourced content with this edit of the inline description of Murphy being a convicted criminal and replaced it with the description of him being just simply an "Irish republican", a rather embarrassing slip up where the editor showed his true colours and broke from neutrality. IrishSpook (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Please be civil and keep your arguments regarding this move request based on article title policy, also you clearly have no idea how google works if you think that the 9 million hits that are returned all pertain to this person quick look at them and it is everything from ancestry.com to a lawyer in Wisconsin. Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:11, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Please be civil and keep your arguments regarding this move request based on article title policy, also you clearly have no idea how google works if you think that..." ...I think that's called a contradiction. You have completely failed to back up your unfounded and untrue assertion that "he is notable for being a Republican and not as a criminal". This simply isn't true. Also I'm not going to shy away or be bullied by technicalities for pointing out your clear political bias which contravenes Neutral point of view. The number of news articles for his involvement in criminality far outweighs any about republican actives, as convenient as it might be for some to wave the flag of republicanism for criminal and personal gains. IrishSpook (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you back up your claim that google returns 9 million hits for this person? And once again please remain civil and keep your argument based on our article title policy and not what you perceive my intentions to be. Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe address the issue at hand rather than go off on a tangent about civility - sign of a losing argument. Thomas Murphy criminal shows up over 9 million results, a search for Thomas Murphy republican shows up just 500,000 results, almost twenty times less. You haven't provided any alternative to back up your clearly untrue claim that "he is notable for being a Republican and not as a criminal". IrishSpook (talk) 23:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are going to persist in your assertion that everyone of those 9 million hits are about him are you? Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * To make it more specific using his unique and clearly distinguishable nickname thomas slab murphy criminal: "About 295,000 results" v thomas slab murphy republican: "About 136,000 results". Or see 320,000 results for thomas slab murphy tax v 136,000 for "republican"... about a margin of 3:1. IrishSpook (talk) 23:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this about the search engine test. Mo ainm  ~Talk
 * 1. It only backs up my point. 2. It is totally irrelevant. If you want to bring some links in actually regarding Murphy, that would be welcome. IrishSpook (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Strange you think that the link I provided backs up your Google argument when it clearly states "As such, Google is specifically not a source of neutral titles – only of popular ones. Neutrality is mandatory on Wikipedia (including deciding what things are called) even if not elsewhere, and specifically, neutrality trumps popularity." Mo ainm  ~Talk  11:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's examine your search for thomas murphy criminal, for example the results from page 1.


 * Link 1 is this article.
 * Link 2 describes him as "Reputed former chief of Provisional IRA", and "Co Louth republican". The uses of criminal are "Thomas Murphy arriving at the Special Criminal Court " in a photo caption, "Murphy will serve his sentence in the high security prison in Portlaoise alongside dissident republicans and gangland criminals", " at the three-judge Special Criminal Court", "on trial in the Special Criminal Court"
 * Link 3 describes him as "Alleged former IRA chief of staff", "bachelor farmer and self-confessed republican" and "alleged Provo chief". The uses of criminal are "Thomas 'Slab' Murphy arriving for his sentencing hearing at the Special Criminal Court" in a photo caption, "by the Special Criminal Court", and "Thomas 'Slab' Murphy at the Special Criminal Court" in another photo caption
 * Link 4 describes him as "border bandit", "bachelor farmer and alleged former IRA chief of staff", "a leading paramilitary" and " former IRA man", The uses of criminal are "at the Special Criminal Court" and "I believe criminal groups operating from the south Armagh area"
 * Link 5 describes him as "has been widely described as a ‘prominent republican’", "has faced allegations of being the former chief of staff of the IRA", "“prominent member” of the IRA", The uses of criminal are "Special Criminal Court" (several uses), "Criminal Assets Bureau", "People who were involved in the IRA are not criminals"
 * Link 6 is just all articles tagged as relating to Murphy
 * Link 7 is An Phoblacht. I won't bother with the terminology that uses, as you'll only say they are hardly neutral
 * Link 8 describes him as "alleged former chief of staff of the Irish Republican Army" and "Prominent republican". The uses of criminal are "Thomas Murphy arrives for sentencing at the Special Criminal Court in Dublin" in a photo caption, "Special Criminal Court", "Criminal Assets Bureau" and "Criminal Justice Act"
 * Link 9 describes him as a "Co Louth republican". The uses of criminal are "Special Criminal Court" (multiple uses)

The results don't really support your argument do they? I haven't even mentioned the numerous other hits that google return which are not in the slightest anything to do with this person, this is why we don't use google searches. Also do you notice the recurring theme in all the the results you use in your argument, if you don't I will tell you it is that he is a prominent Republican. Mo ainm ~Talk  11:01, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Questioning my understanding of how the Google search engine works and then listing the 9 pages which come up on page 1 in your browser and are different (some are the same, in different order) to the first 10 results which come up in my browser when I search for the same thing doesn't really solve anything. IrishSpook (talk) 23:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Irish criminal makes little sense since there is no one at Thomas Murphy (criminal). 'Irish' republican may even be unnecessary (see Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Irish criminal makes little sense"? even though he is a convicted criminal? Your point makes no sense. The reference you make to Éamonn O'Doherty (republican) is void because he is not a convicted criminal (yes he went to prison under temporary emergency terrorism laws in the early 1970s but not post-1998 Good Friday Agreement). Furthermore O'Doherty was politically and publicly active with *Republican* (ahem) Sinn Féin, Murphy has never been publicly active in politics. IrishSpook (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm curious IrishSpook why is Ray Burke (Irish politician) still named that? Do you intend to move it? Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for all the articles on politicians and criminals in Ireland. Even at that, Ray Burke is hardly comparable to Slab Murphy. Bruke was an elected politician, a TD for 25 years, and held 7 ministerial positions. Slab was never elected of anything (that we know of publicly, openly, transparently) before his criminal conviction. Also Burke's criminal conviction relates to his political actives, Murphy's criminal conviction does not relate to his so-called republicanism. You are clutching at straws at this stage. IrishSpook (talk) 17:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask you if you where responsible for the article, but the rational you are using as to why it isn't moved is due to his notability as a politician that's fair enough I would agree with you having said that when this article was created in 2005 what was Murphy's notability? Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * John Gilligan (Irish criminal) is probably the better analog here. Miles Creagh (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How is he even comparable? He didn't have an article before he became a murder suspect because he wasn't notable. This article was created 11 years ago when he was notable as a prominent Republican he is only convicted of tax evasion 3 months. Mo ainm  ~Talk  21:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Both are notable Irish criminals, actually convicted of rather less than is widely alleged about them. Miles Creagh (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that the only thing that makes Murphy notable is his conviction? Mo ainm  ~Talk  22:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * His conviction, prior settlement of a proceeds-of-crime action against him by the UK and Irish authorities, and many reliable sources, including books and newspapers, which detail his notorious criminal activities are what make him notable.Miles Creagh (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Irish republican would suggest /infer that he is politically active, which he is most certainly not and never has been. A case could be made for Irish paramilitary or Irish terrorist, but this would be controversial and no conviction for being a paramilitary or terrorism. He has nonetheless been convicted on criminal charges and therefore the Irish criminal article title is naturally the one that fits and makes most sense. We do not even have proof he is a republican, only a few quotes from Gerry Adams referring to him as such and then being regurgitated by the media - we have however indisputable proof he is a criminal. Bdrgreen78 (talk) 12:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't move people away from a (politician) disambiguator when they leave politics, or any other disambiguator for that matter, it's ludicrous to suggest an IRA member isn't an Irish republican and suggesting the IRA aren't politically motivated is also ludicrous. You also state that "...do not even have proof he is a republican" how many farmers or tax evaders have their trial in the Special Criminal Court or get a Garda and Army escort on conviction to the high security Portlaoise Gaol?  Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem is, Murphy strenuously denies involvement in the IRA and has sued for libel on the matter in the past. The BLP issue seems insurmountable here.Miles Creagh (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * So you will remove all reference of it from the article if as you state it is a BLP violation. Also you do know that he lost the case. He also strenuously denied tax evasion, so you can't have it both ways, and "Irish republican" disambiguator doesn't mean "in the IRA" Mo ainm  ~Talk  14:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He was convicted for tax evasion. He has never been convicted of IRA membership, and he denies it. You seem to be suggesting he is lying about that, but that's not for us to determine. I would certainly favour balancing the article more towards the dude's proven criminality. Also, is there sourcing for any republican activity other than his alleged involvement in directing illegal IRA violence? I haven't seen any. Miles Creagh (talk) 14:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I agree that the issue here is notability. Had Thomas Murphy been only a local Irish farm owner convicted of tax evasion, with no previously known ideological loyalties, this article would not survive a notability test. The raison d'être of a Thomas Murphy bio in Wikipedia is his republican or PIRA's alleged affiliation, reflected by an overwhelming majority of sources, not his criminal conviction. I can cite a couple of Wikipedia biographies like this or this, where the notability of the subject is that both individuals were acclaimed actors. The circumstancial tax-evasion conviction of Sophia Loren in 1982, or the controversial charges of homosexuality against John Gielgud in 1953 doesn't make them "criminals".--Darius (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Problem is, there don't appear to be any sources for notable republican activity by Murphy other than his alleged involvement in IRA violence, which would of course itself be illegal, and which he strenuously denies and indeed evidently regards as highly defamatory. The John Gielgud/homosexuality analog is interesting, though. I had heard something similar about Murphy, although the article at present notes just that he is a "lifelong bachelor". Miles Creagh (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, keep in mind WP:FORUM (sorry for my poor sense of humor :). His denial (or self-defence) on PIRA activities becomes a weak argument when confronted with a myriad of published, reliable sorces, the most convincing Toby Harnden's book Bandit Country, about his role inside the Army Council. BLP accepts sourced statements, no need of 'forensic' evidence here.--Darius (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, but my question stands: are there any reliable sources for notable republican activities by Murphy other than alleged involvement with illegal IRA violence? Miles Creagh (talk) 21:46, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Remember that the subject here is "Thomas Murphy (Irish Republican)", not "Thomas Murphy (PIRA member)". Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness said of Murphy: "he is a good republican", a matter never denied by Murphy. Thus, even if we consider PIRA membership allegations debatable, his affiliation to Sinn Fein and Irish republicanism is well documented. In the end, PIRA involvement had nothing to do with this discussion, just Murphy's ideology.--Darius (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the subject here is presently "Thomas Murphy (Irish criminal)" and Toby Harnden - who you evidently like - details alleged activities involving smuggling of fuel and cigarettes, money laundering and sundry other criminal enterprises, besides his alleged involvement with the IRA. Further, the IRA allegations are decades-old, while his criminal conviction for tax evasion dates to 2015, and his prior monetary surrender of a million euros to the UK and Irish authorities in settlement of a proceeds-of-crime action (for smuggling and money laundering specifically) was in 2007. Are you seriously suggesting that Gerry Adams once or twice expressing the personal opinion that Murphy is a "good republican" provides a basis for notability as a republican that outweighs the multiple reliable third-party sources - including judgments of civil and criminal courts - that document Murphy's criminal activities over many years? Miles Creagh (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite Adams or McGuinness as reliable sources against Murphy's criminal activities, my point is that they state that Thomas Murphy is in fact one of them, an Irish republican, not matter if good or bad :). As for Harnden, yes, he is one of the best sources for Murphy's criminal career, but he also confirms Murphy's affiliation with republicanism, the real topic of discussion here, not, I insist, his alleged involvement with the PIRA.--Darius (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P/S: "Murphy's criminal activities over many years"...saving for his conviction over tax evasion, other alleged criminal activities are as uncertain as his PIRA membership.--Darius (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you don't claim Gerry and Martin as reliable sources, and you agree that Murphy's criminal career is well-sourced. You also insist - insist, mind you - that it is not Murphy's alleged involvement with the IRA that makes him notable, but rather his "affiliation with republicanism", for which Harnden is offered as a source. But I have "Bandit Country" here in my hands, and flicking through it Slab seems to be featured mainly for his involvement with the IRA and criminality. What page are you citing for this "affiliation with republican ideology" that you seem to suggest is the real basis for this guy's notability, rather than, say, his alleged involvement with criminality and the IRA, which most of the sources seem inexplicably to dwell on? Miles Creagh (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Miles he has been named as Chief of Staff going back to 1997 by Ed Moloney's A Secret History of the IRA, I am failing to see what you are trying to say. Mo ainm  ~Talk  23:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually Darius who insists above that it is not Murphy's alleged involvement with the IRA that makes him notable as a republican. I'm discussing that notion, which I find interesting. Miles Creagh (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "The Murphy, Martin, O'Callaghan, Caraher and Moley clans are all staunchly republican." Harnden (1999), p. 43. See also chapter 'A Pause in the Solution', about Murphy's involvement and influence with Sinn Fein during the period of peace negotiations, as part of the republican strategy. (I have to continue with real life now, see tomorrow :) --Darius (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's what he said but that's not for me to say, I'll let him reply to that himself. Mo ainm ~Talk  23:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The chapter you mention features Murphy acting in his alleged role in the IRA, (including instances of him supposedly planning and directing unlawful violence) which above you insisted is "not the real topic of discussion here". As for the reference to page 43, I hardly think that a passing mention that Murphys family is one of several in the area known as "staunch republicans" establishes notability for Murphy himself as a republican. At a minimum, it seems to be WP:UNDUE, given that the book goes on to allege at some length and detail Murphy's personal involvement in extensive criminality and in directing IRA violence. But I think we in any case agree that his criminal career is well-sourced and established? Miles Creagh (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Miles, I had to go last evening, sorry for the delay. My conclusion is that Murphy's alleged criminal career - exception made of tax evasion - is as conjectural as his involvement with the PIRA. On the other hand, his involvement with the republican movement and his influence in South Armagh is undeniable.


 * This morning, however, I was glancing through Harnden's book once again and I found a good amount of official documents (from the Garda, from the British Army intelligence and even from two RoI juries) which attested beyond any doubt his PIRA membership back to 1977. These official statements IMHO outweigh Murphys conviction for a non-serious crime. I detail it for your knowledge:
 * 1) Page 40: British intelligence document nº 3/0020 "implicated Tom Murphy in the shooting of Lance Corporal David Hind". According to the British Army report, "Slab Murphy had a hand in the killing". The sniper attack on L.C. Hind was claimed by the IRA, according to the same author (see appendix) and an overwhelming majority of sources.
 * 2) Page 34: Garda profile of Murphy (1998): "Smuggler. PIRA Army Council. Strongly built. 5 ft 11 in tall. Balding." In this case, "PIRA Army Council (member)" is clearly more notable than "Smuggler".
 * 3) Page 440: Two years after an article published in 1985 by the Irish Sunday Times entitled "Portrait of a Cheek-in Terrorist", Murphy decided to sue the newspaper. After evidence given by British Brigadier Peter Morton -commander of a British Company at Crossmaglen in 1973- and several Garda officers, the jury refused to award damages to Murphy in May 1990, and declared that "he was a prominent IRA member".
 * 4) Page 446: After the case returned to the Irish High Court, a new procedure was arranged in 1998; the result: the jury concluded once again that Slab Murphy was a prominent IRA member. Murphy had to face the legal costs.
 * 5) Besides Harnden, there are two interesting statements, one from Gerry Adams, the other from Martin McGuinness which confirm the notability of 'Slab' involvement with the republican movement. Adams said that he “played a leadership role in the development and winning support for the peace process”, while McGuinness stated that "the “amazing” achievement of the peace process “wouldn’t have happened without the work of Tom Murphy”. As for Adams/McGuinness reliability, they would hardly stand up for Tom Murphy if he were just a common criminal.


 * My conclusion is that if we rely only on the 2016 conviction to label Murphy an "Irish Criminal", then we are given undue weight to a minority point of view.--Darius (talk) 13:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)


 * User:DagosNavy, are you seriously comparing John Gielgud convicted (and fined not jailed) of a "homosexual offence" to Thomas Slab Murphy? An early 1950s conviction on grounds of homosexuality in the UK which no longer stand today, which were outdated and unjust laws, etc. with a modern-day tax evasion conviction??? Or even Sophia Loren for that matter (an actress on tax evasion charges), both Gielgud and Loren were never even implicated in wrongdoing before their convictions, whilst it was widely reported that Slab Murphy was a terrorist godfather who was involved in illegal arms importation, fuel laundering, cattle laundering, money laundering, torture, assassinations, beatings, knee-cappings, fuel smuggling and cigarette smuggling and was described as a "mass murderer".


 * And referencing Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness as to why Slab Murphy should be referred to as an Irish republican rather than an Irish criminal. "As for Adams/McGuinness reliability, they would hardly stand up for Tom Murphy if he were just a common criminal." No... but they might "stand up" for a paramilitary overlord who is alleged to be on an IRA 'council' which overrides Sinn Fein political decisions, who has a torture chamber under his house and access to enough weapons, ammunition and explosives to start a small war. They might not just "stand up" for him, they might well be scared of him! IrishSpook (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * We can discuss this at a forum, mate, not here. Read Bastun tip at the end of the page. Thank you.--Darius (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Darius, so the refs you offer in support of Murphy being categorised as an "Irish republican" rather than an "Irish criminal" detail his involvement in unlawful killing and describe him as a "terrorist". Otherwise, they name him as a senior member of the IRA, which you have previously insisted should not be the topic of discussion here, or the basis for his notability as a republican. Again, I ask: are there any sources that detail notable republican activiy for Murphy other than his alleged involvement in unlawful IRA violence, which he denies? Miles Creagh (talk) 04:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * After a fresh reading of Harnden's comments on primary sources (Garda, British Army, RoI Justice) I've changed my mind, since there is enough evidence in published, reliable sources that Thomas Murphy was a prominent IRA member and not an "alleged" member as you maintain.--Darius (talk) 12:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Slab Murphy is much better known for being a Chief-of-Staff of the Provisional IRA than for his criminal conviction, though of course the article must cover that too.  Slightly off-topic, though, this Requested Move brings up an interesting point - should use of the term "Irish republican" be used as a disambiguator at all, if it's really only used for members of the various IRAs, the INLA, etc.  It actually seems like a potential breach of WP:NPOV, seeing as the vast majority of "good Republicans" aren't actually criminals or members of terrorist organisations. A debate for another time, perhaps. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Supporting this motion to change the article title to "Irish republican" while questioning whether the use of the term should be used as a disambiguator at all, is quite an incoherent argument. If you want to separate the "good republicans" from the criminal republicans or terrorist republicans then surely the current name makes sense? IrishSpook (talk) 23:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note to other participants. See WP:NOTFORUM. It's not necessary to argue every single point to try to secure a conviction or conversion. State your opinion, backed by policy if possible, move on. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support move back to original title at Thomas Murphy (Irish republican). Mo ainm's analysis of the search results here is extremely telling. On all the sources listed on the first page of search results for "thomas murphy criminal" not a single one actually uses the term to describe him, they almost all are referring to the Special Criminal Court, but they all refer to him using terms related to his republicanism.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's in a search for "Thomas Murphy criminal" and not just "Thomas Murphy" or "Thomas Slab Murphy", the phrase "criminal' filters in many articles on the Special Criminal Court. In other articles he is referred to as a "mafia boss", a "fraudster" and described as a "criminal". He is a convicted criminal. Great to see this talk page as a gathering and hotbed for IRA apologists and terrorist sympathisers :) IrishSpook (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Note (Opposing): It should be noted that the main law enforcement agency that pursued Thomas 'Slab' Murphy for 14 years, and which successfully prosecuted him, was the Criminal Assets Bureau. An Garda Síochána state that the statutory remit (Criminal Assets Bureau Act, 1996) of the Criminal Assets Bureau "is to carry out investigations into the suspected proceeds of criminal conduct." Hint, hint. IrishSpook (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nobody is disputing that Murphy is a criminal. We all already know that, it's in the article, it's cited, it will remain in the article. He was, however, first and more notably known as a provo. WP:NOTFORUM and, at this point, WP:FLOG may be worth reading. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * And so how does the disambiguator (Irish republican) aid with him being a "provo"? He received far more attention during his criminal trial than at any other point in his life, as he had always done his utmost to stay out of the public eye, so "more notably" known for being a republican when he never sought to be publicly known as one as opposed to him being on trial in public is just nonsense. Also serious WP:BLP issue if you are using the term "provo" as while it has been alleged, it has never been proven in a public court of law. IrishSpook (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

CN¥

Search area and Eamon Collins header
Neither reference supports the claim that the torture chamber was found during a search of Thomas Murphy's farm. The first reference uses the phrases "major search operation", "not far from Murphy's home" and crucially "But three hours before the search was launched, undercover surveillance officers watching the various houses due to be targeted noticed small fires suddenly appear in several gardens". Similarly the second reference uses the phrases "They were part of a 300-strong force, including police and customs on both sides of the Border, who carried out searches across 11 counties", "Also discovered in the search was a large, purpose-built torture chamber, close to Murphy's home". Neither supports the claim the chamber was found on Thomas Murphy's farm, only close to it. The search area was not limited to Thomas Murphy's farm, so it cannot be assumed it was during a specific search of the farm that the chamber was uncovered.

I am sure I am not the only one confused by an editor claiming on one hand that "while it has been alleged, it has never been proven in a public court of law", while simultaneously adding a header reading "Libel case and killing of witness", since to the best of my knowledge Thomas Murphy has never been accused of direct involvement in the killing of [a] witness as the wording intrinsically suggests. Never arrested, charged or "proven in a public court of law".

Please discuss disputed changes rather than attempting to force them through by edit warring.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thomas Murphy (Irish republican). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626180152/http://www.tobyharnden.com/press_coverage_1.htm to http://www.tobyharnden.com/press_coverage_1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026084316/http://www.phoblacht.net/DA1903069g.html to http://www.phoblacht.net/DA1903069g.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)