Talk:Pearse Jordan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Low This article is on a subject of low-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

WikiProject Irish Republicanism tasks:

 


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I have not been able to find any information online indicating why RUC officers shot Jordan. Such information would be helpful in giving this article a more neutral POV.


Contents

[edit] POV

Whilst not satisfactorily explained to some, this will always be an emotive issue. That said, I find this article very POV and bordering on anti British. A re write from a more neutral perspective would be useful. WillE 17:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think you understand how POV works. You can't just say something is POV and ask for it to be re-written, you need to spell out what the actual problems are. I'll take the relevant parts of the article one at a time:
  • Everything in the lead is factually correct and referenced from neutral sources, apart from the Gary Og song which doesn't really belong there anyway in my opinion.
  • Circumstances of death section. Gives equal weight to the undisputed section, the RUC officer's statement and the witnesses statements.
  • Inquest section - needs sourcing.
  • ECHR section - factually accurate.
Until someone actually explains what is the actual POV problems with this article are the NPOV tag will be removed. One Night In Hackney303 19:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The whole article needs to be rewritten, its all over the place and hard to read or follow. At the start of each section it needs to outlined the basic undisputed facts - then it should go into the contrasting views. Additonally the song should not be in the lead section and should be mentioned later if at all.--Vintagekits 10:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I am going to remove the song from the lead section. The song is trivia and not important enough to be in the lead section and should be at the end of the article.--Vintagekits 11:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why i mentioned the song in the lead

It was i, who at 16:41, 14 March 2007 mentioned the song in the lead. I'd like to explain my choice.

In the annotation associated with that edit i wrote: "Put emphasis on the two reasons for notability: the ECHR judgment and the song performed by Gary Og." Every article in Wikipedia should deal with a notable topic. What makes Pearse Jordan notable? Is it the circumstances of his death: an unarmed man shot in the back by a police officer? Unfortunately, these circumstances are not unique.

Jordan's notability is due in large part to what has been described as a "landmark judgment" of the ECHR in his case, which also resulted in a change to the British law book. However, Jordan's case was brought in front of the court along with those of ten other IRA men killed by British forces. The judgment was granted with respect to all these cases simultaneously. Would it be appropriate to create an article for every one of them? A reasonable alternative would be a single article about the judgment, mentioning all the eleven.

What makes Pearse Jordan's name stand out is that it has made it into popular culture via the McNally song and thanks to its performances by the apparently popular Eire Og and Gary Og. Consider, also, that it is not improbable, that some users looking for "Pearse Jordan" in Wikipedia, do so, not because they have heard of Jordan or of the ECHR case before, but rather because they have picked this melodious song up somewhere (say in YouTube), and decided to check up on the lyrics.

That's why i found it vital to mention this piece of information in the lead: to establish the notability of the article. That's also why i find it important to put links to these recordings in the "External Links" section.

Having said that, i'd like to add, that i'd suggest looking into the pros and cons of deleting this article altogether, instead incorporating just the lead paragraph in some other relevant article(s), and redirecting "Pearse Jordan" to this article. Itayb 21:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You make a strong case for the song, which has not been refuted, and, unless it is, then it should be mentioned in the lead as a significant factor. You can't EL to youtube. It's forbidden site-wide as copyvio (with rare exceptions). Tyrenius 18:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Could you please refer me to the policy/guideline page where the YouTube embargo is mentioned? Itayb 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background section considered unencyclopedic

The article, in its current form, establishes that Pearse Jordan is notable for two things:

  • The ECHR judgment regarding the inquest surrounding his death.
  • The song written about the circustances of his death, and recorded by popular artists.

All additions to the article should be either directly relevant to these two aspects of notability, or else establish a new such aspect. Otherwise, they are irrelevant trivia, and do not belong in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

The Background section, even though it is attributed, is not directly relevant to any of the above mentioned topics. Neither does it establish any new point of notability of Jordan. I therefore find it unencyclopedic and dispensable.

I'd like to make it clear, though, that these are my personal views about what a Wikipedia article should and should not contain, and my own interpretation of the NOT policy. These views are, to the best of my knowledge, not clearly and unabmiguously supported by any existing policy or guideline. In fact, see Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content. Itayb 08:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit strict in your interpretation there. For example J. R. R. Tolkien is a featured article, and contains a comprehensive background section. The current section on this article isn't overly large, and the important parts of the article are considerably larger. One Night In Hackney303 08:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Most if not all bio's give background information - its pretty common practice.--Vintagekits 09:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"All additions to the article should be either directly relevant to these two aspects of notability" is totally wrong. Notability, or lack thereof, of the subject establishes whether there should or shouldn't be an article. Once there is an article, aspects which are not necessarily notable in themselves are included to provide a proper exploration of the subject. This is clearly stated in Wikipedia:Notability#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article-content. Also Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information is talking about whether something is valid as the main subject for an article, not about whether specific items should be included once something is valid as an article. The background section is highly relevant to the subject's life and solidly encyclopedic (assuming other factors of verification etc are sound). Tyrenius 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

[edit] Tírghrá

The following reference is cited twice in the article:

Tírghrá, National Commemoration Centre, 2002. PB) ISBN 0-9542946-0-2 p.352

This reference is particularly difficult to verify:

  • Its ISBN is not listed in WorldCat ([1])
  • nor in the Library of Congress On-Line Catalogue ([2])
  • nor in the British Library On-Line Catalogue ([3])
  • and the title does does not occur in the National Library of Ireland's listing of books published in 2002 ([4])

This reference is the only source cited in the article in support of the following statements:

  • Jordan's date of birth (in the lead)
  • The whole Background section

According to the Disputed statements guideline, "The accuracy of a statement may be a cause for concern if: [...] It contains information which is particularly difficult to verify." Accordingly, i am concerned for the accuracy of the above mentioned statements. Unless this source is replaced by a more reliable one, or else is shown to be accessible to the general public and compliant with Wikipedia's Reliable sources criteria, i will remove it along with the statements relying solely on it. Itayb 18:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What exact details which are referenced from Tirghra in the article are you disputing? Additionally The Guardian, The Impartial Reporter, The Bloody Sundy Inquiry, 2, The Irish News, Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Telegraph seem to be able to get hold of a copy so therefore nothing too difficult to verify within it.--Vintagekits 19:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm disputing, as a general rule, every statement, which is not attributable to reliable secondary sources, as required by the Wikipedia:Attribution policy. However, some non-compliant statements are more bothersome for me than others. For instance, the Inquest and the The European Court of Human Rights sections are almost completely not attributed. However i wouldn't flag them as dubious, because i know they are well-attributable, and i think they are important, if not the very heart of the article. Nevertheless, if someone came and deleted them altogether, citing for reason the Attribution policy, i would have to acknowledge their point, and would not restore these sections, unless i were able to completely provide references in compliance with the Attribution policy.
However, the Biography section is unlike the other two. I've already expressed my view of it: i think it is irrelevant to the established points of notability, and not sufficiently notable in its own right. Since it also presents the British Army in bad light, i consider it a violation of the NPOV policy. I don't claim the incident described did not take place, and i don't claim that merely describing incidents that are not flattering to the British Forces is automatically biased. However, in this particular context, the account passes as biased, in my opinion. What makes it biased is precisely the fact, that it is irrelevant and not notable. By "not notable" i mean to say, it had no impact on the general public (unlike the ECHR judgment and the song). I'm sure it was hugely notable in the life of Jordan's family and neighbors. The fact that the reference cited for this incident is not publicly available does not improve the impression.
Vintagekits, you took the time to look for web sources to refute my claim that the Tirghra book were not publicly accessible. I appreciate your effort. You have demonstrated that you take the Attribution policy seriously. However, one of the links you provided actually supports my claim, stating the book "was intended for restricted circulation, not for general release."
Although the publisher of the Tirghra book is identifiable, the author is anonymous, the book is not publicly available and, while not considered downright "confidential" by the originating publisher, it was, as mentioned, intended for restricted circulation. I don't know whether the book explicitly expresses political views, but it is certainly affiliated with political groups, who are considered in some, not insignificant, circles extremist. Moreover, it is hard to say whether the book had independent editorial oversight, and how sound was its fact-checking process. Thus, according to the criteria set forth in the Attribution FAQ, the book does not fall far from being generally regarded as unreliable. Itayb 00:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the authors of the book are known and the book was for sale to the public - the only version of the book that wasnt for sale to the public was the first batch as this was a hardcopy version and presented to the families of thoses who participated in compling the book.--Vintagekits 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As for "Moreover, it is hard to say whether the book had independent editorial oversight, and how sound was its fact-checking process." - I think the fact that other established reliable sources use this book as a source quashes that argument.--Vintagekits 01:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If you know the authors of the book, please indicate them in the reference (see, for example, Wikipedia:Citing sources#Footnotes).
  • I can't tell whether the book was for sale to the public. What i can tell, is that a reliable secondary source, provided by you, states it was not for general release. This statement is corroborated by the fact, that it is not available in any of the three principle public libraries, where i would expect to find a book concerning Ireland: The Library of Congress, The British Library and, of course, The National Library of Ireland. The WorldCat service does not trace it to any other public library around the world. Itayb 09:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's actually getting a bit annoying that are putting dubious tag on information that has come directly from the Jordan family. On what basis are you stating that his date of birth is dubious - have you got another source to state that the date of birth is different or any of the information within the book is incorrect. If you read the links I provided then you would realise that it was only the hardback edition that was not for sale and that is was for sale to the public and here is an article which outlines that the softback version was launched to the general public - just like I told you. If I were you I would concentrate on improvingthe article as at the moment it is almost unreadable.--Vintagekits 11:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
On what basis are you claiming that?--Vintagekits 14:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
... information that has come directly from the Jordan family. That is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. Chris cheese whine 14:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:BIO, which states Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content. One Night In Hackney303 17:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The point that it has come directly from the family is not validated. The only source for that at the moment is Vintagekits and he is not a RS (as defined by WP), so it shouldn't enter into discussion. It has not, however, been published by the family, so there is oversight to that degree. Tyrenius 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, the information provided by the family was published in Tirghra. One Night In Hackney303 19:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
(remove indent)We don't rely on "as far as I'm aware". Tyrenius 20:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that, just that at least two things in the article were/are sourced by Tírghrá which caused this discussion in the first place so it would have been prudent to look before leaping. Vintagekits earlier post implied the information was sourced from the book, and a quick check of the history of the page confirms this. One Night In Hackney303 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What I mean when I say information came from the families is that the book was compiled from not only research into news archievies but also from interviews with friends, families, employers, work colleagues and member of the various Brigades. Obviously the families didnt write the book but they were involved in providing information when the book was being written.--Vintagekits 10:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Availability and reliability

1) Vintagekits, you wrote: "Have you seen that the book is for sale on line and the link that I provided for details of its public launch!?" No, i haven't, even though i examined almost all the links you provided (Unfortunately, i did not examine the Irish News Online article you've mentioned ("Republican tribute to those who died"), since that would require me to subscribe for payment.) If you are able to provide a link supporting this assertion, you will have successfully countered my objection to the reliability of this source. I urge you to do so.

2) You wrote: "I think the fact that other established reliable sources use this book as a source quashes that argument." I agree. You've made this point very nicely. In fact, i'd like to render this point more easily verifiable, for future reference, by quoting the relevant passages from the links you provided:

  • The Observer: "The IRA has officially claimed a Bloody Sunday victim as one of its fallen volunteers - contradicting the idea that all 13 men shot dead by British paratroops were uninvolved civilians. A book of republican dead, a 368-page tribute to every IRA member to die in Northern Ireland's Troubles, also includes several men, shot dead by loyalists, who at the time of their murders were claimed by their families to be ordinary Catholics." [5]
  • Kathryn Johnston, journalist and co-author of the book "Martin McGuinness -- From Guns to Government" along with Liam Clarke, Northern Ireland Editor of "THE SUNDAY TIMES" ([6], p. 7 , l. 17-25 -- p. 8, l. 1; [7], From the Publisher):
"Could we have M111.92. What is on the screen is the first page of the fourth statement of Ms Johnston which the Tribunal received at its London offices yesterday. [...] I should say that the material which is in this statement largely consists of an exhibit which constitutes a research note [...] and that note itself is almost entirely composed of a reference to other published material primarily pages of "Tirghra", pages from the book "Lost Lives," and pages of the book "From Civil Rights to Armalites"" (p. 1, l. 10-25 -- p. 2, l. 1-11)
"Q. Lastly, you made a recent statement -- may we have M111.92 -- dated 27th October, dealing with some aspects of the recent statements of Sean Keenan and others. Could we have M111.92. It must be there somewhere, we had it earlier this morning. Let us try and find it later, I am sure you are familiar with your statement which you signed on 27th October, your most recent one; are the contents of that statement true to the best of your knowledge and belief?
A. Yes, they are." (p. 6, l. 17-25 -- p. 7, . 1)
  • The Bloody Sunday Inquiry taps the Tirghra book in the course of their interview with Martin McGuinness ([8], p. 43, l. 21 and onwards)
  • The Telegraph.co.uk: "A teenager who was killed in Londonderry on Bloody Sunday has been officially revealed by the Provisional IRA as one its members. Gerard Donaghy was 17 when he was shot dead by paratroopers along with 12 others during an illegal civil rights march. [...] Donaghy has been named in a book honouring 364 IRA volunteers who lost their lives during the Troubles. The book was presented to the relatives of the dead at a lavish dinner in Dublin last month, at which Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein president made the keynote speech. It was called Tirghra" ([9]) Itayb 19:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA"/Ian S. Wood: "Along with the numerous IRA memorials which have been built and dedicated all over Northern Ireland in recent years, there is now a major published source, Tirghra: Ireland's Patriot Dead." ([10]) Itayb 22:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


The book is for sale on Amazon, one copy is Amazon stock and one copy is from a private seller, see here. Please note that limited availability of a book does not make it an unpermissible source, I'm sure there are many, many limited availability books used as sources in Wikipedia articles which are practically impossible to obtain a copy of except say viewing it at a library. One Night In Hackney303 19:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Some other info. The book was called "a major public source" by Ian S. Wood in Crimes of Loyalty: A History of the UDA.[11] A used copy is publicly available on amazon.ca.[12] It's also on bokkilden.no, but I can't tell whether it's available.[13] However, ONIH's amazon.co.uk link says it's available new. The point has been established that contents can be verified by other users. Tyrenius 19:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Third opinion) Google Books has no record of it.[14] Internet Book List has no record of the book.[15] LibraryThing[16] and OttoBib[17] cannot locate a book of that ISBN. Froogle (UK) has no record of the book.[18] Yahoo! Shopping cannot locate the book.[19] WorldCat has no record of the book.[20][21] COPAC has no record of the book.[22] Even Irish universities do not list the book in their catalogues.[23]

[24] [25] [26] When the book cannot be found to verify a citation, it is difficult to accept it as a reliable source. Remember, Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and if a reader cannot even find the book in any library catalogue, even in Irish university libraries, I believe the book fails as an adequate reference. I do not believe a handful of copies available for sale makes up for the widespread unavailability of the book. Vassyana 19:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want a copy - just go and buy a copy - its freely available--Vintagekits 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Daily Telegraph confirms Begley's non sectarianism. One Night In Hackney303 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Clearly the Telegraph is demonstrating how biased the book is - that murderous attack was widely cited as a sectarian attack on protestants Weggie 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute the widely sourcable fact that the intended victims were Johnny Adair and the UDA leadership? One Night In Hackney303 20:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The ECHR called the IRA terrorists consistently as they showed disregard for civilian casulties. In this case, the brave IRA men attempted to place a large bomb in the midst of a crowd of protestant women and children. This utter disregard for their lives shows that the IRA gave tuppence for the lives of protestant civilians Weggie 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Could you kindly stop abusing the talk page as a soap box and help to improve the article with sourced material. Tyrenius 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone asks me a direct question I will answer it. Weggie 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The question was in response to your personal opinion of what the Telegraph was doing, and this is not the place for personal interpretations. Please read WP:TPG. Tyrenius 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I've read it thanks - please don't be patronising. Weggie 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm WP:AGF giving you the benefit of the doubt, or are you now informing me that you are deliberately violating guidelines in order to provoke other editors, which you know is the case? Tyrenius 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I was pointing out the context of the Telegraph article - Please assume good faith. Context is necessary in editing don't you think or do we just plonk any old material into articles ? Weggie 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The point I was making was that it's fully possibe to verify that Tírghrá stated Begley was non-sectarian by use of the Telegraph article, therefore making alleged unavailability a moot point for that particular piece of information. One Night In Hackney303 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)(edit conflict) Reply to Weggie: It's your interpretation and so it's not valid. Furthermore you're using inflammatory language. You know this area is a contentious one and your words are deliberately provocative. I suggest you rethink. Tyrenius 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be so rude Tyrenius a bit uncivil IMHO Weggie 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Jordan incident

I've become convinced, that the book is publicly available, and constitutes a reliable source. I thank all the editors who collaborated to establish this fact. Good work! This having been said, there's still the matter of the bias arising from recounting the baby Jordan incident, which i referred to in my comment of 00:50, 24 March 2007. Itayb 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you got a differing account of the events?--Vintagekits 20:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The current one is hardly satisfactory: "British Army soldiers fired a number of CS Gas canisters into his families home." What, just for fun? Tyrenius 20:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
At the time they lived on the Lower Falls - see Falls Curfew. There would have been daily riots - I do not know the exact circumstances relating to why they fired the gas into the house. I would be happy for someone to get details from the Belfast News and add it.--Vintagekits 20:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It needs rewording. It reads as an arbitrary and senseless act at the moment. Tyrenius 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Arbitrary and senseless acts wernt exactly off the menu those days--Vintagekits 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What you've said is irrelevant to this incident. Tyrenius 20:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure if it is - the incidents are not linked but show the sometimes mindless tactics that were used back then. I have added details of the Falls Curfew as well to put it in context.--Vintagekits 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See comments to Weggie above. Kindly avoid your personal opinion. The article still reads as biased against the British army. Tyrenius 20:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying Ty, I am not trying to state my personal opinion. All I am saying is that I dont know why the canisters were fired through the windows but those with access to Belfast Telegraph etc records should be able to shed further light.--Vintagekits 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are three problems with the account:
  1. It is supported by only a single source.
  2. It is unilateral and out-of-context (as been mentioned by Tyrenius).
  3. I don't see any enduring, public importance in this incident. I therefore think it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But that's my personal opinion, and i acknowledge the fact, that it is not unambiguously supported by any existing policy or guideline. Itayb 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is about Jordan, without doubt that was a notable event in Jordans life and especially as he suffered side effects from it for the rest of his life.--Vintagekits 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with you. As strange as it may sound, the "Pearse Jordan" article should not be about Pearse Jordan. It should be a collection of pieces of information of public interest, which are closely related with Jordan. In Wikipedia "Pearse Jordan" is nothing more than a rubric, facilitating the logical organization and easy access to some closely related pieces of information of public interest.
Had the article been about Pearse Jordan, it should have attempted to cover all the major events in his life, including, without doubt, the gas canisters incident, but also the first word he uttered, the street cat he brought home from school the other day, his first crush, etc. Itayb
Lol, I see what you are saying and take your point, however I think that bits added are of note and put his life into context - whereas what his first words were wouldnt. regards--Vintagekits 23:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits, does Tirghra specifically state that the incident took place during the Falls Curfew? Does it specifically state, that the canister was thrown by the British troops? I'd appreciate it, if you repeated the exact words given in the book, unless you think you would be violating copyright. Itayb 07:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Song lyric

"Slán go fóill mo chara" does not translate to "Farewell, dear friend, it's not finished yet" a correct translation is "goodbye for now my friend"--Vintagekits 12:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV tag

In order to resolve the issue can you please explain exactly what you feel in in breach of NPOV. regards--Vintagekits 22:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] in-lining a time reference

Consider the following two variation on a statement from the lead:

  1. Despite these developments the Jordans have yet to be granted an inquest into their son’s killing.
  2. Despite these developments the Jordans have yet (January 2007) to be granted an inquest into their son's killing.


In my opinion, the statement should be anchored to a time reference (second option). Vintagekits, on the other hand, holds that there is "no need for the date, it is given that its up to date and would be changed if/when an inquest was granted".

But is there reason for a reader to assume the account of current events is kept up to date? Months can go by from one revision to the next. Besides, even if an article is continuously attended to, there is no guarantee that the editors are aware of current developments that should to be reflected in the article. Even if they are aware of such development, they may have their hands tied for lack of a reliable secondary source describing these developments.

Another objection to in-lining the time reference in this particular case might be, that a reference is cited for this statement, and those interested can, in just a few clicks, check the reference's publication date. But, as Vintagekits pointed out, readers probably assume that information is kept up to date and would be changed if and when the circumstances have changed. They probably don't normally verify sources, unless the statement seems fishy for some reason.

So should we now inline a time reference for every statement? It isn't customary, it would disrupt the prose, and would be visually unappealing. Well, in my opinion, we should certainly strive to present all events and conditions in their proper chronological context. Usually, when historical events are recounted in chronological order, the time frame of most of them can be more-or-less deduced from the context. But this particual statement has the distinction, that it does not describe a historical event, but rather a current, continuous state of affairs. The timeframe cannot be inferred from the surrounding context. Itayb 09:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is standard to put in a date in such cases. Tyrenius 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I just think that it is a still redundant to stated that "until now something has or hasnt happened" and then state the date - just seems a bit silly, surely now is now. Anyway, it's not a big deal (not as big a deal as the fact that I cant follow the referencing system used!)--Vintagekits 10:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the referencing system

I introduced the present referencing system to the article, so let me explain.

I've used a hybrid of footnotes and Harvard. If one cancelled the footnotes, and instead injected their content in-line, a Harvardish referencing system would ensue, of a variation, which is quite popular in CS publications (i'm a CS student...), e.g. the popular books: "Advanced compiler design and implementation"/Steven Muchnick, "Control flow semantics"/Bakker & de Vink and "Approximation algorithms for NP-Hard problems"/Dorit Hochbaum (editor).

I used a non-standard second tier of footnotes in order to hide the (sometime long) citation from those readers who don't care a tiddly bit about attribution.

If you have a good reason to change it, do it. But i'd appreciate it, if you discussed the matter in the talk page beforehand. Itayb 17:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Circumstances of death - refs

It is not standard and also not helpful to put a blanket ref statement at the top of the section, especially where it says "unless otherwise stated", and it is so stated throughout the section. The main ref needs to be put as an inline citation, wherever it is relevant.Tyrenius 03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've incorporated this "blanket" into key footnotes. Itayb 07:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British army fired CS gas into the family home

It is not necessary to qualify with "British", as it's in Britain, so it's not going to be the French army. This is exactly the kind of issue where Tirghra is not acceptable as a sole source. Are there any "mainstream" sources to confirm that version of events? If not, it will have to be left out. Tyrenius 01:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite probably not the Frech army, but possibly Republican fighters themselves. I don't know, whether gas canisters were on the PIRA amunition menu in the early '70, so i may be way off. But i do know that sometimes during fighting, fighters inflict harm on non-combatant population and private property belonging to their own side. Sometimes it's accidental (in fact, under some circumstances it's almost unavoidable), and sometimes its actually part of the tactics.
Anyhow, i agree with Tyrenius, that Tirghra by itself is not sufficient attribution for the gas canisters incident. When i agreed, that Tirghra was to be considered a reliable source, i based my opinion on the evidence, that other sources, whose reliability is independently established, rely on Tirghra. However, all the sources examined use Tirghra in a very restricted way: to confirm that a certain person was a Republican soldier. They do not rely on Tirghra as a source for reporting how events played out. Itayb 08:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Have you got a reference to state that the canisters were fired by republicans or are you just making stuff up now?
As discussed above the source states clearly that it was the British Army that fired the canisters into the house. If this was incorrect you can be sure that Unionist/Loyalist leaning press would have picked up on it and highlighted it as being untrue, when this book came out it was gone through with a fine tooth comb by journalists with an axe to grind against republicans to find out inaccuracies none were found it was criticised for its "flowery language" and peacock terminology, which I agree with and acknowledge that it does use peacock terms, however when I reference the book I strip out this and only use the cold hard facts used within it. Additonally, if you read the article on the Falls curfew (which I have never edited) this would fit in with what is included in that article. When dealing with issues of Northern Ireland it is common practice to state which "army" it was that carried out the a incident as there was a lot of "armies" running around the O6 at the time. To ignore that is to whitewash the information - as I have already said Tirghra is a reliable source, you said so yourself in the above discussion, and no information from that publication has even been shown to be inaccurate and as it is used as a source within other what you may wish to call "mainstream sources" then this further validates this. It is not a selective menu from which you can choose when or when not to accept information from the book - Tirghra has been used to show the republican movement in a negative light and this information has not been questioned so you cannot question the information just because you do not like what it states. If there is a conflicting version of the events then let look at that but until you can come up with something other than POV then I am afraid your argument is pretty weak. regards--Vintagekits 09:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (break 1)

Quotes from mainstream sources:
  • Ed Moloney A Secret History of the IRA p.90

Soon three thousand troops were deployed in the area that was now cloaked in CS gas and littered with rubble and exploding gasoline bombs...During the six months of riots that followed, hundreds of people were injured or arrested and imprisoned; others, old and young alike, suffered from the effects of CS gas.

  • Peter Taylor Provos The IRA & Sinn Fein p. 79

As with the riots in Ballymurphy the previous Easter, cannisters of CS gas were fired with even more disastrous results. The clouds of choking and suffocating gas drifted up the narrow alleyways and back streets of the warren that is the Lower Falls. The gas got everywhere, in through windows, under doors and into the residents' eyes, noses, throats and lungs.

  • Peter Taylor Provos The IRA & Sinn Fein p. 81 (direct quote from British soldier)

And the place was still saturated with CS gas. Children were coughing, I remember. I'm talking now about the toddlers, kids of three, four, five. It affected everyone buts children especially.

While cannisters may not have entered the home, there's no doubt the gas itself did. One Night In Hackney303 09:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits, the burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. I don't need to provide alternative, conflicting accounts to doubt the reliability of a source. If an alternative account has not been given by Unionists, it does not mean the Tirghra account is accurate. It is unto you, to prove, that the Tirghra account is accurate. But, without independant, corroborating reports, and in view of the fact, that Tirghra was published by an organisation intimately affiliated with an active party in the reported fighting, it cannot be done.
One Night In Hackney, inferring the gas canisters incident from the sources you cited, reasonable as it is, is still original research. Itayb 18:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't think you understand. It's been proved from two mainstream sources that the entire Lower Falls area was "cloaked" or "saturated" with CS gas, and it's also said from another reliable source that Jordan was affected by the gas. Exactly what more evidence do you want? One Night In Hackney303 18:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Itayb is right. It's not allowed as "synthesis", i.e. deduction of third statement as a conclusion from putting together two other separate statements.WP:NOR# Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position Tyrenius 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (break 2)

I additionally think that Itayb is missing another point. I know where the the burden of proof lies and I have provided the proof - your choosing to ignore that and that it purely based on POV. The Tirghra version of accounts IS ACCURATE - if you feel otherwise the burden of proof is with YOU to prove otherwise. Like I said its not an a la catre menu that you choose which facts in it you accept or reject.--Vintagekits 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Vintagekits, your "a la carte" accusation is fair enough. I'll try to defend my stand.
Albert Einstein was a genius. He is quoted to have said: "I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs." Can i now write in the Pipe article, that Pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs? What source is more reliable than Einstein?! But Einstein was an expert on Physics, not on Psychology. He should be considered a reliable source in matters concerning Relativity theory; but in most other matters, he is no more reliable than you or i. A single source may be reliable in some matters, and unreliable in others.
The reliability of Tirghra was established by showing that other sources, whose reliability had been independently established, rely on Tirghra. But all these sources rely on Tirghra for the single purpose of identifying certain individuals as Republican soldiers. That's akin to citing Einstein in matters of Physics. Just as Einstein's authority in any other matter is questionable, so is Tirghra's. Itayb 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats a pretty poor comeback, Tirghra is about the events of the lives (and death) of republicans - if Tirghra started talking about opinions on fashion design the I would start to question its content. It's doesnt talk about its opinion on fashion it is specifically focused on events, in fact it is only referenced to highlight details of actual events that happened, it does not suppose, it does not theorise, it does not opine - lets not cloud the issue. Tirghra is a reliable source, its highlights events - if you believe any of those events or its contents are incorrect lets here about them - if not knock it on the head! regards--Vintagekits 21:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Since, by your submission, the Tirghra account of the incident draws directly from the Jordan family, who are "people close to the situation you are writing about", it is a primary source.(Wikipedia:Attribution#Primary and secondary sources) But "Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". (Ibid.) The description of the gas canisters incident does not meet this requirement. It is therefore in violation of the Attribution policy. Itayb 21:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a totally incorrect interpretation of the policy. The book is the secondary source, and it reliable. One Night In Hackney303 22:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Itayb, that is not what I said - I said that PART of the research in writing the book was interviews with the families - the operative portion of that sentance is PART. --Vintagekits 22:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The book comes from a partisan source and can therefore not be used as the sole source for comments which put its "enemy" in a negative light. Primary and secondary sources are permissible for use, the former with particualar care. Tyrenius 22:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment from RFC

It is indisputable that CS gas was being used by the British Army in Northern Ireland in 1972; numerous sources attest to it. It is also true to say that people outside the Army had CS gas: there was the famous incident when a canister of CS gas was thrown into the chamber of the House of Commons by a protester who shouted that now MPs knew what it was like in Belfast.

The only issue here is whether Tirghra is a reliable source for the fact that the British Army were responsible for putting CS gas into this particular home. To cut a long story short, I think the crucial issue here is not whether they were responsible but the fact that the family clearly thought they were, and the effect this must have had on Pearse Jordan as he was growing up. I would therefore make a minor amendment and say something like ".. almost died from the effects of a CS gas canister which had entered the home, and suffered the effects for the rest of his life. The Jordan family blamed the British Army, which used CS gas as a crowd control measure and were operating in the area at the time". That statement can, I presume, safely be sourced from Tirghra. Sam Blacketer 11:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Sam, the only problem with that is that the book doesnt say that the family claimed it was the Army who fired the can into the house, I am sure the information would have come from one of the interviews wit h the family but the information is not presented as coming directly from the family. I will tell you what, I will type out the whole passage directly from the book and we can discuss it then (if I dont get it done tonight it might be the end of the weekend before I get a chance to do it as I am on a stag until Sunday). regards--Vintagekits 14:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Sam Blacketer, for accepting the RfC. I'm suspending my involvement in this discussion, until the passage is available, or until Monday morning, whichever comes first. I will not make any changes to the Background section in the interim, as long as no one else makes a drastic change to the section. Itayb 16:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the section from page 352 - "When Pearse was six months old he was almost killed when British soldiers flooded the area with CS gas canisters. A close neighbour who promptly rushed the injured and unconscious child to the hospital undoubtly saved Pearse's life. Pearse would suffer the side effects from this incident for the rest of his short life. Later the family moved to Roden Street, which was a mainly Protestant area. The family had to eventually leave leave their home after having to endure almost eight months of sectarian attacks."
I have just realised my mistake say the canister were fired into the area and were not fired into the house. Again sorry for the mistake but I hope that actually typing out the exact quote shows that I was not trying to hide the information.--Vintagekits 18:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Vintagekits, for typing out the passage. It was big of you to acknowledge your mistake. Think nothing of it.
As Sam Blacketer wrote, it is indisputable that CS gas was being used by the British Army in Northern Ireland in 1972. One Night In Hackney astutely established, by providing adequate attribution, that Lower Falls was cloaked in CS gas, which affected everyone, but especially children. On this backdrop, the Tirghra account provided by Vintagekits seems quite plausible.
But plausibility is precisely what makes urban legends thrive. My neighbor gave birth to a creature, which was half human half pig. Do you believe me? She gave birth in early '87, in a hospital near Chernobyl, where we used to live at the time. Do you believe me now?
There are two issues here. The first, as Sam Blacketer noted, is whether Tirghra should be considered sufficiently reliable to provide the only account for this event, and whether it should be considered primary or secondary source. This issue touches on the Attribution policy.
The second issue is whether retelling this incident would meet Wikipedia's neutrality policy, even if it were amply documented by several independent, reliable sources. This incident has no public significance. Contrary to what Sam Blacketer wrote, i don't see why it should matter whether this incident had any effect on Jordan or his family (and, in any case, implying it did would be engaging in original research). We don't know anything about Jordan's life between the time he was an infant and the time he was murdered. What is there to account for? What is there to shed light on? The same applies to his family. Is familiarity with this incident needed in order to get down to Jordan's father's drive, which took him all the way to the ECHR? Aren't his son's murder by a police officer under dubious circumstances and the lack of proper inquest into it, reasons enough?
The whole gas canisters account might just as well have been replaced with the following: "While we're at it, let's recall yet another case of brutality of the British forces, as evidenced in the way they handled the '72 uprising, which happened to be the year when Pearse Jordan was born. Remember how they coated all the Lower Falls area with their gas, without any pity even for the young children, who would be affected by it? Pearse might well have been one of these children, and it could have been your child just the same." Itayb 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
That last statement is not what it says. Please don't exaggerate. Facts are facts (if they are facts of course) and we present them from NPOV. Tyrenius 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vk, you've been rather inaccurate using the source. There's no mention of Jordan being in the family home or a neighbour breaking in!!! Please be more careful in future. I've removed these two statements to prevent them being copied onto mirror sites (any more than they probably have been already). I think it is perfectly valid to mention this incident as it shows the environment he grew up in. I've made the point earlier that once a subject is notable, then other aspects of their life can be included for background and context. However, the account in the book has questionable statements, e.g. "flooded" and "undoubtedly saved Pierce's life". We don't know if this is true, or a tiny bit exaggerated for effect. In the current text, I would want to change "he almost died from" to "he suffered from the effects of". I can accept the rest of that passage. Tyrenius 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If no one else replies to the RfC, i'll be willing to resign myself to the current version (after Tyrenius' modifications). Itayb 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I realise that mistake and I genuinely dont know what happened there to be honest - If I was trying to mislead with the source I wouldnt have offered to type out the whole section, in fact I would have avoided putting it up - I hold me hands up on this occasion and take it.--Vintagekits 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I accept this was a genuine mistake. Tyrenius 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how "flooded" is a questionable statement, it's one that is fully supported by the mainstream sources I presented above. One Night In Hackney303 13:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You've shown very convincingly that this did happen, but it didn't necessarily happen on the specific occasion that we are talking about. I don't think the sources tie it into that, which makes it synthesis if we do, and that is not allowed. Tyrenius 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how it's synthesis. We're not combining source A and B to create a new theory called C, we're saying source A confirms source B is reliable and correct and simply reporting what source B says. One Night In Hackney303 01:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Source B says, "When Pearse was six months old he was almost killed when British soldiers flooded the area with CS gas canisters." Where does it say that in source A? Tyrenius 02:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Source A confirms the entire area he lived in was flooded with CS gas in June 1970, when Jordan was six months old. One Night In Hackney303 02:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This only adds plausibility to the story, but does not corroborate it. What tells us Pearse was even in the neighborhood at the time, and not at his aunt's in Dublin, or in daycare on the other side of the city, near his mother's place of work? Only Tirghra. Itayb 10:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and that is good enough.--Vintagekits 21:04, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) I'll assume you know nothing about life in the Lower Falls area in the early 1970s, which is evident by your last post. Catholic children from working class areas did not have daycare. Catholic women from working class areas by and large did not work, in fact mentioning being a Catholic or living in a particular area was likely to bring a reply saying the job was not available. Catholic men had difficulty finding work, never mind women. Why his aunt's in Dublin? Surely the one in Brazil or Outer Mongolia would be equally feasible as well? A reliable source states it happened, and that's all that is needed. I assume you'll be applying this level of zeal to biographies where people claim to have lived through The Blitz, making sure that independent sources confirm that each and every person was living in the affected areas at the time? One Night In Hackney303 21:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The source cannot be accepted wholesale as reliable (in wikipedia terms, that is) on all topics, because it comes from what is deemed to be a partisan origin. Please don't go into generalised discussions on this page. It's meant specifically for items for the article, and other stuff just wastes time. Tyrenius 02:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well that's a possible interpretation, however I've yet to see any evidence that Tirghra is in fact an extremist source. Even so, it's a ludicrous situation. Had the family of Jordan made the comments in question to Moloney, Taylor, Harden, English, O'Brien etc and been published, this discussion would not be taking place. But because they made the comments to Tirghra it's somehow an unreliable account? One Night In Hackney303 12:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, this discussion is becoming really boring. Tirghra is a reliable source, it took years to produce and is complied from sources that no other book has been able to get access to. Instead of POV pushing at least try and find something wrong with the content of the book.--Vintagekits 12:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

[edit] The gas canisters incident

The state of affairs is that there are four active editors currently working on this article and participating in the associated discussion. Two of them (Vintagekits and One Night In Hackney) support the inclusion of the Gas canisters incident, whereas the other two (Tyrenius and Itay) oppose it on the grounds that the account violates both the Attribution (Reliable Source) and the NPOV policies.

An RfC was submitted five days ago, which yielded so far a single reply, supplied by Sam Blacketer. Although somewhat ambiguous, Sam Blacketer's bottom line was, to my best understanding, that he considered Tirghra a reliable source for the incident.

Were Wikipedia a democracy, a simple majority vote would suffice to tip the balance. However, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It works by establishing consensus, and such is not the case here.

Presently, Vintagikits and One Night In Hackney's view are represented in the article to the exclusion of Tyrenius and Itay's. In order to avoid edit war, a compromise should be attempted. My suggestion is that the account of the incident be kept, but that it be tagged with the Dubious tag, directing readers to the discussion. Itayb 11:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, there is NOTHING whatsoever to suggest that the reporting if the incident is dubious only your POV - if you can come up with anything to suggest otherwise then I would be happy to look at it. Additionally, you are misrepresenting Tyrenius arguement if you think that he is supporting your view and opposing mine - from what I read that is not what he is saying.--Vintagekits 11:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Totally true. You've brought nothing to the table but POV pushing and Wikilawyering. The information is attributed to a source that clearly meets WP:RS. There's no breach of WP:NPOV at all, as it represents fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. If you have a reliable source that states Jordan might have been having tea and biscuits at his aunt's in Outer Mongolia at the time of the incident, feel free to cite it! One Night In Hackney303 12:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I will wait for Tyrenius to make their opinion known. If i've got their intention wrong, or if they think my suggestion is unreasonable, i'll drop the case. Otherwise, i hope we will be able to reach a compromise of our own accord, but if we don't, let's try and have the issue settled for us by others. Fair enough? Itayb 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone should stop accusations against other editors, so that we can maintain a civilised discussion. I am sure that everyone is sincere in their wish to maintain high standards. It is not a question of someone's views being used and someone else's not. It is a question of applying policy and guidelines. ONIH is quite correct that the same information can be used from one source, yet not from another. That's how wiki works. As I understand it, this book is published by the IRA, or someone acting as its mouthpiece, (correct me if I'm wrong) and so must be classified as a partisan source for wiki purposes, which means it must be used very carefully, particularly regarding negative implications about its opponents. Perhaps Itayb could state specifically what items he thinks are unjustified for inclusion, as it's not clear. Tyrenius 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with T, I would like Itayb to state specifically what items he thinks are unjustified for inclusion and why - you cant just come along and say "I dont like that bit, but that bit is OK". Tirghra was not written by the IRA or a mouthpiece and if you think any of news source's in Britain which are considered "reliable sources" report on Northern Ireland in a non-partisan manner then I think you need to reassess your opinion.--Vintagekits 09:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You know what, Vintagekits and One Night In Hackney, you have convinced me (once more). I no longer think that this paragraph violates any policy, neither the Attribution nor the NPOV policy. On second reading, the account describes the incident in proper context: the British forces were trying to suppress riots. The account is attributed to a source, which, albeit controversial, is not unambiguously unreliable. I think i've set my editorial standards too high: this is, after all, Wikipedia, not an academic publication.
My apologies to you, Vintagekits and One Night In Hackney, who have been, all-in-all, justified all along. Thanks, Tyrenius and Sam Blacketer, for helping to balance the original account. Itayb 10:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats cool, high standards is not something which you should beat yourself up about.--Vintagekits 14:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/e/a/Talk%7EPearse_Jordan_2e42.html"