Talk:Jean McConville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Crest of Belfast This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.)

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 Belfast tasks:
Northern Ireland This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
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.)

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 Northern Ireland tasks:
Ireland Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality 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.)
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.

Hello User:Lapsed Pacifist. On June 16 2005 you changed the wording in the Jean McConville article from

"The IRA did not admit their involvement until over 20 years later, when they passed information on the whereabouts of the body."

to this:

"The IRA did not admit their involvement until over 20 years later, when they passed information on the whereabouts of the body. After a prolonged search, co-ordinated by the Garda Síochána, her body was found."

That's incorrect. The Garda Síochána did indeed launch an extensive search in 1999, which in fact they expanded and continued for several weeks further than was intially planned, because no body could be located in the area specified by the IRA. Mrs. McConville's body was in fact only discovered - by accident - in 2003. I have since changed the article to reflect this. Cheers. Fergananim

Contents

[edit] IRA statement

The latest IRA statement was made on 8 July, in which they claim to have conducted an internal investigation which upheld their original claim that she was an informant. This probably merits a mention. 86.136.3.91 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please respect the consensus

This discussion shows murder is inappropriate. Killed should be used, and if someone was convicted then "x was convicted of murder" should be used. Please respect the consensus of the discussion.--Domer48 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful reference, Domer48.
However, I must respectfully disagree that either
  1. a consensus was reached at all (or adjudicated) in the reference you quote above and
  2. that, if a consensus was displayed, it was as you describe.
I think that many of the arguments in the referenced discussion actually supported the original complaint:
"==NPOV - Murder vs killing ==
There seems to be a bizarre NPOV inconsistency being raised over articles relating to people killed in Ireland. There are (1) victims of IRA / PIRA such as 86 year old Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet and James Stronge; (2) victims of Loyalists such as Pat Finucane (solicitor), (3) “victims” of the British army such as Kieran Fleming; and (4) suicides such as Bobby Sands. There is a vocal and persistent lobby which is pro Irish Republican, many of whom belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism, which argues (I think) that a death is a killing until somebody is found guilty of murder even when that killing is generally defined and established as murder by law and in the international press."
Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
"Murder" is a legal term, therefore one that cannot be determined by the "international press". Please read the discussion thoroughly, unless the killer can has been found of sound mind at the time of the killing, it cannot be murder. So please provide evidence that McConville's killers were of sound mind? If not snap out of it. --Domer48 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
If this was a legal Wiki, you might have a valid point. It's not, so you don't. Why don't you get a ruling as to whether plain english can be used on this Wiki?
The lede is supposed to encapsulate the rest of the article which is quiet clear that this was a murder - not an accidental, natural or judicially sanctioned death.
I do sympathise and understand that for Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA, the current phase of the conflict is about the definition of the conflict itself. For the self-esteem of the so-called republican movement, and for the political future of Sinn Féin, it is vital that its 30-year campaign of violence be remembered as a just war, a regrettable but necessary method of achieving a legitimate aim. The vile and sordid deeds that run through that campaign may, under pressure, be described as wrong. They may be accepted as "mistakes". PIRA may acknowledge, in the curiously passive language it favours, that these things "should not have happened". But they must never, ever, be called crimes. God forbid!
Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the link Domer48, the outcome looks unambiguous to me, murder should only be used to describe convictions. Also where is the proof McConville was murdered? Has the manner of her death been made public? For all we know, McConville may have taken her own life in captivity knowing her betrayal would ultimately result in the traitor's fate of two in the back of the head? Scalpfarmer 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Result of PIRA investigation

(moved here from his talk page at Vintagekits request):

Why exactly do you think that the views of PIRA should not be fairly represented on Wikipedia in reference to the (presumed?) death of Jean_McConville?

I am rather puzzled as to why you, Vintagekits, keep excising my new section referencing the PIRA "Statement on the the Abduction and Killing of Mrs Jean McConville in December 1972", (dated 8 July 2006) by P O’Neill, Irish Republican Publicity Bureau, Dublin

Is it just because you are still editing carelessly and without respect to other editor's work by just hitting the revert button when you see 'naughty words' such as Murder and PIRA, Vintagekits?

It is no accident that Mitchel McLaughlin's immediate instinct when asked about Jean McConville is to start talking about the 1981 hunger strikes. For those brave protests, in which 10 men starved themselves to death rather than submit to an ordinary prison regime and therefore accept that they were just criminals serving their time, were the ultimate statement of how viscerally important the issue is for the Provos. A less epic version of this struggle for the moral high ground was played out at Philadelphia International Airport, when a former PIRA member, Joe Black, was briefly detained by the authorities. He had served time for carrying out a kneecapping but answered "no" to a question on the visa form about whether he had ever been convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude". To accept that the deliberate mutilation of a non-combatant involved moral turpitude would be to acknowledge that normal standards of morality apply to IRA operatives. Such a conclusion is, for PIRA and its apologists, unfathomable.

The fact is that even by PIRA's own standards, the murder of Jean McConville and hundreds of other acts of violence it has perpetrated are crimes. PIRA justifies itself by claiming that it was engaged in a war, and that wars inevitably involve the infliction of violence on others. Along with Mitchel McLaughlin, it conveniently forgets that there is also such a thing as a war crime.

And by all accepted definitions of war crimes, the murder of Jean McConville was an illegal act. The International Criminal Court, of which Ireland is a member, clearly states that war crimes do apply to "an armed conflict not of an international character", a category which obviously applies to the irish troubles.

Under this heading, it defines as crimes a number of acts against non-combatants that the Provisional IRA perpetrated against Jean McConville, including "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", and "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognised as indispensable."

The Provisional IRA's refusal to disclose Jean McConville's fate or produce her body also constituted a war crime, that of "enforced disappearance of persons", defined as "the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organisation, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons."

With a hypocrisy that would be breathtaking had it not become so familiar, Sinn Féin regularly supports calls for these international laws to be enforced - so long as the crimes in question happened elsewhere. At the time when there were attempts to prosecute the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the UK and Spain, for example, An Phoblacht quoted with approval Virginia Díaz, a member of the Spanish prosecution team against Pinochet: "One of the consequences of the Pinochet case has been the creation of an International Criminal Court to take on cases of crimes against humanity. 'But what is more important' , highlights Virginia, 'is the final confirmation that crimes against humanity are imprescriptible and that human rights are inviolable. There is no possible immunity to cover those responsible for those crimes'." Except, of course, the immunity of those inoculated against guilt by their own tender sense of honour.

However, I must congratulate your improvement in tone (if not the quality and care you take with your actual edits, Vintagekits). Keep up the improvement!...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you really expect anyone to engage in a discuss with you or to assist you when you use abusive and provokative language such as that?--Vintagekits 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Been thinking about this, inspired by the attempt to categorise IRA Prisoners of War as "People Convicted of Terrorism" on the basis that such a category is verifiable fact and thus can't be POV. How about one for Jean Mc and others Category: People executed as touts. Verifiable fact. doesn't mean they were touts. Same logic surely? (Sarah777 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC))
Indeed it is the same logic, and it appears to be entirely valid per WP:V (except informer is not a proper noun). Now you have established the policy doesn't favour any particular POV. Congratulations. Rockpocket 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course the prisoners were still POWs and should be categorised as such; but as I said at the start of this I'd accept the "convicted as" (despite my reservations regarding it's implications) if it is balanced by cat:POW. This is purely a compromise, not what I'd support otherwise; as I feel if somebody doesn't move we will get stuck here. (Sarah777 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC))

Since, after an interval of 10 days, nobody has answered my question: "Why exactly do you think that the views of PIRA should not be fairly represented on Wikipedia in reference to the (presumed?) death of Jean_McConville?" I now propose re-inserting the excised passage: "Result of PIRA investigation"...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality

I have been doing some research for the inevitable upcoming attempt to insert POV into this article. My comments are interspersed with extracts from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There is no dispute that McConville was killed, but whether McConville was murdered or not is POV, and will generally be based on the opinion of a journalist or politician. Simply because a journalist says it is murder does not make it so. The verifiable fact is that the inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing.

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth," in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

If murdered is placed into the lead instead of killed, this gives the view undue weight and asserts it as the truth. Thus doing so would be a breach of policy.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

That McConville was murdered is an opinion, not a fact. She was killed, that is a fact. Thus it should not be asserted that she was murdered.

However, there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Saying McConville was murdered falls under this.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.

This shows how the opinion that McConville was murdered should be incorporated into the article. Brixton Busters 07:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to outline your PoV, BB. As is usual with your erudite contributions, I think many editors will find that your summary above is a useful starting point.
It is clear that we must find impeccable sources before we clarify that Jean was tortured and mutilated before she was murdered by the Provisional IRA (PIRA)....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Allow me to help. Dr Cassidy said there was no evidence on Mrs McConville’s skeletal remains to suggest that she had suffered any other injuries prior to her death. Scalpfarmer 14:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The facts are shutting around you Gaimhreadhan, where are you going to turn to next?--Vintagekits 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a helpful reference, Scalpfarmer. If nothing else comes to light, that reference, establishes that there was no evidence that Jean was tortured and mutilated before she was murdered by the Provisional IRA (PIRA):
Copyright violation removed by Scalpfarmer.
...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please respect copyright. The article is linked, there is no need for it to be pasted here in breach of copyright. Scalpfarmer 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Research for an encyclopaedia article and discussion amongst editors as to the wording of an article is not fair use under the laws of Ireland and Florida!?! Can you cite any references to support your position, Sclapfarmer?
Pasting it here in its entirety is a copyright violation. The article has a copyright message at the bottom. As there is a link to the article where it can be read without the need for payment or subscription, any claim of fair use cannot be substantiated. Scalpfarmer 15:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Copyright is automatic upon creation in the EU so whether the article has a copyright message or not is irrelevant. The whole article was not pasted, but your valid point remains. I've yet to lose a case in any jurisdiction (and I'd hate to break my run of luck with you, Scalpfarmer, - weak grin) so I'll let the excision stand in the cause of harmony...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)