Talk:Gerry Kelly

Hi. In text it was said he served 19 years but it doesn't make any sense to me. He was arrested and convicted for bombing that happened in 1973 and released in 1989. That's 16 years including the time he was on the run (i.e not in prison). Can somebody clarify this to me.

--91.185.114.31 17:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hunger strike

Can anyone confirm how many days he actually spent on hunger strike? Although they aren't exactly a non-partisan source, FAIR have him listed as 205 days with the 170 force feedings. However Sinn Fein has him listed at 60 days. I'm more inclined to go with the 60 unless there's a very reliable source for the 205, but I can't imagine why FAIR would use an inflated figure. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

New image

When the new assembly update their website and profiles we should update that image because the one we have new makes Gearóid look like some crazed bomber!--Vintagekits 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well he is! ;) We can't use the images from the website/profile, we need free images. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

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 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Leading GFA role

There doesn't appear to be a reference for this claim in the lead. I've checked the first three, and none seem to mention it, although happy to be corrected in case I have missed it. Mooretwin (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Try reading the article, like I said, it's referenced. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that helpful response. Which reference, then? It's not reference 1, 2, 3 or 14 which are the only ones that might relate to the claim in question? Mooretwin (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

[1]--Vintagekits (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Where does that say he played a leading role? (Hardly a good source anyway, given that it is his own Assembly profile!) Mooretwin (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ssshhh!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That reference is not in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Stick it in and stop whinging then! x --Vintagekits (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

So you accept that the article lacked a reference for the claim? Does that mean than Domer48 was wrong to remove my citation request and to state twice that it was referenced? Mooretwin (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please see my first addition to this specific discussion for a response to that! x --Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that doesn't provide a response to the question, as your response merely cited a reference which didn't provide a source for the claim. Mooretwin (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Old Bailey bomb

I took this detail from the Gerry Kelly article. 'Two of the car bombs were defused but the other two exploded, one near the Old Bailey and the other at Scotland Yard. As a result of the explosions one person was killed and almost 200 people were injured.' If it was acceptable there then it is acceptable here surely? 86.147.53.235 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An Phoblacht interview

Where does Kelly say in the interview that the bombings were the "response by the IRA to the referendum"? He only says they happened the same day, he does not say it was by design or that the bombings were in response. O Fenian (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He said "The car bombs were set to go off for 8 March – the date of the referendum." Now only a barrack room lawyer would suggest that was not the reason. --Fynire (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean "bar-room lawyer"? Mooretwin (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It is one possibility, but it is ambiguous. Gerry Kelly is a primary source therefore conclusions should not be drawn from what he says. O Fenian (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting Kelly is unreliable? He should know more about it than almost anyone.

Is that your rule O Fenian or Wikipedia's that a primary source needs a secondary confrimation? No, barrack room MT as I understand the expression. --Fynire (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is wikipedia's rule see Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. BigDunc 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Times article is vague about which bombings are being referred to, and it they were published the day after it was pure speculation by them to suggest any sort of motive anyway. Why not, as I have suggested elsewhere without success, cite an academic source that has actually done any kind of detailed research? O Fenian (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Times is a reliable secondary source which is what you and the rules ask for O Fenian. Wikipedia is full of newspaper sourced material as are academic works. Anyway the facts have not been challenged which is another good reason for accepting it here. If it goes back I don't want the tag team reverting it. --Fynire (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said the Times is vague as to which bombings it is referrring to, be it Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland and London. As there is ambiguity I am afraid it is not what the "rules" ask for, I recommend reading them properly. My issue is not with the general idea of the Times being a reliable source, which it is, but the ambiguous nature of what it says. Ambiguous sources are to be avoided, it it right there in the policy. O Fenian (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The Times is not vague at all. Why do you want to remove items that offer insights into the reasons for events? It is not as if anyone is suggesting otherwise and one of the bombers confirms the reason. --Fynire (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The source is vague and ambiguous. Is it really too much effort for you to find a better source that is not vague or ambiguous as I suggested? O Fenian (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Not my problem O Fenian. I have a referenced source. Now find one that disputes it. (None exist of course).--Fynire (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is your problem. You are the editor who wishes to add the content, therefore it is your responsibility to make sure it is sourced in accordance with policy. Right now, it is not. O Fenian (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry it is properly sourced - you are just making it up as you go along with faux rules. --Fynire (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)