Talk:Operation Flavius

message: This article and the Death on the Rock article are practically identical, I suggest a merger and redirect. --Coroebus 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I think the Death on the Rock article is notable enough to deserve an article of its own. There is some overlap between the two articles, but that's not a major problem and is required to give the Death on the Rock article some context. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be if the articles were not essentially exactly the same. --Coroebus 10:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its good to have them seperate, the incident was important as was the attempt to supress an ill informed bit of TV journalism.  The solution is to expand the two topics in different ways.  One thing that is not mentioned is that Channel 4 did a reconstruction of the inquest.  I have that somewhere on VHS. --Gibnews 19:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death on the Rock 

message: Sorry, the allegations against Siobhan O'Hanlon shouldn't be included.
It's like having a link to An Phoblact stating Ian Paisley was involved in Greysteel.(Irish Republican 17:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. If there was a fourth member it could be anyone. --Gibnews 18:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allegations

message: I think all the various radio evidence needs to be in one place, as at the moment there are competing "claims" in Death on the Rock, the inquest, and the European Court. In fact, it takes up most of the inquest section, which needs more detail in itself. Nick Cooper 19:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1979 the IRA had used a radio controlled bomb in the Mountbatten bombing, so surely they were at least as capable, if not more so, 9 years later in 1988? Radio detonation was used the same day at the Warrenpoint ambush and the Enniskillen bombing in 1987. How did it even become an issue at the Gibraltar hearings?86.44.214.41 (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio evidence/claims

message: For those who did not know at this point, exMI6 agent Richard Tomlinson has edited the list of MI6 he previously released and the MI6 responsibilities for Operation Flavius apppear attributed to:
:Michael Charles RAMSCAR 
:DOB: 1948	
:POSTINGS: 77 Lagos, 79 Brasilia, 86 Madrid, 89 San Jose, 97 Madrid
Tomlinsons credentials as exMI6 are not disputed afaik. A gagging order was also previously issued to try and prevent dissemination of the list alongside all his other legal woes. With these things in mind i'm wondering if the detail Tomlinson alleges can be included in the article even though it was published on his blog? 
I have not read on the subject of Flavius so cannot say if the naming of Ramscar is a confirmation of previously alleged information or something new. Either way its some detail that doesn't appear in the article presently so might be worth including without infringing WP:OR.
*http://tomlinsonvmi6.blogspot.com/ Tomlinson Blog Saturday, February 24, 2007 entry
*http://www.savefiles.net/d/h8m5zgonoy3y4.html Direct link to his edited version of the previously public MI6 agent list
(tried including a namebase link describing the original gagging order controversy but it triggers the spam blacklist alert) 
:Dee Mac Con Uladh 16:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MI6 involvement

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

message: I've removed the last paragraph citing from that lunatic rag 'The First Post', honestly you cannot cite from a 'source' that suggests that both 9/11 and 7/7 were conspiracies while not offering any facts for same just uneducated opinion, they did exactly the same over the sniping of Sir Christopher Andrew. Also the Guardian cite makes no mention of him being a 'court historian', rather the piece had sympathies with the service. It's only point which wasn't even criticism more a suggestion was that it might have been better to have a raft of historians rather than one. Twobells (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It clearly says "court historian" so please explain why you say that it dose no mention this.--Domer48'fenian' 19:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examination of MI5 Records 

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

text: Having one flag is not POV .The flag of Ireland being used in a modern i.e. post independence , article is against MOS:FLAG  "makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial". As you say " the whole point is that the IRA aren't non-state, more acting on behalf of an unrecognised state" using a flag of that state . It also uses other flags , maybe one of them would suffice ? As for the usage in this article , how would you describe the use of the tricolour? Inappropriate ? Unnessecary ? Misleading ? Ambiguous? I have read the link , and it is clear that the POV that the tricolour usage by the IRA in articles is correct even with consensus and the links it still a POV. Where can we have a good chat about this ? Flags or Ireland , open the catergory chat and let me in - dont forget to invite others .Murry1975 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Simple solution really enforce MOSFLAG and remove flags from infobox they add nothing to the article. Mo ainm~Talk 16:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: MOSFLAG is not mandatory, is a guideline, and as any WP guideline it is a set "of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Far from being 'obstructive' Domer48 (at Talk:Warrenpoint ambush) has only reflected consensus. 'Legal' or 'illegal' doesn't matter here, since we have reliable sources cited in that discussion that support the use of the Tricolour as the flag of Irish republicanism. Additionally, a much more specific guideline actually allows the use of the Irish flag for groups other than the RoI. WP:IRISH FLAGS reads: "At this time, neither the island of Ireland nor Northern Ireland has a universally recognised flag. In those instances, if an organisation uses a flag or banner to represent the island of Ireland or Northern Ireland, use that flag or banner to represent teams, bodies or people under its aegis.".--Darius (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

text: Fantastic work Darius .Agree with use . Murry1975 (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Murry1975, I left further comments on Talk:Warrenpoint ambush.--Darius (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: Rms125a@hotmail.com, I've reverted your most recent series of edits. some of the changes were useful, but you also introduced a lot of problems. I'll list them in order so we can discuss them if there are any you feel strongly about:
*this  tag is unnecessary imo; The person might be named (and I'll check), but I don't think the name would add to the reader's understanding, as the event in question is mostly background to the main subject of the article. Also "traveled" versus "travelled" is an ENGVAR thing; Brits use the version with two "l"s. The rest I have no strong feelings about. -- I re-added the name of the IRA volunteer shot dead, Kevin McCracken (as per source: http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/chron/1988.html). Quis separabit? 22:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for your courtesy. I indicated my feelings or actions above on each of the four points you made. We should be able to move ahead now. Quis separabit? 23:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough; I'll probably make a few tweaks tomorrow, but I don't have time right now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  14:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits 

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

message: A better example would be something like the WP:FA pages at:
#The General in His Labyrinth
#El Señor Presidente
#Mario Vargas Llosa
Hopefully these are some helpful examples from which to model references formatting sects.
Cheers,
— Cirt (talk) 20:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation format examples 

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

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

message: The Inquest was not the end of the matter. The matter came before the the European Court of Human Rights in 1995.McCann and others v. United Kingdom (1996) 21 EHLRR 97. The Court ruled by the narrowest of margins (10 to 9) that the killing did not constitute use of force which was "absolutely necessary" and that article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention of Human Rights had been violated.McCann and others v. United Kingdom (1996) 21 EHLRR 97
END OF STUFF Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: European Court of Human Rights

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