Talk:Séamus McElwaine

message: The sources in the Maze Escape section do not back up the assertion that McElwaine was interrogated by the SAS before his death. The An Phlobacht source is not considered reliable for information of this kind (and does not assert this fact anyway, instead stating that he was "executed") and the other source doesn't even mention him (at least thats what my Mozilla search says, if its wrong please point out where he is discussed). Please can somebody address this issue.--Jackyd101 11:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's mentioned briefly in Big Boys' Rules, page 219.  Lynch claims the SAS interrogated McElwaine for 30 minutes before "finishing him off", but the book clearly states the allegations can't be independently corroborated and that as of mid '91 no inquest had taken place so it's not possible to say if that was feasible or not. One Night In Hackney 12:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just an additional note on this, after I was doing some research for expanding it. The inquest did actually take place in 1993 and Lynch's account was confirmed, that McElwaine was interrogated before being killed. I'll be adding details of the inquest and some other post-death events shortly. One Night In Hackney303 21:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: An IP editor made this edit, which I'm reverting. Firstly after a lengthy discussion over on the Village Pump, killing is used to describe the death of someone, then murder is used to describe any subsequent convictions, which is exactly what was happening before. Secondly the names of the victims are not relevant, and the part about one being shot in front of his wife is not in any source therefore it's original research. The various locations being added are not particularly relevant either, just trivia that makes the flow of the text worse. As such, I'm reverting back to the previous version. One Night In Hackney303 06:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the names of the victims relevant, why do you think they are not? I don't see any great change in the flow of the text and using the name acknowledges the victims themselves rather then leaving them as faceless entities. Ricmcc1766303 16:33, 04 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No encyclopedic value is added by doing so, and the privacy of names of victims should be respected unless they are notable. 2 lines of K303 16:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree but I'm not going to change it as I'm not interested in joining a long running debate but I would question following phrases such as "In 1987 McElwaine's father Jimmy" and "The oration was given by Catholic priest Piaras Ó Duill" if we are excluding names which don't add to the encyclopedic value of the article. I'd say all names add value and although I respect that some people may wish for privacy, the names of the victims are already freely available on-line on sites such as 'CAIN' or 'operation banner'. Ricmcc1766303 19:40, 04 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Considering ONiH has now left the arena failing to adequately back up his claims, I am just asking if anyone else has an issue with the Rosslea name? I would ask people to read the above discussion before commenting. The sooner this issue is resolved the better! Conypiece 23:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't work that way. Simply because I am very bored of answering your pointless questions does not give you consensus to change it. The discussion is pointless so I refuse to waste any more of my time with it, but that does not mean you have consensus through a war of attrition. My comments above remain valid as do all those of other editors who have got bored of this frivolous waste of time. One Night In Hackney303 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Care to give examples of my 'pointless' questions? I didn't think boredom was an excuse, but if thats what you want to use to leave, I'll not argue with you ;). Oh and I am not claiming to have consensus, I am hoping this thread will detirmine that. Conypiece 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Can't you find my 'pointless questions'? Conypiece 11:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above, as in the entire talk page. One Night In Hackney303 11:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have once again read this talk page and once again failed to find any of these 'pointless questions'. So far on this talk page we have confirmed Rosslea is used more locally, Rosslea is used more by the local press, Rosslea is used by the education boards, Rosslea is used far more commonly than Roslea by the BBC, the road signs say Rosslea. Have I missed anything? Now why do you still insist Roslea is more accurate? Conypiece 20:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Can't really find how that is relevant to this discussion, however I am intrigued, please do list them 13 articles and also give examples for all 13 on how I have 'caused problems and edit warred' on them. If not retract and apologise. Conypiece 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it need to be discussed further, or is it time to go back to Rosslea? 

message: :: Have any of the editors that are left (ie not left the discussion) anything further to add? Conypiece 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stable? No, undiscovered would be a better word. Have you any evidence (that hasn't already been discussed and settled above) that Roslea should remain? Oh hows my 13 aticle list coming along? Conypiece 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need a consensus to change it. Repeating yourself to the point where you would try the patience of a saint and expecting people to keep replying does not equal consensus. One Night In Hackney303 22:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the minute there is no consensus that it should be spelt Roslea, hence this discussion. This page is for people to set the facts and other useful material (ie locals spell it Rosslea) out. So far I have seen 1 link to the Fermanagh council website which can be dismissed by a futher 10 that spell it Rosslea. I have an idea, I will start a new thread, simply for facts, ie no discussion but just pure facts. Everyone should put down all evidence they see relevant. Conypiece 22:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or you could stop wasting everyone's time? One Night In Hackney303 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I didn't realise finding a solution to this was seen as wasting everyone's time. Conypiece 22:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Domer & ONiH, please don't discuss on the below template, it is an honest attempt to find a solution to this problem. Do you disagree it is a good method? And there very much is a dispute in regards to the name. Hope to see the 'evidence' piling up fast from both sides. How long should we leave it before we ask a random admin to come to a decision? 2/3 days maybe? Conypiece 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Decision(?)

message: No discussion, just facts and other useful information. Ah just another idea, we could get an admin (not involved with UK/Irish editors or the arbitration) to review all evidence and come to a final decision. 
No dispute, see above discussion. --Domer48 22:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or how about you stop wasting the time of even more editors and just go something constructive? One Night In Hackney303 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence in the name dispute

message: A claim has been made that "McElwaine" is incorrect, without providing a source that actually says so. Sources on Google News and Google Books favour McElwaine over McElwain by a 3-1 majority, and books I have that aren't available on Google Books also tend to favour McElwaine. I'm not saying which is correct, but in the absence of a source which says which one is actually correct it makes sense to go with the majority, especially since official reports (such as the Hennessy report, who you would definitely expect to know the correct name) favour McElwaine also. 2 lines of K303 13:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The monument does not *prove* McElwaine is incorrect, it only proves that McElwain is an alternate name. If you want to claim McElwaine is incorrect, provide a source that actually says so. Until then, we'll stick with the balance of reliable sources. 2 lines of K303 13:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: Miles Creagh has reverted my edit claiming "inquest sources don't say anything about interrogation". I'd think "The inquest found that he had been wounded and incapacitated, questioned by the soldiers, then, within five minutes, shot dead" is pretty clear that he was questioned after being wounded, and "interrogated" is a reasonable enough paraphrase. I see he's also adding Urban to question Lynch's account, while ignorning that Urban's full sentence reads "Such allegations cannot be corroborated independently and, as of mid 1991, no inquest had taken place at which pathological evidence on the nature of McElwaine's gunshot wounds could be presented". Since the inquest has taken place now the first part of the sentence is null and void. 2 lines of K303 08:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - I see Mo ainm has reverted the disputed changes while I was typing that up, thanks. 2 lines of K303 08:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Try a dictionary or thesaurus. There's a dictionary definition for you. The further problem is that the question was asked of Lynch the following morning, and not verifiably by the SAS soldiers who shot McElwaine so the circumstances aren't the same. 2 lines of K303 15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Inquest details

message: i'm not seeing support in the sources for the claim that Seamus was interrogated before he was killed. i do see support for him being killed some period of minutes after he was first shot, but not for what happened in the intervening period. Am I missing some language in the sources that speciffically supports the claim of interrogation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miles Creagh (talk • contribs) 14:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading. 2 lines of K303 15:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you see no support for the claim that he was "interrogated," why did you change the wording to "questioned"?  Do you believe there is a profound difference between these two words?  'Cause I'm here to tell you there isn't.  Consult a thesaurus if you have any doubts. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear he posted this before reading the section above where I quoted the source he clearly hadn't bothered to read. 2 lines of K303 15:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Summarize source material in your own words as much as possible. 2 lines of K303 16:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

text: It's a good job there is one then. 2 lines of K303 17:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Interrogated" 

message: The image of the memorial is captioned with Seamus's surname spelt with the - e ending. However from the image itself it's clear it was spelt without the -e. Should we remove the -e from the caption to make it consistent with the memorial? Or is the memorial itself incorrect as to the spelling of the name?
:No, and no. His name is spelt both ways apparently, but the caption should be consistent. 2 lines of K303 07:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's exceptionally rare for surnames to have multiple spellings in the 20ith century. I suspect the spelling on the memorial is in fact an error. Bit embarrassing, that. But since the memorial is in fact to "Seamus McElwain", shouldn't the caption be consistent with that? Miles Creagh (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  -e 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Séamus McElwaine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/14410
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/14650
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Séamus McElwaine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050313120337/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/10/05/nira05.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/10/05/nira05.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "It was reported that McElwaine died from his wounds, although a jury found that he had been interrogated while incapacitated for several minutes and then shot dead" is inaccurate and the first part is unsupported by the sources. This edit removed the original text of "McElwaine was interrogated for several minutes and then killed", claiming that "Interrogation then killed claim not sourced. An Phoblacht is partisan". However the text was sourced by the existing reference (and indeed, others further down in the same section), United Kingdom/Northern Ireland Human Rights, 1993, which was cited after the others. The relevant text from it is "A January inquest into the 1986 killing of Seamus McElwaine, an acknowledged Provisional IRA volunteer and escaped prisoner, ruled that soldiers had opened fire without giving him the opportunity to surrender and that McElwaine had actually been killed 5 minutes after being wounded in the initial gunfire".
Now that the original version of the text has been established and that the removal of text was in error, I am reinstating an amended version of that text consistent with the sources. Regards. 176.253.247.109 (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed one reference as irrelevant. The archived version was not in the article but can be viewed here. The part relating to this article reads "Sean Lynch, 43, from Lisnaskea: Served 12 years on arms and explosives charges. Captured in April 1986 after a gun battle in which Maze escaper Seamus McElwaine was killed. Both were armed with assault rifles and were on their way to examine an 800lb culvert bomb." This is essentially redundant to other sources as it is a brief summary of events without going into specifics about the sequence of events, since it does not state McElwaine was dead and not interrogated or wounded, interrogated then shot dead. Regards. 176.253.247.109 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading sentence changed