Talk:Pearse Jordan

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks. Could you please refer me to the policy/guideline page where the YouTube embargo is mentioned? Itayb 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why i mentioned the song in the lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Most if not all bio's give background information - its pretty common practice.--Vintagekits 09:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pearse Jordan#Background|Background section]] considered unencyclopedic 

message: 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." 
* 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" (, p. 7 , l. 17-25 -- p. 8, l. 1; , 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 (, 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" () Itayb 19:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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. A used copy is publicly available on amazon.ca. It's also on bokkilden.no, but I can't tell whether it's available. 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)

text: If you want a copy - just go and buy a copy - its freely available--Vintagekits 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Daily Telegraph confirms Begley's non sectarianism. One Night In Hackney303 19:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If someone asks me a direct question I will answer it. Weggie 20:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I've read it thanks - please don't be patronising. Weggie 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: "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)
thread_title:  Song lyric 

message: 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)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: Consider the following two variation on a statement from the lead:
# Despite these developments the Jordans have yet to be granted an inquest into their son’s killing.
# 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)
replies: text: It is standard to put in a date in such cases. Tyrenius 23:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  in-lining a time reference 

message: 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)
thread_title:  the referencing system 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've incorporated this "blanket" into key footnotes. Itayb 07:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Circumstances of death - refs

message: Coming across the following page: , i became interested in the following questions:
# Is there a public Pearse Jordan Commemoration every year/few years, or was this a special event?
# Was the "Eire Nua's 25th Anniversary parade" the same event as the "Pearse Jordan Commemoration 2005", or were they two different events?
# On what occasions is the Vol. Pearse Jordan Mem. Trophy presented, who gives it away, and for what sort of accomplishment?
# Are there any other public events/trophies to Jordan's name?
# Does Jordan enjoy any other cultural presence, which is not yet mentioned in the article? Itayb 15:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pearse Jordan Commemoration 2005" and Jordan's cultural presence 

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: The phrase "Slán go fóill mo chara"  actually means "Goodbye for now, my friend."  The current translation is in error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.125.235 (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Gaelic Phrase 

message: What is the source for this statement?Martinazo (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pearse Jordan (12 December 1969–25 November 1992) was a Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) volunteer 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pearse Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061113075134/http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450102001?open&of=ENG-GBR to http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR450102001?open&of=ENG-GBR
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pearse Jordan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091223062647/http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2001/May/N%20Ireland%20cases.htm to http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/2001/May/N%20Ireland%20cases.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified