Talk:Death on the Rock

message: This should stick to what was in the documentary, rather than include the NYT.
From memory the expert shown in the programme was not a bomb disposal man, but a general military expert.  I also believe he was unhappy with the way his comments were twisted in the film.
--Gibnews 17:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Synopsis

message: The Gibraltar inquest determined that the killing was lawful. That verdict stands as the ECHR is not mandated to overrule a national court. I presume if the matter was taken to the ECHR all domestic remedies must have been exhausted so leave to appeal the decision in Gibraltar was presumably refused. The ECHR do not state that the killing was unlawful, simply that the right to life of McCann and others was infringed, use of the word 'unlawful' is a POV unsupported by the references.  The verdict of the inquest stands, and for that matter the law in Gibraltar which allows potential terrorists to be shot has not been changed as a result of the ECHR review.
However, I do appreciate that the POV on this may vary and as the ECHR review was long after the documentary, it might be better to omit this section.  --Gibnews (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is subject to a 1 Revert Rule! That is, you can only revert once in any 24 hr period. You have reverted twice, I suggest you self revert and use the article talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 13:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I haven't reverted, I added a decent reference and rewrote it to try and be factual. That is not reverting. I have now noticed the talk page header, but note you have made six edits to the paragraph subsequently so presume what I did, was OK. As for using the talk page (here), I did, how about responding to the points I have made. --Gibnews (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The ECHR ruling does not use the words "unlawful killing" nor does it change the verdict in the Gibraltar court. To assert that is does is a disputed POV and wp:or. On the whole I think that this section should be removed as it does not relate to the TV documentary. --Gibnews (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Irrespective of what the inquiry found it has nothing whatsoever to do with the documentary, which is the subject of the article. This should not be a coat rack for criticism of the SAS operation. Take this dispute to an article where it is relevant, like Operation Flavius. Rockpocket 23:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be interested to understand the reasoning for the view that these killings were unlawful, given the current plethora of killings of terrorism suspects via drone. These three were positively identified terrorists, killed in circumstances where there was minimal risk of civilian injury, and for the purpose of prevented a specific terrorist attack. If that is not legal, how can drone killings of mere supporters of terrorism and civilian bystanders be legal?I realize that this is not on-point, but perhaps the article needs something added to put the killing of terrorists in perspective.Royalcourtier (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Unlawful killing

message: I applaud the recent work on this article. However, three lengthy paragraphs seems excessive for the lead. Unfortunately, WP:LEADLENGTH doesn't suggest how long a paragraph should be. However, it does say  - I think the latter aspect applies here - If World War II, a very lengthy good article can manage a shorter lead, surely one for an article about a single documentary can too? (Hohum @) 19:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That lead is actually about a third longer than the previous version of this article's. Nevertheless, I've taken another look and shaved off a little under 1,000 characters. Thank you for explaining your point of view on the talk page rather than drive-by tagging. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?  23:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of the lead.