Talk:William Fleming (Irish republican)

Non-notable?

Im putting a non-notable tag on this article because the only reason given for this man's notability was that he died in the Troubles. Dying in the Troubles is not enough for a person's own article. If it was, every soldier, policeman, civilian and activist on either side of the divide who was killed would have a page, there are over 3,000 of them. He does not appear to have been the subject of non-trivial literature, nor is his death widely covered by media sources (as discussed elsewhere, An Poblacht does not count with regards to establishing notability). He was apparently not the subject of an important inquiry (like the Stalker Inquiry or Stevens Inquiry), nor did he gain celebrity in the manner of the hunger strikers. I am also adding {{Fact}} tags to some very questionable assertions. If they can be proved using sources other than An Poblacht or Tiragna then they can stay, otherwise they can't. If there really is a justifiable claim for notability then please insert it into the article.--Jackyd101 15:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

His death was covered in the New York Times. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jackyd101 your right, not everyone that died in the troubles should have a page, however, I will add to this page today and I left left you a messege on your talk page about what happened last night that lost me a load of material on this. I'll fix it today.--Vintagekits 15:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also Urban covered his death in his book as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that a single NYT article is really enough to establish notability, but I see Vintagekits is working on it, so I'm not going to rush this to Afd or anything unecessary. If Urban covered the incident in his book then by all means include that in the article, but it depends what was said about him as to whether that confers notability or not.--Jackyd101 15:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying a single NYT reference is enough to establish notability, but I was correcting your comment of nor is his death widely covered by media sources (as discussed elsewhere, An Poblacht does not count with regards to establishing notability). To prove that his death was widely covered using online sources (or even offline for that matter) can be quite difficult, as how many media outlets do you know that have a full online archive dating back to 1984? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but if it was widely covered in the media there is no evidence in the article. There may well be plenty of reasons why this man is notable, but at the moment they are not in the article where they need to be. That is hopefully what will be cleared up as a result of this tag and discussion.--Jackyd101 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have plenty of material guys, wait until the end of today before carrying on this contversation and you both are wasting your collective breaths cos I will answer both of yer questions with the info I add. slainte.--Vintagekits 16:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put it into mainspace in its current state anyway, it's been sitting in projectspace barely touched for an eternity, then VK suddenly added a load of information to it and put it in mainspace while I was sleeping. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I woodnt edder but it woodavbin OK spect fer da frick freezin las night ya know.--Vintagekits 18:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Shots fired

The article is currently wrong. BBC states a total of 59 rounds were fired, as does Urban. It's therefore impossible for Fleming to have been hit by 60 rounds and Doherty by 24. Those figures don't even match the figures claimed by the IRA at the time, which were (according to Urban) 38 for Doherty and 30 for Fleming. The actual figures according to Urban are 19 for Doherty and 4 for Fleming. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Am currently on five different number of shots the were fired! --Vintagekits 21:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you repeat that with the words in the correct order please? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Am currently on five different number of shots the were fired! You really need a serious crash course in Hiberno English--Vintagekits 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

NN tag

You know, you're not really supposed to remove that tag without discussion. With regards to the article, it is much better and whilst I'm still not 100% convinced this guy did anything more interesting than die, you have provided enough sources to show that it has generated quite a bit of media attention. In a minor note, you have used An Poblacht to source a couple of controversial details, which you aren't supposed to do. The article is much improved however.--Jackyd101 12:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Its not that he died that makes him notable its his activity, the way he died and the Judicial review that makes him notable.--Vintagekits 12:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearing up the page

'Following the shootings, the RUC left the bodies lying where they had fallen for over five hours, before eventually removing them to Altnagelvin Hospital'

I took this out a day or two ago, then somebody put it back in. I’m not clear how this is particularly noteworthy, following suspicious deaths, bodies are often left for extended periods of times so onsite forensic work can be carried out. Anyway this specific sentence appears to have negative undertones, suggesting that somehow the RUC was intentionally being disrespectful to the dead; it doesn’t do much for credibility of the article. So any objections or can I get rid of it for good this time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidg4122 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I rather it stayed. "following suspicious deaths, bodies are often left for extended periods of times so onsite forensic work can be carried out," was there any forensics carried out? If not, why were the bodies left there? --Domer48 (talk) 10:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly - I would be happy to amend the sentance if it was shown that that was the reason - and not just simple disrespect. I also find it a bit off putting that Batsun think that he doesnt have to comply with wiki rules and that it hardly needs referencing.!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What does it matter how long the bodies were left there? It adds nothing to the article, apart from introducing a POV insinuation, referenced only by APRN - hardly a neutral WP:RS in any case. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC) (Edit: wrong source, my mistake).

Further - according to the article, the RUC weren't on the scene for the duration, anyway. It was the SAS. Who apparently rammed the motorbike three times... Strong motorbike... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Bastun's recent changes. If there is no encyclopedic argument against them , I will restore them. --John (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised that you support the "one eye view point" - if it wasnt important information it wouldnt have been reported - if it was for forensic reasons and not just the RUC being the bigots pricks that they were then provide a source for that - otherwise its just OR - I know Bastun think that he can just add what he wants to articles without a source but thats not how wiki works and John you shouldnt been encouraging that sort of behaviour.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the good edits, and left the referenced information which was removed. If there is no encyclopedic argument for removing them, I suggest they stay. --Domer48 (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

COrrectamundo - these two want to remove referenced material but support POV and OR - mind boggling!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had a hack at it myself, just cleaning up formatting, eliminating repeated links etc. I do have a problem with using this as a source; it clearly fails WP:RS. It would be great if someone could come up with a better reference. I've left it in place for now but it will need to be looked at. Also, what is the correct body for the period? The DPP link only goes to a dab page. --John (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of An Phoblacht has been discussed before. That An Phoblacht must comply with all the laws applicable to the production of a newspaper i.e. is subjected to the same standards outlined by the NUJ (National Union of Journalists), and Libel laws. It dose not fail WP:RS guidelines at all, but I agree that additional sources would be welcome. Therefore I have provided the additional source requested. --Domer48 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That use of ANRP is widely aknowledged and respected - there is a long standing agreement on both sides about how it should be used.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. Does the link to the lyrics of the song really add anything to this encyclopedia article? I was tempted to remove it but thought I would ask first. --John (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply - yes.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

John that wording is much better.There is a lot more information in this report that I think could and should, be added. What do you think? As to the lyrice, I don't know. That music plays an important part in how some history is recorded would suggest some mention, but like I said I'm not sure --Domer48 (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Why's the extract 'the RUC left the bodies lying where they had fallen for over five hours, before eventually removing them to Altnagelvin Hospital' back in this article. It's not at all noteworthy and anyone can tell the line is simply meant to cast the RUC in a bad light, not add to the piece; not surprising giving that the sentence was lifted straight from An Phoblacht.

As far I can tell the police weren't informed until after the ambush had taken place, meaming it would take longer for forensic pathologists to get on the scene, particularly if they were coming from Belfast. In addition the nature of the incident was sufficiently complicated that we would expect a degree of onsite forensic work before transferring the bodies on for further examination. This is certainly substantially more credible than the current insinuation that the reason the bodies were left at the scene for so long was simply disrespect.

On Domer48's point, whilst technically using An Phoblacht as a source might not violate WP:RS guidelines, the 'newspaper' is so blatantly bias in its interpretation of events that I think we can agree it shouldn't have a place in an encyclopaedia. Common sense has to play at least some sort of role in the sources you choose to cite. To a lesser extent, the same argument could be made against basing an article on the EU primarily on 'the Sun' and expecting that article to be objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.133.218 (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. APRN is absolutely a biased (or, at least, non-neutral) source - but very often its going to be the only source. What we should avoid is using it as a reference where a PoV is being pushed. In this case, its clearly being used, by an "error" of omission, to insinuate that the bodies were left there for 5 hours out of disrespect. In other cases, its going to be the only source (or one of a very few) reporting actual facts, statements, etc., in which case its use as a reference would be entirely justified. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What sources in Northern Ireland are neutral - none!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By answering the questions I asked above, we could address your concerns? --Domer48 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The answer is obviously that it’s difficult to find detailed records for forensic work carried out over twenty years ago. But standard protocol would be that the bodies would be left until forensics had arrived, the scene had been secured, and it was established they could be moved without risking destroying evidence, such as the final position of the bodies. Given the extent of forensic evidence we know was gathered on this incident this seems entirely consistent. In addition, we know the RUC wasn’t forewarned of the planned ambush so we would expect a certain element of delay on account of this. The current sentence has no real purpose for being in this article and appears to merely be misleading and insinuatory, as I’m sure was intended when it was used in its original source.

On Bastun’s point, perhaps on occasion you might be able to use An Phoblacht as a source in an article, but I’d be extremely reluctant to condone this. A substantial amount of what An Phoblacht reports as fact is often on closer inspection unsubstantiated, misleading or else phrased in an unnecessarily emotive manner. If An Phoblacht was the only source for ‘actual facts’ I’d be very reluctant to use it since I wouldn’t be able to verify them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidg4122 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Your speculative commentary lends nothing to this discussion, since we can only deal with information which is verifiable and can be reliably sourced. Given the extent of forensic evidence we know was gathered on this incident this seems entirely inconsistent with normal procedures and is illustrated in this report I furnished. An Phoblacht is a verifiable source of information, and can only enhance an article as it provides a perspective not normally covered by other media. If however an alternative view to AP is provided, they should also be included. As to your speculative commentary on AP, I would refer you to my opening sentence. --Domer48 (talk) 18:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculative? What part of that is speculation? Frankly, I thought the procedures I laid out were common knowledge, or failing that common sense, if you really want to make an issue of this I'll get hold of a source on police forensic procedures whenever I get the chance.[[1]][[2]]

In any case, the idea that you should start with the inference the RUC was being deliberately callous by not moving the bodies earlier is itself speculative and insinuatory. Failing this maybe you can tell me why the amount of time the bodies are left at the scene is important to the article.

The forensic evidence detailed in that article you provided gave the number and position of all shots fired, the type of weapons used and in a couple of cases the position the suspect was in whenever he was shot, which seems relatively coherent to me. Perhaps, you were calling into question the investigation itself i.e. the lack of follow up interviews,ect?

You can perhaps explicitly use the An Phoblacht as Sinn Fein's perspective of events, but I would be very cautious about treating it as an accurate record of events. Do you really believe An Phoblacht is intended to be a non-bias reliable source? In the sourced article alone I found at least seven or eight POV or disputed claims.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.66.198 (talk • contribs)

Provide a source to back up what you are trying to say - end of!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection, AP is certainly verifiable; whether it is truly a reliable source for this incident seems more doubtful. I remain unsure whether having the statement about the bodies being left for x hours truly conforms to NPOV or enhances the article. I will leave it in place for now but would welcome other opinions meantime. --John (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - but then thats no shock is it!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As to weather AP is a reliable source, I can cite any number of books which would suggest a similar question of the types of sources we would commonly use. It would be my view that all sources in relation to this subject matter be treated with caution. --Domer48 (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but if a source is written with a deliberate and blatant agenda in the way it records events, it will have little or no credibility in supporting a claim, unless perhaps its to do with the perception of events by certain groups as illustrated by the source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.130.94 (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well done Padraig and Domer for improving the article. It is looking a lot better now. --John (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Fleming (Irish republican). 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/20110716080958/http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/978AE5C2-96F8-473C-AF8E-906C7B25584F/0/j_j_GIRC5134.htm to http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/978AE5C2-96F8-473C-AF8E-906C7B25584F/0/j_j_GIRC5134.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)