Talk:Murder of Jean McConville

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlliePatterson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Hello User:Lapsed Pacifist. On June 16 2005 you changed the wording in the Jean McConville article from

"The IRA did not admit their involvement until over 20 years later, when they passed information on the whereabouts of the body."

to this:

"The IRA did not admit their involvement until over 20 years later, when they passed information on the whereabouts of the body. After a prolonged search, co-ordinated by the Garda Síochána, her body was found."

That's incorrect. The Garda Síochána did indeed launch an extensive search in 1999, which in fact they expanded and continued for several weeks further than was intially planned, because no body could be located in the area specified by the IRA. Mrs. McConville's body was in fact only discovered - by accident - in 2003. I have since changed the article to reflect this. Cheers. Fergananim

IRA statement[edit]

The latest IRA statement was made on 8 July, in which they claim to have conducted an internal investigation which upheld their original claim that she was an informant. This probably merits a mention. 86.136.3.91 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect the consensus[edit]

This discussion shows murder is inappropriate. Killed should be used, and if someone was convicted then "x was convicted of murder" should be used. Please respect the consensus of the discussion.--Domer48 18:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the useful reference, Domer48.
However, I must respectfully disagree that either
  1. a consensus was reached at all (or adjudicated) in the reference you quote above and
  2. that, if a consensus was displayed, it was as you describe.
I think that many of the arguments in the referenced discussion actually supported the original complaint:
"==NPOV - Murder vs killing ==
There seems to be a bizarre NPOV inconsistency being raised over articles relating to people killed in Ireland. There are (1) victims of IRA / PIRA such as 86 year old Sir Norman Stronge, 8th Baronet and James Stronge; (2) victims of Loyalists such as Pat Finucane (solicitor), (3) “victims” of the British army such as Kieran Fleming; and (4) suicides such as Bobby Sands. There is a vocal and persistent lobby which is pro Irish Republican, many of whom belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Irish_Republicanism, which argues (I think) that a death is a killing until somebody is found guilty of murder even when that killing is generally defined and established as murder by law and in the international press."
Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 20:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Murder" is a legal term, therefore one that cannot be determined by the "international press". Please read the discussion thoroughly, unless the killer can has been found of sound mind at the time of the killing, it cannot be murder. So please provide evidence that McConville's killers were of sound mind? If not snap out of it. --Domer48 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a legal Wiki, you might have a valid point. It's not, so you don't. Why don't you get a ruling as to whether plain english can be used on this Wiki?
The lede is supposed to encapsulate the rest of the article which is quiet clear that this was a murder - not an accidental, natural or judicially sanctioned death.
I do sympathise and understand that for Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA, the current phase of the conflict is about the definition of the conflict itself. For the self-esteem of the so-called republican movement, and for the political future of Sinn Féin, it is vital that its 30-year campaign of violence be remembered as a just war, a regrettable but necessary method of achieving a legitimate aim. The vile and sordid deeds that run through that campaign may, under pressure, be described as wrong. They may be accepted as "mistakes". PIRA may acknowledge, in the curiously passive language it favours, that these things "should not have happened". But they must never, ever, be called crimes. God forbid!
Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 21:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link Domer48, the outcome looks unambiguous to me, murder should only be used to describe convictions. Also where is the proof McConville was murdered? Has the manner of her death been made public? For all we know, McConville may have taken her own life in captivity knowing her betrayal would ultimately result in the traitor's fate of two in the back of the head? Scalpfarmer 09:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course; a widowed mother of 10 was kidnapped in front of four of her children, then shot herself in the back of the head, and finally buried her own body 50 miles away. Is that your story? Bearian (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result of PIRA investigation[edit]

(moved here from his talk page at Vintagekits request):

Why exactly do you think that the views of PIRA should not be fairly represented on Wikipedia in reference to the (presumed?) death of Jean_McConville?

I am rather puzzled as to why you, Vintagekits, keep excising my new section referencing the PIRA "Statement on the the Abduction and Killing of Mrs Jean McConville in December 1972", (dated 8 July 2006) by P O’Neill, Irish Republican Publicity Bureau, Dublin

Is it just because you are still editing carelessly and without respect to other editor's work by just hitting the revert button when you see 'naughty words' such as Murder and PIRA, Vintagekits?

It is no accident that Mitchel McLaughlin's immediate instinct when asked about Jean McConville is to start talking about the 1981 hunger strikes. For those brave protests, in which 10 men starved themselves to death rather than submit to an ordinary prison regime and therefore accept that they were just criminals serving their time, were the ultimate statement of how viscerally important the issue is for the Provos. A less epic version of this struggle for the moral high ground was played out at Philadelphia International Airport, when a former PIRA member, Joe Black, was briefly detained by the authorities. He had served time for carrying out a kneecapping but answered "no" to a question on the visa form about whether he had ever been convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude". To accept that the deliberate mutilation of a non-combatant involved moral turpitude would be to acknowledge that normal standards of morality apply to IRA operatives. Such a conclusion is, for PIRA and its apologists, unfathomable.

The fact is that even by PIRA's own standards, the murder of Jean McConville and hundreds of other acts of violence it has perpetrated are crimes. PIRA justifies itself by claiming that it was engaged in a war, and that wars inevitably involve the infliction of violence on others. Along with Mitchel McLaughlin, it conveniently forgets that there is also such a thing as a war crime.

And by all accepted definitions of war crimes, the murder of Jean McConville was an illegal act. The International Criminal Court, of which Ireland is a member, clearly states that war crimes do apply to "an armed conflict not of an international character", a category which obviously applies to the irish troubles.

Under this heading, it defines as crimes a number of acts against non-combatants that the Provisional IRA perpetrated against Jean McConville, including "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture", and "the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognised as indispensable."

The Provisional IRA's refusal to disclose Jean McConville's fate or produce her body also constituted a war crime, that of "enforced disappearance of persons", defined as "the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorisation, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organisation, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons."

With a hypocrisy that would be breathtaking had it not become so familiar, Sinn Féin regularly supports calls for these international laws to be enforced - so long as the crimes in question happened elsewhere. At the time when there were attempts to prosecute the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in the UK and Spain, for example, An Phoblacht quoted with approval Virginia Díaz, a member of the Spanish prosecution team against Pinochet: "One of the consequences of the Pinochet case has been the creation of an International Criminal Court to take on cases of crimes against humanity. 'But what is more important' , highlights Virginia, 'is the final confirmation that crimes against humanity are imprescriptible and that human rights are inviolable. There is no possible immunity to cover those responsible for those crimes'." Except, of course, the immunity of those inoculated against guilt by their own tender sense of honour.

However, I must congratulate your improvement in tone (if not the quality and care you take with your actual edits, Vintagekits). Keep up the improvement!...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 20:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really expect anyone to engage in a discuss with you or to assist you when you use abusive and provokative language such as that?--Vintagekits 21:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Been thinking about this, inspired by the attempt to categorise IRA Prisoners of War as "People Convicted of Terrorism" on the basis that such a category is verifiable fact and thus can't be POV. How about one for Jean Mc and others Category: People executed as touts. Verifiable fact. doesn't mean they were touts. Same logic surely? (Sarah777 23:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Indeed it is the same logic, and it appears to be entirely valid per WP:V (except informer is not a proper noun). Now you have established the policy doesn't favour any particular POV. Congratulations. Rockpocket 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the prisoners were still POWs and should be categorised as such; but as I said at the start of this I'd accept the "convicted as" (despite my reservations regarding it's implications) if it is balanced by cat:POW. This is purely a compromise, not what I'd support otherwise; as I feel if somebody doesn't move we will get stuck here. (Sarah777 11:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Since, after an interval of 10 days, nobody has answered my question: "Why exactly do you think that the views of PIRA should not be fairly represented on Wikipedia in reference to the (presumed?) death of Jean_McConville?" I now propose re-inserting the excised passage: "Result of PIRA investigation"...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

I have been doing some research for the inevitable upcoming attempt to insert POV into this article. My comments are interspersed with extracts from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There is no dispute that McConville was killed, but whether McConville was murdered or not is POV, and will generally be based on the opinion of a journalist or politician. Simply because a journalist says it is murder does not make it so. The verifiable fact is that the inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing.

The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth," in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.

If murdered is placed into the lead instead of killed, this gives the view undue weight and asserts it as the truth. Thus doing so would be a breach of policy.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

That McConville was murdered is an opinion, not a fact. She was killed, that is a fact. Thus it should not be asserted that she was murdered.

However, there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That the Beatles were the greatest band in history is a value or opinion. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion.

Saying McConville was murdered falls under this.

Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts in the sense described above. Therefore, where we want to discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion. For example, rather than asserting, "The Beatles were the greatest band," we can say: "Most people from Liverpool believe that the Beatles were the greatest band," which can be supported by references to a particular survey; or "The Beatles had many songs that made the Billboard Hot 100," which is also verifiable as fact. In the first instance we assert a personal opinion; in the second and third instances we assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources.

This shows how the opinion that McConville was murdered should be incorporated into the article. Brixton Busters 07:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to outline your PoV, BB. As is usual with your erudite contributions, I think many editors will find that your summary above is a useful starting point.
It is clear that we must find impeccable sources before we clarify that Jean was tortured and mutilated before she was murdered by the Provisional IRA (PIRA)....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to help. Dr Cassidy said there was no evidence on Mrs McConville’s skeletal remains to suggest that she had suffered any other injuries prior to her death. Scalpfarmer 14:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are shutting around you Gaimhreadhan, where are you going to turn to next?--Vintagekits 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a helpful reference, Scalpfarmer. If nothing else comes to light, that reference, establishes that there was no evidence that Jean was tortured and mutilated before she was murdered by the Provisional IRA (PIRA):
Copyright violation removed by Scalpfarmer.
...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect copyright. The article is linked, there is no need for it to be pasted here in breach of copyright. Scalpfarmer 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Research for an encyclopaedia article and discussion amongst editors as to the wording of an article is not fair use under the laws of Ireland and Florida!?! Can you cite any references to support your position, Sclapfarmer?
Pasting it here in its entirety is a copyright violation. The article has a copyright message at the bottom. As there is a link to the article where it can be read without the need for payment or subscription, any claim of fair use cannot be substantiated. Scalpfarmer 15:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright is automatic upon creation in the EU so whether the article has a copyright message or not is irrelevant. The whole article was not pasted, but your valid point remains. I've yet to lose a case in any jurisdiction (and I'd hate to break my run of luck with you, Scalpfarmer, - weak grin) so I'll let the excision stand in the cause of harmony...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 15:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions vs. Facts[edit]

Source number 11 in this page is an opinion piece, used eight times in the article as a source for a factual assertions: Amanda Foreman (5 December 2010). "Sinn Fein should never be able to escape Jean McConville's ghost". The Guardian. Retrieved 30 April 2014.

From "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources": Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Are we now using opinions as sources? --Renglish (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updates[edit]

I'd like to update this for 2015, after a recent report in American media. Bearian (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Murder of Jean McConville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments requested regarding a move that relates to this page[edit]

On 04 Feb 2016 – Peter Wilson (Northern Ireland kidnapping and disappearance case) (talk · edit · hist) was requested to be moved by Tbhotch (t · c). Since that move might have an impact on the titling of this article, please see the discussion and comment there. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False accusation claims[edit]

@Mo ainm: you state as vindication for your revert "edit fails NPOV in that it takes sides in the IRA claim vs PSNI claim, which isn't for Wikipedia to do". Do you not mean the "IRA claim vs everyone else" considering it is only the IRA and their supporters who continue to perpetrate this falsehood? It is hardly just a PSNI claim. Mabuska (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It means not taking one view over another per NPOV. The person who made the claim was as far from a supporter of the IRA as you are. I take it you don't believe the claims he made about Adams either so do you? Mo ainm~Talk 16:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one violating NPOV seeing as it was the Police Ombudsman that found no evidence whatsoever, not the PSNI. Your insistence on the removal of "false" only tries to further imply that the IRA falsehood still has some traction, when in reality everybody knew the truth long before recent times. Mabuska (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove 'false' from anything, there was an accusation made which is sourced it's not up to editors to put their spin on it that breaches NPOV as you know. Mo ainm~Talk 16:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. It is true the Ombudsman found no evidence that she was an agent. It is also true the IRA claimed she was an agent and that they confiscated a radio from her. It is not for use to take sides, merely to point out both sides and let the reader decide.

Hypothetically speaking; The British Army would consider the murder of Jean McConville to be a major propaganda tool to be used against the IRA. Were that the case they would not want any information to come to light which might contradict that. It need not even be an official policy endorsed up the chain of command, an agent handler may be the only person knowing an agent's identity. One piece of paper removed from files and the identity of an agent is lost forever.

The Ombudsman finding was based on the evidence it was given. The Ombudsman herself, Nuala O’Loan, admits she may not have seen all the evidence.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian newspaper handle the situation in a similar way to how I believe this article should. The 2014 article says " In 2006, after an inquiry into this failure, the police ombudsman for Northern Ireland concluded that there was no evidence that she had been an informer", then "Brendan Hughes also spoke about this case, telling the Boston researchers that he had recovered a radio transmitter from McConville's home, questioned her and warned her". It does not say the IRA wrongly believed, in fact it goes on to say "If Hughes's account about the radio was truthful – and McConville's children believe it to be preposterous". So given their uncertainty over whether Hughes's account was truthful or not, they are not willing to say the IRA wrongly accused her. I see a more reliable version of the link I posted above is already cited in the article, that notwithstanding the Ombudsman's findings there may still be questions that need answers.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued[edit]

"It claimed she had been passing information about republicans to the British Army in exchange for money and that a transmitter had been found in her apartment. A report by the Police Ombudsman found no evidence for this or other rumours" is perfectly neutral. It states the IRA claimed something, and that the Ombudsman found no evidence to support it. "It claimed she was killed because she was passing information about republicans to the British Army". Adding "falsely" before "claimed" to this sentence is clearly not neutral. The BBC are apparently unfamiliar with argument from ignorance, just because the Ombudsman found no evidence does not make the claim false, since there is the obvious third answer of there may have been an insufficient investigation, as Ed Moloney states in the source cited in the article.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sentence "Although maintaining that McConville was an informer, the IRA has since issued a general apology, saying it "regrets the suffering of all the families whose loved ones were killed and buried by the IRA", removing the words preceding the comma (which was done by an IP editor here) distort the actual statement, since the gist of it is that the IRA maintain Jean McConville was an informer, and only one sentence out of five is relating to the apology.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used in the article state that McConville was wrongly accused, so that should remain in the article. If you're taking out "wrongly accused" on the grounds that "the Ombudsman is wrong", some evidence to support your assertion should be offered. Absent that, we report on what the sources say. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources used state McConville was wrongly accused. We report what the sources say" is false. Obviously this excludes sources such as The Guardian (who use phrases such as "If Hughes's account about the radio was truthful" clearly showing that despite the Ombudsman's claim that they do not accept it as a fact)) and Ed Moloney (who clearly does not accept the Ombudsman's claim as a fact). That the IRA's claims are false is not a fact. What is a fact is the IRA have made claims, and the Ombudsman have found no evidence to support them. Anything beyond that is not a fact.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:V. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources I cited are verifiable. Since they disagree with the BBC, please justify why you continue to present the BBC's opinion as fact? Please also read argument from ignorance, specifically "is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false." Asserting that McConville is not an informer because it has not yet been proven true is as clear an example as it gets. Regards.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And how would you class an assertion that McConville was an informer, based on nothing more than statements by a terrorist organisation that admitted her murder, with no evidence presented to prove their assertion? By this logic, we can include that Gerry Adams was an IRA commander involved in McConville's death. It just hasn't been proven - yet. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do include such an assertion in the article however it is never stated as fact. It is always made clear that it is the IRA that allege it, and that the Ombudsman found no evidence to support the allegation. Perhaps a different example will help my point be understood.
Despite numerous searches there is currently no evidence for life beyond Earth, be it aliens flying around in spaceships, plants or even single celled bacteria. Even though that is the case, the statement "There is no life beyond Earth" is not a fact. It's a possibility, but equally possible is the discovery of life elsewhere in the Solar System or beyond it.
There are at least three schools of thought regarding Jean McConville. First, she is innocent of any accusation of being an informer due to the Ombudsman finding no evidence. Second, she was an informer based on multiple IRA sources saying a transmitter was confiscated from her (minority view at best, admittedly). Third, it is impossible to reach a definitive conclusion due to conflicting and/or incomplete evidence (see here).
  • The IRA have alleged Jean McConville was an informer - fact
  • The Ombudsman's report found no evidence to support the allegation - fact
  • Jean McConville was not an informer - reasonable conclusion based on evidence, but not a fact
  • The IRA's accusation was false - reasonable conclusion based on evidence, but not a fact
I am not arguing that the IRA's claims should be given more weight, or that the ongoing investigation by Ed Moloney and others be given more weight. I am simply in favour of the previous stable version where the IRA's claims are stated with the key caveat that the Ombudsman found no evidence to support them. To include "wrongly" or "falsely" is stating opinion as fact, and excludes any other opinion. It is not neutral to do so.
I am happy to concede the sentence beginning "Although maintaining that McConville was an informer" could possibly use some amending, or possibly even removing altogether (the entire sentence that is), but I believe the change made to it ignores what the statement really said.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I - and most reasonable people, I would imagine - would argue that actually it's "First, she is innocent of any accusation of being an informer due to no evidence to the contrary ever being presented by her accusers in the first place." Except, perhaps, at some kangaroo court where - given eye witness accounts of other such "trials" - a "confession" may have been extracted. Everything else is secondary to that.
That aside, your contribution is positive and I thank you for it, even though we still disagree.
We say so-and-so was guilty of a charge because a court or an investigation found them to be guilty; or that so-and-so was innocent because a court or an investigation acquitted them. It's not "opinion" The Ombudsman investigated this issue and reported on it, and their finding was that there was no evidence. In the absence of evidence, a person is innocent - it's not a matter of opinion. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Torture claim tagged as dubious[edit]

I have looked into this, and it appears to be at best an error or at worst a complete fabrication by Amanda Foreman, embellished by Wikipedia. I won't bother with the many inaccuracies in the opinion piece, I will just address the important one. Amanda Foreman wrote: "We also now know that she was interrogated and tortured after the abduction; she was beaten with such force that her bones cracked and her hands were mutilated. The actual cause of death was a single shot to the back of the head." There is no evidence for the claim that her bones cracked and her hands were mutilated, despite Foreman casually tossing it out as an established fact. There are two possible reliable sources of evidence - first hand accounts and medical evidence, and a third unreliable source of evidence - rumours and speculation. To date not a single person has admitted causing any such injuries to Jean McConville. There is no medical evidence to support the allegation, per multiple reliable sources:

  • Irish Independent, 21 October 2003 "The DNA tests were carried out in London after an earlier post-mortem examination at the Louth Co Hospital had concluded that Mrs McConville had been shot once in the back of the head. It ruled out suggestions that she had been mutilated and tortured before being murdered"
  • Irish Times, 5 April 2004 "Dr Marie Cassidy, the State Pathologist, told the inquest Mrs McConville died from a single gunshot wound to the back of the head. A flattened .22 calibre lead bullet was found in her nasal passage during post-mortem. Dr Cassidy said there was no pathological evidence to suggest if Mrs McConville was kneeling when she was shot. She also said there was no evidence on Mrs McConville's skeletal remains to suggest that she had suffered any other injuries prior to her death."

So there you have it, no evidence of any injuries except a gunshot wound to the back of the head. The original claim by Foreman is thus based on nothing more than rumour and speculation, and is contradicted by the medical evidence reported on prior to the inquest and given at the inquest. This claim was expanded upon when added to the article at 00:39, 1 May 2014, the addition reading "After being interrogated and tortured - her later post-mortem revealed cracked bones and mutilated hands". That the post-mortem supposedly revealed that has since found its way into news articles published after that time, such as the Daily Mail and Belfast Telegraph, journalists really shouldn't come to Wiki looking for facts for an article. I have tagged the offending sentence, and will be removing it in due course unless very reliable sources are provided. Mo ainm~Talk 16:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I see no reason why the information should remain in the article. But it would be prudent to allow anyone wishing to retain it some time to perform their own investigation.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 19:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're wrong about Foreman making it up, since this claim clearly pre-dates that Guardian article. For example The People (October 5, 2003): "Despite reports in last week's News of the World claiming that the mother of ten had two of her fingers chopped off, detectives say the claims simply aren't true." There is a legitimate concern that Wikipedia has helped spread this rumour, so perhaps rather than removing it the article should mention it and include the very clear denial by the police? shellac (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe some text reading something like "McConville was killed by a gunshot to the back of the head, there was no evidence of any other injuries to her body" should cover it.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 10:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lede[edit]

The claim in the lede that McConville was "brutally beaten" by the IRA after being kidnapped was included in discussion above, since the claim was tagged as dubious. "brutally" is inappropriate editorialising. There is no source for the claim. Foreman is not a reliable source. She was not there, she has not spoken to anyone who was there and her claims are denied by the Gardaí and the State's pathologist.

That McConville was beaten by unidentified people the night before her abduction is a different claim to the one currently in the lede, and it would be up to those wishing to include it to make a case for that and seek agreement. There is no evidence that it was done by the IRA, the Ombudsman's report does not even speculate that it was the IRA who were responsible for the events the day before her abduction.

The claim in the lede that McConville "was kidnapped, brutally beaten, and finally shot dead by the Provisional IRA" is partially incorrect and has been discussed above. I am correcting it again.DanceHallCrasher (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we could cite WP:BLUE considering everyone but those in deep denial seem able or willing to accept the widely known and acknowledged facts of the situation. But hey you continue to try to cover it up.... Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

People are pushing POV and wanting to insert the word murder in the title.

They also state that the claims of the British in Ireland are all true facts, and that the statements of Irish in Ireland are false. It is fine to say "So-and-so in England says what the Irish in Ireland say is false", it is POV to say such and such is false. Especially since the editor would have no way of knowing any how.

This article must be NPOV, and we have someone trying to push their POV into the article, change the article title from something neutral to something to fit their political agenda etc. Minimax Regret (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

People are pushing POV and wanting to remove the word "murder" from the title. They are doing this without following the WP:RM procedure, which is required for any contentious move. I therefore invite you to revert your move and open a proper RM discussion in accordance with policy.
Some editors are aware that multiple reliable sources have stated various facts, that are referenced in the article, which had been reflecting that.
This article must be NPOV, and we have someone trying to remove facts from the article, changing the article title (from something factual) without following procedure, to fit their political agenda, etc.
As you are a new editor with only 100 edits thus far, please be aware that this Troubles-related article is subject to Arbcom sanctions including a limit on 1 revert per day. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:04, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My title is NPOV, "Jean McConville". You want to move the page and put the POV word "murder" in the title, which requires the WP:RM procedure.
You mention "someone trying to remove facts from the article". Your POV opinions are what is being removed. I would personally like the sentence to be "She was correctly accused by the IRA of passing information to British forces" - however I follow NPOV so would not make it so. Thus I follow NPOV and have the sentence as "She was accused by the IRA of passing information to British forces". You desire to push POV and make the sentence "She was wrongly accused by the IRA of passing information to British forces". As if you have some insight we don't whether she passed information to British forces or not (which would be original research any how).
Please follow Wikipedia NPOV policy, and follow the WP:RM procedure when you want to take a neutral page name like "Jean McConville" and insert your POV words like "murder" in the title. Minimax Regret (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let us suppose your claim, "She was correctly accused by the IRA of passing information to British forces", above to be true (and that is the most POV statement here). If so, she was clearly then murdered by the IRA. What other word would you use? Andy Dingley (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the obvious POV pushing here by Minimax Regret. Mabuska (talk) 11:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Minimax Regret: "My title is NPOV, "Jean McConville". You want to move the page and put the POV word "murder" in the title, which requires the WP:RM procedure." Are you for real? You moved the page from its longstanding title without first initiating a WP:RM procedure. I always try to assume good faith, but given that you've accused me of doing exactly what you had done is the height of bad faith. It's almost as if you were looking for a topic ban. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the article was moved without argument or dispute in January 2013 by a completely different editor who cited the highly valid reason that Jean McConville is non-notable other than for her murder. The fact it has stood unreverted for over 5 years until now gives it long term consensus, which Minimax is ignoring and refusing to seek consensus about instead instigating false claims and accusations. The original article only consisted of Jean McConville as it was created by the indef-banned republican Lapsed Pacifist/Gob Lofa. Mabuska (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Murder of Jean McConville. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:14, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Murder of Jean McConville. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Price and Gerry Adams, November 2023[edit]

User:FDW777 by this edit [1] you removed both the accusation against Marian Price and her public denials of involvement. Despite your claim, no consensus was reached in the discussion on Talk:Marian Price about whether or not this was a WP:BLP violation. Given that two newspapers published stories where Marian Price denied her involvement we are WP:NOTCENSORED and they should be included.

By this edit [2] you removed the loyalist image that suggested that Gerry Adams was involved in the murder stating "that image can go as a WP:BLP violation too, since the allegations to beyond what was alleged and present a wholly one-sided and inaccurate fringe viewpoint". Gerry Adams is undeniably a public figure and so is not covered by the "seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime" provision of WP:BLPCRIME. The page already states that Dolours Price and others claimed that Adams was an IRA commander and that he ordered the killing. Adams was held for 4 days for questioning in 2014 so its hardly a "fringe viewpoint".

The McConville murder and the related pages will soon be getting a lot of attention as Disney is filming a 10 part series based on Say Nothing (book) due for release next year. Mztourist (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus was reached for inclusion on that page, thus by default the consensus is to exclude. Discredited guesswork by someone lacking sufficient standing to make an allegation is as serious as it gets, police and prosecutors decide who suspects are, not authors. That's because they work using admissible evidence, not guesses.
The image, the only purpose of which is to attack a living person, speaks for itself. FDW777 (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus as to whether or not Price was a public figure and therefore whether or not the protection against accusations under WP:BLPCRIME applies to her. Radden Keefe stands by his allegation against Marian Price and has never retracted them, meanwhile Price has never sued him, which is what you'd do if you were innocent.
The image provides a picture of McConville (which is currently lacking from the page) and the accusation against Adams, who as a public figure, does not get the protection against such accusations under WP:BLPCRIME. Mztourist (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not stating a position either way on anything else for now, but you can just crop the image to only include McConville? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can crop it if necessary. Your input on the issues would be useful if you care to provide it. Mztourist (talk) 06:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cropping the image would make it a copyright violation (which it may be already, possibly due to de minimus issues. Of course there is nothing stopping anyone uploading a non-free image of McConville as a fair-use image, which would be a far more sensible idea than one attacking a living person. I cannot stress enough that random accusations of murder based on flimsy and discredited "evidence" don't belong per WP:BLP (in particular, but not limited to WP:BLPCRIME), so whether Price is a public figure or not is irrelevant. I further state that the innocuously framed RfC isn't a green light for the addition of any content, as pointed out by another editor I agree that this RFC is improper, since the actual question is whether the article should cover Patrick Radden Keefe's accusations against her - this fits the standard model of an RFC that is asking a question that the creator believes is easier, which they then hope to use (or misuse) as an answer to a more difficult question. If you want to know whether Patrick Radden Keefe's book should be used as a source in the article, ask that question directly. FDW777 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have an image (on Commons?) that isn't a copyright violation, but cropping it would make it one? How does that follow?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bastun: see here regarding the cropped image of Bobby Sands taken from File:Stille wacht voor de overleden IRA-hongerstaker Bobby Sands voor het Britse consulaat in Amsterdam, Bestanddeelnr 931-4748.jpg. You can take a photograph that includes a minimal amount (although as I say, I'm not sure how minimal the use actually is on this occasion) of a copyrighted image without it being a problem, but you can't crop out the rest, or vast majority, of the image and claim the original minimally used coprighted image is now valid on whatever licence you want to release it on. FDW777 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who do you believe owns the alleged copyright? The person who took the original photograph of McConville? Or the person who took that photograph and used it in a poster? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it doesn't appear to matter: copyright has expired on the original photo, it would seem. Anyone can use it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it's more complicated than that due to the author apparently being unkock, see commons:Commons:Anonymous works#United Kingdom. It's probably something better off addressed at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. The situation, to the best of my knowledge, is that the original photo is copyrighted to someone, and making a poster using that image doesn't transfer the copyright to the poster creator. FDW777 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Typo, and you mean "author apparently being unknown"? Let's apply some common sense. It's a photograph. And we know it was taken before December 1972 - so copyright on the original photo (which is readily available) has definitely expired. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FDW777 you are conflating different issues here. Adams is a public figure and so does not get the protection against accusations under WP:BLPCRIME, so the image is not a BLP violation. I note that elsewhere you have tried to sanitise: [3] a valid source about Adams' role in the IRA based on a 16 year old Talk Page discussion. Mztourist (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The image is a wider WP:BLP violation, not just BLPCRIME. You'll also find that BLPCRIME doesn't automatically allow any content to be included. Further, you might also want to see this edit referred to elsewhere where I expanded the section on Adam's alleged trajectory through the IRA so it became more than just a laundry list of people saying the exact same thing ("Adams was in the IRA", allegedly of course!). FDW777 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how the image is a "wider WP:BLP violation." I know what BLPCRIME says, Adams is a public figure and so even accusations can be included on WP. Looking at the image: it provides a photo of McConville which doesn't appear elsewhere on the page; it states that she was abducted, tortured and killed - all true; it conflates Sinn Fein with the IRA, a common accusation; and it confirms what is in the paragraph, that Adams was questioned for 4 days in relation to the McConville murder but released, presumably due to lack of evidence. An edit where you deleted over 5kb of content, confirms that you are sanitising Adam's page. If you have that many different people saying the same thing about a secretive organisation its likely to be true and deserves due weight on the page. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think an image that exists for the purpose of attacking a living person is a BLP violation, I think it's time your editing of this subject was brought to a close. FDW777 (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to ignore BLPCRIME. As Gerry Adams is a public figure, accusations can be included on WP. It is not a BLP violation. I think its time you go to the Teahouse and had someone else explain BLP and BLPCRIME to you. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{od} I have requested closure on the Marian Price RfC. My own view is that she is covered by BLP, and that the sources given are not strong enough to override this. Scolaire (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is now closed. The result was:

  • This discussion resulted in a clear consensus not to include the accusations.
  • There was also a rough consensus that the subject was not a public figure for purposes of BLPCRIME

Scolaire (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least it's now understood that the murder was a murder and comes under BLPCRIME on account of murder being a crime. Incidentally, it does not much matter in law which of the three alleged abductors fired the fatal shot. They could all have been held guilty of murder by joint enterprise should their presence have been proved in court. All the same, there's an element of 'what the dogs in the street know', as they say in the North, meaning everybody knows but people don't feel safe to say, as Michael McConville has mentioned. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Murder_of_Jean_McConville&oldid=1209023501"