Talk:Gerry Kelly

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

Untitled[edit]

Hi. In text it was said he served 19 years but it doesn't make any sense to me. He was arrested and convicted for bombing that happened in 1973 and released in 1989. That's 16 years including the time he was on the run (i.e not in prison). Can somebody clarify this to me.

--91.185.114.31 17:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We in the south agree that questions need to be asked about Kelly. He claims he is fluent in Irish but this is untrue. Also, people in South Down claim his marriage is fake. He could be a fraud. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.26.55 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger strike[edit]

Can anyone confirm how many days he actually spent on hunger strike? Although they aren't exactly a non-partisan source, FAIR have him listed as 205 days with the 170 force feedings. However Sinn Fein has him listed at 60 days. I'm more inclined to go with the 60 unless there's a very reliable source for the 205, but I can't imagine why FAIR would use an inflated figure. One Night In Hackney303 07:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no credible source anywhere that says he was force fed. And there's no source satisfying Wikipedia's criteria that confirms the 205 days. Sayitclearly (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New image[edit]

When the new assembly update their website and profiles we should update that image because the one we have new makes Gearóid look like some crazed bomber!--Vintagekits 20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he is! ;) We can't use the images from the website/profile, we need free images. One Night In Hackney303 20:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 06:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leading GFA role[edit]

There doesn't appear to be a reference for this claim in the lead. I've checked the first three, and none seem to mention it, although happy to be corrected in case I have missed it. Mooretwin (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the article, like I said, it's referenced. --Domer48'fenian' 18:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that helpful response. Which reference, then? It's not reference 1, 2, 3 or 14 which are the only ones that might relate to the claim in question? Mooretwin (talk) 20:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1]--Vintagekits (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where does that say he played a leading role? (Hardly a good source anyway, given that it is his own Assembly profile!) Mooretwin (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ssshhh!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That reference is not in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stick it in and stop whinging then! x --Vintagekits (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you accept that the article lacked a reference for the claim? Does that mean than Domer48 was wrong to remove my citation request and to state twice that it was referenced? Mooretwin (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my first addition to this specific discussion for a response to that! x --Vintagekits (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that doesn't provide a response to the question, as your response merely cited a reference which didn't provide a source for the claim. Mooretwin (talk) 21:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Bailey bomb[edit]

I took this detail from the Gerry Kelly article. 'Two of the car bombs were defused but the other two exploded, one near the Old Bailey and the other at Scotland Yard. As a result of the explosions one person was killed and almost 200 people were injured.' If it was acceptable there then it is acceptable here surely? 86.147.53.235 (talk) 13:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Phoblacht interview[edit]

Where does Kelly say in the interview that the bombings were the "response by the IRA to the referendum"? He only says they happened the same day, he does not say it was by design or that the bombings were in response. O Fenian (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He said "The car bombs were set to go off for 8 March – the date of the referendum." Now only a barrack room lawyer would suggest that was not the reason. --Fynire (talk) 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean "bar-room lawyer"? Mooretwin (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is one possibility, but it is ambiguous. Gerry Kelly is a primary source therefore conclusions should not be drawn from what he says. O Fenian (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting Kelly is unreliable? He should know more about it than almost anyone.

Is that your rule O Fenian or Wikipedia's that a primary source needs a secondary confrimation? No, barrack room MT as I understand the expression. --Fynire (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is wikipedia's rule see Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. BigDunc 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times article is vague about which bombings are being referred to, and it they were published the day after it was pure speculation by them to suggest any sort of motive anyway. Why not, as I have suggested elsewhere without success, cite an academic source that has actually done any kind of detailed research? O Fenian (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Times is a reliable secondary source which is what you and the rules ask for O Fenian. Wikipedia is full of newspaper sourced material as are academic works. Anyway the facts have not been challenged which is another good reason for accepting it here. If it goes back I don't want the tag team reverting it. --Fynire (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the Times is vague as to which bombings it is referrring to, be it Northern Ireland or Northern Ireland and London. As there is ambiguity I am afraid it is not what the "rules" ask for, I recommend reading them properly. My issue is not with the general idea of the Times being a reliable source, which it is, but the ambiguous nature of what it says. Ambiguous sources are to be avoided, it it right there in the policy. O Fenian (talk) 23:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Times is not vague at all. Why do you want to remove items that offer insights into the reasons for events? It is not as if anyone is suggesting otherwise and one of the bombers confirms the reason. --Fynire (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The source is vague and ambiguous. Is it really too much effort for you to find a better source that is not vague or ambiguous as I suggested? O Fenian (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Not my problem O Fenian. I have a referenced source. Now find one that disputes it. (None exist of course).--Fynire (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is your problem. You are the editor who wishes to add the content, therefore it is your responsibility to make sure it is sourced in accordance with policy. Right now, it is not. O Fenian (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it is properly sourced - you are just making it up as you go along with faux rules. --Fynire (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is right there in the policy. If you persist in adding poorly sourced material to articles about living people, I will look to have you topic banned. With your history of disruption, it should be easy. O Fenian (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fynire the source you are using is vague and ambiguous and relly can't be used for what you are saying. BigDunc 15:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerry Kelly. 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) 04:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gerry Kelly. 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) 05:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gerry Kelly. 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) 09:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Former Ira member[edit]

Citation required to show that he is no longer a member? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming the same question on multiple pages is pointless. The IRA is disbanded. FDW777 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think that two edits constitutes spamming. The latest report on the assessment of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland states that the Ira still exists. Have you a more recent government assessment that states otherwise? Fletcherchristian101 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "the New IRA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Irish_Republican_Army? 2.28.151.144 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerry_Kelly&oldid=1215313861"