Talk:Death on the Rock

talk page

I thought there was a talk page here ?

Synopsis

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)

The part about semtex ... this contradicts what the British government said a day after the killings: that no bomb or semtex had been found.

The government of Britain took back their bomb claims the day after the killings. The current page on June 9th 2007 is wrong in this regard, and also, why mention the NYT article, as if they are the font of truth? Janemkiwi 00:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The situation is quite clear, as stated a set of keys in Ms Farrells handbag were for a rental car in spain containing the semtex. An official statement was made by the IRA at the time that they were on 'active service'. HMG never 'took back' the claim of a bomb, just that there was not one on site at the time.

They had done their homework well, the ONLY way you could guarantee placing a car on the correct spot to blast the band assembling on the tuesday morning was to either put it there on the Sunday or park another car you controlled there to hold the space. parking was, and remains, in very short supply, but in the Sunday many cars would be in Spain not Gibraltar.

In real life its not possible to know everything thats happening and the assumption at the time was that the bomb was on site. EOD spent some hours on the car after making sure it was safe.

Although the NYT may be biased, it gives some balance to the article as it supports the POV of the documentary, which little else does. --Gibnews 09:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlawful killing

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've resubmitted the evidence given in the inquest which directly contradicts the documentary, we cannot judge the documentary without learning that one key witness significantly changed her evidence and another made his up entirely — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goolcap (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

Length of the lead.

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 " A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is difficult to read and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway." - 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)

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)