Talk:Thomas McMahon (Irish republican)

Irish name

addressed by WP:IMOS, two WP:IMOS dose not exclude there use. --Domer48 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias

This page appears to use slanted language ('volunteer' etc) and partial descriptions to move away from neutral description and attempt to justify the actions of a man who, let's be clear, was convicted by an Irish court of murdering a man, a woman and two children.

There is no reference to anything which points to him being a 'member of an IRA unit' which planted a bomb. McMahon was convicted, personally, of actually planting the bomb. This is a material inaccurary which also has the incidental effect of lessening his culpability for the crime. This should be addressed by amendment of this line.

Also, the final paragraph is, in the absence of any other reference to the contrary, sufficient in itself to warrant that he 'is' a member of the IRA.

The term "Volunteer" is ok. There is no reference which points to him still being a "Volunteer," and the reference in the final paragraph is not sufficient. Are you saying that anyone who carries a flag in a Republican colour party is a member of the IRA? The IRA in a statement said they carried out the opperation, and the reference supports that ("Authorities believe the Mountbatten assassination was the work of many people, but McMahon was the only individual convicted") he was a member of an IRA active service unit. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the [1] reference which says he was sentenced for "preparing and planting the bomb" so I think it would be worth including this somewhere. Would it improve the article to change the sentence about his conviction to "He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Republic of Ireland on November 23, 1979 for preparing and planting the bomb that murdered four people when the Shadow V exploded. In 1998 he was released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement." Any thoughts? --Kaly99 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should mention that he is a convicted terrorist. It is also sounds too praiseworthy: "an experienced bomb-maker..." Makes him sound like he was a master craftsman doing good works!TopGun1066 (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

He's not a convicted terrorist, which you happily admitted to here. He was convicted in the Republic of Ireland, where there was no such legislation prior to ~1998 when it was introduced following the Omagh bombing. FDW777 (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't admit that he wasn't a convicted terrorist. I wrote that he is a convicted terrorist despite the legislation not being in place at the time: He was convicted of a murder for terrorist purposes while a member of a terrorist organisation, ergo he is a convicted terrorist. No amount of weasel words not allowed on wikipedia can change this. I note you don't mind the praiseworthy text glorifying his bombmaking prowess. TopGun1066 (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

If the legislation wasn't in place at the time of his conviction, then he wasn't convicted under that legislation. It's quite straightforward in legal terms. If you are such an expert on Irish law, perhaps you can cite the relevant statutes? Don't worry, I'll wait..... FDW777 (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't care about Irish law, that is irrelevant here. The real issue is that Thomas McMahon was convicted of the terrorist murder of Lord Mountbatten which occurred on UK territory - no amount of quasi-legal quibbling can change that fact. Mainstream media sources refer to McMahon as a terrorist so it is easily cited and proven. TopGun1066 (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

As this article, and Mounbatten's say, the bombing occurred in Mullaghmore, County Sligo. That's not UK territory. That's Irish territory, no amount of quasi-legal quibbling can change that fact. So you will find Irish law is very much relevant here. FDW777 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Potato/Potaato. Yes that's my error of geography. But a convicted murderer who commits a terrorist act for the IRA is still a convicted terrorist no matter how you spin it. Incidentally, the precedent was set by the Nuremberg Trials which retroactively established that specific crimes were committed by the Nazis, and could be labelled as such, before legislation existed to cover them. McMahon is also labelled as a terrorist in the public domain by a reputable neutral source here. TopGun1066 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not just an error of geography, as stated Irish law did not have any such legislation at the time. That some was introduced 20 years later doesn't retroactively apply it to Thomas McMahon. FDW777 (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Many descriptions of living people on Wikipedia have not been proven in a court of law, that doesn't stop them being described as such by Wiki. A convicted IRA murderer is still a convicted terrorist, no matter the legislation in place at the time of the incident.TopGun1066 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No, he's convicted of what he's convicted of. Nothing more, nothing less. FDW777 (talk) 17:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

No. Even without the legal precedent set by Nuremberg, Wikipedia's own policies allow for people never convicted of anything to be labelled here with specific words, cf Jimmy Savile. McMahon was convicted of a terrorist murder, ergo he is a convicted terrorist and should be labelled as such by your own polices.TopGun1066 (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Then I ask again for you to provide the Irish law he was convicted under that would make him convicted of a terrorist murder. FDW777 (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

You don't need an Irish law in place. He was convicted of a murder which was a specific notable terrorist act, claimed by a terrorist organisation of which McMahon belonged to. Describing him as a convicted terrorist would be factually accurate even if the 1998 legislation had never been passed. The term 'terrorist' has been used since biblical times, is an acceptable way to describe political murderers, and using it to describe such people in an online encyclopaedia should not and is not constrained by legislation.TopGun1066 (talk) 11:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT. The IRA was not classed as a terrorist organisation in the legal jurisdiction where the bombing occurred, and there was no corresponding legislation in place either. Therefore he's not a "convicted terrorist", no matter how many times you claim he is. FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

No, these policies do not apply as I have outlined consistently that describing McMahon as a convicted terrorist is totally within Wikipedia's fair use policies, and also follows precedents of retroactive application of laws created by the Nuremberg trials, and Wiki's own current descriptions of living people. If Jimmy Savile can be described as a 'predatory sex offender' by Wiki without a trial, then there is scope to apply the terrorist label to McMahon. The fact that Ireland had not updated its terrorism legislation is irrelevant as Lord Mountbatten was British: this crime did not just affect Ireland.TopGun1066 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you haven't read them, otherwise you wouldn't have made that reply. What "fair use" policy are you waffling about? By the way, Jimmy Savile is dead. FDW777 (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes I have read them, and they waffle on about stopping editors abusing their privileges. I however, have proved that I am right in using Wiki's own standards to describe McMahon as a convicted terrorist, as labelling people retrospectively here has been proved as 'fair', despite them being dead or alive.TopGun1066 (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What policies and/or guidelines do you believe support your claim? I've already asked you to identify your claimed "fair use" policy and received nothing except stonewalling and bludgeoning. Links to policies/guidelines are needed, with quotes from them giving the specific wording that supports your claims. FDW777 (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

See WP:CRIME under Crime_victims_and_perpetrators, this only states when pages can be created about a criminal and does not prohibit descriptions of any kind. The standard has already been set by the pages for currently living terrorists: Eric Rudolph, describing him as a 'terrorist' and Lee Rigby's murderers, describing the attack as 'Islamic terrorism' . These wiki pages set precedents for McMahon to be described as a terrorist, and Mountbatten's murder as a terrorist attack on the same page. Not forgetting Reference 1 below from a mainstream newspaper describing 'a lengthy terrorist career'. TopGun1066 (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and MOS:TERRORIST say your edit is a non-starter. The bottom line, and my final word on this subject. Thomas McMahon has not been convicted under any terrorism legislation, therefore he is not a convicted terrorist no matter how many times you ignorantly and incorrectly claim he is. FDW777 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Those policies aren't enforced very well. They have clearly been ignored in the references I have cited, where living people are described as convicted terrorists on Wikipedia's own pages. McMahon is still a convicted terrorist despite your tenuous claims of my ignorance.TopGun1066 (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Disambig

Why isn't the {{otherpeople}} template working correctly on this page? It's displaying as "For other persons named Thomas McMahon (Irish republican), see Thomas McMahon (Irish republican) (disambiguation)." Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Thomas McMahon (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/20071010001014/http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory to http://www.history.com/tdih.do?action=tdihArticleCategory&id=5544

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) 04:17, 30 December 2017 (UTC)