Talk:Harry Kirkpatrick

The Convicted

What purpose does this list add to this article, out of the entire list only one has a article on them, the rest is meaningless, I propose to remove this list.--Padraig 12:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Give me a week to expand, then comeback. (James Brown at least is notable) Aatomic1 12:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Expand what the list, the list serves no purpose, you haven't explained the purpose of it, any of the people on on list that may have a article on them can be mentioned and linked in the main body of the article.--Padraig 12:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple question, how many were arrested based on Kirkpatrick's evidencs? --Domer48 15:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I personally do not have the references to answer that question. Aatomic1 15:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Lead

Henry 'Harry' Kirkpatrick (born c1958) is a former Irish National Liberation Army man turned supergrass. He had fallen out with the INLA following then Chief of Staff Dominic McGlinchey's decision to execute Kirkpatrick's lifelong friend Gerard 'Sparky' Barkley.

In February 1983 Kirkpatrick was arrested on multiple charges including the murder of two policemen, two UDR soldiers and Hugh McGinn, a Catholic member of the Territorial Army.[1]

This implies that he turned informer because of the killing of Barkley, but he was killed on the 23rd October 1983 after Kirkpatrick had turned informer, and The Guardian later reported Barkley was suspected of tipping off the police to the whereabouts of Kirkpatricks relatives that had been kidnapped, and that was a factor in his killing.--Padraig 16:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph was not my work; I have added what you have said to the aricle on the basis that you have the references. Aatomic1 19:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You might want to rephrase the heading title to "The entire article". Aatomic1, if you're going to work on INLA articles then a copy of Deadly Divisions (ISBN 1-85371-263-9) is pretty much essential. Firstly - page 316. On 3 June 1983 Kirkpatrick pleaded guilty to 197 offences including five murders. He was sentenced to five life sentences without any recommendation, plus concurrent sentences on the lesser offences. The judge specifically said that a life sentence must mean imprisonment for life, unless the Secretary of State recommended an earlier release. Next - page 322. The trial ended on 18 December 1985, and 25 out of the 27 accused were found guilty. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

25 is also the number according to CAIN. Given that named people are currently being said to have been convicted of criminal offences when they weren't, I am removing the list per WP:BLP. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The named persons were all convicted (and a references exiist to this fact) the convictions were subsequently quashed; furthermore several of the removed names are dead. Aatomic1 18:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have provided two references that only twenty five people were convicted. That the convictions were quashed is not relevant, you are still naming them as being convicted of terrorist crime when they weren't. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Twenty-five people were sentenced for paramilitary related offences according to CAIN. My reference is to the total convicted (ie Dermot Drain got 10 Years for armed robbery). You will note that I have not stated they were convicted for terrorist crime - that is your interpretation Aatomic1 19:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The first source specifically refers to 27 accused, and 25 found guilty. If your list is correct why is Malachy McAllister not on it? Which reference are you claiming sources the list anyway? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Also depending on the circumstances armed robbery is a terrorist offence in Northern Ireland, see here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Again you are making inferences whereas I am adding referenced material. I was aware of McAllister and similar references to the above. None say he was convicted as part of the supergrass trial; I have not mentioned him because there are insufficient reliable references to add anything. However if you are asking me guess I have several theories

• Is it possible that, despite his statement, he was jailed on remand but never convicted ?
• Is it possible that he was jailed, then bailed and skipped the country?
• Your above reference states He was jailed when he signed a police statement after being implicated by republican supergrass Harry Kirkpatrick. Is it possible he pleaded guilty at an earlier or later date?
• My reference, which is contemporary to the time, states that further trials were to follow. Was he included in theses following trials?
• Is it possible that linking himself to Kirkpatrick is a PR stunt?

Aatomic1 20:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The list you added wasn't referenced, and I asked above for the source and you have failed to disclose what it is. I refuse to indulge you by engaging in speculation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't pick up on that. My source is ref>INLA terrorists given life sentences after supergrass trial; The Times; 19 Dec 1985; pg2 col A /ref> Aatomic1 20:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Information removed per BLP stays out until consensus says it is ok to go in the article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Information meets WP:V and re WP:BLP it is

• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• Verifiability
• No original research

I too want to reach consensus about what to included. How about the following edit? Aatomic1 20:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't meet BLP. Other reliable sources dispute the number of convictions, so the full list can't go in. Also note that removal of BLP material doesn't count towards any 3RR limitation, but adding it does. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the BLP issues that would protect you from 3RR Aatomic1 21:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I see a problem listing people who later had their convictions quashed, therefore making them innocent of any offence charged.--Padraig 21:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem emphasing their innocence Aatomic1 21:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Have a look here. The fact they were convicted then won on appeal is significant. If those individuals are notable (ie, have articles) then they should be mentioned, otherwise not. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

I was asked to arbitrate in this dispute, which I won't do, because I am not a arbitrator.

It may be unfair to characterise this dispute as an edit war, but two editors have now performed three reversions on this article, and it has the potential to become one, and I hope that restraint can be exercised. Since there are BLP concerns, I won't count removals of contentious material as a WP:3RR issue (BLP is an exception to the 3RR) ... but repeatedly adding such contentious material has no exemption from 3RR.

Editors should discuss the issue, and if unable to reach agreement should use one of the paths set out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm

I find the article a little difficult. There is really very little information on Kirkpatrick himself. Most of the article is about the events surrounding his deal with the British government, if that's what happened. As an American I have never heard of him before. Steve Dufour 22:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thats because very little is known about him outside his role as a member of the INLA and his part in the supergrass trials.--Padraig 13:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case he might be a person known only for one thing and not deserve a WP article after all. I was just about to post this comment but you beat me to it. Let me post it here anyway:

In general we Americans have a great fondness for all the British people, Irish and English. Most of us are confused and saddened by what has been happening in northern Ireland over the years and don't know how to deal with it. Having said that; this article, to me anyway, does not have the "look and feel" of neutrality. It's purpose seems to be to point out Kirkpatrick as a bad person. There is really nothing in the article about who he is, where he came from, what his motivations were, etc. I've tagged the article with a NPOV tag. I'd like to hear some feedback. Thanks. Steve Dufour 13:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Supergrass trials where a major attempt by the British Government to destroy the republican groups at that time, Fitzpatrick was one of the major players in that attempt, the fact that all those convicted on his supposed evidence where later to have their convictions quashed, caused major damage to the government attempts.--Padraig 13:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In that case maybe the article should be about the trials, not about Kirkpatrick. Steve Dufour 13:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

He was only one out of a number of supergrasses used at the time, and the trials of those he named where all based on his evidence alone, therefore the article is based on him.--Padraig 13:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As there seems to be no justification for the neutrality tag I'am going to remove it.--Padraig 14:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think Steve has a very good point per WP:BLP1E. We should be covering the event not the person, so really this should be merged into the Supergrass (informer) article. However this doesn't really address the original BLP problem. Approximately 25 people were convicted of terrorist offences based solely on Kirkpatrick's evidence in a juryless court, and almost all these convictions were overturned on appeal. Except for the few notable (ie, we have articles for them) people I maintain the full list of people should not be added per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of names. There is no loss of context by not including them. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I can see the logic of expanding it into an article on the use of the supergrass system - with a change of title - in the North of Ireland, where details could be added on the other supergrasses but not a merger into the Supergrass (informer) article which deals with the origin of the term itself.--Padraig 15:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've expressed my opinions and that's about all I can do with this issue. Steve Dufour 20:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)