Talk:Corrib gas controversy

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Mid‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This page has been marked as needing an image.

Deletion objection[edit]

I object to this article's deletion. The controversy generated is separate from the project, the campaign against the current project configuration, and the men who have gone to jail over the issue.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine that you object. However the issue isn't whether a separate issue exists but whether the separate issue is notable in its own right. So far all the references which might establish notability AFAICT are on one of the above. Over to you...--BozMo talk 07:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolution[edit]

People can be absolved from what would otherwise be unlawful behaviour if they give a "reasonable excuse". And that Burke et al facilitated this project is definitely relevant.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link deletion[edit]

What is the explanation for deleting the link to the www.publicinquiry.ie report? Does it say the wrong things?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't trust it is a WP:V source - it only has three reports, two of which are related to Corrib, they were all written in 2005. Thanks! Fin ©™ 15:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't trust it because it only has three reports and they were all written in 2005? How many do you believe it ought to have? I for one certainly don't intend to use it for referencing events that occurred after its publication!

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a proper independent inquiry body, shouldn't it have at least a few reports a year, on different subjects? Three reports, two covering the same subject, doesn't exactly bode well for its independence. Thanks! Fin ©™ 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its funding was withdrawn. It was working on a report on government over-expenditure on the purchase of a site at Thornton Hall in County Dublin for a new prison when it was forced to cease operations. So that's three different reports on three different subjects, as I would regard the Corrib controversy reports as one; Kuprewicz's technical report is simply an addendum to the report on the controversy (they were published as one volume). The CPI was based on a similar body in Australia whose name escapes me; their funding had the same source. As far as I know the Australian body is still working. While I understand your concerns about the scope of the reporting, I'm not sure how its frequency would affect its independence.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've pointed out on the Shell to Sea talk page, the head of the Centre for Public Inquiry (Kevin Connolly) is a brother of one of the "Columbia Three" (Niall Connolly), Sinn Fein's representative in Columbia. Given Sinn Fein's involvement with Shell to Sea, that alone is enough to discredit the supposed independent nature of the report (and centre). Thanks! Fin ©™ 19:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's ridiculous, and you've got both a name and a country flat out wrong. When you talk of Sinn Féin's involvement, I take it you're not talking about Paddy Ruddy? After all, he is the closest SF member to Bellanaboy. If you feel people are discredited because they're unbiased, then please count me in!

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean about the name and country, I've spelt everything correct according to this page. I'm not talking about him, no. I misspoke about the discredited bit, I've change it now. Thanks! Fin ©™ 20:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Kevin Connolly? SF have never had a representative in Colombia, as far as I know. Niall Connolly was their man in Havana.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "sinister" plastic bag[edit]

The bag's contents were neither a device nor, because they were loose, were they explosive. Many people (including myself) would associate "IED" with the devices used with such lethal force in Iraq, rather than a plastic bag with unattached odds and ends that was less explosive than a mobile phone at a filling station. I suggest we simply describe what was left outside Shell HQ. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a compromise I would suggest calling it a suspect package and describing its contents G~~ain~~Line ♠ 17:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Willie Corduff[edit]

Also see talk on IRMS page

[1]

This is the link that has been used to back up the statement that Corduff claims IRMS were responsible. Here is the Text:

A protester who bedded down under a truck at the site where work is taking place on the controversial Corrib gas pipeline has claimed he was beaten up by a gang of men at the compound in the early hours of this morning.

Willie Corduff, a member of the Rossport Five, who were jailed for 94 days in 2005 over their opposition to the routing of the onshore pipeline, was taken to Mayo General Hospital in Castlebar.

Mr Corduff (55) claims he was dragged from under a truck at around 3.45am by at least six men dressed in black and wearing balaclavas who beat him viciously about the head and knees.

“I thought they were trying to kill me,” said Mr Corduff. “They beat me until I stopped moving. I heard one of them say, ‘Stop now lads, he’s nearly finished.”

Earlier this week Shell EP Ireland decided to resume efforts to lay the offshore section of the pipeline after its environmental management plan was approved by Minister for Energy Eamon Ryan.

Mr Corduff and two other local men climbed under the truck at midday yesterday in an attempt to halt work at the site at Glengad, Bellanaboy. The other two men were removed but Mr Corduff vowed to stay under the vehicle until he had evidence that Shell had authorisation for their work.

In addition to his claims of having been attacked by a gang, Mr Corduff also said that gardaí had thrown stones at him yesterday in an attempt to remove him from under the truck.

Gardaí are today investigating an incident at Shell’s Corrib site in which they say up to 15 people wearing balaclavas and carrying tools, bars and chains vandalised the area last night. It is not known if the two incidents are connected.

A spokeswoman for Shell EP Ireland said the company would not be issuing a statement regarding recent activities at the site while the Garda investigation was continuing.

As can be seen, at no point does Corduff make these allegations. This can't be included as per WP:V. Until some investigation or verifiable source can back this claim up it remains WP:Speculation.

Proposed merger with Corrib gas project[edit]

A lot of background information that should probably be in this article is covered in the article Corrib gas project. As the two articles are essentially about the same subject, ie. the corrib gas project and subsequent controversy either relating to it or generated by it, I believe it would be much more beneficial to readers if this were all covered in one article, the corrib gas project article. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If you want to move info from the project article here, that would solve the problem you mentioned. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that you agree with the proposed merger. Please explain why you think it should be merged to this article. As the corrib gas controversy is a product of the corrib gas project and not the other way around I don't see the logic in merging to this article. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 17:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of my reply led you to think I agree with your unpopular proposal? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree strongly with the merger, the controversy surrounding the implementation of the project and the project are two seperate issues, I do think that there is insufficent detail here and some details which are on Shell to Sea entry should be here and only a synopsis appear there.Cathar11 (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're the reasons I proposed the merger, concensus seems to be to have two diff article. Have a look on talk of the project page, another user has proposed structure G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 13:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger of Policing of the Corrib gas protests inyo here[edit]

It would make more sense to merge policing into controversy. Cathar11 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, something for the to do list G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 19:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page needs work[edit]

After a read of this article, I don't really understand why there is a controversy, other than some complaints from unions that their workers weren't hired for the construction and some nebulous complaints from environment groups. I propose that the article be expanded to focus on the reasons for the controversy, rather than just paying attention to incidents and so forth. Jtrainor (talk) 22:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the page is in the middle of a rewrite and has been put into some kind of a logical order as a framework for expansion.Probably each of the bulleted points coould bbe expanded. All contributions wellcome but remeber this is a heavily reviewed article do references are needed.Cathar11 (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page looks a lot better now G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 22:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GSOC[edit]

I'm not entirely sure the GSOC stuff needs to be here in its entirety as as Fin said, its not entirely relevant to Corduff but to me thats besides the point. Currently there is a just a recommendation to discipline a senior Garda. At this point it seems premature to add info on a disciplinary procedure in process when the person hasnt even been named officialy. I think this needs to be pared back and if (or when) this happens, it will probably quite a large story in itself, thoughts? G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you posted this in the wrong place GSOC not mentioned here yet.;)Cathar11 (talk) 13:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pat O'Donnell[edit]

Why is there nothing about O'Donnell's jailing? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or Ó'Leidhin's? Anyone? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone at all? He's been in for a month. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This innocent, law abiding and hard working fisherman has now been incarcerated for 89 days due to lies, cover-ups and false criminalisation of the victimised community of Kilcommon, North Mayo. Disgraceful! 9th May 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Comhar (talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or Harnett's, the second-longest sentence? Why does the "Recent events" section stop at 2009? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why no mention of 'The Pipe'? Anyone at all? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

I propose to merge Policing of the Corrib gas protests, Shell to Sea, Rossport Five and Pobal Chill Chomáin articles into this article as integral parts of the controversy. The article is not so long that we need spin-off some parts of it. Beagel (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree[edit]

I disagree with some of this proposal.

I think that Policing of the Corrib gas protests should be merged into the Corrib gas controversy or the Corrib gas project as you see fit.

However, Shell to Sea, the Rossport Five and Pobal Chill Chomáin are three separate and quite different articles albeit relating to the same, very relevant problems. Your only argument might be to merge Pobal Chill Chomáin into the Rossport Five article or vice versa but Shell to Sea is national and international, the Rossport Five article is now historical (but very relevant) and the other demonstrates the position of the community besieged by the Corrib Gas Project proposals. The current time, being bang in the middle of the major on ongoing Oral Hearing into the Corrib Project is NOT the time to start merging articles together as if they have become irrelevant. The last three should remain as separate articles until a conclusion is reached one way or the other on the issue. I have no problem with the first being merged as directed but only as directed as it does not have relevance within any of the other articles. Thank you. Comhar (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merged Policing of the Corrib gas protests. Additional opinions about merger of Shell to Sea, the Rossport Five and Pobal Chill Chomáin are needed. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shell to Sea protest in Glengad.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Shell to Sea protest in Glengad.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shell to Sea protester injured in Belmullet Courthouse.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Shell to Sea protester injured in Belmullet Courthouse.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:3527 greensdail31jan06web.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:3527 greensdail31jan06web.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glengad[edit]

Surely the fisherman could of just moved his pots out of the way? And then what happened? The section seems a little dubious. --Éamonn Cálraighe (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/
Triggered by \boffshore-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:30, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Motion[edit]

The Arbitration Committee are proposing to remove sanctions related to this topic area which appear to be no longer required. Details of the proposal are at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Motion: Removal of Unused Sanctions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:11, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Corrib gas controversy. 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corrib gas controversy. 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.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 12:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Corrib gas controversy. 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) 01:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Corrib gas controversy. 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/20160325132944/http://undergroundfilms.ie/film/ to http://undergroundfilms.ie/film/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090331201355/http://mayogasinfo.com/ to http://www.mayogasinfo.com/
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.corribgas.net/

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) 10:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Proposal[edit]

I propose to rename the article Opposition to the Corrib gas project. --― Jjm596 ✉ 17:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that then you must make a formal rename proposal. See Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves. ww2censor (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]