Talk:James Farrell (police officer)

Strange coincidence

In researching James Farrell I came across a memorial on findagrave which has a buriel site for James and Bridget Farrell. Bridget's page findagrave titles her Bridget Megley Farrell. James' death notice Auckland Star has him arriving in 1861 and being a member of the militia. A most curious co-incidence or maybe an error somewhere? NealeWellington (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, NealeWellington, I had a poke around on Papers Past yesterday and came across the Farrells from Kihikihi. James Farrell Sr got quite a bit of press over the years and it was clear that he was a different person to our constable. But yes, that's quite a coincidence that their wives had the same name! But definitely different people. Whilst our constable was in Fiji, our man in the Waikato was chairman of the Kihikihi Town District Board.

Also, here's an obituary for the Waikato lady. It says that she "arrived with her late husband (Mr J. Farrell) and family at Auckland in 1861". The constable got married in 1863 in Dunedin according to DNZB, and there's no mention of him having arrived in NZ with family. Schwede66 07:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

My suspicion is that this is an error. Anyway I'll keep on digging around to see if I can locate what happened to Farrell and his wife. His name seems to hav been very common at the time with about five I have able to identify around the same time period in NZ NealeWellington (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Nah, they were really different people. Our Waikato man has featured in relation to Kihikihi since 1870 with quite some regularity. Schwede66 10:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that after police officer James Farrell suspected that his friend and colleague Thomas Ryan had shot him, he lost to Ryan in court, and had him arrested? Source: Green, David. "James Farrell". Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved 23 April 2017. "Farrell was shot several times near his home by a man he recognised as Ryan. Amid enormous publicity Ryan was tried twice for attempted murder [...] After Ryan's eventual acquittal [...] the unhinged Farrell sought revenge by arresting his rival on a firearms charge for which there was little evidence."
  • ALT1: ... that police officer James Farrell found his friend and colleague Thomas Ryan in an affair with his wife? Source: Green, David. "James Farrell". Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Ministry for Culture and Heritage. Retrieved 23 April 2017. "In 1870 Farrell discovered that his wife was having an affair with his friend and colleague Sergeant Thomas Ryan, whom he warned off."
  • Reviewed: [[]]

5x expanded by NealeWellington (talk) and Guliolopez (talk). Nominated by Lettherebedarklight (talk) at 01:48, 18 April 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/James Farrell (police officer); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Lettherebedarklight: Good article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

oh, i didn't expand it, just nominated it. lettherebedarklight晚安 00:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

• This appears to have been expanded principally on 7 April 2023 (ending in this version, but it was not nominated until 18 April 2023 (when the article was this version). The current article is not 5x expanded from the version I linked on 7 April 2023, so it fails WP:DYKCRIT#1a if that is the 5x expansion being referred to above. If we are talking about the 5x expansion beginning on 7 April, then I think this runs afoul of WP:DYKCRIT#1a for being nominated 11 calendar days post-expansion (well after 7 days post-expansion). As such, I don't think this nomination satisfies DYK criteria no matter how this is sliced, and I'd like another reviewer to take a look at this one to see if I'm missing something here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Onegreatjoke: Can you elaborate a bit more on how you evaluated newness here? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think i somehow read the article as being nominated on the 14 April instead of 18 April for some reason. Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Are we currently in agreement that this does not meet the relevant newness criterion noted above? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:40, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

@red-tailed hawk: i was under the impression there was some leeway in the 7 days limit. lettherebedarklight晚安 11:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

There is some, but I don't think that it extends a greater-than-50% variance on the timing. It may be worth bringing this up on WT:DYK if there's disagreement. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:26, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

lettherebedarklight, I think Red-tailed hawk is correct on this one. 11 days is a bit late for my taste (although you're free to seek an exemption at a wider venue, like WT:DYK), we usually don't let nominations that late get on through. If the article is expanded fivefold again, or brought to GA status, it'll be eligible again :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)