Jump to content

Talk:Maura Harrington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting Article[edit]

Indymedia [1]

Doesn't matter?[edit]

I find it very difficult to understand your logic, 9x5. You assert in your edit summary that it "doesn't matter how (Harrington) pleaded" to the charges against her. Can you explain?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The important thing is she was charged. The final outcome will be important too. The intricacies of the case (including how she pleaded) are not. Thanks! Fin©™ 18:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a pretty selective method of deciding what is and isn't important. What do you base it on? A cynic might think you want to include information that makes Harrington look bad (that she was charged), and exclude anything that might mitigate that (the fact that she denies the charge).

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I base it on the fact that other articles don't include how people plead (eg Rossport Five), people normally plead not guilty, the trial wouldn't continue if she pled guilty, so one can assume that she pled not guilty. WP:COI. I'm not going to respond again, per what I've said on other pages. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The Rossport Five weren't involved in a criminal trial; therefore there was no pleading involved, guilty or not guilty. You'll have to find a better example. I really find it hard to believe that the defence of someone who has been charged with an offence approaching assaulting a head of state isn't worthy of mention. I don't know what you're basing your opinion that "people normally plead not guilty" on, but I would be interested to find out. You shouldn't assume anything, or expect others to do the same; court hearings are often postponed for sentencing, even after guilty pleas. As for COI, again I'll refer you to what I've written on my user page; it's not the get-out clause for your edits you seem to consider it. This refusal to defend your edits in any meaningful way would make the cynic I mentioned above even more cynical, 9x5.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I thought they were involved in a criminal trial. Apologies. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly, you haven't found a better example, from the "other articles" concerning people on trial you referred to. Since you used the plural, I reckon you must have looked at more than one. Secondly, you haven't told me what you're basing your opinion that "people normally plead not guilty" on.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The paper of record is slipping[edit]

Harrington refused to pay any fine or sign an agreement binding her to the peace, so I don't believe the article should say she has. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say she abided by the ruling, it's just stating it. And please don't push POV in talk page headers. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one thing I really detest, it's seeing what I've written on a talk page being altered. I think this is only the second time it has happened to me. If you don't like the title of this section, start a new one. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, won't do it again :$ Thanks! Fin©™ 11:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free the Rossport One![edit]

"Rather, she (Maura Harrington) is a person of strong views about the Corrib project who also happens to have a fairly long record of being drunk and disorderly, verbally abusive and violent, all of which has been detailed in court cases resulting, almost invariably, in conviction." [2]. How interesting! Snappy (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Harrington has only one previous conviction, which is far from the only half-truth in that hatchet job. I'm unpleasantly surprised with the Irish Times; it reads like an Indo article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you (for once!). It's quite a hatchet job alright. I don't think anything from it should be added to this article. I expected rather more from the IT. Snappy (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up/rewrite[edit]

I'm not sure of the accuracy of the second half of this article. First of all it says she was charged with "Lunging" which I'm pretty sure isn't in itself illegal. I believe the correct charge should be noted in the article. Secondly, I think I'm correct in saying that she was actually charged with the assault of the Garda and that is what she's actually serving her sentence for. Its currently not very clear. As I have been accused in the past of having less than honourable motives, I'm hesitant to edit anything directly related with S2S. Any takers?GainLine ♠ 22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

The lunging comes from the Irish Times article, so that's the best we can do as regards the charge. The sentence kinda reads akwardly alright (she was imprisoned for the assault). I'll have a go at tidying. Thanks! Fin©™ 22:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think it reads a bit smoother now. I removed the bit about the protester injuries because it wasn't relevant to Harrington or the charge. I then had a look through the Irish Times archive and couldn't find anything relevant for the cited date (June 16 2007), so I removed the bit about the fracas (it wasn't mentioned in the most recent Times piece). Thanks! Fin©™ 22:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just had another look, and expanded the search slightly, there was a letter published on June 15 2007 (Friday) and another on June 18 2007 (Monday) about Corrib Gas/Shell to Sea (so there was something published around that time), but neither can be used as a source (obviously). Thanks! Fin©™ 22:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I removed the bit about the protester injuries because it wasn't relevant to Harrington or the charge." Nice. Twenty people are injured (none of them Gardaí), the only charge resulting from the fracas is of a woman accused of slapping a guard and this isn't relevant. You never cease to amaze, 9x5. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to restore the text about the injuries inflicted for the same reason Harrington wanted video evidence at her trial; not only is it relevant, but if the context around protests is removed, it's a lot easier to make people look like criminals. That wasn't your intention, I hope. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]



I'm not sure of the relevance of the text on the injuries but that aside, that sentence reads terribly with 4 commas in it. Someone consider restructuring it? Also I'm going to add that section on the sentencing to Judge Mary Devins article.GainLine ♠ 17:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by GainLine (talk • contribs)

I think I've fixed the sentence you're referring to. The intro sentence doesn't flow well when brackets are used (they're also used incorrectly), so I decided to stick with the comments. On other topics, as regards my removal of the Independent article - it didn't actually reference Harrington being hospitalised with head injuries, so it didn't substantiate the text (and, as an aside, opinion pieces/editorials can only be used to substanitate the journalist's views, not substantiate events). I also removed the picture of the JCB as I don't feel it appropriate or necessary to the article (it would be analogous to showing a picture of Mountjoy) and it also had no source for context. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon it's the first time I've been accused of using brackets incorrectly; do explain. The text you're referring to was only an excerpt; the rest of Myers' article goes into more detail, including what else he would like to see done to Harrington. It makes for educational reading. The picture gives a feel for the events of the day that led to Harrington's incarceration; I disagree with you both about its appropriateness and necessity (it would be more analogous to showing a picture of the solidarity protests outside Mountjoy). How many other pictures have you removed (or seen others remove) on the same basis? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty Event[edit]

The article says that Maura Harrington was unable to attend an event for amnesty as she was serving her prison sentence, yet when you follow the reference to the Amnesty site there's no mention of her scheduled to attend (only S2S speakers). Even the flyer makes no mention of her. Is there another reference available? If not, I don't see how it can be included as the reference isn't backing up whats being said in the article GainLine ♠ 18:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to her receiving head injuries as a result of garda baton charge does not work - hence it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.96.25 (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Please discuss further on the talk page."[edit]

GL, what do you want to discuss? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wording as per template GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was part of the template, another editor has done a bit of work on the article now, its gone so no need to worry. GainLine ♠ ♥ 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jailed Again[edit]

Ive googled this and apparently its true but the source is a blog as it wasnt reported in the national papers. The only source is here in a press release which I do nott regard as an RS.[3] Im posting the text here while waiting for the court report.

On December 10th 2009 in Belmullet District Court, Harrington was sentenced to 9 months in prison by Judge Gerard Haughton in relation to cutting a net beside Shell's compound at Glengad. The damage was estimated at €160. She was jailed because she refused to give an undertaking not to interfere with Shell. Cathar11 (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Located reference.Cathar11 (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't agree that the reference is reliable enough to be used. Surely there is a better one? (Not IndyMedia) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats all thats available at the moment. Its extensively reported in blogs but it was budget day in Ireland. Court reports in regional papers will be outnext weekCathar11 (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

This page was vandalised earlier today, with a false report of Harrington's death.

Please keep an eye on the page to look out for further attacks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.203.49.223 (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maura Harrington. 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: 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) 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maura Harrington. 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: 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) 01:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maura_Harrington&oldid=1207556009"