Talk:Gerry Adams: Difference between revisions

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

This is a WikiProject, an area for focused collaboration among Wikipedians. New participants are welcome; please feel free to participate! Guide to WikiProjects Directory of WikiProjects

Shortcut WP:IR

Irish Republicanism articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	1	1				3
GA	1	2	6	3			12
B	12	16	41	27		5	101
C	5	10	53	64		26	158
Start	4	37	170	198		127	536
Stub		1	26	77		29	133
List	1	2	2	10		3	18
NA		1	4	3	204		212
Assessed	24	70	303	382	204	190	1,173
Total	24	70	303	382	204	190	1,173

Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics.

(For more information on WikiProjects, please see Wikipedia:WikiProject and the Guide to WikiProjects).

• Improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.
• Gather interested editors, and provide a central location to discuss matters pertaining to the above.

• Topics related to Irish Republicanism and Irish Nationalism.

This 'To do' list- has it been updated since 2007? Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• (1798) - 1798 rebellion
• (1916) - Easter Rising
• (1919 - 1921) - Irish War of Independence
• (1922 - 1923) - Irish Civil War

• Irish Socialist Volunteers in the Spanish Civil War
• S-Plan
• IRA Abwehr World War II
• Northern Campaign (IRA)
• Border Campaign (IRA)
• Provisional IRA campaign 1969–1997

• Battle of the Bogside

For an organized hierarchial chart, see Genealogy of the IRA

• Irish Citizen Army
• Irish Volunteers
• Cumann na mBan
• Irish Republican Army
• Irish Republican Army (1922–1969)
  • Saor Uladh
  • Saor Éire (1967-1975)
  • Official Irish Republican Army
    • Irish National Liberation Army
      • Irish People's Liberation Organisation
  • Provisional Irish Republican Army
    • Continuity Irish Republican Army
      • Óglaigh na hÉireann (CIRA splinter group)
      • Saoirse na hÉireann
    • Real Irish Republican Army

Note: There are many, many IRA Volunteers of varying memberships, and we cannot list them all here. We have many categories for that. Only particularly notable members should be listed here.

• Michael Collins (Irish leader)
• Éamon de Valera
• James Connolly
• Patrick Pearse
• Constance Georgine, Countess Markiewicz
• Tom Clarke
• Edward Daly
• The O'Rahilly

• Official IRA: Cathal Goulding
• Provisionals: Joe McDonnell
• Continuity IRA: Dáithí Ó Conaill
• Real IRA: Michael McKevitt
• INLA: Seamus Costello, Dessie O'Hare

• The Green Book (IRA training manual)

This user is a member of WikiProject Irish Republicanism.

Please feel free to add yourself here, and to indicate any areas of particular interest

1. Paddytheceltic (talk · contribs) Protestant Nationalists, Militant oganisations, Political Organizations and others..
2. Erin Go Bragh (talk · contribs) Militant Armed Irish Republican organizations. Gaelic.
3. Kathryn NicDhàna (talk · contribs) I've been working on some of the articles about women in the Easter Rising.
4. Pauric (talk · contribs) Too much to mention
5. Derry Boi (talk · contribs) Interested in all areas of republicanism really.
6. One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs) Bit of everything
7. Irish Republican (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism 1798-Present
8. Vintagekits (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present with more focus on the history of the Provisionals
9. Phoblacht (talk · contribs) Republican Newspapers from 1790’s to Present.
10. GiollaUidir (talk · contribs) Republican activities from the 1969-mid 80's. Also, biogs of (primarily) dead activists both political and military. Post-1986 is mainly CIRA activity and shoot-to-kill operations by the SAS etc.
11. Leopold III (talk · contribs) The leaders in the period from the Easter Rising to the end of the Civil War.
12. Kevin Murray (talk · contribs) Learning more and helping where I can.
13. Scolaire (talk · contribs) 20th century history, especially the 1913-1922 period
14. Sheehan07 (talk · contribs) Love Irish History
15. Sbfenian1916 (talk · contribs) Love Irish Republicansim, hate Unionism.
16. United and Free (talk · contribs)- PIRA history and operations
17. Fluffy999 (talk · contribs) Inter(world)war republican activities. Internment and extra judicial activities surrounding Irish Republicanism.
18. Free Scotland, Unite Ireland (talk · contribs) Interested in post- St Andrews agreement Republicanism.
19. Diarmaid (talk · contribs) Six county sovereignty
20. Domer48 (talk · contribs) Period covered by the Irish Confederation (Young Ireland)
21. Conghaileach (talk · contribs) Special interest in left-republican history
22. Max rspct (talk · contribs) PIRA;INLA; civil war era; 70s 80s 90s; links/solidarity abroad;
23. Carrignafoy (talk · contribs) War of Independence and Civil War (especially in Cork) also development of Official Sinn Féin and its successors.
24. Brixton Busters (talk · contribs)
25. BigDunc (talk · contribs)
26. Ró2000 (talk • contribs) Tá suim mhór agam i stair náisiúnta na hÉireann, neamhspleach go háirithe!!
27. quirk666 (talk · contribs) Republicanism 1798-present. 32 County Sovereignty Movement
28. gavcos (talk · contribs) Old IRA, War of Independence, Civil War
29. ElementalEternity (talk · contribs) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Irish history and republicanism in general.[reply]
30. Biofoundationsoflanguage 15:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Moz1916 (talk · contribs) All Irish history, especially 1903-1932
32. Princess Pea Face (talk · contribs) Ireland pure and simple
33. Barryob (talk · contribs)
34. NIscroll (talk · contribs) --NIscroll (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. RSFRuairi (talk · contribs) Anything really.
36. Gr8opinionater (talk · contribs) 1:10 July 27 2008 (GMT), Interested in Irish nationalism in general particularly from a Political and historical point of view.
37. Lihaas (talk · contribs) open to much
38. EoinBach (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism in general from an academic point of view
39. Gerard Madden (talk · contribs)
40. SPARTAN-J024 (talk · contribs) I have ties to the Easter Rising and the Irish War of Independence
41. NewIreland2009 (talk) The 1912-1924 period, with a particular passion for challenging popular myths of the period.
42. Dribblingscribe (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
43. Tippsno1fan (talk · contribs) Tá an-spéis agam ann
44. Gallagher-Glass (talk · contribs) General interest.
45. Fallduff (talk · contribs) National Archives, Dublin and Na Fianna Éireann, pre Northern Troubles
46. Mabuska (talk · contribs) maintaining neutrality and verifiability
47. Nicholas Urquhart (talk · contribs) military operations of the "New IRAs": the Provos, the Reals and even OnH, the Official and Continuity IRA.
48. You Can Act Like A Man (talk · contribs) 32 CSM
49. Finnegas (talk · contribs)
50. Sittingonthefence (talk · contribs) Irish republicanism as a philosophy. 1916 and War of Independence combatants.
51. High_Noonan (talk · contribs) Tom Hunter, 1916, War of Independence
52. Antiqueight (talk · contribs) Women involved in 1916 or similar.
53. AusLondonder (talk · contribs) General matters.
54. Tdv123 (talk · contribs) PIRA, OIRA, INLA, IPLO, ICA, IVF, SE, CRF, SARAF, PLA
55. Irishpolitical (talk · contribs) Traditionalist Republicanism and Nationalism. Dissenting republicans post GFA. Anti-communist Republicanism.
56. CnocBride (talk · contribs) All Irish history, though my favourite time period would be the vast 1800–2011 period.
57. KINGHB190 (talk · contribs) A Corkonian with ancestry in the original Irish Republican Army.
58. Endersslay (talk · contribs) Enjoy Irish republican music and history.
59. R0paire-wiki (talk · contribs) Irish Republicanism past and present, with particular focus on Socialist Republicanism.

Feel free to place {{User WP:IR}} on your User page to advertise our WikiProject!

Assessment requests:

Gaelic words and phrases should be marked up using {{lang}}, thus: {{lang|ga|Páirc na hÉireann}}.

To use the following template, simply put {{IRAs}} at the bottom of an article.

To use the following template, simply put {{NIPP}} at the bottom of an article.

Articles which fall within our scope should be labeled as such on their talk pages. To do so, simply place {{WP IR}} at the top of article's talk page.

Irish republicanism Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics 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.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

• all subpages of this page

• For a simple guide to using references, place {{subst:refstart}} (including brackets) on your user or talk page.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Northern Ireland
• Portal:Ireland
• Wikipedia:Irish Wikipedians' notice board

  Belfast B‑class Mid‑importance

  Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belfast, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the City of Belfast, Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.BelfastWikipedia:WikiProject BelfastTemplate:WikiProject BelfastBelfast-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

  Archives

  Pre-2007 archive

  Is Adams A terrorist?

  Can we be sure that Gerry Adams is nothing more than a terrorist. In my opinion someone with as many links to a terrorist organisation as Adams has to the IRA certainly has some ghosts in his closet - unsigned for own safety - 14:47 21 May 2006

  I think that the heinous actions he's either tacitly condoned, or criminal conspiracies he's been implicated in, are sufficient to warrant that appellation, although explicitly stating so in the main article is most likely violative of Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

  To me he's just as much of a terrorist as Johnny "Mad Dog Adair, or any member of the LVF, Red Hand Defenders, or sundry other terrorist organizations on the other side of the sectarian divide, and just as much of a wanton criminal as Martin Cahill.

  However, placing that in the article is-as I alluded to earlier-probably a non-starter.

  Ruthfulbarbarity 11:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  one mans terrorist is an other mans freedom fighter i think gerry adams is the greatest irishman alive today he has led the way to the ballot box instead of the gun and about his involvment with the ira he did what he had to do .if you saw your community attacked and no one helped what would you do?Bouse23 15:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What Ghandi did, if I had any backbone. Also unsigned cause I don't trust them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.54.89 (talk • contribs) 06:43, March 27, 2007 (UTC)

  Well, when I was in Australia I heard Gerry Adams introduced as "the Irish writer, politician and peace activist". Bill Tegner 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course he's a terrorist and probably the best known one after Osama Bin Laden. YourPTR! 09:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What is a terrorist? Nelson Mandela went from terrorist to hero when South Africa got democracy. Bush, Nixon Thatcher and Pinochet committed many attrocities, but not terrorists? Gerry was involved with the IRA, but him and people from the other community , Spence and Ervine, were dragged into the troubles by the situation in the North, Westminister exploited us for years. Sinn Fein and the Loyalist groups made peace in N.Ireland by being prepared to work together, not Major, Blair, Paisley, or anyone else

  Ervine Funeral

  Worth mentioning Adams' presence at the David Erivine funeral, seemed significant to me seeing it in the news today? Frainc 01:05 13 January 2007

  Hi Frainc, I doubt it - propably notable for the next couple of weeks but not after that but not after that, therefore a case of "recentism" imo. Others may have a adifferent opinion--Vintagekits 01:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Only one image?

  I've added a reqphoto tag to this page as there is a distinct lack of images in what is a reasonably lengthy article. --Mal 23:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nationality

  My understanding is that Adams has a British Passport and is therefore a British Citizen. I may be wrong. He can be elected to the British Parliamanet as an Irish citizen. Can somebody get a verifiable citation regarding Adams nationality please? PaddyBriggs 12:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would Gerry Adams have a British passport? Derry Boi 13:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why wouldn't he? He may hate his country and have waged war against it but was born in the UK. That automatically makes him British and btw, it's LONDONderry not Derry! YourPTR! 09:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Quote from Wiki :"The name was changed from Derry in 1613 during the Plantation of Ulster to reflect the establishment of the city by the London guilds. However, most Irish people, at home and abroad, still prefer "Derry," so the proper name of the city remains a matter of dispute."[reply]

  Holding a passport does not in and of itself determine nationality. IIRC Adams was born within the territory of the United Kingdom to parents who were legally citizens of the United Kingdom so under UK law he is a British Citizen. I'm not sure if Adams has legally renounced that (or even if he could - taking up entitlement to another legal nationality doesn't always forfeit existing ones) regardless of whether or not he has taken out a British passport or his political stance.

  But frankly it's irrelevant. Most politicians who wish for their current territory to be in or become a new country are legally citizens of the current country under its laws - that's how the system works. Highlighting Adams's legal nationality is highly POV and unnecessary. Timrollpickering 15:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  From the Good Friday Agreement:

  (vi) recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.

  Hopefully that puts the matter to rest? One Night In Hackney 15:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The question is not what options re. Nationality Adams has/had but what he chooses/chose to do. The last few entries here demonstrated that if Adams wants/wanted a Britsh Passport he is/was, of course, entitled to one. Similarly with an Irish Passport. Derry Boi should understand this and certainly not accuse me of "Vandalism" when I stated, in good faith, that Gerry Adams is a British Citizen . My Irish roots are not from Derry, but they are not from the Shankill Road either! So for Wiki the question is this. What is Adams nationality? That is a material piece of information about anybody. Is he a British Citizen or a citizen of the Irish Republic or even both? PaddyBriggs 09:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Gerry Adams has an Irish passport. One Night In Hackney 09:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  "Travelling on his Irish passport" suggest that he also has another one - BRITISH presumably! Which means that he is a British Citizen! Which means that Derry Boi's accusation of vandalism at me when I said so was pretty cheap, as well as wrong. PaddyBriggs 09:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly not, claiming he also has a British passport is unverifiable original research. If you wish to assert he actually has a British passport, I suggest you find a source. Also, given your claim to have Irish roots, it is not unreasonable that you should have realised that the insertion of such a controversial piece of information with no source would not be viewed in a positive light. At best it was ill judged, and at worst deliberately provocative. One Night In Hackney 10:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Adams was born in the United Kingdom and as such he was a British Citizen at birth. He may have subsequently renounced this citizenship but where is the evidence? He is (also?) an Irish citizen. There are a great many people with Irish roots who become Irish citizens and get an Irish passport - and many of these also retain the citizenship of their country of birth. The burden of proof rests with those who object to Adams being described as a British Citizen. There is a prima facie case that he is British, as well as Irish. Incidentally if we duck away from telling the truth because it is "controversial" or "provocative" Wiki is dead. If Gerry Adams is a British Citizen it is certainly material and it should be included in his entry. Can anyone out there prove that Adams is not a British Citizen - if so please cite your source. PaddyBriggs 11:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The onus is on you to prove he is still a British citizen. You are the editor who inserted the phrase "He is a British citizen" (my emphasis), WP:V requires you to provide a citation that the statement is currently true. One Night In Hackney 11:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see why Adams' legal citizenship(s) should be a matter for the introduction - indeed at a glance I can't see any mention of citizenship on the pages for Mark Durkan, Alex Salmond or Ieuan Wyn Jones, all whom at least profess to remove the area they leave in from the UK. If anything has ever been made of Adams' citizenship(s) in political debate or the media then by all means include it in the article (but detail why a matter has ever been made of this, don't just say "he is a British citizen") but the intro should be a succinct description of the man's notability, not full of details that in isolation are highly POV. Timrollpickering 15:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a lot of discussion on this in the Peter O'Toole entry. Although born in England with a British mother, it is (or was) claimed that he was "never a British citizen". But being British born he wouldn't have to claim or register for citizenship. I'm not at all sure if you can actually legally renounce it either. With regard to Gerry Adams, well, being born in Northern Ireland he can have a British passport and/or an Irish one. It's up to him. I'm not sure if it's really a big issue. I mean President McAleese was born in the UK. I'd be very surprised if she had a British passport, but I imagine she's entitled to one. Bill Tegner 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members

  Despite his denial, is there enough evidence to include him in Category:Provisional Irish Republican Army members? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmmm, tricky. I'd say yes, but not just yet. There's more evidence that could be added to the alleged IRA membership section, including cites from various books. How about I add those in the next day or two, then we take another look at it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, more sources can't hurt. I wonder how well other articles in the category (and other similar ones) are sourced regarding membership. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Stu, probably more than enough evidence.--Vintagekits 13:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well the specific source I was thinking was Provos, and possibly more books as well. I'm not sure if it's actually in the book, but in the TV show regarding the 1972 talks with the British Government Mac Stíofáin specifically states everyone that attended was an IRA member, and I think that's preferable to vague mentions of captions of photos. There's definitely more cites that can be added, and I don't think waiting a couple of days until those are added will make much difference. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Adams is quite unique, but I'll first clarify how the others are sourced. As far as I'm aware (and I haven't checked) everyone else that is in the category has at least one of the following attributes - been jailed for IRA membership/offences, is dead, admitted it or been publicly named. Adams has never actually been jailed for IRA membership or offences. He was interned in '71 or thereabouts, released in '72 for the talks, interned again in '73, and not released until after internment ended as he received an 18 month(?) sentence for attempting to escape and he wasn't convicted in '78 for IRA membership. Again as far as I'm aware, Adams is unique among the people who've been publicly named (I think the only other article is Martin Lynch, and possibly Thomas 'Slab' Murphy but that's a lot different due to the Times libel trial) that has issued a total public denial. I'm happy for the category to be added, once I've added more sources so there can be no dispute that there's sufficient evidence. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, got sidetracked. In Taylor's Provos Seán Mac Stíofáin (then Chief of Staff) says Adams was an IRA member at the time of the 1972 talks, page 140. In Moloney's A Secret History of the IRA he's named as the Belfast Brigade commander, page 140. In English's Armed Struggle he's again named as commading the Belfast Brigade, page 110. So I'll probably add all the former to the existing Mac Stíofáin part, and the latter two in a sentence or two of their own, then add the category. Any objections? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit request

  {{editprotected}} Please add {{NPOV}} while the sourced information is not in the article, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds like a reasonable request to me given the discussions above and below. Admins? --ElKevbo 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Done - Alison ☺ 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Whitewashing

  Betacommand claimed those sources are not reliable and are anti-adams POV/slander sites, which is totally untrue. One source is The Guardian, reporting what an Irish government minister said. Another source is The Irish Echo. There was also four additional sources, which I added when I initially restored the information, all books, one of which is written by award winning author and journalist Peter Taylor. The only source which has actually been questioned is written by ex-IRA member and Irish goverment agent Sean O'Callaghan. No evidence has actually been produced to say why he's an unreliable source, just "he is", and even taking that into account that only justifies the removal of the one point that was sourced by it, not the removal of information that was sourced by different sources. Where are the "anti-adams POV/slander sites" that Betacommand claimed sourced the BLP violations?

  He then stated on the ANI thread I started about this whitewashing, which was initially started by a Sinn Fein supporting sysop (conflict of interest? NPOV?) that have a reliable 3rd party source the data. IE a fox news, the guardian or some other non-biased reliable third party confirm it and there will be no problems. but using confirmed POV sources that lean toward what you are trying to state is not a good Idea get a third party to source it. Excuse me but wasn't that happening already? The Guardian were already being cited, and what about the books I added? Where are the unreliable sources he claims that source the information? If these are being used in the article (which they aren't to the best of my knowledge) then they should be removed, but that does not give someone carte blanche to remove every single piece of sourced information.

  There is no breach of WP:BLP, only a breach of WP:NPOV by the whitewashing of a majority held view that Gerry Adams is a former member of the IRA that is sourced from a number of published, reliable sources. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As mentioned on the ANI thread, there was a clear BLP violation by using unreliable sources to make inappropriate an untrue claims about Adams. I've offered a compromise which I thought would be acceptable to both of us, but I've apparently been rebuffed. I'm not sure exactly what evidence you need to prove that Michael McDowell and Sean O'Callaghan are unreliable sources. I've referenced WP:RS numerous times and stated why both are considered unreliable. If you're looking for something specific, please note exactly how I can help and I'll do my best. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, you need something more than "I say they are unreliable". And as I've already said, them being unreliable does not allow the removal of content that is sourced from different sources. I'll quite happily go through books I haven't even used yet (Coogan, Dillon, Harnden, O'Brien) to hammer the point home, the information is going back in the article. Perhaps you'd like to say which information you are happy is reliably sourced? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I, too, would appreciate a detailed explanation why information that appeared to have many difference sources was removed and then the article protected without even the courtesy of an explanation on the Talk page. --ElKevbo 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And in case you missed it in my initial post, I added four additional reliable sources that state Adams was an IRA member when I restored the information. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a bit perplexed about the notion that I've somehow used my administrator buttons to affect this article. If you truly feel this way, that is, if it wasn't an error in judgment in the 'heat of the moment' type-thing (which would be understandable), please seek some sort of accountability via ArbCom or wherever. If you don't feel this way, please strike your comments. With regards to Sean O'Callaghan, he's a former low man in the IRA. Upon confessing to two murders, he was sentenced to something like six hundred years in prison. Not wanting to spend the rest of life in prison, he became an informer for the Garda and the British. It's pure common sense that he's biased against the republican movement, especially its leadership, which includes Gerry Adams. As a fellow Irishman who I suspect knows full well exactly who Sean O'Callaghan, it's beyond me how you can be that dense as to vouch for his credibility. Here are some details as to his uncredibility:

  • In his book he "gives a detailed account of a conversation with Sinn Féin's former Director of Publicity, Danny Morrison, in Crumlin Road Jail in 1990. He claims that Morrison told him of a secret IRA Army Council strategy which proves that the peace process is a sham." Morrison had never been a member of the IRA and would have no knowledge of anything of this sort. He also tried to commit suicide "at least two times" while interned.
  • "He told the Sunday Times he handed himself in while he was suffering from depression. This explanation fits a pattern of crises in his life associated with problems with his mental health (his late father told the Sunday Business Post that he took Seán for a psychiatric examination when he was fifteen years old and an Irish Special Branch detective told the Sunday Times that O'Callaghan ``cracked up at the time he left Tralee in 1985)." Not only does this lend to his mental instability, he's also given conflicting reasons for turning himself in to the Garda numerous times.
  • He's said that Adams asked him for advice on how to kill John Hume in 1982. This statement is beyond ridiculous for numerous reasons, one of which is that Adams and Hume worked on a joint peace strategy in the 1980's. In addition, Hume and the SDLP are often credited with helping SF take a more moderate position. This more moderate position, implemented partly under Adams' own leadership, caused an enormous republican split, and they've still yet to reunite. Seems a bit silly to want to kill a fellow whose advice you took to heart so much that you were willing to risk alienation from your own party, doesn't it?

  These examples are only a few of many. Again, it is utterly ridiculous to even begin to consider Sean O'Callaghan a reliable source, and I'm a bit shocked at One Night In Hackey that he claims otherwise.

  With regards to McDowell, he's an opposing politician of SF and part of a coalition that has refused to work with SF in government. His POV towards Adams and SF is fairly obvious, as well.

  With regards to the other sources, as I've mentioned several times already, I'd be more than happy to engage in a compromise as long as you're willing to adhere to WP:RS and WP:BLP. I've personally read both English and Taylor and think that they'd be great sources to have in the article if, in fact, a compromise can be reached to ensure that it's clear that Adams has never been in the IRA, despite significant (surely not majoroty) opinion to the contrary. Again, and this cannot be overstated, Sean O'Callaghan and Michael McDowell are simply ridiculous choices to defend as adhering to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, absolutely not. There will be no claim that "Adams has never been in the IRA", as the only person saying that is Adams himself. Every other source says different, WP:NPOV states clearly that is not acceptable. Also, you're still focussing on two sources. The information you removed was also sourced from other sources, which again you've failed to discuss. Quick question, do you accept that Adams used the pen-name of "Brownie" while in Long Kesh? It's easy enough to source from plenty of places if you choose to not accept that naturally. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Mate, lets stay on topic and relax a bit. I think that we might be in basic agreement, but there could be some personal animosity or whatever you might be feeling preventing us from moving forward amicably. If at all possible, lets first focus on these two points:

  • Sean O'Callaghan and McDowell are unreliable. Other sources written by neutral parties, such as Taylor and English, are acceptable. They (and others, if necessary) can be used to show that there is significant opinion that Adams has been in the IRA.

  • Adams' own statements obviously take precedence. Something along the lines of "Gerry Adams has stated several times that he's never been part of the IRA(ref) and there hasn't been any conclusive evidence to the contrary(ref). Despite this, however, there is significant opinion that he had at one time been on the IRA Army Council / chief of staff / volunteer, whatever (ref). Peter Taylor says "quote"(ref). And so forth."

  Again, I do think we may be in basic agreement, so lets move forward gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Adams' claims do not take precedent, please read policy WP:NPOV. That Adams has never been in the IRA is not a viewpoint that is supported by the majority of sources, it's giving undue weight to Adams' denial.

  I shall ask again, do you accept that Adams wrote using the pen-name "Brownie" while in Long Kesh? Also, please do not edit my talk page posts in future. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Mate, this is not "your" talk page. Haha, come on now. Your refusal to work with me, make alternate suggestions, and stay on topic are a bit disappointing. If you'd like to "counter" my proposal or attempt to engage in productive dialogue, I'll surely welcome an amicable resolution. Also, I'm not sure whether your misapplication of WP:NPOV are due to ignorance of the policy or a failed attempt at wikilawyering. Either way, bad form. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, you've still failed to answer the question. Perhaps you'd like to do it now? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No mate, I won't indulge you in a loaded off-topic question presented in bad faith geared towards further derailing these discussions. Your actions today are rather shocking and definitely quite unlike how I've seen you engage other people in the past, which had been quite admirable gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a purely on-topic question, which in my opinion you know full well hence your reluctance to answer it. Please answer the question per WP:EQ. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Mate, I suggest taking a break (I'm about to head to the pub myself for a quick one). I hope that we'll be able to begin proper discussion in the near future. Also, as a personal courtesy, please desist from changing the topic header, as it does not accurately reflect my actions. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I think you'll find the header was posted by me, therefore you should not be editing it. I shall now explain why Gaillimh was refusing to answer the question. "Brownie" was a pen-name used by Gerry Adams for writing articles that were published in Republican News while he was interned in Long Kesh. On page 201 of Provos The IRA & Sinn Fein by Peter Taylor (ISBN 0-7475-3818-2) the following text is re-printed from a column written by "Brownie" from the 1 May 1976 edition of RN:

  Rightly or wrongly, I am an IRA Volunteer and rightly or wrongly, I take a course of action as a means to bringing about a situation in which I believe the people of my country will prosper...The course I take involves the use of physical force, but only if I achieve the situatiob where my people can genuniely prosper can my course of action by seen, by me, to have been justified...I cannot complain if I am hurt, if I am killed or if I am imprisoned. I must consider these things as possible and probable eventualities...I have no one to blame but myself.

  So there you go, an admission of IRA membership by Adams. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment

  Having seen this on the noticeboard (you should have created an rfc), the current way of presenting this issue, which includes "This is a controversial position given much evidence to the contrary:" - before listing contrary sources & statements - is totally unacceptable. It reads as though it is combining sources to create an argument to counter Adams's denial. This isn't an essay or an opportunity to engage in evidence gathering against a subject. Back to the drawing board. These claims can be included in the article, but definitely not in that format, which reeks of POV.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was more concerned by the disgraceful conduct of two admins, to be fair. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also I don't see it as "combining" as such, I think it needs to be demonstrated exactly how many sources state Adams was an IRA member (including Adams himself!), to show exactly what the significant viewpoint is. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it's quite fair to label gailimh's actions as "disgraceful;" you're in the midst of a heated content dispute but he or she is engaging with you in civil dialog and his or her status as an admin doesn't seem to have anything to do with the current debate.

  On the other hand, I am extremely disappointed with the actions of Betacommand and his or her lack of communication before editing an article and then immediately protecting it without a peep on the article's Talk page. However, I also note that Betacommand's admin status has been revoked as he or she has some prior history of engaging in controversial actions. I am disappointed that he or she decided to continue behaving in the manner that led the ArbCom to revoke admin status up until the very day that the tools were finally removed.

  If we had a deadline I'd be more urgent about resolving these issues. But we don't have one and you're making progress. --ElKevbo 23:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Be that as it may, Galway is not entitle to threaten another editor with blocking because they have different views. --Vintagekits 00:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry - I missed that. Can you please point out that threat? Thanks! --ElKevbo 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  If we had a deadline I'd be more urgent about resolving these issues. But we don't have one and you're making progress. --ElKevbo 23:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Please dont bring my status into this. As per WP:BLP I made my actions. the method in which the IRA issue was brought up makes the appearance that that is the majority opinion, and uses very POV sources. I cant ask the Grand Dragon about what we should do with African-American's (Black people's) rights. that use of a POV source can be used to prove a statement, but doesnt mean that the statement is appropriate for wikipedia. the web sources that I could verify were also very POV, and I am going to attempt to verify the books. But this issue was brought to my attention by another admin, and per BPL I acted, the last thing Wikipedia needs is a law-suite. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  PS if you think my statement about blocking was a threat it wasnt it was a per policy action. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 00:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, exactly what POV web sources are you actually talking about? The ones in the article? I don't think so, they are hardly "anti-adams POV/slander sites" like you claimed. Firstly we have The Guardian and secondly we have The Irish Echo. Neither are the typical rumour mongering sites like ivanfoster.org or victims.org.uk. The Irish Echo article was written by Jack Holland. I'll assume you aren't actually aware who Jack Holland was, but he was a respected author and journalist. He's described here as "acclaimed Irish writer Jack Holland" and includes a telling quote of "He would go to a Catholic church". When he died in 2004, tributes included "Secretary of State, Paul Murphy has paid tribute to leading Irish journalist and author Jack Holland". He co-wrote a book called Phoenix about one of the intelligence experts who died in this helicopter crash, so it's pretty clear his credentials are high. It seems to me you simply took the word of a administrator who's impartiality on this issue has been called into question by more than one editor, rather than actually check the neutrality of the sources yourself. Please explain how The Irish Echo is a "very POV source". You removed an entire section with the edit summary of rm section per WP:BLP do not re-add it without proper sourcing and Multiple reliable sources or you may be blocked, but it's clear to pretty much everyone else that there were multiple reliable sources in the first place. It's apparent you have severe difficulty communicating with editors, if you had simply posted on the talk page regarding any perceived problems with the sources immediately before removing the information and left an edit summary including "see talk page" it would have been helpful, but as your recent history shows it was a typical case of "act first think never". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait there's more. See here:

  Mr. Holland, a columnist and senior editor for The Irish Echo, a weekly published in New York that is widely read by Irish-Americans, was a voice for Catholic nationalism, but colleagues and many readers said he wrote objectively about all sides of the conflict, explaining its complexities and urging a peaceful resolution.

  So please can we now accept that both Jack Holland and The Irish Echo are neutral sources? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree that the conduct by administrators (one of whom is up before ArbComm) is a little puzzling here. BLP should not be used to push a POV. Let's source the disputed material as suggested above and restore it once the page is unprotected. Catchpole 08:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm very concerned by the actions of Betacommand who seems to have made an extremely unwise and effectively POV action in protecting and reverting well sourced material from this page.--Coroebus 10:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  • Seems like this debate and article are being mocked by TheRegister, and reading the discussion here it would seem rightly so.

  http://www.theregister.com/2007/05/04/wiki_gerry_adams_doodah/

  ---

  The information about Adams's IRA past needs to be turned into paragraphs - with the bullet points removed - and preferably cited to third party sources. Meaning that the biographies should be ditched and the material should come from the Irish echo, the Guardian and easily checkable sources such as this with full attribtion. Adams's background can be easily described using such sources without it reading like a list of charges devised by an editor.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 17:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm actually compiling a list of sources about his IRA past at present, which should be finished in a couple of hours seeing as there's that many sources about it. Once that's done discussion can commence proper. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you mean by "biographies", do you mean the books? Are you suggesting that books by authors who have covered the Northern Ireland conflict for countless years and won awards for their journalism are discarded, and simply replaced with less reliable online sources for the sake of ease of checking? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We're simply offering a sourced overview, we're not researchers on the Cook Report. There's no need to cite the works of people like Sean O'Callaghan, and compiling "a list of sources about his IRA past at present" is unnecessary. On delicate subjects such as this, protect your work with as easily checkable sources as possible that are comparatively neutral and reliable - which are easy to find on Adams's involvement with the IRA - and the job is done. There's no need to spoil this by piling source upon source as though this is an Mi5 dossier. It's simply meant to be an encyclopaedia article for browsing. -- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't referring to O'Callaghan, I was referring to Moloney, Taylor etc. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just structure it so it isn't a point-by-point list of allegations that contain sentences like this

  In Memoirs of a Revolutionary, the autobiography of Seán Mac Stíofáin, Provisional IRA Chief of Staff during 1969-72, Adams is described as commander of the Belfast Brigade (albeit only in the caption of a photograph).

  and make it look more like this and it'll be fine.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 18:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I was planning to, which is why I'm compiling a list of the information available so all editors can decide what information is going in from what sources. I'm not suggesting including every single available source, but it's better that editors can see what sources are available first, especially as some of them are offline. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Surely you can't have too many sources for what has become a contentious issue here. Obviously pick the best. Sources do not have to be online, provided full details are given for books etc per WP:CITE. I presume you've seen this one.[1] Tyrenius 22:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless there are any objections that are based in policy, I will commence writing a few paragraphs detailing Adams' alleged IRA membership, and there will be no disclaimer of "Adams has never been in the IRA" either. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, go for it, just as long as there are appropriate sources (read: no Sean O'Callaghan or Michael McDowell) and it's clear that there's no proof and Adams has denied all these claims. In addition, the Taylor bit about "Brownie" is not a reliable source, as anyone could have penned the note using the pseudonym, which was popular at the time gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, this probably goes without saying, but all the quotes from the British special forces cannot be included either. For those unfamiliar with the Troubles, the British fought a "dirty war" against the IRA. This entails many things (including funding loyalist terrorism), but the British predisposition at the time for misinformation is what specifically applies here. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The Brownie pen-name is reported in more than one reliable source, whereas your claim isn't. I think everyone knows which takes precedence. Please stop using original research to try and justify the removal of sourced content to further a political agenda. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 20:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Mate, I'll be happy to find sources to back what I said up. I just assumed you had a basic knowledge of the Troubles and the republican movement. Apologies for that! Also, I'll have to ask you not to get personal and make snarky claims about a "political agenda" of mine. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have an extensive knowledge of the Troubles, it's just that I see it from both sides rather than one perspective. Note that you'll need a reliable and neutral source that states Gerry Adams was specifically named as an IRA member as part of a dirty war, not just a random quote about a dirty war. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure thing. Firstly, Bertie Ahern tried to use that Brownie column quote to discredit Gerry Adams (much like the way it's being used now, incidentally). He did this way back in the 1970's and has done it in recent years, as well. Both The Irish Times and Irish Independent have covered this. That particular Brownie column was written by Richard McAuley, not Gerry Adams, which lends to credit my original statement that it was an oft-used pseudonym. Would you consider the Stevens Report to be both reliable and neutral? If so, I'll be happy to use that to further discuss this idea of a "dirty war", and specifically targeting republican leadership, including Gerry Adams. If not, just let me know gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought you'd bring up McAuley, even though you've not provided a source to prove it. Luckily for you I have a source which states "They laugh even more when he sends loyal gofer Richard McAuley to pretend he was the author of the Brownie article in which Adams made that sole public admission of IRA membership. McAuley of course overlooked the fact that in the article Adams had referred to his wife and child. McAuley was not married at the time and had no children". Still waiting for sources, rather than generic references to newspapers. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I haven't been able to properly log on to these archives, but since you know exactly what I'm talking about and are aware of McAuley, I guess we can proceed. Shall we begin creating an entry entitled "Claims of Adams' IRA involvement" or something similarly titled? gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no immediate rush to put it back into the article, the more measured approach would be for a draft to be created here, and more editors giving input about whether it is satisfactory. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, I was planning on creating the entry on the talk page and submitting it onto mainspace when it adheres to applicable policies, most notably WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Well firstly, are you happy that the sources listed below are reliable enough, and also the Irish Echo article? Secondly, rather than a list of allegations I propose it's a couple of paragraphs detailing his "alleged" IRA membership, including internment and the like. Also note that if you've got a copy of Moloney's book there's some important information on page 88 which might need to go in to clarify the extent of his "alleged" IRA activites. If you don't have a copy let me know, and I'll be happy to type it out below with the rest. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, as long as we're judicious in choosing which bits are cited. For example, Peter Taylor is, by and large, a perfectly reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. However, we should not use this bit: MI6 agent Frank Steele says he knew Adams to be a senior member of the Belfast Brigade in 1972. A better snippet would be Seán Mac Stíofáin (then Chief of Staff of the IRA) confirms everyone who attended the 1972 talks with the British government was an IRA member, including Gerry Adams. If we want to use Moloney, then this article would need to be used in contrast to highlight Adams' issues with Moloney's book (of which I do not have a copy handy). In addition, I think we need to use at least an equal amount of primary sources (which will be forthcoming) from Adams, former IRA leadership (Martin McGuinness, for example), other scholars, etc. that highlight the view that Adams was not an IRA member. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Quote is below. Bear in mind you're being slightly contradictory here, as Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are not neutral sources on Gerry Adams. If politicans in "rival" political parties are biased sources, so are SF politicians and Adams himself by definition. That isn't to say we don't include Adams' denial of course. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The claims the Adams is not only a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army but a member of its Army council are widespread and come from very credible sources - therefore its inclusion in the article needs entry. Incase you forgot membership of the PIRA is illegal and its members do not frequently and openly admit to membership and into routinely deny it, therefore it is hardly an surprise that he has denied memership. They claims are sourced from reliable sources (Taylor and Moloney most notably) and therefore this needs to be reflected in the article. --Vintagekits 10:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not contradictory to use sources from Adams on an article about the fellow. Anything he says on the issue is relevant and in keeping with WP:BLP. With regards to not wanting to admit former membership, this claim isn't really valid. Case in point - Martin McGuinness. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So you don't consider Gerry Adams to be a biased source on Gerry Adams? I don't see what McGuinness has to do with it. He admitted IRA membership in court in the 1970s, but he's always denied being Chief of Staff or on the Army Council. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is an article about Gerry Adams. Ergo, his own comments are quite appropriate to use in this article (see WP:SELFPUB for the specific criterion). I referenced Martin McGuinness to highlight that there's no real reason to deny IRA membership. McGuinness has made it clear that he had been a volunteer in the past, and it is not adversely affecting the fellow in the present, as evidenced by his deputy status in the Assembly. Also, my registration code came in from the Irish Independent, and the article about McAuley is as follows: Collins, Geraldine and Moloney, Eugene. "Ahern is wrong about article linking me to IRA - Adams." Irish Independent. 11 March 2004. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, do you consider Gerry Adams to be a biased source on Gerry Adams? Also the article previously said Adams has stated repeatedly that he has never been a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) with this link confirming it. So I'm not really sure what other comments from Adams are needed, other than one source confirming he's always denied IRA membership. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  For our purposes, I consider Adams to be a perfectly source on himself with regards to IRA involvement or more aptly, the lack thereof when viewing Wikipedia's policies on the issue. Another quote from Adams may be necessary with regards to Moloney and the potential libelous material in the book (see this) if we are to use Moloney as a source. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The allegedly libellous material that Adams has failed to take legal action over, and it's now almost five years later? The BBC article is largely the same as the Guardian article anyway. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Protection reduced to semi

  ... based upon two WP:RPP requests and multiple talk page comments. I let this request slide already for 24 hours but am being bold here (poss. even in the Hiberno-English sense of the word. We'll see...). User:Betacommand's comment re WP:BLP still stands, however. Please ensure that everything that goes in here is backed up to the max. I know this is a controversial topic & am not making any statement/endorsement one way or another here. - Alison ☺ 17:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Grammar

  Whether the Irish Minister for Justice was correct or not, he clearly asserted that Adams WAS a member of the IRA, not that he was alleged to be. Mike Moreton 10:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  As is mentioned on this talk page already, Michael McDowell is not a neutral party with regards to this issue and is certainly not a reliable source. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And what about all the sources listed below, Gaillimh? There are seven different authors there and seven different books, all testifying to Adams long and distinguished career in the IRA. This is not a POV issue, its a factual issue. There is no way you can understand Adams' political life without knowing that he masterminded the IRA's political and military strategy since the late 1970s. Jdorney 10:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Firstly, lets not use hyberbole in this discussion. Secondly, this is surely not a "factual issue," as you put it. There is no hard evidence and while people like Taylor and English are respected scholars, they are merely observing the political and historical landscape of the time period and using their knowledge and assumptions to draw their own conclusions. As they're rather qualified to do so, they warrant inclusion and should be used to highlight the opinion that Adams was a volunteer at some point in his life. These sources are not the issue; the issue above is with McDowell's inherent and biased POV towards SF and Adams. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The issue is the deletion of the paragraphs detailing Adams' IRA career. Every author, thinking especially of Moloney here, who knows the IRA from the inside, knows that Adams has been near the top of the Provisional IRA almost since its inception. The writings of all the authors listed below is plenty of evidence, perhaps not for a court of criminal law, but certainly for wikipedia. In a civil trial on the issue, where Adams would have to prove he was never in the IRA, I suspect he would lose, which is why he has never sued any of these authors for libel. The only evidence NOT present for his IRA membership is Adams' acknowledgment of this fact. McDowell may be biased against SF, but he was also Minister for Justice and therefore had access to all Garda intelligence on the matter. So biased or not, he was in a position to know. Jdorney

  Mate, this isolated conversation in regards to McDowell's inherent reliability is the issue here. If you've comments about Moloney or others, please feel free to join the main conversation. Also, it might interest you to know that Adams has called Moloney's book libellous and to say he knows the IRA from the inside out is laughable. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, drop the patronising tone there, 'mate'. The main issue is the content of the article. Where is the 'main conversation'? And if Adams is confident Moloney libelled him, why doesn't he sue? Read the reviews of 'Secret History' by former IRA men in The Blanket and Forthwrite, they don't seem to have a problem with it. Re McDowell, the point here is that he was speaking in his capacity as Minister for Justice, who got his information from the Garda Siochana. So whether or not you like his politics, he has to be regarded as a credible source. Jdorney 07:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The above discussion misses the point - it's discussing whether Adams is a terrorist, not what the Irish Minister accused him of being. The problem I have with this sentence is a problem of grammar, not of fact. Mike Moreton 10:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources

  Listing here for the sake of convenience, please continue discussion in the relevant section above.

  Toby Harnden - Bandit Country ISBN 0-340-71737-8

  • Page 32 - According to intelligence sources, Adams was a member of the Army Council in 1996
  • Page 428-429 - Adams named as Army Council member at the General Army Convention which took place on 10 October 1997

  Peter Taylor - Provos The IRA & Sinn Fein ISBN 0-7475-3818-3

  • Page 140 - Seán Mac Stíofáin (then Chief of Staff of the IRA) confirms everyone who attended the 1972 talks with the British government was an IRA member, including Gerry Adams.
  • Page 201 - Adams admits to being an IRA member when writing under the name "Brownie". Also was arrested on 21 February 1978 following the La Mon Restaurant bombing and charged with IRA membership

  Peter Taylor - Brits ISBN 0-7475-5806-X

  • Page 121 - MI6 agent Frank Steele says he knew Adams to be a senior member of the Belfast Brigade in 1972
  • Page 154 - In 1973 British intelligence believed that Adams was one of the most senior Belfast Brigade members at the time

  Mark Urban - Big Boys' Rules ISBN 0-571-16809-4

  • Page 26 - According to Special Branch, Adams had been commander of the Ballymurphy unit of the PIRA before being interned in 1971. In 1972 he became commander of the Belfast Brigade

  Ed Moloney - A Secret History of the IRA ISBN 0-141-01041-X

  • Page 46 - A year later, when he reached eighteen, Adams's career in the IRA began. He was sworn in to D Company (D Coy) of the Belfast Brigade.
  • Page 70 - Adams was the only serving Belfast IRA man invited. (August 1969)
  • Page 73 - It was not until four months later, in April 1970, that Adams officially brought the Ballymurphy IRA into the Provisionals
  • Page 80 - Gerry Adams and the Ballymurphy unit were the only IRA members to hesitate before taking sides in the split. (1969)
  • Page 87 - And no one was better able to take advantage of this than Gerry Adams, the new commander of the Ballymurphy IRA. (Easter 1970)
  • Page 118 - Adams replaced him [as Belfast commander] and appointed Bell as his adjutant, and Hughes became his operations officer. (September 1972)
  • Page 169 - By the late summer of 1977 Adams had become IRA adjutant general.
  • Page 172 - Adams was the sixth chief of staff in the Provisional IRA's history, and his tenure is distinguished by two features; his reign as military commander was the only one that can be precisely dated, and it was also the shortest. He took over immediately after Twomey's arrest but lost the post seventy-eight days later, on February 18, 1978
  • Page 346 - Adams was a long-standing member of the Army Council
  • Page 380 - With the exception of the short period when he was held in jail after the La Mon bombing, Gerry Adams had been on the Army Council since 1977

  Richard English - The History of the IRA ISBN 0-330-49388-4

  • Page 110 - Between April/May 1971 and March 1972 Gerry Adams was OC of the Provisionals' 2nd Batallion in Belfast; in the latter year he became Adjutant for the Belfast Brigade as a whole. By the time of his arrest on 19 July 1973 he had become OC of the entire Belfast Brigade...Adams was released from prison in 1977 and in the same year became an Army Council member, a position which he was to hold for a long time.

  A couple more if needed as well. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Important quote to clarify Adams' role from Moloney:

  • Page 88 - Other IRA leaders rose because of their record as "operators", as gunmen and bombers. But not Adams. Although he was to dominate the IRA for the next thirty years, there is no evidence that he ever fired a shot in anger against the British or their local allies. "I have never met anyone who has ever been on an operation with him," recalled one early colleague. "Usually you get to hear about people, that so-and-so it a nerveless operator or this one's a wreck and so on, but never with Adams. He was never on a robbery, never on a gun crew, a bombing or anything". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I can't believe that people are making an issue over Adams being a senior IRA figure. This is not even a POV issue, Adams has denied it for practical purposes, since IRA membership is a crime in both states in Ireland. Incidentally, Gaillimh, Danny Morrison was also an IRA member. For the record, further NPOV sources on Adams' IRA career, Eamon Mallie, Patrick Bishop, The Provisional IRA,

  p.317By the time of the August 1969 riots, he was already in the IRA. In its decayed state he rose quickly and according to the security forces, was head of the Ballymurphy IRA by the time he was interned in 1971.

  p.227; Adams was only 23 years old. By the Autumn of 1971 he had taken over as the commanding officer of Second Battallion in Belfast and also joined the Belfast Brigade staff as a second in command or adjutant to [Seamus] Twomey.

  p.241,Gerry Adams, who had succeeded Seamus Twomey as the Belfast Brigade commander, led a pimpernel existence after returning from the London talks, commanding his men from a succession of safe houses and keeping constantly on the move. he was eventually picked up again in 1973 and interned in Long Kesh.

  Brendan O'Brien, the Long War,

  p.121, In 1984, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness went back on the Army Council to steady things.

  And that's just the references I could find easily. Adams' IRA career is well documented in objective sources. Jdorney 21:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Request for Comment:Alleged IRA Membership

  This is a dispute about whether claims of Adams' alleged IRA membership should be included in the article. See here for the claims being removed.

  Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • All of the claims are attributed, referenced and comply with BLP. The above conversations give some background. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 12:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor removing the information has a possible conflict of interest, as they are a self admitted member of the political party Adams is president of. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After much debate on what is and isn't considered a reliable source on this talk page, we agreed to a list of appropriate sources (generally third party Irish and British historians who have been recognised as some of the best in their field), therefore ensuring that the article complied with WP:BLP#Biased_or_malicious_content. However, there was no agreement on how these allegations should be noted in the article. Stubacca's version overstates the issue and employs unreliable and biased primary sources, such as an undercover Special Branch officer, Marian Price, and an unnamed Belfast journalist. His version also uses tenuous "evidence" such as labels most likely added by an editor found only in the caption of a photograph. The current version is much more appropriate in length and still mentions the many respected writers who have alleged that Adams has been part of the IRA. However, it is written in a much more neutral tone, as it gives equal due to the fact that Adams has always denied these claims (most recently, he did so rather vehemently last week on RTÉ during a debate with Labour, Green, and the PD's). The current version adheres to WP:BLP#STYLE while the previous version did not. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current version fails WP:NPOV as it gives undue weight to Adams' denial, whereas every serious book written on the IRA names Adams as a prominent member. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No primary sources are being used, with the possible exception of the photo which I advocated removing some time ago. The undercover Special Branch officer, Marian Price, and an unnamed Belfast journalist are not being used as primary sources, they are being reported by a secondary source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may speak directly to ONIH (I'm about to leave for a bit, so apologies for not continuing this discourse in real time), do you think Stubacca's version is appropriate, or are you advocating a medium between his and the current version? gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer a lengthy prose section detailing his alleged membership, however given the likelihood of it being reverted if I had taken the time to write it, I have not had the energy to do so. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments by uninvolved parties

  An entire section listing each and every item is completely unnecessary and appears tabloidish. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or True Detective. I can see citing a couple instances as examples of evidence and leaving the rest as references, but a laundry list of purported evidence does not belong here. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection if information Cary Bass ^demandez 13:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, exactly. It's a notable allegation denied by the subject, we should present it in those terms, in the simplest way possible and using the two or three best sources, and leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 14:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments

  The allegation is libel, politically motivated, NPOV and should not be given space in the Wiki article. (Sarah777 15:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  So it may be, but it is notable libel, and repeated in a lot of places, many of whihc have a degree of credibility. WP:ATT is your friend. "X, Y and Z have identified Adams as a former member of the IRA; Adams has always denied this" or words to that effect. Guy (Help!) 17:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  This is maybe a bit late, but wasn't there a statement released relatively recently that Adams had resigned from the IRA Army Council? I'd say that was a sure sign as any that he'd been a member. It might suggest the possibility that he is no longer a member but, if the source is reliable, then it means he certainly had been. --Mal 08:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  2007 Dáil Elections

  Adams's perfomance in the 2007 elections in the Republic are felt to have been a factor in his party's relatively poor results there. In The Irish Times on July 14 2007, Political Correspondent Mark Hennessy writes that, "during two much criticised RTÉ television appearances, Adams seemed out of touch with opinion in the Republic, and poorly informed on the economy" Millbanks 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Whats your point regarding this article?--Vintagekits 10:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what you mean by "what's [my] point?". But it might help if I quoted Mark Hennessy's introduction: "Reports of Sinn Féin's demise may be exaggerated, but following a bruising election, it must face some hard truths and regroup". I did go into some concise detail on this in the main article on Sinn Féin, but it seems to have been deleted (unless I can't find it!). I did not go through all Mr Hennessy's points in my comment above, because this (Wikipedia) article is about Gerry Adams in particular and not Sinn Féin in general. In any case, as the Irish Times article says, it would be unfair to blame Mr Adams entirely. Millbanks 15:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So in the context of this article where is this discussion going. You do realise this isnt a discussion forum on politics - there are plenty of places on the internet to have a general chat but this isnt the place. regards.--Vintagekits 20:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Or perhaps you just don't like what I'm saying. You ahd IrishGuy portray me as a troll, and much of what I say is deleted, but all sorts of semi-literate, sectarian, racist junk remains. Anyhow, I tried to put more information about the 2007 elections in the main article on Sinn Féin but someone deleted it very quickly. Millbanks 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  We wouldnt consider you a troll if you ever made contructive edits to articles - you rarely do. Also pleae try and remain WP:CIVIL or you could be blocked, finally please point out where the "sectarian, racist junk" remains and I will personally delete it. If you add well written, balanced and well sourced info to articles no one will delete it. You must realise that much of what you contribute to wiki comes across as purely trolling on talk pages.--Vintagekits 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. So I rarely make constuctive edits? Well, OK, I spend quite a bit of time correcting spelling and punctuation errors, and adding additional information, but I have also contributed three articles recently, on Celia Brayfield, Enda McDonagh and Rosbercon. I have also contributed to the Church of Ireland article, and given a detailed resumé of the Anglican position on the Blessed Virgin Mary - hardly the work of a troll. As for the racist, sectarian comments I refer to, well, go to the Bobby Sands "Discussion", and you'll see under "Ora pro Nobis" a reference to expelling "the anglo saxton heretic". This combines illiteracy, sectarianism and racism in a few words. Also you'll see in the "Discussion" on Irish American Presidents a reference by "IamLondon" to a "fucking list". All a lot worse than a quote about Sinn Féin from Mark Hennessy. Millbanks 08:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  
  

  A spokesman for 'Irish Republicanism'

  You are trying to diminish the role played by dissident republicans. Conypiece 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  No, the dissidents don't have a role in the Republican Movement, the INLA are part of the Irish Republican Socialist Movemenent (IRSM), the CIRA and RSF are part of the Continuity Republican Movement, etc, they are not part of the Republican Movement, nor have they ever played a role in the peace process.--padraig 15:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Thats bit of a sweeping statement. So they don't have a role? Just because you disagree with them does not mean they are irrelevant. They still do have support (quite a bit in some areas). Just because they have not played a role in the peace process does not make them 'unrepublican'. An example would be the DUP and Loyalist community. The DUP represent the majority however it cannot be said they speak for loyalism. CIRA etc may be less significant however they still play a role within Irish Republicanism. Conypiece 15:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry where did I say wether I agree or don't agree with them, the facts speak for themselves they are not part of the Republican Movement to which Sinn Féin are part of.--padraig 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  What facts? On what basis can you say they do not play a role within the republican movement? Conypiece 16:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  They play a role within their own organisations, these organisations have no role in the Republican Movement as outlined in this article, they also played no role in the peace process.--padraig 17:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Within their 'organisations', so Republican Sinn Fein aren't republican? Since when has SF and PIRA held copyright over the term Irish Republicanism. Im sorry but that won't pass with me. How do they have no role? Are they not seeking a 32 republic? Have they not carried out events in the name of republicanism? Conypiece 17:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  They are seperate organisations with no connection between them.--padraig 17:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The UUP & DUP are seperate organisations, yet both represent Unionism. Are Republican Sinn Fein not Irish Republicans? Yes/No? How can you claim SF are the only irish republicans? You missed a few questions above, here they are again, Since when has SF and PIRA held copyright over the term Irish Republicanism. Im sorry but that won't pass with me. How do they have no role? Are they not seeking a 32 republic? Have they not carried out events in the name of republicanism? Thanks. Conypiece 17:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not claimed and neither does the article that they are the only Republicans or they hold copy right over the term, you seem to be engaging in Strawman arguements. I have no interest in what RSF seek or claim they are not discussed or relevent within this article.--padraig 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Im sorry but you did say that No, the dissidents don't have a role in the Republican Movement. So what is the differance? What gives Gerry Adams the right to hold the title of head of Irish Republican Movement? Whether you are interested or not, RSF are still Irish Republicans and would have absolutely nothing to do with Gerry Adams. He does not speak for them. Conypiece 18:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The Republican Movement as clearly refered and stated in this article is Sinn Féin and the provisional IRA, RSF belongs to a seperate Movement called The Continuity Republican Movement therefore one movement dosen't speak for the other or claim to either.--padraig 18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Im sorry but RSF are very much part of the Republican movement. I thought I was meeting you on middle ground when I referred to them as the provisional republican movement however for some reason you are claiming they represent the irish republican movement. The 32CSM INLA et al are all Irish Republicans so are part of the movement. They are not represented by Gerry Adams, so Gerry Adams cannot be called the spokesman for Irish Republicanism Conypiece 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Final decision

  Unless someone can cleatly describe how Gerry Adams represents all of Irish Republicanism, then working in relation to accuracy of articles then the statements will need editing. And please dont revert to using Padraigs above arguement, of RSF aren't republican because he doesn't care about them. Oh and force in numbers doesn't work, im looking for a plain and simple answer. Conypiece 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I HAVEN'T SAID RSF AREN'T REPUBLICANS, don't try and misrepresent what I said, the article makes very clear who and what Gerry Adams represents, it dosen't claim that he speaks for all Republicans.--padraig 23:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Then how come you claim Gerry Adams is the spokesman of the 'Irish Republican Movement'? The provisional movement, yes but not the whole movement. Your reply...? Conypiece 23:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the Irish Republican Movement is the largest of these groups, and consists of Sinn Féin and the provisional Irish Republican Army. The CIRA/RSF and 32CSM/RIRA don't belong or claim to be part of that movement, and have setup rival movements in opposition to the peace process.--padraig 23:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because they are the biggest does not mean they speak for everyone. I notice you were selective with your words, the article claims the 'Irish Republican Movement' not just republican movement. The Irish Republican Movement is an umbrella movement made up of many organisations. I would have thought that was pretty obvious to anyone. So tell me, how does Gerry Adams act as spokesman for the 'Irish Republican Movement'? Conypiece 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody has claimed they speak for everyone.--padraig 00:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  'Adams is a spokesman for the Irish Republican Movement' Should read 'Adams is a spokesman for the Provisional Irish Republican Movement'. Why do you (and others) disagree? Conypiece 00:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply because no such movement exists called the 'Provisional Irish Republican Movement' WP presents facts.--padraig 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  By claiming Adams represent the movement you are clearly pushing your POV, you should look at this page on the Republican Movement (Ireland). You see, there are different ways in which it can be read. Please don't tell me to use facts, when you are the one pushing your opinion. Conypiece 00:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Where am I pushing my opinion, the article clearly states who it refers to.--padraig 01:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You have clearly pushed (well tried to) your view that RSF are not part of the Republican movement (when in fact they are). It is false to say Adams represents Irish Republicanism Conypiece 01:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you anything else to say? If not then you have failed to demonstrate how it is accurate to say Adams can be a spokesman for the movement Conypiece 14:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You seem to have a problem understanding what editors say, or you are deliberately trying to misinterperate what is being said. The article makes very clear who Adams is speaking on behalf of.--padraig 14:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Precision and clarity trump ambiguity and common mistakes of speech. President George Bush may think he's taking his English poodle for a walk but our Encyclopaedia would probably introduce the stance that he was making a State visit to the United Kingdom. All rats are mammals but the reverse is not necessarily true and the various flavours of organisation need to be distinguished precisely (where the taxonomy is precisely known and adequately referenced by reliable sources) as per WP:NOT#ADVOCATE.

  Have you had a chance to actually read WP:NOT#ADVOCATE yet? There are some subtle but basic points there. The Provisional Irish Republican Army is very intent on shoving home at every chance its particularly electorally attractive POV (for provisional SF) that it is the true inheritor to the IRA.

  To lighten the tone a bit, this is what G pointed out to me:

  "Sorry, Brixton, I'm confused. When you say they became the IRA instead of being the Provisional IRA - does that mean they became the Official IRA? Or is there a group out there calling itself "The IRA (accept no substitutes!)"? Do you mean the

  • IRA? Or the
  • IRA? Or the
  • IRA? Or the
  • IRA? Or the
  • IRA? Or the
  • IRA?
  • Irish Army? (And let's not even go near the Irish names and/or translations of all of the above).

  Conclusion: Disambiguation and accuracy are good things. Moral: Always look on the bright side of life.

  (stolen from another user with minor amendments).

  Our readership is not just from Europe you know and you'd hate to see them leave our project more confused than they when they arrived to be informed.

  Precision is always better.

  Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise is not allowed on our project. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views.

  No false "consensus" that can be achieved by team editing, bullying, harassment, Wikilawyering and driving away WP:NPOV editors by tedious and relentless repetition of your desire for ambiguity and imprecision will ever over-ride our policies and guidelines.

  Now I've read all the specious arguments you've advanced in the cause of advancing political propaganda and I doubt I'll ever be convinced that you should succeed in your consistent and concerted campaign of obfuscation - unless of course you wish to e-mail me with NEW information that trumps WP:NOT#ADVOCATE. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. W. Frank ✉  15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]