Talk:Gerry Adams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy.

Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is within the scope of the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
High This article is on a subject of High-importance for Irish Republicanism-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
Crest of Belfast 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.)
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance for Belfast-related articles.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Belfast tasks:
Archive
Archives
Pre-2007 archive


Contents

[edit] 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

So, if someone has a lot of links to a terrorist organization, he is a terrorist. Ridiculous. God, who knows everything is a terrorist so!

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)

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)

"one mans terrorist is an other mans freedom fighter" B*llsh*t. Find some other tired, overused tripe to defend cold-blooded murder of children. And learn to punctuate. 64.132.218.4 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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)


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

A terrorist is someone who kills innocent people deliberately to achieve a political end basically. Of course, given the situation in Northern Ireland at the moment, it is good to see people constructively talking. After all, everyone is human and much more can be achieved by talking than by bloodshed. Not living in Ireland, I don't know what life was like during the troubles, but I imagine that it was as bad as it gets in an MEDC country, and it is at last some stability for the people of the island or Ireland and also for England, Scotland and Wales. Is he a terrorist? Maybe, but it's water under the bridge now; what happened then was very bad, some say without which, democracy would not have been given to Northern Ireland. I doubt that Adams is any more of a terrorist than Paisley, but at the same time, we must all accept that violence is not the answer; it's just not needed in a 21st century society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.153.11 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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

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."

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)
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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

It is legally possible to renounce British Citizenship, see: http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/applying/nationality/formsandguidance/guidern1 --ukexpat 15:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


I second the following comment from above217.42.153.11 (talk) 13:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC) 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.

I am an irish citizen born in the uk but I have never renounced my British Citizenship, does that make me british. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.100.40 (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

Sounds like a reasonable request to me given the discussions above and below. Admins? --ElKevbo 23:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done - Alison ☺ 18:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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 gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
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 gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 gaillimhConas tá tú? 23:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 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)

I was more concerned by the disgraceful conduct of two admins, to be fair. One Night In Hackney303 23:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
I'm sorry - I missed that. Can you please point out that threat? Thanks! --ElKevbo 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)


  • 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)

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)
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)
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)
I wasn't referring to O'Callaghan, I was referring to Moloney, Taylor etc. One Night In Hackney303 18:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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? gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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 gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 12:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 15:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 21:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 15:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 20:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

[edit] 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)
  • 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)
  • 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. gaillimhConas tá tú? 12:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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? gaillimhConas tá tú? 13:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)

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)
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))
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)

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)

[edit] 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)

Whats your point regarding this article?--Vintagekits 10:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Or perhaps you just don't like what I'm saying. You and 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)
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)

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)

[edit] A spokesman for 'Irish Republicanism'

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] 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)

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

'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)

Simply because no such movement exists called the 'Provisional Irish Republican Movement' WP presents facts.--padraig 00:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
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)
Where am I pushing my opinion, the article clearly states who it refers to.--padraig 01:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
What has that got to do with this discussion, and by the way what is this e-mail you with new information crap, are you trying to set yourself up as judge and jury here.--padraig 15:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
It has got everything to do with this discussion, its shows that there are many organisatioins within the 'movement'. Oh and please do try to remain civil. Conypiece 15:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
There are not many organisations within the movement, there are other organisations in other movements but they have no connection between them.--padraig 15:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
But they all claim to be Irish Republicans. That is their connection Conypiece 16:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The DUP and UUP and PUP claim to be Unionists but there is no connection between them, so what is your point the article clearly states who it is refering to.--padraig 20:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They claim to be Irish republicans but do not consider themselves to be part of the Republican Movement that is left to Sinn Fein and the PIRA. BigDunc 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, That is exactly my point, the DUP/UUP/PUP etc are all in favour unionism yet not one of them can claim to be its spokesman. Conypiece 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
BigDunc, We are trying to use facts in this discussion. What you said is clearly not, (refer to Republican Movement (Ireland)). Please make sure you understand what we are talking about before you comment. Regards Conypiece 22:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be the only one confused here.--padraig 22:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I would not agree with Paisley being called Unionisms Spokesman (for the reasons stated above, likewise I do not agree with Adams being called Republicanisms Spokesman. Is that simple enough for you? So tell me, how is Adams spokesman? (and dont say you have answered it already) Conypiece 22:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has claimed that Adams is a spokeperson for all Republicians, the article makes very clear who he is a spokeperson for.--padraig 23:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it does, Adams is a spokesman for the Irish Republican Movement which encompasses Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). So please point out to me were all the other Irish Republicans are? I can't seem to find them in that statement. Conypiece 23:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would they be in that statement, the statement is clear that he is not speaking on behalf of anyone outside of the Irish Republican Movement, therefore he wouldn't be speaking on behalf of RSF/CIRA in the Continuity Republican Movement or the IRSP/INLA of the Irish Republican Socialist Movement, or 32CSM/RIRA, your strawman arguement are getting boring at this stage.--padraig 23:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? RSF/INLA/CIRA/RIRA etc etc are all members of the Irish Republican movement. You disagree, but it is fact. When you talk about there not being a Provisional movement, then there is also no such thing as a Continuity movement. You are contradicting yourself here. I have tried to meet you half way but so far are refusing to budge of your POV. Conypiece 23:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have little understanding of Republicanism or the various groups and movements involved, the Continuity Republican Movement is the name they themselves refer to themselves as. There has never been a provisional movement.--padraig 23:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you back up that? Can you give me sources where they describe themselves as being part of thecontinuity irish republican movement? Careful though, Im looking for the movement, not what they call their organisation. Please look at Republican Movement (Ireland). It is a fact that they are considered part of the overall movement (however much you disagree). Conypiece 23:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep directing editors to look at Republican Movement (Ireland) is this the definitive article on the republican movement, what you are directing padraig and myself too is an unreferenced and possibly biased article, is that the only article you are using to back up your argument and I dont appreciate your patronising tone to my comment on this discussion.BigDunc 09:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No Dunc, I am only trying to get you to come out of your shell. The republican movement is a umbrella movement that intakes dozens of different organisations. This is fact. However you and padraig believe for some reason you know more than fact, whether you like it or not PIRA/SF are not the only Irish Republicans. Now Padraig referred to the continuity movement (out of desperation I think) and I am still waiting for my reply to above. Conypiece 10:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the fact you keep going on about of course there are numerous republican groups no one disputes that and as I said who or what is the provisional movement.BigDunc 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thats why provisional movement was in '...'. My basic point is, the republican movement is massive in regards to the number of organisations that claim to be part of it. SF/PIRA are no more entitled to the claim as spokesman as RSF etc etc. Conypiece 11:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are still not telling me who the provisional movement are groups claim to be republican but do not claim to be part of the republican movement Fianna Fail is a perfect example the republican movement is made up of Sinn Fein and the PIRA iI am trying to find a source for this statement before I am accused of bias again.BigDunc 11:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So simple question needs only a simple answer, are RSF part of the Irish Republican Movement? (and try to step away from your idea of pira & sf are the only groups involved). Conypiece 11:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No according to Tim Pat Coogan in his book The IRA, RSF split from the republican movement at the Ard Fheis in 1986. Is that simple enough.BigDunc 11:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you have no longer think there is a grouping called the provisional movement as I have read your comment on padraig talk page "I have already told you that no such thing exists" so hopefully you wont be putting it back in to this article. BigDunc 12:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mean to be rude but, read up on the history of RSF before you make sweeping statements. The RSF was only created in 1986, they split from SF there. However they still see themselves as part of the Republican Movement, neither you nor I have the right to deny them that. Understand? I have never said "Provisional" was a official term, however it is a category that could be used to describe SF & PIRA, the groups involved. Conypiece 13:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
BigDunc, does your lack of reply mean you agree with me? Conypiece 20:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
"...That the Army Council was...the supreme authority in the Republican Movement. That Sinn Fein is an autonomous and independent organisation but if it wishes to remain within the Republican Movement it's policy must conform with Army policy." History of the IRA Brendan O'Brein. Is that any good for you now show me a quote or reference that disproves this thanks. BigDunc 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see that whole paragraph if you wouldn't mind? For clarity. Conypiece 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece could you tell me who are considered to be Irish Republican Dissidents. BigDunc 09:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece are you going to answer my question.? BigDunc 02:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
BigDunc, I haven't been on wiki in a few days, for I do not feel the need to refresh my watchlist 40 times a day, unlike a number of obvious editors... Anyhow, Im still waiting for you to publish that full paragraph (as asked 4 days ago). Oh and in answer to your above question, anyone self declared republican orginisation who are not on ceasefire, or organisations who don't recognise NI, the Dail etc etc, RSF CIRA RIRA etc etc. Conypiece 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Conypiece your wording is totaly mis-representing the facts Adams is not a spokesperson for the IRA, but as President of Sinn Féin he is regarded as a spokesperson for the Republican Movement, which consists of the IRA and Sinn Féin, your wording is libelous.--padraig 12:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, please don't lower yourself to them 'threats'. It just doesn't work on me. I know what and what is not regarded as libelous. Now back to the issue, just because he is president of SF does not mean he is spokesman of the movement. This has all been said above, you have yet to explain why CIRA RIRA are not part of the movement. All you have said so far was they were part of the continuity movement, of which there is no such thing. So please try to answer this, why are CIRA RSF etc not Irish Republicans involved with the movement? Conypiece 12:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Coneypiece, The article clearly states who it is refering to when it says he is a spokesperson for the Irishrepublican Movement, nowhere does it claim that he speaks on behalf of other groups, you are using strawman arguements to cause disruption on this article. It has already been explained to you a number of times that there are a number of different republican movements all independent of each other.--padraig 13:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again you have not answered a question asked ( I wonder why that is...). Yes is clearly states who the Irish Republican Movement refers to, however that is grossly inaccuate for it has mentioned only a fraction of the groups that make up the movement. And no you have not explained how the movement RIRA are in is different to the movement PIRA are in. Please do that. Conypiece 13:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Why would it mention groups that it is not refering to and which it dosen't claim to speak on behalf of, or which are not part of the movement to which Adams belongs to.--padraig 13:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, you have not answered the above question. Why are RIRA not part of the republican movement while PIRA are? Thats a pretty simple question, there is no need for you to duck for cover every time. Conypiece 13:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Because they left the Republican Movement, when they refused to accept the decision by the IRA Army convention, to call a ceasefire and engage in the peace process, then then went on to create a new separate republican movement containing the RIRA and the 32 County Sovernity Committee who later became the 32 County Sovernity Movement.--padraig 16:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
By leaving the Republican Movement I assume you mean the SF/IRA? Once again you have said that SF/IRA are the sole members of the movement. Now by going by your (inaccuate) definition of Irish Republicanism, peace loving democratic etc, then why do you not accept Fianna Fail to be part of the movement? Also one more question, according to your definition once again, are RSF part of the movement? After all they left long before 1998. Oh and have you saw this page Republican Movement (Ireland). Either that entire article is wrong or you are. Conypiece 16:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Brendan O’Brien, in his history of the IRA, in the chapter entitled “Fighting to a Stalemate” says in the opening line, “Committed as it was to its military and political strategy, the Republican movement found itself unable to reach beyond a certain level of success.” BigDunc's, quote above also difines who the IRA define as the “Republican Movement.” Unless Conypiece, you come up with more than your opinion, there is not much more to add. As to your post on my page [2], and your threatened intensions, I suggest you read page guidelines, and also a little about civility. As to your pending references backing up your opinion, just bear in mind the burden of evidence is now on you. --Domer48 17:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah its good to see you have learnt how to add links in, now you only have to understand the pages you are linking to. That is one source, and one source only. If you want links to how SF/PIRA are not the sole organisations in the Republican Movement please google the term. I have provided a link a number of times above (Republican Movement (Ireland)) which has been completely avoided. Do you dismiss that entire article as incorrect? Conypiece 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh and Padraig, I've asked you questions above. God its like getting blood out of a stone sometimes around here. Conypiece 20:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece show a verifiable, reliably sourced reference, to back up your POV. I’m still waiting. That link your putting forward is hardly sourced. In fact it should be called Irish Republicanism. Oh look if you add links Irish Republicanism, it has an article. That page you mention is not worth a toss, were is the verifiably, and reliably sourced reference to back up your POV. I’m afraid that the policy prove it is down to you. Now again, were is your source? --Domer48 20:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece that one reference is more than you have offered, and by the way “Brendan O’Brien has reported on Northern Ireland as RTE’s senior current affairs reporter since 1974, and has made three major documentaries about the IRA. He has won many awards for investigative journalism, including European Journalist of the Year 1998 and the Amnesty International Award 2001.” Could I just remind you again about civility, you have already been told once already, thanks --Domer48 20:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece what question have you asked above, the one about Fianna Fail, they don't regard themselves as being part of any republican movement so why would they be included, and neither do the Workers'Party of Ireland today. RSF/CIRA broke away from the Irish Republican Movement, when the members of what became the CIRA, refused to accept the decision of the delegates at the IRA Army Convention, which is the supreme decision making body of that organisation when in session. They then resigned from the Army and set up a rival organisation. In the case of RSF those that formed that party or organisation after they walked out of the 1986 Sinn Féin Ard Fheis after they lost the vote which ended abstentionism where deemed expelled from the party and the Republican Movement for setting up a rival party and for refusing to accept the decision of the Ard Fheis which is the supreme decision making body of the party. The fact that the formed another Republican movement has no bearing on this article.--padraig 00:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
RSF/CIRA broke away from the Irish Republican Movement, when the members of what became the CIRA, refused to accept the decision of the delegates at the IRA Army Convention, which is the supreme decision making body of that organisation when in session. That is entirely your own opinion though! Have you not been listening to me?! The army council may be the supreme authority in your eyes however that is a POV. Give me a link, a web link (not a ref to some random book about the provos) that states that the Army Council have complete control of the Republican Movement. Yes I already know the CIRA set up there own organisation, but also set up their own movement?! What was that? RSF were not expelled from the Republican Movement. They left SF yet remained in the movemnent. Why do you think otherwise? What is this other republican movement which you so fondly talk about? Conypiece 00:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No that is not my POV that is the opinion giving by the IRA and Sinn Féin themselves, which is supported in many different books on the subject, I have no personal opinion on the subject other then what sources provide to support that. You are trying to push a opinion that there is only one Republican Movement made up of many groups, that is WP:OR which is not supported by any creditable sources.--padraig 01:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So Conypiece you consider RSF, CIRA and RIRA to be dissedents? According to the definition of dissedents I found on WP "A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively opposes an established opinion, policy, or structure", and would they be dissenting from the republican movement and if your answer is no why do you not consider PIRA as dissedents? BigDunc 12:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Padraig, you said that it is the opinion giving by the IRA and Sinn Féin themselves. That is exactly my point! Thank you, you have finally admitted that this is the SF/PIRA position, however that is their pov and not fact. Wiki is about facts not stating individual POV's. Now do you understand why it is unacceptable to have that statement within Adams' page? Oh and also, you have yet to provide a credible link stating that sf/pira are the sole members of the movement. Conypiece 00:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Bigdunc, erm ever thought that you can dissent yet remain? My answer is to your question is yes, they are dissenting from the established position of the movement, they are going against the SF majority, but that does not mean they are not part of the movement. Understand? Conypiece 00:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah good point of course uou can dissent and remain look at disscusion on Ogra Shinn Fein but none of the groups you mention have remained but have set up there own rival movements. BigDunc 10:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
BigDunc, can you provide a link to a page that confirms that the dissidents did indeed set up a rival movement? Oh and if that is fact then you should be able to come up with better than a sketchy quote from a single book on the history of the IRA. Conypiece 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, are you going to reply or will I need to go to your talk page again? Conypiece 22:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It is also the opinion of RSF/CIRA that they are the only republican movement, this article makes it very clear who it is refering to.--padraig 23:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I knew you were going to say that! Mefinks you're becoming too predictable. Yea is says the Irish Republican Movement, but then goes on to mention only SF/IRA. Why? Now one last time, give me a clear straightforward simple link that prooves SF/PIRA are the only members of the IRM? Conypiece 23:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] page break

And under what authority do you have to dismiss entire Wiki articles, to claim it is not worth a toss. Now please, I am trying to remain fair here but you need to come into discussions with a more open mind. You have to be willing to accept what you say may sometimes be wrong or at least inaccurate. Now verifiable source, you have yet to produce the full paragraph that I have asked to be published twice already. Reliably sourced, you have produced one article from one individual. Now here are a few random sources. ,here ,here ,here ,here (RSF announcement) ,here ,here

Now you only have to provide me links that dismiss CIRA, RIRA, C32M, RFS, INLA, Workers Party etc are not part of the movement. One at a time if you wouldn't mind... :) Conypiece 21:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Conypiece, I think you really need to read this. Can you provide a reference which backs up your point, which is reliably sourced. If you read WP:RS, you will begin to understand why your links have not addressed your point.--Domer48 23:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all you have yet to provide me with your above source in full. Secondly I posted links above, some more reliable than others, however this was intentional to show you the scope of people that see themselves as part of the movement. If RSF stand up and say they are part of the movement, and that that is their official stance then they are. There are no entrance requirements; if you are an organisation and you aim to achieve an All Island Republic then you are part of the movement. Now you have yet to disprove this statement. You have included 1 sketchy extract from a book. I have provided 6 weblinks, I could post another 66. I think you will have to come up with something better. Regards Conypiece 23:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Coneypiece I have just explained all this on your talk page, so unless you can prove otherwise your claims are WP:OR.--padraig 23:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
And you should check the links. Conypiece 23:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece please read this. When you have you will understand the point I'm making. --Domer48 23:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah that was fun, anyhow I think I have gave you enough sources; 6 links and even an entire wiki article which you have described as being not worth a toss. Yet that is clearly your pov pushing through there. So when are you going to provide me with this source of yours in full, instead of a chapter title and a sketchy extract? Conypiece 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Two links refering to RSF one their website the other one of which is indymedia, one to Fair, one about the IRB, the workers party website that proves nothing, one to a google group page, do under understand what a reliable source means.--padraig 23:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Read above, there were varying ranges of reliability to illustrate the scope of people involved. If RSF consider themselves part of the movement, which their aims do, then they are part of the movement, just because SF disagree does not mean it is right. The movement is not united, it doesn't need to be. Can you provide a link (a web link) stating that PIRA and PSF are the sole members in the Republican Movement? You also have yet to provide a link in which CIRA RSF etc claim they are not in the movement, can you do that now. :) Conypiece 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If the IRA, considered themselves an Army, and their prisoners as prisoners of war, why have they not got a category which says that? You are obviously confusing Republicanism with the Republican Movement. You have said it yourself, RSF consider themselves to be the Republican Movement, who else dose. It says quite clearly in the text you have a problem with, who is being referred to when the term is used. So your argument is just semantics. Now again, answer the first question I asked, and having read WP:RS you will understand why you have yet to provided a reference. --Domer48 08:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't a clue where half that stuff out of that last comment came from. POW's? Own catergory? I didn't realise we were talking about that, of wait, we're not. Now either re-write that again in a way that can actually be read and understood or realise that it was just nonsense. I actually asked you to provide a link (a web link) stating that PIRA and PSF are the sole members in the Republican Movement? Also to provide a link in which CIRA RSF etc claim they are not in the movement? Ah but at least you are learning padraigs skills (good/bad you decide) of avoiding answering questions. I have already provided a wiki link, Republican Movement (Ireland), however you dismissed it straight away. It has sources etc, how is it not relaible? Conypiece 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
BTW Padraig, are you not going to answer the above question. Or do I need to constantly remind you on your talk page, I don't mind Conypiece 23:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full Protected

I have protected this article for 48 hours to end the current revert-warring. Please use the talk page to reach an agreement otherwise escalating blocks are going to be applied to anyone continuing to disrupt the article. Please nudge me on my talk page if the semi-protect doesn't re-engage after the full protection expires. Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Conypiece 10:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I doubt the team will ever agree to implement our policies in spirit.
All is not lost, though. What do you think of our WP:NAM essay and its paragraph: "If both sides of the dispute cite mainstream experts, then the discussion and its references can move to the article in suitably encyclopedic language. The editors need not reach a consensus or a compromise. It is enough to describe the controversy in neutral terms and to offer the best evidence for both sides. This approach can enrich the article." ?
Could this be the way forward?  W. Frank talk ✉  17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, since we don't often measure quality by the numbers, how will you identify who is disrupting and which of our team editors are just pushing the electoral agenda of the moment? W. Frank talk ✉  17:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vatican edits

Probably been pointed out elsewhere but I saw on the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm :

The site also indicates that Vatican computers were used to remove content from a page about the Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams. The edit removed links to newspaper stories written in 2006 that alleged that Adams's finger prints and hand prints were found on a car used during a double murder in 1971. The section, titled "Fresh murder question raised" is no longer available through the online encyclopaedia.
I saw this also. The section needs to be reinserted at once, and an admin needs to do it considering the current dispute. 195.137.85.173 19:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I saw this too - someone needs to go back through the edits and verify this and reinstate it at once if it is cited. - 81.174.157.135 20:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes the vulgar international fascism of the catholic church (the true source of the political ideology of fascism) must be fought and this hideous organization of pure evil and repression must not be allowed to indimidate and supress investigation of their murderous machinations the same way they have tried to protect their rampant legions of child molesting priests they have set loose on an unsuspecting world.posted by 88.112.225.80
Indeed, someone please reinstate this pertinant infoi whitewashed by the Vatican - if no one does I will do so.Chrisp7 21:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

How utterlly disgusting. I seriously hope this gets more exposure. How damning for both the catholic church and gerry adams apologists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.8.190 (talk • contribs)

I find much disturbing that The Vatican wants to preserve the reputation of a murderous terrorist as Gerry Adams. Too bad for them that wikipedians and the journalists discovered this, so they did a very bad spectacle. --82.56.177.70 07:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to get the story straight here:

  • The Vatican edit (made from an address belonging to Radio Vaticana, was this one, made on 17 October 2006.
  • It was reverted three minutes later by Demiurge.
  • Then, in this edit on 27 April 2007, Ireland5553 (a user with no other edits) removed the paragraph completely.
  • Cometstyles reverted ten minutes later.
  • Five minutes after that, in this edit, Vintagekits undid the revert.

In other words, the edit from a Vatican-owned computer was dealt with after five minutes; if someone wants that paragraph reinserted, try discussing it with the user who removed it rather than making this an exercise in Vatican-bashing. Cnyborg 22:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean I am famous??--Vintagekits 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it means that you are a Vatican or Sinn Féin supporter. --Olpus 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The order of operations listed here is wrong. The text should be reinserted immediately, and those who wish to see it removed should do the discussing -- preferably in the context of a formal Wikipedia setting. Allowing parties to arbitrarily censor information and then have to be convinced to restore it is not sound editing practice. W. B. Wilson 04:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The text is as follows:
In October 2006, it was alleged that Adams's finger and hand-prints were found on a stolen car allegedly used during the murders of RUC men Cecil Cunningham (46) and John Haslett (21) in 1971.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2383263,00.html Paisley, Brady in historic meeting] by Christopher Morgan and Liam Clarke, ''[[The Times]]'', [[1 October]] [[2006]]</ref><ref>[http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1698223&issue_id=14715 Adams Prints Murder Link] by Alan Murray, ''[[The Sunday Independent]]'', [[1 October]] [[2006]]</ref> However, no link between Adams and the killings, or between the burned out car and the killings, has been shown. The link is, therefore, entirely speculative.
Could do with some work, but it is referenced and probably should be reinserted once the protection expires. Stu ’Bout ye! 07:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Well sourced and notable, should be in when the protection is lifted. (Hypnosadist) 02:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
W. B. Wilson, the order of operations that I've listed is correct. There could however be another edit that I've missed in between, son that it's incomplete, but I've looked through all the edits between the first removal in October 2006 and the final removal in april 2007. While I don't mind at all if the information is reinserted (but it should probably be updated; what has happened in the months that have passed), I find it strange that this only becomes a problem when it turns out that a computer owned by the Vatican was used in a previous edit (which by the way, as can be seen in the edit history, didn't remove the whole paragraph; both edits from the Vatican computer look more like vandalism that an attempt at political editing). The paragraph was removed three and a half months ago, by an established user; why was there no reaction in that period from any of those involved in editing the article? Cnyborg 16:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Some of these comments are brilliant but had to check it was not April Fools Day. And I thought that the pope was supposedly a Nazi, no all wrong he is a Provo. You have to laugh. BigDunc 16:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

So the “Team” [3] are going to be accused of “Conversion” and well as “Subversion.” This is a joke! --Domer48 16:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

"why was there no reaction in that period from any of those involved in editing the article?" My hypothesis would be that most independent minded and fair editors were driven away by harassment and the false "consensus" of the team. It's very easy for a passing admin to think that one editor is out of step and edit warring when that admin is faced with the massed ranks (hyperbole - it's usually just 5 or 6) of team editors marching in elegant lockstep. Sometimes the Emperor really does have no clothes. Personally I doubt that all of the team are devout Roman Catholics and, even if they were, that would be rather irrelevant here. The point I'm trying to make is that many of them are ignorant "me-toos" and the others don't have sufficient understanding of NPOV to restore material that is harmful to their political agenda W. Frank talk ✉  17:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I am getting a little tired of your personal abuse. Calling into question editors religion or lack there of is not on, also your constant references to editors as a team and calling them "ignorant "me-toos"" is a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as its accusing them of being POV pushers.--Vintagekits 22:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not a very argumented defence, indeed. You should tell to us why you cancelled that paragraph, and why you don't try to NPOV that if you think that it was POV about Gerry Adams. You can't just send back the accuses moved to you without explaining your actions. --Olpus 08:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You are asking me to explain a revert I made a number of months ago! I would have to look into it before I give an answer - however, I do not expect sectarian abuse or being called ignorant! If you think that is acceptable then maybe I should end this discussion now.--Vintagekits 17:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's another link about the Vatican editing, from Irish state radio.RTÉ Radio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fenian Swine (talk • contribs) 12:12:45, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Here's a story from Catholic News Agency in which the Vatican responds to criticism about the edits http://catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10168. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.197.75 (talk) 20:17, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question for Padraig

Thats why provisional movement was in "...", understand? Yes I know what your preferred statement reads, and I also know that is either an inaccurate POV/ or lies on your part. Now lets change the focus back to you (you deflected it above), what makes CIRA less a right to be considered part of the Republican Movement? You made a statement earlier, about them being part of a Continuity movement, can you back that up? Conypiece 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For the last time there are a number of different movements that refer to themselves as X Republican Movement, This article refers to the largest of these The Irish Republican Movement and makes it very clear that in this case it refers to Sinn Féin and the provisional IRA nobody else, and Gerry Adams is regarded as a spokeperson for that movement, therefore there is no need to mention other movements that Adams isn't a spokeperson for, nor would there be a need on Ruairí Ó Brádaigh article to mention any other movement when saying he is a spokesperson for the Continuity Republican Movement.--padraig 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As has being pointed out above:
"...That the Army Council was...the supreme authority in the Republican Movement. That Sinn Fein is an autonomous and independent organisation but if it wishes to remain within the Republican Movement it's policy must conform with Army policy."
Ruairí Ó Brádaigh broke away from the "Republican Movement" in 1986. 32 County broke away from the “Republican Movement” over the Good Friday Agreement. They both set up their own organisations. The reference above is quite clear! Please assume good faith, and I hope this helps. --Domer48 08:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
He did not break away from the movement, he broke away from 1 section of the movement to form another, in a way he was widening the movement. Conypiece 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange conclusion

It is strange that from one computer from "THE" Vatican, the conclusion is: THE Vatican did it. Is that fair? Georges42 05:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No. It's absolutely not a fair conclusion. Anyone (a local cleaner for example) can use an anonymous account (IP or otherwise) to introduce bias into our articles. That's why, for a very small subset of articles that are continually subject to introduced bias by team editors, there should be 3 procedures:
  1. Article mentorship
  2. Articles should be edited only by "trusted" editors that have established their bona fides to a member of Arbcom with checkuser privileges
  3. Members of Arbcom should also be empowered to check all new applications for "trusted editor" status against the IP addresses of edits to avoid meat and socket puppetry issues.
And, of course, there is another issue which everybody carefully skirts around.
It's "the elephant in the room" [4]:
 W. Frank talk ✉  09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no "team editing" conspiracy to distort articles as you keep alleging. There is however, WP:Irish Republicanism that seeks to improve articles relating to Irish Republicanism of which many on your hypothetical "team editors" participate in. Your suggestions also go against the fundamental principle of wikipedia, namely that anyone can edit any article. If you disagree with this then maybe wikipedia isn't for you.GiollaUidir 16:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The computer used in the edits was a Vatican one: particulary it was a computer in Radio Vaticana. The Vatican bosses may be not involved, and they may don't know this fact, but they are responsible for this edits in Wikipedia since it was done by an employee of them. If they not ordered that person to edit the article, they should clearly explain that, and maybe take censorship measures on their employee for a such conduct. --Olpus 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If you are so concerned about it get in touch with Radio Vaticana about it.--padraig 08:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Padraig, in my statement before yours I was answering to Georges42, as you can understand watching the number of colon I used. I am not only concerned about Radio Vaticana, I am scandalized of this example of obscurantism. Actually, I am italian and catholic, and this made me more angry of this recent discovery. --Olpus 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team editing to make provisional SF more electorally attractive

WP:NOT#ADVOCATE is official policy on the English Wikipedia.

It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, and other articles relating to the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), please ensure that your revision reflects our policy that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. Therefore, Wikipedia content is not:

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. 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.

2. Opinion pieces on current affairs or politics. Although current affairs and politics may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete.

3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopaedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself and your friends. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Currently we have a team of editors (including, but not limited to: User:Brixton Busters, User:BigDunc, User:Domer48, User:GiollaUidir, User:Padraig, User:Scalpfarmer, User:Vintagekits) that edit a consistent set of our articles in such a way as to introduce a consistent bias and ambiguity.

These editors act in relay to avoid technically breaching 3RR and consistently seek to push a minority (in Europe) point of view. That rare (but still significant) POV is one that is endorsed by PIRA and their political wing and is to the immeidate political electoral advantage of provisional SF.

The pattern to these team editors' contributions is as follows:

(1) There have been, and are currently, many flavours of political organisations including in their name the letters "IRA". These team editors consistently seek to muddy and obfuscate the distinctions between the pre 1920 IRA, the Continuity IRA (CIRA), the Official IRA (OIRA), the Provisional IRA (PIRA), the Real IRA (RIRA), and other sects. They do this by trying to obliterate any reference that clarifies that it is PIRA that is meant in our article - preferring instead the wholly ambiguous "IRA". The political purpose of these team edits is to reduce the significance of the competing groupings as compared to PIRA.

(2) These team editors consistently seek to muddy and obfuscate the distinctions between the pre 1920 IRA, CIRA, OIRA, PIRA, RIRA and other sects. They do this in order to mislead our readers into believing that PIRA is the direct political heir of the pre 1920 IRA and achieve greater "electoral respectability" for provisional SF thereby. This is why the team editors engage in revert warring to try to obliterate any reference that clarifies that PIRA is meant in our articles and instead insert the wholly ambiguous "IRA" instead. The political purpose of these team edits is again to reduce the political significance of the competing groupings and enhance that of current political groupings sympathetic to PIRA.

(3) They seek to remove any reference to terrorism and the victims of terrorism – except when they are "PIRA-approved victims" as in our Bloody Sunday (1972) article – as in our Bloody Friday (1972)‎ article. Compare and contrast our articles with PIRA involvement and our articles with Islamic terrorist involvement. Note the lede in World Trade Center bombing where the team's interest and influence is extremely low and the howls of anguish when that "naughty word" is used correctly to reflect the overwhelming available authoritative sources with regard to PIRA actions where non-combatants were murdered and mutilated.

According to Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable." W. Frank talk ✉  09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been spamming this nonsense on every article where his POV pushing has been rejected, he has also made it clear that he has no interest in discussing the issue, and intends to continue to edit war on the issue.--padraig 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Rejected by whom? The team editors [5].
And I've only posted (different variations of this warning) on 4 separate talk pages - your team's been busy making exactly the same biassed and politically motivated edits on dozens of articles.
The team editors' definition of an edit war includes any edit by anyone who makes an edit that does not meet their own systematic political sanitisation campaign of the Provisional IRA (PIRA).  W. Frank talk ✉  12:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to enter dispute resolution, you have been made aware of the relevant channels. Brixton Busters 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

{Editconflict}

The first stage is usually to engage the disputing editor(s) on their user talk pages. You make that rather difficult to do by expunging whole sections rather than archiving. eg: [6]
However, I do feel that there may be a distinct improvement towards a more neutral point of view being implemented in our PIRA related articles now that the "elephant in the room" has been spotted at last.
On that basis I'll stop editing PIRA related articles fora while as advised by administrator Spartaz Humbug. If there is no improvement over the course of the next few weeks, then I'll take your good advice. W. Frank talk ✉  13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you not comment without attacking other editors and admins his name is Spartaz, yet as for your normal style you seem to try and insult anyone that disagrees with you.--padraig 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Note to Spartaz: I tried not to copy your main text/superscript style, since that would be akin to forging a signature. No offence was intended and I specifically ask that you, Spartaz (and no other) amend my comment made at 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC) in any way you feel appropriate. I am truly sorry if I have, indeed, caused any unintended offence. W. Frank talk ✉  13:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Have a read WP:NAM W.Frank and chill out its not a conspiracy against WP or you. BigDunc 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I entirely agree that the "conspiracy" has an electoral and political (and possibly fund-raising) focus and is not aimed at enhancing the encyclopaedic qualities of our project. I also agree that both team and independent editors should sit and cogitate for a wee while before hitting the revert button W. Frank talk ✉  14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I've re-read that pertinent essay and this phrase leaps out: "If both sides of the dispute cite mainstream experts, then the discussion and its references can move to the article in suitably encyclopedic language. The editors need not reach a consensus or a compromise. It is enough to describe the controversy in neutral terms and to offer the best evidence for both sides. This approach can enrich the article."
Obviously this may be very tricky in the biography of a living person - especially a prominent politician - but that approach certainly has scope in other PIRA related articles.
We could have a section with PIRA's point of view (that they have always been heroic freedom fighters that only ever targeted wicked lackies of an oppressive neo-colonialist state and thus are the true heirs and successors of Michael Collins(duly referenced)
and other sections (duly referenced) that hint that, at least occasionally, children, mothers and teenagers were blown to bits and maimed in a sloppy and careless (and unnecessary) campaign of terrorism that ultimately failed in its stated aim of establishing a united island (since PIRA has not exactly been an advocate for brotherly love and reconciliation and the Irish Republic has now renounced its historical claim to the territory of Northern Ireland) W. Frank talk ✉  15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated below contentious passages about the PIRA don't belong in Gerry Adam's biography. Give it up. GiollaUidir 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:TPG - Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Also as you're so fond of quoting WP:NOT, perhaps you might want to stop soapboxing yourself?
If you are so keen for quotes about the IRA for use in articles, may I recommend these?
Brixton Busters 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand.

There has been guidance (both from admins and from our published guide lines on article discussion pages) that discussion should be centralised.

This section that I started was to point out that there are consistent agendas of obfuscation being operated by team editors on a range of PIRA related articles.

If you look at the sections above, you will see that there is a significant cited viewpoint that Adams has/had a PIRA connection. Here's one example [7]

I'm sure you'll be aware by now of my own consistent agenda - that we are trying to write an encyclopaedia with a neutral point of view and the alternative to writing out "Provisional IRA" at every mention is to mention it once (with a piped link to our article) and then use a consistent an non-ambiguous acronym or abbreviation. Now I don't really mind what set of letters is used (as long as its not "IRA" which risks confusion with the Old IRA, OIRA, RIRA, CIRA etc) but you have yet to advance a convincing argument as to why we should not use the distinguishing, logical and frequently used PIRA? What is your exact objection to adding the distinguishing single letter?

And please don't give me that old chestnut about "IRA" being the most common short form. I'll concede that willingly. In my town, people most commonly ask to borrow a biro (not a ballpoint pen) and do the Hoovering (rather than utilise a vacuum cleaner). However, this is an encyclopaedia project (not the office of the editor that writes headlines for tabloid newspapers). We can do better than that or the instant remarks of (even very senior) politicians when they were asked to comment on news of the latest PIRA atrocity.

The kindest thing I could say about the team editors efforts is that they introduce ambiguity and inexactitude and dumb down our project but - on the evidence so far - I still believe that there is another agenda in operation here; I stand by my comment about a political agenda. W. Frank talk ✉  17:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a centralised discussion which you refused to take part in where a consensus has been agreed, and the consensus is to continue to use "IRA" not the obscure and POV "PIRA". I have no further comment to make on this subject. Brixton Busters 17:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits urgently needed to temporarily protected article

{{editprotected}} In the second paragraph of {the article} page, the text currently reads:

"Adams has long been a spokesman for the "Provisional movement" which encompasses Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland."

The PIRA is NOT a proscribed organisation, it is a terrorist organisation (according to the laws of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland)

Proscription is described as "decree of condemnation to death or banishment" by the oxford english dictionary. The PIRA and it's members have NOT been condemned to death or banishment

A terrorist is described as "a person who uses or favours violent or intimidating methods of coercing a government or community" (also oxford english dictionary)

I dont think there can be any argument that: a) The PIRA is NOT a proscribed organisation in the legal sense{ b) The PIRA IS a terrorist organisation in the legal sense

c) The PIRA is NOT a proscribed organisation by dictionary definition d) The PIRA IS a terrorist organisation by dictionary definition


Please therefore change the word 'PROSCRIBED' to the word 'TERRORIST'


    • Please also note this change is not influenced by any political bias - it is a simple linguistic correction —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afterglow82 (talk • contribs) at 10:43, 16 August 2007.
Object to the proposed change with that wording. Proscribed organisation is the term used by the British government, see here. The IRA are not classed as a terrorist organisation in Republic of Ireland, they are classed as an illegal organisation. Brixton Busters 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Object to this wording as Brixton Busters says The IRA are not classed as a terrorist organisation in the Republic Of Ireland. BigDunc 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Also object. Perhaps the user requesting the change and protection should read the Home Office List of Proscribed Orgs page.GiollaUidir 13:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
He should also read Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Extremist.2C_terrorist_and_freedom_fighter.--padraig 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you think, User:GiollaUidir? I presume you would choose Freedom Fighter - as I notice that's a word you used when you created your user page in relation to a PIRA member? [8] Or have you changed your opinions now slightly? [9] That was a good Home Office reference you provided which makes it clear that "proscribed" has a modern (as opposed to ancient Roman) meaning with regards to terrorism. Perhaps we could compromise with the substitute phrase: "Adams has long been a spokesman for the "Provisional movement" which encompasses Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA), (a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom under Terrorism legislation[10] and an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.)" ? (editconflict) W. Frank talk ✉  14:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My opinions haven't changed at all. I was clarifying the current definition of "proscribed" for Afterglow82.GiollaUidir 14:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no real need to change it from the current phrasing. Currently it is compact and gets the point across. Your suggestion would clutter it up and give information clearly available on the PIRA page anyway. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!GiollaUidir 14:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

That's generally my position too (since I believe it was I that wrote the current phrase in the temporarily locked article). I think we're making progress then. I propose slightly modifying the phrase to include your excellent citation , thus: "Adams has long been a spokesman for the "Provisional movement" which encompasses Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) ( a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom [11] and an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.)"
How's that? W. Frank talk ✉  14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, I see no need to add superfluous information.GiollaUidir 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Not even a reference to the way that "proscribed" is being used in this, our article? W. Frank talk ✉  15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The IRA's legal status has got absolutely nothing to do with an article on Gerry Adams, even if it's got 50 top-grade references. I don't see why you're so fixated about putting in your wee proscribed and illegal section. Why not go and work on an unprotected article instead of trying to insert totally irrelevant passages into a protected article?!?! GiollaUidir 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit request declined. There isn't consensus to change. --- RockMFR 17:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Archiving - we don't need to have a fragmented discussion of this. W. Frank I suggest you choose one centralised location and keep it there. A noticeboard or the PIRA talk page are the obvious venues. Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of article discussion pages by team editors

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army&diff=prev&oldid=151499181 for a recent example. W. Frank talk ✉  13:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

W. Frank, you should read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines especially this The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. which you clearly doing by spamming article talk pages.--padraig 13:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Providing a link to a paranoid rant from an editor who will not enter discussion before he makes changes is not proof of censorship or whatever else is being claimed by this editor. BigDunc 13:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&oldid=150889962#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable indicates that "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context."
There is also a strong hint there that as a rule, you shouldn't edit others' comments. I'd suggest that `not editing others' comments` also includes entirely removing/censoring them. W. Frank talk ✉  13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There are also rules about spamming talk pages, and its removal.--padraig 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
There are indeed guidelines and you should call for the help of an admin if you think this removal is often being implemented by members of your team. Now one other characteristic of our team editors, that I forgot to mention, is that they rarely will admit to making a mistake and then apologise W. Frank talk ✉  13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Further edit request

{{editprotected}} The following text which was deleted a few months back (see above) should be reinserted:

''In October 2006, it was alleged that Adams's finger and hand-prints were found on a stolen car allegedly used during the murders of RUC men Cecil Cunningham (46) and John Haslett (21) in 1971.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2091-2383263,00.html Paisley, Brady in historic meeting] by Christopher Morgan and Liam Clarke, ''[[The Times]]'', [[1 October]] [[2006]]</ref><ref>[http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1698223&issue_id=14715 Adams Prints Murder Link] by Alan Murray, ''[[The Sunday Independent]]'', [[1 October]] [[2006]]</ref> However, no link between Adams and the killings, or between the burned out car and the killings, has been shown. The link is, therefore, entirely speculative.''

Also, I'd like the following added to the alleged IRA membership section. Although it could probably wait until the protection expires:

''In July 2005 Adams, along with Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris, were reported to have left the IRA's ruling [[IRA Army Council|Army Council]]. The resignations were made in advance of the IRA's statement later that month announcing it was ending the armed campaign.<ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/ireland/article547523.ece De Chastelain extends stay to await IRA move], ''The Times'' July 24, 2005</ref><ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/27/nira27.xml&site=5&page=0 Unionists attack Adams over IRA 'resignation'] ''The Telegraph'']</ref>

Although the wording could do with some work. The allegations of IRA membership have been discussed at length above, and general consensus was to keep them to a short list of the most notable sources. However I think this is important enough to include. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection is almost gone; let's allow this page to cool down a little. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know that it's possible for an article on a controversial figure such as Adams to have a neutral point of view; the article cannot state everything about the person, so has to be selective; and some of the material available to select from will be biased.

So, yes, one can cite a newspaper article which talks about Adams fingerprints being linked to those on a burned-out car the same model and make as one used in a murder. And so one can argue an item referencing that article should be included.

But - as someone who detests IRA terrorists such as Adams, whose aim was the overthrow of the Irish government, with NI being a stepping-stone on their path to power(*) -I'd say that's not enough. The news article does not explain what is meant by fingerprints being linked.

In the 80s (the time the link was established) police forces were introducing digital fingerprinting systems. A set of prints were given a non-unique digital signature, and that was matched against the digital signatures of fingerprints stored on file. So instead of a team of fingeprint experts having to match evidence prints against a library of fingerprint images, they would only have to match them against the subset of images whose digital signatures matched.

Given that police took no action at the time about these "linked fingerprints", I wonder if all that had happened was Adams' prints shared the same digital signature as a set found on the car; but subsequent checking by a fingerprint expert concluded that the prints were not the same. And a mischievous person - without a neutral point of view - released the information about the "link".

I appreciate this is speculation on my part; but I feel that unless anyone can show that Adams' fingerprints were judged by a fingerprint expert to match those on the car, I'd say mentioning the "linked fingerprints" is not neutral. I expect we all have fingerprints that can be "linked" to some criminal's; the only reason we know about the link in Adams' case is because that information was released by a non-neutral person.

Tim Martin

(*) It seems only fair to make my anti-Adams bias clear! But I think he is entitled to the same consideration for verifiable truth as anyone else.

I concur, Tim.
We need to be very careful not to libel living politicians - and we need to be equally careful not to introduce electorally advantageous propaganda.
That is why most of the "Team editors" - who have shown themselves unable to maintain a neutral and unbiased editing contribution - should be blocked from reverting to their biassed versions of our articles. W. Frank talk ✉  13:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
So W.Frank you agree with what Tim says but you feel he should be censored so as not to give the "team" (your paranoid delusion) any "electorally advantageous propaganda". Who is the one showing BIAS now? BigDunc 02:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's Frank.
And nowhere will you see me say that Gerry Adams should be censored.
To clarify: I believe that you and other anonymous and pseudonymous "team editors" (many of them members of WP:IRA) should be banned from introducing political propaganda into a large number of PIRA related articles since you have consistently shown yourself incapable of overcoming your WP:COI and contributing positively to improving our encyclopaedic coverage of these topics.
When I said that I concurred with Tim, I meant that I agreed with both his analysis and conclusion - that, on balance, and recognising that Gerry Adams is a living politician, the passage about fingerprints should be excised again. The practical difficulty I would have with making that particular edit myself is that I would also feel compelled to point out that Adams does not have a mandate from the whole nationalist and irish republican community and is indelibly and voluntarily associated with the PIRA flavour of violence. And I have no wish to incite (albeit with a correct and unbiased edit) another cycle of reversions. W. Frank talk ✉  00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I see the article says "On 8 March 2007 it was reported that Adams was re-elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly" and gives a reference to a news story.

This is of course true; however, the Northern Ireland Assembly does have a web site, which gives a list of members, together with their parties and constituencies. This must be a better reference for an encyclopaedia.

http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/members/membership07.htm

More detailed election results are at

http://www.ark.ac.uk/elections/

Tim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim2718281 (talk • contribs) 07:50:23, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

On "proscribed": in the sense of organisations, this is a legal term, and will be defined in the relevant law.

For the UK, that is the "Terrorism Act 2000", a copy of which is on the UK government web site at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2000/00011--k.htm#sch2

Looking at the definition, the Act says an organisation is proscribed if it is listed in Schedule 2; and looking at schedule 2, we see listed "Irish Republican Army".

The question then arises, does "Irish Republican Army" include "Provisional IRA"?

A similar question arose in UK courts in 2005.

Four members of the "Real IRA" had been acquitted of belonging to a proscribed organisation; the judge agreed with their defence, which was the argument that "Real IRA" was not the organisation listed in Schedule 2.

The Appeal court was asked for an opinion; and its view differed from the judge's - the Appeal court held that the Real IRA *was* a proscribed organisation. (the men were of course still free, having been acquitted. The Appeal was for guidance in future cases.)

The House of Lords (the UK's highest appeal court) was asked its opinion;

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.com/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd050519/z-1.htm

I draw attention to the section 17

"The court's task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament's purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment."

It probably requires a lawyer to explain this; but what I read in one of Lord Denning's books is that now that the decisions of UK courts can be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, the method of deciding what a UK law means is the European method, not the UK one. That is, a court is not to be limited by the exact wording of a law; it can decide what those passing the law intended.

So when arguing legal matters in Wikipedia, it matters whether the relevant law is in Europe or not; if it is, the European method of interpreting law applies, not the literal method previously used in the UK, and still used in the USA and other countries.

So: Did the five Law Lords decide the Real IRA is a proscribed organisation?

From the judgement referenced above, Lord Bingham said yes, Lord Wolf said yes, Lord Rodger said yes, Lord Carswell said yes, Lord Brown said yes.

So: unless anyone can show any reason why the Lords would have answered the question differently had it been about the Provisional IRA rather than the Real IRA, it seems in the UK the Provisional IRA is a "proscribed organisation" as defined by the "Terrorism Act 2000".

Tim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim2718281 (talk • contribs) 16:37:00, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Gerard or Gerald?

Which is his full first name? I thought it was Gerald myself. Are instances of him being called Gerald incorrect? Stu ’Bout ye! 11:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Stu ’Bout ye! 20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV Section Re Adams

This is pure POV, It would be akin to saying, When did you stop being an asshole? The implication being you had being an asshole. This is just a crude example to illustrate a point, and just as crude as the section which was removed. --Domer48 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm its linked to a national newspaper, didn't you notice? Conypiece 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Coneypiece, it is ALLEGED by a reporter based on Alledged information from a un-named source, If the PSNI had any evidence such as fingerprints as alledged in this claim, don't you think they would at least arrest and question Adams for this, but they haven't, I would say the reason they haven't is because they have no such evidence.--padraig 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It was an allegation! I think the illustration I have used is sufficient, to explain what I have said! Might I suggest a book for you Ireland: The Propaganda War, The British Media and the Battle for the Hearts and Minds, Liz Curtis, Pluto Press, 1984, ISBN 0 86104 757 5. --Domer48 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
And thats why its under 'alleged IRA membership and activity' Conypiece 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Coneypiece this is an Encyclopeadia, not a tabloid newspaper, WP deals in Facts not speculation, read WP:RS if your not sure on this.--padraig 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Conypiece You have not answered Pádraig’s points. Some other books which might interest you and lend some understanding of the subject:

  • A very British jihad: collusion, conspiracy & cover-up, by Paul Larkin, Beyond the Pale, Belfast, 2004, ISBN 1 900960 25 7
  • State Violence: Northern Ireland 1969-1997, by Raymond Murray, Mercier Press, 1998, ISBN 185635 235 8
  • Political Censorship: and the democratic state: the Irish Broadcasting ban, by Mary P. Corcoran & Mark O’Brien, Four Courts Press, ISBN 1 85182 846 x hbk
  • Web of Punishment: An investigation, by Carol Coulter, Attic Press, Dublin, 1991, ISBN 1 85594 022 1

I hope that helps, --Domer48 21:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh Doms, mefinks you must be on the wrong page. Anywho Padraig, tell me, what does the word alleged mean to you? Are the Independent and Sunday Times cheap tabloids to you? And also, as the information had been moved under the 'alleged' title, it did not need to be proven. Sorry folks but you haven't got much room to manoeuvre on this issue. Its going back tomorrow. Conypiece 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Coneypiece read the Box on the top of this page.--padraig 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
As someone who had to argue to even retain mention of his "alleged" IRA membership, I'll add my two cents. This is an encyclopedia, let's stick to facts not newspaper speculation about "allegations" from parties unknown. To even add it in a remotely neutral way would require weasel wording to the Nth degree. One Night In Hackney303 22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I consider Conypiece, is suggesting that tell will revert dispite this discussion. I have tried to be helpful, but they seem to be more intrested in pushing a POV regardless. --Domer48 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Padraig, Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, problem is though, it was sourced by two major newspapers.
  • ONiH, but surely all the other material under 'Alleged' is speculation. What makes this different? Conypiece 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Because they where made by Politicans or named people not an un-named source as in this case.--padraig 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It's different because the books state as fact that Adams was in the IRA, so we know who is alleging what. With these stories, we don't. One Night In Hackney303 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Padraig, did you not read the article, it was proven that his prints were found on the car; The discovery was confirmed in the late Eighties when new DNA techniques were developed to analyse less substantial traces discovered at crime scenes. Therefore it is logical to have no individual name. Conypiece 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
ONiH, actually the linked articles do state as fact that his prints were at the sceneConypiece 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
A nice mess! Firstly "Wikipedia only deals in facts". Yes but sometimes "facts" contradict. Especially on contentious issues. With regard to "the troubles" there are always going to be at least two sides to the arguement. What we should be aiming to do is provide an informative yet balanced view, which includes views from all sides. Secondly there are books written by people who have all sorts of views on the troubles. However the list which Domer48 so kindly provided are books given from one side of the conflict. If we were only to use such sources we'd have a biased, yet cited article. Can you not suggest some books from other opinions? This is supposed to be an encylopedia this is a source used by many people who look things up. If we don't mention alleged membership of the IRA, then people are going to wonder what this whole project is about. It is a fact that his membership has been alleged (almost every day by the sounds of it). It is also a fact that he has denied membership (almost every day by the sounds of it). That is the information which should go in. And as for the comment by padraig: If the PSNI had any evidence such as fingerprints as alledged in this claim, don't you think they would at least arrest and question Adams for this. Padraig, that is no argument at all. I could equally argue that it has been in the interests of the UK to keep Gerry Adams where he is, and not humiliate him. With the amount of agents, double agents, triple agents, and the rest, with all the agendas, we should certainly not be the ones to try and second guess peoples actions. And Conypiece The section you are trying to add is just speculation, and as it stands really doesn't belong here as the citations are not just weak, they are citations of an unsourced allegation. It shouldn't be in. However what would be good somewhere, (as it is being searched for) is the text allegedly removed by "the vatican" (yeah I know it isn't the "vatican".) Perhaps it should go in an article with the alleged stuff removed by the CIA. And then linked. Either way as it stands it really doesn't fit here, unless there is a more substantive source. --81.132.246.132 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

"reliably been reported," by Who? "It is alleged," by Who? "were reported to have," by Who? Who were the sources for these allegations? Opinion, that’s all it is! Wikipedia is not a tabloide--Domer48 18:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the Prime Ministers Situation Report? If so the intelligence agencies... the people who usually gather intelligence for the Governments! Is it still opinion now? Conypiece 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unanswered Questions

In order for the issues on this page to be dealt with, all editors (especially those who revert constantly) much take part fully in discussion. So far Padraig has failed to do so. I would appreciate an answer from you to the following;

  • Yea is says the Irish Republican Movement, but then goes on to mention only SF/IRA. Why? Now one last time, give me a clear straightforward simple link that prooves SF/PIRA are the only members of the IRM? Conypiece 23:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


      • Stupid question really - more about technicallities than anything, but you know......its said in 1st main paragraph:

        nationalist Catholic family, consisting of 10 children who survived infancy, 5 boys, 5 girls and their parents, Gerry Adams Sr. and Annie Hannaway...Gerry Sr. and Annie came from strong republican backgrounds

Without drawing too much from this..... is it then being said that his parents were nationalists even coming from republican backgrounds, or is nationalist just being used as a byword for catholic/republican etc. here?

Another thought.....SF became the largest nationalist, republican and pro-Belfast Agreement political party in Northern Ireland in the 2005 UK general election.

Too many 'or's in this statement would mean SF would have beaten DUP and we all know that would have been catastrophic.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wideofthemark (talk


• contribs) 02:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Adding NPOV tag

It is very clear that this is not an accurate wiki page. There have been claims that Adams' is leader of all the groups within the Irish Republican Movement (i am still waiting for a reply, padraig, domer, bigdunc). I view this as a blatant POV. That is why I am once again adding it to this article. Oh and ONiH, just because you were the editor who added it last time does not give you the right to remove it this time. Conypiece 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The Organization
To transform this dream into a structure capable of affecting the course of history, the rebels have fashioned the movement, not an army, not a government-in-exile, not a party nor a subversive conspiracy but a covert world. The center is the IRA altered little in theoretical shape since the Black-and-Tan days. When the united Republican movement in the sixties began to move away from physical force, one of the first visible changes was the structure of the IRA—the size of the core was increased so that the advocates of a political direction could more easily control the future. When the movement split, formally, in 1969, first among individuals, then with a vote in the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis, and finally, formally, with the withdrawal of the traditionalists from the Army Convention to form the real IRA at a Provisional Army Convention in December—hence Provos—the form remained… Essentially since the spring of 1972, the crucial player in the armed struggle has been the Provisional IRA—now the IRA. (Italics are the authors)J. Bowyer Bell, IRA: Tactics & Targets, Poolbeg, First Published 1990, Reprinted 1993, This Edition 1997, Dublin, ISBN 1 85371 603 0.
Another one, of nemurous reference. Removed Tag. --Domer48 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
If 9 people say the colour of the crow is black and one person says it is white, then the colour is disputed. I dispute this article, you have no right to dismiss my dispute! Conypiece 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A number of references have been cited, which are both verifiable and reliably sourced. The article has been referenced, and you have not cited, any verifiable and reliably sourced material, which contradicts these sources. I will give you the opportunity to remove the tag, or provide verifiable, and reliably sourced material. This dose not include comment or opinion. --Domer48 20:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You have gave me two extracts from a book (but only partial extracts!). On the whole of the internet you have failed to find one link which claims that Adams is the sole spokesman for the entire movement. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Now please come up with a link that states CIRA are not part of the RM. If you can do that, that is a positive step. You will only have another dozen or so links to find for the other groups! If you cannot do that then you have failed to prove the SF/IRA are the sole members of the RM. Until you provide these links I will continue to dispute this page, thus tag remains. Regards Conypiece 22:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"...That the Army Council was...the supreme authority in the Republican Movement. That Sinn Fein is an autonomous and independent organisation but if it wishes to remain within the Republican Movement it's policy must conform with Army policy." History of the IRA Brendan O'Brein. Backed up by The Provisional IRA, Patrick Bishop & Eamonn Mallie, Hazell Watson & Viney Ltd, England, 1988, 0552 13337X.

Brendan O’Brien, in his history of the IRA, in the chapter entitled “Fighting to a Stalemate” says in the opening line, “Committed as it was to its military and political strategy, the Republican movement found itself unable to reach beyond a certain level of success.” BigDunc's, quote above also difines who the IRA define as the “Republican Movement.” Which is all supported by

The Organization To transform this dream into a structure capable of affecting the course of history, the rebels have fashioned the movement, not an army, not a government-in-exile, not a party nor a subversive conspiracy but a covert world. The center is the IRA altered little in theoretical shape since the Black-and-Tan days. When the united Republican movement in the sixties began to move away from physical force, one of the first visible changes was the structure of the IRA—the size of the core was increased so that the advocates of a political direction could more easily control the future. When the movement split, formally, in 1969, first among individuals, then with a vote in the Sinn Fein Ard Fheis, and finally, formally, with the withdrawal of the traditionalists from the Army Convention to form the real IRA at a Provisional Army Convention in December—hence Provos—the form remained… Essentially since the spring of 1972, the crucial player in the armed struggle has been the Provisional IRA—now the IRA. (Italics are the authors)J. Bowyer Bell, IRA: Tactics & Targets, Poolbeg, First Published 1990, Reprinted 1993, This Edition 1997, Dublin, ISBN 1 85371 603 0.

There, a number of references have been cited, which are both verifiable and reliably sourced. The article has been referenced, and you have not cited, any verifiable and reliably sourced material, which contradicts these sources.When you find reliably sourced information which is verifiable feel free to add it --Domer48 22:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

But once again you fail to provide the links I asked for. Oh and it is not up to you to decide when to remove the tag. There needs to be consensus. I still dispute this page. Look at what it says within the tag, Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. Do it again and you will be verging on vandalism. Conypiece 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I can remove the tag if there is no valid rationale for adding it. There is no detailed reasoning (backed up with direct quotes from policy and sources), the same as before when I removed it. You can't just "drive-by-tag" and say "I think the article is POV". Which parts are POV? Where are the sources that aren't being represented etc etc? One Night In Hackney303 22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I dispute this page for the following statement, Adams is a spokesman for the Irish Republican Movement which encompasses Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). As of yet Domer has failed to provide links stating that CIRA are not part of the movement. Unless you would like to do so? Conypiece 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's your opinion. Until you provide a reliable source that they are part of the movement, there's nothing to discuss. References don't need to be online, books are perfectly reliable sources. If your local library or bookshop don't have the ones in question, try here. One Night In Hackney303 23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There has already been numerous discussions regarding this issue, all which have ended with silence from padraig, domer, bigdunc etc. On several ocassions I have asked domer to provide the full text from the following quote; "...That the Army Council was...the supreme authority in the Republican Movement.. On all ocassions he has failed to do so. Oh and what you see as POV may seem fact to me. I will soon bring up the removal of the tag with an admin to review. Oh and surely if RSF say they are part of the movement, that claim deserves some attention? Oh or is it only pro sf/books you believe? Conypiece 23:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

That point has been made a number of times One Night In Hackney303, its up to Conypiece to provide a reliable source that say they are part of the movement,and until then, there's nothing more to discuss.Adams is the spokesperson, and that is referenced,Conypiece has their own opinion, and thats all it is opinion, well now its up to them to provide and cited, any verifiable and reliably sourced material, which contradicts this sources.When you find reliably sourced information which is verifiable Conypiece feel free to add it --Domer48 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

And again, I'm asking you to provide sources. Wikipedia does not work on editor's opinions, we work from sources. No sources = no discussion. What RSF say is not germane, If I start an organisation tomorrow and say I'm part of the republican movement does that make it so? One Night In Hackney303 23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Damn I had forgotten about this discussion, [[Republican Movement {Ireland)]] is that page wrong ONiH? Conypiece 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a tertiary source, so not relevant. One Night In Hackney303 10:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domer48

How is material from a prime ministers notice which was released through the National Archives nonsense? What do you need to make it reliable? Conypiece 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at what Conypiece has asked me to look at., it definitely passes BLP. It is rigorously sourced.. but here's my concern.

It needs to be VERY carefully worded. We can't say "X is True".. we need to say "The report released from the national archives said X". Does that help everyone? SirFozzie 19:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the history before leaping. One Night In Hackney303 19:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't get what your point is Hackney. And SirFrozzie I thought it was alright saying Fresh evidence emerged of Adams' alleged IRA membership? Oh and a Prime ministers situation report can be taken pretty seriously. And then also the fact it is included under the alleged membership heading removed the need to be 100% certain. I see no reason why it should be changed. Conypiece 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Keep looking until you do then, it's not difficult. As for the edit itself, it's again being presented as a laundry list of allegations, that's what's wrong with it. See the lengthy discussion above. All that was being done was adding the same information that was already in the article again. One Night In Hackney303 20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yea you didn't delete it, are you trying to boast to something? I still don't get what you are saying. Anyhow, I dont see that situation report mentioned anywhere else in the article. Are you in favour of adding the material back to the article? If not, why not? Conypiece 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I refer you to my previous comment. Judging by the speed of your reply, you didn't read it properly or the rest of the talk page as I recommended. If you do, it will become instantly clear why it doesn't get added back in that format. One Night In Hackney303 20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion, [12]. And look at my last comment on this topic.--Domer48 20:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough since we're not allowed to say alleged anymore can we now just leave the word out when talking about his IRA membership, that is unless you dispute this intelligence report? Oh and Domer48, is a Prime Minister's situation report reliable evidence? The material would have been gathered by the top intelligence of the day... And also read SirFrozzies above comment. Conypiece 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the article and the discussions above? If you have, you'll see why the addition of the text in that format is not appropriate. One Night In Hackney303 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup I have, still fail to see what is wrong about quoting a Prime Ministers situation report... Care to explain? Conypiece 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Duplication. One Night In Hackney303 21:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see that extract from the report mentioned in the article. Can you see it anywhere? Conypiece 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I see the substance of it yes. One Night In Hackney303 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Care to tell us what you mean by seeing the substance of it? Is there a mention of this report within the article? It is an extremely useful reference. Conypiece 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the article. Read the contents of what has been removed. It's duplication. One Night In Hackney303 21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but either my screens broken or someone's telling fibs. Do me a favour, pinpoint exatly where this report (and useful referenced quote) are mentioned within the article. Conypiece 21:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Ministers Situation Report

Why should it not be included? And please dont try to claim it isn't 'reliable'. Conypiece 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE. One Night In Hackney303 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Where? Conypiece 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, I'll do this in stages then. Simple question - what does the Prime Ministers Situation Report say about Gerry Adams? One Night In Hackney303 23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"It has reliably been reported that Adams, who's been the Provisionals' brigade adjutant in Belfast is now in Dublin as assistant chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. It is alleged that Adams was given the appointment in order to provide representation from the North among Provisional leaders in the south, and also to please the younger elements of the Provisionals in Belfast."[1]

I can't see that specific quote anywhere on the article. Can you? Conypiece 23:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I didn't ask what the specific quote was. What does it say about Gerry Adams? Specifically? One Night In Hackney303 23:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Im afraid what you are asking for is this qoute. But as you ask, this is what it specifically says...

"...Adams, who's been the Provisionals' brigade adjutant in Belfast is now in Dublin as assistant chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. It is alleged that Adams was given the appointment in order to provide representation from the North among Provisional leaders in the south, and also to please the younger elements of the Provisionals in Belfast."[2]

Conypiece 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No. In less than ten words, what does it say about Gerry Adams? One Night In Hackney303 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to know specifically then I will have to use more than 10 words, oh and don't think I don't know what point you're trying to make here. However this is Prime Ministers Report which claims Adams to be PIRA, it even gives details of his position. Therefore why should this not be included within the report? Conypiece 10:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll guess I'll have to make this even more simple. The report says Adams was part of the IRA leadership in 1973. Now what does the article already say? "....named Adams to be part of the IRA leadership during the 1970s". Now do you get it? One Night In Hackney303 10:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you still have not gave a single reason why this document (or any other evidence of PIRA membership) should not be included. Why should it not? Oh and duplication doesn't matter when ir regards to evidence. The more evidence the better... Conypiece 10:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. Read the rest of the talk page, read the article, read everything I've said above. Your comment of "the more evidence the better" shows you have not read or understood anything that has been said on this page. One Night In Hackney303 10:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahh so are you resorting to Domer's arguement that wiki is not a tabloid. Shame then SirFrozzie disagrees with you as well. Tell me, (you have avoided this question so far) is a Prime Ministers Report reliable evidence? Conypiece 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the speed of your reply you haven't bothered to read and understand the multitude of arguments that have been made about how evidence is presented despite my repeated suggestions that you do, there is little more that can be said. If you had you would know that your first allegation is incorrect, and that your second question is not relevant to the issue at hand. The only advice I can offer is you is talk less and read more. One Night In Hackney303 10:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm maybe because I have already read (and re-read) all the arguements before. You shouldn't assume things, sometimes it makes people look stupid. So how is my allegation incorrect? And by you not answering I assume you agree that the report is reliable evidence? Conypiece 10:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You say not to assume while assuming twice, nice. I refer you to the lengthy discussions predating your arrival on this talk page, which are neatly summarised in my comment dated 20:07, 9 September 2007. One Night In Hackney303 11:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You can refer until you go blue in the face, I have read all of that and still see no balanced reason as to why this should not be involved. Under the title 'alleged membership' should there not be as much evidence there can be under it? It gives the reader a broad scope of material which they can research into greather detail if wanted. Conypiece 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That clearly shows you haven't read and understood what has been said on this talk page. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, you are wasting editors time. One Night In Hackney303 11:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What has been said (and which you are refering to) has been said by you. Last time I looked you weren't an admin. So what gives you the right to set down the rules in regards to this page? And explain to me how I am disrupting wikipedia? I am using talk pages however you are acting in a very dismissive and defensive tone. Padraig use to quote wiki policy in every response hoping he would scare me off as well.. Conypiece 11:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you aren't using talk pages except to waste time. As I've explained repeatedly, you need to read talk pages and understand what has been said and by whom. In particular, I refer you to this comment by Cary Bass who is an administrator and a member of the Foundation office (see also WP:OFFICE). One Night In Hackney303 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How I am wasting time by trying to solve this issue here? Would you prefer for me to edit war? And I refer you to this said by SirFrozzie. The page had been stable until recently a group of editors of similar bias decided to remove the completely legitimate and referenced material. Oh and by referring to this report is not 'listing', its an extremely useful source. Conypiece 11:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

....that repeats what other sources say. One Night In Hackney303 11:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Do they say that specifically? Are the other reports Situation Reports for the government? Conypiece 11:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Check the history of the article. See exactly who added the sources in the first place. I know exactly what the sources say, and they go into far more detail than that report. One Night In Hackney303 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm the sources were already there, so of course you had to add them again, if you hadn't you would have vandalised that page. Have you read the entire report? The fact it is a PM-SR is extremely important. Don't you agree? Conypiece 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No. I added the sources, they were not there before that edit as the history shows. Try and remain factual please. Why would I need to read the entire report? The report was written in 1973, and the sources cover Adams activites post-1973, so it's breathtakingly obvious that the other sources go into more detail. I don't agree that it's extremely important at all. Who wrote it? The security services. Where do historians get their information from? Contacts within the security services, amongst other places. One Night In Hackney303 11:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
But whether the other reports go into more detail the fact remains that they were not a PM-SR. Any doubt of IRA membership is removed by reading the, until recently, classified document. Therefore the report should also be included due to its author, intended audience and significance. I am also cautious when you seem to claim historians are better informed than the security forces. Conypiece 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't go in the article in the previous format. Of course historians are better informed than a report issued in 1973, it's obvious. One Night In Hackney303 21:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't it go in the article? You are claiming authors are better informed and more reliable than intelligence gathered by security forces for the Prime Minister?? Seriously? Whoa that's a new one. Conypiece 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidently as they have access to information post-1973, does the report? I've already repeated to the point of tedium why the information doesn't go in the article in the previous format, I will not respond to any further questions that have already been answered. One Night In Hackney303 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece, are these the same intelligence gathering agencies that advised the British Prime Minster that Iraq had weapons of mass disruction that lead to the invasion of Iraq.--padraig 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


You're confused ONiH, the article is not concerned at what Adams got up to, whether he planted bombs or planted roses. The article heading is Alleged IRA Membership. The report clearly states he was a member of PIRA. What happened before, during and after 1973 is irrelevant. Understand? Conypiece 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah Padraig good to see you haven't completely avoided talk pages. Erm who knows?! I could have come from the RUC/Local UDR/MI5 anyone, but we are told that they are reliable. Conypiece 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece, I don't avoid talkpages, I just don't respond to every post you make straight away, As for the source of these allegations Who says they are reliable, I wouldn't trust anything claimed by any government or their intelligence service, unless that evidence was supported by non-governmental sources.--padraig 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing more than trolling now. The information does not go in the article in the previous format and will be reverted if it is, there's nothing left to discuss. One Night In Hackney303 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It must be in the mind of some editors here for when they realise they are either wrong, or completely unaware of what is being said (above) that they decide to refuse to give further comment. This discussion is not finished. You still have to tell everyone why it does not go in the article? I have asked this so many times its becoming quite sad. I await your reply. Conypiece 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As before, read the talk page. No laundry lists. One Night In Hackney303 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not a list, it is further evidence (from an extremely reliable source!), understand? Conypiece 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
...That was being presented as a list. One Night In Hackney303 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, heres a new idea. How about the report does not go in as part of a list, but under its own heading? Maybe 1973 Intelligence Report? Conypiece 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "no". One Night In Hackney303 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You are not being very helpful in this discussion. And I would guess most people reading this will think the same. So how do you propose we add this report into the document? I would have thought under the alleged IRA membership to be the logical place, however you disagree. Conypiece 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been more than helpful, considering you've ignored everything that has been said. If the information has to be added, it gets added as Cary Bass suggested which is what I said many, many hours ago. One Night In Hackney303 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How have I ignored everything said? I have refused to bow down to you by 'forgetting' about this report. This report is of immemse importantance in regards to Adams' alleged IRA membership. Can't you remember the political waves when the document was released a few years ago? Oh and Cary Bass asked that this does not become a list, it won't (and wasn't before the you arrived and started warring). This material is on a completely different scale as to the material already mentioned in the article. Also User:SirFrozzie stated that this material should go back into the article. Conypiece 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's the same information that's already in the article, and was presented as a list. One Night In Hackney303 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You see it is not the same information, for 1. the content is not the same, 2.the authors are extremely different! 3.The reliability of the sources differ. Conypiece 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The content isn't the same? In that case please tell me exactly what Ed Moloney, Richard English, Peter Taylor and Mark Urban say about Gerry Adams? One Night In Hackney303 01:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically he was a provo. Do they each mention the following It is alleged that Adams was given the appointment in order to provide representation from the North among Provisional leaders in the south, and also to please the younger elements of the Provisionals in Belfast? If not then that is material that needs to be mentioned in the article. Conypiece 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you haven't read this talk page despite many requests to. That material does not need to go in the article, it's already in there. Also there is no such position as "assistant chief of staff of the Provisional IRA", so the source isn't really up to much. One Night In Hackney303 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Probably dont understand the ins and outs of this debate (?HAHAHA) or the report but surely from a general point of view even if the source is unreliable, but well-known/influential( to presumably at least the british gov) then it should be included in some way - it is probably well to have some sort of idea of what the british thought of him even if it was in 1973. Harking back to the example of the dossier/reports/intelligent of WMD in iraq - i think it was padraig(?), it would somewhat miss the point of the war(s) in iraq and subsequent disaster if an article on Sadam Hussain ignored them on the basis that no WMD were not found. Wideofthemark 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Any comment on the above idea ONiH? Conypiece 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thought on style/content/ Recent History

Rather silly thought really, aside from the sqabbles about Adams the terrorist etc. (and probably due to the fact that the last few years have kindof repeated themselves several times), is that the last section probably covers what is the most instructive and more recently written about section of Adam's life is that the time since the good friday is covered in about two paragraphs. Although this only covers a small percentage of his life this surely is the most relevent to him being in an incyclopedia. Wikipedia should not be a newspaper, but if it does not mention anything between david trimble being completely obilorated and ian paisley coming out of/into the cold (only to be under pressure to resign from his own church). One wonders whether anything of interest in Adams's (political) life has happened since bobby sands? OTR's? snoopers in the RUC/NI office? Steak-knife? Whether he supported/s the PSNI? SF's results in the south?

- Personally i could not write this(lack of knowledge or will), and i guess that it is difficult/nigh on impossible to properly represent this in a way that is proprely verifiable, but surely the idea of an online encyclopedia is that it is a bit more up to date that encyclopedia britanica. Or do we have to wait till he is dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wideofthemark (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

This page should have the highest protection against vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.153.13 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various policy violating edits removed

  • "There is disagreement in the number of people who walked out, with Peter Taylor, p. 291, stating it was 20 and J. Bowyer Bell stating it was about 10"

Clear misrepresentation of the source. Bell doesn't say 100 walked out of the AF itself, he says that's how many reconvened later on. All sources agree it was a small split, and judging by the progress made by the respective parties since that's breathtakingly clear. Sinn Féin are the largest republican party in Northern Ireland, and RSF are on the fringe of the fringe and going exactly where they were twenty years ago - nowhere fast. Stop trying to make out like it was a major split like in 70, it wasn't, nobody really cared then, nobody really cares now.

If you're using "Republican" as an all-inclusive term why stop at Phil Clarke and Tom Mitchell (sic)? Why not mention Independent Republican Frank Maguire. No point engaging in all sorts of off-topic irrelevance, stick to the actual facts at hand.

  • "As Sands and Carron had run as "Anti-H-Block" candidates"

Irrelevant, Adams was the first SF candidate to win a seat since the 1950s. Sands wasn't a SF member, so why even mention him?

  • "Adams and his supporters advocated that Sinn Féin become increasingly political and pursue constitutional politics"

No page number, removed accordingly.

Paddy Agnew wasn't a hunger striker.

  • "The electoral effects of this strategy were shown later by the election of several Sinn Feiners to local councils in Northern Ireland in the mid-1980s, as well as the election of Owen Carron to the House of Commons in 1981"

Unsourced analysis, and Owen Carron - who was elected before Morrison made his famous speech? Nuff said, instead of making crap up from your head, try using sources. The rest of it is unsourced as well, and like others I'm getting sick of unsourced commentary being added to this article. WP:Verifiability is not negotiable especially when it comes to articles about WP:living people, and if this continues I'm going to ask for admin intervention as this article isn't a dumping ground for whatever unsourced crap and analysis or RSF propaganda is being dreamt up today. Either it's properly sourced complete with page numbers, or it doesn't go in. One Night In Hackney303 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bell does state they walked out of the Ard-Fheis. Get your facts straight. He wrote, "November 2 came and two-thirds voted against...Ruairi O Bradaigh, Daithi O Conaill, and about one hundred others walked out to form Republican Sinn Fein." Quit being such a "good editor" and stick to reality. It is not irrelevant that Sands and Carron ran before Adams; Adams' candidacy occurred in a context. If Carron and Sands are not mentioned, it's POV. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

20, 20-30, "small number", "small group of supporters", and Bell's 100 that doesn't even refer to delegates directly, just the number that formed RSF later on which, surprise, surprise, was about 100. Regardless, it was a small split that nobody cared less about, and you agreed that "small" was a correct term. One Night In Hackney303 03:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I said small was more appropriate than "minor" -- and stated prior to finding the Bell quotation. You are one great editor, knowing my meaning better than I know myself -- golly.

Saying that no one cared is POV; if no one cared, then why even include it in the article on Adams? Just ignore his flip flop with his own family history; let's have all those Hannaways accept partition in 1921 and be done with it.

Please answer this question:

How do you know that Bell does not refer to delegates? He mentions the vote, "429-161 of the 628 present", and then states "about one hundred" plus ROB walked out. Who gets to vote? Delegates? If there were 628 present, that's a bit less than 1/6 walking out, according to JBB.

Answer please -- instead of your usual sniping and then refusal to answer the direct question. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that Taylor says 20 people walked out? Do you agree that Cahill's biographer says 20-30 people walked out? Do you agree that O'Brien says a "small number" walked out? Do you agree that Mallie & Bishop say a "small group of supporters" walked out? It's all on the emphasis. Bell says 100 people formed RSF. That's not in dispute. However that group of people included people who weren't delegates, as is documented in White. That it was a small split isn't in dispute, so I don't see why you're so intent on trying to portray it as a big split when it quite evidently wasn't. One Night In Hackney303 03:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but you still have not answered the qeustion: How do you know that Bell does not refer to delegates?

He states 628 were present. He states that O Bradaigh "and about one hundred others walked out". He doesn't say they "walked in". If they were walking out it was of the Ard-Fheis. I did not say it was a big split. I said it was a "split." You said "Bell doesn't say 100 walked out of the AF itself."

If you won't answer the question above, please answer this one: If Bell says they walked out, what did they walk out of if it was not the Ard-Fheis. It's a simple question. Please answer it.

A good editor would. Bet you won't.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question, I note you didn't answer any of mine. As you've agreed "small" is the correct (and fully sourced) term, unless you have anything constructive to add there will be no further replies from me. One Night In Hackney303 03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying you answered the question when you didn't is not the work of a "good editor". Please answer it here:

If they were not walking out of the Ard-Fheis, as described by JBB, what were they walking out of?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gonna take your edits and run home, eh? You really are a "good editor." --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Simple Question

Still waiting for a straight answer to a straight question....--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting on an answer from a "good editor."--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1986 Sinn Fein Ard Fheis Walkout

There is disagreement on the number of people who walked out of the Ard-Fheis; Taylor is contradicted by IRA historian J. Bowyer Bell, who says about 100 people walked out. This is described in the RSF Wikipedia article. One reputable source should not be preferred over another. Either do not state the number walking out, or give both numbvers. A good editor like you knows this. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See above, I wasn't using one source over another, I was using what the source actually said. Since you had no problem with small here, it's going back in with sources. One Night In Hackney303 02:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. Bell clearly states they walked out of the Ard-Fheis.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he doesn't. And I love the way you try to downplay Taylor by claiming Bell is an "IRA historian". Do you even know who Peter Taylor is? One Night In Hackney303 02:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never met Peter Taylor, have you? See the quotation from Bell. What is it about the words "walked out" that are too hard for you to understand? WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of "Do you even know who Peter Taylor is?" is so hard for you to understand? It didn't say "Do you even know Peter Taylor?". And I've dismissed your interpretation of Bell above, and as before you agreed "small" was the correct term. One Night In Hackney303 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Peter Taylor is a journalist. I do not know him personally. Do you? --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming you don't actually know who Peter Taylor is, if you describe him as a "journalist" and Bell as an "IRA historian". One Night In Hackney303 03:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is he not a journalist? I thought he was with the BBC. If he's not, please enlighten me. Have you met him? Another simple question.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction, the jacket says he's a veteran journalist. Is he not?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it simple - what makes Bell an "IRA historian" and Taylor a "journalist"? One Night In Hackney303 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you unable to answer a simple question?

Last time I checked, Bell wrote -- among other things -- a definitive history of the Irish Republican Army. Taylor has written some excellent books, but no one I know would describe him as having written a history. The fact that the jacket of his book states he is a veteran journalist leads me to conclude that Peter Taylor is in fact a journalist.

Two very simple questions:

Is Peter Taylor a journalist? Have you ever met him?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet you are not able to answer these, too. Great editing!--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it was the title of his book, The Secret Army: A History of the IRA.... that led me to conclude Bell was an IRA historian. Golly.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 1981 Mel Brooks produce and direct the film, History of the World Part I, a tongue-in-cheek look at human culture from the Dawn of Man to the French Revolution, that would led you to conclude Brooks was an historian also, Golly. Now if you can not get your head around the word "small," anymore, and insist on trying to inflate this small walk out, walking out on not only the AF but the movement, which makes small not nearly small enough, why not draw up a wish list of what might have been's? ONIH has addressed this issue, more than enough, and left you reduced to sniping and personalising the discussion. Now read our policies WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR, and no we do not have one for wishful thinking. --Domer48 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My final word on this subject. Peter Taylor is an award winning author who has written a number of books on the Troubles, including a history of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin, a book which was part of a trilogy that also includes books on Loyalists and Brits, the latter covering everything from the regular army to 14 Intelligence Company to the SAS to MI6 to the top level of British Government. His interviews include many key figures both Republicans, Loyalist and British, including the likes of MI6 agents Michael Oatley and Frank Steele, Martin McGuinness, Brendan Hughes, Ian Paisley, Brendan Duddy, John Major etc etc. He's every bit a historian, if writing a book on the history of the IRA makes Bell a historian than Taylor is equally so. He's covered the Troubles for over 30 years, and the claim that Bell is a historian while Taylor is a mere journalist is a false one. One Night In Hackney303 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ONIH has not addressed the issue, and he has also not answered my question.

1. I said small would be more appropriate relative to "minor" - ""Minor" reflects a point of view. "Small" would be more appropriate." Most appropriate would be to not have any modifier. If the split was so minor, why are so many people still ticked off about it? And it's not fair to say that the RSF folks left the movement, they just continued pursuing a direction they had pursued for years. The "movement" is bigger than PSF and PIRA.

2. I did not state that Peter Taylor is a "mere journalist." If I did, my apologies to Peter Taylor. Indeed, please point it out where I used the phrase "mere journalist."

I did state that he has written some excellent books. For better or worse, historians are not journalists. They have different schools for each, in fact. Provos accompanied a documentary broadcast; it's a great publication, but it's not a detailed history of the Provisional IRA. The wikiepedia entry for Peter Taylor states, "Peter Taylor born Scarborough, North Yorkshire is a British journalist and documentary-maker who had covered for many years the political and armed conflict in Northern Ireland, the so-called Troubles. From his experience he has written and produced books and television documentaries on the Northern Irish conflict." The entry for J. Bowyer Bell states, "The Troubles began in Northern Ireland in 1969, and Bell's The Secret Army: the IRA 1916-1970 was published the following year, and was one of the first detailed histories of the IRA along with The IRA by Tim Pat Coogan which was also published in 1970." Many of the people that Taylor interviewed were also interviewed by Bell; and Bell probably interviewed them first and, in some cases, more than once (though Taylor probably interviewed several people multiple times, too).

3. One Night In Hackney states above that he " wasn't using one source over another, I was using what the source actually said." But Bell clearly states, as noted above, "Ruairi O Bradaigh, Daithi O Conaill, and about one hundred others walked out to form Republican Sinn Fein." So, the sources disagree. At one point, I believe, the word "twenty" was in there. It is not in there now, and from my view this is appropriate. If the sources disagree we should not choose one over the other, but instead we should either acknowledge the differences and quote from each or find a way to be neutral -- not quoting from either.

4. Once again there has been a dispute in which One Night in Hackney has chosen one source over another and then when confronted with a direct quotation from an alternate source he has chosen to ask questions, change the subject, and deny the validity of the source. The reality is that Taylor and Bell are both valid sources, and Bell was clearly talking about people walking out of the Ard-Fheis. Bell might have been wrong, Taylor might be wrong, but we as Wikipedia editors are not in a position to make that determination. To do so is to engage in Original Research. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would rather not mention how small and insignificant the walk out was, and how much of an irrelevance they were to the over all Movement? Yet you are literally trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. This has been well and truly addressed, and all you are left with is continual snipping at an editor. Now if all you can do is try to personalise this, you are barking up the wrong tree. McGuiness said at the time if they walk away the only place they would be going is home, now get over yourself, and give up the snipping. --Domer48 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the walkout and split of the IRA and Sinn Fein in 1986 is relevant to understanding Irish Republicanism. If the split was not relevant, why did Adams and his supporters go to such great lengths to try and keep it from happening? This includes asking Tom Maguire for support. When so many founders of the organizations walk out it is significant; recognizing Leinster House was a watershed. Adams, if I recall, praised Dan Keating for not walking out, only to have Keating later become patron of RSF. I am not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, I am trying to have the Wikipedia article provide an accurate description of what happened so that readers are informed. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop being so ridiculous, why do you think Party leaders try to stop members from walking away. Adams said during the course of the debate that he had bent over backwards for them, and that if he bent over any more his head would go up his arse, and that was not going to happen. Obviously you would look for support of anyone, common sense really. As to being founders of the organisation, don’t make me laugh. The Republican movement is a lot older than that, and some of these leaders were not even born when it was founded. As to this old red herring on the dropping of abstentionism to Leinster house, being the basis of the walk out, please. First of, abstentionism was always a tactic, not a principle, fact. The walk out was the result of a power struggle within the Republican Movement, between the Leadership based in Dublin, and the young turks in the North. The old leadership was out manoeuvred, and control fell to what was known as the Kitchen Cabinet if memory serves me. Now what was the consequences of the walk out, (I’ll use that term because Split makes it sound much larger to me), the growth of the Republican Movement and the advance in the cause of Irish Freedom. As to those who walk away, relegation to the political wilderness and obscurity. There are many fine members of RSF, and this petty snipping dose them and Irish Republicanism a disservice. ONIH has displayed a very sharp and cognisant understanding of Republican related articles, with Featured Articles, raising articles to Good status, and countless DYK’s. What have you done to date? Nothing! Now I will not entertain any more of this personalising and snipping in which you are engaged, I suggest to read up on our policies, and start trying to improve articles, instead of your SPA efforts.--Domer48 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And what of all those people who died because they refused to recognize Leinster House. It was not a tactic for them. My edits are not inspired by the cause of Irish freedom. To edit with the cause of Irish freedom in mind is to approach editing from a POV, which is contrary to Wikipedia. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)