Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Gerry Adams has never murdered a single soul. He was not a member of the IRA. He is a politician, and nothing you say will change that fact. 89.101.53.17 (talk) 19:27, 1 July 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)

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)

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)

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)

No, he is an Irish citizen and holds an Irish passport. Anyone born on the Island of Ireland has the right to declare their nationality as Irish. Just because Britain tries to colonize the world, doesn't make the world British. Unlucky. 89.101.53.17 (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (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)

Isn't it conceivable that Adams has dual nationality? He's born in the UK therefore automatically has British citizenship, but the ROI offers Irish citizenship to NI citizens. Given that Adams is a Republican, it seems likely he would have taken up this ROI offer - but his status as an elected UK Member of Parliament means he must still have British citizenship, or he'd be ineligible to stand (unless the UK Govt makes an exception for the citizens of NI?). Ergo, isn't he Irish-British? 213.121.151.174 (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've restored this to include British as one of Adams' nationalities. He was born in the UK, therefore is a UK national, unless he's renounced it (for which there's no evidence). Mooretwin (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could explain this edit here? --Domer48_'fenian' 17:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Certainly: Dodds is unlikely to consider himself to be an ROI national, therefore it is inappropriate to list him as a dual national in the article. Adams, on the other hand, we know has dual nationality as he "travels on an Irish passport". Therefore both of his nationalities should be given in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin the onus is on the editor adding the info to provide a verifiable and reliable source. BigDunc^Talk 20:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See discussion above. Adams was born in the UK and therefore must be a UK national - unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary (e.g. that he has formally renounced his UK citizenship). Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Adams travells on an Irish Passport here, [1]. --Domer48_'fenian' 07:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Many people "travel on Irish passports" - it doesn't mean that "Irish" is their only nationality. Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Gerry Adams was born on the island of Ireland, he is ethnically Irish (albeit with a possible Scots surname), he claims Irish nationality, he travels on an Irish passport, he is head of an Irish political party, international journalists and reporters refer to him as Irish. As the Belfast-born character Sean Dillon in Jack Higgins' novel Thunder Point said when challenged about his nationality, "Let's just say I'm Irish and leave it at that". That equally applies to Gerry Adams.--jeanne (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No-one's disputing his Irish nationality (or his ROI citizenship)! Fact is, though, as someone born in the UK, he's also a UK national. Let's not censor facts from the article. Mooretwin (talk) 08:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Adams' UK citizenship has been censored from this article again. This is at odds with the discussion above. There is no evidence to suggest that he is not a UK citizen. Mooretwin (talk) 11:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence to suggest that he is a UK subject. The onus is on the editor wishing to add to the article. I see if I can find a source for you, having tried already it may be difficult. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I point you (again) to the discussion above.

The evidence is the same for that of any person born in the UK. Do you remove references to British nationality in all articles for which "evidence" is not supplied? No, you don't - you only do so in respect of Irish nationalists, thus demonstrating that your motives are POV. As for your "evidence": "If you were born in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1983, you are almost certainly a British citizen. The only exception is if you were born to certain diplomatic staff of foreign missions who had diplomatic immunity." http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/Britishcitizenship/borninukorqualifyingterritory/

Does Adams regard himself as British? No, he does not. Is there a law which forces him to declare himself British? No, there isn't. Does anyone in the world consider Gerry Adams to be British? No, I have never heard him referred to anything other than Irish. I do not have a POV, but I am in favour of letting people decide for themselves which nationality they want to embrace. He has obviously chosen an Irish nationality and identity. Are there any sources that say otherwise?--jeanne (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether Adams regards himself as British or not is irrelevant: under UK law, he is a UK citizen. It is not a matter of choice, unless he has taken the legal steps to renounce his UK citizenship, and there is no evidence of him having done so. Is Alex Salmond, for example, not a UK citizen because he does not regard himself as British? That would be a preposterous claim, and the claim about Adams is equally preposterous. Mooretwin (talk) 09:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Well the onus is on the editor adding the content to prove that he has not taken legal steps to renounce his citizinship. BigDunc^Talk 09:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Basic logic: you can't prove a negative. If you assert that he has renounced his citizenship, the onus is on you to demonstrate it. Mooretwin (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Again the onus is on the editor adding content to prove it. BigDunc^Talk 09:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Try reading the discussion. Here's the "proof": http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/britishcitizenship/othernationality/Britishcitizenship/borninukorqualifyingterritory/ Mooretwin (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That link says nothing again prove that he has not renounced it. BigDunc^Talk 09:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, by the conventions of logic, the onus is on the person making the assertion to prove it. You are asserting that he has renounced his UK citizenship, yet you have no evidence to back that up. Until we have such evidence, we must assume that Adams is a UK citizen. Mooretwin (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not addiding to the article that he has renounced his UK citizenship so don't have to prove anything you are so prove it. BigDunc^Talk 11:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have "proved" his UK citizenship. See above. That is all that is required. Mooretwin (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

no you haven't I cant see his name on the link. BigDunc^Talk 11:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to see his name on the link! The link says people born in the UK before 1983 are UK citizens. Adams was born in the UK before 1983. This is logic at its most basic. Mooretwin (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationality and citizenship are tricky issues. There are people, on the basis of birthplace, parentage, etc. who are legally entitled to 3, 4 (or more!) different passports. The children of US military personnel who are born in the UK are legally UK citizens as well as American, and if one of the parents was born in Ireland the child is also legally entitled to an Irish passport. Sometimes it gets even more complicated. So how do we classify people like that on Wikipedia? List all the different nationalities that they are legally designated, or just the single one which they have chosen, and which best describes them as in the case of Gerry Adams? The man is Irish-leave it at that.--jeanne (talk) 11:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not that tricky. And Adams is entitled to two passports by virtue of having been born in Belfast. How do we classify people with multiple nationalities? Well, it seems rather straightforward: cite all of their nationalities. In this case that means ROI and UK. (No-one's denying that he is Irish!) Mooretwin (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

But there are people whose nationalities are rather complicated such as Lene Lovich, born in the USA to a British mother and a Serbian (at that time Yugoslavian) father, but the article lists her as British, seeing as she holds a British passport. Catherine the Great, Empress of Russia, of German nationality, however, born in what is now modern-day Poland. Elizabeth Bathory is a Hungarian Countess but born in modern-day Slovakia. The list could go on. Isn't it far simpler to list the nationality by which they are better known such as Gerry Adams being listed solely as Irish. Ian Paisley should be listed as both Irish and British, but not Adams.--jeanne (talk) 16:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know about Lene Lovich, or about US and Serbian nationality law, so I can't comment on that case, except to say that - if she is a US or Serbian citizen, then the article should say that. I don't think Catherine the Great is a good comparator, given the state of evolution of citizenship law in the 18th century compared to today, but I doubt that she was either a German or Polish citizen. Regarding Adams, however, I do know that under UK law he's a UK citizen. Surely an encylopaedia should record factual information and not censor facts which are inconvenient to those holding a particular political viewpoint? Mooretwin (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Surely an encylopaedia should record factual information then provide us with the facts that he has not renounced his UK citizenship. And again I have to tell you for the second time please remain civil or you will be reported and blocked. BigDunc^Talk 17:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not been uncivil.Mooretwin (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the second time you have accused me of censorship and pushing a POV. BigDunc^Talk 17:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that equates to being uncivil. It's my view that removing reference to Adams' UK nationality is censorship. I would hold that view no matter who was doing it. It's nothing personal. But as you seem to be taking it personally and getting upset, please accept my apologies and I'll aim not to do so again. Mooretwin (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You are turning the conventions of logic on their head by demanding that another editor prove a negative. There is no evidence to indicate that Adams has renounced his UK citizenship, therefore the logical assumption is that he retains it. If you can show that he has renounced it, then obviously there is no reason to record his UK nationality in the article. Mooretwin (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely an encylopaedia should record factual information not what you assume to be now show the source that he hasn't renounced his UK citizenship. BigDunc^Talk 17:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You're simply repeating an illogical request. I cannot defy logic. Mooretwin (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

So you want wikipedia to portray your assumptions as fact but Surely an encylopaedia should record factual information and not the assumptions of the editors. BigDunc^Talk 17:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It is factual that he is a UK citizen. You have been unable to demonstrate that he is not. Mooretwin (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin, I have already stated that I do not have a political POV. I have merely said that I'm in favour of a person's right to accept or reject whatever nationality he/she chooses. That is not political.--jeanne (talk) 17:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "nationality" tag refers to a person's legal citizenship. Adams' assumed "rejection" of a legal fact is not therefore relevant, in my view. Mooretwin (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

My sister-in-law was born in London to Irish parents, who were both from County Meath to be precise. When she was about six weeks old, she and her parents moved to Dublin. She has an Irish passport, Irish citizenship, an Irish identity, and has never in her life considered herself or been labeled a British subject or citizen. She has nothing against the British,BTW.--jeanne (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That's fantastic for her, but I fail to see the relevance. Adams was born, brought up, and lives in the UK. If your sister is a UK citizen, and has a WP article, then I think the article should state that. Mooretwin (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. We have heard these arguments before time and again when discussion Nationalists and Republicans from NI. There is very little encyclopaedic value to detailing the peculiarities of nationality when it comes to Ireland and Britain. How it was resolved before was asking a simply question: Is there any sources that we can use to determine whether the Northern Irish individual chose to adopt an Irish or British nationality? If there is, then we go with what they chose. In the case Irish Republicans, its antagonistic to continually insist they are labeled British, when they have purposely chosen to be considered Irish and clearly don't consider themselves British. If one is concerned the article is misleading on contradictory, then simply state in the text, as Thunder suggests, that he was born in the UK, but chose to adopt Irish nationality/citizenship. No big deal.

NI individuals can't "choose" to "adopt" UK nationality. It's automatic at birth. So your suggestion makes no sense. Mooretwin (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You can choose not to adopt Irish nationality, though, which one would do if they wished to remain a British national. Rockpocket 22:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

That (a) makes no sense (It's possible to have dual nationality: many people do), and (b) is irrelevant (no-one has suggested that Adams has chosen not to adopt Irish citizenship). Mooretwin (talk) 08:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(a) it makes perfect sense in the context of an Irish Republican and (b) its very relevant in the context of an Irish Republican (can you see how pointless this discussion is?) Rockpocket 17:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense in any context. And in respect of an Irish republican, is such a person likely "not" to adopt Irish nationality? Mooretwin (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing, though, if we are going to describe him as an Irish national, it should either be "Irish" or "Irish, not "Irish". Because the latter is not an article about the country that he elected to be a national of. Its complicated enough without inaccurate piping. Rockpocket 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's just remove the Nationality tab from the sidebar altogether. Can we agree on that? Mooretwin (talk) 22:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Why should we remove the nationality tab from the article? That's the equivalent of saying Irish nationality isn't important. The entire world recognises him as Irish. If we wanted to get technical, then every Irish person born before 1922 is also British by your reckoning. Adams refused to take his seat in Westminster for years, and before the Good Friday Agreement refused to accept British juristiction in Northern Ireland, so I'd hardly think he'd wish to be described as British should he see it listed on his tab.--jeanne (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Two reasons. 1. It doesn't really add anything to the article, and so little is lost by removing it, and 2. There is no agreement as to whether or not to censor Adams' UK citizenship from readers. Mooretwin (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No-one denies that Adams is Irish. Adams' (or anyone else's) personal wishes do not alter UK law. Only Parliament can do that. Mooretwin (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No it is refrenced that he is Irish now it is up to you to provide WP:RS and WP:V sources that he has not renounced his uk citizenship. BigDunc^Talk 07:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For the nth time - you can't prove a negative. You claim he's renounced it - you prove it. It's already shown that people born in the UK before 1983 are UK citizens. Mooretwin (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it not the case that you are claiming that he has not renounced it, therefore the onus is on you. I really think you should take the advice offered by Rock, and your fellow editors. --Domer48_'fenian' 09:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pointing out that he's a UK citizen. If you have evidence to suggest that he isn't, feel free to bring it to the table. It seems, however, that there is no such evidence. Mooretwin (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What part of the onus is on the editor adding content do you not understand? BigDunc^Talk 11:25, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no part that I don't understand. Why do you ask? Mooretwin (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, I'm seeing no other support for your position, Mooretwin. Even those editors you sought advice from declined to endorse your position. Moreover, every other time we have gone over this subject, we have come to the same conclusion (as I explained above), what has changed this time? If you genuinely had no horse in this race, I think it is unlikely that you would describe the status quo as an attempt to "censor Adams' UK citizenship". That is clearly not the intention. The aim is to best describe what country Mr Adams is a national of, for all practical purposes. As I also noted, if you are concerned that the peculiarities of the situation is confusing, describe in the text how he was born in the UK but chose to adopt Irish nationality. Rockpocket 17:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not "my position": it's legal fact. No-one has been able to refute it. Mr Adams is a citizen of the UK and of ROI. I see reason to pretend that he is a citizen only of the latter. Mooretwin (talk) 22:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

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 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)

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

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 gaillimh^{Conas 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. gaillimh^{Conas 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 gaillimh^{Conas 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. gaillimh^{Conas 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 gaillimh^{Conas 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 gaillimh^{Conas 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)

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.[2] 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 gaillimh^{Conas 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. gaillimh^{Conas 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. gaillimh^{Conas 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 gaillimh^{Conas 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? gaillimh^{Conas 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 gaillimh^{Conas 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. gaillimh^{Conas 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. gaillimh^{Conas 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. gaillimh^{Conas 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. gaillimh^{Conas 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)