Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 3

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. - A l is o n  ☺ 17:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

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.   gaillimh Conas 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.  gaillimh Conas 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.  gaillimh Conas 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)

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.

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)
 * 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 Hackney  303  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. 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 while the previous version did not.  gaillimh Conas 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 Hackney  303  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 Hackney  303  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?  gaillimh Conas 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 Hackney  303  13:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments by uninvolved parties
 * 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)

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)

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)

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.


 * Have you had a chance to actually read WP:NOT 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 Conclusion: Disambiguation and accuracy are good things. Moral: Always look on the bright side of life.
 * 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).


 * (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. 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, and your threatened intensions, I suggest you read |talk 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)

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)

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)

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: 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)
 * 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.


 * 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. 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” 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).

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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)