Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 4

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


 * For the last time there are a number of different movements that refer to themselves as X Republican Movement, This article refers to the largest of these The Irish Republican Movement and makes it very clear that in this case it refers to Sinn Féin and the provisional IRA nobody else, and Gerry Adams is regarded as a spokeperson for that movement, therefore there is no need to mention other movements that Adams isn't a spokeperson for, nor would there be a need on Ruairí Ó Brádaigh article to mention any other movement when saying he is a spokesperson for the Continuity Republican Movement.--padraig 01:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As has being pointed out above:


 * "...That the Army Council was...the supreme authority in the Republican Movement. That Sinn Fein is an autonomous and independent organisation but if it wishes to remain within the Republican Movement it's policy must conform with Army policy."


 * Ruairí Ó Brádaigh broke away from the "Republican Movement" in 1986. 32 County broke away from the “Republican Movement” over the Good Friday Agreement. They both set up their own organisations. The reference above is quite clear! Please assume good faith, and I hope this helps. --Domer48 08:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He did not break away from the movement, he broke away from 1 section of the movement to form another, in a way he was widening the movement. Conypiece 22:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * No. It's absolutely not a fair conclusion. Anyone (a local cleaner for example) can use an anonymous account (IP or otherwise) to introduce bias into our articles. That's why, for a very small subset of articles that are continually subject to introduced bias by team editors, there should be 3 procedures:
 * Article mentorship
 * Articles should be edited only by "trusted" editors that have established their bona fides to a member of Arbcom with checkuser privileges
 * Members of Arbcom should also be empowered to check all new applications for "trusted editor" status against the IP addresses of edits to avoid meat and socket puppetry issues.


 * And, of course, there is another issue which everybody carefully skirts around.


 * It's "the elephant in the room" :
 * W. Frank talk ✉ 09:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no "team editing" conspiracy to distort articles as you keep alleging. There is however, WP:Irish Republicanism that seeks to improve articles relating to Irish Republicanism of which many on your hypothetical "team editors" participate in. Your suggestions also go against the fundamental principle of wikipedia, namely that anyone can edit any article. If you disagree with this then maybe wikipedia isn't for you.GiollaUidir 16:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The computer used in the edits was a Vatican one: particulary it was a computer in Radio Vaticana. The Vatican bosses may be not involved, and they may don't know this fact, but they are responsible for this edits in Wikipedia since it was done by an employee of them. If they not ordered that person to edit the article, they should clearly explain that, and maybe take censorship measures on their employee for a such conduct. --Olpus 08:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you are so concerned about it get in touch with Radio Vaticana about it.--padraig 08:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Padraig, in my statement before yours I was answering to Georges42, as you can understand watching the number of colon I used. I am not only concerned about Radio Vaticana, I am scandalized of this example of obscurantism. Actually, I am italian and catholic, and this made me more angry of this recent discovery. --Olpus 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Team editing to make provisional SF more electorally attractive
WP:NOT is official policy on the English Wikipedia.

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

1. Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views.

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

3. Self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopaedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself and your friends. See Autobiography, Notability and Conflict of interest. Currently we have a team of editors (including, but not limited to: User:Brixton Busters, User:BigDunc, User:Domer48, User:GiollaUidir, User:Padraig, User:Scalpfarmer, User:Vintagekits) that edit a consistent set of our articles in such a way as to introduce a consistent bias and ambiguity.

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * He has been spamming this nonsense on every article where his POV pushing has been rejected, he has also made it clear that he has no interest in discussing the issue, and intends to continue to edit war on the issue.--padraig 12:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Rejected by whom? The team editors.
 * And I've only posted (different variations of this warning) on 4 separate talk pages - your team's been busy making exactly the same biassed and politically motivated edits on dozens of articles.
 * The team editors' definition of an edit war includes any edit by anyone who makes an edit that does not meet their own systematic political sanitisation campaign of the Provisional IRA (PIRA). W. Frank talk ✉  12:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you wish to enter dispute resolution, you have been made aware of the relevant channels. Brixton Busters 12:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

{Editconflict}
 * The first stage is usually to engage the disputing editor(s) on their user talk pages. You make that rather difficult to do by expunging whole sections rather than archiving. eg:
 * However, I do feel that there may be a distinct improvement towards a more neutral point of view being implemented in our PIRA related articles now that the "elephant in the room" has been spotted at last.
 * On that basis I'll stop editing PIRA related articles fora while as advised by administrator Spartaz Humbug. If there is no improvement over the course of the next few weeks, then I'll take your good advice. W. Frank talk ✉ 13:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you not comment without attacking other editors and admins his name is Spartaz, yet as for your normal style you seem to try and insult anyone that disagrees with you.--padraig 13:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Have a read WP:NAM W.Frank and chill out its not a conspiracy against WP or you. BigDunc 14:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I entirely agree that the "conspiracy" has an electoral and political (and possibly fund-raising) focus and is not aimed at enhancing the encyclopaedic qualities of our project. I also agree that both team and independent editors should sit and cogitate for a wee while before hitting the revert button W. Frank talk ✉ 14:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've re-read that pertinent essay and this phrase leaps out: "If both sides of the dispute cite mainstream experts, then the discussion and its references can move to the article in suitably encyclopedic language. The editors need not reach a consensus or a compromise. It is enough to describe the controversy in neutral terms and to offer the best evidence for both sides. This approach can enrich the article."
 * Obviously this may be very tricky in the biography of a living person - especially a prominent politician - but that approach certainly has scope in other PIRA related articles.
 * We could have a section with PIRA's point of view (that they have always been heroic freedom fighters that only ever targeted wicked lackies of an oppressive neo-colonialist state and thus are the true heirs and successors of Michael Collins(duly referenced)
 * and other sections (duly referenced) that hint that, at least occasionally, children, mothers and teenagers were blown to bits and maimed in a sloppy and careless (and unnecessary) campaign of terrorism that ultimately failed in its stated aim of establishing a united island (since PIRA has not exactly been an advocate for brotherly love and reconciliation and the Irish Republic has now renounced its historical claim to the territory of Northern Ireland) W. Frank talk ✉ 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As I've stated below contentious passages about the PIRA don't belong in Gerry Adam's biography. Give it up. GiollaUidir 16:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:TPG - Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. Also as you're so fond of quoting WP:NOT, perhaps you might want to stop soapboxing yourself?
 * If you are so keen for quotes about the IRA for use in articles, may I recommend these?
 * "one of the world’s most dangerous and successful terrorist groups"
 * "perhaps the most successful terrorist organisation in the modern world"
 * "The Provisional IRA, the most successful terrorist group in the democratic world"
 * "a professional, dedicated, highly skilled and resilient force"
 * Brixton Busters 16:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Edits urgently needed to temporarily protected article
In the second paragraph of {the article} page, the text currently reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * Please also note this change is not influenced by any political bias - it is a simple linguistic correction —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Afterglow82 (talk • contribs).


 * Object to the proposed change with that wording. Proscribed organisation is the term used by the British government, see here. The IRA are not classed as a terrorist organisation in Republic of Ireland, they are classed as an illegal organisation. Brixton Busters 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Object to this wording as Brixton Busters says The IRA are not classed as a terrorist organisation in the Republic Of Ireland. BigDunc 13:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also object. Perhaps the user requesting the change and protection should read the Home Office List of Proscribed Orgs page.GiollaUidir 13:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He should also read Words_to_avoid.--padraig 13:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * That's generally my position too (since I believe it was I that wrote the current phrase in the temporarily locked article). I think we're making progress then. I propose slightly modifying the phrase to include your excellent citation, thus: "Adams has long been a spokesman for the "Provisional movement" which encompasses Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (PIRA) ( a proscribed organisation in the United Kingdom   and an illegal organisation in the Republic of Ireland.) "
 * How's that? W. Frank talk ✉ 14:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I see no need to add superfluous information.GiollaUidir 14:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not even a reference to the way that "proscribed" is being used in this, our article? W. Frank talk ✉ 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The IRA's legal status has got absolutely nothing to do with an article on Gerry Adams, even if it's got 50 top-grade references. I don't see why you're so fixated about putting in your wee proscribed and illegal section. Why not go and work on an unprotected article instead of trying to insert totally irrelevant passages into a protected article?!?! GiollaUidir 16:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines&oldid=150889962#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable indicates that "The record should accurately show significant exchanges that took place, and in the right context."
 * There is also a strong hint there that as a rule, you shouldn't edit others' comments. I'd suggest that `not editing others' comments` also includes entirely removing/censoring them. W. Frank talk ✉ 13:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are also rules about spamming talk pages, and its removal.--padraig 13:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are indeed guidelines and you should call for the help of an admin if you think this removal is often being implemented by members of your team. Now one other characteristic of our team editors, that I forgot to mention, is that they rarely will admit to making a mistake and then apologise W. Frank talk ✉ 13:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Further edit request
The following text which was deleted a few months back (see above) should be reinserted:


 * ''In October 2006, it was alleged that Adams's finger and hand-prints were found on a stolen car allegedly used during the murders of RUC men Cecil Cunningham (46) and John Haslett (21) in 1971. However, no link between Adams and the killings, or

between the burned out car and the killings, has been shown. The link is, therefore, entirely speculative.''

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


 * ''In July 2005 Adams, along with Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris, were reported to have left the IRA's ruling Army Council. The resignations were made in advance of the IRA's statement later that month announcing it was ending the armed campaign.

Although the wording could do with some work. The allegations of IRA membership have been discussed at length above, and general consensus was to keep them to a short list of the most notable sources. However I think this is important enough to include. Stu  ’Bout ye!  19:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Protection is almost gone; let's allow this page to cool down a little. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Martin

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


 * I concur, Tim.
 * We need to be very careful not to libel living politicians - and we need to be equally careful not to introduce electorally advantageous propaganda.
 * That is why most of the "Team editors" - who have shown themselves unable to maintain a neutral and unbiased editing contribution - should be blocked from reverting to their biassed versions of our articles. W. Frank talk ✉ 13:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So W.Frank you agree with what Tim says but you feel he should be censored so as not to give the "team" (your paranoid delusion) any "electorally advantageous propaganda". Who is the one showing BIAS now? BigDunc 02:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's Frank.
 * And nowhere will you see me say that Gerry Adams should be censored.
 * To clarify: I believe that you and other anonymous and pseudonymous "team editors" (many of them members of WP:IRA) should be banned from introducing political propaganda into a large number of PIRA related articles since you have consistently shown yourself incapable of overcoming your WP:COI and contributing positively to improving our encyclopaedic coverage of these topics.
 * When I said that I concurred with Tim, I meant that I agreed with both his analysis and conclusion - that, on balance, and recognising that Gerry Adams is a living politician, the passage about fingerprints should be excised again. The practical difficulty I would have with making that particular edit myself is that I would also feel compelled to point out that Adams does not have a mandate from the whole nationalist and irish republican community and is indelibly and voluntarily associated with the PIRA flavour of violence. And I have no wish to incite (albeit with a correct and unbiased edit) another cycle of reversions. W. Frank talk ✉ 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

More detailed election results are at

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

Tim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim2718281 (talk • contribs).

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

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

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

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

A similar question arose in UK courts in 2005.

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

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

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

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

I draw attention to the section 17

"The court's task, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, is to give effect to Parliament's purpose. So the controversial provisions should be read in the context of the statute as a whole, and the statute as a whole should be read in the historical context of the situation which led to its enactment." It probably requires a lawyer to explain this; but what I read in one of Lord Denning's books is that now that the decisions of UK courts can be appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, the method of deciding what a UK law means is the European method, not the UK one. That is, a court is not to be limited by the exact wording of a law; it can decide what those passing the law intended.

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

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

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

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

Tim —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tim2718281 (talk • contribs).

Gerard or Gerald?
Which is his full first name? I thought it was Gerald myself. Are instances of him being called Gerald incorrect? Stu  ’Bout ye!  11:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Stu   ’Bout ye!  20:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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


 * Erm its linked to a national newspaper, didn't you notice? Conypiece 21:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Coneypiece, it is ALLEGED by a reporter based on Alledged information from a un-named source, If the PSNI had any evidence such as fingerprints as alledged in this claim, don't you think they would at least arrest and question Adams for this, but they haven't, I would say the reason they haven't is because they have no such evidence.--padraig 21:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was an allegation! I think the illustration I have used is sufficient, to explain what I have said! Might I suggest a book for you Ireland: The Propaganda War, The British Media and the Battle for the Hearts and Minds, Liz Curtis, Pluto Press, 1984, ISBN 0 86104 757 5. --Domer48 21:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And thats why its under 'alleged IRA membership and activity' Conypiece 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Coneypiece this is an Encyclopeadia, not a tabloid newspaper, WP deals in Facts not speculation, read WP:RS if your not sure on this.--padraig 21:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


 * Eh Doms, mefinks you must be on the wrong page. Anywho Padraig, tell me, what does the word alleged mean to you? Are the Independent and Sunday Times cheap tabloids to you? And also, as the information had been moved under the 'alleged' title, it did not need to be proven. Sorry folks but you haven't got much room to manoeuvre on this issue. Its going back tomorrow. Conypiece 22:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Coneypiece read the Box on the top of this page.--padraig 22:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As someone who had to argue to even retain mention of his "alleged" IRA membership, I'll add my two cents. This is an encyclopedia, let's stick to facts not newspaper speculation about "allegations" from parties unknown. To even add it in a remotely neutral way would require weasel wording to the Nth degree. One Night In Hackney  303  22:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I consider Conypiece, is suggesting that tell will revert dispite this discussion. I have tried to be helpful, but they seem to be more intrested in pushing a POV regardless. --Domer48 22:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Padraig, Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, problem is though, it was sourced by two major newspapers.
 * ONiH, but surely all the other material under 'Alleged' is speculation. What makes this different? Conypiece 22:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they where made by Politicans or named people not an un-named source as in this case.--padraig 22:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's different because the books state as fact that Adams was in the IRA, so we know who is alleging what. With these stories, we don't. One Night In Hackney  303  22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Padraig, did you not read the article, it was proven that his prints were found on the car; The discovery was confirmed in the late Eighties when new DNA techniques were developed to analyse less substantial traces discovered at crime scenes. Therefore it is logical to have no individual name. Conypiece 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ONiH, actually the linked articles do state as fact that his prints were at the sceneConypiece 23:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * A nice mess! Firstly "Wikipedia only deals in facts". Yes but sometimes "facts" contradict. Especially on contentious issues. With regard to "the troubles" there are always going to be at least two sides to the arguement. What we should be aiming to do is provide an informative yet balanced view, which includes views from all sides. Secondly there are books written by people who have all sorts of views on the troubles. However the list which Domer48 so kindly provided are books given from one side of the conflict. If we were only to use such sources we'd have a biased, yet cited article. Can you not suggest some books from other opinions? This is supposed to be an encylopedia this is a source used by many people who look things up. If we don't mention alleged membership of the IRA, then people are going to wonder what this whole project is about. It is a fact that his membership has been alleged (almost every day by the sounds of it). It is also a fact that he has denied membership (almost every day by the sounds of it). That is the information which should go in. And as for the comment by padraig: If the PSNI had any evidence such as fingerprints as alledged in this claim, don't you think they would at least arrest and question Adams for this. Padraig, that is no argument at all. I could equally argue that it has been in the interests of the UK to keep Gerry Adams where he is, and not humiliate him. With the amount of agents, double agents, triple agents, and the rest, with all the agendas, we should certainly not be the ones to try and second guess peoples actions. And Conypiece The section you are trying to add is just speculation, and as it stands really doesn't belong here as the citations are not just weak, they are citations of an unsourced allegation. It shouldn't be in. However what would be good somewhere, (as it is being searched for) is the text allegedly removed by "the vatican" (yeah I know it isn't the "vatican".) Perhaps it should go in an article with the alleged stuff removed by the CIA. And then linked. Either way as it stands it really doesn't fit here, unless there is a more substantive source. --81.132.246.132 20:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

Without drawing too much from this..... is it then being said that his parents were nationalists even coming from republican backgrounds, or is nationalist just being used as a byword for catholic/republican etc. here?
 * Stupid question really - more about technicallities than anything, but you know......its said in 1st main paragraph: "nationalist Catholic family, consisting of 10 children who survived infancy, 5 boys, 5 girls and their parents, Gerry Adams Sr. and Annie Hannaway...Gerry Sr. and Annie came from strong republican backgrounds"

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

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wideofthemark (talk

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

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


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


 * Another one, of nemurous reference. Removed Tag. --Domer48 18:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If 9 people say the colour of the crow is black and one person says it is white, then the colour is disputed. I dispute this article, you have no right to dismiss my dispute! Conypiece 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


 * But once again you fail to provide the links I asked for. Oh and it is not up to you to decide when to remove the tag. There needs to be consensus. I still dispute this page. Look at what it says within the tag, Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. Do it again and you will be verging on vandalism. Conypiece 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I can remove the tag if there is no valid rationale for adding it. There is no detailed reasoning (backed up with direct quotes from policy and sources), the same as before when I removed it. You can't just "drive-by-tag" and say "I think the article is POV". Which parts are POV? Where are the sources that aren't being represented etc etc? One Night In Hackney  303  22:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I dispute this page for the following statement, Adams is a spokesman for the Irish Republican Movement which encompasses Sinn Féin and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). As of yet Domer has failed to provide links stating that CIRA are not part of the movement. Unless you would like to do so? Conypiece 23:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that's your opinion. Until you provide a reliable source that they are part of the movement, there's nothing to discuss. References don't need to be online, books are perfectly reliable sources. If your local library or bookshop don't have the ones in question, try here. One Night In Hackney  303  23:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

That point has been made a number of times One Night In Hackney  303 , its up to Conypiece to provide a reliable source that say they are part of the movement,and until then, there's nothing more to discuss.Adams is the spokesperson, and that is referenced,Conypiece has their own opinion, and thats all it is opinion, well now its up to them to provide and cited, any verifiable  and reliably sourced material, which contradicts this sources.When you find reliably sourced information which is verifiable Conypiece feel free to add it   --Domer48 23:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And again, I'm asking you to provide sources. Wikipedia does not work on editor's opinions, we work from sources. No sources = no discussion. What RSF say is not germane, If I start an organisation tomorrow and say I'm part of the republican movement does that make it so? One Night In Hackney  303  23:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn I had forgotten about this discussion, Republican Movement {Ireland) is that page wrong ONiH? Conypiece 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a tertiary source, so not relevant. One Night In Hackney  303  10:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Domer48
How is material from a prime ministers notice which was released through the National Archives nonsense? What do you need to make it reliable? Conypiece 18:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * Check the history before leaping. One Night In Hackney  303  19:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't get what your point is Hackney. And SirFrozzie I thought it was alright saying Fresh evidence emerged of Adams' alleged IRA membership? Oh and a Prime ministers situation report can be taken pretty seriously. And then also the fact it is included under the alleged membership heading removed the need to be 100% certain. I see no reason why it should be changed. Conypiece 19:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep looking until you do then, it's not difficult. As for the edit itself, it's again being presented as a laundry list of allegations, that's what's wrong with it. See the lengthy discussion above. All that was being done was adding the same information that was already in the article again. One Night In Hackney  303  20:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea you didn't delete it, are you trying to boast to something? I still don't get what you are saying. Anyhow, I dont see that situation report mentioned anywhere else in the article. Are you in favour of adding the material back to the article? If not, why not? Conypiece 20:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I refer you to my previous comment. Judging by the speed of your reply, you didn't read it properly or the rest of the talk page as I recommended. If you do, it will become instantly clear why it doesn't get added back in that format. One Night In Hackney  303  20:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * Have you read the article and the discussions above? If you have, you'll see why the addition of the text in that format is not appropriate. One Night In Hackney  303  21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup I have, still fail to see what is wrong about quoting a Prime Ministers situation report... Care to explain? Conypiece 21:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Duplication. One Night In Hackney  303  21:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see that extract from the report mentioned in the article. Can you see it anywhere? Conypiece 21:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I see the substance of it yes. One Night In Hackney  303  21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Care to tell us what you mean by seeing the substance of it? Is there a mention of this report within the article? It is an extremely useful reference. Conypiece 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the article. Read the contents of what has been removed. It's duplication. One Night In Hackney  303  21:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

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