![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
@O Fenian - including a well referenced allegation is not a BLP violation. @Pat Gallacher - although I'd consider the source to be valid, would we not be better proceeding as ONiH has outlined in the section above on this issue, which would also appear to have the benefit of consensus? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the newspapers are legally in the clear, but Adams might still sue Ed Moloney. Why doesn't he?
In some respects Adams and the IRA have been cleared. Hughes' account does have an air of plausibility about it. Some accounts have made out that the killing of Jean McConville was a straight sectarian killing, or some petty dispute over her giving a drink to a British soldier, it looks as if the IRA could have had serious evidence that she was a British agent.
I think a one-revert rule has been applied to this article, and it looks as if O Fenian has broken this. I am aware that this does not apply to poorly sourced material in a BLP, but I don't think this is poorly sourced. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the law of defamation, but I am not sure Maloney could claim qualified privelege. Brendan Hughes was a one-time hero in Republican circles. He was at various times commander of the IRA prisoners in the H-Blocks (immediately prior to Bobby Sands), leader of the 1980 hunger strike (the dress rehearsal for the main hunger strike in 1981) and commander of the Belfast Brigade. His comments cannot be dismissed out of hand as "poorly sourced", even if he was in poor health and out of step with the Republican leadership towards the end of his life, and even if he is effectively now speaking from the grave. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the crucial reason why we should avoid including poorly sourced negative information about living people in Wikipedia is to avoid the possibility of Wikipedia being sued. However, if legally Adams cannot sue Maloney for repeating Hughes' comments in a neutral way, then presumably Wikipedia can't be sued for repeating them in a neutral way either. Adams, love him or loathe him, is a prominent and highly controversial figure who has already declined to sue over various allegations of varying plausibility and verifiability which have been made about him over the years, I reckon the chances of him suing over any new allegations are pretty remote. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The BLP issue is a complete red herring. There are many, many published allegations by reliable sources, claiming that Adams was an IRA member. (Equally, there are many denials, including a denial for the latest allegations to be published). There is no violation of BLP in a WP article reporting on what is being alleged and/or denied in the mainstream media.
Include them all, though, and as has been said, we end up with a shopping list. Not including any reference to the allegations at all would, on the other hand, be a glaring omission. User:One Night In Hackney, in his comment of [ March above], proposes what I think is an excellent compromise. Can we not go with that? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no involvement in this article and came here from BLP/N which I was visiting for an unrelated reason (I don't usually monitor that board). I don't pay particular attention to Irish politics (I'm from the USA and we don't hear about it that much here), but I basically knew who Gerry Adams is (sort of at the level of basically knowing who Emperor Akihito is). I consider myself hawkish on both the BLP and neutrality policies, and because those policies often conflict, I'm deletionistic towards BLP's in general. My view on this question is that:
However, the IRA thing shouldn't be overplayed, and it obviously has to be made clear that Adams denies it. Basically, erring to the side of caution here should be done in the assessment of due weight, by interpreting uncertain factors in favor of the subject, not by ignoring stuff that is well known and verifiable. The paragraph in the current version look reasonable to me on its face, though I haven't checked the sources. There shouldn't be a laundry list--just take the few most prominent. Or if you're ok with ONiB's proposal, use that. (I think that constitutes increased weight compared to what there now, but you folks are in a much better place than I am to decide if it's appropriate).
Also, from a general reader's perspective: I didn't realize the IRA allegation was even controversial. I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that Adams was an uncontroversially ex-IRA guy who later became a politician, sort of like Yasser Arafat's career prior to the PLO. So the belief is widespread enough that it should be mentioned even for the purpose of stating and citing Adams' denial of it. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 11:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've done a bit more reading and made a new post to the second BLPN thread about Adams (the one opened by Snowded). I hadn't seen O Fenian's earlier BLPN thread when I posted further up. I see now (didn't understand before), the new issue is Moloney's recent book containing the dead guy's supposed disclosure connecting Adams with McConville. My suggestion at BLPN was basically to integrate a little bit more material about Moloney's book into the article about McConville, but put at most a brief pointer to it in the biography of Adams, unless more information comes out. Adams is the subject of far more documentation than McConville, so the weight of this single item in the mix of available material is proportionately lower for him than it is for her.
I should probably have brought up earlier that Wikipedia is supposedly a tertiary source, which means it summarizes the views of secondary sources, rather than directly interpreting primary sources. So in this case, what WP says about Moloney's book should be mostly distilled from the (considerable) press coverage that the book has received (some of which is unfavorable). I included a couple of possibly-useful links in the BLPN thread that I found in the google search that O Fenean had posted. I wouldn't use O'Callaghan's book if it's poorly regarded. I'll also add that BLP consensus has moved pretty far from the idea that BLP policy is just to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. We're not a scandal sheet, we're supposedly writing a serious and reputable reference work, and we have an ethical duty of care towards our article subjects. So we (try to) hold ourselves to much higher standards than the minimal level needed to only stay out of legal trouble. It seems to me that people here are mostly acting pretty sensibly, a refreshing change from the insane atmosphere around WP articles about controversial US politicians ;-). 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
One way to present it could be to describe the Hachey-Hughes interview [2] that Moloney based the Hughes part of his book on (I guess that belongs in the article about Hughes). I see there is already some coverage of Voices from the Grave (VFTG) in the article about Moloney. Do people here agree that a) the Hughes interview supplied by Hachey is authentic (i.e. that Hughes really said those things, not necessarily that the things he said were true), and b) Moloney's presentation of it is accurate and not too partisan? Are there any academic reviews of VFTG yet (and are there any for Secret History of the IRA)? I notice that according to [3], Hughes says he heard of Adams' ordering of McConville's burial from Ivor Bell, so I have to wonder if Bell has been questioned by reporters and/or police about the disclosures yet. And if Hughes didn't claim firsthand knowledge, that seems relevant, but now we're impacting yet another BLP (of Bell). Blecch. I didn't notice any statements from Bell regarding VFTG in anything I looked at. (And I wonder if there is old animosity between Bell and Adams.)
I'm pretty sleepy right now but will try to come back tomorrow. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 07:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In the lead we have a couple of sentences that seem to be more about SF than Adams himself. Yes, of course as the Pres. of SF we need to mention that in the lead, but I do not feel the following text needs to be in the lead -
In this section we have the test -
Feedback welcomed. -- BwB ( talk) 09:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ed Moloney (1999 Irish "Journalist of the Year") has now published a fourth book in 34 years and a review of it (Business Post, Richard Curran [4]) begins with "The controversy over whether Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA or not isn’t really much of a controversy at all. Adams seems to be the only one saying he was never in the IRA". This looks to me like a main-stream response (a "secondary source") to the contents of the book, both bringing further endorsment to its contents and adding several useful details to the article. While BLP is a key policy everyone will wish to support, it cannot be allowed to justify censorship. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 11:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
So out of three people who reply (other than MalcolmMcDonald) two people object to the use of a book review for a quote about a living person, the other person says the section is fine without the addition, and we get the claim that "Talk discussion concludes this secondary claim on the lack of support for Adams denial is perfectly proper. Find a secondary source claiming the opposite and add that as well. If there is any". No it does not, anyone can see that. O Fenian ( talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is the EL section getting a bit long and could it use some pruning? See WP:EL. -- BwB ( talk) 11:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that some new wikileak cables have some comments about Adams. Taking a quote from The Irish Times article:
Though wikipedia needs to have some balance. On the other side of the argument, what are the best sources for people who back up Adams that he was never a member of the IRA? A good source would be someone other than Adams himself. Perhaps someone who was high in the chain of command in the IRA and so would have had a very good idea if he had been a member. Aberdeen01 ( talk) 15:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"In December 2010 the Wikileaks United States diplomatic cables leak included a US Embassy cable from Dublin stating that the Irish Government had "rock solid evidence" that Mr Adams was a member of the "IRA military command" and knew about the 2004 Northern Bank robbery" is the relevant part of your suggestion. "He said that the GOI does have "rock solid evidence" that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain they would have known in advance of the robbery" is the exact text of the cable. Do you not consider that the omission of "and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain" or a paraphrase of it grossly distorts the meaning of the cable, since the original cable does not say that the Irish government had "rock solid evidence" that Gerry Adams had advance knowledge of the Northern Bank robbery?
Despite my earlier comment about "dated", you still presume I mean something else entirely. Here is a clue, "dated" does not have anything to do with the publication date of the Wikileaks information.
Who is telling the truth in the Irish government? The ambassador? Bertie Ahern? It is not for Wikipedia to decide. Once the Irish government gets its own story straight there may be a possibility of using the material. Gerry Adams has repeatedly challenged those in the Irish government who claim he is an IRA member to prosecute him, since it is a crime you know? Perhaps Bertie Ahern is "soft on crime"? If the Irish government are not willing to put their money where their mouth is and prosecute then why should their allegation be given any weight? The challenge has been put to them, if they think Gerry Adams is an IRA member then prosecute him. Put up or shut up, for want of a better term.
I have no objection to the Northern Bank robbery being added to the appropriate section and in context so it gives more information about what Gerry Adams was doing at that time, as I stated at 13:22, 15 December 2010. But all Wikileaks does on that is repeat what was said right back in 2005. So that would only leave the IRA membership part of the Wikileaks cable. On that score, I refer you to the repeated discussions about laundry lists of accusers. Worse still, this particular accuser is inconsistent in their comments. Apart from the British authorities, they are also in the unique position of being able to prosecute Gerry Adams for the crime they allege he is committing. They have not done so.. O Fenian ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Disentangling the nuances and different perspectives here will not be easy, and since this is a BLP, I don't see problem with reviewing the available material at length. There is no deadline.
One small point, though. The incompatibility of Ahern's private statement with his public ones is not evidence of deficiency in any of the sources. It's entirely plausible that what a taoiseach says in a private discussion may be less-guarded than what he says in public about people with whom he needs to maintain a working relationship, and who he may not want to injure politically. Talk of the govt "getting its story straight" ignores the common political need for difft stories in difft places. That may involve telling completely difft stories to difft audiences, or simply saying a lot less in public than in private than in public, or deliberate obfuscation.
Whether Ahern did actually make the reported comments to US diplomats is a difft matter, and depends on the reliability we attribute to the leaked cables. The gap between reported public and private statements is not of itself a reason to assume unreliability.
Similarly, saying "if they think Gerry Adams is an IRA member then prosecute him" is a fine political tactic, but doesn't resolve the issue. If the govt believed that it had gold-plated evidence that Adams was an IRA member, it would still be quite reasonable for the same govt to believe that prosecuting him would not just fail the public interest test, but be an act of political vandalism to the peace process.
In the absence of either a clear public statement by Adams which the other parties accept, or a successful prosecution, all we have are a variety of inconclusive perspectives, none of which can be treated as uncontested fact. They can only be used by follwing the guidance at WP:NPOV and incorporating the the difft perspectives.
The question here is really not who editors think is right, but whether and how wikipedia can combine a pile of contradictory, ambiguous and evasive statements on all sides with an unverified leak of one interested party's account of a private conversation ... and still produce a neutral and reliable account of the the contested material available.
May I suggest that it would be best to set out a table of what refs are available, and invite comment from uninvolved editors? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Including the Irish government's point-of-view (whatever it may be, since there are many contradictory sources) would unbalance the section and be given far more weight than actual academics who have got their story consistent. Therefore I repeat my suggestion of December 15:
I will add that I believe the information about the Northern Bank robbery could be added to the article, but not in the way it was presented. The "mainstream politics" section is a bit bare on post-Good Friday Agreement details, so a paragraph or two about negotiations over IRA disarmament in the time period in question, the robbery, Ahern's claims and so on could be added. That way it is all in context, not some so-called Wikileaks exclusive saying something that was said years ago.
The IRA membership allegations are already in the article (and I fail to see how including a mass of contradictory information from the Irish government improves that), and the Northern Bank allegation would also be in the article. Two editors agreed this would be acceptable, but it seems that certain editors are unwilling to compromise. O Fenian ( talk) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no confirmation that Gerry Adams has accepted the role of Baron of Manor of Northstead. UTV latest update states: "Gerry Adams spokesperson maintains the only correspondence has been the letter sent to the speaker last week" - Therefore, the official comment from Adams is that he has not accepted the role and it should not be used on the page. Dornálaíocht ( talk) 13:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There may have been many press reports stating that Gerry Adams has resigned, but it has not happened yet. The only way for him to resign is to be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Steward of the Manor of Northstead, and when that happens it will appear as a press release on the Treasury website here. According to Mark Devenport, Adams has written to the Speaker asking to resign. No action can be taken on such a letter. Until Gerry Adams is actually appointed, he remains an MP. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
{edit conflict} @Sam Blacketer: Not true. Adams has indeed resigned you're confusing his resignation with him ceasing to be a Westminster MP which is a different thing. I very seriously doubt that the Chancellor of the exchequer will refuse to appoint him to the Chiltern Hundreds nonsense. Your personal site, excellent but unfortunately no longer updated, doesn't seem to have a section on this but has there ever been a case in the last 100 odd years where an MPs resignation was refused? The article should simply state that he's written to resign, stripping out all the speculative fluff, and we remove the MP tag when that happens, a fait accompli though it is. Valenciano ( talk) 23:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"Following the announcement of the Irish general election, 2011 being held on 11 March 2011, Adams wrote to Westminster to formally resign his seat[40] to fight the Louth constituency" to "Following the announcement of the Irish general election, 2011 being held on 11 March 2011, Adams has written to Westminster to apply to resign his seat to fight[40] the Louth constituency" Gavin Lisburn ( talk) 00:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest news from Michael Crick is that Adams might not resign his seat at all! — Half Price 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"Adams has written to Westminster to apply to resign his seat to fight[40] the Louth constituency" - not according to him or Sinn Féin. He tendered his resignation, pure and simple. Whatever arcane rules surround the resignation of an MP are a matter for the UK parliament. He wrote a resignation letter. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Just when things were settling down the Prime Minister has thrown it all into confusion by claiming that Gerry Adams has accepted the Manor of Northstead (he said 'Baron', presumably a misremembering of the actual title 'Steward'). Yet the Treasury website does not at the time of writing, two hours later, list any such appointment and Sinn Féin positively deny it. I can see three possible explanations for what is going on:
Other explanations may be possible but these seem the most likely. Which of them it is, I cannot say. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have received a copy of this message, although I cannot vouch for its authenticity:
Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams commenting on a claim by British PM David Cameron that he has accepted a post as “Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead’ said:
“The only contact I have had with the British Parliament is a letter I posted to them last Thursday.
“That letter said, ‘A chara, I hereby resign as MP for the constituency of west Belfast. Go raibh maith agat. Gerry Adams’.
“When I was told of the British Prime Minister’s remarks today this was the first I heard of this development. I understand Mr. Cameron has claimed that ‘the Honourable Member for West Belfast has accepted an office for profit under the Crown.’
“This is untrue. I simply resigned. I was not consulted nor was I asked to accept such an office. I am an Irish republican. I have had no truck whatsoever with these antiquated and quite bizarre aspects of the British parliamentary system.
“I am proud to have represented the people of west Belfast for almost three decades and to have done so without pledging allegiance to the English Queen or accepting British parliamentary claims to jurisdiction in my country.
“It was a wrench for me to give up the West Belfast seat. I am very grateful to all those citizens who worked and voted for Sinn Fein through good times and bad times in defiance of the British government and its allies in Ireland. But I gave a commitment that when the election to the Dáil was called I would resign the West Belfast seat to stand for the Louth and East Meath constituency and I have.
“Mr. Cameron’s announcement that I have become Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, wherever that is, is a bizarre development . I am sure the burghers of that Manor are as bemused as me. I have spoken to the Prime Ministers Private Secretary today and he has apologised for today’s events.
“While I respect the right of British parliamentarians to have their own protocols and systems, no matter how odd these may appear to the rest of the world in general and Irish people in particular, the Prime Minister should not make claims which are untrue and inaccurate. The onus is on the Westminster parties to call a bi-election as soon as possible in the West Belfast constituency. In the meantime let me assure the people of West Belfast that the Sinn Fein party will continue to provide our first class constituency service and representation.” ENDS
See http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_08_11.htm : "The Chancellor of the Exchequer has this day appointed Gerard Adams to be Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead." -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If you mean article 40.2, it relates to honours, which this is not - the "Baron" claim was a mistake and is misleading. ninety: one 00:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is the article going into any detail about Adams' resignation? No matter what tortuous, archaic legal fictions are involved, the simple reality is he resigned so he could run for the Dáil. Yes, the method employed to grant his resignation is ironic, but at the end of the day, it's a simple resignation from Westminster that's been done hundreds of times before. All of that is irrelevant to an article on Gerry Adams, and will look really out of place in a few weeks. All that needs to be said is he resigned as an MP so that he could run for election to the Dáil (and possibly a footnote to state he didn't actually need to resign to do so). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I did give a reason for the deletion. "Westminster" is superfluous, there is no other Parliament it could refer to. Traditional unionist ( talk) 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Lordwilliamfraud has been consistently adding an entry to the infobox for Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. I put it that this is confusing, pointless and unnecessary. The appointment is a complete sinecure, it is a legal fiction that is not worthy of mention alongside real offices such as those of an MP/MLA/TD. It is highly confusing, and especially in this controversial case, it implies that he held an office under the Crown, which he for all intents and purposes has not. The appointment is covered in the text, with the necessary explanations. I suggest it is removed from the infobox. ninety: one 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Please could someone re-insert "incorrectly" which was removed in this edit. Gerry Adams did not "accept" any position, and David Cameron was forced to apologise for claiming he had. Therefore it is essential that "incorrectly" remains in the article. O Fenian ( talk) 19:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, what you just did was very unhelpful. There was a discussion ongoing here and you edit warred it back. Please engage in discussion before reverting. Traditional unionist ( talk) 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had a quick look, and only one source says that Downing Street confirmed the apology. The BBC, UTV and epolitix all say that it is Adams contention that he got an apology - it would be fair to say that the regional newspaper you cite has made a mistake. Plus I still contend it is unnecessary. Therefore there is no grounds for its inclusion. Traditional unionist ( talk) 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I'll take silence as consensus on both the above changes in a couple of hours if no further arguments are brought forward. Traditional unionist ( talk) 17:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And the above is but one more reason we shouldn't be saying anything more than that he resigned as an MP (though his resignation wasn't required) in order to run for the Dáil... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal life
Gerry Adams is said in the entry to have three children. He has only one child, a son, named Gearóid after his father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.14.255 ( talk) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
@O Fenian - including a well referenced allegation is not a BLP violation. @Pat Gallacher - although I'd consider the source to be valid, would we not be better proceeding as ONiH has outlined in the section above on this issue, which would also appear to have the benefit of consensus? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the newspapers are legally in the clear, but Adams might still sue Ed Moloney. Why doesn't he?
In some respects Adams and the IRA have been cleared. Hughes' account does have an air of plausibility about it. Some accounts have made out that the killing of Jean McConville was a straight sectarian killing, or some petty dispute over her giving a drink to a British soldier, it looks as if the IRA could have had serious evidence that she was a British agent.
I think a one-revert rule has been applied to this article, and it looks as if O Fenian has broken this. I am aware that this does not apply to poorly sourced material in a BLP, but I don't think this is poorly sourced. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
I am not an expert on the law of defamation, but I am not sure Maloney could claim qualified privelege. Brendan Hughes was a one-time hero in Republican circles. He was at various times commander of the IRA prisoners in the H-Blocks (immediately prior to Bobby Sands), leader of the 1980 hunger strike (the dress rehearsal for the main hunger strike in 1981) and commander of the Belfast Brigade. His comments cannot be dismissed out of hand as "poorly sourced", even if he was in poor health and out of step with the Republican leadership towards the end of his life, and even if he is effectively now speaking from the grave. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
As I understand it, the crucial reason why we should avoid including poorly sourced negative information about living people in Wikipedia is to avoid the possibility of Wikipedia being sued. However, if legally Adams cannot sue Maloney for repeating Hughes' comments in a neutral way, then presumably Wikipedia can't be sued for repeating them in a neutral way either. Adams, love him or loathe him, is a prominent and highly controversial figure who has already declined to sue over various allegations of varying plausibility and verifiability which have been made about him over the years, I reckon the chances of him suing over any new allegations are pretty remote. PatGallacher ( talk) 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The BLP issue is a complete red herring. There are many, many published allegations by reliable sources, claiming that Adams was an IRA member. (Equally, there are many denials, including a denial for the latest allegations to be published). There is no violation of BLP in a WP article reporting on what is being alleged and/or denied in the mainstream media.
Include them all, though, and as has been said, we end up with a shopping list. Not including any reference to the allegations at all would, on the other hand, be a glaring omission. User:One Night In Hackney, in his comment of [ March above], proposes what I think is an excellent compromise. Can we not go with that? Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I have no involvement in this article and came here from BLP/N which I was visiting for an unrelated reason (I don't usually monitor that board). I don't pay particular attention to Irish politics (I'm from the USA and we don't hear about it that much here), but I basically knew who Gerry Adams is (sort of at the level of basically knowing who Emperor Akihito is). I consider myself hawkish on both the BLP and neutrality policies, and because those policies often conflict, I'm deletionistic towards BLP's in general. My view on this question is that:
However, the IRA thing shouldn't be overplayed, and it obviously has to be made clear that Adams denies it. Basically, erring to the side of caution here should be done in the assessment of due weight, by interpreting uncertain factors in favor of the subject, not by ignoring stuff that is well known and verifiable. The paragraph in the current version look reasonable to me on its face, though I haven't checked the sources. There shouldn't be a laundry list--just take the few most prominent. Or if you're ok with ONiB's proposal, use that. (I think that constitutes increased weight compared to what there now, but you folks are in a much better place than I am to decide if it's appropriate).
Also, from a general reader's perspective: I didn't realize the IRA allegation was even controversial. I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that Adams was an uncontroversially ex-IRA guy who later became a politician, sort of like Yasser Arafat's career prior to the PLO. So the belief is widespread enough that it should be mentioned even for the purpose of stating and citing Adams' denial of it. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 11:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I've done a bit more reading and made a new post to the second BLPN thread about Adams (the one opened by Snowded). I hadn't seen O Fenian's earlier BLPN thread when I posted further up. I see now (didn't understand before), the new issue is Moloney's recent book containing the dead guy's supposed disclosure connecting Adams with McConville. My suggestion at BLPN was basically to integrate a little bit more material about Moloney's book into the article about McConville, but put at most a brief pointer to it in the biography of Adams, unless more information comes out. Adams is the subject of far more documentation than McConville, so the weight of this single item in the mix of available material is proportionately lower for him than it is for her.
I should probably have brought up earlier that Wikipedia is supposedly a tertiary source, which means it summarizes the views of secondary sources, rather than directly interpreting primary sources. So in this case, what WP says about Moloney's book should be mostly distilled from the (considerable) press coverage that the book has received (some of which is unfavorable). I included a couple of possibly-useful links in the BLPN thread that I found in the google search that O Fenean had posted. I wouldn't use O'Callaghan's book if it's poorly regarded. I'll also add that BLP consensus has moved pretty far from the idea that BLP policy is just to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. We're not a scandal sheet, we're supposedly writing a serious and reputable reference work, and we have an ethical duty of care towards our article subjects. So we (try to) hold ourselves to much higher standards than the minimal level needed to only stay out of legal trouble. It seems to me that people here are mostly acting pretty sensibly, a refreshing change from the insane atmosphere around WP articles about controversial US politicians ;-). 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
One way to present it could be to describe the Hachey-Hughes interview [2] that Moloney based the Hughes part of his book on (I guess that belongs in the article about Hughes). I see there is already some coverage of Voices from the Grave (VFTG) in the article about Moloney. Do people here agree that a) the Hughes interview supplied by Hachey is authentic (i.e. that Hughes really said those things, not necessarily that the things he said were true), and b) Moloney's presentation of it is accurate and not too partisan? Are there any academic reviews of VFTG yet (and are there any for Secret History of the IRA)? I notice that according to [3], Hughes says he heard of Adams' ordering of McConville's burial from Ivor Bell, so I have to wonder if Bell has been questioned by reporters and/or police about the disclosures yet. And if Hughes didn't claim firsthand knowledge, that seems relevant, but now we're impacting yet another BLP (of Bell). Blecch. I didn't notice any statements from Bell regarding VFTG in anything I looked at. (And I wonder if there is old animosity between Bell and Adams.)
I'm pretty sleepy right now but will try to come back tomorrow. 66.127.52.47 ( talk) 07:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
In the lead we have a couple of sentences that seem to be more about SF than Adams himself. Yes, of course as the Pres. of SF we need to mention that in the lead, but I do not feel the following text needs to be in the lead -
In this section we have the test -
Feedback welcomed. -- BwB ( talk) 09:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Ed Moloney (1999 Irish "Journalist of the Year") has now published a fourth book in 34 years and a review of it (Business Post, Richard Curran [4]) begins with "The controversy over whether Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA or not isn’t really much of a controversy at all. Adams seems to be the only one saying he was never in the IRA". This looks to me like a main-stream response (a "secondary source") to the contents of the book, both bringing further endorsment to its contents and adding several useful details to the article. While BLP is a key policy everyone will wish to support, it cannot be allowed to justify censorship. MalcolmMcDonald ( talk) 11:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
So out of three people who reply (other than MalcolmMcDonald) two people object to the use of a book review for a quote about a living person, the other person says the section is fine without the addition, and we get the claim that "Talk discussion concludes this secondary claim on the lack of support for Adams denial is perfectly proper. Find a secondary source claiming the opposite and add that as well. If there is any". No it does not, anyone can see that. O Fenian ( talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Is the EL section getting a bit long and could it use some pruning? See WP:EL. -- BwB ( talk) 11:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I see that some new wikileak cables have some comments about Adams. Taking a quote from The Irish Times article:
Though wikipedia needs to have some balance. On the other side of the argument, what are the best sources for people who back up Adams that he was never a member of the IRA? A good source would be someone other than Adams himself. Perhaps someone who was high in the chain of command in the IRA and so would have had a very good idea if he had been a member. Aberdeen01 ( talk) 15:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
"In December 2010 the Wikileaks United States diplomatic cables leak included a US Embassy cable from Dublin stating that the Irish Government had "rock solid evidence" that Mr Adams was a member of the "IRA military command" and knew about the 2004 Northern Bank robbery" is the relevant part of your suggestion. "He said that the GOI does have "rock solid evidence" that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain they would have known in advance of the robbery" is the exact text of the cable. Do you not consider that the omission of "and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain" or a paraphrase of it grossly distorts the meaning of the cable, since the original cable does not say that the Irish government had "rock solid evidence" that Gerry Adams had advance knowledge of the Northern Bank robbery?
Despite my earlier comment about "dated", you still presume I mean something else entirely. Here is a clue, "dated" does not have anything to do with the publication date of the Wikileaks information.
Who is telling the truth in the Irish government? The ambassador? Bertie Ahern? It is not for Wikipedia to decide. Once the Irish government gets its own story straight there may be a possibility of using the material. Gerry Adams has repeatedly challenged those in the Irish government who claim he is an IRA member to prosecute him, since it is a crime you know? Perhaps Bertie Ahern is "soft on crime"? If the Irish government are not willing to put their money where their mouth is and prosecute then why should their allegation be given any weight? The challenge has been put to them, if they think Gerry Adams is an IRA member then prosecute him. Put up or shut up, for want of a better term.
I have no objection to the Northern Bank robbery being added to the appropriate section and in context so it gives more information about what Gerry Adams was doing at that time, as I stated at 13:22, 15 December 2010. But all Wikileaks does on that is repeat what was said right back in 2005. So that would only leave the IRA membership part of the Wikileaks cable. On that score, I refer you to the repeated discussions about laundry lists of accusers. Worse still, this particular accuser is inconsistent in their comments. Apart from the British authorities, they are also in the unique position of being able to prosecute Gerry Adams for the crime they allege he is committing. They have not done so.. O Fenian ( talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Disentangling the nuances and different perspectives here will not be easy, and since this is a BLP, I don't see problem with reviewing the available material at length. There is no deadline.
One small point, though. The incompatibility of Ahern's private statement with his public ones is not evidence of deficiency in any of the sources. It's entirely plausible that what a taoiseach says in a private discussion may be less-guarded than what he says in public about people with whom he needs to maintain a working relationship, and who he may not want to injure politically. Talk of the govt "getting its story straight" ignores the common political need for difft stories in difft places. That may involve telling completely difft stories to difft audiences, or simply saying a lot less in public than in private than in public, or deliberate obfuscation.
Whether Ahern did actually make the reported comments to US diplomats is a difft matter, and depends on the reliability we attribute to the leaked cables. The gap between reported public and private statements is not of itself a reason to assume unreliability.
Similarly, saying "if they think Gerry Adams is an IRA member then prosecute him" is a fine political tactic, but doesn't resolve the issue. If the govt believed that it had gold-plated evidence that Adams was an IRA member, it would still be quite reasonable for the same govt to believe that prosecuting him would not just fail the public interest test, but be an act of political vandalism to the peace process.
In the absence of either a clear public statement by Adams which the other parties accept, or a successful prosecution, all we have are a variety of inconclusive perspectives, none of which can be treated as uncontested fact. They can only be used by follwing the guidance at WP:NPOV and incorporating the the difft perspectives.
The question here is really not who editors think is right, but whether and how wikipedia can combine a pile of contradictory, ambiguous and evasive statements on all sides with an unverified leak of one interested party's account of a private conversation ... and still produce a neutral and reliable account of the the contested material available.
May I suggest that it would be best to set out a table of what refs are available, and invite comment from uninvolved editors? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Including the Irish government's point-of-view (whatever it may be, since there are many contradictory sources) would unbalance the section and be given far more weight than actual academics who have got their story consistent. Therefore I repeat my suggestion of December 15:
I will add that I believe the information about the Northern Bank robbery could be added to the article, but not in the way it was presented. The "mainstream politics" section is a bit bare on post-Good Friday Agreement details, so a paragraph or two about negotiations over IRA disarmament in the time period in question, the robbery, Ahern's claims and so on could be added. That way it is all in context, not some so-called Wikileaks exclusive saying something that was said years ago.
The IRA membership allegations are already in the article (and I fail to see how including a mass of contradictory information from the Irish government improves that), and the Northern Bank allegation would also be in the article. Two editors agreed this would be acceptable, but it seems that certain editors are unwilling to compromise. O Fenian ( talk) 21:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
There is no confirmation that Gerry Adams has accepted the role of Baron of Manor of Northstead. UTV latest update states: "Gerry Adams spokesperson maintains the only correspondence has been the letter sent to the speaker last week" - Therefore, the official comment from Adams is that he has not accepted the role and it should not be used on the page. Dornálaíocht ( talk) 13:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
There may have been many press reports stating that Gerry Adams has resigned, but it has not happened yet. The only way for him to resign is to be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as Steward of the Manor of Northstead, and when that happens it will appear as a press release on the Treasury website here. According to Mark Devenport, Adams has written to the Speaker asking to resign. No action can be taken on such a letter. Until Gerry Adams is actually appointed, he remains an MP. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 11:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
{edit conflict} @Sam Blacketer: Not true. Adams has indeed resigned you're confusing his resignation with him ceasing to be a Westminster MP which is a different thing. I very seriously doubt that the Chancellor of the exchequer will refuse to appoint him to the Chiltern Hundreds nonsense. Your personal site, excellent but unfortunately no longer updated, doesn't seem to have a section on this but has there ever been a case in the last 100 odd years where an MPs resignation was refused? The article should simply state that he's written to resign, stripping out all the speculative fluff, and we remove the MP tag when that happens, a fait accompli though it is. Valenciano ( talk) 23:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"Following the announcement of the Irish general election, 2011 being held on 11 March 2011, Adams wrote to Westminster to formally resign his seat[40] to fight the Louth constituency" to "Following the announcement of the Irish general election, 2011 being held on 11 March 2011, Adams has written to Westminster to apply to resign his seat to fight[40] the Louth constituency" Gavin Lisburn ( talk) 00:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest news from Michael Crick is that Adams might not resign his seat at all! — Half Price 17:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
"Adams has written to Westminster to apply to resign his seat to fight[40] the Louth constituency" - not according to him or Sinn Féin. He tendered his resignation, pure and simple. Whatever arcane rules surround the resignation of an MP are a matter for the UK parliament. He wrote a resignation letter. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Just when things were settling down the Prime Minister has thrown it all into confusion by claiming that Gerry Adams has accepted the Manor of Northstead (he said 'Baron', presumably a misremembering of the actual title 'Steward'). Yet the Treasury website does not at the time of writing, two hours later, list any such appointment and Sinn Féin positively deny it. I can see three possible explanations for what is going on:
Other explanations may be possible but these seem the most likely. Which of them it is, I cannot say. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I have received a copy of this message, although I cannot vouch for its authenticity:
Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams commenting on a claim by British PM David Cameron that he has accepted a post as “Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead’ said:
“The only contact I have had with the British Parliament is a letter I posted to them last Thursday.
“That letter said, ‘A chara, I hereby resign as MP for the constituency of west Belfast. Go raibh maith agat. Gerry Adams’.
“When I was told of the British Prime Minister’s remarks today this was the first I heard of this development. I understand Mr. Cameron has claimed that ‘the Honourable Member for West Belfast has accepted an office for profit under the Crown.’
“This is untrue. I simply resigned. I was not consulted nor was I asked to accept such an office. I am an Irish republican. I have had no truck whatsoever with these antiquated and quite bizarre aspects of the British parliamentary system.
“I am proud to have represented the people of west Belfast for almost three decades and to have done so without pledging allegiance to the English Queen or accepting British parliamentary claims to jurisdiction in my country.
“It was a wrench for me to give up the West Belfast seat. I am very grateful to all those citizens who worked and voted for Sinn Fein through good times and bad times in defiance of the British government and its allies in Ireland. But I gave a commitment that when the election to the Dáil was called I would resign the West Belfast seat to stand for the Louth and East Meath constituency and I have.
“Mr. Cameron’s announcement that I have become Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead, wherever that is, is a bizarre development . I am sure the burghers of that Manor are as bemused as me. I have spoken to the Prime Ministers Private Secretary today and he has apologised for today’s events.
“While I respect the right of British parliamentarians to have their own protocols and systems, no matter how odd these may appear to the rest of the world in general and Irish people in particular, the Prime Minister should not make claims which are untrue and inaccurate. The onus is on the Westminster parties to call a bi-election as soon as possible in the West Belfast constituency. In the meantime let me assure the people of West Belfast that the Sinn Fein party will continue to provide our first class constituency service and representation.” ENDS
See http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_08_11.htm : "The Chancellor of the Exchequer has this day appointed Gerard Adams to be Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead." -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
If you mean article 40.2, it relates to honours, which this is not - the "Baron" claim was a mistake and is misleading. ninety: one 00:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Why is the article going into any detail about Adams' resignation? No matter what tortuous, archaic legal fictions are involved, the simple reality is he resigned so he could run for the Dáil. Yes, the method employed to grant his resignation is ironic, but at the end of the day, it's a simple resignation from Westminster that's been done hundreds of times before. All of that is irrelevant to an article on Gerry Adams, and will look really out of place in a few weeks. All that needs to be said is he resigned as an MP so that he could run for election to the Dáil (and possibly a footnote to state he didn't actually need to resign to do so). Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I did give a reason for the deletion. "Westminster" is superfluous, there is no other Parliament it could refer to. Traditional unionist ( talk) 19:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
User:Lordwilliamfraud has been consistently adding an entry to the infobox for Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead. I put it that this is confusing, pointless and unnecessary. The appointment is a complete sinecure, it is a legal fiction that is not worthy of mention alongside real offices such as those of an MP/MLA/TD. It is highly confusing, and especially in this controversial case, it implies that he held an office under the Crown, which he for all intents and purposes has not. The appointment is covered in the text, with the necessary explanations. I suggest it is removed from the infobox. ninety: one 15:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Please could someone re-insert "incorrectly" which was removed in this edit. Gerry Adams did not "accept" any position, and David Cameron was forced to apologise for claiming he had. Therefore it is essential that "incorrectly" remains in the article. O Fenian ( talk) 19:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Snowded, what you just did was very unhelpful. There was a discussion ongoing here and you edit warred it back. Please engage in discussion before reverting. Traditional unionist ( talk) 20:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've had a quick look, and only one source says that Downing Street confirmed the apology. The BBC, UTV and epolitix all say that it is Adams contention that he got an apology - it would be fair to say that the regional newspaper you cite has made a mistake. Plus I still contend it is unnecessary. Therefore there is no grounds for its inclusion. Traditional unionist ( talk) 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC) I'll take silence as consensus on both the above changes in a couple of hours if no further arguments are brought forward. Traditional unionist ( talk) 17:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
And the above is but one more reason we shouldn't be saying anything more than that he resigned as an MP (though his resignation wasn't required) in order to run for the Dáil... Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Personal life
Gerry Adams is said in the entry to have three children. He has only one child, a son, named Gearóid after his father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.14.255 ( talk) 22:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)