Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

IRA membership allegations (again)

@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)

A source Gerry Adams has described as libelous is not "well referenced" by definition. Has he been charged or convicted of the offence? O Fenian (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The claims have been made in published books and have been repeated by mainstream, reputable media outlets. They are, therefore, well referenced, regardless of what Gerry Adams thinks of them. Has he won a libel case - or even brought one?

In any case, though, I'm suggesting above that we not include the latest allegations (to be) published by Moloney, per se, but instead proceed as ONiH outlined in the section above. Would this be acceptable to you? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, I suggest reading WP:BLP specifically the part about "Beware of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?". You will find Moloney in his original book explicitly attributes the claim as an "allegation" attributed to an anonymous source. Even ignoring that he has now revealed the source in his new book, he is still not prepared to stand by the allegation only to present it as such. Alleged is a weasel word, and this is a very serious claim being made. O Fenian (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Bastun on this. If the references meet wiki criteria, then they can be included, irrespective of what OF or Gerry Adams opinions are. --BwB (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The long standing reference to allegations of IRA membership is itself a reference to a serious crime that Adams has repeatedly denied. His denials have not been enough to keep the allegations being widely circulated. It would be nonsensical to ignore such allegations, as it would be nonsensical to ignore the latest well-sourced information about Adams's alleged involvment in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville. Irvine22 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What well sourced information? All I see is Moloney lacking the backbone to stand by the allegation, choosing instead to attribute it to someone who is dead. O Fenian (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, one has to be extremely careful about BLPs. When in doubt, don't add it!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

One does, Jean, but as we'd be repeating what 170 news reports say,[1], BLP is not an issue. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Presumably there's some documentary evidence and/or recordings of the interviews - it would certainly seem so, seeing as Boston College is calling this an oral history. But in any case, the Sunday Times, Independent, Irish Times, Examiner, RTE, BBC and 160 more news reports are all repeating the claims. They are all verifiable, reputable secondary sources. "Alleged is a weasel word"? No, it's a legal term. Can you answer the question I put to you above, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No they are not repeating the claims, they are reporting the claims there is a substantial difference. It is a common way used by the media of protecting themselves from legal action, they only report what others are saying and attribute it to them. That is why when someone sues a newspaper they do not sue every newspaper that published the claims, only the one that originally published it. It is the same with parliamentary privilege, reliable sources often report on that and say "so and so said under parliamentary privilege" as in doing so they are protecting themselves from legal action. I bet you cannot find a single source that does not attribute the claims to Ed Moloney can you? If "alleged" is not a weasel word as you claim, then why is "alleged(ly)" shown as an example in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words? O Fenian (talk) 16:08, 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)

Why doesn't he sue? As I just said, Moloney lacks the backbone to stand by the allegation. He can report "Brendan Hughes said this" providing he can prove it (and I have little doubt the tapes exist to do so) and get away with it, especially as Brendan Hughes is dead and cannot be sued, but he cannot say "Gerry Adams did this" otherwise he would be sued. 1RR does not apply to the removal of poorly sourced material, and an author who wrote a book containing the same accusation that Gerry Adams has described as libelous is obviously poorly sourced. O Fenian (talk) 16:29, 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)

Moloney is the source publishing the claim, which falls under "Beware of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?". I will attempt to outline the legal position:

1. Moloney publishes a claim that Gerry Adams did something. If sued, he would then have to prove that Gerry Adams actually did it, or that it was fair comment.
2. Moloney publishes a claim that Brendan Hughes said Gerry Adams did something. If sued, he then has to prove Hughes said it.

There may be other aspects of option 2 that could result in the case going against Moloney, but it is far easier for him to choose that option. So if Moloney does not believe the story enough to stand by it, why should we? O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Would O Fenian object if he was reported for breaking 1RR? I know he's usually keen to see rules enforced - even for petty or technical breaches.Mooretwin (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let's not go down that route, Mooretwin.

@O Fenian and PatGallacher again - would there be any objection from ye to leaving out this particular claim and instead proceeding as outlined by ONiH in the section immediately above? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Many things have been alleged about Gerry Adams over many years, this "new" allegation was in Ed Moloney's "A Secret History of the IRA" book published in 2002, so I do not understand the sudden rush to include it now, or why this allegation is so significant that it has to be included while others are left out. O Fenian (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to being reported for breaching 1RR? Mooretwin (talk) 20:18, 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)

How about putting it to the BLP notice board - this needs some neutral editors --Snowded ^TALK 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's suggestion. Might I also add that the inclusion of this allegation to Adams' article is not absolutely neccessary for the reader in understanding who Gerry Adams is; bearing that in mind, I think we should omit this very serious allegation until we receive permission from the BLP notice board to include it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is taken to the BLP board, are we going to see the discussion swarmed by people who've already made up their minds, leaving no space for the fresh input necessary? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why neutral editors are essential.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 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.

No, it is not. BLP clearly says to avoid sources that use weasal words, and allegedly is a weasel word according to the guideline despite you denying it. The source uses the phrase "This allegation" quite clearly does it not? This is not some minor allegation of wrongdoing, this is an incredibly serious allegation about a living person. As I have now read the interview with Hughes in some detail, I must also point out the glaringly obvious point that Hughes gives first-hand details about McConville being an informer, an allegation which has been dismissed by the police ombudsman. O Fenian (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Agree with Bastun and think the One Night proposal could do the job. --BwB (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted a BLP request - we need some neutral eyes on this one --Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes some neutral eye would be good. As long as they are "green" eyes! --BwB (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently O Fenian has already added it yesterday morning without mentioning it here... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside comment

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:

1. Adams is a major public figure and therefore harder to harm than a mostly-private person; this factors into weighing the tension between BLP and NPOV;
2. The IRA allegations have been around forever, and are of sufficient prominence ("significant point of view") that the article has a neutrality problem if the allegation isn't mentioned (with high-quality citations of course);
3. The use of anonymous sources by journalists doesn't preclude including the info if the journalists' own names and editorial processes stand behind the story. Example: reporting about the US Watergate scandal in the 1970's was a major news event, prominently sourced to an anonymous informant notoriously called Deep Throat. It created major political drama, leading to US president Nixon resigning from office, and they made a movie about the reporting, All the President's Men. We didn't find out who Deep Throat was until 30 years after Nixon resigned. This is probably the most famous example of anonymous sourcing in news reporting that we hear about on this side of the ocean. It would be absurd for Wikipedia to not report on it.
4. Just because the target of an allegation says it's libelous doesn't mean that it is libelous. Otherwise every publication connecting Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks would have to be suppressed if Osama claimed he was being libelled. Just make sure the anything contentious is reliably attributed to prominent sources, rather than stated as fact. Even if it's known to be wrong, if it's prominent enough, it should be documented along with appropriate debunking (see birther).

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)

Thanks for you views 66.... They are well presented and reasonable and I would have to agree with your position. We have to present the allegation of Adam's IRA membership and his denial in a balanced, but robust way. --BwB (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes 66 does make some very valid points. When we do present Adams' IRA allegations in the article, what about Sean O'Callaghan's accusations against Adams in his book Informer? Should these also be included?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that book. If there is no consensus about how credible it is, find published reviews by unconflicted reviewers in respectable sources that assess its credibility, and go by that. If it's an academic book, also check citations in Google Scholar (scholar.google.com). If it's an attack book aiming to influence politics (there are a lot of those about Obama), steer clear of it. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think O'Callaghan is highly-regarded. Anyway, as O'Fenian rightly points out, this is an extremely serious allegation and we must use each word with kid gloves. Foremost, it's essential that the article emphasises that Adams has always denied the IRA allegations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to the IRA membership part being in the article, as that is well sourced by various books who state as fact not allege. Regarding O'Callaghan, it is the same as Price and others, when you have several respected academics saying something what benefit is there including his view? In addition, should the civil suit go ahead I would not object to details being included somewhere in the article, as then it would have progressed to more than an accusation by a dead man. O Fenian (talk) 18:34, 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)

So just to be clear, 66 - you wouldn't see an issue with including this or similar in the Jean McConville article, with further reference to Moloney's new book: "In March 2010, one of McConville's daughters, Helen McKendry announced she would be bringing a civil suit against Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams for his alleged role in her mother's death. <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/29/ira-chief-gerry-adams-mcconville Daughter of Jean McConville to sue Gerry Adams over murder] Guardian website, 29 March 2010 </ref>;"?

Similarly media coverage of the book, it's claims, and the subsequent denials could be included in Brendan Hughes, without breaching BLP? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see an issue with that. I have no problem with a similar sentence going in when a civil suit is actually launched, but at the moment I see the claim as little more than grandstanding as the case will probably never happen. The "evidence" (that we know of) is an interview with a dead man, and we all know Gerry will go on the stand and deny everything. That is not a recipe for a winning case, and any reputable lawyer would advise against proceeding under those circumstances. O Fenian (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think using that link can be ok, but that the sentence attached to it should be written differently, and more context should be supplied, rather just than zooming to the part that says "Adams" (don't try to make a COATRACK). Close to half the linked article is Adams and his associates saying that the claims are false, so that denial should be stated if the link is used. I also hadn't realized the suit wasn't yet filed. I have to share O Fenian's skepticism about the suit, unless some new corroboration appears.

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)

Regarding the interviews, they were conducted (with a wide range of IRA and UVF members) under a project run by Boston College, and I've not seen any claims doubting their authenticity. Moloney's writing may not be popular in some circles, but he's a former journalist of the year and Northern editor for the Irish Times. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider to the issue and considering that I am uninvolved in politics and as per BLP board request, I suggest that while there are reports of the allegations, to be selective and only use the academic sources -- not sources of tabloids, personal books that are not based or referenced well or news that are competing for the sensation. The principle of BLP is do not harm. It relates both to the selection of sources not to harm the subject and also to the fact that any such allegation, if not worded correctly, could be used to prejudice a legal outcome of the above mentioned challenges. I would suggest that any reference to these allegations should be worded without using the words Republican Army or IRA, but in a neutral tone, possibly using words such as 'Republican Connections' or 'alleged membership of a paramilitary group'. I hope my neutral opinion will of some help. Wikid^as© 10:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

SF in Lead

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 -

"...the political party at the top of the latest Northern Ireland election polls amidst a three-way split in the traditionally dominant unionist vote.[4][5][6] Sinn Féin is the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly[7] and fifth largest party in the Republic of Ireland." --BwB (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Having received no feedback in the last 5 days, I am going to remove the following text from the lede tomorrow, 16 August - "amidst a three-way split in the traditionally dominant unionist vote." and "Sinn Féin is the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly[7] and fifth largest party in the Republic of Ireland." --BwB (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

removed text as discussed above. --BwB (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Early life text

In this section we have the test -

"When Third Way Magazine asked Adams whether he was a Christian he said: 'I like the sense of there being a God, and I do take succour now from the collective comfort of being at a Mass or another religious event where you can be anonymous and individual – just a sense of community at prayer and of paying attention to that spiritual dimension which is in all of us; and I also take some succour in a private, solitary way from being able to reflect on those things.'[11]"

• 1. I am not sure what this has to do with Adam's "early life"; and,
• 2. Where else in the article to put the test?

Feedback welcomed. --BwB (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose the removal of the text above on 16 August, unless there are objections. --BwB (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections to that being removed. Does not seem to add anything, would only be needed if that was the only thing about his religious beliefs we knew. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That would leave almost nothing in the section on Early life though. perhaps that could be merged with the ancestry section? "Ancestry and early life" or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Brit. We will see if others comment and then I will remove the text above and merge as you suggest. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another reporter on allegations

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)

There is no censorship, Ed Moloney's claim that Adams was allegedly in the IRA is already in the article. O Fenian (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What's missing from the article is that in real-life, nobody defends Adams's record any more (or, not according to the Business Post review, anyway). When Adam's denial of IRA leadership is a battle that he's lost in real-life it seems bizarre to allow it to be re-fought at Wikipedia. It cannot be in the interests of the article that this be allowed to happen or to continue.

I note that here you see fit to edit-war at article Omagh bombing even though the consensus is against you and you were blocked for your edit-warring over the very same point, prefering to use an admittedly incomplete BBC report instead of what's actually known and reported by the court. I note that you placed an unhelpful warning on my TalkPage - I've explained at your TalkPage why I reject it - you've seen fit to delete it from there as if you plan to carry on doing whatever you see fit. None of this can be in the interests of anyone. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If Gerry has lost a "battle", perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link to when he has clearly and unequivocally admitted to IRA membership? Since you and I both know you cannot to that, the situation is unchanged as it has been for decades. People say Adams was in the IRA, he denies it. Scholarly works are already cited to that effect, so quite why we need an addition that amounts to "Ed Moloney has said it more than once" replete with a negative quote about Gerry Adams. A quote, not even by Ed Moloney but made by a book reviewer. Negative comments from book reviewers belong in articles about books and/or authors, they do not belong in articles about third parties who are living people. If you want to make that addition, you will need to explain how a book reviewer's opinion conforms with WP:UNDUE, since NPOV calls for significant views to be included, not the opinion of one book reviewer. I have already explained that you cannot reject the warning, and I suggest you stop making comments on talk pages that are irrelevant to improving articles. O Fenian (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the present wording is ok in that section however considering the claims of IRA membership is notable, it should have a neutral sentence on it in the introduction, explaining it is claimed by some he was in the IRA. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As we've already got the claims from multiple people versus Adam's denial, we've no need for a biased quote from a book review. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a good solid secondary source that backs Moloney's claim and says that nobody supports Adams's denials any more. Of course, if you have sources which say that some sources do support his denials (not sources speaking for themselves, but proper secondary sources) then we should include those too. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see what your comment has to do with the change you want to make, or what is has to do with the comments made by other people, since it completely ignores what everyone else has said. Please stay on-topic. O Fenian (talk) 08:25, 20 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)

A number of primary sources state that Adams was in the IRA, we also have (one?) secondary source stating that nobody disputes Adams was in the IRA.

Whether it's true or not, it's actually more important than the primary sources which say the same thing, and should most definitely appear in the article. Then we should add all the (secondary) sources which state he was not in the IRA. Your call. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, your comments here seem to have nothing to do with the text you proposed adding to the article, or the discussion other people are having. You have no secondary source stating "that nobody disputes Adams was in the IRA", I suggest reading it more thoroughly. I also suggest reading this discussion more thoroughly as you have failed to respond to any comments about that particular source, and are acting as though you will be using it soon which is unlikely to gain consensus due to the problems with it. O Fenian (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A book review, by its nature, is an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not generally considered reliable sources. What would be reliable is a source that showed Adams' held membership in the IRA, using some irrefutable IRA documents, like for instance if the London Times had reviewed documents, etc, and was quoting from them. Otherwise, if Adams is denying he was ever in the IRA, then without proof otherwise, the book review is just another line of opinion. As it's not reliable, I don't think it should be included.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

External Links

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)

Wikileaks

I see that some new wikileak cables have some comments about Adams. Taking a quote from The Irish Times article:

The official, according to the cable, told the ambassador “that the GOI [Government of Ireland] does have ‘rock solid evidence’ that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command.

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)

There are also assertion in Wikileaks in some statements by Irish politicians that Adams was indeed a member of IRA. --BwB (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look for quotes from people backing up Adams that he was never in the IRA, but all I found were quotes from people saying he was ( historians, journalists, police, policiticans, former IRA members etc). Has anyone ever backed him up? Aberdeen01 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A court acquitted him. I should point out the exact text of the cables should be looked at before there is even an attempt to add any information to this article. The cables do not say there is "rock solid evidence" Gerry Adams (and Martin McGuinness) had advance knowledge of the Northern Bank robbery, only that Bertie Ahern believes they had advance knowledge. O Fenian (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we say that "according released by wikileaks, Bertie Ahern believes they had advanced knowledge...."? --BwB (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, Mr Ahern has been forthright in saying that Mr Adams and Martin McGuinness, his deputy, were well aware of the planning of the Belfast raid and other robberies" was said in February 2005, so this is hardly new information is it? O Fenian (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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. O Fenian (talk)

Good idea, OF. --BwB (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal by O Fenian. The cable quoted does not seem to say anything new. Context is necessary. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize I don't know much about the rules of editing this article, but I'd like to ask how is the WP:1RR rule (one revert per 24 hours) applied for example in the case of O Fenian's two reverts in two hours. I do no know under what circumstances exceptions can be applied. I would like to commend O Fenian on his fine use of irony in his edit summary in which he mentions please stop edit warring ( see this edit. )

I'd vote in favour of including the following quote :

the GOI [Government of Ireland] does have ‘rock solid evidence’ that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command.

(reference provided above)

Being a member of the military command is a much bigger issue than having prior knowledge of a robbery. Aberdeen01 (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed the part that says "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty", reverting edits by IP editors does not count towards 1RR.

The addition you suggest is biased, dated, and adds little value to the article. See the earlier discussions about laundry lists, including the discussions in the archives as well as the ones still on this page. O Fenian (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On one level we could say that everyone is biased to some extent and thus so is every statement. But with that attitude nothing could ever be included in wikipedia. The statement about 'rock solid evidence' is about as far from biased as it is possible. The release of the wikileaks cable is completely new to the public. It only came out a few days ago. It adds enormous value to the article to have the statement from the Irish Govt official that they had 'rock solid evidence'. The cable does indeed deal with events that happened years ago, but this article is about Gerry Adams' life and many important events in his life did indeed happen years ago. The article is not about what Adams has been up to in 2010.

The issue of Adams' involvement in the IRA keeps coming up in these discussion pages because there are many wikipedia editors who are unhappy with the laundered article as it stands. It seems that there is a tiny group of very active Adams supporters who polish the article to make Adams look squeeky clean. Aberdeen01 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment, Aberdeen. --BwB (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think the proposed addition of the GOI [Government of Ireland] does have ‘rock solid evidence’ that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command is unbiased then it actually says a lot about your own bias on this subject. It is a claim made by an ambassador, not a fact. The claim was made on 4 February 2005, so most people would think it quite strange that if it was true that a wholly different public statement was made on 21 February 2005 that "Bertie Ahern, said neither he nor the Minister for Justice had 'personal knowledge' of who was on the IRA Army Council. Mr Ahern said Mr McDowell had access to intelligence briefings, but that hard evidence was another matter". O Fenian (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you want to know what Bertie Ahern says on the same subject after the release of the cables, when asked if he knew Gerry Adams was a member of the Army Council he replied "Well, I don't know that for a fact but obviously there is historical information in that respect but that's up to him to answer". Where is his "rock solid evidence" then? He did not have it in 2005, and he does not know it for a fact in 2010! O Fenian (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You (OF) deleted my addition which was carefully neutral; that is what they said. Whether the comments on wikileaks were factual or not is not the point (see Flat Earth Society), and I mentioned Mr Adams' denial. I wasn't quoting Bertie Ahearn but widely reported US government communications:

"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. Mr Adams has denied the allegations.

What is objectionable about that?86.42.197.36 (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe my objection are quite clear from this discussion already, and the objections of myself and other editors from previous discussions about laundry lists. O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it O Fenian's objection is that the cable that came out just a few days ago is 'dated'. I'm not sure if many will back O Fenian up there.

His second objection was bias. Well, regarding the suggested insertion above beginning: "In December 2010 ...", I do not see any hint of bias.

Clearly wikipedia editors can't insert a line saying that there was rock solid evidence. However we can insert a line saying that the Irish Government official mentioned that they had 'rock solid evidence'. There is a big difference. Aberdeen01 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you do not attribute beliefs to me, or any other people, based on your own incorrect assumptions. If you do not know the meaning of dated, or cannot see how it applies to the proposal in question, then you could always ask.

Were you planning on addressing the point that the now-former Taoiseach has made two statements that contradict the information in the cable, one of them only weeks afterwards? O Fenian (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We could indeed add a whole new section to the Adams article about wikileaks including for example the following from the Belfast Telegraph:

Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern last night stood by his claims that the Sinn Fein leadership had prior knowledge of the Northern Bank robbery by the IRA. (here is the link)

However I would suggest leaving that out. Let's just follow what has become standard practice in wikipedia over the past few years since wikileaks started making their releases. We mention what was said and don't give our own interpretation or opinion of it. As to whether wikileaks is notable, well, there are almost 900 wikipedia pages with links to the wikileaks article. The wikileaks are mentioned all over wikipedia. On this discussion page, we can simply note that the wikileaks are notable. If we were to come to the oposite conclusion, then we would have 900 wikipedia articles to edit. Here is the suggested text to be restored to the Adams article which O Fenian has already removed twice:

"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. Mr Adams has denied the allegations.

Aberdeen01 (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You do not appear to be listening to me, and worse still you do not even appear to listen what you say yourself. You say to just quote the cable, then propose an addition that completely distorts what the cable actually says.

You cannot ignore these reliable sources.

• 21 February 2005 "Bertie Ahern, said neither he nor the Minister for Justice had 'personal knowledge' of who was on the IRA Army Council. Mr Ahern said Mr McDowell had access to intelligence briefings, but that hard evidence was another matter"
• "Well, I don't know that for a fact but obviously there is historical information in that respect but that's up to him to answer"

Stop pretending they do not exist as you have done with your replies since I provided them, and address the points raised. O Fenian (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Christmas O Fenian: For a start I didn't propose the lines above, I merely suggested that they be restored after you removed them twice. I really am no longer sure if you're being serious. If you think that the lines 'completely distorts what the cable actually said', then I really think the argument is over and we cannot progress. You and I will just have to agree to disagree. As has been made clear above there are two separate issues here:

1: are the wikileaks notable? I think that to all editors ( bar a few SF supporters) the answer is clearly yes. Just as it is to the editors of the 100's of other wikipedia pages that now include wikileaks material. This is the important question that has been dealt with here and in other wikipedia discussion pages.

2: Was Bertie free to speak publicly about information that he obtained through all the different channels open to him? And indeed has Bertie always been inconsistent in his public statements. The answer to both questions is 'no'. But they are not particularly relevant here.

I suggest that we just restore the 'rock solid evidence' quote to the main article. All your objections such as it is 'dated' etc have been dealt with.

210.177.205.202 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

( Sorry I didn't reallize that I was logged out on this machine, the edit immediately above is from me: Aberdeen01 (talk) 15:59, 22 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)

I see the same foot-dragging as there has been over the claim that Adams was in the IRA (see above). In that case we had a number of primary sources stating that Adams was in the IRA, and then we have Ed Moloney (1999 Irish "Journalist of the Year") writing a fourth book in 34 years and a review of it (Business Post, Richard Curran) 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".

The review looked to me like a main-stream response (a "secondary source", the best kind there is) to the contents of the book, both bringing further endorsement 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 the kind of censorship we saw there and as we're seeing here. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that nothing has changed in these discussions, both in terms of the Wikileaks-related discussion that has been dragging on this month, and in terms of the longer term discussions about Adams' membership in IRA. The same statements have been made again and again, and, as with the numerous comments made above by O Fenian, all responses and statements of fact are ignored. Instead, we get pathetic accusations of "censorship," as made above by MalcolmMcDonald. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It would seem MalcolmMcDonald has forgotten Talk:Gerry Adams#Another reporter on allegations is still visible on this page, where out of four other editors who replied three were against the use of a book review for a contentious statement in this article, and the other editor was against his addition anyway. A book review will never, ever be "a main-stream response (a "secondary source", the best kind there is)", especially when the disputed material is not even about the author of the book being reviewed. O Fenian (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A way forward?

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)

I think that's an excellent idea.

If, as a review of Moloney's book in the Business Post suggests Adams seems to be the only one saying he was never in the IRA then the default position must be to include these statements, and it is for others to persuade us that they're not helpful. Let's remember what we were told, you're either for us or against us in the battle against terrorism. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. The default position with biographies of living people is "do no harm". It is also the position that contentious material objected to stays out until there is consensus for inclusion, which there is not despite your knowingly false edit summary. There is another documented occasion of doing just that at Talk:Gerry Adams#Another reporter on allegations, where out of four editors who had replied at the time two objected to the use of a book review as a source, another person said "I think the present [before your edit] wording is ok in that section" and only you were in favour of the change, yet we still had "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". That is before we even get round to your poorly sourced addition that Gerry Adams allegedly conspired to kill someone.. O Fenian (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll go with Brown Haired Girl's suggestion that we set out a table of what refs are available and then put it to uninvolved editors.

[readacted per BLP] MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been comment from previously uninvolved editors very experienced in BLPs and the consensus was to include several good sources and a denial of IRA membership, and not a laundry list of accusations.

See here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A better way forward

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)

Title of Baron

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)

Until we have that from a reliable source, we can only use what we have, which is a reliable sources reporting the words of the Prime Minister. ninety:one 13:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

And now we have one. Added. ninety:one 13:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really, considering the second paragraph states "However, a Sinn Fein spokesperson has denied that Mr Adams has agreed to the procedure." Therefore, it is still not verified from a reliable source. Dornálaíocht (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no title 'Baron of the Manor of Northstead'; Cameron seems to have misremembered it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dornálaíocht: I'm not sure what you're referring to? At the time you made your first comment, the only reliable source on the matter was the PA that said he had resigned. It was only twenty or so minutes later that we got a reliable source (BBC News) reporting that his spokesman disputed this, and as soon as I saw it I added it in.

Sam: Yes, that as well! ninety:one 14:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Resignation from the House of Commons

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)

Regardless of the legal situation, there is really no place in the article for the sort of speculative rubbish added in this edit. If someone wants to amend the details in the relevant section please go ahead, but there is little point of the "we are not sure what is going on" type text that will be redundant in a matter of days anyway. O Fenian (talk) 23:03, 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)

Do you mean the "speculative fluff" I removed? I really do not believe it belongs in this article, like you say if we are not allowed to say he has actually resigned just rephrase it slightly. O Fenian (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The stuff you removed is the speculative fluff that I mean! I agree with you on this, seems a waste of time to put in wording now which we will 99.9% certain have to change in a few days but if others disagree we could go through the rigmarole of changing the wording for a day or two until it's formalised. Don't see the point personally but if others do then we can simply say "has written to apply to resign" or something along those lines. Valenciano (talk) 23:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to the "has written to apply to resign" change or anything like that, but we really do not need all this speculative stuff. A short piece of wording like "has written to apply to resign" covers all the necessary information without going into the tedious legalities of how an MP actually resigns. No secondary source has detailed any of this rigmarole anyway, so it would not really appear to be necessary for this article. O Fenian (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is the primary source and it should be reflected in the article http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/p11.pdf Gavin Lisburn (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No it should not, per WP:BLPPRIMARY. O Fenian (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is supported by this article Resignation from the British House of CommonsGavin Lisburn (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

An article which is correct but unsourced and contains info which, if it belongs anywhere, should be in the Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency) article though it'd probably be removed from there after a few days anyway. While WP:CRYSTAL is relevant, there's more chance of the SDLP winning the inevitable by-election than there is of the Conservatives refusing Adam's resignation. Valenciano (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

O Fenian has the right approach here. To Valenciano, I have to say that one of the lessons which people tend to learn at some point in life is not to believe everything you read in a newspaper. Whatever may be said here, someone who has a seat in the British House of Commons and wishes to resign it, has only vacated it once they have accepted a disqualifying office. This hasn't happened yet, but it's only a matter of technicalities. Chancellors may technically have the ability to refuse but in practice it's not going to happen. The most likely explanation for the discrepancy here is that Adams, not knowing the technicalities of how to give up his seat (which admittedly few people do know), has written instead to the Speaker stating that he resigns his seat. The Speaker could, I suppose, redirect the letter to the Chancellor, or explain how it is actually done and politely ask Adams to write again. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly my point above! Valenciano (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

So, is the concensus that we can amend:

"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)

A bit more info on the whole thing from Nick Robinson Michael Crick who is generally very reliable. He says that Adams is still an MP. —Half Price 19:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually Michael Crick of the BBC. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. —Half Price 21:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Quote from BBC newsnight if it has not already been included here: "It is a settled principle of parliamentary law that a Member, after he is duly chosen, cannot relinquish his seat; and, in order to evade this restriction, a Member who wishes to retire accepts office under the Crown, which legally vacates his seat and obliges the House to order a new writ." --Ciaran M (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would that need to be included? The article also says that he could possibly be disqualified by attempting to enter the chamber without taking the oath. They also say he does not need to resign his seat if elected as a TD. There is little need for all sorts of speculation, the situation will become clear in due course. O Fenian (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

By included I meant within this talk page. The quote mentioned helps to shed light onto the situation so that editors can establish wether or not Gerry Adams is still the MP incumbent for Belfast West. Believe me I would mush prefer it if his resignation went a bit smoother so that he can contest the Dáil elections by standing in Louth but I am just trying to ensure this article remains accurate.--Ciaran M (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The article as it stands is accurate, although phrasing is open to review. He is still the MP, and has attempted to resign in writing. There is various media speculation about what is going on, but I am sure that the situation will become clear in the coming days. O Fenian (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, can someone make an attempt at editing the article to bring in the current situation? Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:26, 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)

He tendered his resignation. Wether anyone accepts that or not is unlikely to be the deciding factor in which he stops doing that job and looks for one as a TD in Louth. Is that not right? What is all this about his resignation being doubtful and stuff? ~ R.T.G 10:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Like you say, he tendered his resignation. The issue is whether or not that resignation has been (or can be) accepted. Mooretwin (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Just that if you are not sure how to word it pending the outcome... "tendered his resignation" should be suffieicent. If you are considering that the other MPs might not accept that resignation it might be worth considering wether that has any effect whatsoever on anything. I mean will he be arrested or banned from working the rest of his tenure? No. If he is it will make a lot of strange news anyway. He's not under any contracts or anything is he? Acceptance is therefore trivial he's probably not a slave. ~ R.T.G 11:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The present confused situation

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:

1. The Prime Minister misunderstood, or was making a joke, and Gerry Adams hasn't actually been appointed Steward of the Manor of Northstead. The present impasse just continues.
2. The Prime Minister was right. Gerry Adams has been appointed Steward of the Manor of Northstead, but without his consent or against his will. The Treasury have not got round to issuing a press release yet.
3. The Prime Minister was right. Gerry Adams has been appointed Steward of the Manor of Northstead, but Sinn Féin are pretending that it is without his consent in order to make it not look like a climbdown.

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)

At the moment it's looking like a misunderstanding on Cameron's part. It can't be #2, per section 8 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. ninety:one 14:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Would someone be able to remove this ridiculous addition? This article seems to be under some sort of control order and I think I've done it enough times. ninety:one 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Treasury has come through. Gerry Adams is appointed Steward of the Manor of Northstead. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Are they playing catchup with the PM and will he accept? I'd wager that someone decided to tell the PM to say what he did, because Adams can hardly decline it now, having made clear his intention to resign - so the government have done all the work for him. However, I'm not sure this is all over yet... ninety:one

It's 1RR for everyone on this article but can I point out in relation to this edit that a succession box for a legal fiction office is pointless. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I dare say that the appointment will stand unless or until Adams registers a formal objection. Secondly, Osborne could almost immediately dis-appoint Adams, rendering any objection moot. RodCrosby (talk) 15:51, 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

It's on the Sinn Fein website, so it sounds reliable. So we are now in a ridiculous position whereby a person who refuses to serve under the British in any way spends 14 years taking money from the British government (whilst doing nothing), then when he wants to stop taking money for doing nothing he has to be appointed to a job by the British government, the sole purpose of which is to give him money from the British government in order to do nothing, which will incidentally enable him to leave the first job. But although he wants to resign from the first job, he's going to exercise his right under the law to not accept the second job so as to not take money from the British government...

I'm secretly hoping he "accidentally" strolls across the bar of the House tomorrow. ninety:one 17:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. Please discuss the content of the article, and not your own political views. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Weren't supposed to be views per se, just a humorous perspective on what's just happened. I suppose the usual WP:UKPOLITICS liberal attitude to NOTFORUM can't really extend to an article like this though, my bad. ninety:one 23:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Humorous and inaccurate. MPs also serve their constituents which Gerry Adams did, simply because he wasn't sat around in the House of Commons voting occasionally doesn't mean he did nothing does it? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:STICK. ninety:one 14:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

He has resigned

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)

But as we're going to now have to discuss in detail, he is not obliged to accept the appointment if it would have the effect of making him ineligible to sit in the House of Commons! ninety:one 17:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He's stated he hasn't accepted the position. Exiledone (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is going to be fun. Somebody is going to have to do some finessing.

Reading this report, I note that Adams does not say that he that he has actually refused the position, only that he did not apply for it. This may be the solution: Westminster says "he's Crown steward", Adams says "your fantasy is none of my business" ... and both sides have their own take on a solution which allows a by-eln to be held. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel like we've wandered into a lost chapter from Gormenghast......doktorb _words^deeds 18:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I believe this will remain the status quo now: the writ will be moved by the government in due course and I'm sure they can word it so as to avoid the word "accept". The law only provides that he can refuse, not that he must accept. Perhaps the draftsmen foresaw this kind of situation! ninety:one 19:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, he can't accept even if he wanted to (which he doesn't) - if he did want to, he'd need the permission of the Irish government to do so, under the Irish Constitution... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:36, 27 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)

Agree with Ninetyone; there's no way this legal fiction office is either noble or an honour. With regard to section 8 of the 1975 Act, there's an urgent written question from Labour MP Thomas Docherty to the Chancellor, due to be answered today, which asks "for what reasons he appointed the Member elected to represent the Belfast West constituency at the May 2010 General Election to be Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead". See the bottom of the page. It might help explain things when it is answered. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue was raised yesterday on the Order of Business by Hilary Benn.(Hansard, col 447) The reply by Sir George Young (Hansard, col 449) confirms that the Speaker passed the resignation letter to the Chancellor, who made the appointment, explaining the rationale as "we delivered Mr Gerry Adams to the required destination, although he may have used a vehicle and a route that was not of his choosing". Young also noted that "In addition, there is a protection in the form of provision in the 1975 Act for a Member not to accept any office that would lead to his or her disqualification", so it seems that the appointment stands unless Adams rejects it.

AFAICS, the current situation is that Adams has insisted that he did not seek the appointment, but I do not see any evidence that he has explicitly rejected it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 28 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)

I would tend to agree, albeit with the caveat that he did not need to resign in order to run for the Dáil. O Fenian (ta lk) 17:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have put this paragraph on the Belfast West article and by-election article, which seems to put doubt into focus...."Notwithstanding Gerry Adams' public statement rejecting his new position, the Parliamentary authorities in Westminster have removed him from the list of MPs and the seat of Belfast West is now considered vacant."doktorb _words^deeds 17:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The London Gazette lists his appointment as Steward and Bailiff. "No. 59684". The London Gazette. 28 January 2011. 128.232.241.211 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Bastun, though I wouldn't quite go so far. Most of the detail of this saga is of interest primarily to those who follow Westminster minutiae, and belongs in the article on resignation from the British House of Commons. However, it shouldn't be entirely excised from this article, because it did arouse quite a lot of comment in the Irish media ... and Adams agility in resigning without actually applying for an office-of-profit-under-the-Crown may be unprecedented. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

He was not agile enough to avoid being appointed to a office-of-profit-under-the-Crown perhaps it is equally likely that Adam's didn't understand the procedures necessary for him to relinquish his seat Kernel Saunters (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Westminster Member of Parliament

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)

I was not aware there was only one "Parliament" in the whole world.. O Fenian (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There is only one you can represent west Belfast in.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So your position is that whenever only one country can be referred to then the country can be removed? O Fenian (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

My contention is that on the facts, the context does not require the word "Westminster" to be in that sentence.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not even when there are two distinct "Parliaments" referred to in the article? O Fenian (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

One has TD's the other MP's. There is no need to disambiguate.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying Irish MPs is not a common saying? More common than say Irish TDs? O Fenian (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Errr yeah, actually I am. Particularly when it actually doesn't matter. West Belfast can only be represented by an MP in Westminster, Louth only in Dublin. The links to MP and TD do all the disambaguation that's needed.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Listing the appointment as Steward in the infobox

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)

Remove it. The editor is being facetious. Mooretwin (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reinstated this in the info box. The appointment stands until the next (plus one) MP applies for it. Adams has been 'gazetted' and holds the position until he resigns. If one considers readers may be confused then add to the text to explain it further. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You will need consensus. The "office" is in reality non-existent, and has no place in the infobox. O Fenian (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How many other ex-MPs have these sinecures listed in their infoboxes? My guess would be none. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Request immediate re-insertion of word

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)

The fact that he did not accept the position is covered at least once, I think twice, in the section. The word incorrectly sounded to me like POV language in the context, which is why I removed it. The reader can make up their own mind about Cameron and his comments from the facts, which are outlined.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

How on earth is stating a fact "POV language"? Gerry Adams did not "accept" any position, David Cameron was wrong to say he did, and he apologised for it. Either he did "accept" the position and Cameron was "correct", or he did not "accept" the position and Cameron was "incorrect". There is no middle ground, no grey area, just simple fact. O Fenian (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, we actually only have Adam's word for all of that, so I don't think we can take it as a straight fact, only his version of events. Regardless, the position is clear as the article stands, Cameron made a claim, Adams disputed the claim, the outcome was the same either way. The word is not necessary even before any dispute about it's nature.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Downing Street has confirmed that it had apologised to the Sinn Fein president for David Cameron’s comments, so I look forward to you correcting not one but two errors you have introduced to this article about a living person. O Fenian (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow now, that's a bit strong! First, I don't think that tone is altogether necessary! Lets assume good faith and be a little more constructive. Secondly, I actually don't think that changes much, (and would like to see that double sourced, I'll have a look myself later). There is no error in the current article, just one disputed word that actually doesn't change anything other than, in my view, introduces POV.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually I will apologise, in part. When looking at the diff I saw the "stated that" part in red and erroneously thought you have changed it from Gerry Adams receiving an apology to Gerry Adams saying he had received an apology. I am sure there are better sources than that one anyway. O Fenian (talk) 20:15, 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 agree with the revert, although some of the minor changes were not controversial. The bold-revert-discuss cycle was broken due to the 1 revert rule restriction, which hardly seems fair does it? O Fenian (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

There was one word under discussion. No grounds to revert the entire edit.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"although some of the minor changes were not controversial".. O Fenian (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

So will you revert while we continue to discuss incorrect?Traditional unionist (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If I could revert, I would have simply re-inserted "incorrectly" myself. However the one revert restriction prevents me from doing so. O Fenian (talk) 20:29, 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)

Do you have any sources from Downing Street denying an apology was made? O Fenian (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect you know that is disingenuous. There is one source which states that Downing St has confirmed the apology, there are an array of, if I may say so, better sources that say that this is merely a claim that Adams has made. By a wide stretch the balance of the sources indicates that Downing St has not confirmed that an apology has been made.Traditional unionist (talk) 19:19, 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)

The section was certainly far too long. As is this discussion--Rumping (talk) 13:21, 2 February 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)

Every article I have read on Adams mentions that he's the father of three children. Gearoid just happens to be the most notable, hence he receives more media coverage than the others.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)