Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Allegations of IRA Membership

"Adams has stated repeatedly that he has never been a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA).[11] However, noted scholars such as Ed Moloney, Richard English, Peter Taylor and Mark Urban have all named Adams to be part of the IRA leadership since the 1970s.[12][13][14][15] Adams has denied Moloney's claims, calling them "libellous," [16] however he has not taken legal action against Moloney"

The words; "however he has not taken legal action against Moloney" is both pointless and seems to unfairly suggest he was a member of the IRA. It should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.201.70 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote when reverting the sentence regarding SF being linked to the IRA, "hardly vandalism unless it was the word 'formerly' that upset. SF's link with the IRA was the essence of their existence." On reflection I realise more what troubles me. It is that without the addition of this fact the key opening two paragraphs read as if Gerry Adams is some sort of Quaker who brought about peace between two distant warring factions. 81.151.64.123 (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember that articles in Wikipedia adhere to WP:Neutral point of view. Unsourced statements are likely to be removed as per WP:Reliable sources. As you edited from an IP address it would seem likely that you were not a registered edior. If you wish to participate in the project I recommend that you register and familiarise yourself with WP:Five pillars. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but bear in mind WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and in this case it does appear to be the majority view of scholars that Adams was a member of the IRA. We are not obliged to give equal weight to fringe theories. PatGallacher (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the article now gives prominence to the claim of IRA membership and Adamas rebuttal of that claim. All sourced citations. The addition of a further unsourced sentence about Sinn Fein, such as

the political party formerly associated with the IRA

or

Sein Fein was the political wing of the IRA and together they formed the Republican movement.

is not neccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Section of lead

I have removed the following section from the lead:

Adams is credited with having played an important role in helping to end the Troubles in Northern Ireland. His leadership and ability to communicate and negotiate with both paramilitary forces and also politicians such as John Hume and John Major was cited by some as a catalyst that brought about the Good Friday Agreement, however his involvement in the perpetuation of violence till this point has caused some to hypothesise that much was solved by Adams simply ceasing his military campaign.

The reasons are as follows:

• The first sentence is sourced to [1], yet that source does not actually support the assertion. Nick Stadlen actually writes "Gerry Adams... [is] widely regarded as having played a pivotal role in getting the IRA to give up its armed campaign." The IRA giving up their campaign, in turn, certainly helped end the Troubles, but its a synthesis to make that claim of Adams based on that source.
• The second sentence is very weaselly and requests reliable support and specific attribution. "[His] involvement in the perpetuation of violence..." is also a WP:BLP violation without a specific, attributed source.

I don't think these two sentences add anything of value to the lead, and should be left out. But if they are to be included, they need sources and they need to be rewritten using language that reflects the sources. Rockpocket 21:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The language used to reflect the source. That was before this edit which changed "Adams is widely regarded as having played a pivotal role in inducing the IRA to give up its armed campaign against the UK in return for devolved government for Northern Ireland" to "Adams is credited with having played a pivotal role in helping to end the Troubles in Northern Ireland" by an administrator who is a self-admitted member of Sinn Féin . Sadly that one never made the press like Sam Blacketeer, obviously reverting the addition of a vandalism photo where David Cameron has a halo is a more heinous crime! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverting to the text that reflect the source would be the obvious solution? --Domer48_'fenian' 13:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

For a man who supported the violent struggle for so long, it would seem inappropriate that the first reference to the violence in this article is that Adams helped to bring about peace. Although that may be true, the fact is that he supported the violence for a very long time before that and that fact should be mentioned first, before any mention of his work for peace. Pma jones (talk) 08:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What did you have in mind, Pma? --BwB (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

How about:

For many years through the Troubles Adams lead Sinn Fein, which had close links to the IRA. However he is credited with having played an important role in helping to eventually end violence in Northern Ireland...

The problem with the version that is in the article right now is that it gives the false impression that he never supported the violence. Pma jones (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. What do others think? --BwB (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Which sources say Gerry Adams supported violence? His political work entailed the removal of all guns from Irish politics, and creating a situation where those who took part in armed struggle realised there was an alternate path to achieve their goals. O Fenian (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Adams certainly did work to remove guns form politics, but was involved with the armed struggle before politics? I think this is the question Pma is asking. --BwB (talk) 17:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian, we could indeed debate Adams' support for the violent struggle, though I suspect if we are both honest, then we would agree. However what I would like to discuss is the wording of the sentence in the article lead, which didn't mention his support for violence:

For many years through the Troubles Adams lead Sinn Fein, which had close links to the IRA. However he is credited with having played an important role in helping to eventually end violence in Northern Ireland...

Now if you'd like question the link between Sinn Fein and the IRA, then I think a good quote is from Brian Cowen, Adams had told him that he would need to consult the IRA before giving a response. Cowen responded that he could go to the toilet, there was a mirror in there.

For what it's worth, here's a link to an article stating that Adams was on the IRA army council. Pma jones (talk) 02:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You failed to answer my question, and repeated the point which I asked for sources for. So again, which sources say Gerry Adams supported violence? The link does not say Gerry Adams was on the Army Council, I recommend reading it properly. Neither does this link source the sentence you added to the article. I am willing discuss any changes you wish to make to the article, and I request you discuss them here first prior to making them. O Fenian (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Pma jones isn't proposing to say that Adams supported violence. He/she is proposing to say:

For many years through the Troubles Adams lead [sic] Sinn Fein, which had close links to the IRA. However he is credited with having played an important role in helping to eventually end violence in Northern Ireland... Mooretwin (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

OF, in the Sinn Féin article we have these sentences:

"The party has historically been associated with the Provisional IRA."; and,

"A republican document of the early 1980s states, "Both Sinn Féin and the IRA play different but converging roles in the war of national liberation. The Irish Republican Army wages an armed campaign... Sinn Féin maintains the propaganda war and is the public and political voice of the movement"."

Given this text and references, can we not say in the Adams article: "For many years through the Troubles Adams lead Sinn Fein, which had close links to the IRA. However he is credited with having played an important role in helping to eventually end violence in Northern Ireland...? --BwB (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but his suggestion is based on his repeated unsourced assertion about Adams, and neither of the sources he has provided sources the exact sentence he tried adding. For example the second one says "formal confirmation that the British and Irish governments regard it [SF] as linked to organised law-breaking [the IRA]". If I reworded that sentence to attribute it to the British and Irish governments it would be a long-winded sentence not ideal for the lead in my opinion, but I am open to discussion about how it can be accomplished. O Fenian (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this then: "For many years through the Troubles Adams lead Sinn Fein, which historically had close links to the IRA. However, from the late 1980s onwards, Adams has been an important figure in the Northern Ireland peace process,.."? --BwB (talk) 11:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not bad, although he only led (not "lead") SF from 1983. How about "For many years ... Adams was a senior figure in Sinn Féin ..."? Mooretwin (talk) 11:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

It implies the two were different stances, which is not correct. O Fenian (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Adams and SF supported a violent PIRA campaign, and Adams is believed to have played a leading part in that violent campaign. There's an incongruity between that aspect of his career and his role as a peace-maker - that's what needs to come out in the text. If we can find a source to say that he supported the PIRA campaign, we could add that in, and then say somthing like, over a long period of time he steered the republican movement into the political arena and eventually to exclusively peaceful means. If we can get sources for this, would that be acceptable? Mooretwin (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Try here or here where Adams described the armed struggle as a "necessary and morally correct form of resistance... against a government rejected by the vast majority of the Irish people" though this needs to be balanced and qualified by statements from 1976 and 1983 here Valenciano (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Times article, particularly the 2005 comment, just confirms what Adams himself says, have you read his book? He said a situation needed to be created where there was an alternative to violence, which is what he was trying to do with Hume. The full speech spells that out. O Fenian (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention that while being held in Long Kesh, Gerry Adams helped to devise a blueprint for the reorganisation of the IRA, which included the use of covert cells and the establishment of a Southern Command and Northern Command. Reference: A Secret History of the IRA, pp. 156-157. (As an aside, if Adams' PR machine is now trying to distance him from the violent campaing, I wonder does that mean that he now regrets the violence? Pma jones (talk) 02:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Using a book that the subject of the article has called libelous is the quickest way to get your edit reverted. As is violating WP:LEAD and numerous policies besides, particularly the way you imply his views have changed. Adams did not "accept" any peace process, he started it with John Hume. If you can not or will not make your edits comply with policies, I suggest proposing them here prior to making them. O Fenian (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Rather than start by mentioning Adams support for the peace process from the 1980's, it makes much more sense to first mention his support for violence from the 1970's. Thus the text will reflect the chronology of events and indeed the evolution of Adams actions and public statements. Pnelnik (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In stead of entering into an edit war, I suggest we take a vote as to whether the lead of the article mentions Adams' support for the IRA and violence before mentioning his support for the peace process. Pnelnik (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and no amount of voting would change the problems with Pma jones edit. The problem is not with the idea, but Pma jones execution of it. I welcome discussion about how the text can be changed and agree it should be to some extent, however the persistent addition of material which violates policies is not helpful to that discussion. O Fenian (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead could do with changing but the changes made weren't acceptable, so I'd recommend discussing it first not just making edits?--Domer48_'fenian' 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now the article in general and indeed the lead, look like they have been written by the Sinn Fein PR department.

I don't think that all of O Fenian's recent edits have been helpful. For example, previously the article contained: Sinn Fein, which had close links to the IRA. That was followed by a supporting reference to The Independent article: Sinn Fein Faces Fines Over IRA links 20-Apr-2004.

O Fenian then removed the reference and mentioned Revert. Misrepresentation of source,.

Rather than continue a silly edit war, I would suggest that both Pma Jones and O Fenian stop editing the lead.

If this artile is going to be in any way balanced, rather than just a piece of PR, then it should mention Adams' support for violence for decades before his support for peace. Pma jones (talk) 08:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree Pma. It is great that Adams turned his back on violence and contributed so much to the progress to peace over the years, but to deny his strong connection to the Republican movement and the IRA in his early days seem wrong for the lede. And I do agree that the overall tone of the article sounds like Sinn Feinn marketing. --BwB (talk) 10:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The only problem round here is your edit warring and misuse of sources. The Independent article you mention above does not even mention Gerry Adams, so you cannot use it per WP:NOR. And what were you using it to source? "...Sinn Fein, which had close links to the IRA", but what does the source say? "But republicans will be dismayed by the formal confirmation that the British and Irish governments regard it as linked to organised law-breaking [the IRA, apparently]", which is something different entirely. You said Sinn Fein (sic) had close links to the IRA, the article says the British and Irish governments regard that as being the case. If you cannot tell the difference, then you have no business whining about your edit being reverted especially when there are other policy based problems. Also why are you referring to yourself in that way? O Fenian (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, preceding the sentence about him becoming a leading peace-maker in the late 80s, I attempted to insert this: "In the 1970s, Adams was believed by the security forces to have been a leading member of the Provisional IRA in west Belfast, although he was acquitted of the charge of being a member in 1978 due to insufficient evidence." It covers his (alleged) PIRA membership and even mentions his acquittal on the charge of membership. It's been reverted as being too "prominent" - not sure what that means. Any other views? Mooretwin (talk) 00:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Basically you have an assertion that could not be proved. There is a whole section on his alleged membership of the IRA, that is enough. --Snowded ^TALK 00:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made any assertion. I added text, supported by a source, to say that he was believed by security forces to have been in the PIRA, and was charged, but acquitted of the offence. "Proof" is not required on WP - only verifiability. If there's a whole section on his alleged membership then that is good reason for mentioning it in the lead (the lead is meant to summarise the article). Anyone else? Mooretwin (talk) 00:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Why did you even add the text in the first place when there is an ongoing discussion about how that alleged aspect of his life should be covered in the lead? O Fenian (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BRD. Have you any views on the proposed sentence? Do you think it adequately deals with his pre-peacemaker period? Mooretwin (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mooretwin's suggestion would certainly be an improvement. The only minor problem I'd have with it is that it says believed by the security forces. It sounds like they were the only ones who believed that, when the reality is that it is a much more widely held belief. Note that although Adams has called allegations of his IRA involvement libelous, he has never actually sued. Also, didn't his auto-biography mention that he was in the IRA in the early 1970's? In contrast, during his life, Al Capone never admitted he was a gangster nor was he ever committed of being so, however the wikipedia article boldly asserts that he was.

Another track would be not to bring up Adams alleged IRA membership / leadership in the lead, but rather mention his support for the violence. For what it's worth, here is a recent quote from Adams as it appears in The Irish Independent: I don't believe that non-violent protest would have got justice in Ireland, but I do know that after decades of war, we all have plenty to forgive and to be forgiven for. here's the link.

Pnelnik (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

We have to go with what the sources say. CAIN only mentions "believed by security forces". If there are sources to say "widely believed" or something similar, then they could be used, but so far we don't have any. Mooretwin (talk) 08:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The list of people who say that Adams was in the IRA is very long, there are politicians, journalists, historians, IRA volunteers. There is also of course the famous quote from Brownie himself in 1976 when he admits membership. Are there any sources of people who believe his denials since 1976? Pma jones (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

No-one has provided any sources to say that anyone other than the security forces believed him to be in PIRA. Until such sources are provided, all we have to go with is the CAIN source. There's little point talking here about who believed or didn't believe Adams - it's all irrelevant to the article if there are no sources. Until such time as other sources are provided - are you content with the proposed wording that I have suggested? Mooretwin (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair point Mooretwin, below are some sources. Personally, every book on the history of the IRA in the troubles, that I've read, tells of Adams involvement at the top of the IRA. There seems to be absolute concensus on the topic. Are there any books on the recent history of the IRA that state otherwise?

Politician: Berty Ahern said that he was in the IRA. The Sunday independent said he was on the army council, ref

Writing under the pen-name Brownie in the Republican News in 1976, Adams himself wrote: Rightly or wrongly, I am an IRA volunteer and, rightly or wrongly, I take a course of action as a means to bringing about a situation in which I believe the people of my country will prosper. see this link

See here for a photo Gerry Adams parading in the 1960s in the common "uniform" of the IRA member. It is reproduced from Provos The IRA & Sinn Fein , by Peter Taylor.

In an interview in The Irish News on 18th February, 2009, Old Bailey bomber Dolours Price said that her IRA activities were carried out on the direct orders of her then "commanding officer", Gerry Adams. Here is a link

The following extract is from "The Provisional IRA" by Patrick Bishop & Eamonn Mallie (1987) page 315.

"By 1977 McGuinness had joined the Army Council and after the recapture of Twomey as the pre-eminent military man -- he became chief-of-staff. On his release from prison Gerry Adams was also elected to the Council and succeeded McGuinness as its head in 1979"

Are there any sources that give Adams denials any credence? The only one that I know of is the court case in the 1970's where a judge deemed that there was insufficient evidence to prove Adams' membership of the IRA.

If everyone agrees that Al Capone was a gangster, then his denials need not be taken too seriously.

Pma jones (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think only the Bishop & Mallie source is useable, as the others are really reporting hearsay. Would you like to propose a new version of the text, using this source? Mooretwin (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Mooretwin, I'm going to suggest something rather close to your wording:

"It is believed by the security forces and others (ref ref ref, taken from above) that in the 1970s Adams was a leading member of the Provisional IRA, although he was acquitted of the charge of being a member in 1978 due to insufficient evidence."

I recommend removing west Belfast because of the Bishop and Mallie ref above which states that by 1979 he was chief of staff of the IRA. Pma jones (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should see the results of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pnelnik before continuing this discussion. O Fenian (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian, I'm quite happy for someone such as yourself to present the Sinn Fein PR perspecitve. However it is so much better to target the argument rather than the person. Having reviewed Mooretwin's recent suspension, it seems to me that it was brought about because he dared to question the SF party line. Now you want me silenced. Pma jones (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Given these multiple independent sources provided, that wording appears appropriate. Though "and others..." is a bit weaselly, I can't think of a better way of putting it. Rockpocket 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Though I would add, it might be better to give a summary style sentence or two about his early and late political career, while mentioning his (alleged) IRA involvement, rather than just use it as a counterpoint to his role in the peace process. Shades of gray are usually better than black and white. Rockpocket 21:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm also content with Pma's suggestion. Can someone make the edit? Mooretwin (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Adams of planter background?

Did the Adams family (doo-doo-doo-doo chh) move to Ireland during the colonial period? The name isn't of Irish origin (despite the token translation) but is fairly common in Scotland and England. It makes no mention of this in the early life section on his family background. Does it mention it in any autobiographies that could be used for this article? - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dont see what relevance this has to this article something that might have happened 400 years ago is certainly of no use to a BLP. BigDunc 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought "you people" conjured up an entire political movement over something that happened 400 years ago? 81.151.34.105 (talk) 22:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure the origin of the "Adams" name matters much to this article. --BwB (talk) 02:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is possible, but would require further research, and could be difficult to prove or disprove. Adams could be an anglicisation of a Gaelic name, just possibly connected with whatever Adam is called in Gaelic versions of the Bible. With most people it is difficult to trace their ancestry much further back than the start of compulsory registration, which in many countries took place in the mid-19th century. Ironically this is particularly difficult in Ireland since many of the old parish records were burned by the IRA in the Civil War, during the attack on the Four Courts. PatGallacher (talk) 02:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The tribal divisions in Northern Ireland have been and continue to be the strongest force in power-games and politics. Adams planter back-ground is note-worthy and should be mentioned, (needless to say with a reliable reference). Pnelnik (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable ref that demonstrates Gerry Adam's planer back-ground? --BwB (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Family abuse

I have to wonder if it entirely appropriate for the article to refer to Adams's claims that his father was emotionally, sexually and physically abusive of several family members over many years. Firstly, his father is dead and so can't defend himself. Comments irrelevant to improving the article redacted per WP:BLP Irvine22 (talk) 17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• these allegations are receiving a lot of press attention, and I wouldn't assume bad faith reasons for why Adams has made them. Wikipedia should discuss them. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I have trimmed the comment and removed the excessive detail about his brother and added a citation, I feel that what is left is ok and being widely reported, but please comment if anyone feels what is left is troublesome. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose as long as it's reported as a claim by Adams it's fine. People can decide for themselves how much credence to give it, considering the source. Irvine22 (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You've removed all detail about his brother! What was there before was ok and is being widely reported. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear - I have no problem with the detail about his brother. It's the claims of abuse made by Adams against his father I find questionable. Such claims against a dead parent Comments irrelevant to improving the article redacted per WP:BLP are sadly common. The claims of course may be true - it's not exactly ludicrous to think that an Irish Catholic paterfamilias of the period would be an angry, sexually repressed, drunken and abusive domestic tyrant. But there's no way of verifying them that I can see. Comments irrelevant to improving the article redacted per WP:BLP The Adams Family indeed. Irvine22 (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, Irvine22, my response was to Off2riorob. Both issues should be addressed and both should be referred to as claims or allegations until a court decides otherwise. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice bit of sectarian POV Irvine, you never let the side down. BigDunc 10:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The claims are not relevant to this article. Adams was not even aware of the alleged abuse while growing up, so I do not see how it can possibly be relevant to an early life section. The alleged abuse had no effect on him, so I fail to see how it can possibly be relevant to this article. I've also removed the coatrack about his brother, it is equally no relevance to this article. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is unbelievable that you'd seek to include current details about Liam Adams in an "Early life" section. Do you actually have anything constructive to add? How is the alleged abuse by Gerry Adams Sr relevant to this article? Was Adams abused? He has no recollection of it. Did it affect his upbringing? He does not seem to have been aware of it until the 1990s. So how is it relevant to his article, when it does not appear to have had any verifiable or even claimed effect on him? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The heading can be changed to "Personal life." My constructive additions - coverage that was headline news on every Irish TV and radio bulletin yesterday and is widely reported in Irish and British newspapers - has been removed. These two related alleged events are certainly significant - it's the most coverage Adams has had all year - and should be covered in a biography article. Presumably no objection if I seek outside opinion? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. You've still failed to show how there's any direct relevance to Gerry Adams himself, even he doesn't make any such claim. You ask for an outside opinion, Off2riorob has already provided one. On another article he and I rarely agree, and with what seem to be his first edits to this article he agrees the claims are coatrack. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And I see you don't like what the outside opinion was, so have decided to forumshop for another. Predictable... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:54, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As predictable as... actually, no, let's not go there. (Though fair play to you, I've never seen an existing comment cited as a pre-emptive requested outside opinion before ;-) ) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, yes I am an outsider to this article, I trimmed most of the content yesterday and wasn't really happy with what is left, I now agree with the total removal of the content it has no direct relevance to this BLP and was indeed imo coatracking. Off2riorob (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

And as it happens - I'm an outsider to this article too, and think it does have relevance... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be honest your replacement of the coatracking of the brothers story was a very poor edit, and was followed by the removal of all the content. When I said outsider I was referring to not Irish not involved sort of way. Off2riorob (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that Adams wasn't effected by his father's alleged actions, this info is irrelevant to the article. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you see much Irish media in Canada, GoodDay? Adams' calling for his brother to turn himself in to the PSNI over allegations he had abused his daughter, his claims of abuse on family members by his father, and his handling of the two situations (or lack thereof) has been the number one media story here for the past two days and isn't going to go away. WP:NOTCENSORED, anyone? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say, create an article of Gerry Adams' brother & put such information of their father, in it. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So we can write about Adams' allegedly abusive father on the Liam Adams page but not on the Gerry Adams page? And similarly write about Gerry calling on Liam to turn himself in on the Liam page but not the Gerry one? That's in no way logical. But I guess it does keep the more popular article whiter than white... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah Bastun! Hint of an agenda there? For what it's worth I think it inevitable this family background will become part of the Gerry Adams story. We will get the usual tripe and revisionist psychobabble about links between nationalism and child abuse and much more along the lines of Irvine22. (Imperialism and Big Nation nationalism requiring no such analysis in our meeja). I don't wish to get into trouble by pointing to Australia or other non-RC places in the Anglosphere where they appear to have managed enormous abuse with only a slight input from Irish priests and patriots. But you are correct that Adam's statement is now part of his career. He would hardly have made it were it not for his political position. Sarah777 (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, did Bastun just claim to be an outsider to this article?! Codswallop. Yes, I was sugesting Off2riorob was an outside opinion, since he'd never edited the article before. Are you suggesting that his opinion isn't valid because he posted before you, but if he was asked and he reiterated his previous comments that he'd then become an outside opinion?

Have you actually read WP:NOTCENSORED? If you have, perhaps you could actually explain which part of it is relevant to your argument. You'll also find you've picked completely the wrong person to try that argument on in relation to this particular article, since I made the pages of El Reg in relation to a previous dispute where I was attempting to include well sourced details of Adams' rather colourful past. Naturally you might not have seen that, but a look in the talk page archives would have shown you the nature of the dispute.

There is no attempt to "censor" this information from Wikipedia, it is currently sat in Gerry Adams Sr. without a problem. However there's no direct relevance to this article, since Adams states he has no recollection of being abused and wasn't aware of it until the 1990s. Why would we write about Gerry Sr. on the Liam Adams article, should it ever be created which I doubt will happen in the near future at least. That would be synthesis of the gravest order, attempting to imply a cause-effect link because one case of abuse and another when nobody has said Liam Adams was a victim of abuse by Gerry Sr.

It would seem that Bastun is very much swimming against the tide of consensus, having failed to offer any cogent explanation as to exactly how this information is relevant to this particular article he's now making wild accusations of censorship. Tiresome. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When have I edited the article before this weekend? It's possible I did and have forgotten, but seeing as I had to add it manually to my watchlist, I doubt it.

Off2riorob's outside opinion is perfectly valid. As is mine.

Someone certainly seems to be trying to censor this article, so let's add in WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And maybe WP:OWN.

"Tide of consensus" is nice hyperbole, but that's all it is. You mentioned above that you and Off2riorob often disagree. So do Sarah777 and I, but we both think the information on the claim by Adams re his father and his call on his brother to turn himself in is relevant for this article. Add BigDunc on your 'side' and PatGallacher on mine and it's 50:50 on whether the relevant, sourced and cited information on the biggest happening in Adams' recent life, with major media interest and coverage, should be included or not. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Bastun first edited the article on the 20th December. Wait and see, as per Sarah this will probably become part of his story. How often do you see a prominant politician comment so openly on his family history? But there's no rush, let's see how it pans out. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

@Bastun, I haven't made my opinion on this subject known as of yet. BigDunc 18:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Both abuse stories are notable and about a notable person, so of course they must be included. Besides Mr A has commented on both stories himself, so it wouldn't be encyclopedic to leave them out. Including his 1995 comment about abusers not being mentioned to the police is also very relevant, IMHO.Red Hurley (talk) 18:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree with that position, please can involved people refrain from adding comments, we are in need of neutral comments. Off2riorob (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There is legitimate debate about this should be handled, but something about this should definitely be included. As he made this statement and it has been widely reported it should definitely be included. Even if Adams himself only became aware of this relatively late, if even if half of what he said is true it must have been a very difficult experience for his family, so it is relevant. If you treat this sort of material as irrelevant you would have to cut out half of some people's biographies. PatGallacher (talk) 19:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

As I said , this will not be decided by editors who are involved in the north, south, issue, the is a BLP issue, and it is actually very simple, the content does not belong in this biography, no matter how much the people from the opposing group want to add it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the issues out of the article may not be as straightforward as that - for one there is the issue of how the allegations were handled by Gerry Adams (and others - interpreted broadly) from 1987 to 2009. Gerry Adams political enemies - both Republican and Unionist - are almost certain to make political capital about it. Thinking out loud, there are two sets of allegations:

1. Those against Liam Adams.
2. Those against Gerry Adams Snr.

Granted, item 2 became public as a result of item 1 becoming public, but without further information they should be considered separately to avoid WP:SYN.

Item 1 could well have political repercussions for the subject of the article, so any decision will have to be ongoing. Some of the questions being about about Gerry Adams handling of the allegations are being discussed in the media - here is an example.Autarch (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong with my recent additions, see WP:DRNC. PatGallacher (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In favour of inclusion: Autarch, PatGallacher, Red Hurley, Sarah777, Stu, Bastun. Those opposed: ONiH, Off2riorob. Those who haven't made their position known: BigDunc. Those who've contributed one-liners: GoodDay. Off2riorob's claim that "this will not be decided by editors who are involved in the north, south, issue" is from left-field - none of us are under any topic ban from Ireland/NI issues. BLP? What was added has been widely reported in the media and is in no way a breach of BLP. Please stop removing sourced, relevant information. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a vote or a weight of support situation, please do not add this controversial disputed content without community consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

In the absence of community consensus, please do not remove this relevant, sourced content. The content itself, by the way, is not "disputed" - it is fully in compliance with WP:BLP. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob, this is not a "head-counting" situation. There is no consensus for inclusion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are you removing material without consensus? 6 people favour inclusion, 3 (now) don't. That looks like consensus for inclusion to me. What basis is there for removal under WP:BLP? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There is nothing especially contentious about the material! It is reporting on statements made by and interviews given by Adams himself; it is well sourced. (There are more sources today - haven't bought a paper yet, but I could see it was front page news on some as I passed a newstand). And, of course, BLP doesn't apply in any case to the late Gerry Adams Sr. The material being removed also complies with the 'Criticism and Praise' section. The essay (not policy) WP:COATRACK applies to articles - and in any case the material here would not apply. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue. As Bastun says, everything is well sourced. It's whether the episode is relevant to his notability. If the allegations about his father and brother had simply been made, and Adams had made no comment about them, I would probably lean towards not including them. The fact that Adams himself has talked about them, in some length, sways me the other way. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 10:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a BLP issue. Editors are claiming that Adams revealing his father was allegedly abusive is part of an "Abuse controversy", or that his brother being wanted for alleged sexual abuse is part of the same "Abuse controversy". There needs to be direct relevance to Adams notability for any such section to be included. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

So instead of actually addressing the points raised and answering the questions, Bastun continues making wild accusations. So tell me Bastun if you're so uninvolved when it comes to Gerry Adams, how come in the past you've added poorly sourced negative information about him to another article?

As for your head count, comical. Consensus is based on strength of argument, and it seems you can't even count. Let's summarise people's comments shall we:

• You. It's sourced, it's relevant. You've not actually explained why it's relevant, simply relied on abuse and proof by assertion.
• Red Hurley. Mistakenly assumes Liam Adams is notable, saying the stories are about "notable people". Yes, but the stories aren't about Gerry Adams.
• Stu. I'll use two quotes - "Wait and see, as per Sarah this will probably become part of his story" and "But there's no rush, let's see how it pans out". Yes, so obviously he's clearly in favour of immediate inclusion without discussion, NOT!
• Sarah. I don't really see an argument one way or another. The closest it gets is "For what it's worth I think it inevitable this family background will become part of the Gerry Adams story"
• Autarch. Likewise doesn't make a clear statement one way or another. Seems happy to discuss though, perhaps you might learn to do so also?
• PatGallacher. Editor with a history of adding back BLP violating statements to this very talk page, then starts an RFC and adds back the disputed content after little input. Good faith is out of the window already. Argument consists of "he said it", "it's been widely reported", "it must go in".

Eh? What BLP violating material have I added to this talk page? "It's been widely reported" is often a perfectly legitimate argument. PatGallacher (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's right there in the page history, although it isn't recent. Don't expect me to defeat the object of removing it in the first place by providing diffs. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has yet refuted the WP:NOTNEWS argument, in addition to the WP:BLP problems. The "it's sourced" argument still falls foul of WP:BLP, I suggest reading this section. Got any sources that actually show a "clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability"? Saying it's relevant is one thing, proving it is something else entirely. More of the latter, less of the former please.

I have just gone to the trouble of reading this section, and the point about "clear demonstration of relevance to a person's notability" applies to adding criticism or praise of the subject, it does not apply to accurate reporting of what a person said themselves. PatGallacher (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely that's the whole point of the section? There's supposedly criticism over Adams handling of his brother (although none of his father). Unless you're saying there should be no information about Adams handling of the affair, in which case it only becomes about Liam and Gerry Sr. and thus has no place in this article? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Your comments above are backwards in addition. On Wikipedia the standard is that disputed additions stay out until there is consensus (be sure to read the policy, it's a lot different to three people saying "It must go in") for inclusion, especially when it comes to articles about living people.

I have just gone to the trouble of reading this section as well, and I see no such statement in the policy. I am not aware of any policy which says that in case of dispute there is a presumption in favour of excluding the disputed material. Such a policy could be a licence for a handful of people to exclude all sorts of legitmate material from a lot of articles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I said "standard", not policy. Be sure to look at many, many ArbCom cases and you'll see it's the case. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to look into this, but I am having difficulty finding any record of ArbCom cases. Can someone point me in the right direction? PatGallacher (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

To enforce this and make you discuss this properly I've asked for the page protecting. Why not try creating a draft in the meantime? The only consensus I see is that other than you and PatGallacher people are willing to wait and attempt to discuss in order to form a consensus. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have indeed read the BLP section you refer to, and it doesn't apply. By your argument, lots of this article's contents should be stripped out - Adams' thoughts on religion, for example, and his trip to the White House. (Before anyone says it, no, I'm not going to be pointy!) "Saying it's relevant is one thing, proving it is something else entirely. More of the latter, less of the former please." And where is this new policy enshrined, that one must "prove" relevance? How does one "prove" that something is relevant, anyway? We're expected to believe that something that's received major media attention every day since last Friday, which has been further contributed to by Adams' himself, is somehow not relevant? However, put it this way - if there's a new biography of Adams written, or autobiography, will it include these notable controversies? Almost certainly! (Yeah, I can already anticipate the WP:NOTCRYSTAL beans being reached for...) And therefore they should be mentioned in this article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• What harm is there in wait and see and could someone propose a draft here on the talk page that editors can look at and discuss. BigDunc 15:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not in principle against creating a draft, but if I understand some people correctly, they are not objecting to the form of words, they are in principle against the article including any mention of Adams' comments about alleged abuse in his family. Or have I misunderstood something? PatGallacher (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What part of misunderstood don't you understand? Off2riorob (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, agree to wait and see. Look it's a current news story, and are we going to keep it up to date with the latest twists and turns? What about GA on the Late Late Show will we have a section on that there was plenty of coverage? What about GA in the White House again plenty of coverage? While there is not as much coverage, what about GA visit to Palestine he even wrote a small book about his trip? Will we have sections on all these are just select the ones we like? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Judging by the last line of the 'Mainstream politics' section, apparently the answer is "yes". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear PatGallacher, replying to - "Mistakenly assumes Liam Adams is notable, saying the stories are about "notable people". Yes, but the stories aren't about Gerry Adams." – No, when I said "Mr A" on Talk:Gerry Adams, I meant Gerry Adams. The stories are about GA or they wouldn't get in the papers. Some will infer deep influences from his childhood, which may not be the case.

Can we look at what GA has said so far about abuse and the cases in his family, and the timeline:

• He was told by his niece about her abuse in 1987. He says now that he believed her and that he could have done more. "Under pressure", she keeps quiet and withdraws her allegation.
• In 1995 he advises that cases of child and drug abuse should not be mentioned to the police. He added that the police "are using these issues for their own militaristic ends".
• GA knew that his brother was involved in the interim in youth work in Dundalk and at Clonard in Belfast, and said nothing.
• In 2009 his niece goes public
• In 2009 he goes public about his niece and his father.

The only good reason for keeping this awful saga off his page is that it won't be resolved for some time. Father, brother, niece and his own comments in 1995 and 2009...some will say that it's irrelevant to his leadership of a party; others that it's a part of his story. Some will say the story is all too recently in the news; others will say that the story has been there since the 1960s and another since 1987. That's 22 years ago where I live.Red Hurley (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline which says that issues have to be resolved before we can write about them, we have numerous articles about matters which are in a sense unresolved e.g. Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. What does "resolved" mean in this context anyway? When all the parties are dead? Why not let people make their own decision about whether this is relevant to Adams' political role? Some might say that it is to his credit that he did go public about some of these issues, even if he did so later than he might have done. PatGallacher (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Is the standard for inclusion on this article now "Gerry Adams said something, so we must include it". He's said many things over the previous 30 years, are we going to include all of them or only the ones which certain editors want to make political capital out of? Also RedHurley's comical attempt to distort the truth - the claim that he "said nothing" is nonsense - is rather telling. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 11:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am joining the discussion a little late but have read the well considered comments over the last few days. I feel it is a bit early to decide whether or not to include the abuse story in the article. But I do think the story is interesting and reveals something of Adam's character. Let's see how the story develops over the next few days. --BwB (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: mention briefly his call on his brother to turn himself into police, keeping in mind WP:BLP and WP:WELLKNOWN. A single sourced sentence should cover that. His statement is significant as it is quite different from what he would have said twenty years ago (given the situation in Nothern Ireland) and involves a potentially very difficult situation for him that could significantly affect his career.Autarch (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Autarch but I still think we should wait a few more days and see how tyhings develop. There's no real rush. --BwB (talk) 12:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to distort the truth; so far as we know, GA said nothing to the relevant organisers while his brother was working with children, while knowing that the brother was accused of raping his daughter over a 5-year period. "Said nothing" - yes, I'm standing by that. Maybe he did say something, and that will emerge. But where will the story end? Will a trial take place? If not, then the accusations remain just that. What is, or will be, relevant to GA's page will be his comments on abuse, not reporting it to police, and therefore keeping it in the family, linked to the abuse within his family. Politicians make policies and so their views on touchy subjects are of interest, IMHO. Unless they are tribal chiefs, in which case reason flies out the window. As for WP:BLP, check out Anita Pallenberg.Red Hurley (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has become rather stalled, to take it forward:

1. It has been claimed that there are ArbCom decisions that where there is not a consensus there should be a presumption against including the disputed material. I cannot find ArbCom decisions which would cast light on this, can anyone point me in their direction?

2. It is possible to have biographies of people awaiting trial on serious criminal charges, see e.g. Tommy Sheridan and Gail Sheridan (politician).

3. Just a suggestion, could we create an article on e.g. "Adams family child abuse controversy"? I know some people think "controversy" is POV, is there a better term? PatGallacher (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless anyone can come up with a better suggestion I propose to restore the deleted material, which is:-

In December 2009, following allegations in a UTV special broadcast that his brother, Liam, had sexually abused his daughter for a period spanning about a decade, and is on the run from police, Adams urged his brother to turn himself in. Adams subsequently claimed that his late father, Gerry Senior had subjected family members to emotional, physical and sexual abuse .

On 21 December Liam Adams handed himself in at a police station in Sligo. He was not arrested as they did not have a warrant, but he gave his address and said he was willing to be questioned." PatGallacher (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Recognize your desire to move things along, Pat, but the story is still unfolding. There were 2 articles in the Sunday Independent last Sunday asking questions on the subject and presenting political and person reasons why Gerry Adams acted as he did. This story still has legs and I think we should continue to wait to see how the story unfolds before changing the article. My 2 cents! --BwB (talk) 12:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Break

So apparently Gerry Adams did nothing about his brother? Is it too much to ask for editors to actually do a tiny amount of research before making the same mistake twice? Adams says he did, and it's reported in many sources. I don't see what relevance the 1995 comments have, since at least one source correctly points out that the Republican Movement didn't recognise the legitimacy of the RUC. However that was 1995 and this is 2009, and the PSNI have replaced the RUC and Sinn Féin have changed their stance. It isn't even the first time Adams has urged co-operation with the PSNI either, there's more of a story on him changing his stance on the McCartney death.

The so-called draft above is nothing more than the same content which was removed. If anyone wants to prepare a well-balanced addition that's actually relevant to Adams' notability and isn't going to unbalance the article go right ahead, otherwise I think Autarch's suggestion is a good one. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To reply:- 1. I am not disputing that this is the same wording as before, that's because in my opinion it is our best starting point.

2. I am open to persuasion that one sentence would be enough to cover this issue, but those who think so ought to draft such a sentence, would it really take much time?

3. This draft says nothing about whether Adams did nothing about his brother. If it would only take "a tiny bit of research" to cast light on this issue then please supply the relevant sources.

4. So unless anyone can come up with a better draft I propose to add this soon. PatGallacher (talk) 03:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about the following wording:

"In December 2009, a UTV special broadcast alleged that Liam Adams had sexually abused his daughter for a period spanning about a decade. In response, Gerry Adams urged his brother to turn himself in and reveled that his late father, Gerry Senior had subjected family members to emotional, physical and sexual abuse. The Police Service of Northern Ireland is preparing to issue a European warrant for Adams’s arrest." --BwB (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A reasonable starting point, although I might make a few tweaks, and in fairness to Liam Adams I think we should also mention his visit to the police station in Sligo. PatGallacher (talk) 16:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• None of this belongs in this article, it is coatracking his brother and his father onto this persons biography, a politicians son got caught growing cannabis and his mother says that he should not have done it, you do not add this to the mothers article, it is coatracking, it belongs in the sons biography if he has one, I have seen things like this added plenty of times to bios and they get removed every time, the same goes for the father, what have you got..In 2009 Gerry claimed his father had abused members of his family, that is the whole isolated story, it adds nothing except a bit of personal claimed detail about his father, not worth a comment. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Have to disagree with you Off. When we see the amount of press coverage this story is getting and the points editors and journalists are making about how Adams handled the abuse issues, it clearly reflects on his political and personal life. We are not coatracking in his bro and dad, but trying to capture a significant event in Adams personal and profession bio. --BwB (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if there is massive press coverage of the brothers situation, this can not be inserted into this article, (His brother is a child molester, has no place in this article) and as for the comment about the father...In 2009 Gerry claimed his father had abused members of his family. this is the most that could be added, I wouldn't bother myself. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly lots of press coverage on Liam, but there is far more in recent days on Gerry. That's the point I am trying to make. We want to include reference to these event in the context of Gerry Adam's political and person life, which is the whole point of the article in the first place. The revelations about his father and his inaction on his brother's alleged abuse go to his character. There needs to be some text on this in the article. --BwB (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I accept Off2riorob's proposed wording as a reasonable starting point. PatGallacher (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you accept, but you are not the only one involved in this discussion. --BwB (talk) 20:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for teh revert, BigDunc. I am not the only one who would like to see consensus on this discussion be fore we insert the text. --BwB (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added the NPOV flag as I believe that the concept of "no consensus" is being abused to prevent the addition of relevant and clearly sourced material. I don't think this is how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. PatGallacher (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Although I wouldn't perhaps of added it myself I do think that what Pat added was a simple undisputable, neutral comment as regards the widely reported comment from Gerry Adams, imo adding this comment puts an end to the situation, sometimes I have found when something like this occurs and there is one side wants to add a story and another doesn't that a simple clear, unemotional, well published, indisputable comment like this can not do any harm to the article and in fact to keep such a simple comment out when it is covered at multiple citations and over time would be wrong and almost impossible, so if we are to comment as to our personal position, I am for the inclusion of this comment. Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd also prefer some mention of the Liam Adams issue, but failing consensus on that, I'd also support including the statement added by Pat, as per Off2riorob above. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Bastun. In last Sunday's "Sunday Independent" newspaper we have 3 article on Gerry Adams and the abuse story, just as an example of the press coverage: "Adams must finish voyage round the sins of our fathers" by Eoghan Harris; "Culture of concealment prevails as Gerry's default mechanism" by Eilis O'Hanlon; and, "Adams case need more questions to be answered" by Colum Kenny. In the "Irish Times" we have the story "Adams did block brother, says SF" by GERRY MORIARTY, and a quick Google search gives about 8 similar article in the last few days. Perhaps we need to consider that this story need to be included in this Adams article? --BwB (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

All of these tittilating press stories are meaningless to what content is applicable here, so there are these articles, what content does that mean should be added then?.. The brother, its clear coatracking, even with a thousand google hits, you are still wanting to add detail about him to the wrong article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I want the focus of this discussion to be on Gerry Adams, not his brother. We are interested in Gerry's actions, motivations, politics, etc with respect to these events. The recent articles give evidence to this. In the guidelines for WP:BLP we find the following:

"In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take material from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

I think this article and this story fall within the remit of this guideline. --BwB (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, go on then show us what you want to add about the brother. Off2riorob (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The onus is on those saying a relevant section can be created to actually provide a draft, not merely assert one can be created. The previous addition was beyond pointless, it has no direct relevance to Gerry Adams. I've heard the "he said it" and "it's sourced" arguments, and nobody has yet refuted that Gerry Adams has said many, many things which can be sourced which aren't in the article, and aren't going to be in the near future because an encyclopedia article shouldn't really be written from things someone has said and the reaction to them unless what was said is in some way significant to the subject. Also bear in mind when creating this draft that it can't unbalance the article by giving the non-event excessive coverage in comparison to things which are actually relevant to the life and career of Gerry Adams. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure One Night if you representing Wiki guideline here are just you POV that these events are not "relevant to the life of Gerry Adams"? --BwB (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

So why do we have a sentence about him attending Obama's inauguration (so what, so did literally thousands of others), or his thoughts on religion (not relevant in any way to his notability)? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, referring to other things that are incomparable does nothing but muddy the waters, if you have a desired insert regarding his brother editors here would I am sure like to have a look at it for consideration, personally imo it would be a waste of time as it actually has nothing to do with Gerry Adams...Gerry's brother was a criminal and Gerry said he should hand himself in...sorry it doesn't add anything to this biography and doesn't belong here. Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war continues. Pat put a sentence in, someone reverts. How do we propose to reach consensus on this issue? Pat, maybe hold off on your edit for now, eh!? --BwB (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhpas Big Dunc could also suggest a way forward here? --BwB (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already suggested, produce a draft here. The current one sentence addition is meaningless, it's just trivial information in the extreme and also biased using the word "claim". Since Adams has quite a few relatives, it's specious in the extreme to think that the entire family would stand by while Gerry smeared the name of his dead father if it didn't happen. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I to have also said that a draft should be added to the talk page for editors to discuss before it is added to the article. BigDunc 14:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This story continues. In a letter to the Irish Times published today, Jan 14, Gerry Adams states that his father was an abuser. --BwB (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And more today - Ian Paisley Jr. calling for an Assembly investigation into whether Gerry Adams has broken Assembly rules in the course of responding to his brother’s alleged sexual abuse. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0115/1224262376399.html I'm sure in no way prompted by any desire to deflect the media from Irisgate. Nonetheless, something else worthy of inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And more allegations in today's Sunday Tribune. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, Bastun. Soon there will be enough material to put something in this article and the Sinn Fein article. --BwB (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohhh jolly hockey sticks! --Domer48_'fenian' 17:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Very constructive. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Liam Adams

It's possible that Liam Adams is heading in the direction of notability. However I do not wish to take the potentially controversial step of creating his own article without discussion. What do people think? PatGallacher (talk) 01:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless further allegations arise, more than have currently been made, then I don't see him as being sufficiently notable. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed - not notable in his own right as yet. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

He looks so much like his brother, spittin' image! - beard and all! (OK, this isn't relevant but I thought I'd mention it). Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, too early to start a new article on Liam. --BwB (talk) 12:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks too early to start an article on him.Autarch (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Would a section in this article on Liam Adams, be allowable? GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a section on the controversy if coverage grows to a paragraph or more. The name currently redirects to the Gerry Adams article - any coverage would have to be even more careful than usual for WP:BLP as there is the possibility of a trial as a result of the allegations made against Liam Adams.Autarch (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Chaps! I certainly don't think Liam Adams should redirect to Gerry Adams. He is more than notable enough at this stage to have his own article. And he is notable enough to have a proportional mention, along with Gerry's statement, in the G Adams article. Sarah777 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course that is me as the Wiki editor. A lawyer I am not - so I've no views on what sort of inclusion is safe per WP:BLP in terms of likely legal proceedings in this matter. Let's just say I won't be contributing anything to article space myself :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, wait until something concrete emerges.Red Hurley (talk) 15:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Could you explain the addition of the Tag please Pat. BigDunc 21:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an edit conflict but Pat said..I have added the NPOV flag as I believe that the concept of "no consensus" is being abused to prevent the addition of relevant and clearly sourced material. I don't think this is how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like an adequate rationale to me, considering the material removed neither portrays Adams in a more positive or negative light. It's the same as adding a tag because someone removes "Joe Bloggs opened a hospital for sick children today, and said 'I'm happy to help the sick and needy'" even though it's sourced!!11!!!1!!!!! 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If Pat is watching, I also don't think this one removal of a small comment which is being discussed here is a good reason to add a Pov tag to the whole article and I support its removal, t isn't needed and doesn't help. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people have taken things forward over the past day in relation to why this should not be included. There is a big difference between child abuse and opening a hospital for sick children. What does "relevant" mean in this context anyway? I take the point about the NPOV flag, although its difficult to apply it to a non-existent section. PatGallacher (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for removing the template from the article Pat, it as you say reflected badly on the whole article and was actually more relevant to this unadded discussion, anyway thanks for your good faith. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Some very important quotes

How to insert them best?

• Abuse of any kind is horrendous but sexual abuse, particularly of a child, is indescribably wounding and heartbreaking.
  • Gerry Adams reveals family's abuse by his father guardian.co.uk "I myself for a long time wanted this to be publicised because there is a culture of concealment. But we can only do this when everybody is strong enough to do it. And we don't do it for any other reason than a necessary step in the healing process in our own clan. And also other families who are in the same predicament or individuals who just feel this is the end of the world."

Somebody deleted stating"Undue weight to the issue". (?) You are joking. are you not? Austerlitz -- 88.75.203.79 (talk) 18:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no one is joking. Do not insert the quotes. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment "Undue weight to one issue" was in regards to adding the information to the opening paragraph. I.e Gerry Adams is a polition, was important to the peace process, and was apparently abused as a child. Not an appropriate introduction considering this alleged abuse is only a minor addition to the absolute wealth of information available on the man. Adding the information to its own sub-section is a different matter. Freikorp (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He has stated that he wasn't abused. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well than, that just makes it even less relevant for the opening paragraph. Freikorp (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Austerlitz, I think RepublicanJacobite might be joking. There is no consensus to delete any mention of the issue. It has been claimed that ArbCom decisions are that in case of no consensus there is a presumption for deletion, but nobody has produced these ArbCom decisions, so I am sceptical. PatGallacher (talk) 20:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The sexual abuse issues are as relevant as anything else in the "Early Life" section of the article. Apparently it's relevant to mention banalities like how many O-levels he has and that he was a barman, but not the more extraordinary fact that he came from a family of sexual abuse. The section mentions political affiliations within his family - it's hard to think these directly affected Gerry Adams' life, but the sexual abuse within the family somehow passed over him like water off a duck's back.Cranec (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not suggesting it should be in an Early Life section, since he didn't know about it when growing up. However, finding out about his brother and father was an exraordinary piece of his personal history that directly affected him and that he involved himself with and is all the more notable and worthy of inclusion because of those facts. This is especially true when you consider some of the banalities that have been deemed worthy of inclusion in the article hitherto. Cranec (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good point Cranec. --BwB (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Are there any sources that say the events are an extraordinary piece of his personal history? The other argument is specious. If there's information in the article which drags on and goes off-topic, then that's not an argument for including more off-topic information it's an argument for pruning the existing information. Sadly I could count the number of people who want to improve the article as a whole on one hand. And "it's hard to think these [his family's political affiliations] directly affected Gerry Adams' life", you must be joking surely as it's impossible to take you seriously after that? You honestly don't think that being born into a prominent republican family directly shaped Gerry Adams life? He didn't join the Republican Movement after the events of 1969, he was a member by the mid-1960s. Obviously his family had nothing to do with that..... *rolls eyes* 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Two Points:

You might want to lay off the Special K, since the second half of your post indicates you totally misunderstood mine. I'm saying that the family political affiliations did affect him, but to say that on the one hand and then to say on the other that finding out about familial abuse and involving himself in intermediating between the abuser and victim did not affect him is ludicrous. After such a failure in comprehension I should be asking myself how seriously I can take you, not vice versa.

Secondly, unless Gerry Adams ordinarily interfaces with incestuous paedophile cases within his own family, and in the course of doing so discovers his father was an abuser and ultimately calls upon a family member to turn themselves over to the police, then this is an extraordinary event in his personal history. Perhaps you think it's a rather ordinary event in his personal history. It also affected him. He also involved himself with it. The media coverage only reinforces the case for this being notable.

You might want to read all that twice, while sober.Cranec (talk) 15:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

All editors should keep in mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA.Autarch (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing about the sexual abuse should be included in my opinion, because it upsets republicans. As per wikipedia rules, facts should only be included when they are in line with republican politcal views. Of course this abuse is hugely important to Gerry Adams, but is unhelpful to this wikipedia article, wikipedia is fighting for a united ireland. Trickyjack (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true, it not only fights for a United Ireland it also fights for a break up of the United Kingdom attempting to completly undermine "British" identity and citizenship.

Ofcourse well sourced information about this mans private life should be included in the article, no matter what republicans think. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, all editors should keep in mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. As for the Liam Adams controversy, it seems reasonable that it should be mentioned, as it has been well-covered by the media and involves the subject of the article. However, it should be very carefully written and should stick to WP:V as there may be a trial. One possible approach:

1. Mention Gerry Adams asking his brother to hand himself in.
2. Mention Liam Adams appearing in the Garda station.
3. Mention criticism of Gerry Adams (e.g. by Suzanne Breen).

A short sourced paragraph of about three sentences could cover this. (Any longer and it might need its' own article.)Autarch (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly it does need its own article (linked from here), as has has been done for Irisgate? (Interesting that nobody on that article, or on Iris Robinson or on Peter Robinson seems to be saying we have to wait until the event is over before WP covers it). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent - I can see that the Iris Robinson scandal emerged relatively rapidly, so there were enough sourced details to provide content for a separate article. The allegations about Liam Adams (and the allegations in yesterdays' Sunday Tribune about lack of action over other alleged abusers in Sinn Féin) have emerged more slowly and are still at the stage of allegations (with possible criminal cases to be taken). On the other hand these are significant events - it's not every day that the head of a political party in government is accused of covering up abuse.Autarch (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Some links relevant to the abuse allegations:

Sunday Tribune, 17 Jan 2010: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

Sunday Tribune, 24 Jan 2010: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13].

BBC: [14]

Autarch (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Largest party Northern Ireland/4th largest Republic of Ireland?

Some questionable claims in the lead - largest party in NI? Well only one of those refs says so and anyway the results of the 2007 assembly election, 2005 Westminster election and 2005 local election showed SF to be the second largest party so they were the largest party in only one of four possible elections. Same problem with the Republic - SF is fifth largest party in the Dail, fifth largest party in the Seanad. At Euro elections it was the fourth largest party in terms of vote share though the Socialist party won more seats so only at local level could SF unambiguously be said to be fourth largest party. Valenciano (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely you mean Ireland, not Republic of Ireland? Fergananim (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Have a read of the Manual of style. Valenciano (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Focus of article

While we know that Adams has strong ties to the IRA and SF, the article contains long passages that are more about IRA and SF than Adams. It may be hard to write a history of Adams without providing so much context, but some material may not be directly relevant to Adams. What do other editors think? --BwB (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on a recent Channel 4 programme we know that Mr Adams has strong ties to Jesus, so maybe we should add some long passages about the man from Galilee? Sarah777 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Dolours

Removed per Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 3#Request for Comment:Alleged IRA Membership where it was agreed we're not doing a laundry list of evidence or people. Also note that I was arguing against that idea, but consensus said otherwise. It was a poorly researched addition as well considering she said the same thing nine years ago. I notice that the initial version was also a BLP violation as it contained an insinuation based on an editor's observation on a primary source while leaving out the actual denial, it's what I'd expect from certain editors though... 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ad hominem, where would we be without you! I admit to being entirely unaware of Price's previous 2001 statement, not having taken the Telegraph then. Or now, for that matter. Where, though, in that archived RFC, is the agreement to leave anything out? I'm seeing a discussion that just peters out with no conclusion, agreed or otherwise. I'd also argue that a "primary" source - Price - saying Adams was her OC is significant enough for inclusion. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bastun, it should be included. Pma jones (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an obvious problem with this "primary" source we can all agree. I also noticed that the initial version was a clear BLP violation. We could add a laundry list of accusations and denials but with the real concerns of BLP is it worth the risk? I don't think so. --Domer48_'fenian' 15:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from her well known opinion of Adams and SF, what is the "obvious" problem? A newspaper report about an interview in another newspaper with a person claiming something is not a BLP violation in any way. Especially when we already have Adams' denial in the article, including, following your own edit, a specific denail of Price's claims. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If we include Dolours then we really need to include Seán Mac Stíofáin's as well and various other people's, and then it'll resemble a laundry list of people. Her well known opinion of Adams and SF were removed and are not obvious in the article, so that is the "obvious" problem. Prior to my edit, we did not even have Adams' denial despite the fact it was in the same source provided! Again, do we want to get into compiling laundry lists of claims and accusations? --Domer48_'fenian' 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The crucial points to cover are that it's claimed Adams is/was a member; and that he denies it. My own opinion is that someone saying, essentially, "Yes, he was, and furthermore he was my OC" is significant enough to be covered. But as long as the crucial points are there (which they are), I can live with the current wording.

Domer and ONiH - Adam's denial of Price's claim was indeed in the source I added, and I did indeed omit it. My bad - a quick lunchtime edit. Nothing further should be read into it than that, though. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes but then we're moving into laundry list territory, why include Price and leave out Mac Stíofáin saying Adams was IRA in 1972 at the time of the London talks? He was chief of staff in 1972 after all, so he should know! There's other similar examples of people saying things about Adams, why leave them out? As a compromise, if you agree to not making it a laundry list of people saying Adams was in the IRA (and after all the key point is that people say Adams was in the IRA and he denies it, there's no need for a laundry list), I think the section should be expanded in a different way. Assuming I can get the attribution right (and I might need to use a different source or two to do it) I think the section should basically deal with his alleged progression within the IRA, from OC in Belfast to adjutant general to chief of staff. That's far more informative than the current section or just adding a list of people saying he was in the IRA, would you agree? 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That would seem to add more value than simply listing multiple accusations and denials. Rockpocket 00:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be a definite improvement, ONiH. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 01:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people argue about "cruft" being in the artices. Well listing the reporters names is Reportercruft, Tabloidcruft. A reporters word without evidence is nothing more than a guess. There are much more notable people who would guess that Gerry Adams was in the IRA. Forget guessing. If you have something of evidence try it but the woman up there is a politic enemy of Gerry Adams and if only her or only her and her friend make an allegation, and they are not extremely significant persons, you all know the policies on BLP. Gerry probably was in the IRA at some time but is there anyone unbiased to back it? There is ample material on the structure of the IRA at any time. WP:FRINGE ~ R.T.G 23:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)