Talk:Gerry Adams

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 [1]) 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)

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)

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)