Talk:Martin McGuinness

30 years

Nice example of why Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) shouldn't bother with events less than 30 years old. History will not be in a position to say anything definitive about people like McGuinness until various papers are released by governments. 18:49, 31 July 2005

IRA or PIRA

There is some dispute over the use of the name IRA or PIRA. The Provisional IRA are no more the PIRA and the Official IRA are the OIRA. You either refer to them as the Provisional IRA or the IRA. This has been confirmed to me by a member of Sinn Féin. I note that PIRA is used in some cases to distinguish the group but in this case it is clear that the Provisional IRA is the group refered to and there is no need for the incorrect - PIRA. Some might feel this is a pedanticism of the organisation itself and is not relevant - fair enough! Also, the use of the word "volunteers" was removed. Elsewhere on Wikipedia the term is used. There are inconsistencies. Again, people might feel it is a pedanticism of the group and is POV but calling IRA members "volunteers" is not incorrent. That is what they call themselves & that is what they are. Why shouldn't the term be used? I also do not agree with the piece abve ("Nice example of why..."). What do government papers say about McGuinness? Probably not much we don't already know about it. There is plenty of stuff on McGuinness out there. He's lived much of his life through politics and consequently has been in the public eye. Also, there are 1 or 2 very good histories of the IRA available. McGuinness's role in the organisation is well documented. 02:39, 2 October 2005

Guerrilla

I think "IRA guerrilla" is preferable to "IRA vounteer" or "IRA terrorist". It is descriptive, fairly neutral, and the Provisionals also call themselves "guerrillas". "Volunteer" sounds less violent, more sympathetic and almost like "activist". Which is why the IRA call themselves it Kingal86 22:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "Volunteer" is being misinterpreted in this circumstance.

The word itself does not impute morality to Provo provocations, but is simply a descriptive term used to reflect the organizational structure and hierarchy of the IRA.

McGuinness could have very well been a guerilla-or a terrorist, for that matter-while still maintaining his status as a "volunteer."

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe the modern neutral, politically correct term is "insurgent".

Active service

McGuinness seems not to have denied IRA membership. Does anyone have any idea of how much active service he saw?

Active service????

Mr. McGuinness has, in the past, stated that he was "Proud to be a member of the Provisional IRA"{sic} not sure when/where he said that but will try to find out. Im not sure if he was ever on the council or executive but he has been to almost every army general convention since 1970, excluding the ones held while he was imprisoned. He did have a "substantial" role in the #1 Derry Brigade, probably at least a battalion commandant. 195.7.34.195 13:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC) K.B.

I've just added his verbatim declaration of membership from Dublin's Special Criminal Court in 1973. El Gringo 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

According to Ed Moloney, he's been commander of the Derry Brigade, commander of Northern command, a member of the Army Council, and Chief of Staff from 1977(?) until 1982. 83.109.69.226 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Martin McGuinness' birth place

For goodness sake could we please agree on the way we are going to write the name of Derry/Londonderry when referring to where the man was born. It has now been taken out altogether but is quite a necessary piece of information to include. I personally think that Derry is more suitable considering it is an article concerning a nationalist politician but if someone wants to include both I have no problem with that. It is very annoying to see an incomplete article like this just because people cannot seem to agree. --Spark13579 04:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

• The compromise reached some time ago on Talk:Derry was to refer to the city as "Derry" and the county as "Londonderry". Demiurge 11:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
• I understand that the BBC's policy when broadcasting reports concerning Derry/Londonderry is to call it Londonderry at the beginning of the report and thereafter refer to it as Derry.

Birthname

Christened James Martin McGuinness per BBC.

216.194.4.227 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Banned users can't edit Wikipedia. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Politics

Why is there no mention of Martin McGuinness's politics, in terms of his broadly left-wing beliefs, instead of just speculation about his IRA past?

"Allegations of Spying" information

Why do people keep deleting this stuff? Whether it is true or not, it was still something which was controversial and therefore relevant to McGuinness' political career. If Republicans here are going to delete everything they don't like, then how is Wikipedia ever going to work? This information has sources (I mean the newspaper reports were real, I'm not commenting on the validity of the claims).

Just because something turned out not to be true, it doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it on Wikipedia. Why not just delete the pages about the flat earth for example? Jamezcd 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Noticed this!

All your points are incorrect with the exception of the Northern Ireland point. Also - you are displaying unprovioked outragous breaches of of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - please strike through those comments.--Vintagekits 01:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Provisional IRA activity and claims of Provisional IRA activity

Documented activity and claims of activity should not be lumped together in one section; the first is biography, the second speculation. I am bringing all the claims - at the Inquiry, on the TV and in the Dáil - down into a separate section. Scolaire (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Bloody Sunday stuff be in that section? After all, it seems odd to have that McGuinness himself confirm he was second-in-command at the time of Bloody Sunday, then not deal with it in detail in that section? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe re-phrase the first paragraph to say simply: "He was second-in-command of the Provisional IRA in Derry in 1972, at the time of Bloody Sunday at the age of 21." That is the relevant fact. The fact that he confirmed it to the Saville Inquiry can be found in the reference. The allegations about nail-bombs etc., if they're only claims, shouldn't be in this section Scolaire (talk) 13:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Right Honourable

Just wondering if anyone has a reference for Martin joining the Privy Council? Or is there some other reason why he is styled The Right Honourable in the infobox? Fmph (talk) 15:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

McGuinness is given the title as deputy first minister.--Theosony (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a reference for that? Fmph (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. Google only returns a single return for the phrase (on a quite inflammatory blog), and the straight word google results are topped by the wiki article. The honorific is reserved for members of the Privy Council, which Martin is not. Without a reference, it must be removed as per WP:BLP. I'll do it tomorrow, unless a reference is provided. Fmph (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

death threats

I have recently added the recent on-going death threats to Mr Mcguinness by the IRA with a comment link from the Spectator, it was removed as vandalism why I have no idea?Twobells (talk) 13:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

You know full well why it has been removed as vandalism. Do not add offensive commentary to articles about living people. O Fenian (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see, so anything that you don't like while factual is to be removed? I don't think so.Twobells (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC) I have removed comments made in the public domain from the news wire as an editor constantly tries to vandalise my addition.Twobells (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Several points. 1 - Your anti-Martin commentary was never sourced by any source at all. 2 - The reports of death threats were not confirmed by the PSNI. The PSNI would report the death threats to the person concerned, and on this occasion the person concerned has gone public. That is roughly what the source says, not your twisted version. 3 - Why is it significant enough for its own section, titled "Death threats", when that is plural also? 4 - Is it significant enough to go in the article at all? O Fenian (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with British intelligence

Should the article refer to McGuinness's relationship with MI5/6? It was after all crucial to the role he played in shutting down the IRA and getting Sinn Fein to work within a constitutional framework.Irvine22 (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you stop with this trolling nonsense and have a read of WP:BLP. BigDunc 17:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, aren't you supposed to be barred for sockpuppetry? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If theres sources it should be added.BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That was some time ago, hes been complained about at the admins noticeboard on another matter since then and they didnt block him. Hes only using that account now. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My 'eyebrows' are perked. I'm not very forgiving of 'past' sockers. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as well then that your forgiveness is neither sought nor required, GoodDay. Now, I tend to agree with BritishWatcher that sourced information about McGuinness's relationship with British intelligence should be in the article. In terms of BigDunc's concern about how it can be incorporated consistent with WP:BLP perhaps we can refer to the Freddie Scappaticci article for some pointers? Irvine22 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't trust you. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We should all place our trust in sources rather than editors, don't you think? Irvine22 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Socking is blasphemy. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Notions of "blasphemy" are contrary to the spirit of free inquiry.Irvine22 (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So, adapting language from the Scappaticci article that would mean a new section entitled "Alleged relationship with British intelligence" and the sentence "McGuinness was accused in the Irish & British media, in May 2006, as being a high-level double agent in the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), known by the codename The Fisherman." Irvine22 (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no way that nonsense is being added in its current format, if at all. Those are very serious allegations, and unsuitable per WP:BLP. O Fenian (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If theres a couple of sources describing him as the Fisherman, it should be added to the article as its useful information. I thought the wording used was neutral and fine, just it does need a couple more reliable sources to back up such a claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"Useful" is not a reason to include serious accusations about a high profile living person. O Fenian (talk) 23:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The wording is adapted from the Freddie Scappaticci article, which is an obvious pattern for want we want to do here, as Scappaticci is also alleged to have been a double agent within the IRA. Note that the Wikipedia article on him leads with those very allegations, and no one has mentionedWP:BLP as a problem over there.Irvine22 (talk) 23:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It was mentioned here before you added the information without consensus. Do not add controversial information about living people to articles without consensus, and do not make false claims of consensus when adding it. O Fenian (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I left plenty of time for others to comment before I made the edit.Irvine22 (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc did, and you ignored him. O Fenian (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It was probably his inflammatory language. Irvine22 (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If the accusations are reliably sourced (need more than just 1 source), then i think its useful to include. I agree its a serious accusation, but if sources suggest it we can not decide just to ignore such a claim. Even if the Fisherman isnt a spy, if the claim has been made it should be mentioned. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A "serious accusation"? I dunno. If McGuinness did collaborate with MI5 to shut down the IRA, that reflects a lot of credit on him, surely? Irvine22 (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Where in any policy does it say "if BritishWatcher finds it useful" is a criteria for content inclusion? O Fenian (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are sources claiming he is the Fisherman, i fail to see why it should not be added to the article. The key here is that its sourced and the wording is neutral. The previous wording which u have removed seemed very neutral to me, my only concern is it needs more than 1 source as its a big claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's restore the neutral wording, with additional sources. Irvine22 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If that was neutral, then I am a banana. And there is only one source, Martin Ingram himself. O Fenian (talk) 23:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How's that different from Freddie Scappaticci?Irvine22 (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We are dealing with this article right now. O Fenian (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, but that doesn't mean we can't look to see how an almost exactly equivalent situation has been handled elsewhere on Wikipedia. Irvine22 (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had read the sources, you would realise that the situations are not "almost exactly equivalent". Ingram has first hand knowledge of the identity of Stakeknife (Ingram, pages 62 to 63) but his information relating to McGuinness is not first hand. Ingram obtained the document (which does not name McGuinness) from a dead drop with the help of Kevin Fulton, and the authenticity of the document itself has been called into question and not by McGuinness see The Sunday Times. O Fenian (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But as you know allegations about McGuinness's involvement with the British security services predate the 2006 revelations by several years. Irvine22 (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"McGuinness was accused in the Irish and British media, in May 2006, as being a high-level double agent in the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), known by the codename The Fisherman" How is that not neutral? it needs expanding, but it clearly presents it just as an accusation. I agree with the need for more sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It is unattributed, and where is any rebuttal? And have you actually read WP:NPOV and WP:BLP? O Fenian (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If it had said "revealed" or "exposed" as the fisherman i could understand ur concern, but it simply mentions an accusation by the media. Ive said before it needs more reliable sources, that is the only problem i see on this issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So not only have you not read those policies seemingly, you did not even read the source in the article. Your continued participation is likely to be a waste of time unless you do. O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

And we can always say McGuinness denied the allegations, as he did. I mean, he would, wouldn't he? Irvine22 (talk) 23:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:BLP before commenting further. O Fenian (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Some more sources on this and the response by "The Fisherman" might help address O Fenians concerns. Main thing for me is the need for a couple more sources for the main claim. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they will not. So not only have you not read the policies, or the source, you are now not reading what I say here. There is only one source - Martin Ingram. Others are repeating his allegations, and attributing those allegations directly to him. If you had read WP:BLP you might realise what the problem with that is, especially for a controversial allegation. O Fenian (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, BW. Irvine22 (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well we can always just say the person who made the claim about the Fisherman, rather than the media. Like i said before aslong as theres sources i see no problem with it being added. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That is because you still have not read WP:BLP.. O Fenian (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the point is that Ingram's claims about McGuinness, like his previous claims about Scappaticci, were considered credible enough to be widely reported in the press. And, in any case, Ingram is not the only source on McGuinness's collaboration with the security services. Irvine22 (talk) 00:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Try reading WP:BLP, for the eighteenth time. The original claim naming McGuinness by Ingram was only made in a tabloid newspaper, and attributed to Ingram. O Fenian (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no. There are earlier reports and sources for McGuinness's role in working with MI5 and MI6 to shut down the IRA. Irvine22 (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Irvine, these are very serious allegations you are making against a living person. Big Dunc and O'Fenian are right, you should go read WP:BLP before continuing in this vein.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

1) I'm not making the allegations, I'm pointing out that they have been out there for years and have a good amount of credibility and currency. I'm asking whether the article should refer to them. 2) The allegations, if true, reflect positively on McGuinness.Irvine22 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

They are not going into the article as I said read WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, and cut this nonsense. BigDunc 14:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Read them, don't see anything there that would preclude the information going into the article. Irvine22 (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Will you try and understand them then maybe you can get someone to help you if you are having trouble. BigDunc 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you could help explain why these policies would preclude inclusion of the information, in your opinion? There's nothing self-evident about them, as applied to the proposed addition to the article. Irvine22 (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(wanders in late) Well if this STimes piece is all there is, it hardly can be justified to mention it here - look at the headline. It could be mentioned in Kevin Fulton, and it's already in Martin Ingram - where the STimes piece/conclusion should clearly be mentioned too. Possible BLP issues in Martin Ingram too. Rd232 ^talk 10:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

"deputy" vs "Deputy"

A short time ago, I changed an office title in the infobox from "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" to "Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland". I didn't think my edit would be controversial, because I believed and still believe that the changed version is grammatically correct. I look at the article again now and the uncapitalised version is back. So, I look at the history. I find there is an ongoing dispute over which version to use, mainly involving User:O Fenian against a variety of users. This dispute isn't going to be resolved by an edit war, so I open up this discussion to reach a consensus on which version to use. I will notify significant contributors to the article, as well as various projects. HonouraryMix (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ordinarily "deputy" is correct, but, grammatically, the first letter of a sentence or title is capitalised, therefore in the infobox I think it should be "Deputy", whereas throughout the article (where the term is not at the start of a sentence or title, it should be "deputy". Mooretwin (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems to be explained at First Minister and deputy First Minister#"Deputy" becomes "deputy". Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise, I would suggest using the position accepted by the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and use lower case "d". It is not a perfect solution as there continues to be mixed use of the title, but I suspect the Speaker's position is the closest thing we will have to an official position by an external source. Road Wizard (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for participating. The more people, the more solid any consensus will be. I concur that, for the most part, "deputy" should be used. But, as Mooretwin said, grammatically I believe the title in the infobox should be "Deputy". Perhaps then followed by a cite-note explaining that "deputy" is usually the proper word? HonouraryMix (talk) 16:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Far from simply being me returning this article to a correct state, it is me and other regular editors of the article reverting the incorrect drive-by edits of editors who have rarely edited this article before. It is "deputy First Minister" per the Northern Ireland Act 1998, full text here. This has also been covered here. I do not see a field containing only a title as being a "sentence", and I believe it should reflect the official title which he holds, which is "deputy First Minister". O Fenian (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The D should be a d in the infobox, as in the text. The sources make it quite clear. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I knew "deputy" is the proper word, but I never knew it had caused so much dispute in the 'real-world'. Guess you learn something new everyday after all. :P After reading said links, I'm happy now with keeping "deputy", but I think a cite-note should be placed at the end explaining why it's "deputy", instead of just a link to a source, and also pointing out a consensus was reached here (if that happens) to use "deputy". What do people think? HonouraryMix (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a cite-note is a good idea. It's more likely to make editors think twice before making what seems like a common-sense change. Not sure what you mean by "pointing out a consensus was reached here" - we wouldn't normally do that within an article. Scolaire (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, directing - in a cite-note - a reader to a discussion here is unconventional. Reverting changes to "Deputy" with an edit-summary which references this discussion should suffice. O Fenian, since you know better than I why it's "deputy", would you mind writing up the cite-note? HonouraryMix (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly it should be a capital "D" in the infobox and at the beginning of any sentence, and a small "d" elsewhere. I note with interest on other articles the "V" in volunteer (as in member of the IRA) is capitalized in infoboxes, presumably on the basis of grammar since we have a consensus that a small "v" should be used otherwise. Consistency is a good thing. Rockpocket 22:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion, please take your ideological battle against the use of the correct term for IRA Volunteers to the relevant page(s). O Fenian (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What is relevant is that terms that are used as common nouns (as opposed to proper nouns) - be it "deputy", "volunteer", "incumbent" or any other - are all treated the same way when used in infoboxes. Either they should get capitalized or they should not. Asking for consistency is far from an ideological battle - that is the whole point of having a manual of style. Rockpocket 00:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

We are going to struggle if you do not even understand what a sentence is. And stop importing your unrelated battles here. The capitalisation of Volunteer would be due to all military ranks being capitalised in that field in an infobox, despite no rank being capitalised when simply describing the rank itself. Therefore we remain consistent when correctly capitalising Volunteer, as otherwise all ranks would need to be decapitalised. However this is not about a military rank, this is about a specific political title which officially begins with a lower case letter. It also appears in a completely different way in the infobox, so your argument is irrelevant. The only reason you even brought it up is to try and resurrect an argument you convincingly lost the first time round. O Fenian (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And if you are so concerned about consistency, why are you attempting to make this article inconsistent? O Fenian (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, do you know what a common noun is, like "deputy" for example? Much like "incumbent". Or "quarterback" in this infobox, or "actor" in this infobox. Would you care to justify why all those have a leading cap, yet "deputy" has some rule of grammar all to itself?

And if you bothered to check before throwing unsubstantiated allegations around as a gut reaction, you would find I supported the capitalization of "Volunteer" in the infobox. So how about dropping that bit of bad faith? Rockpocket 02:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting. I would appear that "deputy First Minister" is ordinarily correct. However, English grammar is to capitalize the first letter of the first word of a sentence (with rare exceptions like "iPod"). The manual of style is to use sentence case in such instances. So the correct version in this instance is "Deputy First Minister".

It would appear that the OFMDFM do the same also (see headline here). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How is "deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland" a sentence? O Fenian (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not. However, we use sentence case for such elements on Wikipedia. Compare with "Incumbent", "Assumed office", "Preceded by" and "In office" in the same info box. Sentence case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We do? And you think that because it says Mark Durkan not mark Durkan that somehow proves you right? Or "November" and not "november"? O Fenian (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It says "Incumbent" not "incumbent". "Assumed office", not "assumed office". "Preceded by", not "preceded by". And "In office", not "in office". Sentence case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Which still does not prove your point, as those are not field contents. If you cannot prove something, stop claiming it. Linking to a Wikipedia article several times is not a valid argument, it just means you do not have one in the first place. O Fenian (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Go and try your argument on the iPod infobox, that does not use sentence case. Probably because you just made up that it applies.. O Fenian (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh ... yes, it does: "Manufacturer", not "manufacturer". "Type", not "type". "Units sold", not "units sold". "Online services", not "online service". Use sentence case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rockpocket and Rannphairtí, you are both missing the point when you equate "deputy" with "incumbent". "Incumbent" never has a capital 'i', unless it it at the beginning of a sentence; "deputy", used as part of a title, is always capitalised when the rest of the title is capitalised, except in this instance. The case was deliberately changed, at considerable cost in time and money, as is stated in another article (First Minister and deputy First Minister#"Deputy" becomes "deputy"). The fact that the OFMDFM haven't changed their letterhead is also stated, so that's not an argument. This surely makes it one of the "rare exceptions", like 'iPod'. Scolaire (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent example Scolaire! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmph (talk • contribs) 09:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Scolaire. In English we capitalise the first letter of the first word of a sentence. Example:

• "Sinn Féin participate in the Northern Ireland Executive. Deputy First Minister is the title held by Martin McGuinness."

Compare with:

• "Sinn Féin participate in the Northern Ireland Executive. The title held my Martin McGuinness is deputy First Minister."

In the infobox "Incumbent", for example. takes a capital 'I' because we use sentence case for those headings (as with all other headings on Wikipedia). And no, this is not one of those rare execption like iPod:

• Correct: "Sinn Féin participate in the Northern Ireland Executive. iPods are not allowed to be used in the Assembly Chamber."
• Incorrect: "Sinn Féin participate in the Northern Ireland Executive. deputy First Minister is the title held by Martin McGuinness."

Use sentence case. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What a silly argument! It is quite clear that (for whatever reason) the Northern Ireland authorities have decided that it's a lowercase d. Respect that, follow the pattern, get over it. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 10:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point raised by Scolaire, and agree with Snalwibma lets end this it is lower case. BigDunc 10:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I hate this attitude of "we're going to impose our version of standard English regardless of the circumstances"! I am a native speaker of English and I got honours in English in my Leaving Cert. I don't need lessons from anonymous users. And lowercase "d" is correct in this instance. And I know that I started this sentence and the previous one with "and". Scolaire (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Silly indeed. And another example of why it is so often embarrassing to be Irish on Wikipedia. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, why is your signature all in lowercase? ;-) Scolaire (talk) 13:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems any way of giving a one fingered salute to the English (even when under the guise of English grammar) is worth a fight. Embarrassing is the word, rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid, (with a capital E). Rockpocket 18:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems somebody has a massive chip on their shoulder! I'm embarrassed for you, not us. Scolaire (talk) 18:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Oh yes, I'm weighed down by the terrible grammar of Irish ideologues other editors. Keeps me up at night. *Rolls eyes* Rockpocket 18:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Rock could you comment on content and not your perceived ideas of the contributors. BigDunc 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but thanks for your equally rapid intervention when O Fenian offered his perceived ideas of my ideology. Rockpocket 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember you when you talked sense, Rockpocket. Scolaire (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And there's no capital E in rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid. Scolaire (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember a time when you had a reasonably accomplished grasp of English. FYI, the presence of the second comma indicates that (with a capital E) does not refer to rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid. Grammar eh? Who needs it. Rockpocket 18:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Rock I wasn't online last night when O Fenian offered his perceived ideas of your ideology and I would have said the same to him now this is getting very petty and really should be brought to a close, best. BigDunc 18:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that is fine. I'm done here. In articles where any edit - no matter how trivial or mundane - turns into a partisan issue, matters that should be completely neutral get lost in the flag waving. The battle lines are drawn so quickly and widely, there is no space left for concerns over grammar. You'd think I'd have learned that by now, but it hope springs eternal, I suppose. Rockpocket 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This whole episode reminds me of this quote, “The greater part of the world's troubles are due to questions of grammar” by Michel de Montaigne. Never a truer word was spoken. BigDunc 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is you people consider him to be some sort of joint first minister. He is not, and the First Minister will NEVER be one of your kind. Clearly it has been established that sentence case should be used in the infobox. Trickyjack (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)