Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

McConville, again

I have once again removed poorly sourced information from this article. It is completely unacceptable for a living person to be accused of either murder or conspiracy to murder based on hearsay evidence. And the evidence is hearsay, I would suggest anyone disagreeing reads the book. Brendan Hughes does not even state he was at the meeting in question, he was told what allegedly happened by Ivor Bell. No matter how many newspapers the story is published in, the only source of the allegation is hearsay evidence from a man who is now dead - that is the very definition of poorly sourced. O Fenian (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought Wiki considered newspapers to be Reliable Sources - see WP:RS? We cannot second guess the material in the newspaper articles. --BwB (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
You may wish to read the biographies of living persons policy. Do you really believe it is in keeping with that policy to accuse a living person of a serious crime (that he has not even been charged with) based on hearsay evidence from someone who has since died? And can you find a single reliable source that does not attribute the allegation to that person? O Fenian (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Then attribute the allegation. --BwB (talk) 16:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, do you believe it is appropriate to accuse a living person of either murder or conspiracy to murder based on the hearsay evidence of someone who has since died? O Fenian (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have restored the allegation, which it seems to me is sourced as much to a Dublin newspaper and a retired Garda as to Hughes. The McConville case is part of Adams's history, and the article must refer to it. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Its a BLP violation and if its controversial it should be discussed here, you should not edit war Ivor. --Snowded TALK 23:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The sources cited say "Last year, an interview given by the notorious IRA commander Brendan 'Darkie Hughes' in Ed Moloney's book Voices From The Grave alleged that Gerry Adams was the man who ordered Jean McConville to be killed.", "The details of what happened are contained in the posthumous biography of Adams' former right hand man, Brendan Hughes." (note that this source, written by the "retired Garda" referred to does not contain any such direct allegation by the "retired Garda" as claimed above) and "Hughes claimed Adams, as a senior IRA figure, ordered Jean's murder.". There is not once where the Herald or any of its writers say "We say Gerry Adams is responsible" or words to that effect. You also have to admire the way the Herald repeats the myth that she was shot because "she gave comfort to a British soldier who had been shot outside her house". This is despite the Police Ombudsman finding no possible incident this could have referred to (and CAIN or Lost Lives is easily checkable by any editor here, or any writer for the Herald), and it being somewhat contradicted by what Brendan Hughes said. It would seem the Herald are quite content to report Brendan Hughes allegations in part only, while leaving out his own admission that he personally confiscated a transmitter from Jean McConville and that he knew her to be an informer. O Fenian (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Except the allegations about Adams's role in the killing of Mrs McConville long predate the publication of Moloney's latest book, and Hughes's reminiscences. I'm sure you know that, long before this, Adams made inaccurate statements to the effect that he was interned at the time of Mrs McConville's abduction. Now, these are only allegations, to be sure, but they have been comprehensively aired over many years in print and (lately) broadcast media. They should find a place in this article - suitably balanced by Adams's various denials and threats (always only threats) of legal action. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems to me that the deleted text that was inserted yesterday could be re-worded in a more neutral way. However it should be re-inserted under a new heading "Controversy" as is quite acceptable for such cases, e..g. the wiki article on Bertie Ahern, and many other politicians, has such a section. In fact, given the nature of politics, and particularly in Gerry Adams' case, it would be unusual to say the least for a politician, and especially his career, to have no controversy. Otherwise, this article reads as a sock-puppetised example of WP:AUTO, possibly written if not by Adams then by his associates.
You may wish to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and particuarly Wikipedia:Libel. The second one is quite short, but two phrases stand out. "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" and "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified". The claim about Gerry Adams is libelous, he has not even been charged with the offence never mind convicted.
Ivor Stoughton you are completely wrong. The claims all lead back to one person and one person only, Brendan Hughes. They first came out when Moloney published his book on the IRA, where largely the same McConville information as in the later book was published.
This material has been removed again per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and particuarly Wikipedia:Libel, it does not get reinserted without clear consensus. O Fenian (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think you are misapplying the policies and a minimal and well sourced note that Gerry Adams has frequently been linked to the fate of Jean McConville by political opponents breaks neither the letter nor the spirit of WP:BLP. I fear however that a sterile revert war in which people get blocked for no reason may be approaching - is it time to ascertain wider consensus in a request for comments? Or is it long past time? Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it does not breach Wikipedia:Libel? I will repeat what I have said recently, and previously. The source for the information is Brendan Hughes, and it is hearsay evidence from him in addition. Are you really suggesting it is acceptable to accuse a living person of either murder or conspiracy to murder based on the evidence of someone who was not even at the meeting he talks about? It is not well sourced, and it never has been. Unlike the IRA membership allegation which many reliable sources are prepared to state as fact, no reliable sources are prepared to put their neck on the line and state this as fact, being merely content to attribute it to Brendan Hughes who obviously cannot be sued.
In addition, nobody even listened to what I said about the Herald. I will make it as straightforward as possible. Brendan Hughes makes two specific claims about McConville. The first is that he personally confiscated a transmitter from her. First hand information you would agree? The second is that Ivor Bell told him details of what was said at the meeting. Hearsay you would agree? Yet remarkably the Herald choose to deliberately ignore what Brendan Hughes had first hand knowledge of, yet choose to use what he only has second hand knowledge of. That is exactly what they did when choosing to repeat the "shot for comforting a dying soldier" line. They cannot have their cake and eat it.
When this was brought up previously I agreed that should the civil case actually reach court it should be added to the article, but until then it remains nothing more than a libelous allegation that nobody appears to be willing to act upon. I will add to that and say that if Gerry Adams launches legal action it should be in the article. Outside opinion (excluding one editor since exposed as a sockpuppet of a banned editor) was generally against inclusion last time this came up, what has changed since then? Nothing really, except the Herald bringing it up to try and scupper his election chances. If it was not worthy of inclusion then, why now? O Fenian (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There is confusion here on WP policy. The article does not make the accusation against Adams, rather it reports it. See this excerpt from WP:BLP:
"Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but The New York Times publishes the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing The New York Times as the source."
Therefore, the allegation made against Adams, belongs in the article, but treated from NPOV. 86.42.95.31 (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference between an "affair" and an accusation of murder or conspiracy to murder. You have missed the quotes from Wikipedia:Libel. "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory" and "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified". O Fenian (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And yet the article already refers to allegations that Adams was a member of the IRA, something that he has also always denied and has claimed is libelous. (Evidently, Adams thinks membership of the IRA is something shameful.) And yet the allegations of IRA membership are in the article, because they are widely circulated and well-sourced. As are the allegations of his involvment in the killing of Mrs McConville. And O Fenian, do you seriously dispute that, in a meeting with members of the McConville family, Adams sought to distance himself from the killing by claiming that he was interned at the time, a claim that was simply not accurate? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The fact remains that these are accusations of involvement in murder which have never reached the courts even as a civil case. At the moment I can see no new arguments from the last time it was discussed. --Snowded TALK 06:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
And have the accusations of IRA membership (a serious crime in itself) ever reached the courts, even as a civil case? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 06:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Membership of a proscribed organisation is not as serious as murder, also those have a broader range of references. --Snowded TALK 07:16, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
So WP:BLP doesn't apply if the alleged crime doesn't rise to the level of murder? How sure are you about that? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
The more serious the accusation the more seriously it has to be taken in respect of inclusion--Snowded TALK 07:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
As I stated above, there is a significant difference between the accusation of IRA membership and the accusation about McConville. I can provide dozens of sources that say Gerry Adams was in the IRA, without attributing it as an allegation. However the same cannot be said of the McConville allegation. That is always attributed to either Brendan Hughes or, more recently, the McConville family. Neither of those are reliable sources for that claim. O Fenian (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

So why, when Gerry Adams met Helen McKendry in 1994 did he claim 1) that the IRA were not responsible for the disappearance of Mrs McConville and 2) that he was in any case interned at the time of the disappearance? Both claims were inaccurate, weren't they? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Relevant article in The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/20/jean-mcconville-family-gerry-adams Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I read that earlier today, it shows how this news item is linked to the current election which raises further questions. --Snowded TALK 07:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it has become part of the campaign, and reported as such. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It means we have to be more cautious actually --Snowded TALK 07:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Should allegations relating to Jean McConville be included?

Should the article include claims that Gerry Adams was linked to the murder in 1972 of Jean McConville? Does the fact that the claims are unproven, also that Adams has consistently denied them and contemplated legal action against newspapers which have reported them, make them a violation of WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL, or does the fact that Adams is a leading public figure and reliable sources have reported the claims and taken them seriously bring them mean that they can be included under WP:WELLKNOWN? Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No reliable sources have gone on record and stated Adams was responsible. They have instead chosen to attribute the claims to either the McConville family or Brendan Hughes. The McConville family probably only got their information from the book with the Hughes interview anyway, and while threatening to launch a civil suit last year now seem to have backtracked from that position. As the April issue of Phoenix magazine noted, Hughes evidence is hearsay. He was not at the meeting where it was discussed, instead hearing about what happened from a third party. Neither the McConville family or Brendan Hughes are reliable sources for an allegation of that magnitude. As I stated earlier WP:WELLKNOWN deals with things like "affairs", that is considerably different from an accusation of murder or conspiracy to murder. O Fenian (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded's comments above and we have to proceed with caution. This is a BLP, and accusing someone of even complicity in a murder can have very serious legal consequences. I think we should leave the claims out of the article entirely.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have to accuse somebody of murder (or complicity); claims like this should be carefully worded to emphasise that somebody else made the accusation. Assuming, of course, that we have solid enough sources for "X said that Y was involved in the murder of Z". bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
None of the people making (as opposed to reporting) the accusation are reliable sources though. O Fenian (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • A brief piece of background research would, I think, help generally. Jean McConville, apparently suspected of being an informer of the British army, was abducted in December 1972 and shortly thereafter murdered. Her body was discovered in August 2003 having been buried at Shelling Hill Beach, Co Louth. The first hints that Gerry Adams was to be accused of involvement came in 2009. Brendan Hughes, a senior officer in the IRA, had deposited a taped memoir with Boston College in 2001 or 2002 describing what he had done in the IRA, on the condition that nothing would be published in his lifetime. Hughes died in February 2008 and Ed Moloney was working on a book based on his interview. It should be noted that at the time Hughes gave the interviews, he was disillusioned with Sinn Féin and with Gerry Adams personally.
    • On 1 November 2009 the Observer (p. 17) reported a former IRA prisoner as saying that "In his own words Brendan directly links a top Sinn Féin leader to Jean McConville and the Disappeared" (the Sinn Féin leader concerned was not named). [1]
    • Ed Moloney wrote a long article for The Sunday Times on 28 March 2010 which appeared on the front page of the News Review section and in which he attributed to Brendan Hughes the remark "There was only one man who gave the order for that woman to be executed. That man is now the head of Sinn Fein... I did not give the order to execute that woman--he did...". [2] The paper wrote up a news story about the claim which appeared on page 1 of the main section of the paper. This article is no longer online (previously here) although traces of it are available on other websites.
    • Following up these articles, other newspapers reported on the accusation: The Independent [3], the Mirror [4], [5], the Irish Times [6], the Irish Independent [7], the Daily Mail [8], and the Belfast Telegraph [9]. There are many others including broadcast media.
    • Ed Moloney's book "Voices from beyond the grave" was published in 2010 containing the allegations. [10]
    • The recent revival of the issue arises from Gerry Adams' candidacy in Louth at the general election which is currently taking place, and that Jean McConville's body was discovered within the constituency. McConville's family have raised the issue as something which the people of Louth ought to consider before casting their vote. Her daughter Helen McKendry initially considered standing against Adams and has been prominently quoted opposing Adams throughout the campaign.
    • Specifically the Evening Herald has revived the direct accusation of Adams' involvement [11] with the result that Adams' solicitors wrote to the newspaper stating that their article was defamatory and that he was considering legal remedies. [12].
  • Given that background, my view is that this issue falls fairly and squarely within WP:WELLKNOWN which is quoted above. Adams, as President of Sinn Féin since 1983, is the most prominent Irish Republican of his generation and the longest serving political party leader in Ireland. As such he is a highly controversial political figure. These allegations have been made widely and in reliable sources. While legal action has apparently been contemplated, there is no indication that any legal case has actually been brought and Ed Moloney's book remains on sale. Further, Adams has made public statements denying involvement which can certainly be included - one can hardly say that the subject's words about himself break WP:BLP. One such comment is on Sinn Féin's website today: "I reject absolutely any accusation that I had any hand or part in the killing and disappearing of Jean McConville or in any of the other allegations that are being promoted by Ed Moloney". True it is that the example given in WP:WELLKNOWN is of a politician having an affair, but that is only an example. What is alleged here may be much more serious but it is in the same category of an allegation of misconduct.

    Finally something which I think is crucial. The purpose of an article on Wikipedia is to help inform the readership about the subject of the article: what he did, what he believes, and also how others see him. At the moment the fact that people are connecting Gerry Adams to Jean McConville is a very significant part of how people see Adams. It is profoundly unhelpful to readers to remove all mention of it. This is not a case akin to the Star Wars Kid whose name we do not report to protect his privacy even though it is freely available elsewhere. The allegations should be included, along with Adams' consistent denial. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe either murder or conspiracy to murder should be described as "misconduct". I will repeat what I said the previous time this came up, and have expanded upon this time. Should this actually reach the courts it would need to be included in the article. Last year the McConville family claimed to be launching a civil suit, going by the current quote of "Husband Seamus (53) claimed Adams has not sued because “he is scared of us trailing him in (to court) for a civil action”. He added: “He really wishes we would go away, you know" it would suggest they have no plans to launch a civil case, probably because any decent solicitor will have told them that their case is based on hearsay evidence from someone who has since died. My expansion on this is that if Gerry Adams launches legal action it would equally need to be in the article. Until either of those things occur, it remains an extremely, extremely serious allegation made by unreliable sources. The timeline above is also wrong. The allegation first appeared in Ed Moloney's 2002 book. Page 124 reads "According to one well-informed source, the order to "disappear" McConville was given to the Turf Lodge-based commander of one of the "unknown" units by a senior member of the Belfast Brigade. Whether, as alleged by one well-informed source, or not the order was given by Adams himelf...". O Fenian (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Taking that seriatim: 1) I may have been using "misconduct" as a euphemism. 2) It seems very odd to object on the grounds that these are unproven allegations that no-one has taken to court, but to say that they can be included if they are the foundation for a libel action. 3) Your reference to "unreliable sources" is misleading you. Whether Brendan Hughes was in a position to know the truth is not actually relevant. What is relevant is that reliable sources have taken what he said seriously and reported it as an accusation against Gerry Adams. What is relevant in Wikipedia guideline is that articles making the accusation have been published after passing through the editorial processes of newspapers who want to make sure what they publish is accurate. It is also highly relevant that the book and newspaper publishers involved are willing to risk libel actions based on what they have published. 4) It doesn't take a gigantic leap to go from the accusations about Adams' involvement in the IRA in Belfast and link that to the date of Jean McConville's disappearance, and the link has been floating around for some time (partly because Brendan Hughes appears to have been the source previously). The point of the above was to point to the fact that reliable sources were reporting a direct accusation against a named person. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Which reliable sources have actually alleged Gerry Adams had a role? None that I can see. They are all content to report that "Brendan Hughes alleged" or "Jean McConville's family alleged". That's how newspapers protect themselves from libel. A newspaper (or book) reporting that Brendan Hughes alleged something generally could not be sued for libel, any proceedings would have to be brought against the person making the allegation. In this case, that is slightly difficult.. O Fenian (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You're wrong. A newspaper reporting the late Brendan Hughes accusing Gerry Adams of involvement is thereby opening itself to a libel case on the grounds that its report contains a meaning that Gerry Adams was involved. Certainly under English law and I believe under Irish law as well. Otherwise the Reynolds defence would be meaningless. Here's a Northern Ireland libel case which shows how a newspaper report of an allegation was found to be libellous. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

On the basis of those sources, I would support inclusion, as long as it's carefully phrased. bobrayner (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The Irish national TV network, RTE, has also reported Adams' denial Adams denies any role in McConville death—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.91.96 (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
PJ Browne, is is a former garda detective superintendent. He investigated IRA racketeering on the border and successfully prosecuted IRA members for murder, including a gangland homicide in Dublin.
Here is what he had to say about Adams’ IRA involvement, and the McConville murder:
“Gerry Adams denies any "hand, act or part" in her murder and the inhuman burial of her body and abandonment of her orphaned children. …….But I've no doubt he was the leader of the psychotic IRA unit in Belfast in the early 1970s whose job was to eradicate any one who showed any sympathy towards the British Army or RUC……Jean McConville's "crime", in the IRA's eyes, was that she gave comfort to a British soldier who had been shot outside her house on the lower Falls Road area……[ he also observes:]…. Adams has never brought any legal action against the publisher or author Ed Moloney PJ Browne: Remember the innocent victims of the IRA.86.42.91.96 (talk) 13:43, 20

February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear - it is not accurate to say that the first suggestion that Adams was involved in the abduction and murder of Mrs McConville came in 2009. As early as 1994 Adams met with McConville's daughter and 1) denied that the IRA were involved, and 2) claimed that he personally was interned at the time of the abduction and murder.

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/adams-is-now-lsquodancing-on-mum-jeanrsquos-graversquo-2539597.html Both claims were inaccurate, but the fact that Adams felt obliged to make such exculpatory statements indicates that he knew he had a problem here, long before either of Ed Moloney's books. Moloney, by the way, is clearly a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

One book reporting claims by someone who was in conflict with Adams at the time is dubious at least. We need other sources, or some other verification of the claim --Snowded TALK 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I want to point out nothing more than the fact that Adam's Wikipedia article mentions the McConville murder at no point. Google news doesn't understand this. Surely there is something wrong.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Extarordinary claims need extraordinary sources so to back up a claim of murder or conspiracy to murder we need very tight sources which we don't have at this time, because the claim made my Hughes was reported doesn't make his claim any more valid. I see someone is using the Evening Herald a news paper that cherry picked with Hughes said they cover the murder claim he made but not the clain that she was a tout, both made by the same man. Shows bias on that papers behalf. Mo ainm~Talk 15:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Brendan Hughes is clearly an extraordinary source, a primary source indeed, with first-hand knowledge of the events of which he speaks. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In an analogous situation, the article on Yitzhak Shamir currently includes references to his role in ordering the murder of Folke Bernadotte, although no one was ever charged or convicted in connection with the murder. Also, the article on Roberto D'Aubuisson refers to his alleged role in running death squads (which is essentially what Adams is accused of (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/adams-set-up-belfast-iras-death-squad-claims-author-644076.html). Of course D'Aubuisson is not living. Shamir is, just about. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Its not an extraordinary source, its a single source of someone with a grudge. We have to be very careful how we use that sort of material for a living person. Also lets not be naive, there is an election taking place at the moment and a lot of mud is being thrown. That should make us doubly cautious. --Snowded TALK 20:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
100% agree with Snowded an ex IRA member who fell out with them making a claim is not and extraordinary source, he could be speaking the truth or could just as likely be a man with a grudge as Snowded says. Mo ainm~Talk 20:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
He does not have first hand knowledge of the events either, or at least not first hand knowledge of the part under dispute. While admitting he personally confiscated a transmitter from McConville, in the interview he deliberately distances himself from what happened later, saying he heard it from Ivor Bell. This is clear from the interview, and as Phoenix magazine correctly point out hearsay evidence. That is not first hand knowledge, and that has been pointed out several times already. O Fenian (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Hughes's account does seem to find some support amongst his former comrades in the IRA:

"IRA volunteers who served with Brendan know who is telling the truth and who is not. They know what Brendan said is right and they know he's not the liar" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC) http://www.tribune.ie/news/home-news/article/2010/apr/04/ex-provo-backs-comrades-scathing-account-of-adams/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivor Stoughton (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You need to do a bit better than the Tribune you know --Snowded TALK 21:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
What is your objection to the Tribune? Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I have to point out that debating whether Brendan Hughes is likely to have been right or wrong is not relevant to the issue we have to decide here. Even if Brendan Hughes were provably wrong, the issue is whether what he said should be reported. We need to consider whether the multiple reliable sources who have taken what he said seriously, and the fact that a major publishing house has printed his claims in detail, makes his claim worthy of recording. Frankly I think the fact that practically every major newspaper in Ireland and Britain has reported on them makes the contrary view almost unarguable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Every major newspaper in Britain and Ireland, plus the national broadcaster of Ireland. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a case for reporting the controversy, with balanced material, the issue is where. However its inclusion on a BLP is a different issue. In the case of IRA membership, which is reported there are multiple sources on both sides and that wording has been carefully negotiated. It remains the case that accusations of conspiracy to murder from a single questionable source are not appropriate on a BLP. --Snowded TALK 21:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
So why does the Yitzhak Shamir article refer to allegations that he ordered the murder of Folke Bernadotte? The situation seems quite analogous to the one we face here. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason that a sentence or paragraph couldn't be added into the article on this issue. How hard can it be to add in a commonly known allegation along with Gerry Adams denials of it and lack of concrete proof to balance it out? There is even scope to state that Jean McConville's daughter (its her daughter right?) is running against Gerry Adams in the Republics forthcoming election because of the claims. It would be blatant censorship otherwise to make someone try to look whiter than white. Mabuska (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, so these edit proposals are about the election? The fact she stood against him in an election and the reason may make sense as an addition, but after the election. At the moment its too current and too tied in to election campaigning. THere is a reason we hold back from current issues. --Snowded TALK 22:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
No, in fact Helen McKendry is not standing against him in Louth. Mrs McConville was abducted and murdered nearly 40 years ago, and allegations of Gerry Adams's involvememt have been around for 10-plus years at this point. Hardly a current issue. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Seeing as i have only joined the discussion and said there was scope for expanding any addition to the article Snowded its hardly all about the election. Mabuska (talk) 23:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as an editor who has created a few articles on loyalist paramiltaries, I have come to realise that most newspapers, however reputable, don't provide well-balanced articles on their subjects. They are looking to sensationalise the subject, hence the more atrocities they can lay at his or her doorstep the better, irregardless as to conflicting evidence and sometimes a complete lack of it. Gerry Adams has become for some the Republican Robert Nairac - "hey it was an IRA attack, Gerry must have done it!" Many journalists are reliable and have access to sources that government reports often do not; however, I always seek to back up a newspaper article with an official document or report to provide the proper neutral point of view. This is why we have to be careful with newspapers. I still say we take the cautious route here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Hence why you word it carefully to state that he is alleged to have known of it and state by whom (Brendan and whoever else), and also declare his denials of it. That way readers can see who is making the claim and that he has strenuously denied it.Mabuska (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
BLP has stricter standards than that. Anyone can make an accusation against anyone and they may or may not be forced into a response. Think of swiftboating. To reproduce an accusation we need to be secure that the sources are substantial. --Snowded TALK 19:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Snowded I think your reference to swiftboating is potentially very helpful. The John Kerry article refers briefly and obliquely to the swiftboating controversy in a dedicated sub-section, and provides a link to a separate article entitled John Kerry military service controversy. That could be the way to go here - a sentence or two about the allegations linking Adams to the McConville abduction and murder, and a link to a separate article about the entire McConville affair? I could undertake to create the article. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Snowded i think someone uninvolved with Irish matters and could be trusted by all of us as not having a personal agenda or bias (as it would be too easy for any of us to make assumptions) would be the best person to decide whats what in regards to this issue in regards to policy. Mabuska (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Ivor, if the current set of accusations has the same impact as swiftboating then it will be come notable as an issue. At the moment that is not clear and we need to proceed with caution. Mabuska, that is what an RfC is for, if you want to suggest a mediator I'm open but at the moment I see no consensus for change. After the election that may change depending on what happens and critically what is sourced. --Snowded TALK 22:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems clear that the accusations are notable already, given the sustained level of exposure they have received in major media, including a dedicated broadcast by RTE, long before the election was called. Ivor Stoughton (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Lots of things get exposure during an election and Wikipedia should not be a part of that. BLP concerns expressed above still stand and we are just going over old ground now, the RfC had not brought in other editors that I can see. I suggest returning to the subject after the election. --Snowded TALK 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia would only give it more global exposure, the press and media already have where it counts most in the election covered - the Irish people who will be voting. Still you can delay it till after the election, it ain't that far away. Mabuska (talk) 23:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw this article listed on RfC. My thoughts: without better sourcing, this seems certain to be a BLP violation. Best to leave it out. --Coemgenus 16:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Include per pp122 If he lied about being interned he would lie about murder. Enough sources connect him to it, attribute and be done. Tentontunic (talk) 02:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

ELection Campaigning

OK we now have another insert by Ivor, reporting an electronic newspaper reporting a survey. It is starting to look like an election campaign is coming across to this page. There is no material to say how representative that opinion poll, the sample size etc. Poorly sourced material is bad enough at the best of times. The article already deals with those claims and this addition should be deleted. --Snowded TALK 19:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

He's continuing to add the poll.

Exiledone (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Adams' condemnation of the Omagh bombing

Unless I missed it, the article does not state that Adams condemned the 1998 Omagh bombing by the Real IRA. It is a blatant omission which should be remedied.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

do you have the citation? if so, add it or paste it here and others will. IRWolfie- (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I have just added it, along with a citation. How does it look? I made it brief.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Claims of founding PIRA

According to Moloney in The Secret history of the IRA and Bishop & Mallie in The Provisional IRA it is alleged he joined the provos after the split. Since when has the "Times Guide" been authoritative for The Troubles? Do they have any reputation as being authoritative for this subject?Mo ainm~Talk 18:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If this claim is true, then why has not a single book I have read on the IRA even included this exceptional claim? Gerry Adams never even seems to get a mention regarding the split, other than his presence at a meeting in August or September 1969, four months before the split. In December 1969/January 1970 he must have been the Invisible Man, as nobody seems to mention him. There are at least two sources that mention him in relation to the split as Mo ainm mentions above, both of which say he (allegedly) joined after the split. Some founding member.. O Fenian (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll check with the Reliable Sources Noticeboard as to whether The Times Guide is considered a reliable source for biographical information. O Fenian, it would be helpful if you would cite the sources to which you refer above. Thanks! Ivor Stoughton (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Add Richard English to the list Mo ainm. O Fenian (talk)

No section on personal life?

I apologize in advance if I have missed something but it seems that there's a significant omission in the article concerning the quite notorious (notable) episode of Adams' brother Liam alleged sexual abuse of his (Liam's) daughter and the family fall-out. There seems to be, actually, no information at all about the subject's personal life in the article. I suggest that a section on personal life be created, with at least the basic information (marriage, etc) and a link to the separate Wikipedia article on his brother's legal issues. -The Gnome (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Now THAT would be fun. Basket Feudalist 06:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
I also note that no mention has been made of Adams' rather bizarre Tweets involving his yellow rubber ducks, collection of Teddy Bears, driver Lightbulb and his little dog Snowie who now has a separate Twitter account. The Sinn Fein office has confirmed that the accounts are genuine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Irish Roman Catholics

Do not add Category:Irish Roman Catholics to this article. Adams is not notable for his Catholicism, nor is his Catholicism a defining characteristic. It is not an appropriate category. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 03:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Having attended a series of Catholic schools, I would say Catholicism played a major part in his psychological make-up. In Northern Ireland, one's politics, identity and even choice of sports is heavily influenced by religion.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
WP:BLPCAT is clear on this. Murry1975 (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Child abuse issue

The Police Ombudsman in NI and Director of Public Prosecutions are currently reviewing decisions not to prosecute Adams for witholding evidence about child abuse. At what point do such proceedings warrant a mention on this page (if not already...)?91.85.208.0 (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

About the day before yesterday. They also badly need translated into Ulster Scotch.--feline1 (talk) 10:28, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nationality

As Gerry Adams was born in Belfast, should "British" be added to his nationality? Does anyone have a reference to suggest he has renounced his British citizenship? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.45.168 (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Knighthood

surely a joke, here? I guess you get this specific vandalisation a lot, is there a way to prevent this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.23.30 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


Paul Loughran

Has anyone any reliable sources concering the claim that Loughran voiced Adams? I can only find self published links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alligators1974 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 10 May 2014

WP:BLP Warning

I have now cited the BBC to the effect that they have learnt that Adams will not be charged unless significant new evidence is forthcoming. I recall hearing this as the lead headline on the BBC News at the time, and it has been widely quoted by others sources. I am, to put it mildly, somewhat surprised that this was not already reported here several days ago for WP:BLP reasons. I am neither a member of Sinn Fein, nor a sympathiser (nor is the BBC, nor the outlets quoting its story) - on the contrary, I rather dread the possibility of Sinn Fein achieving power in my country (the Republic of Ireland) in the near future. Nevertheless, there seem to be few more serious violations of our BLP rules than to announce that a file has been sent to the Public Prosecution Service, yet fail to mention that the country's official broadcasting service has publicly announced that it understands that there is insufficent evidence to prosecute (perhaps all the more so when the file is about the leader of a political party in the midst of campaigning for local and European elections). It would be strange if the only publication failing to mention this authoritatively-reported lack of evidence was Wikipedia, an organisation whose BLP rules oblige it to be especially careful not to defame living persons.(Incidentally, given our BLP rules, I also find it strange that our lead mentioned the file being sent to the PPS, but, until I added them, failed to mention Adams's claims of innocence, even though these are in many sources, including the one cited for the file being sent to the PPS). I might have added other sources such as Ed Moloney stating on BBC Newsnight that common sense would tell us that the only evidence against him is hearsay that is inherently insufficient to convict somebody in court (on You tube here), except that the BBC seems like a more authoritative source than Ed Moloney. As such, PLEASE BE WARNED that anybody seeking to remove that BBC citation without a very good explanation must risk being immediately reported to the relevant Wikipedia authorities for a seemingly most serious violation of WP:BLP, if only because we are instructed that BLP violations must be redressed without any delay whatsoever. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, you need to dial back the rhetoric about three notches. As it stands, your edit have severely unbalanced the lede with detail that belongs in the body of the article. --NeilN talk to me 06:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Suit yourself - as long as you check with Wikipedia's BLP authorities first, or know from experience that you are not violating BLP. If the lead is 'unbalanced' (with too much detail, but without BLP violations), that can be fixed at leisure, whereas BLP violations are meant to be fixed immediately. And sorry if my 'rhetoric' sounds over the top, though with BLP I'd rather risk overstating things than understating them. Personally I'd be delighted if BLP rules (and Sinn Fein) didn't exist, but they do. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The paragraph should read something like:
In 2014, he was arrested for questioning and held for four days by the Police Service of Northern Ireland in connection with the abduction and murder of Jean McConville in 1972. He was freed without charge and denied that he had any involvement in the murder or that was ever a member of the IRA, saying the allegations against him came from "enemies of the peace process".
--NeilN talk to me 07:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
In terms of BLP, that sounds OK by me (though I'm a thoroughly fallible human being, so I could easily be wrong), as you have balanced the removal of 'No prosecution' with the removal of 'may be prosecuted'. I don't know whether it improves the lead, but I don't much care either, as long as the balanced 'No prosecution' and 'may be prosecuted' stuff remains in the body of the article, at first glance it seems no major problem (though of course I could easily be wrong - and among other things, for all I know, whoever put the PPS file sentence into the lead (or anybody who likes the truth and/or dislikes Adams and/or any other reason I haven't thought of) might well object to its removal, while others might object to the removal of 'insufficient evidence', while others might think your version is still too long and still has too much detail, and so on ad infinitum). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Related discussion in relation to Adams

See Talk:King's shilling#Gerry_Adams_and_resignation_from_the_House_of_Commons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

other examples both Northern Ireland MP/MLA and TD?

Are there many other examples of politicians who, like Austin Currie and Gerry Adams, sat in parliaments on both sides of the border - who sat in the Dáil and in one of the successive Northern Ireland Parliaments/Assemblies?----Bancki (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the Sinn Fein members elected in the first Stormont elections in the 1920s also sat in the Dail (de Valera, Michael Collins, Arthur Griffith etc.) Post Stormont (1973 onward) none I can think of. Seamus Mallon did sit in the Seanad, which resulted in his disqualification from the 1982 assembly. Valenciano (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Spotlight/Maíria Cahill

Nothing at all on the Spotlight/Maíria Cahill allegations? http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/adams-accused-of-despicable-behaviour-over-abuse-claims-1.1966531?page=1 Surely this should be covered, especially as it relates back to previous controversies: Gerry_Adams#Brother BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I was about to mention Mairia Cahill myself. There is a massive media outcry against Adams' treatment of Ms Cahill and the article should relate this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent revert

I have been asked to explain this revert.

  • "Adams was arrested in 1978 for alleged IRA membership; the charges were subsequently dismissed. Adams has never since or before, been charged with IRA membership. Despite this lack of sustainable legal evidence..." - Editorializing.
  • "At a dinner for his Fine Gael party..." - Removal of a notable, sourced opinion.
  • "...a confessed murderer..." - Obvious attempt to downplay the subject and his testimony.
  • "In 2003, using parliamentary privilege..." - Removal of a notable, sourced opinion.

Taken as a whole, the edit by HonestyPolicy attempted to remove notable accusations made against Adams. --NeilN talk to me 15:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gerry Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Nigger" comment on twitter

He deleted the tweet but lots of people got screengrabs of it. https://twitter.com/RyanCullen90/status/726953370389454849 --RThompson82 (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Nationality

I presume he has Republic of Ireland citizenship, but is there a source that he no longer has British citizenship? He was still a UK citizen in 1995 according to this textbook, and I've found no specific reference online saying that he's ever given this up. Indeed, wouldn't he have to have still been a citizen of the UK in order to be an MP? Blythwood (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources would obviously be best, but in their absence, putting him as Irish is a fairly uncontroversial measure given his party's stance. On your last point, no, being a member of the Westminster parliament isn't exclusively restricted to UK citizens citizens of Commonwealth countries and Ireland are also eligible. See this link. Valenciano (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527933/US-anger-as-Adams-presses-ahead-with-visit-to-Palestinian-terror-group.html - he has an Irish passport, so describing him as Irish is uncontroversial even if he was not a republican politician.90.197.141.158 (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerry Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Nationalist Party?

I don't think Sinn Féin could be destroyed as Nationalist. More marxist really. Most of their policy planks are based off latin american style liberation philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.219.78 (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well you are right in some sense. I am from the Republic of Ireland and I am very interested in this topic. Sinn Fein does hold socialist views but I do not view them as a marxist party more they combine the ideologies of Nationalism and Socialism. They believe in a Free Ireland were everyone is equal under the states eyes. I would think marxist is to "far left" for Sinn Fein but a more moderate socialist party. Éireann (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Subject to Review

This topic can be controversial as he is an alleged member of the IRA so I would not be surprised if sooner or later a opponent of Adams's views will try to talk badly of him. I would maybe recommending treating this page like Ian Paisley's due to the fact it is a highly controversial topic in Irish society. Éireann (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gerry Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

"sentenced to a period of imprisonment"?

The article states Adams "was sentenced to a period of imprisonment".

What does that actually mean? How can you be sentenced without first being convicted of an offense? And what exactly is a "period of imprisonment"? Is there no record of the actual sentence, expressed, as customary, in years, months or days? Why is there such a weaselly language here? 79.232.85.105 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Gerry Adams as Irish

@Cliftonian:The link to Irish nationality law is not appropriate for two reasons.

  1. "Irish" should not link to "Irish nationality law" it makes no sense. If there was a note saying "Adams is Irish under Irish law" with a wikilink to Irish nationality law it would be fine but that is not the case.
  2. The Irish people article refers to the people living in Ireland (the whole island).

Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Irish nationality law is about all Irish citizens, anywhere on the island and beyond—people whose nationality is Irish. The Irish people article is about the ethnic group, everywhere in the world regardless of nationality, as opposed to people who are actually legally Irish. These are two separate things and the 'nationality' parameter in the infobox is supposed to be for the subject's legal nationality as opposed to ethnicity. I would note at Template:Infobox person it advises leaving nationalities unlinked; might this be a suitable compromise? Cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  23:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Irish people includes people living in Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland, Look at the infobox. Either way yes. Unlinked would be fine.Apollo The Logician (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC) Apollo The Logician (talk) 07:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

OK that's fine, cheers —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Early (Redacted) accusation

In August 1968, The Belfast Telegraph carried a story about Gerard Adams' arrest (Redacted). Is it clear whether this is Adams Jr, and if so, are there any indications of a conviction? If so, this would be relevant to this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.185.31.37 (talk) 16:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I have redacted your post to conform with WP:BLPTALK. You will need to give more specifics on how to find the source. Date? Page? --NeilN talk to me 16:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The charge was described in my source. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to conceal a reference to a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.255.234 (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

"August 1968 Belfast Telegraph" is not an acceptable pointer to a source. As I said above, you'll need to provide the date and page. --NeilN talk to me 17:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I note with interest the huge swathes of this article containing no source whatever. I assume that deletion is in order given the BLP nature of this piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.185.31.37 (talk) 17:14, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:POINT. And you still haven't answered my question. --NeilN talk to me 17:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Gerry Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gerry Adams. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As long expected

I've added back words and relevant citations (after fixing date problems in 1 of them, and removing another as a now dead link) to both the lead and the 2014 arrest section, indicating that the insufficient evidence outcome was widely expected. I think this is long overdue. From May 2014 (here) to February 2016 (here), anybody reading our lead would have imagined that Adams was in danger of being charged with murder when every well-informed person knew there was almost no chance of this happening. Apart from being a possible violation of WP:BLP, this was unintentionally doing a grave disservice to our readers by unnecessarily misleading them. Over 4 months after the official announcement was finally added to the lead in February 2016 (itself over 4 months after it was announced in late September 2015), the evidence that it had been expected from shortly after his release was removed from the 2014 arrest section (here and here, when adding the official announcement to that section), thus once again unintentionally misleading our readers, who are bound to get the mistaken impression that the UK and Ireland spent over 16 months wondering whether or not Adams would be charged with murder. I have now done my best to try to fix this disservice to our readers as far as possible (even though it's partly shutting the door after the horse has bolted, but better late than never). I have left the original retrieval dates, even though I've checked them again today (resulting in one now dead link being dropped, as already mentioned). Tlhslobus (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't it his voice which Thatcher prohibited ?

Margret Thatcher did prohibit television and radio in the UK to broadcast the voice of an Irish nationalist, in the 1980's. BBC employed several people with "similar" voice, for interviews etc. Wasn't Gerry Adams that person ? Surely someone living in Britain or Ireland must remember this. It became known world wide. I'm just not totally certain whose voice that was prohibited during Thatcher's time as PM. Boeing720 (talk) 17:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

He was one of many, but it was mainly aimed at him and his party. See 1988–94 British broadcasting voice restrictions. Note that the UK legislation was inspired by earlier and stricter Irish legislation. Valenciano (talk) 17:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks ! But what a strange comment, you then followed it up with. Please don't be angry, I just fail to understand the Ulster conflict. Anyway~s - I meant if this was true, it would be of benefit to the article to mention it there (regardless of legislation in Irish Republic and matters such as who began what first, sorry). I suddenly feel I want to tell a joke. A rather old Scandinavian joke about the Northern Ireland conflict - in English, to the best of my capabilities. "There was this guy from Scandinavia, who by chance had ended up in a Belfast pub, back in 1969. Everything was nice and fine, good beer and everything - until one of the locals asked 'Are you a Catholic or a Protestant ?' - and everything was suddenly silent. The guy who was unaware whether the pub was a Catholic or Protestant one, thought of something to say - and eventually came up with the answer: 'I'm Orthodox ! '. People in the pub now began mumbling for a brief while, and then one man then said: 'But are you a Protestant Orthodox or a Catholic Orthodox ? The End. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 01:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Not angry at all. :) The follow-up comment was to put it in context. The UK government got considerable abuse over it, but a lot of commentators failed to realise that it was the Irish government which originated such legislation and theirs usually didn't allow actors, yet few people criticised the Irish government for that. The Irish approach, if you're going to go down the censorship route, at least achieved its goal. The voice ban was a counterproductive joke, Sinn Fein still got their message across, but it also enabled them to win sympathy, especially in the USA, by portraying themselves as victims of a repressive UK government bent on denying them free speech. Your joke is a longstanding one, I've usually heard it as being a Jew instead of an Orthodox person. By the way, the voice ban is already in the article: Gerry_Adams#Voice_ban. Valenciano (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't called "the Ulster conflict"....as two thirds of Ulster is in Northern Ireland, one third is in the Republic of Ireland (Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan). Also not good to describe it as a conflict between Catholic and Protestant...it was a conflict between nationalists and unionists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.59.119 (talk) 15:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm truely sorry if I unintentionally have hurt any feelings here. Through British and Irish TV (criminal dramas as well as documentaries) have I - obviously wrong - over the years just got the impression that "the six countys", "Northern Ireland" and "Ulster" is the same geographical are. Thanks for the enlightenment, which I interpret as follows - if 2/3 of all counties in Ulster are 6 counties, then all Ulster counties must be 9 counties - of which 1/3 are located in Ireland or 3 counties. I presume Donegal is among them. But what are the names of the other two Irish Ulster counties, I wonder ?
We appear to agree that the conflict was not about religion, but of nationalism. The core and the root of (next to) all wars after 1645 at least.
Anyways. Couldn't we just add this Gerry Adams voice-prohibition to the lead briefly. As it became news also far, far outside Ireland and the UK ? Boeing720 (talk) 01:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
In answer to your above question, Boeing720, the 3 Ulster counties in the Republic are Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan.Tlhslobus (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
And for the benefit of others who may find themselves in Boeing720's position, I will now add this comment from my Talk page:
Don't worry, Boeing720, you have absolutely nothing to apologize for (and my apologies for not saying so at the time of my reply, something which I will soon add to the article's Talk Page for the benefit of any other people who may find themselves in your situation). It was perfectly reasonable for you to call it 'the Ulster conflict', especially as Ulster is often used as shorthand for Northern Ireland, especially by 'Ulster Unionists', 'Ulster Loyalists', etc. But in any case you are a Swede who almost certainly knows far more about Northern Ireland than most people in Northern Ireland or the Republic or Great Britain know about Sweden. And the British-Irish relationship is a terrible minefield for Geographical naming disputes, often not helped by the (sometimes unwitting and sometimes witting) unreasonableness of many participants in such disputes. And incidentally, even if you had said 'Northern Ireland' instead of Ulster you might still have been criticized by those who don't like the expression Northern Ireland (for instance, see here, and also Alternative_names_for_Northern_Ireland#Nationalist_associated_names).
Tlhslobus (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

democratic vs. peaceful

I'm no expert on this person, I simply looked at the source that keeps getting reverted and no where does it state "peaceful politics" but it makes rather broad statements referring to democratic politics and that appears to have been the most widely accepted use within this article for many months, however 212.74.218.66 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is insisting the source states "peaceful politics" and unless I'm missing something, it does not, so I'd like to start a discussion here. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Also my mistake for not noticing this was a 1RR. I was unaware of this at the time and was merely attempting to restore what appeared to be (and still appears to be) sourced content. Praxidicae (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm also finding it a little hard to believe that an article of this caliber, one that is 17 years old, at least 14 of them have contained the statement: In 2005, the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) stated that its armed campaign was over and that it was exclusively committed to democratic politics. and absolutely no one noticed it, considering also that it averages almost 30,000 views a month, not a single person corrected that tidbit? The source explicitly states "to assist the development of purely political and democratic programmes" followed by "through peaceful means" which does not equate to "peaceful politics." Praxidicae (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

IRA membership section

This seems to have become quite bloated with a laundry list of accusers. Looking back through the archives this appears to be against the consensus, for example Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 3#Request for Comment:Alleged IRA Membership. At the end of 2007 the section was small, as recommended, using the best sources. Any objections to this section being pruned back to a more sensible size? Obviously things like the McConville arrest would be left in. FDW777 (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As there were no objections, I have pruned the section while adding some detail on Adam's alleged IRA career, as recommended in a previous discussion. FDW777 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerry_Adams/Archive_8&oldid=1183553740"