Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Prime Ministers Situation Report

Why should it not be included? And please dont try to claim it isn't 'reliable'. Conypiece 23:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is ALREADY IN THE ARTICLE. One Night In Hackney303 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Where? Conypiece 23:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Good grief, I'll do this in stages then. Simple question - what does the Prime Ministers Situation Report say about Gerry Adams? One Night In Hackney303 23:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"It has reliably been reported that Adams, who's been the Provisionals' brigade adjutant in Belfast is now in Dublin as assistant chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. It is alleged that Adams was given the appointment in order to provide representation from the North among Provisional leaders in the south, and also to please the younger elements of the Provisionals in Belfast."[1]

I can't see that specific quote anywhere on the article. Can you? Conypiece 23:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No. I didn't ask what the specific quote was. What does it say about Gerry Adams? Specifically? One Night In Hackney303 23:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Im afraid what you are asking for is this qoute. But as you ask, this is what it specifically says...

"...Adams, who's been the Provisionals' brigade adjutant in Belfast is now in Dublin as assistant chief of staff of the Provisional IRA. It is alleged that Adams was given the appointment in order to provide representation from the North among Provisional leaders in the south, and also to please the younger elements of the Provisionals in Belfast."[2]

Conypiece 23:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No. In less than ten words, what does it say about Gerry Adams? One Night In Hackney303 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to know specifically then I will have to use more than 10 words, oh and don't think I don't know what point you're trying to make here. However this is Prime Ministers Report which claims Adams to be PIRA, it even gives details of his position. Therefore why should this not be included within the report? Conypiece 10:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll guess I'll have to make this even more simple. The report says Adams was part of the IRA leadership in 1973. Now what does the article already say? "....named Adams to be part of the IRA leadership during the 1970s". Now do you get it? One Night In Hackney303 10:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you still have not gave a single reason why this document (or any other evidence of PIRA membership) should not be included. Why should it not? Oh and duplication doesn't matter when ir regards to evidence. The more evidence the better... Conypiece 10:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. Read the rest of the talk page, read the article, read everything I've said above. Your comment of "the more evidence the better" shows you have not read or understood anything that has been said on this page. One Night In Hackney303 10:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahh so are you resorting to Domer's arguement that wiki is not a tabloid. Shame then SirFrozzie disagrees with you as well. Tell me, (you have avoided this question so far) is a Prime Ministers Report reliable evidence? Conypiece 10:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Judging by the speed of your reply you haven't bothered to read and understand the multitude of arguments that have been made about how evidence is presented despite my repeated suggestions that you do, there is little more that can be said. If you had you would know that your first allegation is incorrect, and that your second question is not relevant to the issue at hand. The only advice I can offer is you is talk less and read more. One Night In Hackney303 10:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm maybe because I have already read (and re-read) all the arguements before. You shouldn't assume things, sometimes it makes people look stupid. So how is my allegation incorrect? And by you not answering I assume you agree that the report is reliable evidence? Conypiece 10:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You say not to assume while assuming twice, nice. I refer you to the lengthy discussions predating your arrival on this talk page, which are neatly summarised in my comment dated 20:07, 9 September 2007. One Night In Hackney303 11:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You can refer until you go blue in the face, I have read all of that and still see no balanced reason as to why this should not be involved. Under the title 'alleged membership' should there not be as much evidence there can be under it? It gives the reader a broad scope of material which they can research into greather detail if wanted. Conypiece 11:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
That clearly shows you haven't read and understood what has been said on this talk page. Stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, you are wasting editors time. One Night In Hackney303 11:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
What has been said (and which you are refering to) has been said by you. Last time I looked you weren't an admin. So what gives you the right to set down the rules in regards to this page? And explain to me how I am disrupting wikipedia? I am using talk pages however you are acting in a very dismissive and defensive tone. Padraig use to quote wiki policy in every response hoping he would scare me off as well.. Conypiece 11:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you aren't using talk pages except to waste time. As I've explained repeatedly, you need to read talk pages and understand what has been said and by whom. In particular, I refer you to this comment by Cary Bass who is an administrator and a member of the Foundation office (see also WP:OFFICE). One Night In Hackney303 11:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How I am wasting time by trying to solve this issue here? Would you prefer for me to edit war? And I refer you to this said by SirFrozzie. The page had been stable until recently a group of editors of similar bias decided to remove the completely legitimate and referenced material. Oh and by referring to this report is not 'listing', its an extremely useful source. Conypiece 11:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

....that repeats what other sources say. One Night In Hackney303 11:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Do they say that specifically? Are the other reports Situation Reports for the government? Conypiece 11:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Check the history of the article. See exactly who added the sources in the first place. I know exactly what the sources say, and they go into far more detail than that report. One Night In Hackney303 11:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm the sources were already there, so of course you had to add them again, if you hadn't you would have vandalised that page. Have you read the entire report? The fact it is a PM-SR is extremely important. Don't you agree? Conypiece 11:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No. I added the sources, they were not there before that edit as the history shows. Try and remain factual please. Why would I need to read the entire report? The report was written in 1973, and the sources cover Adams activites post-1973, so it's breathtakingly obvious that the other sources go into more detail. I don't agree that it's extremely important at all. Who wrote it? The security services. Where do historians get their information from? Contacts within the security services, amongst other places. One Night In Hackney303 11:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
But whether the other reports go into more detail the fact remains that they were not a PM-SR. Any doubt of IRA membership is removed by reading the, until recently, classified document. Therefore the report should also be included due to its author, intended audience and significance. I am also cautious when you seem to claim historians are better informed than the security forces. Conypiece 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't go in the article in the previous format. Of course historians are better informed than a report issued in 1973, it's obvious. One Night In Hackney303 21:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't it go in the article? You are claiming authors are better informed and more reliable than intelligence gathered by security forces for the Prime Minister?? Seriously? Whoa that's a new one. Conypiece 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Evidently as they have access to information post-1973, does the report? I've already repeated to the point of tedium why the information doesn't go in the article in the previous format, I will not respond to any further questions that have already been answered. One Night In Hackney303 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece, are these the same intelligence gathering agencies that advised the British Prime Minster that Iraq had weapons of mass disruction that lead to the invasion of Iraq.--padraig 21:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


You're confused ONiH, the article is not concerned at what Adams got up to, whether he planted bombs or planted roses. The article heading is Alleged IRA Membership. The report clearly states he was a member of PIRA. What happened before, during and after 1973 is irrelevant. Understand? Conypiece 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah Padraig good to see you haven't completely avoided talk pages. Erm who knows?! I could have come from the RUC/Local UDR/MI5 anyone, but we are told that they are reliable. Conypiece 21:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Conypiece, I don't avoid talkpages, I just don't respond to every post you make straight away, As for the source of these allegations Who says they are reliable, I wouldn't trust anything claimed by any government or their intelligence service, unless that evidence was supported by non-governmental sources.--padraig 22:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing more than trolling now. The information does not go in the article in the previous format and will be reverted if it is, there's nothing left to discuss. One Night In Hackney303 21:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It must be in the mind of some editors here for when they realise they are either wrong, or completely unaware of what is being said (above) that they decide to refuse to give further comment. This discussion is not finished. You still have to tell everyone why it does not go in the article? I have asked this so many times its becoming quite sad. I await your reply. Conypiece 21:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
As before, read the talk page. No laundry lists. One Night In Hackney303 21:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It is not a list, it is further evidence (from an extremely reliable source!), understand? Conypiece 21:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
...That was being presented as a list. One Night In Hackney303 22:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, heres a new idea. How about the report does not go in as part of a list, but under its own heading? Maybe 1973 Intelligence Report? Conypiece 22:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "no". One Night In Hackney303 22:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You are not being very helpful in this discussion. And I would guess most people reading this will think the same. So how do you propose we add this report into the document? I would have thought under the alleged IRA membership to be the logical place, however you disagree. Conypiece 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've been more than helpful, considering you've ignored everything that has been said. If the information has to be added, it gets added as Cary Bass suggested which is what I said many, many hours ago. One Night In Hackney303 22:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
How have I ignored everything said? I have refused to bow down to you by 'forgetting' about this report. This report is of immemse importantance in regards to Adams' alleged IRA membership. Can't you remember the political waves when the document was released a few years ago? Oh and Cary Bass asked that this does not become a list, it won't (and wasn't before the you arrived and started warring). This material is on a completely different scale as to the material already mentioned in the article. Also User:SirFrozzie stated that this material should go back into the article. Conypiece 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It's the same information that's already in the article, and was presented as a list. One Night In Hackney303 01:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You see it is not the same information, for 1. the content is not the same, 2.the authors are extremely different! 3.The reliability of the sources differ. Conypiece 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The content isn't the same? In that case please tell me exactly what Ed Moloney, Richard English, Peter Taylor and Mark Urban say about Gerry Adams? One Night In Hackney303 01:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically he was a provo. Do they each mention the following It is alleged that Adams was given the appointment in order to provide representation from the North among Provisional leaders in the south, and also to please the younger elements of the Provisionals in Belfast? If not then that is material that needs to be mentioned in the article. Conypiece 01:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you haven't read this talk page despite many requests to. That material does not need to go in the article, it's already in there. Also there is no such position as "assistant chief of staff of the Provisional IRA", so the source isn't really up to much. One Night In Hackney303 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


Probably dont understand the ins and outs of this debate (?HAHAHA) or the report but surely from a general point of view even if the source is unreliable, but well-known/influential( to presumably at least the british gov) then it should be included in some way - it is probably well to have some sort of idea of what the british thought of him even if it was in 1973. Harking back to the example of the dossier/reports/intelligent of WMD in iraq - i think it was padraig(?), it would somewhat miss the point of the war(s) in iraq and subsequent disaster if an article on Sadam Hussain ignored them on the basis that no WMD were not found. Wideofthemark 00:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Any comment on the above idea ONiH? Conypiece 20:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thought on style/content/ Recent History

Rather silly thought really, aside from the sqabbles about Adams the terrorist etc. (and probably due to the fact that the last few years have kindof repeated themselves several times), is that the last section probably covers what is the most instructive and more recently written about section of Adam's life is that the time since the good friday is covered in about two paragraphs. Although this only covers a small percentage of his life this surely is the most relevent to him being in an incyclopedia. Wikipedia should not be a newspaper, but if it does not mention anything between david trimble being completely obilorated and ian paisley coming out of/into the cold (only to be under pressure to resign from his own church). One wonders whether anything of interest in Adams's (political) life has happened since bobby sands? OTR's? snoopers in the RUC/NI office? Steak-knife? Whether he supported/s the PSNI? SF's results in the south?

- Personally i could not write this(lack of knowledge or will), and i guess that it is difficult/nigh on impossible to properly represent this in a way that is proprely verifiable, but surely the idea of an online encyclopedia is that it is a bit more up to date that encyclopedia britanica. Or do we have to wait till he is dead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wideofthemark (talkcontribs) 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection

This page should have the highest protection against vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.161.153.13 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Various policy violating edits removed

  • "There is disagreement in the number of people who walked out, with Peter Taylor, p. 291, stating it was 20 and J. Bowyer Bell stating it was about 10"

Clear misrepresentation of the source. Bell doesn't say 100 walked out of the AF itself, he says that's how many reconvened later on. All sources agree it was a small split, and judging by the progress made by the respective parties since that's breathtakingly clear. Sinn Féin are the largest republican party in Northern Ireland, and RSF are on the fringe of the fringe and going exactly where they were twenty years ago - nowhere fast. Stop trying to make out like it was a major split like in 70, it wasn't, nobody really cared then, nobody really cares now.

If you're using "Republican" as an all-inclusive term why stop at Phil Clarke and Tom Mitchell (sic)? Why not mention Independent Republican Frank Maguire. No point engaging in all sorts of off-topic irrelevance, stick to the actual facts at hand.

  • "As Sands and Carron had run as "Anti-H-Block" candidates"

Irrelevant, Adams was the first SF candidate to win a seat since the 1950s. Sands wasn't a SF member, so why even mention him?

  • "Adams and his supporters advocated that Sinn Féin become increasingly political and pursue constitutional politics"

No page number, removed accordingly.

Paddy Agnew wasn't a hunger striker.

  • "The electoral effects of this strategy were shown later by the election of several Sinn Feiners to local councils in Northern Ireland in the mid-1980s, as well as the election of Owen Carron to the House of Commons in 1981"

Unsourced analysis, and Owen Carron - who was elected before Morrison made his famous speech? Nuff said, instead of making crap up from your head, try using sources. The rest of it is unsourced as well, and like others I'm getting sick of unsourced commentary being added to this article. WP:Verifiability is not negotiable especially when it comes to articles about WP:living people, and if this continues I'm going to ask for admin intervention as this article isn't a dumping ground for whatever unsourced crap and analysis or RSF propaganda is being dreamt up today. Either it's properly sourced complete with page numbers, or it doesn't go in. One Night In Hackney303 01:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bell does state they walked out of the Ard-Fheis. Get your facts straight. He wrote, "November 2 came and two-thirds voted against...Ruairi O Bradaigh, Daithi O Conaill, and about one hundred others walked out to form Republican Sinn Fein." Quit being such a "good editor" and stick to reality. It is not irrelevant that Sands and Carron ran before Adams; Adams' candidacy occurred in a context. If Carron and Sands are not mentioned, it's POV. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

20, 20-30, "small number", "small group of supporters", and Bell's 100 that doesn't even refer to delegates directly, just the number that formed RSF later on which, surprise, surprise, was about 100. Regardless, it was a small split that nobody cared less about, and you agreed that "small" was a correct term. One Night In Hackney303 03:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I said small was more appropriate than "minor" -- and stated prior to finding the Bell quotation. You are one great editor, knowing my meaning better than I know myself -- golly.

Saying that no one cared is POV; if no one cared, then why even include it in the article on Adams? Just ignore his flip flop with his own family history; let's have all those Hannaways accept partition in 1921 and be done with it.

Please answer this question:

How do you know that Bell does not refer to delegates? He mentions the vote, "429-161 of the 628 present", and then states "about one hundred" plus ROB walked out. Who gets to vote? Delegates? If there were 628 present, that's a bit less than 1/6 walking out, according to JBB.

Answer please -- instead of your usual sniping and then refusal to answer the direct question. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that Taylor says 20 people walked out? Do you agree that Cahill's biographer says 20-30 people walked out? Do you agree that O'Brien says a "small number" walked out? Do you agree that Mallie & Bishop say a "small group of supporters" walked out? It's all on the emphasis. Bell says 100 people formed RSF. That's not in dispute. However that group of people included people who weren't delegates, as is documented in White. That it was a small split isn't in dispute, so I don't see why you're so intent on trying to portray it as a big split when it quite evidently wasn't. One Night In Hackney303 03:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but you still have not answered the qeustion: How do you know that Bell does not refer to delegates?

He states 628 were present. He states that O Bradaigh "and about one hundred others walked out". He doesn't say they "walked in". If they were walking out it was of the Ard-Fheis. I did not say it was a big split. I said it was a "split." You said "Bell doesn't say 100 walked out of the AF itself."

If you won't answer the question above, please answer this one: If Bell says they walked out, what did they walk out of if it was not the Ard-Fheis. It's a simple question. Please answer it.

A good editor would. Bet you won't.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've answered your question, I note you didn't answer any of mine. As you've agreed "small" is the correct (and fully sourced) term, unless you have anything constructive to add there will be no further replies from me. One Night In Hackney303 03:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Saying you answered the question when you didn't is not the work of a "good editor". Please answer it here:

If they were not walking out of the Ard-Fheis, as described by JBB, what were they walking out of?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Gonna take your edits and run home, eh? You really are a "good editor." --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Simple Question

Still waiting for a straight answer to a straight question....--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting on an answer from a "good editor."--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1986 Sinn Fein Ard Fheis Walkout

There is disagreement on the number of people who walked out of the Ard-Fheis; Taylor is contradicted by IRA historian J. Bowyer Bell, who says about 100 people walked out. This is described in the RSF Wikipedia article. One reputable source should not be preferred over another. Either do not state the number walking out, or give both numbvers. A good editor like you knows this. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See above, I wasn't using one source over another, I was using what the source actually said. Since you had no problem with small here, it's going back in with sources. One Night In Hackney303 02:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See my comment above. Bell clearly states they walked out of the Ard-Fheis.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope, he doesn't. And I love the way you try to downplay Taylor by claiming Bell is an "IRA historian". Do you even know who Peter Taylor is? One Night In Hackney303 02:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never met Peter Taylor, have you? See the quotation from Bell. What is it about the words "walked out" that are too hard for you to understand? WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What part of "Do you even know who Peter Taylor is?" is so hard for you to understand? It didn't say "Do you even know Peter Taylor?". And I've dismissed your interpretation of Bell above, and as before you agreed "small" was the correct term. One Night In Hackney303 03:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


Peter Taylor is a journalist. I do not know him personally. Do you? --WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming you don't actually know who Peter Taylor is, if you describe him as a "journalist" and Bell as an "IRA historian". One Night In Hackney303 03:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Is he not a journalist? I thought he was with the BBC. If he's not, please enlighten me. Have you met him? Another simple question.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Correction, the jacket says he's a veteran journalist. Is he not?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it simple - what makes Bell an "IRA historian" and Taylor a "journalist"? One Night In Hackney303 03:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you unable to answer a simple question?

Last time I checked, Bell wrote -- among other things -- a definitive history of the Irish Republican Army. Taylor has written some excellent books, but no one I know would describe him as having written a history. The fact that the jacket of his book states he is a veteran journalist leads me to conclude that Peter Taylor is in fact a journalist.

Two very simple questions:

Is Peter Taylor a journalist? Have you ever met him?--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I bet you are not able to answer these, too. Great editing!--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it was the title of his book, The Secret Army: A History of the IRA.... that led me to conclude Bell was an IRA historian. Golly.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 03:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In the 1981 Mel Brooks produce and direct the film, History of the World Part I, a tongue-in-cheek look at human culture from the Dawn of Man to the French Revolution, that would led you to conclude Brooks was an historian also, Golly. Now if you can not get your head around the word "small," anymore, and insist on trying to inflate this small walk out, walking out on not only the AF but the movement, which makes small not nearly small enough, why not draw up a wish list of what might have been's? ONIH has addressed this issue, more than enough, and left you reduced to sniping and personalising the discussion. Now read our policies WP:CITE, WP:RS and WP:OR, and no we do not have one for wishful thinking. --Domer48 (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My final word on this subject. Peter Taylor is an award winning author who has written a number of books on the Troubles, including a history of the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin, a book which was part of a trilogy that also includes books on Loyalists and Brits, the latter covering everything from the regular army to 14 Intelligence Company to the SAS to MI6 to the top level of British Government. His interviews include many key figures both Republicans, Loyalist and British, including the likes of MI6 agents Michael Oatley and Frank Steele, Martin McGuinness, Brendan Hughes, Ian Paisley, Brendan Duddy, John Major etc etc. He's every bit a historian, if writing a book on the history of the IRA makes Bell a historian than Taylor is equally so. He's covered the Troubles for over 30 years, and the claim that Bell is a historian while Taylor is a mere journalist is a false one. One Night In Hackney303 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

ONIH has not addressed the issue, and he has also not answered my question.

1. I said small would be more appropriate relative to "minor" - ""Minor" reflects a point of view. "Small" would be more appropriate." Most appropriate would be to not have any modifier. If the split was so minor, why are so many people still ticked off about it? And it's not fair to say that the RSF folks left the movement, they just continued pursuing a direction they had pursued for years. The "movement" is bigger than PSF and PIRA.

2. I did not state that Peter Taylor is a "mere journalist." If I did, my apologies to Peter Taylor. Indeed, please point it out where I used the phrase "mere journalist."

I did state that he has written some excellent books. For better or worse, historians are not journalists. They have different schools for each, in fact. Provos accompanied a documentary broadcast; it's a great publication, but it's not a detailed history of the Provisional IRA. The wikiepedia entry for Peter Taylor states, "Peter Taylor born Scarborough, North Yorkshire is a British journalist and documentary-maker who had covered for many years the political and armed conflict in Northern Ireland, the so-called Troubles. From his experience he has written and produced books and television documentaries on the Northern Irish conflict." The entry for J. Bowyer Bell states, "The Troubles began in Northern Ireland in 1969, and Bell's The Secret Army: the IRA 1916-1970 was published the following year, and was one of the first detailed histories of the IRA along with The IRA by Tim Pat Coogan which was also published in 1970." Many of the people that Taylor interviewed were also interviewed by Bell; and Bell probably interviewed them first and, in some cases, more than once (though Taylor probably interviewed several people multiple times, too).

3. One Night In Hackney states above that he " wasn't using one source over another, I was using what the source actually said." But Bell clearly states, as noted above, "Ruairi O Bradaigh, Daithi O Conaill, and about one hundred others walked out to form Republican Sinn Fein." So, the sources disagree. At one point, I believe, the word "twenty" was in there. It is not in there now, and from my view this is appropriate. If the sources disagree we should not choose one over the other, but instead we should either acknowledge the differences and quote from each or find a way to be neutral -- not quoting from either.

4. Once again there has been a dispute in which One Night in Hackney has chosen one source over another and then when confronted with a direct quotation from an alternate source he has chosen to ask questions, change the subject, and deny the validity of the source. The reality is that Taylor and Bell are both valid sources, and Bell was clearly talking about people walking out of the Ard-Fheis. Bell might have been wrong, Taylor might be wrong, but we as Wikipedia editors are not in a position to make that determination. To do so is to engage in Original Research. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So you would rather not mention how small and insignificant the walk out was, and how much of an irrelevance they were to the over all Movement? Yet you are literally trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. This has been well and truly addressed, and all you are left with is continual snipping at an editor. Now if all you can do is try to personalise this, you are barking up the wrong tree. McGuiness said at the time if they walk away the only place they would be going is home, now get over yourself, and give up the snipping. --Domer48 (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the walkout and split of the IRA and Sinn Fein in 1986 is relevant to understanding Irish Republicanism. If the split was not relevant, why did Adams and his supporters go to such great lengths to try and keep it from happening? This includes asking Tom Maguire for support. When so many founders of the organizations walk out it is significant; recognizing Leinster House was a watershed. Adams, if I recall, praised Dan Keating for not walking out, only to have Keating later become patron of RSF. I am not trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, I am trying to have the Wikipedia article provide an accurate description of what happened so that readers are informed. WH.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop being so ridiculous, why do you think Party leaders try to stop members from walking away. Adams said during the course of the debate that he had bent over backwards for them, and that if he bent over any more his head would go up his arse, and that was not going to happen. Obviously you would look for support of anyone, common sense really. As to being founders of the organisation, don’t make me laugh. The Republican movement is a lot older than that, and some of these leaders were not even born when it was founded. As to this old red herring on the dropping of abstentionism to Leinster house, being the basis of the walk out, please. First of, abstentionism was always a tactic, not a principle, fact. The walk out was the result of a power struggle within the Republican Movement, between the Leadership based in Dublin, and the young turks in the North. The old leadership was out manoeuvred, and control fell to what was known as the Kitchen Cabinet if memory serves me. Now what was the consequences of the walk out, (I’ll use that term because Split makes it sound much larger to me), the growth of the Republican Movement and the advance in the cause of Irish Freedom. As to those who walk away, relegation to the political wilderness and obscurity. There are many fine members of RSF, and this petty snipping dose them and Irish Republicanism a disservice. ONIH has displayed a very sharp and cognisant understanding of Republican related articles, with Featured Articles, raising articles to Good status, and countless DYK’s. What have you done to date? Nothing! Now I will not entertain any more of this personalising and snipping in which you are engaged, I suggest to read up on our policies, and start trying to improve articles, instead of your SPA efforts.--Domer48 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

And what of all those people who died because they refused to recognize Leinster House. It was not a tactic for them. My edits are not inspired by the cause of Irish freedom. To edit with the cause of Irish freedom in mind is to approach editing from a POV, which is contrary to Wikipedia. WH--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

"I said small would be more appropriate relative to "minor" - ""Minor" reflects a point of view. "Small" would be more appropriate." Most appropriate would be to not have any modifier." WilliamHanrahan. Most appropriate would be to not have any modifier? Why? --Domer48'fenian' 07:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Because then there is no modifier; it was a walkout, period.--WilliamHanrahan (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Family

I'm surprised there is no mention of Adams' wife and children in the article. He has grandchildren as well, I believe. I don't have sourced info I could use, but surely some other editors could include some sourced information about his family. I once added a sentence about his son playing Gaelic football but it was deleted.--jeanne (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed

I have asked for a citation for this, rather remarkable, statement:

Because of prejudice against Catholics in the North, Adams' family (along with the majority of Catholic families) had trouble finding work and faced potential internment without trial.

It basically claims that in the North at that time, you risked being interned for being Catholic. This seems highly weaselly to me. There were many, many tens of thousands of Catholics that were not interned, so why - if it is such a risk factor - were so few (relatively speaking) actually interned. The reality is that the real risk factor was being considered politically or para-militarily subversive to British interests. Its true that those who were considered politically or para-militarily subversive were also more likely to be Catholic. But those people were also more likely to be right handed, yet we don't claim because he was right handed he faced potential internment without trial!

My point is that it wasn't "prejudice against Catholics" that led to internment, it was prejudice against those that were considered a threat to the status quo. If anyone disagrees, I'd like a source explicitly demonstrating causality, please. Otherwise I intend to remove the second part of that sentence. (While we are at it, a source for prejudice against Catholics leading to "trouble finding work" would be good too, though I don't doubt that is correct). Rockpocket 01:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your rational Rock re: WP:Peacock, and it should be removed. I will reference the prejudice against Catholics in areas such as political representation, health, housing, education and employment. The civil rights movement is a good example. What I will have to watch though is not to fall into WP:SYN. While this is all well documented in various sources, what do you think of me using one of the Adams bio's? --Domer48'fenian' 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I don't think that is particularly controversial, its more the Catholic = internment thing I was concerned with. Rockpocket 20:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Change photo

I have seen much better photos of Adams at Commons, where one can actually see his face. Would any of the other editors object if I replace this info image with another? I shall not do anything without a consensus. What do BigDunc, Domer48, DerryBoi think about the idea?--jeanne (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the photo already on the page with him wearing the Easter Lily would be better in the intro box. perhaps if we could just make a switch?--jeanne (talk) 06:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Jeanne just be bold and make the edit. If it doesn't look right you can always revert yourself. BigDuncTalk 08:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
What would look nice is an early picture of him, but the only ones at Commons show him carrying coffins. I'm afraid that might be polemical. For the moment I wont change the photos, hopefully someone will add a younger photo to Commons which we can use for the info box. Thanks for replying.--jeanne (talk) 08:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Adams was not a conforming prisoner

As all internees were released by December 1975, any escape attempt had to take place prior to that date. Therefore as the offence took place before 1 March 1976, he would have received Special Category Status. No page number was provided to allow the "reference" to be checked. Moloney in A Secret History of the IRA states on page 148 that Adams served his sentence in "Cage 11", which was not the H-Blocks where protesting or conforming prisoners were held, they were only in the H-Blocks. Unless a page number is provided for Ten Men Dead, the information must stay out. O Fenian (talk) 12:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I have found the reference to Adams imprisonment in Ten Men Dead. The exact wording is "In December 1973 he was jailed for eighteen months for trying to escape from internment with three other IRA men-attempting to cut their way through the wires with bolt-cutters" then talks about him writing as "Brownie" during the period. It then goes on to say regarding his 1978 period on remand "It was also his first experience of cellular confinement". It does not source him being in the H-Blocks in 1976, it does not source him wearing a prisoners uniform and it does not source him doing prison work. O Fenian (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Good removal, per Wikipedia:Biographies of living people these are clearly controversial claims that are not properly sourced, and must be removed straight away. BigDuncTalk 13:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)