Talk:Gerry Adams

IRA membership allegations (again)

@O Fenian - including a well referenced allegation is not a BLP violation. @Pat Gallacher - although I'd consider the source to be valid, would we not be better proceeding as ONiH has outlined in the section above on this issue, which would also appear to have the benefit of consensus? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A source Gerry Adams has described as libelous is not "well referenced" by definition. Has he been charged or convicted of the offence? O Fenian (talk) 10:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. The claims have been made in published books and have been repeated by mainstream, reputable media outlets. They are, therefore, well referenced, regardless of what Gerry Adams thinks of them. Has he won a libel case - or even brought one?

In any case, though, I'm suggesting above that we not include the latest allegations (to be) published by Moloney, per se, but instead proceed as ONiH outlined in the section above. Would this be acceptable to you? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wrong, I suggest reading WP:BLP specifically the part about "Beware of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?". You will find Moloney in his original book explicitly attributes the claim as an "allegation" attributed to an anonymous source. Even ignoring that he has now revealed the source in his new book, he is still not prepared to stand by the allegation only to present it as such. Alleged is a weasel word, and this is a very serious claim being made. O Fenian (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree with Bastun on this. If the references meet wiki criteria, then they can be included, irrespective of what OF or Gerry Adams opinions are. --BwB (talk) 11:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The long standing reference to allegations of IRA membership is itself a reference to a serious crime that Adams has repeatedly denied. His denials have not been enough to keep the allegations being widely circulated. It would be nonsensical to ignore such allegations, as it would be nonsensical to ignore the latest well-sourced information about Adams's alleged involvment in the abduction and murder of Jean McConville. Irvine22 (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What well sourced information? All I see is Moloney lacking the backbone to stand by the allegation, choosing instead to attribute it to someone who is dead. O Fenian (talk) 15:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Irvine, one has to be extremely careful about BLPs. When in doubt, don't add it!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

One does, Jean, but as we'd be repeating what 170 news reports say,[1], BLP is not an issue. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) Presumably there's some documentary evidence and/or recordings of the interviews - it would certainly seem so, seeing as Boston College is calling this an oral history. But in any case, the Sunday Times, Independent, Irish Times, Examiner, RTE, BBC and 160 more news reports are all repeating the claims. They are all verifiable, reputable secondary sources. "Alleged is a weasel word"? No, it's a legal term. Can you answer the question I put to you above, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No they are not repeating the claims, they are reporting the claims there is a substantial difference. It is a common way used by the media of protecting themselves from legal action, they only report what others are saying and attribute it to them. That is why when someone sues a newspaper they do not sue every newspaper that published the claims, only the one that originally published it. It is the same with parliamentary privilege, reliable sources often report on that and say "so and so said under parliamentary privilege" as in doing so they are protecting themselves from legal action. I bet you cannot find a single source that does not attribute the claims to Ed Moloney can you? If "alleged" is not a weasel word as you claim, then why is "alleged(ly)" shown as an example in Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words? O Fenian (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the newspapers are legally in the clear, but Adams might still sue Ed Moloney. Why doesn't he?

In some respects Adams and the IRA have been cleared. Hughes' account does have an air of plausibility about it. Some accounts have made out that the killing of Jean McConville was a straight sectarian killing, or some petty dispute over her giving a drink to a British soldier, it looks as if the IRA could have had serious evidence that she was a British agent.

I think a one-revert rule has been applied to this article, and it looks as if O Fenian has broken this. I am aware that this does not apply to poorly sourced material in a BLP, but I don't think this is poorly sourced. PatGallacher (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why doesn't he sue? As I just said, Moloney lacks the backbone to stand by the allegation. He can report "Brendan Hughes said this" providing he can prove it (and I have little doubt the tapes exist to do so) and get away with it, especially as Brendan Hughes is dead and cannot be sued, but he cannot say "Gerry Adams did this" otherwise he would be sued. 1RR does not apply to the removal of poorly sourced material, and an author who wrote a book containing the same accusation that Gerry Adams has described as libelous is obviously poorly sourced. O Fenian (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the law of defamation, but I am not sure Maloney could claim qualified privelege. Brendan Hughes was a one-time hero in Republican circles. He was at various times commander of the IRA prisoners in the H-Blocks (immediately prior to Bobby Sands), leader of the 1980 hunger strike (the dress rehearsal for the main hunger strike in 1981) and commander of the Belfast Brigade. His comments cannot be dismissed out of hand as "poorly sourced", even if he was in poor health and out of step with the Republican leadership towards the end of his life, and even if he is effectively now speaking from the grave. PatGallacher (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Moloney is the source publishing the claim, which falls under "Beware of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. If the source doesn't believe its own story, why should we?". I will attempt to outline the legal position:

1. Moloney publishes a claim that Gerry Adams did something. If sued, he would then have to prove that Gerry Adams actually did it, or that it was fair comment.
2. Moloney publishes a claim that Brendan Hughes said Gerry Adams did something. If sued, he then has to prove Hughes said it.

There may be other aspects of option 2 that could result in the case going against Moloney, but it is far easier for him to choose that option. So if Moloney does not believe the story enough to stand by it, why should we? O Fenian (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Would O Fenian object if he was reported for breaking 1RR? I know he's usually keen to see rules enforced - even for petty or technical breaches.Mooretwin (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Please let's not go down that route, Mooretwin.

@O Fenian and PatGallacher again - would there be any objection from ye to leaving out this particular claim and instead proceeding as outlined by ONiH in the section immediately above? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to that. Many things have been alleged about Gerry Adams over many years, this "new" allegation was in Ed Moloney's "A Secret History of the IRA" book published in 2002, so I do not understand the sudden rush to include it now, or why this allegation is so significant that it has to be included while others are left out. O Fenian (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to being reported for breaching 1RR? Mooretwin (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the crucial reason why we should avoid including poorly sourced negative information about living people in Wikipedia is to avoid the possibility of Wikipedia being sued. However, if legally Adams cannot sue Maloney for repeating Hughes' comments in a neutral way, then presumably Wikipedia can't be sued for repeating them in a neutral way either. Adams, love him or loathe him, is a prominent and highly controversial figure who has already declined to sue over various allegations of varying plausibility and verifiability which have been made about him over the years, I reckon the chances of him suing over any new allegations are pretty remote. PatGallacher (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How about putting it to the BLP notice board - this needs some neutral editors --Snowded ^TALK 03:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's suggestion. Might I also add that the inclusion of this allegation to Adams' article is not absolutely neccessary for the reader in understanding who Gerry Adams is; bearing that in mind, I think we should omit this very serious allegation until we receive permission from the BLP notice board to include it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If this is taken to the BLP board, are we going to see the discussion swarmed by people who've already made up their minds, leaving no space for the fresh input necessary? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

This is why neutral editors are essential.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The BLP issue is a complete red herring. There are many, many published allegations by reliable sources, claiming that Adams was an IRA member. (Equally, there are many denials, including a denial for the latest allegations to be published). There is no violation of BLP in a WP article reporting on what is being alleged and/or denied in the mainstream media.

No, it is not. BLP clearly says to avoid sources that use weasal words, and allegedly is a weasel word according to the guideline despite you denying it. The source uses the phrase "This allegation" quite clearly does it not? This is not some minor allegation of wrongdoing, this is an incredibly serious allegation about a living person. As I have now read the interview with Hughes in some detail, I must also point out the glaringly obvious point that Hughes gives first-hand details about McConville being an informer, an allegation which has been dismissed by the police ombudsman. O Fenian (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Include them all, though, and as has been said, we end up with a shopping list. Not including any reference to the allegations at all would, on the other hand, be a glaring omission. User:One Night In Hackney, in his comment of [March above], proposes what I think is an excellent compromise. Can we not go with that? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bastun and think the One Night proposal could do the job. --BwB (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted a BLP request - we need some neutral eyes on this one --Snowded ^TALK 13:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes some neutral eye would be good. As long as they are "green" eyes! --BwB (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently O Fenian has already added it yesterday morning without mentioning it here... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside comment

I have no involvement in this article and came here from BLP/N which I was visiting for an unrelated reason (I don't usually monitor that board). I don't pay particular attention to Irish politics (I'm from the USA and we don't hear about it that much here), but I basically knew who Gerry Adams is (sort of at the level of basically knowing who Emperor Akihito is). I consider myself hawkish on both the BLP and neutrality policies, and because those policies often conflict, I'm deletionistic towards BLP's in general. My view on this question is that:

1. Adams is a major public figure and therefore harder to harm than a mostly-private person; this factors into weighing the tension between BLP and NPOV;
2. The IRA allegations have been around forever, and are of sufficient prominence ("significant point of view") that the article has a neutrality problem if the allegation isn't mentioned (with high-quality citations of course);
3. The use of anonymous sources by journalists doesn't preclude including the info if the journalists' own names and editorial processes stand behind the story. Example: reporting about the US Watergate scandal in the 1970's was a major news event, prominently sourced to an anonymous informant notoriously called Deep Throat. It created major political drama, leading to US president Nixon resigning from office, and they made a movie about the reporting, All the President's Men. We didn't find out who Deep Throat was until 30 years after Nixon resigned. This is probably the most famous example of anonymous sourcing in news reporting that we hear about on this side of the ocean. It would be absurd for Wikipedia to not report on it.
4. Just because the target of an allegation says it's libelous doesn't mean that it is libelous. Otherwise every publication connecting Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks would have to be suppressed if Osama claimed he was being libelled. Just make sure the anything contentious is reliably attributed to prominent sources, rather than stated as fact. Even if it's known to be wrong, if it's prominent enough, it should be documented along with appropriate debunking (see birther).

However, the IRA thing shouldn't be overplayed, and it obviously has to be made clear that Adams denies it. Basically, erring to the side of caution here should be done in the assessment of due weight, by interpreting uncertain factors in favor of the subject, not by ignoring stuff that is well known and verifiable. The paragraph in the current version look reasonable to me on its face, though I haven't checked the sources. There shouldn't be a laundry list--just take the few most prominent. Or if you're ok with ONiB's proposal, use that. (I think that constitutes increased weight compared to what there now, but you folks are in a much better place than I am to decide if it's appropriate).

Also, from a general reader's perspective: I didn't realize the IRA allegation was even controversial. I had thought (obviously incorrectly) that Adams was an uncontroversially ex-IRA guy who later became a politician, sort of like Yasser Arafat's career prior to the PLO. So the belief is widespread enough that it should be mentioned even for the purpose of stating and citing Adams' denial of it. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for you views 66.... They are well presented and reasonable and I would have to agree with your position. We have to present the allegation of Adam's IRA membership and his denial in a balanced, but robust way. --BwB (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes 66 does make some very valid points. When we do present Adams' IRA allegations in the article, what about Sean O'Callaghan's accusations against Adams in his book Informer? Should these also be included?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that book. If there is no consensus about how credible it is, find published reviews by unconflicted reviewers in respectable sources that assess its credibility, and go by that. If it's an academic book, also check citations in Google Scholar (scholar.google.com). If it's an attack book aiming to influence politics (there are a lot of those about Obama), steer clear of it. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think O'Callaghan is highly-regarded. Anyway, as O'Fenian rightly points out, this is an extremely serious allegation and we must use each word with kid gloves. Foremost, it's essential that the article emphasises that Adams has always denied the IRA allegations.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not object to the IRA membership part being in the article, as that is well sourced by various books who state as fact not allege. Regarding O'Callaghan, it is the same as Price and others, when you have several respected academics saying something what benefit is there including his view? In addition, should the civil suit go ahead I would not object to details being included somewhere in the article, as then it would have progressed to more than an accusation by a dead man. O Fenian (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit more reading and made a new post to the second BLPN thread about Adams (the one opened by Snowded). I hadn't seen O Fenian's earlier BLPN thread when I posted further up. I see now (didn't understand before), the new issue is Moloney's recent book containing the dead guy's supposed disclosure connecting Adams with McConville. My suggestion at BLPN was basically to integrate a little bit more material about Moloney's book into the article about McConville, but put at most a brief pointer to it in the biography of Adams, unless more information comes out. Adams is the subject of far more documentation than McConville, so the weight of this single item in the mix of available material is proportionately lower for him than it is for her.

I should probably have brought up earlier that Wikipedia is supposedly a tertiary source, which means it summarizes the views of secondary sources, rather than directly interpreting primary sources. So in this case, what WP says about Moloney's book should be mostly distilled from the (considerable) press coverage that the book has received (some of which is unfavorable). I included a couple of possibly-useful links in the BLPN thread that I found in the google search that O Fenean had posted. I wouldn't use O'Callaghan's book if it's poorly regarded. I'll also add that BLP consensus has moved pretty far from the idea that BLP policy is just to protect Wikipedia from lawsuits. We're not a scandal sheet, we're supposedly writing a serious and reputable reference work, and we have an ethical duty of care towards our article subjects. So we (try to) hold ourselves to much higher standards than the minimal level needed to only stay out of legal trouble. It seems to me that people here are mostly acting pretty sensibly, a refreshing change from the insane atmosphere around WP articles about controversial US politicians ;-). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 06:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

So just to be clear, 66 - you wouldn't see an issue with including this or similar in the Jean McConville article, with further reference to Moloney's new book: "In March 2010, one of McConville's daughters, Helen McKendry announced she would be bringing a civil suit against Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams for his alleged role in her mother's death. <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/29/ira-chief-gerry-adams-mcconville Daughter of Jean McConville to sue Gerry Adams over murder] Guardian website, 29 March 2010 </ref>;"?

Similarly media coverage of the book, it's claims, and the subsequent denials could be included in Brendan Hughes, without breaching BLP? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I see an issue with that. I have no problem with a similar sentence going in when a civil suit is actually launched, but at the moment I see the claim as little more than grandstanding as the case will probably never happen. The "evidence" (that we know of) is an interview with a dead man, and we all know Gerry will go on the stand and deny everything. That is not a recipe for a winning case, and any reputable lawyer would advise against proceeding under those circumstances. O Fenian (talk) 17:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think using that link can be ok, but that the sentence attached to it should be written differently, and more context should be supplied, rather just than zooming to the part that says "Adams" (don't try to make a COATRACK). Close to half the linked article is Adams and his associates saying that the claims are false, so that denial should be stated if the link is used. I also hadn't realized the suit wasn't yet filed. I have to share O Fenian's skepticism about the suit, unless some new corroboration appears.

One way to present it could be to describe the Hachey-Hughes interview[2] that Moloney based the Hughes part of his book on (I guess that belongs in the article about Hughes). I see there is already some coverage of Voices from the Grave (VFTG) in the article about Moloney. Do people here agree that a) the Hughes interview supplied by Hachey is authentic (i.e. that Hughes really said those things, not necessarily that the things he said were true), and b) Moloney's presentation of it is accurate and not too partisan? Are there any academic reviews of VFTG yet (and are there any for Secret History of the IRA)? I notice that according to [3], Hughes says he heard of Adams' ordering of McConville's burial from Ivor Bell, so I have to wonder if Bell has been questioned by reporters and/or police about the disclosures yet. And if Hughes didn't claim firsthand knowledge, that seems relevant, but now we're impacting yet another BLP (of Bell). Blecch. I didn't notice any statements from Bell regarding VFTG in anything I looked at. (And I wonder if there is old animosity between Bell and Adams.)

I'm pretty sleepy right now but will try to come back tomorrow. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the interviews, they were conducted (with a wide range of IRA and UVF members) under a project run by Boston College, and I've not seen any claims doubting their authenticity. Moloney's writing may not be popular in some circles, but he's a former journalist of the year and Northern editor for the Irish Times. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As an outsider to the issue and considering that I am uninvolved in politics and as per BLP board request, I suggest that while there are reports of the allegations, to be selective and only use the academic sources -- not sources of tabloids, personal books that are not based or referenced well or news that are competing for the sensation. The principle of BLP is do not harm. It relates both to the selection of sources not to harm the subject and also to the fact that any such allegation, if not worded correctly, could be used to prejudice a legal outcome of the above mentioned challenges. I would suggest that any reference to these allegations should be worded without using the words Republican Army or IRA, but in a neutral tone, possibly using words such as 'Republican Connections' or 'alleged membership of a paramilitary group'. I hope my neutral opinion will of some help. Wikid^as© 10:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

SF in Lead

In the lead we have a couple of sentences that seem to be more about SF than Adams himself. Yes, of course as the Pres. of SF we need to mention that in the lead, but I do not feel the following text needs to be in the lead -

"...the political party at the top of the latest Northern Ireland election polls amidst a three-way split in the traditionally dominant unionist vote.[4][5][6] Sinn Féin is the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly[7] and fifth largest party in the Republic of Ireland." --BwB (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Having received no feedback in the last 5 days, I am going to remove the following text from the lede tomorrow, 16 August - "amidst a three-way split in the traditionally dominant unionist vote." and "Sinn Féin is the second largest party in the Northern Ireland Assembly[7] and fifth largest party in the Republic of Ireland." --BwB (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

removed text as discussed above. --BwB (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Early life text

In this section we have the test -

"When Third Way Magazine asked Adams whether he was a Christian he said: 'I like the sense of there being a God, and I do take succour now from the collective comfort of being at a Mass or another religious event where you can be anonymous and individual – just a sense of community at prayer and of paying attention to that spiritual dimension which is in all of us; and I also take some succour in a private, solitary way from being able to reflect on those things.'[11]"

• 1. I am not sure what this has to do with Adam's "early life"; and,
• 2. Where else in the article to put the test?

Feedback welcomed. --BwB (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose the removal of the text above on 16 August, unless there are objections. --BwB (talk) 13:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No objections to that being removed. Does not seem to add anything, would only be needed if that was the only thing about his religious beliefs we knew. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

That would leave almost nothing in the section on Early life though. perhaps that could be merged with the ancestry section? "Ancestry and early life" or something along those lines. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea Brit. We will see if others comment and then I will remove the text above and merge as you suggest. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 14:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Another reporter on allegations

Ed Moloney (1999 Irish "Journalist of the Year") has now published a fourth book in 34 years and a review of it (Business Post, Richard Curran [4]) begins with "The controversy over whether Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA or not isn’t really much of a controversy at all. Adams seems to be the only one saying he was never in the IRA". This looks to me like a main-stream response (a "secondary source") to the contents of the book, both bringing further endorsment to its contents and adding several useful details to the article. While BLP is a key policy everyone will wish to support, it cannot be allowed to justify censorship. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 11:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no censorship, Ed Moloney's claim that Adams was allegedly in the IRA is already in the article. O Fenian (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What's missing from the article is that in real-life, nobody defends Adams's record any more (or, not according to the Business Post review, anyway). When Adam's denial of IRA leadership is a battle that he's lost in real-life it seems bizarre to allow it to be re-fought at Wikipedia. It cannot be in the interests of the article that this be allowed to happen or to continue.

I note that here you see fit to edit-war at article Omagh bombing even though the consensus is against you and you were blocked for your edit-warring over the very same point, prefering to use an admittedly incomplete BBC report instead of what's actually known and reported by the court. I note that you placed an unhelpful warning on my TalkPage - I've explained at your TalkPage why I reject it - you've seen fit to delete it from there as if you plan to carry on doing whatever you see fit. None of this can be in the interests of anyone. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If Gerry has lost a "battle", perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link to when he has clearly and unequivocally admitted to IRA membership? Since you and I both know you cannot to that, the situation is unchanged as it has been for decades. People say Adams was in the IRA, he denies it. Scholarly works are already cited to that effect, so quite why we need an addition that amounts to "Ed Moloney has said it more than once" replete with a negative quote about Gerry Adams. A quote, not even by Ed Moloney but made by a book reviewer. Negative comments from book reviewers belong in articles about books and/or authors, they do not belong in articles about third parties who are living people. If you want to make that addition, you will need to explain how a book reviewer's opinion conforms with WP:UNDUE, since NPOV calls for significant views to be included, not the opinion of one book reviewer. I have already explained that you cannot reject the warning, and I suggest you stop making comments on talk pages that are irrelevant to improving articles. O Fenian (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the present wording is ok in that section however considering the claims of IRA membership is notable, it should have a neutral sentence on it in the introduction, explaining it is claimed by some he was in the IRA. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As we've already got the claims from multiple people versus Adam's denial, we've no need for a biased quote from a book review. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a good solid secondary source that backs Moloney's claim and says that nobody supports Adams's denials any more. Of course, if you have sources which say that some sources do support his denials (not sources speaking for themselves, but proper secondary sources) then we should include those too. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see what your comment has to do with the change you want to make, or what is has to do with the comments made by other people, since it completely ignores what everyone else has said. Please stay on-topic. O Fenian (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

So out of three people who reply (other than MalcolmMcDonald) two people object to the use of a book review for a quote about a living person, the other person says the section is fine without the addition, and we get the claim that "Talk discussion concludes this secondary claim on the lack of support for Adams denial is perfectly proper. Find a secondary source claiming the opposite and add that as well. If there is any". No it does not, anyone can see that. O Fenian (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of primary sources state that Adams was in the IRA, we also have (one?) secondary source stating that nobody disputes Adams was in the IRA.

Whether it's true or not, it's actually more important than the primary sources which say the same thing, and should most definitely appear in the article. Then we should add all the (secondary) sources which state he was not in the IRA. Your call. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, your comments here seem to have nothing to do with the text you proposed adding to the article, or the discussion other people are having. You have no secondary source stating "that nobody disputes Adams was in the IRA", I suggest reading it more thoroughly. I also suggest reading this discussion more thoroughly as you have failed to respond to any comments about that particular source, and are acting as though you will be using it soon which is unlikely to gain consensus due to the problems with it. O Fenian (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A book review, by its nature, is an opinion piece. Opinion pieces are not generally considered reliable sources. What would be reliable is a source that showed Adams' held membership in the IRA, using some irrefutable IRA documents, like for instance if the London Times had reviewed documents, etc, and was quoting from them. Otherwise, if Adams is denying he was ever in the IRA, then without proof otherwise, the book review is just another line of opinion. As it's not reliable, I don't think it should be included.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Is the EL section getting a bit long and could it use some pruning? See WP:EL. --BwB (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks

I see that some new wikileak cables have some comments about Adams. Taking a quote from The Irish Times article:

The official, according to the cable, told the ambassador “that the GOI [Government of Ireland] does have ‘rock solid evidence’ that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command.

Though wikipedia needs to have some balance. On the other side of the argument, what are the best sources for people who back up Adams that he was never a member of the IRA? A good source would be someone other than Adams himself. Perhaps someone who was high in the chain of command in the IRA and so would have had a very good idea if he had been a member. Aberdeen01 (talk) 15:01, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

There are also assertion in Wikileaks in some statements by Irish politicians that Adams was indeed a member of IRA. --BwB (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I had a look for quotes from people backing up Adams that he was never in the IRA, but all I found were quotes from people saying he was ( historians, journalists, police, policiticans, former IRA members etc). Has anyone ever backed him up? Aberdeen01 (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

A court acquitted him. I should point out the exact text of the cables should be looked at before there is even an attempt to add any information to this article. The cables do not say there is "rock solid evidence" Gerry Adams (and Martin McGuinness) had advance knowledge of the Northern Bank robbery, only that Bertie Ahern believes they had advance knowledge. O Fenian (talk) 10:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we say that "according released by wikileaks, Bertie Ahern believes they had advanced knowledge...."? --BwB (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, Mr Ahern has been forthright in saying that Mr Adams and Martin McGuinness, his deputy, were well aware of the planning of the Belfast raid and other robberies" was said in February 2005, so this is hardly new information is it? O Fenian (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I will add that I believe the information about the Northern Bank robbery could be added to the article, but not in the way it was presented. The "mainstream politics" section is a bit bare on post-Good Friday Agreement details, so a paragraph or two about negotiations over IRA disarmament in the time period in question, the robbery, Ahern's claims and so on could be added. That way it is all in context, not some so-called Wikileaks exclusive saying something that was said years ago. O Fenian (talk)

Good idea, OF. --BwB (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal by O Fenian. The cable quoted does not seem to say anything new. Context is necessary. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologize I don't know much about the rules of editing this article, but I'd like to ask how is the WP:1RR rule (one revert per 24 hours) applied for example in the case of O Fenian's two reverts in two hours. I do no know under what circumstances exceptions can be applied. I would like to commend O Fenian on his fine use of irony in his edit summary in which he mentions please stop edit warring ( see this edit. )

I'd vote in favour of including the following quote :

the GOI [Government of Ireland] does have ‘rock solid evidence’ that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command.

(reference provided above)

Being a member of the military command is a much bigger issue than having prior knowledge of a robbery. Aberdeen01 (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You must have missed the part that says "Clear vandalism, or edits by anonymous IP editors, may be reverted without penalty", reverting edits by IP editors does not count towards 1RR.

The addition you suggest is biased, dated, and adds little value to the article. See the earlier discussions about laundry lists, including the discussions in the archives as well as the ones still on this page. O Fenian (talk) 09:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

On one level we could say that everyone is biased to some extent and thus so is every statement. But with that attitude nothing could ever be included in wikipedia. The statement about 'rock solid evidence' is about as far from biased as it is possible. The release of the wikileaks cable is completely new to the public. It only came out a few days ago. It adds enormous value to the article to have the statement from the Irish Govt official that they had 'rock solid evidence'. The cable does indeed deal with events that happened years ago, but this article is about Gerry Adams' life and many important events in his life did indeed happen years ago. The article is not about what Adams has been up to in 2010.

The issue of Adams' involvement in the IRA keeps coming up in these discussion pages because there are many wikipedia editors who are unhappy with the laundered article as it stands. It seems that there is a tiny group of very active Adams supporters who polish the article to make Adams look squeeky clean. Aberdeen01 (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with your assessment, Aberdeen. --BwB (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you think the proposed addition of the GOI [Government of Ireland] does have ‘rock solid evidence’ that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command is unbiased then it actually says a lot about your own bias on this subject. It is a claim made by an ambassador, not a fact. The claim was made on 4 February 2005, so most people would think it quite strange that if it was true that a wholly different public statement was made on 21 February 2005 that "Bertie Ahern, said neither he nor the Minister for Justice had 'personal knowledge' of who was on the IRA Army Council. Mr Ahern said Mr McDowell had access to intelligence briefings, but that hard evidence was another matter". O Fenian (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And if you want to know what Bertie Ahern says on the same subject after the release of the cables, when asked if he knew Gerry Adams was a member of the Army Council he replied "Well, I don't know that for a fact but obviously there is historical information in that respect but that's up to him to answer". Where is his "rock solid evidence" then? He did not have it in 2005, and he does not know it for a fact in 2010! O Fenian (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You (OF) deleted my addition which was carefully neutral; that is what they said. Whether the comments on wikileaks were factual or not is not the point (see Flat Earth Society), and I mentioned Mr Adams' denial. I wasn't quoting Bertie Ahearn but widely reported US government communications:

"In December 2010 the Wikileaks United States diplomatic cables leak included a US Embassy cable from Dublin stating that the Irish Government had "rock solid evidence" that Mr Adams was a member of the "IRA military command" and knew about the 2004 Northern Bank robbery. Mr Adams has denied the allegations.

What is objectionable about that?86.42.197.36 (talk) 08:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe my objection are quite clear from this discussion already, and the objections of myself and other editors from previous discussions about laundry lists. O Fenian (talk) 09:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it O Fenian's objection is that the cable that came out just a few days ago is 'dated'. I'm not sure if many will back O Fenian up there.

His second objection was bias. Well, regarding the suggested insertion above beginning: "In December 2010 ...", I do not see any hint of bias.

Clearly wikipedia editors can't insert a line saying that there was rock solid evidence. However we can insert a line saying that the Irish Government official mentioned that they had 'rock solid evidence'. There is a big difference. Aberdeen01 (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you do not attribute beliefs to me, or any other people, based on your own incorrect assumptions. If you do not know the meaning of dated, or cannot see how it applies to the proposal in question, then you could always ask.

Were you planning on addressing the point that the now-former Taoiseach has made two statements that contradict the information in the cable, one of them only weeks afterwards? O Fenian (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We could indeed add a whole new section to the Adams article about wikileaks including for example the following from the Belfast Telegraph:

Former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern last night stood by his claims that the Sinn Fein leadership had prior knowledge of the Northern Bank robbery by the IRA. (here is the link)

However I would suggest leaving that out. Let's just follow what has become standard practice in wikipedia over the past few years since wikileaks started making their releases. We mention what was said and don't give our own interpretation or opinion of it. As to whether wikileaks is notable, well, there are almost 900 wikipedia pages with links to the wikileaks article. The wikileaks are mentioned all over wikipedia. On this discussion page, we can simply note that the wikileaks are notable. If we were to come to the oposite conclusion, then we would have 900 wikipedia articles to edit. Here is the suggested text to be restored to the Adams article which O Fenian has already removed twice:

"In December 2010 the Wikileaks United States diplomatic cables leak included a US Embassy cable from Dublin stating that the Irish Government had "rock solid evidence" that Mr Adams was a member of the "IRA military command" and knew about the 2004 Northern Bank robbery. Mr Adams has denied the allegations.

Aberdeen01 (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You do not appear to be listening to me, and worse still you do not even appear to listen what you say yourself. You say to just quote the cable, then propose an addition that completely distorts what the cable actually says.

You cannot ignore these reliable sources.

• 21 February 2005 "Bertie Ahern, said neither he nor the Minister for Justice had 'personal knowledge' of who was on the IRA Army Council. Mr Ahern said Mr McDowell had access to intelligence briefings, but that hard evidence was another matter"
• "Well, I don't know that for a fact but obviously there is historical information in that respect but that's up to him to answer"

Stop pretending they do not exist as you have done with your replies since I provided them, and address the points raised. O Fenian (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Christmas O Fenian: For a start I didn't propose the lines above, I merely suggested that they be restored after you removed them twice. I really am no longer sure if you're being serious. If you think that the lines 'completely distorts what the cable actually said', then I really think the argument is over and we cannot progress. You and I will just have to agree to disagree. As has been made clear above there are two separate issues here:

1: are the wikileaks notable? I think that to all editors ( bar a few SF supporters) the answer is clearly yes. Just as it is to the editors of the 100's of other wikipedia pages that now include wikileaks material. This is the important question that has been dealt with here and in other wikipedia discussion pages.

2: Was Bertie free to speak publicly about information that he obtained through all the different channels open to him? And indeed has Bertie always been inconsistent in his public statements. The answer to both questions is 'no'. But they are not particularly relevant here.

I suggest that we just restore the 'rock solid evidence' quote to the main article. All your objections such as it is 'dated' etc have been dealt with.

210.177.205.202 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

( Sorry I didn't reallize that I was logged out on this machine, the edit immediately above is from me: Aberdeen01 (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC) )

"In December 2010 the Wikileaks United States diplomatic cables leak included a US Embassy cable from Dublin stating that the Irish Government had "rock solid evidence" that Mr Adams was a member of the "IRA military command" and knew about the 2004 Northern Bank robbery" is the relevant part of your suggestion. "He said that the GOI does have "rock solid evidence" that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness are members of the IRA military command and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain they would have known in advance of the robbery" is the exact text of the cable. Do you not consider that the omission of "and for that reason, the Taoiseach is certain" or a paraphrase of it grossly distorts the meaning of the cable, since the original cable does not say that the Irish government had "rock solid evidence" that Gerry Adams had advance knowledge of the Northern Bank robbery?

Despite my earlier comment about "dated", you still presume I mean something else entirely. Here is a clue, "dated" does not have anything to do with the publication date of the Wikileaks information.

Who is telling the truth in the Irish government? The ambassador? Bertie Ahern? It is not for Wikipedia to decide. Once the Irish government gets its own story straight there may be a possibility of using the material. Gerry Adams has repeatedly challenged those in the Irish government who claim he is an IRA member to prosecute him, since it is a crime you know? Perhaps Bertie Ahern is "soft on crime"? If the Irish government are not willing to put their money where their mouth is and prosecute then why should their allegation be given any weight? The challenge has been put to them, if they think Gerry Adams is an IRA member then prosecute him. Put up or shut up, for want of a better term.

I have no objection to the Northern Bank robbery being added to the appropriate section and in context so it gives more information about what Gerry Adams was doing at that time, as I stated at 13:22, 15 December 2010. But all Wikileaks does on that is repeat what was said right back in 2005. So that would only leave the IRA membership part of the Wikileaks cable. On that score, I refer you to the repeated discussions about laundry lists of accusers. Worse still, this particular accuser is inconsistent in their comments. Apart from the British authorities, they are also in the unique position of being able to prosecute Gerry Adams for the crime they allege he is committing. They have not done so.. O Fenian (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see the same foot-dragging as there has been over the claim that Adams was in the IRA (see above). In that case we had a number of primary sources stating that Adams was in the IRA, and then we have Ed Moloney (1999 Irish "Journalist of the Year") writing a fourth book in 34 years and a review of it (Business Post, Richard Curran) begins with "The controversy over whether Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams was ever in the IRA or not isn’t really much of a controversy at all. Adams seems to be the only one saying he was never in the IRA".

The review looked to me like a main-stream response (a "secondary source", the best kind there is) to the contents of the book, both bringing further endorsement to its contents and adding several useful details to the article. While BLP is a key policy everyone will wish to support, it cannot be allowed to justify the kind of censorship we saw there and as we're seeing here. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that nothing has changed in these discussions, both in terms of the Wikileaks-related discussion that has been dragging on this month, and in terms of the longer term discussions about Adams' membership in IRA. The same statements have been made again and again, and, as with the numerous comments made above by O Fenian, all responses and statements of fact are ignored. Instead, we get pathetic accusations of "censorship," as made above by MalcolmMcDonald. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A way forward?

Disentangling the nuances and different perspectives here will not be easy, and since this is a BLP, I don't see problem with reviewing the available material at length. There is no deadline.

One small point, though. The incompatibility of Ahern's private statement with his public ones is not evidence of deficiency in any of the sources. It's entirely plausible that what a taoiseach says in a private discussion may be less-guarded than what he says in public about people with whom he needs to maintain a working relationship, and who he may not want to injure politically. Talk of the govt "getting its story straight" ignores the common political need for difft stories in difft places. That may involve telling completely difft stories to difft audiences, or simply saying a lot less in public than in private than in public, or deliberate obfuscation.

Whether Ahern did actually make the reported comments to US diplomats is a difft matter, and depends on the reliability we attribute to the leaked cables. The gap between reported public and private statements is not of itself a reason to assume unreliability.

Similarly, saying "if they think Gerry Adams is an IRA member then prosecute him" is a fine political tactic, but doesn't resolve the issue. If the govt believed that it had gold-plated evidence that Adams was an IRA member, it would still be quite reasonable for the same govt to believe that prosecuting him would not just fail the public interest test, but be an act of political vandalism to the peace process.

In the absence of either a clear public statement by Adams which the other parties accept, or a successful prosecution, all we have are a variety of inconclusive perspectives, none of which can be treated as uncontested fact. They can only be used by follwing the guidance at WP:NPOV and incorporating the the difft perspectives.

The question here is really not who editors think is right, but whether and how wikipedia can combine a pile of contradictory, ambiguous and evasive statements on all sides with an unverified leak of one interested party's account of a private conversation ... and still produce a neutral and reliable account of the the contested material available.

May I suggest that it would be best to set out a table of what refs are available, and invite comment from uninvolved editors? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea.

If, as a review of Moloney's book in the Business Post suggests Adams seems to be the only one saying he was never in the IRA then the default position must be to include these statements, and it is for others to persuade us that they're not helpful. Let's remember what we were told, you're either for us or against us in the battle against terrorism. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)