Sorry, did Bastun just claim to be an outsider to this article?! Codswallop. Yes, I was sugesting Off2riorob was an outside opinion, since he'd never edited the article before. Are you suggesting that his opinion isn't valid because he posted before you, but if he was asked and he reiterated his previous comments that he'd then become an outside opinion? 

Have you actually read WP:NOTCENSORED? If you have, perhaps you could actually explain which part of it is relevant to your argument. You'll also find you've picked completely the wrong person to try that argument on in relation to this particular article, since I made the pages of El Reg in relation to a previous dispute where I was attempting to include well sourced details of Adams' rather colourful past. Naturally you might not have seen that, but a look in the talk page archives would have shown you the nature of the dispute.

There is no attempt to "censor" this information from Wikipedia, it is currently sat in Gerry Adams Sr. without a problem. However there's no direct relevance to this article, since Adams states he has no recollection of being abused and wasn't aware of it until the 1990s. Why would we write about Gerry Sr. on the Liam Adams article, should it ever be created which I doubt will happen in the near future at least. That would be synthesis of the gravest order, attempting to imply a cause-effect link because one case of abuse and another when nobody has said Liam Adams was a victim of abuse by Gerry Sr. 

It would seem that Bastun is very much swimming against the tide of consensus, having failed to offer any cogent explanation as to exactly how this information is relevant to this particular article he's now making wild accusations of censorship. Tiresome. 303