Talk:Gerry Adams

message: Please see Talk:Leader of Sinn Féin#Leader in Northern Ireland Assembly. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion now moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Proposals regarding various Sinn_Féin related articles. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the discussion here consensus is to change this article to remove mentions of the "Leader of Sinn Féin in the Northern Ireland Assembly" position. FDW777 (talk) 09:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion relating to this article taking place 

message: Should the section on his family's history of abuse really be included under the "controversy" section? It feels really out of place. Controversy implies that he himself was criticized for his actions or views, as in the "n-word" fiasco. I would place it in a section on his family and background. I am not going to take any action myself, just a thought.--Óli Gneisti (talk) 11:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies? 

message: Hi , let's discuss! There's no reason to think that Graham is an unreliable source. Any number of 'subject matter experts' have expressed the same view in writing, including those cited earlier in the section (Moloney, English). I don't know what the general view on this page on Radden Keefe's work is, but he discusses the same idea at length. From what I know the accuracy of his book has not been challenged, except by Adams and the like (which falls under the category of WP:MANDY). I'm not sure what the second half of your edit summary meant, so if you could expand on that that would be great. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: David A. Graham has no expertise in the subject area. What he's written is also inaccurate. Gerry Kelly was a Sinn Féin negotiator during the peace process, see for example this and this. His IRA background is not in dispute. Similarly Martin McGuinness was Sinn Féin chief negotiator during the peace process, see for example this and this. Although in later years he disputed the length of membership and the level of his seniority in the IRA, his IRA background is not in dispute. So it makes no sense for Graham to claim that Adams needed to deny IRA membership to be a credible negotiating partner, when two of Sinn Féin's negotiating team, including the chief negotiator, were convicted of IRA membership and/or activitity. Moloney deals with the denials in more sensible terms, stating that as Sinn Féin became more active and its election candidates, including Adams, were subjected to media questioning in particular Sinn Féin's links with the IRA and whether they were IRA members. Since answering "yes" to the latter question could lead to a five-year prison sentence, even for past membership, it is hardly surprising Sinn Féin candidates were instructed not to do so. The second half of my edit summary is a nod to WP:BLPCRIME, we state the allegation, and that Adams denies it. We don't need to try and hammer home his alleged guilt by claiming his denial is "plainly ridiculous". FDW777 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , fair enough, and you make good points. I think it would be helpful to add some of this information to the section to make clear to readers why it is in Adams' interest to deny he was in the IRA despite widespread evidence of membership, as that is the obvious question that may come to mind when reading the article. Ganesha811 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand the desire to add context to the denial, it's very problematic due to WP:BLPCRIME. As a living person, Adams is innocent until proven guilty. So I really don't see how to add context to the denial in a "he says he wasn't in the IRA, but he was really" type way while still being compliant with BLPCRIME. FDW777 (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , fair enough. But the question of whether Adams was in the IRA is not exactly obscure - it's been a widespread topic of discussion in reliable sources. I think the approach has to be to cover it using those sources - accurately conveying what reliable sources have said about his denial, while not using Wikipedia's voice to make accusations or analyze the situation directly. Focus on the statements of subject matter experts. It is tricky, though, and I understand your desire for caution. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does cover his alleged IRA membership, but I still don't see how to get involved in analysis of his denial without violating BLPCRIME. FDW777 (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

text: Regarding historic membership and prosecutions see for example Ivor Bell was was charged with historic IRA membership in 2014 (despite being expelleed from the IRA in the mid-1980s, see here). Similarly Kieran Conway would only travel to England to give evidence at an inquest if he was assured he wouldn't be prosecuted for past IRA membership. FDW777 (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context on Adams' denial of IRA membership 

message: This article has a controversy section that contains information about one single tweet containing the n-word. I‘m not saying that isn’t relevant, but we’re talking about one of the most controversial figures in the 20th century here. The tweet seems a bit ridiculous compared to all of the controversy around his potential IRA membership, the condolence of violence etc. I realise that information is in the other sections but this seems a bit strange. I think either the IRA stuff should be also referenced in the Controversy section or that section should be renamed to something like recent controversies. 95.222.53.72 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy