Wikipedia

Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 1

< Talk:Gerry Adams
Latest comment: 17 years ago by 82.9.230.246 in topic NPOV
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Possible Copy Right Violation

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This [1] seems to be very close to this article it is uncanny, in fact I would suggest that it has either been lifted from wikipedia or visa-versa. The reason I raise it here that isn't it a breach of wikipedia's lienece to copy an article without citing wikipedia as the source? 194.80.54.90 13:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was lifted from here, there is reference to this on the discussion page. [2] I raised the issue of copyright/licensing in the context of another article [3], but copyright issues have not been properly taken on board by the politics.ie wiki as yet. I haven't edited there in a while, one of the reasons being a huge amount of information being lifted in from other sources without proper investigation of copyright etc. I just didn't have time to keep up with the volume of stuff being submitted. --Ryano 14:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing discussion

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why is there no discussion here? I thought there was one months ago - did someone remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.70.154.81 (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2005 (UTC)

Association with PIRA

Why is Gerry Adams association with the IRA (PIRA etc..) poorly defined. i.e. Early on it alleges that 'most' people don't beleive that he's a member / leader.

Whilst shortly afterwards it goes on to list his rising in the movement from the 1970's onwards?

Would it not be best to have this cleaned up by a neutral statement. i.e. 1. UK/Ire Intelligence believes he is a member of the IRA council. 2. Politically the UK /Other Irish parties want to throw dirt at the leader of an opposition party.

+ the little piece on Celtic Football Club should be properly referenced and more neutral. i.e. some may wish to blame all of the violence and rivalry upon Politics but football fans elsewhere rarely need this to actively hate and sometimes murder local oppostion fans.

Introduction

Latest comment: 18 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

The comments by McDowell hardly belong in the introduction, which is meant to give an overview of the most important points. I have tried to do this, and to reinsert McDowell's claims (which I doubt anyone seriously disbelieves, and remarks similar to which already appear in the next paragraph) in chronologically appropriate position. Palmiro | Talk 18:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Palmiro, why would anyone not believe McDowell? I disagree with removing that detail from the intro. He was the first Irish minister to come out and say this, and whether Adams is IRA is arguably the most important thing about him, or what many people regard as the most important. Intros are supposed to give an overview of the article's main points, and not stick to chronology. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
You've placed it at the end of the article, which isn't acceptable. This was a huge news story and speaks to what many people regard as the most important issue regarding Adams. It belongs in the intro and definitely not tucked away at the end. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I said that I don't think anyone disbelieves him. Adams' involvement in the IRA is a major issue (though hardly the most important thing about him) and is covered in the rephrased introduction. The question of "whether Adams was in the IRA or not" is less relevant as next to noone doubts that he was. So the fact that he is generally believed to have been is adequately covered. McDowell's comments are more appropriate in a chronologically suitable position in the article; alternatively, if you really believe they need to be covered in the intro, I would suggest a brief mention that "McDowell also said this" and referencing it in a footnote. Palmiro | Talk 23:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
While I don't normally revert good faith, NPOV edits even if I disagree with them unless there's already some agreement been reached, I have on this occasion because I think it results in a seriously unbalanced intro. Lots of other things are equally important: his role in the peace process, for a start. Also, the McDowell comment was a big news story but hardly the only one of similar scale about Adams (announcement of Humes Adams talks, GFA, even perhaps carrying the coffin of the Shankill road chip-shop bomber - and that isn't even mentioned in the article) have all received probably comparable attention. Palmiro | Talk 23:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I disagree, and I don't see how we're going to be able to establish which story was the biggest news item, except I'd say that Adams' alleged IRA membership is referred to constantly, whereas his carrying a coffin is not, though I take your point. That a member of the Irish government would publicly accused him of being a terrorist is extremely significant, and I think you'll find that, where allegations of terrorism are made against an individual or group by a reputable source, the allegations always go in the intro. So for example in the intro of Hezbollah, I believe we list which governments regard them as terrorist; in the intro of the Animal Liberation Front, we say that the Dept of Homeland Security has named them as terrorists; in the intro to Palestinian political violence, we say which groups are regarded as terrorists and who says so. I don't see why Adams should be an exception. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
By the way, in my latest edit when I wrote "tweak of intro," I didn't mean to revert you. I was still editing when you reverted, but I didn't realize you had. I shouldn't have gotten an edit conflict, but didn't, which is weird. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
There's a server problem of some kind. I've twice tried to restore my intro but with your other edits, but my edits aren't showing up. Could be a cache problem, but I'm noticing on other pages that people's sigs are "melting" and turning pages green and blue with lots of underlining, so something's going on. Anyway, to answer your question on my talk page, I did retain/restore your other edits. It's only my intro that I kept. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I thought something like that must have happened all right. But is this bigger than the peace process, which your intro doesn't even mention yet is surely Adams' most important contribution to Irish politics? Do you really think so? And I don;t think we "always find that"; Hezbollah states that it is regarded "by many in the Western world, by various non-Arab governments, and by the Israeli government as an Islamist terrorist or Islamic fundamentalist organization", which is much closer as a way of dealing with it to the version I had. The current version suggests that it is not so much Adams' membership of the Army Council that is significant as McDowell saying so. I really don't think this makes for a good or balanced (and let me clarify that where I've referred to balance, I've meant between different areas deserving coverage, not between POVs) article. Palmiro | Talk 23:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it was McDowell saying it as much as the membership itself, because it was the first time it has been publicly confirmed, which is tremendously important. I don't know what the implications are in terms of viewing the peace process, but it's definitely highly significant regarding Adams' role, which you say is the most important thing about him. So the McDowell statement is the most important thing about the most important thing.
I'd have no objection to your adding material about the peace process to the intro to balance things out. Intros should be longish and detailed in my view. This should be three paras, maybe four. Inverted pyramid.
You said above that there's no one who doesn't believe he is or was on the army council, so it's a bit of a non-issue. But it makes him a liar. That's not a non-issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Palmiro on this. The current introduction gives undue weight to this particular issue, not to mention giving undue weight to McDowell's "outing" of Adams. McDowell like everybody else can read and has read Ed Moloney's Secret History of the IRA, which details Adams' activities in the IRA - while not to be taken as Gospel it is a credible source which has been in the public domain for a number of years. I presume you consider the McDowell statements as most significant because he has access to intelligence reports, but information from these sources to the same effect has been made available to various journalists and historians previously.

Adams' senior and indeed central role in the IRA is broadly accepted as fact, barring perfunctory official denials from SF, which should be noted in the article. I don't think you can say McDowell's statements represent some sort of departure from previous comment on this issue. --Ryano 00:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The "liar" question is already covered, and McDowell's prima donna performance doesn't make Adams any more or less of one than he was already. McGuinness, Proinsias De Rossa, and numerous other people widely believed to have been involved in one IRA or another always deny it as well. The issue isn't whether he was on the army council or not, it's whether McDowell's remarks are worth an entire paragraph of the introduction in their own right. I wouldn't be inclined to include them at this length even in a 3-4 paragraph intro, to be honest. They belong in chronological order, with perhaps a mention that McDowell, or better the Irish Minister for Justice etc, is one of those to have referred to his membership of the Army Council. Palmiro | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 01:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I've asked another editor whose views I respect, and s/he prefers your intro to mine, but suggested it be strengthened. In particular, the part that says "is widely considered to have been" should be more specific. His membership was confirmed by the Irish justice minister (or whatever word you prefer) in February 2005. The way it's worded now makes it sound as though it's just a respectable rumor and that his membership may have ended a few years ago: there's no need to say "recently" when we know it was this year. Is that a fair compromise? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I've written up a compromise intro; let me know if it's okay with you. I've also added the McDowell paragraph to the end of the article, in chronological order, where Palmiro had it. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
On the whole, I think this is a very good, balanced way of dealing with it and makes for a good, readable article. My one doubt would be - yet again - an opposite interpretation of how to reach the same end: I think that this version possibly makes it sound like it was just McDowell who said that, as opposed to nearly everyone who's written seriously about the issue. However, at the moment nothing superior to your version springs to my 1950s Communist mind. Palmiro | [[User talk:Palmiro|Talk]] 13:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad it's okay with you, and I'm sorry about the reverting back and forth. Though if I'd know you were a 1950s Communist, I might not have capitulated so fast. ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Obviously my "Russion prpopeganda" is getting more subtle! (I think an evil cackle is called for here). Palmiro | Talk 16:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


The McDowell statement isn't 'confirmation'! It just isn't. The Irish prime minister still says he doesn't know if Adams was ever in the IRA, McDowell just hates sinn fein and everything it stands for, just because he said 'i belive 100% that..'.. belive is the keyword. Its all political posturing.

Hi everyone, I certainly don't believe that the most important thing about Gerry Adams is whether or not he was in the I.R.A. Would the more important things not be his political achievements of which I believe there are numerous!! And if MrMcDowell wishes to come out with a statement like that then so be it...but I definitely am not listening!! User:Oisin1 16:11 30 November 2006

NPOV

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments12 people in discussion

This article reads as though it has mostly been copied from a Provisional Sinn Féin pamphlet. I attempted to tone down the most extreme aspects, but SlimVirgin reverted them without explanation or even a note in an edit summary - just buried it when reverting Palmiro's work on the intro. Accordingly, I believe that the NPOV tag is appropriate and will do so. Comments are invited here. --Red King 21:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, see SlimVirgin's comment above: I think she reinserted all the lost changes.
I agree there are issues with this articles, but I don't agree they're serious enough to warrant a NPOV tag. Palmiro | Talk 21:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm also not sure what aspects of the article warrant the NPOV tag. Can you point them out? --Ryano 22:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Red King, I had a few weird edit glitches yesterday, so what I appear to have deleted/restored may not be entirely what I intended at the time. Apologies for any confusion. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, I further edited some of Red King's edits before SV's changes, so that may be the reason for some of the confusion. Particularly, I felt it was necessary to distinguish between SF ending abstentionism from the Dail and its continued policy of abstention from the UK parliament, as the two are quite separate and depend on different justifications. Palmiro | Talk 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the NPOV tag. The players in this whole category of Ireland's (North and South) politics need to have one big NPOV tag. The articles have to be written not from one side or the other's POV. The trouble is to my mind is that actual participants in the "war" are getting involved, and I'm afraid many appear to be centred around Dublin. I am personally a total outsider, but when I try to introduce some NPOV, it is immediately reverted. For example, the whole article of Ian Paisley make him appear in a very bad light, whereas Gerry Adams is the opposite. Any outsider would tell you that both are similar, ie, fighting for their own side. Quite frankly, I am pleased to live in a country where people do not know what these characters are, and indeed are blissfully unaware of Ireland and its politics. Wallie 14:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
From your previous edits [4] I don't think you're a disinterested observer at all. In fact, from [5] [6] [7], I'd conclude you are a troll. Demiurge 15:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I did make some comments on the Racism article. I just thought it was silly that a few countries had been selected out for racism, and other ones which do have racism were left out. I have learnt a few things since then, and should have mentioned this on the discussion pages first. My main intention here though is to redress the strong POV in some article, of which this is one.
PS: At the time I was annoyed at this comment "Immigrants have also labelled the Swiss way of integrating dark skinned foreigners as 'silent apartheid'. They are targeted by police and intimidated by authorities, experience frequent public humiliation and hate stares, and seats in public transport are typically left empty next to a Black person. The report concludes that it would be good to alert Black people to this issue about Switzerland, as up to the release of this report, many people assumed Switzerland to be free of racism." This statement is dreadful and completely false. I showed this to some black friends of mine, and they thought the intention was to stir up hatred, adding they had no encountered this sort of treatment. Other countries such as France were not even mentioned in the article, implying they had no racism. My input though got people thinking and there is much more stuff there now. I would not use this approach now, though. Wallie 19:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading your edits the claim that you are a disinterested observer is so laughable as to be absurd. Fanatics, whether republican or loyalist, forever come on claiming neuutrality and try to sneak in POV language. Those of us who spend our time reverting such vandalism (and end up being called 'west brits' by republicans and 'republicans' by loyalists) are used to such claims. Demiurge on the evidence is probably correct. People who make such unabashed edits reflecting one side of the community, and then claim to be a disinterested observer, are usually trolls engaged in game playing, not genuinely neutral controversers. User talk:Jtdirl 19:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No. If the articles were depicting a bad view of the republican side, I would not hesitiate to reverse this too. I may not be doing this correctly, but this is my intention. I do think that you are trying to get rid of me by calling me names, and I am not game playing, although I think you may be. I have not attacked you directly, so why should you me. Wallie 20:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Get back to the point

Can we cut the diversionary ad hominem attacks. Whatever his edit history (we all had finger trouble in our early days), he makes some serious points about this article and I agree. To my reading, this article is far more biased than Orange Order, which is still tagged. Can we get this straight - Saint Gerry is no Nelson Mandela! The Provos have delayed reconciliation in Ireland by at least three, maybe four generations. That is his legacy. --Red King 21:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

How can someone who makes a comment like that comment on an articles impartiallity! Red King, if you feel like that about Adams you will think that any thing that isn't completely negative is impartial. Personally I don't know about Adams but he certainly didn't set back communtiy relations any more than any of the other principals in Northern Ireland. I wouldn't compare him to Mandala either but i'd like to remind you that Mandala believed in militant action that could be considered terrorist when he was in the Spear of the Nation movement so i guess the two do share a certain amount in common. Adams manuvered the IRA into a position where it has destroyed all of its arms willingly so you can hardly claim 4 generations have been destroyed by him - personally! The north was a terrible cycle of violence and turning Adams into the Bogeyman for it all is as silly as blaming it all on mick collins or Ian Paisley or Tommy at the end of the road.

Of course I realise that it is a complex situation with many participants, and the blame game does not take us forward. But I can't accept an article that air-brushes the past - his or anyone elses's. The material has to be factual and honest. I certainly do believe that "the Provos have delayed reconciliation in Ireland by at least three, maybe four generations", but I recognise that as opinion, not fact - so it doesn't go in the article. The same editorial "blue pencil" has to apply to the near-hagiography material originally here too! --Red King 00:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Alls quiet on the Western Front

What has happened? Everything has gone very quiet on this article. Is it so POV, so far gone, that there is no one out there to save it? We need a saviour! Wallie 20:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've rewritten the opening. It gives a resume as to who he is and a summary about him. In professional writing a good opening section should be sufficient in itself to give an overall view of the person so that the reader doesn't have to read anything else in the article if they don't want to. See what you think. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 21:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It still read too much like Adams is a totally disconnected outsider who came to make peace. I've had another go, in particular adding the R word, which I suspect he doesn't like. He would do well to read the wiki article Truth and Reconciliation Commission. --Red King 00:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Jtdiri and Red King. To my mind, the article is starting to look better now. My own view of the major players on both sides is that their intention is to stop the fighting, let all people in NI have a chance, irrespective of their religion and to let the future evolve naturally. It is important that we present the major players on both sides using a similar style of writing about them. Wallie 07:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

McDowell, Sinn Fein, the Troubles ...

Very Interesting all of this. Firstly. Michael Mc Dowell is notorious for his sweeping statements that are never backed up with evidenvce. Hes constantly bashing Sinn Féin with very hostile remarks but never elaborates further when questioned. He is just one of many southern politicians who fears the political threat poised by Sinn Féin. His comments about the IRA involvement in The northern bank stand out most for me because he plainly said that MArtin Mc Guinness and Gerry Adams are and always have been on the Army Council- But as of yet no proof has been produced to back any of this up. A few politically motivated arrests but little else. Gerry Adams being a racist? Im not going to even bother trying to argue that because the person seems to be fairly narrow-minded and tragically bigoted! I agree with one of the statements made and that is that both sides have dirt on their hands but I have to remind the Unionists here that the majority of nationalists and catholics were committed to civil rights until 13 innocent people were shot and the British Government began to pass laws making it impossible for marches to take place legally. We were backed into a corner, what other option were we given, we were a minority under constant attack and before the sabotage of the Civil Rights the IRA and Sinn Féin were fairly insignificant, You cannot oppress a people then oppress them some more when they campaign for their rights peacefully and not expect them to turn to other methods.


That's one of the best written statments I've yet seen here concerning the Troubles. However, could you please sign it? Happy New Year, Fergananim 20:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If Gerry Adams is Ulsters equivelant of Mugabe then I wonder who Aiden Works hero Ian Paisley is the equivelant of.

um, pre-holocaust Hitler? --Grollum 00:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Alexander the Great Wallie 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
A notable homosexual? Odd choice for the leader of "Save Ulster from Sodomy".... --Kiand 15:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
ian paisley is not a terrosrist. Unlike a certain Mr. Adams. Cicero Dog 19:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
he is, infact, a reverand, I believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.9.230.246 (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Gerry Adams' Irish/Gaelic name

Latest comment: 18 years ago67 comments8 people in discussion

According to User:Kiand, the Irish or Gaelic version of Gerry Adams' name is not relevant to the article, because according to Kiand, only English names are relevant in an English wikipedia. I think this is wrong and that Gerry Adams' Irish name should be reinstated in the article as:

Bwithh 22:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't follow Sinn Féin's own precedent on this issue and use his English name in English language texts, i.e. en.wikipedia.org, and the Irish version in Irish language texts, i.e. ga.wikipedia.org. --Ryano 00:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to get into a ridiculous edit war on this, but there are plenty of examples of insertions into the encyclopedic text of wikipedia articles which lead to talk pages - that's one of the main ways that wikipedia functions, if you haven't noticed Bwithh 00:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I must say I haven't noticed, but like everyone I've only read a fraction of WikiPedia so I can't say it's never done. Obviously talk pages are linked where pages are tagged for NPOV, FAC or whatever, but these tags are outside of the text of the article itself. If there's something in the article which needs qualification, a footnote seems much more appropriate. --Ryano 10:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
It uses a back-translation of his name in to Irish in Irish texts. That doesn't change his name in English, nor does it change this being the English language Wikipedia.
English is the de facto global language. Which makes the English language wikipedia not simply the exclusive domain for native English speakers, but also the de facto global Wikipedia. Bwithh 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
A translation of his name in to Irish is no more relevant to this article than a translation of his name in to French, Arabic, Hindi or Japanese does. This is the English language Wikipedia and the subject is named in English. There is no discussion to be had. --Kiand 05:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
But Gerry Adams is Irish - are you saying that an Irish person shouldn't have an Irish name or are you saying he isn't Irish? Also, arguments like "there's no discussion to be had" violate the spirit of Wikipedia. Bwithh 06:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting we include an Irish translation of the name of every Irish person on wikipedia? --Ryano 10:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Why not? It's standard for Chinese people etc. to include their Chinese name etc. Bwithh 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Thats because their names are translated in to English for article titling purposes. Peoples whos names are already in English do NOT have their name translated for article titling purposes, and there is no valid reason to include a translation to any other language of their name. --Kiand 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, use of the Irish form of the name where that form is NOT in everyday use in the English language (which is certainly the case here) violates the Manual of Style. So there is no excuse, whatsoever, to include it. --Kiand 05:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I just read the Manual of Style you pointed out - it seems to me that the style guidelines encourage the inclusion of the Irish name with the English name. Doesn't appear to be nearly so clear-cut as you make it sound Bwithh 06:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
No, it only encourages it when their name was in Irish or was always used in Irish. Read it properly. Its entirely clear-cut. --Kiand 12:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Good Friday Agreement. By the way, suppressing Gerry Adams' Gaelic name and only allowing his English name in the article violates the spirit and letter of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement between the UK and Irish governments, which specifically requires that the Irish and Ulster-Scots languages be given official recognition on par with English in Northern Ireland. Please see subsections 3. and especially 4. under the section "Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity: Economic, Social and Cultural Issues" (do a keyword search for "language") in the full text of the agreement available here (pdf document) and here (html). Bwithh 07:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The Belfast Agreement doesn't apply to the Wikipedia. --Kiand 12:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
The Belfast/Good Friday Agreement was approved in referendums by 71.12% of total turnout of Northern Irish voters, and 94.4% of Republic of Ireland voter turn-out. My point is that your stance is against the common majority view of Northern Irish and Irish people. http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/politics/election/ref1998.htm

Yes, the agreement does not apply directly to Wikipedia, but it applies to discussion of the validity of Irish language names for Northern Irish Irish nationalists. Bwithh 17:21, 13 April 2006 (UTC) Bwithh 17:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Still doesn't make it apply to the Wikipedia, sorry --Kiand 17:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My view on the matter is that as Adams uses the Irish version of his name from time to time, there is no problem with including this in his Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopedia which should provide comprehensive information about the subjects it deals with. People interested in reading about Gerry Adams would surely be interested in learning what his name in Irish is. Including the (correct) Irish version of the name would also ensure that the correct version is popularised. This shouldn't be the basis of an ideological edit war. There are more important tasks on Wikipedia than this. --Damac 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Damac's remarks seem sensible to me. Palmiro | Talk 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. If use is actively made of the Irish version of a person's name in parallel to the anglicised version, both versions are entirely pertinent. --Kwekubo 20:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
But use is only made of it in Irish, and its a back-translation as his name is actually in English. This makes it no more relevant than a back-translation to any other language. Theres no reason for a "special case" for what isn't even the second most spoken language in Northern Ireland - Mandarin Chinese, and if all "recongised" languages of NI are to be covered, we're going to need Ulster Scots as well as Irish. Having in only Irish as a back-translation is a POV violation. --Kiand 21:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Kiand, I disagree with you fundamentally and so too do most people above. Anyone with any knowledge of Irish history and politics knows that it is common for prominent personalities, nationalist/republican politicians especially, to sport the Irish version of their names occasionally. Whether these are "back translations" as you call them is irrelevant. If you cannot see that there is a particular link between names such as Adams/Mac Ádhaimh, Brady/Ó Brádaigh, Fee/Ó Fiaich etc., you are very poorly informed.
My bottom line is that this is an encylopedia and we should endeavour to provide comprehensive information about the subjects convered. This includes providing the varities of name that the person uses for themselves.
Nobody here is calling for the subject's name to be rendered into Ulster Scots. There are no Ulster Scots variations of proper names.
If this is really a matter dear to your heart, then call a vote on the matter or propose a change to have the relevant manual of style on Irish articles altered. We really have better things to be doing on Wikipedia than dealing with your unilateral one-man campaign.--Damac 22:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Theres no "Irish versions" of English-language proper names either, they are back-translations. Often unverifiable back-translations - my surname, for instance, is apparenty "Irish" yet has two completely conflicting back-translations, both of which are in use by various people. Comprehensive information doesn't include the rendering of someones name in other languages. --Kiand 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
So it's all about you venting your frustration on Wikipedia about your own name.
In many cases, there are a number of versions of family names in Irish. This is well known. Very often similarly sounding names were given a common anglicisation, or this developed as a result of bureaucratisation and education. How did you become Duffy for example? Perhaps it should be O'Duffy, Duffay, Duffey, or Duffie. All exist and all are English versions of the Irish name Ó Dúfaigh/Ó Dúbhaigh. If you claim there's another variation, I'd be very interested in hearing it.
Your own difficulties with your own surname aside, the fact remains that the subject in question here uses a particular form of his name in Irish as is his right. As an encylopedia, we should aim to provide comprehensive information on the subjects we deal with. Including a reference to the names that the subject uses for himself is part of that. I expect that when I read articles on other subjects.
As I said before, go through the formal channels to have Wikipedia policy changed if you really want to – you know you'll be voted down!--Damac 07:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
No, its nothing to do with that. As goes policy - The MoS already says the Irish name is to be used if the persons name -IS IN IRISH-, thats it. The policy is already there, its all covered. Theres nothing to be voted down over. Gerry Adams was named in English. This is an English-language article. Hence no faked-up back-translations to -any- language are relevant. There is no more reason to include a back-translation to Irish than to include a back-translation to Esperanto. As goes the subject using it themselves, he doesn't when speaking English./. --12:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Wrong, the MoS refers to the naming of articles. What we are discussing here is providing information within an article. They are two different things. Now, I suggest you either a) try and have the MoS changed to reflect your one-man campaign, or b) find something more productive to do on Wikipedia.--Damac 14:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
You clearly didn't read the MoS page I linked above, or you'd know everything you've said there to be wrong. If anyone has a "one man campaign" here, its you, as the MoS doesn't have anything to "change", and you're the one pushing to include irrelevant back-translations of someones name to alternative languages - what language it is is irrelevant. Putting one in is POV-pushing, so theres none. --Kiand 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
On pretty much every Wikipedia article, the common practice is to give the local-language or original language version of proper names when they are not generally used in English. Pretty much every entry on an Irish town has the Irish version of its name given. Why is it so offensive to provide this information in this article? What harm can it possibly do to include it? This is a bit weird.
As for the manual of style, it says, "In cases where someone used the Irish version of his or her name but this does not enjoy widespread usage, then use the English version when naming the article but refer to the Irish version of the name in the first line." Is it disputed that Gerry Adams frequently uses the Irish version of his name? It also says, with regard to "other names": "When the English version of a name is more common and recognised by English speakers (than the corresponding Irish name), prefer that English name for the article name, but mention the Irish name, (same as dealing with geographical names, as described above)."Palmiro | Talk 16:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Towns/places have official translations to Irish. Names do not, they have back-translations from English. THAT is the big, big difference. And I've never, ever heard of Adams using the Irish back-translations version of his name in English. --Kiand 17:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Back-translations from English? I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but it doesn't convince me that readers need to be protected from the Irish version of Gerry Adam's name! Palmiro | Talk 17:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
If your name is in English, it doesn't have an "Irish version". It has a back-translation to Irish that changes by what person translates it, region, etc, etc. Its also no more relevant to an article than back-translating an English name to any other language. --Kiand 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This difference between a "version" and a "back-translation" seems odd to me. Many Irish people have both an Irish and an English version of their names, in many cases the translations are conventional equivalents which of course may or may not correspond to the actual original form of the family name when it first came into use in either language. Many people use both versions, depending on which language they are using, and wouldn't necessarily see one as a translation (or back-translation) of the other. But regardless of that, Adams' name in Irish is widely used in Ireland, including by Adams, and is therefore directly relevant. WRT your point regarding official names, we also seem to give the Irish names for towns in Northern Ireland which do not, as far as I know, have an official Irish name. And you still haven't made any argument that I can see as supporting the idea that including this useful and relevant information would be harmful. Palmiro | Talk 17:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, unless an actual officially endorsed translation can be found, I'd suggest removing them, but as in most cases there is one - either from the regional authorities in the north or the assembly/executive/whatever political stuff done since 1998 that recognises Irish, thats generally a null issue.
As goes it being "harmful", its not. But its entirely pointless, because its an unofficial back-translation which is likely to be disputed in its accuracy; and this is the English Language Wikipedia. There is an Irish language Wikipedia which is missing an article on Gerry Adams, if those who want the Irish back translation of his name to be known so badly could use their Irish language skills to write it, that would be a far, far better idea.
I also refer you to the policy of "Use English" that applies to the en. wikipedia. Also, his name in Irish isn't used in English, by any stretch of the imagination, let alone "widely". --Kiand 18:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
His name in Irish as used by Adams himself is not liable to be disputed, and the policy of using English has never been taken to preclude giving the names used for the subject of an article in other languages, where relevant. Here, it is clearly relevant. Palmiro | Talk 18:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
How is it relevant? The article is in English. We're on the English wiki. Adams speaks English. He was named in English. Placing his name in in Irish veers close to breaking WP:NPOV, particularly as its a translation. If you want his name in Irish to be used: ga:Gerry Adams is not only what the ga. wiki links to for his name, its also non-existant. --Kiand 18:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Kiand, this has gone far enough. Most, if not all, of the contributors above disagree with you. Either drop the issue or undertake formal moves to have your thoughts on the matter made policy. If you don't, I intend on starting a proper discussion on the issue tomorrow on the Irish MoS page. --Damac 21:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that it already -is- policy. The Irish MoS, page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), WP:NPOV, etc, etc, etc. Additionally, its only here that people disagree over it, on the Irish Wikipedians Notice Board there seems to be general agreement that using entirely made up back translations is completely pointless.
Once again, why don't you apply your Irish skills to helping on the Irish language Wikipedia? This is the English language one. Its at http://ga.wikipedia.org, in case you didn't know... --Kiand 21:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Kiand, could you kindly point out to the rest of us which lines in WP:MOS, WP:IMOS, WP:UE or any other policy page you've cited state that alternative versions of a person's name, used by that person, don't merit inclusion in Wikipedia? --Kwekubo 00:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Its not an alternate verison used in English. Hence UE comes in. Its also not his actual name, which is where the IMOS comes in, as its coverage of Irish names extends to situations where its the persons actual name. It has as much (or as little, in this case) merit for inclusion as a translation to any other language. --Kiand 00:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Rubbish. Brownie wasn't on his birth certificate either. UE says that article titles should use the most common name in English; nowhere does the guideline (note that, not a policy) state that alternative names or version of someone's name, actively used by the person, are irrelevant to an English-speaking audience. You appear to have missed or ignored the paragraph at WP:UE concerning inclusion of alternatives. --Kwekubo 00:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
But a back-translation of a name which was never in Irish isn't an "alternative", its a back translation of a name that was never in Irish. Hence the alternatives rule doesn't apply. If he was actually named "Gearóid Mac Ádhaimh", it would. But he's not. Its no more an "alternative" than translating it in to any other language. --Kiand 00:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Kiand said: "its a back translation of a name that was never in Irish". Interesting, can you back that claim up?--Damac 05:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
WP:V would have the impetus on the person claiming that the Irish version is valid to prove it. However, I'm sure that Adams' prison records will show the legal version of his name, as does the Northern Ireland assembly, etc. In fact, everything in an official context in English use the only officially valid form of his name in English. --Kiand 09:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Well this source, published in 1921 so long before GA emerged to entertain us, claims that the Adams family were settlers from Scotland to Monaghan. He adds that "The dialect of Gaelic they spoke was the same as the inhabitants of Ulster spoke when they came, which dialect is now known as Irish" and goes on to provide a Anglicisation of the Mac Adhaimh name as Adams, Adamson, or McAdam. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
Any chance you might be able to provide me with proof, seeing that you brought it up, that there are a number of Irish variations for the name Duffy? I'm very interested!--Damac 11:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
What you've provided there means absolutely nothing. Gerry Adams legal name is in English. As goes my surname, you provided two variations I've never seen in use, but during my primary school years alone I saw "O'Dufaigh" and "O'Dubhthaigh" in use. For one surname, thats now -four- backtranslated versions. Yet more proof that an "Irish name" is unverifiable, and nothing but a mere fabrication when someone is named in English. --Kiand 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Delightful! You've confirmed what I alraedy thought. "O'Dufaigh" and "O'Dubhthaigh" are not Irish names. Anyone with a modicum of Irish primary education would know that there are no apostophes after O in Irish surnames. The Irish article MoS would tell you that. Your NT and secondary teachers must have been idiots if they told you your name in Irish was "O'Dufaigh" or "O'Dubhthaigh". Or else you just weren't listening, developed a resentment towards the Irish language and grew to dispise those who can produces fadas with their keyboards. You are certainly not a Category:User ga-2 with your knowledge of Irish.
Ó Dufaigh/Ó Dubhaigh/Ó Dubhthaigh (the fada on the u above was a typo of mine) are all spelling and regional variations of the same Irish name. They all mean the same thing. The variations resulted spelling reforms in the 1950s and 60s, just as Béal Átha na Sluaigheadh (Ballinasloe) became Béal Átha na Sluaighe and finally Béal Átha na Slua (spelling changed, pronunciation remained the same).
Ever come across of Smith, Smyth, Smithe, Smythe?--Damac 12:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
As goes using an apostrophe, thats because I'm used to the punctuation and spelling rules of the laguage I speak and use every day, not the one I was forced to learn in school (to quite a high level) and have not used since. You yourself made a typographical error, which you admitted to. The fact that regional/spelling variations of the SAME NAME IN ENGLISH exist in Irish just shows that the translations are what I've been saying all along - an "Irish name" is an entirely fabricated back-translations. Variations, in English, of English language names are unconnected, as they've not been buggered up by translating --Kiand 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Kian - wonder how you "back-translate" that name into English - you should really check out Irish name and try to understand the subject before you take up so much space so uselessly. What suprises me is that you are Irish and still managed to write such nonsence. Am I wrong in suggesting that its not so much the name-form as the person concerned that annoys you so much? Sincerely, Fergananim 16:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

"nonsense" - erm, no. My name is in English. Its never been in Irish. The same applies to the majority of people born in Ireland in the past 80 years. I have no interested in the "person concerned", my interest is in that pointless, completely incorrect and invalid translations to an unconnected language are being made. It doesn't matter what the language is. Adams was named in English, that is his only valid name in English. The only reason the debate is here is because it started here, I'd be quite willing to continue this somewhere else. All people who are arguing to include the Irish translation seem to have some strange emotional attachment to using on the en. wikipedia. It is no more valid here than a coversion to French, German, Spanish, Esperanto, Klingon or ROT13. If you were attempting to place translations to any of them, I would be opposing them also. There is no reason, whatsoever, to include a translation to Irish of anyones name, whatsoever, on the English language Wikipedia.
The spelling of my name is also unconnected and just shows how petty you've had to become in an attempt to justify a pointless translation of a name in to a language you obviously want to push, for some reason. --Kiand 17:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This debate has gone on long enough between here and the manual of style, and to be honest Kian it seems clear that you have no support for the view that verifiable Irish forms of personal names that are or have been used should not be included. As far as I'm concerned, consensus has now been established that such forms can be included where they are verifiable. Palmiro | Talk 17:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say that three people here + one of those on the IMOS over 2 on the IMOS + another person on the Noticeboard doesn't form any form of concensus, whatsoever. --Kiand 17:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
"Adams was named in English, that is his only valid name in English." Why then have you not taken issue with the mention of Adam's Provo nom de plume, 'Brownie'? --Kwekubo 19:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I would prefer if you copied, rather than cut text from my comments, thanks.
Whoops, didn't mean to do that. Sorry. --Kwekubo
As goes his nickname, this is entirely different territory. And its used by people speaking, shock horror, ENGLISH. Not Irish. Whereas the Irish translation of his name isn't used in English, or at least with no regularity - I'm sure someone will pedantically drag up a single google hit for it being used in an English speech or something... --Kiand 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I do not see why this is different. At the end of the day "Gearóid Mac Adaimh" is the name that Adams usually calls himself when he writes in Irish. Douglas Hyde sometimes called himself "An Craoibhín Aoibhinn" (the pleasant little branch [8]) when writing in Irish. Why would that fact be, in itself, irrelevant to those who don't speak Irish? --Kwekubo 23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Its not anything he calls himself in English, or something others call him in English, hence its completely irrelvant to the English language article. Once again, the fact that its Irish doesn't add anything to it being a translation of his name to another language. We wouldn't include translations to anything else, so why Irish? Systematic Bias comes to mind...--Kiand 23:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • As a non-Irish person, I've just been observer for most of this discussion. I continue to believe, along with several other Irish Wikipedians here that Gerry Adam's Irish language name should be included in the article, for reasons I have already outlined above (perhaps the most straightforward and clearcut reason being that the inclusion of non-English names where relevant to the subject in an article is commonplace in Wikipedia). Since Kiand's opposition to Gerry Adams' Irish/Gaelic name seems to be immovable - I suggest that this issue goes to some kind of formal arbitration process? Bwithh 17:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, non-Irish people are just as entitled to give their views as Irish people. Secondly, arbitration is unnecessary since a consensus has been established that the name should be included. Palmiro | Talk 20:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
For the record I don't go along with that consensus but neither do I think it's worth falling out over. --Ryano 23:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
As an observer to this debate, I've noticed that only one person, namelyKiand is in disagreement with the consensus. Just browsing through wikipedia, there are plenty of articles where a non English name is included, for example Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese to name a few. One suggestion to settle this matter is to take a vote on the matter. If the majority agrees that Gerry Adams' Gaelic name should be reinstated, then that should be end of this matter. Honestly I don't think wikipedia should bend to the will of a few individuals. 129.2.237.44 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
In those cases, their name has been translated to English for the article in the first place, and their actual and legal name is in those other languages. Its not like we translate any and every name to any randon non-English language Including a translation to a non-English language - for that is what it is - is 'bending to the will of a few individuals', namely those that wish to push Irish completely pointlessly. There is a policy of using English, and including translations of English names to other languages violates this. There is a huge idiological, nationalistic, call it what you like hangup that makes some people think Irish has extra status, extra importance. It doesn't. A translation of the name to ANY language other than what it is in, barring to English - which is the policy here - is irrelevant information (also against policy). --Kiand 19:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty surprised by the attitude of the above paragraph, Kiand. This isn't translating the name to any and all languages possible, nor giving some floaty honorific status to the Irish language. It's giving alternative names or versions of names, used by the person or body in question. Remember that WP:UE (a) isn't a policy and (b) refers to naming conventions, not to foreign language content in the Wikipedia. No English monoglot would write the name of China's capital as anything other than the transliteration Bejing or Peking - yet the Bejing article gives the Chinese 北京市. RuG is always referred to as University of Groningen by English speakers, but always as Rijksuniversiteit Groningen by its students in Dutch, and usually in English too. An Daingean is still Dingle to most English speakers; Brian O'Nolan sometimes called himself Brian Ó Nualláin, Flann O'Brien and Myles na gCopaleen; and Adams calls himself Gearóid Mac Adaimh in Irish. The information is accurate, and adds to the readers knowledge of the subject - people outside Ireland most likely aren't going to guess on their own what the Gaelic equivalent of 'Gerry Adams' is. Therefore I don't see why you have such strong objections to including relevant foreign language translations of a name or phrase in an article. --Kwekubo 20:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
People living outside Ireland are unlikely to care, at all, about a translation of his name in to Irish. You're inflating its importance due to what you yourself feel. And he doesn't "call himself" Gearóid Mac Adaimh in English which is all that matters here. --Kiand 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
If you direct your eyes directly above your comment you'll note that I also dissent from this consensus. However I don't have any big ideological hangup about it, I just think it's strange to include the Irish version of his name in an English language article, as I have never seen it used in any other English language context. I feel it gives a mistaken impression, but I'm happy just to have my dissent noted and move on. If someone were to create an article about me on here, I would think it odd if they included the Irish version of my name. --Ryano 09:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
What mistaken impression might including the Irish version give? --Kwekubo 10:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The impression that the Irish version of his name is in common use in English language contexts. --Ryano 11:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
That shouldn't be an issue for excluding mention of the name, the rationale can be made explicit within the article if needed.--Kwekubo 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, though it would probably better for a clarification on something like this to be in a footnote than in the main text. Palmiro | Talk 11:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
If I had written the article to begin with, it wouldn't have occurred to me to include the Irish name either, but on the whole I think the arguments in favour of inclusion outweigh those against (while my gut feeling is "undecided", I think the actual arguments against are quite weak and the arguments for - apart from the GFA one - reasonably strong). At the same time, I think the case of state officials who make official use of their Irish name (eg Taoisigh and Presidents) probably requires the inclusion of the Irish name; here, it's more "why not, since it's accurate and relevant information"? Palmiro | Talk 10:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Kiand is sadly unaware of the fact that Gaelic was almost lost because of the English language and as to his comment about being forced to learn Irish in school does he not know that the Catholic people of Ireland were forced to speak English. Oisin1 18:03 Nov 30 2006

Gerry's name in Gaelic

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Regarding Gerry Adam's name in Gaelic, i've met Mr.Adams a numerous times and he insisted i either called him 'Gearóid' (Gerry or Gerard) or an tUasal Mhic Adaim (Mr.Adams), because he knew I had fluent Irish and was insulted that I called him Gerry. Therefore, i do think the Gaelic version is relevant and almost crucial. Mr. Adams is fluent in both English and Gaelic (Irish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by John McCarthy (talk • contribs) 16:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On an unrelated subject, the Maze prison is not referred to as Long Kesh in Ireland. The prison was formerly called HMP Long Kesh as it was built on the site of a former RAF base of the same name. However, the prison is now called HMP Maze or simply "the Maze" by both sides of the community except the most diehard of Irish Republicans.

The majority of nationalists refer to it as Long Kesh (86.131.171.213 18:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC))

Minor Details

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I think the article is good, a few things jump out at me:

  • the bit on the "Dissembling Tactic"? There are other issues around this too afaik.
  • he was interned in 1972 on HMS Maidstone, then reinterned 1973-1977. Sinn Fein bio He also tried to escape twice.
  • details on the 2nd Dail mentality preWW2 appear in other articles so will try to link
  • Is it worth including a bibliography? Doesnt he publish a lot?
  • FRU agent "Martin Ingram" says that the ammo Brian Nelson gave out to kill Adams was deliberately tampered with to prevent Adams death. British Intelligence wanted Adams kept alive.

Like the article though, hard issue to be nuetral POV on. Fluffy999 16:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Bold text

I've added a Bibliography-he's written quite a large volume of material. Although I only have complete details for some of the books.GiollaUidir 20:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephen rea did not do the voice for gerry adams and if he did he wasn't the main actor who did it. The main person was the guy who played butch dingle in emmerdale. I have changed thename to the actor who played butch dingle in Emmerdale as it was not Stephen Rae.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gerry_Adams/Archive_1&oldid=1050364698"