![]() | Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to the Troubles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 14, 2004, March 14, 2005, March 14, 2006, March 14, 2007, March 14, 2011, March 14, 2017, March 14, 2019, March 14, 2022, and March 14, 2023. |
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org
|
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Please see Talk:Leader of Sinn Féin#Leader in Northern Ireland Assembly. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
HiFDW777, 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)Reply
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)Reply
As I have pointed out, there is no need accusations from primary references to be included when we already cite much more reliable secondary references, who have listened to what people like Price, Hughes et al say and made their determination accordingly. This is a position backed up by the request for comment at Talk:Gerry Adams/Archive 3#Request for Comment:Alleged IRA Membership, in particular "I can see citing a couple instances as examples of evidence and leaving the rest as references, but a laundry list of purported evidence does not belong here" and "Yes, exactly. It's a notable allegation denied by the subject, we should present it in those terms, in the simplest way possible and using the two or three best sources, and leave it at that" (which were the only responses!). "Person x says so too" adds nothing of value to what the article already says. FDW777 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
References